Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Iranian opposition articles

Merged three ANI reports Three ANI reports were merged concerning BLP, BMP and BDPs in Category:Iranian activists, Category:Iranian revolutionaries, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees, Category:People murdered in Iran, Category:Fugitives wanted by Iran, etc. ^Leviv_ich 05:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying that I had merged Thread #3 with the already-merged Threads #1 and #2. Another user had previously merged Threads #1 and #2. Yet another user added Thread #4 to the previously-merged Threads #1 through #3. Thereafter, yet another user unmerged Thread #2. Somehow, this has caused confusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The explanatory note I left erroneously suggested that I had singlehandedly merged the first three threads; my apologies for being unclear. ^Leviv_ich 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing by Saff_V

Saff_V. is marking articles of prominent Iranian political prisoners that are part of current events on AfD (One Two) and tries to call sources that talk about these people unreliable. (Special:PermaLink/880859969#Radio Farda and some other sources). This behavior is concerning to me. Ladsgroup^overleg 23:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just ask user:Ladsgroup more RS but he accused me to support Iranian politic.Interesting reason! I nominated Radio Farda as a disputed source and here it was proven I am right because of propagandistic mission.Saff V. (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anyone agree with you that Radio Farda is a disputed source and as such should not be used, quite the opposite. How did the link you provide "prove" any of your points? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is not any exact confirmation to using it because of propagandistic mission. Any way I did not remove any material sourced by Radio Farda in mentioned articles (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) unless the radio Farda news did not cover the material. Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

In your own words not any exact confirmation - How does that lead to the conclusion it was proven I am right? If you mis-represent something that badly it's hard to have any faith in your interpretation of the other events. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to be a lot more critical of the way certain WP:RS/N users treat leftist state sources vs. American funded sources WRT propaganda vs news than most people on the board, but even I wouldn't suggest that brief discussion proved anything beyond that Radio Farda has been connected to propaganda in the past. Whether they can be a reliable source in context doesn't appear to have been exhaustively discussed in that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can I remove the AfD labels he has put on Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati articles yet? How much longer are you humoring this guy? Fredrick eagles (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No the AfD's should run their courses. If the nominations are baseless, the community will pint that out. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Both closed as "keep" User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

• Support. For obvious POV pushing and disruptive editing, as well as not showing any signs here of willing to change their behaviour. Poya-P (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - it would be a breath of fresh air to ease-down on the POV-pushing against political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, there is POV pushing. However sources in Iran (and Radio Farda outside of Iran) do require discussion. Some of the AfDs were ill-advised (but the canvassing to the AfDs (by the "other camp") was worse). As suggested this is overly broad as based mainly on an assertion of POV and not on disruptive behavior. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral I reported Saff_V for POV pushing, just acknowledging that such thing has happaned and a warning is enough for me. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area. Kraose (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

* Neutral Yes, the POV is difficult to work through, but at least there has been a Talk page discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think there is enough disruption to warrant a topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support The behavior just in this mess of ANI reports suggests an editor who is unable to work objectively in this topic and is quick to assume bad faith on the part of others. The entire filing here has been disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Changing my vote to support based on the disruptive nature of this ANI report, including unfounded accusations by the user. Per Grandpallama's vote, it is apparent their POV does not allow them to work with objectivity even here.Alex-h (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray report below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If You and Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then you both should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with you. Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is a fact that there is no freedom speech in Iran. A free encyclopedia like Wikipedia should give this opportunity to those who believe in this principle.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Um, this sort of civil-liberties activism stuff has nothing to do with this ANI report about particular user behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note:This is the first edit by Nikoo.Amini in ANI. Just like, Alex-h and Poya-P. All of them are Fa wiki users and I have never dealt with them or talked to them. I had no conflicts with them in any of the articles.Saff V. (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Saff_V nominated some of my article about Iranian political prisoners like Ali Nejati for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoo.Amini (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have participated on this Talk page together with Saff V., which is how I got involved here. Alex-h (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the user is open to discussion. He's now targeted after opening AFDs. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support What Nikoo said. Enough with the IRI pov pushing, it has been going on for too long. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Saff V. is a thoughtful editor who is willing to make changes based on consensus. It is Unbelievable user who gain Editor of the Week award, has been nominated for TBAN. M1nhm (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time due to insufficient evidence of disruption. The AfDs were WP:TROUT-worthy, and there appears to be PoV bias behind them, but it's hard to be certain at this stage. Either present more evidence or maybe we'll be back here again later if the issue is real and continues (or maybe there has been an issue and the user will see that it's not going to work out for them if they persist, so they'll stop).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Not !voting here because I'm involved in a content dispute with this editor at United States support for ISIS over edits like:
  • [1] "According to Guardian the US and its allies were going to create some sort of Islamic state." sourced to this opinion piece that says "That doesn’t mean the US created Isis".
  • [2] "Mike Flynn admitted that the US government was willfully coordinating arms transfers to the Salafists" sourced to this interview where the interviewer said that, not Flynn
  • [3] "...ISIS forces use a numbers of weapons, provided by Saudi Arabia and the United States..." when the source (Al Jazeera) says "About 90 percent of weapons and ammunition used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) originated in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, with Russian-made weapons outnumbering those of any other country."
  • using Sputnik [4], MintPress News [5], PressTV [6] sources

More discussion at AfD and WP:RSN#PressTV. Leviv ich 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

Pahlevun has been blanket-removing text from articles concerning political oppositions to the Iranian government:

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [7],[8], [9], [10], [11]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [12], [13], [14]

• Peykar: [15], [16], [17], [18]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [19], [20]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [21], [22]

• Maryam Rajavi: [23]

• Massoud Rajavi: [24]

Several editors including user:Jeff5102, user:HistoryofIran, and others have reverted Pahlevun’s edits; and I have warned him on his TP, but he’s continuing to blanket-remove text:

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [25]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [26]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [27]

• Massoud Rajavi: [28]

These are all political oppositions to the current Iran government, which links to the report above by Ladsgroup concerning political POV-pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's starting to ridiculous now. Even when this user is "expanding" articles, he stealthily removes/changes information that clashes with his POV. There has generally been a lot of political pov-pushing going on in articles of peoples/groups/protests that criticize/oppose the clerical rule in Iran, a country with poor human rights, where people aren't allowed to criticize the regime cough cough. See a pattern here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used in this way. This seems to be a coordinated POV effort by these users against political oppositions to the Iranian clerical rule. This needs admin attention.Poya-P (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree; At best, I can say that Pahlevun is a bit too solistic. At worst, Pahlevun is transforming articles into attack-pages, which is frustrating to see. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not going accuse any user here, because it is not the right place and the right time. However, in order to clarify the situation, I should shed light upon these two points first (Please note that all of the articles mentioned are all somehow linked to the MEK):

1. Since (at least) 2016, there has been coordinated efforts to purge anything unfavorable about the MEK here on English Wikipedia. It has been technically proven that multiple sockpuppets are involved in the campaign (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive for more details) and as User:EdJohnston has pointed out recently, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK".
2. Based on various reports by different media outlets, we also know that the MEK spends lots of money to manipulate information about itself on the internet and even maintains a "troll farm" whose "online soldiers" are tasked to do that on a daily basis. (for instance, please read the reports by Al-Jazeera and The Guardian)

This is a baseless accusation against me. In fact, was trying to contain the ensuing disruption, which is in my opinion still ongoing. If necessary, I can show that my edits on any of these articles are complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pahlevun (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pahlevun, this is the time and the place. I could block you right now for disruptive editing, considering your wholesale additions and removals on People's Mujahedin of Iran that are unaccompanied by edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for seven years now and I was never blocked. I did the same thing here on KIA Football Academy, and unaccompanied by edit summaries. Do you consider it disruptive editing? Pahlevun (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Do you think that edits to some soccer thingy are in any way comparable to those on the MEK? I mean, what are the politics of the soccer thingy, the POVs? So I can consider the one disruptive because of the subject matter, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Pahlevun, so, according to your own statement, your blanket reverts ignoring numerous RfCs and Talk Page discussions is the fault of other editors and/or are within guidelines? Poya-P (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Response by Pahlevun

Sometimes everything is not what it seems. I want Drmies and others making decisions on this, to kindly take the time to read the following thorouly:

It really hurts to read something like "disruptive editing" about your work, when you are here to build an encyclopedia. Contributed to Wikipedia since 2012, I made more than 21,000 edits and created more than 600 articles during these years. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, and I pledge that I am complying and here to uphold Wikipedia's values, however, that does not mean that I make no mistakes. So, I encourage everyone to assume good faith about my edits.

Explaining my edits on the article 'People's Mujahedin of Iran'

I was sort of bold to restore the content, but now that User:Stefka Bulgaria has reverted all my edits, it would be more evident that which content I was exactly restoring in the article People's Mujahedin of Iran. I want you to precisely look at the edits, for example:

• In the |ideology= parameter of Infobox political party, all the content was removed, while it was supported by these reliable sources:

• Mehrzad Boroujerdi (1996). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0433-4.
• Fred Reinhard Dallmayr (1999). Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0043-1.
• Bashiriyeh, Hossein. The State and Revolution in Iran (RLE Iran D). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-82089-2.

Is it disruptive to restore these well-sourced content removed from the article?

• In the Infobox war faction, in front of |leaders= parameter, a strange typographical error occurs that creates a malfunction leading to hiding sourced content, without removing it (See how this minor correction makes a difference on the content sown). Is it a coincidence? Considering the fact that confirmed sockpuppets were determined to remove the same content, makes me suspicious. (See Saleh Hamedi, Carpe765 and NickRovinsky for example). Note that Iran hostage crisis is also being removed from the list while it was also supported by reliable sources (Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalid", in David Gold (ed.), Microeconomics, Routledge, pp. 66–67, ISBN 1317045904, Following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, the MEEK participated physically at the site by assisting in defending it from attack. The MEK also offered strong political support for the hostage-taking action.) Is it a coincidence that confirmed sockpuppets also wanted to remove this (links are available in case requested)? I restored the content and I'm sure it was constructive.

• A whole table sourced by a book published by an academic press (Masoud Banisadr (2016). "The Metamorphosis of MEK (Mujahedin e Khalq)". In Eileen Barker (ed.). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. ISBN 1-317-06361-9.) is totally removed and I restored it. I do consider it a constructive edit.

• The fact that the government of Japan designated the MEK as a terrorist organization and froze its assets was removed from the article and I restored it (Japanese foreign ministry). Is it disruptive?

• The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon in his trip to Iran was completely removed while it was backed by a a book published by an academic press (Gibson, Bryan R. (2016), Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War, Facts on File Crime Library, Springer, p. 136, ISBN 9781137517159). I restored it, do you consider it disruptive?

• Just take a look at the names of the following sections and the changes that was made:

Original name	Altered name	Notes
Anti-American campaign	Totally removed	The section is supported by multiple reliable sources and plays an important role in the group's history. Maybe it was removed to blend into irrelevant content?
Fraud and money laundering	Alleged fund raising	Is really being prosecuted for these two financial crimes in at least five Western countries an "Alleged fund raising"? What about those huge amount of reliable sources saying so?
Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)	Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)	The word "Armed" was removed. Why?
1998 FIFA World sabotage plan	1998 FIFA World political banner plan → Totally removed	It is one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned and documentaries have been made on the event. Why it was removed and was blend with irrelevant text?
Forgery	Totally removed	The section was supported by multiple reliable sources and is now removed. Look at the first sentence that is not in the article now: An annual report by California Department of Justice in 2004, asserts that "[m]embers of the MEK were arrested for operating a Los Angeles-based immigration and visa fraud ring, which enabled members of the group to enter the United States illegally... By using forged documents and fictitious stories of political persecution, the ring was able to assist hundreds of individuals entering the United States." (Source: Patrick N. Lunney, Rick Oules, Wilfredo Cid, Ed Manavian, Allen Benitez (2004), Bill Lockyer (ed.), "Organized Crime in California: Annual Report to the California Legislature" (PDF), California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Criminal Intelligence Bureau, pp. 23–24{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))
Scholarly views	Allegations of Indoctrination	The section was modeled after Hezbollah#Scholarly_views (an article rated good). Why it was wholly removed, while it contained a list of scholars that worked on the subject and it was supported by reliable sources?

Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

• Whole section entitled "Propaganda campaign" is now reduced to a paragraph. Look at some of the sources removed:

• Ivan Sascha Sheehan (Fall 2013), "Challenging a Terrorist Tag in the Media: Framing the Politics of Resistance and an Iranian Opposition Group", Digest of Middle East Studies, 22 (2), Policy Studies Organization, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.: 229–261, doi:10.1111/dome.12033{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group", Associated Press, 27 June 2014, retrieved 1 June 2018 – via The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Mehdi Semati (2007), Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, Iranian Studies, vol. 5, Routledge, pp. 99–100, ISBN 978-1-135-98156-3
• "Part 4: The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America", Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB), British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service, 1993, p. E-1
• #Iranvotes: Political Discourse on Iranian Twitter During the 2016 Parliamentary Elections, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, June 2016, pp. 27–33 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator", RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
• Arron Merat and Julian Borger (30 June 2018). "Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
• Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, 2009, p. 334, ISBN 978-0-313-38088-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• The Politics and Practice of Religious Diversity: National Contexts, Global Issues, Routledge Advances in Sociology, Routledge, 2016, pp. 162–163, ISBN 978-1-317-64864-2 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.", The New York Times, 26 November 2011, retrieved 1 December 2016 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

I restored the well-sourced content removed from the section and I think it was constructive. What is very interesting, is the fact that technically-proved sockpuppets were also very sensitive to the section and determined to remove it from the beginning. For example: Citieslife, NickRovinsky, London Hall.

Last words

For my contributions on the article discussed above, I have been blatantly attacked and harassed by users who are proved to be coordinated sockpuppets/meatpuppets here to purge this article (links available in case required). One of the reasons that I became interested in the subject and improving this article was the sense that I am safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it and use it as a means to advocate an organization.

I believe that block, topic ban, or any other restriction on my account would be unfair. If if you maintain that my edits were "disruptive", I think that would be unnecessary to enforce any restrictions on me, I'll tell you why. I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent.

Best Regards, Pahlevun (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed, 26 Sep 2018 removed the Japanese alleged terrorist designation since": "Primary source - freezing of assets of "terrorists and the like" from 2002. Unlcear this was a terrorist designation in 2002 - and even less clear this is in force today. Notably, the Japanese wiki doesn't seem to think they've been designated by Japan."). We discussed formatting on the talk page afterwards, though not the removal which hsd a rather clear reason. And yes - I consider resotration of rather dubious info (also for 2002, moreso for present day) without discussion or even an edit summary - highly disruptive - I am not sure of the 2002 status (seems to be a financial designation) - but saying Japan currently (2019) designates MEK as terrorist seems to be in WP:HOAX turf.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I'm not seeing hoax in that edit. I mean, it's true that citation doesn't support the statement that MEK was currently designated as a terrorist organization by Japan, but the citation does support the statement that it was so designated in 2002. I would have copyedited rather than reverted, but either way, I don't see how that edit is violation of policy or otherwise suggests the editor should be TBANed? Leviv ich 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Is Japan 1 of 3 countries (Iran, Iraq, Japan) currently designating MEK as terrorist? If not it is a HOAX - very simple. Prior to removing it I tried looking for any reasonable non-wikiclone saying this - did not find any (MEK was delisted by most countries since 2003). I also failed to find a secondary source discussing this - and it is unclear to me if the mofa announcement is just for money laundering (financial transactions) or a stronger domestic designation. Pahlevun above justifying reinserting what looks to be a hoax - only has me more convinced of the problem here. The MEK article has been edited and heavily discussed (including a few RFCs) since September - it appears Pahlevun took some old version (pre September) and reinstated text that was changed and discussed (e.g. removed for failing WP:V) - removed with a clear rationale - reinstated willy-nilly without even a reason. Pahlevun is not even acknowledging inserting what appears to be a hoax is a problem - he is justifying it above! WP:IDHT.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just FTR, I did a fairly thorough search for all .go.jp websites mentioning either "ムジャヒディン・ハルク" or "モジャーヘディーネ・ハルグ"; there weren't a whole lot of results, indicating that the Japanese government is not that concerned about them, and so demanding an up-to-date source specifically claiming that they have removed them from a list of terrorist organizations whose assets they froze at one point in 2002 (a list they do not appear to maintain in any consistent manner) seems fairly unreasonable. The most prominent instance I found was this, which specifies that the US took them off a list of terrorist organizations, but does not mention any such Japanese policy one way or the other; presumably Japan, whose primary motivation for freezing the assets in the first place, as outlined in the cited source, was the 9/11 attacks on America, would have followed suit if they actually maintained an official list of terrorist organizations that had ever actually included the group. I did, however, locate this list, which doesn't mention either Japanese variant of the name under the "ma-column"; this of course is not a reliable source for the specific claim that they were removed from the list of terrorist organizations, but it is a very reliable source for the talk page argument that we should not be engaging in original research based on that one announcement from a few months after 9/11 a few months before the Iraq War. If anyone involved in this dispute ever needs help tracking down (or translating passages from) Japanese sources in the future, please feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Looking at that list, I do see モジャヘディネ・ハルグ listed under "ma" - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC); @Icewhiz:, I think that would be sufficient sourcing for the Japanese Government currently designating MEK as a terrorist organisation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: that is some sort of terrorism manual (with what appears to be almost any organization labelled as terrorist somewhere in the world) - it is not a designation list of Japan itself. e.g. the Karen National Union is on there (entry) - yet the KNU isn't recognized as "terrorist" by anyone outside of Myanmar AFAICT (nor does the jawiki or the jawiki category of designated entities) list them. Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Likewise - Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army is listed there - but the only one that sees them as terrorist AFAICT is Myanmar itself from 2017 (the rest of the world is concerned with the 2017–present Rohingya genocide in Myanmar). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Shit, Ryk's right. I shoulda been more thorough. At least this gives me the chance to again discredit the somewhat scurrilous rumour that I never apologize or admit I was wrong. Also the even more ridiculous idea that ja.wiki isn't much worse at this kinda thing than we are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I did some more research, because I think you raise a couple of valid points. Firstly though, categorisations on ja.Wiki aren't great; Al-Qaeda is not included in that cat. The link discussed is to the official website of the Ministry of Justice's Public Security Intelligence Agency (equivalent w.r.t. counter terrorism to the US CIA or FBI), and the web document linked is an official publication of that agency. If any article text were written to cleave strongly to this, I'd suggest that the link is supportive. Though I agree that the site does seem to include any organisation engaged in any "armed insurgency". However, if we were to consider "designated as a terrorist organisation", to mean "under laws & regulations that were created to comply with UNSCR 1373" (which I now think would be the more appropriate course), then the link would not be supportive. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2002 press release, however, would support such a designation - it is delightfully succinct - but it is official. That said, I did, when searching for "ムジャヒディン ハルク site:.go.jp" (ク not グ), find evidence that MEK was officially removed from the list of designated terrorist organisations on March 24, 2013 (平成25年5月24日).[29] from [30] (Scroll down to テロリスト等に対する措置.) MEK is certainly not on the current list. (テロリスト等) The designation (aligned to UNSCR 1373) is therefore around 6 years out of date; but given the opacity of the Japanese official websites & press releases to non-Japanese and that MEK was verifiably listed, does not, imho, rise to the level of a WP:HOAX. I make no representation on anything else in this ANI section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda - WP:BLP vio and editing against previous discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 5#Hamilton and Rendell. Pahlevun restored a rather bad BLP violation (stating in our voice American BLPs were paid by MEK to support MEK - a possibly criminal charge (designated terror organization at the time) - and not quite what the sources say). This was discussed on the talk page at length. Introducing a libelous BLP vio is disruptive - doing so after a prior discussion on the issue - is disruptive. Justifying it here (and not saying - "sorry, I was wrong") - means such disruptive behavior is likely to continue.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

To be specific in this diff which names several BLPs, Pahlevun restored libel unsupported by the cited source (and the specific langauge here is important - paid to give a speech by an Iranian-American group vs. paid by MEK to support MEK (a designated terrorist org at the time) - and previously removed and discussed in the article talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The talk page consensus you linked to you is you and one other editor working out an issue about one passage four months ago. Easy for an editor to miss that. I agree with you completely that this one passage is complicated, and it needs very precise wording to maintain accuracy to the source and neutrality. But to me this means it's the kind of passage that any of us could draft or edit in a less-than-ideal way; it's not clear black-and-white what is neutral and what is not neutral when talking about those payments and who made them, so AGF leads me to believe it's an innocent mistake. A "hoax" is a deliberate attempt to introduce completely false information; a POV error isn't the same thing as a hoax in my mind. Please see my further comment on this below to Stefka's analysis. Leviv ich 20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Reinstating, in parts, a six-month old version is not innocent editing. In this specific edit - Pahlevun asserted (in wiki voice) that a whole list of named BLPs commited a Federal crime (receiving a payment for a service from a designated terror organization). If you make that sort of edit you better have iron clad sourcing - and you definitely should not misrepresent a source. This sort of edit is insta-blockable under the BLP policy. AGF is out of the window when the user does not use edit summaries, rolls back in a six month old version (after multiple discussions and a few RfCs), ignores talk page discussions, and the kicker -justifies this gross BLP violation as a constructive edit in their reaponse above. I do not see a sorry, an "I was wrong". I do see WP:ASPERSIONS of socking in Pahlevun's response above. This behaviour is beyond the pale.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Response by Pahlevun

This is a response to the Response by Pahlevun (the points I was able to make sense of):

• Iran hostage crisis: The MEK's support of the Iran Hostage crisis is disputed: "The Mojahein attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists... and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."

• The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon: See "another attempt at Richard Nixon?"

Original name	Notes
Anti-American campaign	There isn't a single RS in the article that backs up the claim that the MEK ever launched an "Anti-American campaign"
Fraud and money laundering	This section contained a large amount of repetitive and ambiguous information. Sources and backed up information were kept (see article's TP for discussions there)
Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)	The word "Armed" was removed because the 1981 conflict between the clerics and the MEK began through a peaceful demonstration by the MEK (and MEK sympathisers).
1998 FIFA World sabotage plan	According to Pahlevun, this is "one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned", and therefore required its own subheading. Rather, this is an allegation that the MEK tried to disrupt a football match by bringing banners to the game. These are the two sources backing up this claim:1, 2 (this is still included in the article)
Forgery	The first part of this was deemed a primary source, and the second part was moved to United States section
Scholarly views	See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult As I see it, this section does not require further sub-sections derived from the information that's already there

References
References

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

Trying not to overwhelm this report, so I'll focus on a single blanket edit (of several brought to this report) done by Pahlevun. With this edit alone, Pahlevun removed all of the following information without discussion from the People's Mujahedin of Iran article:

• In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International. Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK. Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.

• In 1982, the Islamic Republic cracked down MEK operations within Iran. This pre-emptive measure on the part of the regime provoked the MEK into escalating its paramilitary programs as a form of opposition. By June 1982, Iraqi forces had ceased military occupation of Iranian territories. Massoud Rajavi stated that "there was no longer any reason to continue the war and called for an immediate truce, launching a campaign for peace inside and outside of Iran."

• According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih.">

• In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." According to James Piazza, this peace initiative became the NCRI´s first diplomatic act as a "true government in exile." During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."

• The foundation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the MEK´s participation in it allowed Rajavi to assume the position of chairman of the resistance to the Islamic Republic. Because other opposition groups were banned from legal political process and forced underground, the MEK´s coalition build among these movements allowed for the construction of a legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic.

• A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. On July 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Rouhollah Khomeini, “used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa” ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. The Amnesty report has itself been criticized for whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein. It also failed to mention that thousands of MEK members were killed during Operation Mersad and not in prison.

• In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK’s armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which “had been under consideration for several years.” Iranian authorities have dismissed the incident as “nothing but propaganda”, presenting the executions as a lawful response to a small group of incarcerated individuals who had colluded with the MEK to support its July 25 1988 incursion. According to Amnesty International, this narrative fails to “explain how thousands of prisoners from across the country could have communicated and co-ordinated from inside Iran’s high-security prisons with an armed group outside the country.”

• SAVAK had severely shattered MeK’s organizational structure, and the surviving leadership and key members of the organization were kept in prisons until three weeks before the revolution, at which time political prisoners were released.

• Some surviving members restructured the group by replacing the central cadre with a three-man central committee. Each of the three central committee members led a separate branch of the organization with their cells independently storing their own weapons and recruiting new members. Two of the original central committee members were replaced in 1972 and 1973, and the replacing members were in charge of leading the organization until the internal purge of 1975.

• By August 1971, the MEK’s Central Committee included Reza Rezai, Kazem Zolanvar, and Brahram Aram. Up until the death of the then leader of the MEK in June 1973, Reza Rezai, there was no doubt about the group’s Islamic identity.

• Although the Muslim MEK had rejected recruiting Marxists, the death and imprisonment of its leaders from 1971 to 1973 led to the inclusion of Marxist members to its Central Committee. In 1972, Zolanvar’s arrest led to the inclusion of Majid Sharif Vaquefi; and in 1973, Taqi Sahram replaced Rezai after his death. Reforms within the group started at this time, with Taghi Shahram, Hossein Rohani, and Torab Haqshenas playing key roles in creating the Marxist-Leninist MEK that would later become Peykar. By early 1972, Shah security forces had shattered the MEK, with most members being executed, killed, or imprisoned. The organization’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, was also held in prison until January 1979.

• By 1973, the members of the Marxist-Leninist MEK launched an “internal ideological struggle”. Members that did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK. This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. These members appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy."

• This led to two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities. The new group was known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (Marxist-Lenninist). A few months before the Iranian Revolution the majority of the Marxist Mujahedin renamed themselves "Peykar" (Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class) on 7 December 1978 (16 Azar, 1357). This name derived from the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was a left-wing group in Saint Petersburg, founded by Vladimir Lenin in the autumn of 1895. Later during the Iranian revolution, Peykar merged with some Maoist groups. From 1973 to 1979, the Muslim MEK survived partly in the provinces but mainly in prisons, particularly Qasr Prison where Massoud Rajavi was held.

• In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran." Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."

• The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK.

• In 1981, a mass execution of political prisoners was carried out by the Islamic Republic, and the MEK fled splitting into four groups. One of the groups went underground remaining in Iran, the second group left to Kurdistan, the third group left to other countries abroad, and the remaining member were arrested, imprisoned or executed. Thereafter, the MEK took armed opposition against Khomeini's Islamic Republic.

• Khomeini's government identified secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, as the perpetrator. although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.

• In 1981, Massoud Rajavi issued a statement shortly after it went into exile. This statement, according to James Piazza, identified the MEK not as a rival for power but rather a vanguard of popular struggle: "Our struggle against Khomeini is not the conflict between two vengeful tribes. It is the struggle of a revolutionary organisation against a totalitarian regime... This struggle, as I said, is the conflict for liberating a people; for informing and mobilizing a people in order to overthrow the usurping reaction and to build its own glorious future with its own hands".

References
References

Make of it what you will. To me, the removal of this text alone without any discussion constitutes disruptive editing. Considering that there is an ongoing misinformation campaign by the Iran clerical rule against the MEK, I find this level of POV pushing to be an issue. Pahlevun was also warned to stop their blanket removal of text, but they continued. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you did the same disruptive editing here where, despite what you claimed to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, you mass removed some sections without discussing them with others. You did this, despite the objections and warnings. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I guess you missed Alex-h's reply to you about this in the discussion below? In case you did, here it is: "Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you were mass removing without discussion until I objected and the discussion began. I guess you need to know that discussion is so much different from consensus!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As shown on Alex-h's diffs, the edits were being discussed, and Saff V., Icewhiz, and Alex-h had been contributing helping to build consensus, and you blanket-removed all of it with and edit summary that said "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". That speaks for itself despite your WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First you mass removed (with not prior discussions), then there was objections and then your edit warring despite the objections. And I repeat, "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". But discussion does not guarantee action. Discussion should lead to consensus based on which one needs to act, while in your case there was no consensus over doing mass removals. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of discussion and consensus building (1, 2). If I may conclude (again) with CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I should repeat, you were mass removing without having discussed the removals. My objection came after your mass removals! It was me who started the dispute resolution process, as in many other cases. By the way, should I quote sentences by others describing your editing style, too? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: the recent TP discussions started with a revert concerning an alleged charity involving four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members. Then you objected to this and this edit, which were all explained in my edit summaries and then discussed on the TP discussions, but you've been fighting consensus each step of the way.

In your own words at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go your way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board.".

Anyways, this section is about Pahlevun, so I'll stop here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A step forward! So, you were mass removing without prior discussion (you don't to say yes or no since it's already shown by the diffs). By the way, Please don't use my words out of context and consider that "fighting consensus" is another PA you need to avoid repeating. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• No doubt there were many problems with the edits to that article, but that was Jan. 30, and after being reverted, the editor didn't edit war there–though I see they did at least a little bit elsewhere, but it was also Jan 30 or earlier. What's happened in the last two weeks? Are there more recent diffs of problems, or did this ANI report and discussion lead to a change? Leviv ich 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't know how much you've been following this, but perhaps a brief background is in order: On January 27, Pahlevun was warned by HistoryofIran to stop "huge removals of information". Pahlevun continued blanket changing text in different articles (1, 2, 3), so on January 28 I warned them to stop too. Pahlevun continued blanket removing text (1, 2, 3, etc. - including all the overview presented above), so on January 30th HistoryofIran warned them again, which led me to file this report.

From looking at Pahlevun's editing history, they seem to have only become active twice since this report was initiated (on February 1 and 15). Does that mean that they won't be disruptive when they do become active again? Unless I've misunderstood, Pahlevun justified their edits (such as the mass removal of information presented above in green text) by saying they're "safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it". I think that speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:TBAN Pahlevun from Iran-related subjects matter, excluding soccer

• Support. For disruptive editing that includes blanket reverting and POV pushing, ignoring RfCs and Talk Page consensus, as well as for not assuming any responsibility as shown by his/her response here.Poya-P (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per disruptive editing and shared conclusion with other editors here including HistoryofIran, Jeff5102, and Poya-P. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per the comments above and the fact that he has had more than enough chances to stop but yet kept going. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time you're canvassing Jeff5102. Be careful about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 15:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If TopicBan is true for Pahlevun who have tried to edit a vast number of articles by using RS and representing logical reason, respecting to discussing , also it should be done for Stefka Bulgaria, consider that most of his edits are related to MEK or it's member, between 10 top articles and main edits, 6 of 10 is awesome!After getting the report his strategy changed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support For blanket reverting spree without discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm opposing though Pahlevun had reverted some of my edits. I think the user is accurate and open to discussion. I don't think there should be a ban, or something like this. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think that he should be banned right now. This must be first time ever he has been reported. He needs to take a strong message regarding his mass removals but topic ban is not yet warranted. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per their POV-like behavior here and their nonsensical, oblivious responses to Drmies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agreed with other editors' criticism of Pahlevun's initial response here, including to Drmies, their detailed response above persuades me that a sanction is not warranted here. Of course, it would be better if everyone used edit summaries, but they are not required, and the reversions, when explained, make sense to me. Leviv ich 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: - read my response - I examined one bit he restored (a present day Japanese terrorist designation) - which seems to be in WP:HOAX turf (as well as an undicussed rollback some 4 months back in editing history).Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: I responded above re: why I don't see hoax in that edit. Leviv ich 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  If Iran is not currently listed by Japan - this is an hoax - a bad one.Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Japan designations but in every country I've looked at around ISIL a designation as a terroist org stays in force until lifted. Is there a source saying thos designation was rescinded? If supported by a source as happening it is not a hoax absent proof otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No there's no source saying it was removed from the list by Japan. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear they were ever on a domestic Japanese list. This was a Ministry Of Foreign Affairs announcement of an asset freeze - while terrorist designations are done by National Public Safety Commission (Japan). A Japanese fluent editor to check this out would be a great help, however one would expect the Japanese Wikipdia to know how to source their own terrorist list - Designated terrorist at jawiki - MEK isn't on there. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Already replied above, but the closest thing I found was a long list of international terrorist organizations that doesn't appear to include MEK. This is not an acceptable source for the mainspace claim that "Japan has removed them from the list", but it is a good talk page source for the argument that the claim that their having ever been on a list except as a result of a US effort to trump up charges against Saddam-backed groups in the leadup to the Iraq War is highly dubious and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you ever need me to help out with Japanese stuff again, even in bullshit drahma threads, feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Pahlevun asserted in the article that the MEK had carried out an "Anti-American campaign". However, there isn't a single source in the article supporting that the MEK ever launched an "Anti-American campaign." Here Pahlevun selected certain events involving claims linking the MEK to American targets in 1970s Iran, removed sources and text that attributed some of these events to the splinter (Marxist) group Peykar, and synthesized them under the heading "Anti-American campaign". Pahlevun then defended the "Anti-American campaign" assertion in their response above, saying: "The section is supported by multiple reliable sources and plays an important role in the group's history. Maybe it was removed to blend into irrelevant content?" Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support but "would limit to [Iran and] geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football)", as Icewhiz put it. This kind of programmatic "nuking" of vast swathes of content, after numerous objections, is both unacceptable and clearly political-PoV motivated. While I agree with the editor that the table he laid out shows PoV pushing (some of it patently ridiculous) on the other side (and all that bears some independent examination), two wrongs don't make a right, and a perceived wrong is not an excuse to escalate beyond all bounds. It's just a sad fact that some people who do fine as editors of, say, football articles become problematic when they wander into content disputes about religio-socio-political matters about which they feel strongly (and there are probably editors who can dispassionately edit political topics but just lose it when it comes to sports; I'm not picking on politics-focused editors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Adding Mhhossein to this discussion

Mhhossein (talk · contribs) should be added to this list of editors POV-pushing against Iranian political activists. Mhhossein was recently warned about making controversial page name changes of recent Iran protests, and this. All three editors (Pahlevun, Saff V., and Mhhossein) are also heavily involved in POV-pushing at the People's Mujahedin of Iran page.Alex-h (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Er, no. 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot seems the best name for this article - out of the two that are being edit-warred over - as whilst it is undisputable that it was an assassination plot, the article uses the word "allegedly" throughout on whether the Iranian leadership were involved. There's an "Alleged responsibility" section. Nowhere does the article state as a fact that the plot was orchestrated by Iran, because as the US Govt admitted, they can't prove that it was. It probably does need to go to RM, but mainly because both of the titles that are being edit-warred over are unsatisfactory. Why is it not simply called Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, and then both of those could redirect to it? Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, “alleged” may be a better way of describing it considering the points made. I don’t think all edits made by these editors are questionable, but they do seem to have an agenda that makes it very difficult to aim for neutrality on these articles concerning political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule.

For instance, Mhhossein has pushed to have the following inserted on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (one of the main opposition groups to the Iran clerical rule):

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by this group)
3. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that this group is involved in the Syria conflict)

On the same article, Pahlevun has recently blanket reverted month's of TP discussions, ignoring consensus and RfCs:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&action=history

Is it just me, or is this disruptive to say the least? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

AlexH is correct that randomly moving pages around in a controversial topic area is not how we do things; WP:RM exists for a reason. It doesn't matter whether we today, after-the-fact, decide that the title picked is okay; if people object, and can predicted to object, then continuing to manually move stuff in that topic area shouldn't happen any longer. That's what leads to move-bans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, randomly moving pages is not good, but did I do "randomly moving pages"? As you said "one perceived wrong is not an excuse to escalate beyond all bounds". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [31] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [32]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - yes, there is POV pushing. Yes, some of the behavior is concerning. And yes - some of the past complaints by Mhhossein to AN/I were baseless. However, Mhhossein has also been attempting to discuss and his behavior has not risen to the level we should impose a harsh ban for. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Support For the way he has handled himself in this ANI report, including making baseless libelous accusations and constant "I don't want to hear it". I don't know if a Tban has formerly been proposed here, but this is what I would support based on his disruptive POV (evident in this report alone). Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to see WP:ASPERSION because this is what you are doing here.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

How am I casting aspersions? Mhhossein (and you) are accusing me of being "active on the Fa wiki" and being "involved" here, while at the same time saying this report has "nothing to do with you!", nevermind that I've been participating on one of the pages discussed here. Wouldn't this be casting aspersions? Alex-h (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Warning. I'm not sure what the "support" and "oppose" stuff above is supposed to be in reference to, since I don't see a specific proposed remedy. I'll propose one then: a warning should suffice. It's not okay to do disruptive page moves (especially when objections to them are predictable ahead of time). Nor is it okay to use ANI for lashing out or for talk-to-the-hand antics; if you don't have diffs to prove what you're saying, don't make accusations, and this is a venue for examining and discussing user behavior (often including that of other parties in the dispute); this requires open participation, not refusal to engage, or it just makes your own involvement look more and more suspect. I already see pretty strong evidence of non-neutrality, that seems to at least border on character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute, and this cannot continue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Hey, thanks for the comment. But just a second; a warning for what? The dispute is not over page moves, as far as I know. See this '23:43, 31 January 2019' comment by Black Kite; my move was well justified and is in effect now! Can you elaborate on "character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute" please? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If you play WP:IDHT games like this, people (including me) are apt to recommend more than a warning. In an earlier post, I explicitly addressed Black Kite's post hoc excuse-making for you ("It doesn't matter whether we today, after-the-fact, decide that the title picked is okay ..."); we know for a fact (because of previous ANIs instituting move bans) that being arguably right about what a title should probably be cannot excuse disruptive use of moves; it's about people, not wording in URLs. And move-related disruption is obviously just an example of disruption, not anything on which this discussion hinges in particular.

Second, "a warning for what?" is even more obviously answered by the very post you are replying to: "non-neutrality, that seems to at least border on character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute". You should read through some closed ANIs, and you'll find that apparent inability to discern why people are objecting to what you are doing, and denialism of doing anything wrong, in a thread like this all about what you've done wrong is often treated as a WP:CIR problem, which can simply lead to an indefinite block or a community ban. If you are either honestly not getting it or are trying to WP:GAME the system, it will not end well (either real soon now, or when you end up back here again later for similar issues to those reported this time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Asking for elaboration should not be mistaken for "denialism"...anyway, thanks for the notes, notably for "it's about people, not wording in URLs". Yes I did mistakes, but we all do mistakes (not an excuse for making mistakes). I don't say that I don't need advice from others (not needing advice is a concerning symptom), but I know how to treat others and how to build consensus, hence I could create dozens of GAs (not possible without having competence) and DYKs, though I'm not perfect. That said, the bad thing here is that the user could successfully achieve his point by mentioning those old ANI cases in his 4th (5th?) attempt and in a harassing manner. Another thing, I would be banned or blocked, if I meant to GAME anything here during almost 5 yeas of editing. No, I don't GAME a system I belong to. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Yes indeed, he is removing evidence against him [33] and now has send me a warning on commons for apparently being 'uncivil', yet he was the one who accused me of 'revenge nomination'. Mind you, this is not the first time he has removed someones comment because he didn't like it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Another user hounding me globally. You described my argument as "silly", which is certainly uncivil...Can you stop harassing me right now? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your POV is hounding you / a disruptive editor etc etc. What do you call someone randomly accusing another user of "revenge nomination" then? Constructive? I don't think so. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion or other censoring of people's talk posts can always be reverted per WP:TPG; you simply don't have a right to do that with others' posts. If the subject of such a comment is convinced that what was posted was an attack, outing, or other material that should be suppressed, they should take it to an admin, or to WP:OVERSIGHT if it's something that needs to be suppressed even from page history. Just editwarring to hide people's comments about you isn't going to fly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Putting this here as well as it seems the appropriate place for it:

• Mhhossein has made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[34] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[35] for my inclusion of a quote from RS.
• Mhhossein asserted in Wiki-voice that Black people in a picture were "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people", with the following edit summary "Certainly non-Iranian, certainly black people, certainly rented".
• WP:IDHT at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go Mhhossein's way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Come on...!: "If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP" [the most related place to the sources in question] "or at RSN board" [the place broadest views can be seen on sources] "not here" [Wikiproject Iran]. Btw, no, your edits were not backed by the sources.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

...how about when you accused me by saying "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries", or described my argument as "ludicrous", or accused me with "smearing POV into the article..." and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'll reply to your other points in the section below where you've presented them as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: About your claim concerning my edits, this is what I wrote:

• In 1994, the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad. The bombing killed 25 and wounded at least 70 people. The Iranian regime blamed the MEK. In a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image.

And this is what the source says:

• The Ministry of Intelligence and Security planned and carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashad... After the bombing, which killed at leas 24 and wounded at least 70, the regime announced that the MEK was the culprit. Later on, Abdullah Nouri, the first interior minister under President Khatami, admitted in a trial in November 1999 that the regime carried out the attack in order to confront the Mujahedin and tarnish its image.

Even if you don't agree with the statement/author/publisher, these were not "my words", which you claimed I crammed "into Wikipedia's mouth", but this is what you asserted, then you defended, and keep defending here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you were "asserting" the words of Alireza Jafarzadeh, who is reportedly a MEK member, in Wikipedia's voice. Bombing by Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security seems like a conspiracy theory created by MEK propaganda machine. Wikipedia should not propagate these claims without attribution. If you have more questions in this regard, I will respond to them on the article talk page.--Mhhossein ^talk 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, this looks like continuous WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

I was not willing to put energy on this discussion and were inclined to use it (the energy) elsewhere on editing the articles, given my limited time. However, now that there's an ongoing ANI discussion opened by Stefka Bulgaria, I think there are things I should share with others for the sake of the project and I don't care if it will lead to the result I'm seeking:

• Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [36], [37] and [38]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([39], [40], [41]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.

• This is the third or fourth time that the reporting user is harassing me by mentioning my viewpoints notably for my inserting "hypocrite" into the lead, despite the fact that, after the insertion was contested by others, I actively discussed my viewpoint with others and I even asked for more comments by opening an RFC in this regard!

• He has made personal attacks against me notably by repeatedly accusing me of "POV pushing" numerous times ([42], [43], [44]), despite my warning ([45], [46]). In another place he commented on me by accusing me of "smearing a political group". It should be added that I had warned him in the past against commenting on the editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:, I didn't propose the TBAN above, someone else did, I just reported what's been happening.

Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([47][48],[49], [50], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?

Beyond the already mentioned, your POV edits have also included claims that Black people in a picture were "MEK Rent a Crowd", a claim based on your own conclusions, which some would argue is trying to turn Wiki articles into attack articles: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#%22Non-Iranian_rent-a-crowd%22_image

You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[51] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[52] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your global hounding is never acceptable. Btw, You're using "POV pushing" against me although you're warned/advised not to attack others. I suggest you stop digging your self deeper by bludgeoning the process. Wait for the admins comments, instead. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [68] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [69]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria's edits speak for themselves. If you have issues regarding Commons, take them to my Commons talk page or, as you did, talk to other admins. Here, we're talking about Stefka Bulgaria's misconducts including personal attacks, hounding and harassment. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do indeed, which is why I'm opposing. Also dodging my comment is not gonna work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So, a good editor is the one who hounds you globally and ...? come on! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: What is it proven by this contribution as well as it have been seen some anti Iran subject in contribution of Icewhiz and Stefka Bulgaria, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written ‘’collaboratively’’ by the people who use it. Consider People's Mujahedin of Iran and review TP (as an instance) , most of discussion were began by me or Mhhosein or all of our edit (affixing facts) were supported by RS. Which of them is the sign of POV? Do you believe in pov issue if users follow exact subject?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Saff supporting this, who would have thought. Also, you might wanna ping @Icewhiz: when you make such accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Much of this complaint is meritless rehashing of old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action. Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner (most of the time) on the relevant talk pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz: So you endorse his global hounding and repeated personal attacks? Also, the problem is exactly Stefka Bulgaria's mentioning of those "old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action". Up to when should this harassment continue? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not endorse behavior on either side - note my oppose above to Stefka's proposal. How about we focus on reaching agreement on content (something there has been some progress on) - as opposed to an ANI discussìon?Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No, this is not a content dispute and I'm talking about a repeated behavioral issue which need to stop somewhere. That said, I'll address content disputes on the article talk pages, but not here. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, you opposed because you believed "Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner". What does it have to do with my Boomerang proposal focusing on Stefka Bulgaria's hounding, harassment and personal attacks? I suggest you disambiguate your defending comment or others get the impression that you were endorsing his repeated use of "POV pushing" against others and his harassment. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Much of the enwiki stuff seems to be mutual interest in Iranian articles. The comments at the commons RFA, on the other hand, I agree were ill-advised. However (at least on enwiki) - RfA is an open process for comment - and often partisan rivals will show up (and, as happend here, are often shouted down as partisan commentary).Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support He slandered pushing POV, without showing clues. He made WP:Harrassment. Hounding to the Commons isn't acceptable. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I did provide diffs for my claims of POV pushing. If I may add CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is nothing in this diffs that support any kind of sanction --Shrike (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikihounding around Wikipedia and even on Commons speaks a lot. Removing content by adding a misleading edit summary on People's Mujahedin of Iran further shows that the editor is editing with a WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Kraose (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  Stefka's edit summary is fairly accurate - he reverted Pahlevun's edit chain (which AFAICT contained many edits that were against talk page consensus).Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  I've pointed to some of those, let's say, misleading edit summaries on the article talk page. However, this one is a clear and fresh example, where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. I can provide more examples at the request of the admins. That said, Stefka Bulgaria's behavioral issues should be considered along with his editing pattern. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I suppose you mean this and this discussion, and this undiscussed blanket revert by you which ignored my, Saff V.'s, and Stefka's contributions, before you requesting the page to be protected and accusing me of being involved even though I had only edited the article once. The edits were being discussed, and you blanked reverted them. If anything, your edit summary was misleading, and Stefka restored the article to the point of Talk page disucussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I mean this one where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. No, there was no consensus over the mass removals by Stefka Bulgaria he needs to get warnings for blanket removals. You were/are truly involved. Let's not dig it deeper. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were. You keep accusing me of being "truly involved" (whatever that means), please do "dig it deeper", otherwise you're casting aspersions.Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Also per User:Icewhiz. Poya-P (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No violation, just content dispute with lengthy Talk page discussions. Alex-h (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No content dispute but actionable behavioral issues. He already promised not monitor me and you say no violation! If you say no violation, it does not mean there was no violation, since those hounding and harassment diffs I provided are clear enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What's clear enough is that you have a POV and seem to report those who disagree with it, and seem to be fine with disruption as long as it supports your POV.Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note to the admins: It should be noted that Alex-h and Poya-P, both active in Fa wiki, are editing ANI for the first time (See [70] and [71]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is that "interesting!!!"? Unlike what you have proposed, I have been active on English WP for a while now. Is this the reason you've accused me of being "truly involved" here? For a year or so I worked in Fa wiki as eliminator . In the course of these activities I have often referred to Wikipedia English including Administrators’ Noticeboard. Poya-P (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The interesting point is that I never said Poya-P was "truly involved" anywhere, while I did for Alex-h. Referring to ANI is something, suddenly jumping into an ANI discussion is something else. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• To Admns: This is a clear example that Mhhossein tries to Open a deviant subject to escape answering for his POV and to make the above less important. What is so interesting with working in two wikis? My main activities are in WP- English and I don’t see anything wrong with working in fa wiki as well. Could you please make sure Mhhossein stops harassing me and stops WP:Libel?It’s the second time. Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's dubious that your first edit in ANI was editing against me in a topic which had nothing to do with you! It's dubious that you're doing your best to transform my report against Stefka Bulgaria's well documented behavioral issues into a completely different scenario. You may want to tell us how you appeared here. You've already opened a topic against me, as your first edits in ANI, and saw the result. So, this is you who is Harassing me by hounding me. You can have this message as warning against harassing and hounding me. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

With all the baseless libellous accusations you've made here, I think it's time someone placed a Boomerang on your Boomerang. Alex-h (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a response to Mhhossein's admin note (which Saff V. removed, while leaving Mhhossein's note)Alex-h (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

::::::::What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then he should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with him.Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats (most especially WP:NLT#Defamation and also WP:LIBEL). This is not the correct forum for that specific concern (to say the least). I recommend striking that and following our policies more closely. Thank you. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Too much evidence to ignore. I don't understand why there was a need to wikihound at commons. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Icewhiz and others. This seems like a largely retaliatory proposal here by an editor who's upset their own behavior has suddenly been put under scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: There are evidences of harassment. Links show that Stefka Bulgaria has used the administrator's noticeboard links against the user many times to discredit him and hounded him even to commons. I think it is not good and constructive to accuse others of 'POV pushing' such many times. Going after the user and harassing him is even worse. The user should stop this behavior.M1nhm (talk)
• Support Wikihounding+improper edits are evident enough for me to say that this behavior is not constructive. desmay (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but a warning is in order. It does seem to be the case that this sub-report is rehashing old news. However, it's a common pattern for problems to not quite rise to action level here the first or second time around; that doesn't magically erase the evidence from those earlier ANIs, and we consider those diffs when looking for patterns. There may be a retaliatory whiff in the air, but that's largely irrelevant; someone's subjective reasons for pointing to problems has nothing to do with whether the problems are real. Hounding people all the way to Commons and back is actually a problem. I concur with Desmay, et al., that this isn't constructive. But I'm not sure it's worth a T-ban or whatever at this stage. It just needs to stop and not recur.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 @SMcCandlish: Despite my concerns at commons (which, as HistoryofIran has pointed out, may not be completely subjective), this won't recur. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Sounds good. Just as word to the wise, I was once "pursued" in a content dispute (by someone pushing a nationalistic and OR-based PoV, which relates strongly to the criticism raised above in this case) across multiple namespaces and then into Wiktionary. That person got topic-banned, interaction-banned, and eventually indefinitely blocked (and was not just some noob troll, either). I've seen similar results transpire in other cases (I've only had this happen to me the one time, but an ArbCom case, I think relating to WP:GGTF, seems to come to mind). If you're convinced that some other party is advancing a PoV and doing it programmatically across not just swathes of articles and multiple WP namespaces but multiple WMF projects, the best approach is probably to raise the issue here, and also bring it up at the roughly equivalent administrative noticeboard at the other project(s). Let the editorial and administrative pools of the projects examine the matter, rather than edit-war across projects. WMF doesn't need a Caped Crusader to singlehandedly right all wrongs. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for the advice - when you explain it like that, I get it. My !vote at Mhhossein's RfA at commons derived from (founded) concern towards the project rather than an attempt to troll or harass. I see that I should have brought concerns to relevant noticeboards instead. Best, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Some more instances: He accused me by saying "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries", or described my argument as "ludicrous", or accused me with "smearing POV into the article..." and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: providing context to your points (in order), all of which you had only quoted a small fraction of the conversation:

1) Your edit summary: "The reliable sources explicitly say this, don't censor this well sourced material". My edit summary: "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries. The previous edits were all properly described (moved to its section), and undone here disruptively". My reply to you when you asked me about this on my TP: "Your edit summary was 'false' as I did not 'censor well sourced material', I categorized it in its own section. In any case, if you did not do this knowingly, then I take it back and apologize..."

2) When I asked you for evidence to confirm that Black people in a photograph were "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd", you replied "Where ever they come from, It's pretty clear they're not Iranian. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue." My response to this was "What's pretty clear is that you don't have any evidence to support this statement (comparing it to "the sky is blue" is just ludicrous)". Btw, Ludicrous = "extremely silly."

3) This is already mentioned on the report against you above, but since you've asked, here's the statement I made:

"*Mhhossein: ... Beyond your argument in the discussion below that we should label Black people in an image as "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" based on your own personal assessment and an attack piece by a fringe political opposition site, you've tried to include the following smearing POV into the article:

• "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)

• "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)

• "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."

• "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Closure(?)

I was not planning on posting in this discussion, but I find it questionable that Mhhossein has already put in a request for this RfC to be closed after only 2 weeks of discussion. That very much concerns me especially when there are individuals still actively commenting on this subject (including with !votes). I recommend that the request be pulled from WP:ANRFC. Thank you. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Upon review, it is just one individual who was recently active on this proposal (SMcCandlish, but I still find the motives for putting the request for closure for such a sensitive matter in this soon to be of questionable intent. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, a request to do something isn't questionable, it's just a request. Actually closing it too soon would be questionable (I know from experience, having been railroaded twice in the middle of negotiated resolutions by bone-to-pick admins intent on sticking it to me personally rather than following a community consensus or even allowing it to develop (because it was going in a direction they didn't like); in one case the admin did it after agreeing to recuse for WP:INVOLVED reasons). When a closure is premature and/or biased, this is usually pretty obvious, so I wouldn't worry about it.

PS: Oh, I think you mean a content-related actual RfC in article talk; I thought you were referring this this discussion or part of it being closed. RfCs run for an entire month by default, and should remain open unless they WP:SNOWBALL or are withdrawn (and people do not object to them being rescinded; you can't withdraw your own RfC just because you're not getting an answer you like, ha ha). They run for this long for good reasons, mostly the amount of times it takes for editors to notice them (even WP:FRS is randomized, and may not inform someone looking for relevant RfCs of that particular RfC until weeks after it was opened, which is actually rather annoying). Still, just requesting an early closure isn't some kind of actionable offense. (I've done it a few times myself when the outcome seemed likely and there was a large WP:ANRFC backlog, on the theory that it would likely be past the 30 days before anyone actually acted on it, and if they did close it a bit early, the consensus was already clear enough to do so.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Too complicated - Arbitration Committee

I have looked at this proposal and have come to the conclusion that this case is hugely complicated, with a massive number of internal links, and involvement of multiple editors. Additionally, there seems to be significant opposition to every single proposed solution. I see no good solution myself, except bringing this problem to the attention of a group that is possibly better equipped to handle hugely complicated situations like these - the Arbitration Committee.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We appear to not be having any problem sorting through it, as the extensive commentary above on a per-reported-editor basis demonstrates. "It's not dirt-simple" doesn't equate to "only ArbCom can understand it". I would suggest that sending something like this to ArbCom is actually a poor idea, because it will probably do only one of two things: result in nothing really being done, or generate a thick forest for bureaucracy, like complicated remedies, discretionary sanctions people have a hard time keeping track of, and "whack everyone involved on the head just for being involved" remedies in one of ArbCom's typical desperate attempts to appear more impartial than they really are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING by User:Binksternet

I don't edit Wikipedia nearly as much as I used to, but I've been making more edits in the last couple weeks, creating several new articles and making big expansions to existing ones. Binksternet (talk · contribs), with whom I've clashed in the past (years ago), has been engaging in WP:HOUNDING over the last 24 hours since he apparently found out I was active again.

• At Susan B. Anthony List he used Twinkle to roll back a dozen edits I made that were either extensively sourced, or potentially controversial but I was willing to address objections from other editors. Binksternet unilaterally declared that I cannot edit Susan B. Anthony List because of WP:COI. I volunteered a few hours a week for the organization about 10 years ago when I was a senior in high school trying to bolster my resume for college. As stated on his talk page and mine I was never paid, never on staff, haven't had contact with them since then, and have edited the article in the years since --including a number of back-and-forths with Binksternet himself-- without anyone finding it necessary to ban me from editing the article.

• At Artur Davis he rolled back a bunch of non-controversial copyediting. He said I was trying to make Republicans look good or Democrats look bad by removing the timing of when Davis switched from Dem to Rep, but it's clear Binksternet didn't actually read my edits. Because prior to my edits, the article redundantly repeated three times the same sentence about Davis switching to the Republican party. All I did was to remove those repetitions and make the lede more readable. But Binksternet rolled them back anyway saying in his edit summary "political activist at work".

• At Andrew Cuomo he declared that I could not use Fox News as a source for a factual sentence talking about how a liberal bill angered conservatives. He ignored that my edits cited The Buffalo News and a governors office press release.

• At Tommy Norment he rolled back two "non-neutral removals" of content. The content in question was a single source that said Norment or someone using his information was named in the Ashley Madison leak, and I removed it on WP:BLP grounds because of the accusation. Debatable perhaps but not "non-neutral". The other edit removed a single article making anonymous accusations from ThinkProgress, which is owned by Center for American Progress and not a WP:RS. According to Binksternet, Fox News is not a reliable source but a blog owned by a liberal activist group is?

• At Theodore McCarrick he rolled back an extensively sourced expansion of the lede tracing McCarrick's history as archbishop and cardinal. He objected to the fact that I characterized McCarrick as a "progressive". That characterization was sourced from The New York Times in an article written yesterday, and Bloomberg in an article written years ago. Binksternet clearly did not read the edits before edit warring to roll back my edits.

Binksternet is WP:HOUNDING me across six different articles I've recently edited ([72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]) in the last 24 hours, making wholesale reverts of sourced content he has not read and citing "political activist" in the edit summaries and abusing Twinkle by engaging in edit warring. Binksternet has a history of engaging in this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and it is one reason why his 2013 request for adminship was denied. I've clashed with Binksternet in the past but have no interest in doing so now. I admit I've made some mistakes on Wikipedia for sure and I've faced sanctions for them in the past. Binksternet is trying to drudge up old controversies that happened years ago in order to get me topic banned because of some sort of vendetta. All I want to do is contribute to the encyclopedia without being hounded. I am requesting that Binksternet be told to stop hounding my edits and instead discuss them constructively. If he does not, I request an interaction ban. Instaurare (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This request for an interaction ban should boomerang on Instaurare, who is a political activist holding goals not in alignment with Wikipedia. He carries and continually implements a non-neutral long-term agenda of promoting American conservative ideas and people while putting down American liberal ideas and people. He should be topic-banned from all American politics starting from the 1970s when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Background: Instaurare caused a big problem nine years ago when he was caught socking extensively, especially with the accounts NYyankees51 and BS24. (See the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive.) The only reason the socking was a problem was that Instaurare was continuing his politically slanted editing. I can compile an extensive list of edits showing the non-neutral slant of Instaurare/NYyankees51/BS24 but in the interest of brevity I will simply ping some active admins who have dealt with this guy: Mojoworker, HJ Mitchell, Jpgordon, JamesBWatson, Carrite, NuclearWarfare, EdJohnston, SarekOfVulcan, Black Kite, and Nakon (who just retired). In January 2012, NYyankees51 was banned from abortion topics for three months.[78] Later the same year, NYyankees51 was topic-banned from all LGBT-related articles. At that discussion, Carrite said, "NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet."

In April 2011, I wrote up a report about how Instaurare held a conflict of interest with regard to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List, but only he and I took part in the discussion. The point was that he had edited from an IP address registered to the activist organization, and that he continually removed negative text and added positive text. Yesterday, Instaurare resumed the same behavior, adding positive text and deleting well-cited negative text. That last bit is why we are here today. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How is adding factual references from the New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post "adding positive text"? How is a reduction of weight in a lede where a topic is given 25% of the lede but constitutes a fraction of the article body? Binksternet does not adhere to WP:AGF.

Again, Binksternet is trying to rehash stuff that happened 7-8 years ago. If Binksternet wants to play that game, I can point to his own extensive block log for edit warring on various political and abortion articles, and the previously linked failed request for adminship. I was sanctioned years ago for the dumb stuff I did. I regained the trust of the community to be able to edit again. Binksternet is acting as if any edit to a political article is unacceptable, regardless of how neutral and well-sourced it is, because of stuff I paid the price for nearly a decade ago. I've changed my behavior and I'm ready to move forward without being hounded. Instaurare (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

But Instaurare, has your editing style really changed since then? Have you completely re-earned the trust of the community just by disappearing for a couple of years, after all your early disruptive time here? You still seem to be the poster child for WP:CPUSH, and your POV still shows in many of your edits, despite numerous attempts by many different editors over the years to offer advice to you to try and bring about a change in your behavior, you never seem to take it to heart – all we ever get are apologies, your disappearance for a while, then your return to editing in the same manner without any resultant changes. Have you forgotten your promises? I'll note you were indeffed, considered for a site ban, and ultimately topic banned four days after I offered that advice. I'll quote some more advice from long ago when I warned you for electioneering on the Terry McAuliffe article: Instaurare, I would advise you to reread the advice that HJ Mitchell gave you when he removed his restrictions on your editing: "...if you start making edits that don't abide by both the letter and the spirit of policy (and relevant guidelines, ArbCom rulings, etc), I suspect it won't be long before you're in an even worse position than you were with the restrictions." I'll reassert the admonition from WP:CPUSH: "Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing." That has been your main problem all along – and your sanctions only the most obvious results of it. This editor has narrowly avoided additional sanctions several times in the past. Perhaps it's time for a larger boomerang, maybe restriction from articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 broadly construed. Nothing else seems to get through to this guy. Mojoworker (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker, can you point to specific examples of advocacy? I'm not citing Breitbart with my edits. I strive to only made edits that are extensively sourced from reliable sources. I often put multiple references behind a sentence. Instaurare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you are citing Glenn Beck's The Blaze and an anti-abortion group known for deceptively edited Planned Parenthood videos to suggest that Planned Parenthood doctors boasted about killing newborns.[79] Here you created a long list of Catholic figures condemning Andrew Cuomo and going into great detail on their thoughts on whether he ought to be excommunicated or whether he's just bad Catholic for being in favor of abortion rights.[80] I've seen numerous problematic edits by you, in particular on abortion-related topics, but these are only ones I can recall right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think The Blaze was not a reliable source in that instance, that can be discussed. If you think the New York Times, AOL, New York Daily News, Fox News, Syracuse.com, Associated Press, etc are not reliable sources for the Cuomo article then make your case. Does WP:BRD not apply anymore, and we're just accusing anyone who adds extensively sourced content to pages of politicians of acting with an agenda? Instaurare (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You were boasting about not adding Breitbart-level sources, yet in that instance you were adding Glenn Beck's The Blaze (which is absolute garbage) and a video by an organization known for publishing deceptively edited videos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody would bat an eye if I cited left-wing equivalents (BuzzFeed, Huffington Post) as long as it advanced a pro-liberal viewpoint. But one citation of The Blaze warrants a topic ban? And Live Action's videos were determined by a federal appeals court to have not been deceptively edited. But they make you uncomfortable and go against your POV. Instaurare (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Instaurare, what I'm saying is basically what HJ Mitchell advised you when he "stuck his neck out" and unblocked you: "Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles." You made a lot of promises to him that you never followed through with, and seemed, to me, to have taken advantage of his AGF in you. I'll reiterate what I advised you: "If you can't make an edit without your strongly held beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article – at least not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. That's a whole lot different than pushing every guideline and policy to the limit, which, ultimately, is only going to get you into more trouble." But apparently you can't restrain yourself, so perhaps it's finally time for the community to do so. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojo, you and I both know that if we were really applying the "nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits" rule, we would probably take out 80% of editors involved with US politics articles, including Binksternet. (How about this hugely problematic edit where he added the words "engaged in extramarital sex with a female lobbyist" to a BLP and cited two sources that say no such thing?) I do my best to contstrain myself by making edits that are extensively sourced with a variety of reliable sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, New York Daily News, Associated Press, and all sorts of regional newspapers and TV stations. You're acting as if I'm citing Breitbart or not citing anything at all. Instaurare (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Without bias towards the discussion below, both Instaurare and Binksternet should be blocked for the ongoing edit war on the SBAL article. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will stop reverting Instaurare. I saw it as reverting non-neutral edits from an editor with a proven conflict of interest, but I'll stop simply reverting him and discuss the changes. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the classic Binksternet head fake: Edit war until someone threatens you with sanctions, then remorsefully propose 0RR for yourself to get out of the penalty, and resume the behavior when nobody is looking. Instaurare (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Community examination, below, of some of Instaurare's edits notwithstanding, what's reported above is an abuse of Rollback, and is grounds for having it revoked. I'm not suggesting that it should be in this instance, but rather that Binksternet re-review WP:ROLLBACK, since a repeat of this sort of dogged misuse of the tool against someone who is not a vandal, troll, spammer, or block-evading sock, to mass-revert edits simply because there could potentially be a PoV issue to examine, will likely result in removal of the Rollback bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, there has not been any misuse of rollback that I see. Although the term rollback has come up frequently that is not the case. Twinkle was used to revert as seen here and here but that is not tagged as rollback. Please compare to this unrelated edit which does have "Tag: Rollback".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. That said, this sort of "reversion tsunami" approach is generally unproductive in the first place, and Binksternet should take this to heart. Being eventually shown to be correct about particular edits being problematic isn't an excuse (as an ahead-of-time prediction or an after-the-fact determination) for the editor-interaction problem of treating a presumably good-faith editor like a known vandal or sockpuppet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-term political activist edits by Instaurare

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

---

Instaurare has been engaging in non-neutral editing for many years on the topic of abortion, demonstrating a conflict of interest and a persistent inability to view the topic objectively. He defends the Susan B. Anthony List by deleting facts and wording that make the political action committee look bad, and emphasizing positive aspects. His removal yesterday was just one more example in a long string going back ten years, for instance this similar removal from March 2011. Instaurare's first SBA List edit I know about is this misrepresentation and promotion from April 2009, following which the views of SBA List were given a voice here and here in October 2009. This example is relevant to the recent conflict – Instaurare again misrrepresents Susan B. Anthony's legacy by spouting the SBA List fabricated story about how Anthony held "anti-abortion views" and advocated against abortion (she did no such thing, ever.) It's this false co-opting of Anthony's legacy as a fighter for women's right to vote that drives me to correct the problems caused by Instaurare and fellow travelers. This removal wasn't neutral, and this addition was a promotional misrepresentation of the source. This promotional addition inserts an unnecessary pro-religion quote: "God knows what he's doing." This edit changed an appropriate qualifier to a blatant falsehood about Susan B. Anthony, who never signed a document with the letter "A". In July 2010, a sock of Instaurare edit-warred with me to retain the false depiction of Anthony.[81][82][83][84] The ideological battle grew beyond any one article, so Instaurare sock BS24 (rightly) started the article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute, giving more credence to the recent false/political views than to scholarly conclusions. I greatly reworked the article over time, to better represent the conclusions of the world's most respected authority on Susan B. Anthony, which is Rutgers historian Ann D. Gordon, a biography I started. Instaurare persistently fought against my changes, removing an establishing description of Gordon, for instance, to try to bring doubt to her scholarship. Instaurare persistently tried to reduce the level of scholarly opposition to the SBA List claims about Anthony.

Instaurare should be topic banned from modern American politics. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Notice how Binksternet is citing edits from eight years ago that he is apparently still holding a grudge over. How can an editor be topic banned over edits made that long ago, with thousands of intervening edits? This is little more than an example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR .Instaurare (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Instaurare, you are the editor who brought up Binksternet's unsuccessful 2013 RFA as part of your "evidence" against him, so it is a bit bizarre that you object to your whole editing history being scrutinized. I just took a look at your editing history in the last month and saw lots of problematic editing, including what appeared to be edit warring at Ralph Northam and a really bad edit at Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion when you went into excruciating detail about a current abortion related controversy involving Andrew Cuomo, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. This is recentism and undue weight, and is indicative of your long term POV pushing regarding abortion. It is completely legitimate to look at past behavior when that same type of behavior has resumed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, as I stated, I haven't any interest in re-litigating the past but if my credibility is being attacked over edits made nearly a decade ago it seems reasonable to examine the credibility of the attacker. What are you referring to at Ralph Northam, I don't think I even made a revert there. If you think what I wrote at Andrew Cuomo was a poor edit, then discuss the content of the edit. I don't understand this idea being pushed that any debatable edit at an article is now a critical violation of policy worthy of a topic ban. Bold, revert, discuss has become revert, attack, ban. Instaurare (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I did discuss the content of that particular edit, and I think that any uninvolved editor will see it as overt anti-Cuomo POV pushing, motivated by your obvious anti-abortion POV. I am sure that you will disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • How is citing extensive sources on a notable topic widely covered by a spectrum of media somehow POV-pushing? You know that this topic ban is a concentrated effort to snuff out any material that portrays a liberal/Democratic political in a negative light. And that includes snuffing out the editors responsible. WP:NPOV never existed but at least it had a chance. Now it's been replaced by orthodoxy. Go against the hivemind, even if you cite left-leaning sources, you will be run off the site. Instaurare (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Cullen328's list: topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. This is a long-term pattern that is continuing. I supported Instaurare by opposing his community ban, and really hoped he would change his ways, but I've finally lost patience with him. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that I have not changed my ways? Have you actually looked at the edits I've made? Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and American politics per diffs and WP:RGW. Miniapolis 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans at Susan B. Anthony, all politics and pregnancy and sexual health-related topics. As per Cullen328. He usually knows what he's talking about and I've yet to see him wrong. - wolf 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen to stop the time sink. Leviv ich 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans per Cullen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Note the mindless !supports from people who apparently have not examined the evidence but are simply going with Cullen. Topic bans are supposed to be for disruptive editing, yet nobody here has laid out a case that I actually engage in disruptive editing and not productive editing. Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Three weeks ago, you added text to excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion, deploying Wikipedia's voice to describe Andrew Cuomo's stance in favor of a common medical procedure as "unabashed support of abortion." You don't seem to have explained how supporting people's right to make personal medical choices can come with a word as inflammatory as "unabashed," nor why you conflated "abortion rights," which Cuomo supports, and "abortion," a distinct concept. (The sentence is cited to this New York Times article, where the word "unabashed" never appears and, because there's no such thing as "support of abortion," Cuomo is never described as a holder of that stance.)

And before you try to reach across the internet and psychically figure out how I found that edit, it wasn't because of Cullen. The above is one example of an astounding number over just over the past decade. Your edit history, including almost every time you've inserted a substantial amount of text to a political article, proves that almost anything you add to this subject area is probably going to contain something that, because of people like you, has stopped being a paradox: bog-standard extremism. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And just who might this be? Why aren't you logged in to an account? Instaurare (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Vote according to the party lines Binksternet himself is a political activist whose RfA indeed failed because of exactly that. He has also nominated the whole WikiProject Conservatism for deletion in 2011. So this is kettle calling pot black. But conservatives are less numerous, and especially anti-abortion stances are unpopular, so the opinion of the villagers is clear. Instaurare, sorry buddy, but you're out. --Pudeo (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is someone who's willing to admit the truth of what's actually going on. Can't begrudge you for that. Instaurare (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that both of you have a pretty tenuous understanding of what "the truth" is, which happens to be exactly what it appears to be on the surface: Instaurare screwed up, and he's being sanctioned for it. BTW, don't feel too warm about Pudeo's support, he would have said the same thing about any editor he perceived as an ideological soulmate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to always be angry at someone. Instaurare (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support I have the feeling this could have been handled better, and I don't think it has anything to do with specific political leanings – the recent diffs that have been posted by Instaurare do not conform with neutral point of view and I have no problem with them being rolled back or a topic ban given the prior history. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It has everything to do with specific political leanings, and everyone here knows it. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). Instaurare's edits are problematic, they have been going on for a long time, and they continue. I am also troubled by Instaurare's behavior in this discussion, such as calling it "mindless" not to take his side, and accusing anyone not in favour of the proposed topic ban not have looked at the evidence. That kind of behaviour shows Instaurare thinks the problem is only with the "others", and thus indicate that the same behaviour would continue if no topic ban was handed out. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not call it mindless to not take my side. I called it mindless to add a "support per Cullen" !vote without explaining reasoning. The problem is with the complete disregard for policy in this orchestrated effort. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • My reasoning was to stop the time sink, as in, to stop you from taking up the time of a bunch of other editors, as you are doing in this thread, and as you did with your recent edit warring at SBAL while this thread has been pending. It's obvious to me, at least, that you cannot edit in that area without being a time sink (unproductively taking up a bunch of other editors' time through edit warring and arguing). I'm not biased against pro-lifers or pro-choicers, I'm biased against tendencious editors. Leviv ich 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic bans as proposed, and as modified by Cullen328. I'm familiar with Instaurare's previous editing history, and repeated topic ban violations. [85][86][87]. All that has changed is the controversial topic(s) upon which Instaurare has inflicted his long-term POV pushing and poor editing conduct.- MrX 🖋 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per Cullen. And referring to myself and others who have expressed the same reason as myself as "mindless" is a violation of WP:NPA. It's a complete logic fail to say one's opinion is is "mindless" just because it is shared with another who happened to express it first. You need to strike that. FWIW, Instaurare, I too oppose abortion. You cannot tell that from any edit (save this one) I've ever made here. Why? Because I do not edit on politics. Outside of religious music, I do not edit on religion. Think about that in light of HJ Mitchell's advice quoted above. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Let's call this what it is: The culmination of an yearslong politically motivated crusade by Binksternet and many others to purge editors identified as conservative from Wikipedia. Back in the early 2010s, conservative editors were definitely a minority but could hold their ground and were allowed to make their case. The liberal editors actually had to try to build a consensus. Both sides could hash it out. There was some semblance of fairness. But most of those people providing balance are gone now -- run off the site, or just worn out from it all and gone without a trace.

Every editor in political articles has some sort of agenda. If you aren't willing to admit that you're lying to yourself. What used to make it work was the editors on all sides who were willing to put the time in to back up their edits and work through the battles that while bitter, eventually resolved themselves somehow. I've always known I've been under the microscope with Binksternet and others watching my every move and stalking my talk page. I've always striven to make my edits extensively sourced, using left-leaning outlets as much as possible. But that does not matter.

The crime I am really being charged with is, according to Binksternet, "making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible." How about this direct quote from Binksternet: “I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative." -- Binksternet, 2014. The only difference between Binksternet and me is that he is a liberal and I am not. He is allowed to take that approach to articles but I am not. He will go on, probably become an admin someday, and I will go down in flames. He can commit every policy violation in the book but none will bat an eye. WP:AGF is dead for any editor blacklisted as conservative.

WP:NPOV used to be a lofty goal achievable only by hashing it out, now it's dead and buried, replaced by orthodoxy. As has been documented, 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of editors. Most Wikipedia editors are male. Most Wikipedia editors are white. And Wikipedia is biased.

If you want to continue building a Wikipedia that is white, male, liberal, and insular, with no diversity of viewpoints, then go right ahead with the topic ban. That's what many of you really want. You can go on and on about "muh battleground" mentality and what an awful, terrible, biased, pathetic editor I am. But it's clear that Wikipedia is an orthodox oligarchy. Dare to rock the boat, you will be punished. Instaurare (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? If you push a viewpoint that is objectively wrong, and then attack everyone else for being biased when called out, what do you expect to happen? 72.69.98.176 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban as defined by Cullen, not least because of the astonishing rant just above which strengthens pretty much every point made by the topic ban supporters. ("Martyr"? Not so much.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. Instaurare (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just FTR, it is usually a good idea not to change your posts so as to make replies to them incomprehensible. --bonadea contributions talk 07:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Instaurare (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question. Obviously there's a hefty consensus for a topic ban from Am Pol and abortion. Instaurare hasn't edited Susan B. Anthony since September 2016, so perhaps that isn't worth its own topic ban? Do you people think an indefinite t-ban from abortion and post-1932 American politics will cover what's required? If you mostly do, I'll close with such a ban, to be appealed no sooner than in six months. (The Susan B. Anthony List would obviously be covered by a ban from abortion.) @Cullen328: I'm asking especially you, since nearly all the supports for a topic ban refer to and/or quote you. Theoretically I, or any admin, could impose a ban from abortion and Am Pol without a by-your-leave, since both topics are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, but I won't do that; it would be pretty rude to the people who have commented here. Bishonen | talk 11:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I do not object to Susan B. Anthony being left out of the topic ban, but if this editor starts adding disinformation to that biography, we will be back here again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: Support, as taking the least restrictive measure that effectuates the preventative goals of sanctions. It seems to me there are potential edits one could make to the SBA article that would not violate the tban, and others that would violate the tban, and this might actually be a pretty good way to determine good-faith compliance with the tban. Anyway, I'd support any admin action that ended the time sink. If we are back here again, it'll make for an easier decision next time. Leviv ich 17:41, 19 February 2019 What kind of newbie forgets to sign and then modifies a closed discussion to add his signature?! Leviv ich 19:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (Who are you, above? Anyway, I'll respond to Cullen.) I'm not sure why he would do that, Cullen, unless it was adding stuff to the short section "Views on abortion", which would naturally be covered by an abortion ban. But since it sounds like you think there's some risk, and so many people have agreed with you, I'll make the ban three-pronged: Anthony, abortion, and Am Pol. No supervoting here! Bishonen | talk 17:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

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

user:Levalbert

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

Some very strange edits by user:Levalbert. Uploaded an image of male genitalia as own work and then added the picture to numerous articles (Human penis size, Human penis, Male reproductive system, Sex organ , .Foreskin, Glans penis, Body hair, Pubic hair) Arguably good faith, but all additions removed as not needed, not an improvement, or simply bad illustrations (an end-on picture is not very useful in most articles). After warning from me and comment by user:Ianmacm Levalbert redirected talk page to Wikipedia:Levalbert , blanked the page, and then redirected this to Wikipedia:DêsaasABC. Blanking warnings is allowed, but hiding them by moving them to a soon to be deleted page is not appropriate. I can't undo the moves so this will need admin (or at least someone with page mover permission) to unravel. Meters (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levalbert has been rather naughty here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI they have been blanked again. Please speedy delete them. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I did a history merge to combine the old talk page and new talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's perfect. The history is back. Meters (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument for including the image at Pubic hair, but it's a substandard example for the rest of those articles. Leviv ich 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out that taking a picture of your member and posting all around the site is not the thing we are discussing... because it technically isn't a violation the way he did it. Gosh, Wikipedia is so freaking weird sometimes.. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

...that anyone can edit... Leviv ich 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When we say anyone can be a member here, this isn’t what we mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

All users are equal, but some users are more equal than others. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd agree it's not a violation. While we normally do not consider people adding images they created to articles a COI problem, IMO they can be especially when there is clearly a promotional aspect to it. To give a simpler example, if I took an image of myself where I am readily identifiable, and then started adding it to the human, Man, Chinese people, Overseas Chinese, New Zealanders, Malaysians, Malaysian Chinese, European New Zealanders, Chinese New Zealanders, and a bunch of other articles, it seems to me this is a COI problem or something, even if the image is technically on topic on each of them. There's also the question of WP:NOTHERE, was this editor adding these because they believed they made those articles better, or for some other reason? Note that I'm not saying there's already need for sanction, simply that do think there's a fair chance it violates one or more guidelines or policies. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps some new COI-declaration templates are in order: {{thisismypenis}} and {{thisisnotmypenis}}? Leviv ich 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this is can be debated is the real kicker here. Also, this thread is honestly slightly hilarious. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The files have been nominated for deletion at Commons, but until that takes place I've requested they be added to the WP:BIL. Home Lander (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

New articles by Shevonsilva

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

There is a long thread at WT:NPPR about this, but the short of it is that Shevonsilva has been mass-creating geography stubs with a variety of problems. Despite multiple people trying to coach them and encourage them to slow down, they are continuing to create pages en masse. I feel some community sanction limiting their speed of creating new pages is necessary as they seem otherwise incapable of adapting their editing patterns to feedback, and they appear to intend to create hundreds more pages which may have similar issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)+

It is done. I have stopped the creation of new articles. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For the background, see this thread: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Stubs created by Shevonsilva. Shevonsilva's main activity here is to create one-line stubs on obscure administrative divisions of various countries. I know that some people do not like such new creations, but I actually find them useful, since these articles are then easier to incrementally expand than to start from scratch. They are sourced, but, as Shevonsilva is not autopatrolled, they go to the new page patrol queue, and this is how I became aware of them. The problem is that often these articles contain critical errors. I started the referenced NPPR thread with a number of examples (note that the diffs are not to Shevonshilva's edits but to the corrections): an article on an abolished department of Colombia, Fiji subdivision with a template of the Argentine province (a batch of five subdivisions all had this template), the name of the article does not match the content, a duplication of an existing article. These are just a set of examples, more examples are found in the same thread and at User talk:Shevonsilva. The reaction of Shevonsilva was to accept and to promise to correct the errors. (Sometimes they reacted defensively, for example the same NPPR thread contains a suggestion to me to stop patrolling their articles), but constructive reaction is more typical. The problem is that nothing changes. They typically come up with a reason why they screwed up (for example, caching issues when an Argentine template was added to Fiji articles), and they correct the issues, but next day something else happens, and new articles with (different) critical errors go to the main space, adding extra work to new page patrollers. Just today a couple of their articles were moved (not by me) to the draft space, because the sources did not confirm the information in the article, and there was no way to know whether the administrative divisions actually existed. They were repeatedly told to slow down and to change their workflow in such a way as to ensure that the articles do not contain critical errors, and they were responsive, but it just is not happening. Apparently, the issues were discussed at ANI before in 2014, and the user was already blocked for the same behavior by Anna Frodesiak prior to 2014. Whereas I have no doubts they have good intentions and act in goor faith, the competence issues are recurrent and are too serious so that we need to do something. May be a topic ban on article creation in the main space could help, may be we need escalating blocks, I am not sure, but we can not leave the situation like this. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I am very bad person by going to help wikipedia, and by doing so it will help to third party software tools like Grammerly by serving as a data repository, for example, to provide accessibility features too (Note: data mining is done by topics not the article content), and, these third party tools can also find a different repository too. It may be needed to understand that filling this large gap needs a heavy work which was alonely completed by me (effectively upto countries starting from letter A to M (partially inclusively) and almost African countries, and, I also appreciate the support given by reviewers. I had to create plethora of articles in order to complete this gap and some technical errors were unvoidable due to the larger number of articles. There are a few pending articles remaining and I am not bothered about those. Anyway, in the end, I really feel bad after giving much effort to complete this knowledge gap by thinking I was doing to good service to the world.Shevonsilva (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shevonsilva, this issue has been brought to ANI not so that you will feel like a bad person but that you will listen to your fellow editors and see where there are problems with your article creations. Do you understand Ymblanter's points about problems with your article stubs? Because it's not just a matter of you saying you're sorry, you have to understand what the problems are so they won't happen in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. To be honest, the issue is there are many articles missing, there may be a chance of 1-10% error may happen due to human error (I may not notice due to consistent pattern) or machine error (unmodified versions are poping up or cursor in the wiki editor is moving without my consent) [That is another reason I did not request auto-patrol permission as I needed other reviewers eyes too to complete these missing articles.] I have already changed the flow of creating articles that I will double check the references with spelling variances with different versions of publications of place names (that may be the reason due to which they are not touched before). I can try my best to gurentee minimisation of errors in this missing articles if I am going to finish the rest. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - this has nothing to do with being a bad person or a good person, simply about paying attention to what one is doing. Having created numerous geographical stub articles, I believe in their importance to the WP project, but I also understand the necessity of accuracy. There are other editors who have made "human error" mistakes, and when they are pointed out, work diligently to avoid making the same mistakes again. That cannot be said of Shevonsilva. They continue to make the same errors over and over again: creation of pages (using dab) which already exist, faulty referencing, spelling errors in article titles, etc. It would be one thing if, after having been informed of the corrections needed this editor then showed a propensity to abiding by the correct procedure. However, this editor instead seems to show the need to simply plow through creating inaccurate stubs regardless of accuracy. They seem to pull references from other articles, without verifying the validity of those sources, or whether or not those sources exist or not. And while they are polite and civil in their interactions, the issues persist.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ongoing problem. Shevonsilva started by creating dozens of articles on obscure units of measurement. Each was copied from a very dubious book (Imaginatorium did a source analysis here). Shevonsilva deletes talk page comments so it is not easy to link to the many discussions on their talk about the problems. My sandbox shows most of the original articles with working from five editors in the sandbox and its talk. Other editors had to do a lot of work to remove misleading information from stub articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks. I already understood the complications. As I mentioned before I already changed the flow of creations to assure minimum or very low errors. Anyway, I have stoped contributions for the moment as I got a surgery in my right hand and it is very hard to involve in contributions with a single hand. I will try to avoid future errors. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see need for any action unless this resumes. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive image replacements

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

---

Please see his contribs.

I have been reverting, so am involved, so will leave this to other admins.

After multiple warnings by a number of other editors, this user simply reverts the usertalk posts and carries on. The problem is generally replacing good lead images with objectively worse ones.

Recent examples:

• At Chicken noodle soup, user swapped in File:Samgye-tang 2.jpg to replace File:Chicken Noodle Soup.jpg. This new image shows a whole chicken in soup with no noodles replacing an image showing actual chicken noodle soup.

• At Birthday cake, his choice replaced this previous image. This new image is a top view which makes the cake appear two dimensional, and has no ubiquitous candles.

• At Fruit cake, this image of fruit cake actually shows the fruit cake. He replaced it with an iced birthday cake. The icing obscures the fruit cake, and the fact that it is a birthday cake, covered with fresh fruit and words, really makes it unrepresentative of a fruit cake. He also added the caption "birthday furit cake", misspelled and with "birthday" lower case "b".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think you forgot to notify him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're right. I seldom post here so I forgot. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I seldom post here so I forgot: obviously smarter than the rest of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

According to tests, I am marginally smarter than a lemur, so not sure what that says about you lot. (However, I "...can harvest vegetables...and do domestic work...", so there's that.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anna, the editor hasn't posted since you left your notice on their talk page. I don't think immediate action is called for here on ANI. Let's see how they respond to your message (and whether they respond to it) before taking additional action. Let's hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Good plan. I really just want a few more eyeballs on their contribs. Taking things slowly is a good idea. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree that these image edits are suboptimal and I have added those articles to my watchlist, as well as the user talk page. On the other hand, those articles ought to have a worldwide perspective. We have no Chicken noodle soup article, and that is a redirect to Chicken soup. Adding noodles to chicken soup is commonplace in the United States and Canada, but less so in the rest of the world. So, it is not inherently wrong to add a photo of a whole chicken in chicken broth to an article about chicken soup that discusses that broad topic worldwide. I just served chicken soup to my wife who is not feeling well, and it was more of a broth and had no noodles in it. But this editor needs to discuss these images and the ones that they have tried to replace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For me (with my Asian connections) there's a big difference between chicken soup and chicken noodle soup. But putting that aside, a whole chicken in a bowl of broth is not a good infobox illustration of chicken soup - I've never been served a bowl of soup (anywhere in the world) with a whole chicken in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Boing! said Zebedee. Had you been served that, it would have been on the menu as "whole chicken in soup" rather than "chicken soup with a whole chicken sitting in it". This seems to be something I want the editor to understand: the main element in the infobox photo should match the article title. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just glad I didn't order beef soup! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I'm not sure how I didn't notice that. It was early here and my coffee level was low. Anyhow, yes, the article is about soup. The replacement image's main element is a whole chicken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And just to point something out, what I think about an image is not so important. Many editors are reverting most image replacements. That is a problem. Ideally, the editor will communicate back and forth on their talk page take our advice. They seem to ignore guidance on images as well as BRD. I think they mean well, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we don't have an article on this type of chicken. —CambridgeBayWeather 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If offered, just say neigh. DMacks (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary section break

I've noticed the user seems to be aware of this thread but continues to make edits replacing photographs in articles. @Geoffreyrabbit: You're at risk of a block if you keep this up without saying anything. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, this activity has been going on for quite a while. Proposal: I suggest a topic ban from replacing images in any Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support that topic ban. I'm concerned their consistent failure to engage with other WP contributors will lead to an inevitable WP:COMMUNICATION block. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the user should be blocked until they respond to the concerns raised, which they are clearly now aware of and are ignoring. Communication is key to a collaborative project. Fish+Karate 09:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't say to join the discussion or even that it's an advisable or appropriate thing to do, nor does it link to the particular thread. Maybe that should be changed, but until then... I have posted a more direct suggestion on the editor's talk page here. It seems there may be a language barrier that could be causing some misunderstanding. Leviv ich 23:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! My talk page post has been read. Leviv ich 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And they promptly went back to replacing images, Enough. I have blocked the user until they communicate with others and respond to the issues that have been raised. They can do so on their talk page. The block is indefinite but not permanent, I'm happy for any admin to lift it once Geoffreyrabbit responds to these concerns, no need to check with me first. Fish+Karate 09:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's been read. [88]. Fish+Karate 10:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this can be closed, if an uninvolved person would like to do so. No haikus this time, I want a limerick. I'll keep an eye on the user's talk page to see if they want to resume editing, until they begin communicating there they can stay blocked. Fish+Karate 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an old lady from Caerphilly

Who could not engage in civility

She was taken to ANI

Where she was warned about using semprini

And in a huff deleted her activity. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There once was a young man named Steve, whose rhyming left all most aggrieved. While he gave it a go, it was rubbish, and so, never do limericks please. Fish+Karate 11:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you expect in 3 minutes, Vogon poetry?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, but now I know what I'm doing for my next ANI close. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to throw a thought in... after reviewing the editor's activity on WP, it's fairly clear they are not particularly fluent in English, and I would question their ability to function adequately as an editor. Wikipedia:Competence is required Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but until they respond in any way we'll never know for sure. Fish+Karate 14:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Wikipedian version of the saying is, but something like, "Better to stay quiet and let others AGF than to speak and prove CIR." Leviv ich 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Jessewaugh canvassing editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice asking them to look at the AfD for Jesse Waugh

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

---

"Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD.

Jesse" [89]

Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious canvassing and COI, but since the AfD was closed nearly a year ago, and isn't going to be overturned even if it goes to DRV, I'm not sure what they're hoping to achieve. I'm guessing the obvious action is to TBAN Mr Waugh about anything related to his own article. Incidentally, is anyone else mildly amused by the irony of someone claiming an article was deleted because it's about a white male? Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jesse Waugh has been deleted, recreated, and salted repeatedly since 2013. Somewhat confused as to why they're canvassing, as the last AFD closed in March of 2018? But clearly, based on "excuse any potential canvassing", they know that its against policy.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • You guys are so horrible. The person who got the article about me deleted canvassed an army of people to vote delete on the AfD, but when I canvas it’s suddenly against policy. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jessewaugh Can you find/provide evidence of that claim? Please attach diffs. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • It’s in the AfD discussion record. The pot calling the kettle black when he solicited WikiBigWigs to vote delete. It really was a politically motivated takedown. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of course they're canvassing — they're a painter! *ba dum tsch* —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lol 😂 Jessewaugh (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I may not know the whole story here, but it seems to me that there are two separate issues:

1. Is the artist known as Jesse Waugh notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? I would say "Possibly", whilst concurring that the version that was deleted didn't demonstrate notability and was borderline promotional.
2. A user knowingly created/edited an article about himself, can't see what was wrong with doing that, and is now seeking support to get it restored. It seems to me that the most effective way to deal with that issue is to block the user for a lengthy period (if not permanently). At the same time, there may be someone who is prepared to do the work to create a decent article on this artist - people can, after all, become notable over time. So let's just make sure members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts (or whatever group is most appropriate) are aware of the controversy. Deb (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • I did not create the article and please don’t block me. Jessewaugh (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ooh, several users were canvassed after a long period of inactivity after a block threat from two different admins, and as pointed out above the user knew it was canvassing: Special:Contributions/Jessewaugh. DRV would have been the proper channel and it would have been easily endorsed there. I'm satisfied with a WP:NOTHERE block. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Jessewaugh: What happened here was not canvassing. Theredproject contacted a single person, and asked for impartial advice on how to proceed. In fact, Theredproject said posting there on that talk page...and not the AfD...was fine. This isn't canvassing. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification to gain a better understanding of what canvassing is here. I don't see any "army of people" being canvassed. If you have diffs to show otherwise, please provide them. Second, rather than attacking the motives of people "behind the deletion", you should be finding reliable, secondary sources attesting to your fame. The more sources such as this that you have the more impossible it is for us not to have an article about you. If those sources can't be found, we're back to square one and the AfD stands. I remind you you are already on a final warning for personal attacks. If you're not clear about what a personal attack is considered to be here, then please read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?. Calm, rational discussion is needed here. Not speculations about the political motivations of editors here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes there was also perfectly fine notification of previous participants of the AfDs [90]. (Well at least the text seems perfectly fine and suggests the selection criteria was fine, I haven't checked to make sure it wasn't selective.) Meanwhile, there's this Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50 [91] which is clear cut inappropriate canvassing. (I have no idea how those editors were selected but even if their selection was somehow appropriate, the message was clearly not neutral.) To be fair, I think that canvassing also spectacularly backfired, and we have no way of knowing whether it could have been a false flag attack so we can't say for sure it was people on Jessewaugh's 'side'. Ultimately however, I think the AfD demonstrated one key thing namely that canvassing doesn't generally work. Especially in cases like this. The AfD happened because it was the correct result based on the sources etc at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments in this ANI complaint but I'm not sure what is being called for here. There are claims of an infraction by Jessewaugh who is asking not to be blocked and there is an ongoing discussion with this editor. It seems like there is no urgent or immediate need for action as Jessewaugh is being caught up to be speed on standard Wikipedia policies and practices. Needlesstosay, there is no conspiracy or expose required for standard operating procedure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Because his act is not new. Take a look at the AFD for his article -- a quick skim will do -- to see that this isn't his first rodeo. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd support a long or indef block for WP:NOTHERE and personal attacks. I have no problem with a topic ban of Jessewaugh from anything to do with themselves excepting BLP-vios obviously, although it's likely to have the same effect. While the canvassing is concerning, especially since the editor clearly knows it's inappropriate and there has previously been canvassing which appeared to be trying to support Jessewaugh's side i.e. keeping the article albeit not clearly linked to them (the only previous canvassing that I can see clearly linked to Jessewaugh is this dumbness [92]), the personal attacks are IMO much more concerning by this stage. Jessewaugh has already been told multiple times [93] [94] [95] (coming in part from this ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Jesse Waugh AfD) that crap like this [96] [97] [98] is unacceptable. Yet in the canvassing they repeat the same sort of stuff [99] impugning the motives of other editors with zero evidence. Even above, they continue to make accusations of a "politically motivated takedown". The latest messages are a little less extreme then the previous ones, they seem to have cut out the attacks based on where people live for example, and so if this was a constructive editor who let emotion of a COI get the better of them, perhaps a warning or short block would be sufficient. But Jessewaugh has done nothing since the previous AfD. Clearly they aren't here for anything productive. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have notified Theredproject of this discussion as they were named , and even before that, and this was because their actions ware called into question by Jessewaugh without direct naming but with it being clear who was referred to. I have notified Ad Orientem as they were the one who gave Jessewaugh a final warning for personal attacks. I have notified 104.163.147.121 and 81.44.32.50 as even though their contrib history suggest it's very unlikely whoever is behind those IPs will ever see the messages, I did mention their actions in this thread. I have not notified Drmies as although they also sort of gave a final warning to Jessewaugh and their actions sort of mentioned and likewise DGG, I felt it was unnecessary given the minor mention and unlikelihood anyone would call into question their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IP 104 is now editing as ThatMontrealIP--Theredproject (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to say here other than the contrast between Theredproject and Jessewaugh, in terms of their intentions, contributions and interest in the project is very, very large. A not here block would be appropriate for JW, given the long term single-minded promotional use of the wiki, and the repeated insults towards other editors.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jessewaugh: Hi Jesse, I suspect this is heading towards your account being blocked as not being here to contribute to an encyclopedia. This is mostly because a quick scan of your contributions show every single contribution you have made to Wikipedia in the last 12 months has consisted of complaining about Jesse Waugh being deleted. It's on you to explain what you're actually here to do other than Right this Great Wrong. Fish+Karate 10:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• • EVERYONE here is pushing an agenda. In fact, it’s patently obvious that many are working in conjunction - and evidence would suggest they are being paid as part of a quasi-military / intelligence offensive to skew the information contained in Wikipedia in the direction they require for their (your) collective objectives. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Someone needs to tell Jimbo my check from the intelligence community hasn't arrived this month NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • This month? I've been here for over a decade. Maybe I haven't done much, but I guess I regularly push agendas like this. I figure I'm very rich now once they fix whatever problem stopped them ever sending one. Well to be honest I'd prefer a bank deposit. Either way, as a "quasi-military / intelligence offensive", I assume this post is enough for them to recognise their mistake and start to send me my cheques or bank in my money. Mine haven't changed in ages so I'm sure they can find it in their files. Yeah! On a more serious note, this pushes me even more to a indef or site ban. I mean a topic ban will still be okay, but their earlier comments suggested someone with a certain POV that isn't particularly welcome but could theoretically make productive contributions if kept away from problems areas. The latest comment is either pure trolling or suggests a POV so out of touch with reality that I'm not sure they can ever be constructive anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Why are we still having this discussion? JW wrote he solicited WikiBigWigs to vote delete not far above this (and EVERYONE here is pushing an agenda immediately above), essentially admitting to being WP:NOTHERE. Someone should just block him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Jessewaugh: Myself and others noted the problems with personal attacks. Yet, your very first rejoinder since this was raised, you accuse everyone of pushing an agenda and working in conjunction against you? There is no possible way this turns out well for you if your only attempts at rectifying this great wrong is to insult everyone. You're beyond your last chance at this point. I would not at all be surprised if an administrator blocks you right now. Drop the stick, and back away. Come back with reliable, secondary sources that attest to your fame. How about a major newspaper article? Doing anything else will just make it worse for you. If you get blocked, creating another account to circumvent the block and try to get your article undeleted will not fix the problem for you. So it comes down to this; why are you here? If you're here to work collaboratively on this project and work with us here rather the insulting all of us in an attempt to have your way, then you are quite welcome here. If instead you're just going to insult everyone here, this ends in a block and your article will never be restored anyway. Your choice. If you're really here to get your article undeleted, you'd better rethink your plan. Your current plan is abysmally failing. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I have blocked for 1 week for personal attacks, while this discusssion is still ongoing. Any admin who deems it appropriate, feel free to extend or shorten the block. Lectonar (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The bizarre and obvious sock- and meat-puppetry in support of the various incarnations of the Jesse Waugh article that marked both Articles for deletion/Jesse R. Waugh and Articles for deletion/Jesse Waugh (2nd nomination) strongly indicate that Jessewaugh is back to his old tricks. The reason he was already aware of the no-canvassing rule undoubtedly comes from the warning that his canvassing alter-ego aka 81.44.32.50 received here in March 2018. For the whole sordid background, see this SPI and this one. Note also that the personal attacks/conspiracy theories by the various SPA IPs in those discussions are virtually identical to the ones made by Jessewaugh here at ANI. Incidentally, the first attempt to create an article on the subject was circa 24 May 2013. It was deleted as a creation by one of the dozens of socks of Nickaang who ran a paid editing operation. At the very least Jessewaugh should be permanently topic banned from anything to do with the artist Jesse Waugh. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Bizarre", you say? A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t have anything to add here, that hasn’t been said here, or in the AFD. He has repeatedly made personal ad hominem attacks against me [100][101]. This is harassment. He has proven again and again that he is WP:NOTHERE in good faith. Hijiri 88 said it best: “Why are we still having this discussion?” --Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Other evidence for an indefinite WP:nothere block, (above and beyond the personal attacks) include the many years of Jesse Waugh articles, and the time consumed taking them down:

• Jesse R. Waugh (artist)
• Jesse Waugh (artist)
• Jesse R Waugh
• ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

So that's Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh, Jesse Waugh (artist), Jesse R Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh (artist): five articles, six protections, five deletions, two SPIs, and two AfDs. Now to calculate the sheer number of editors and their precious time and energy that they all took up between them.... ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Add to this list Jesse Robert Waugh, created by an editor in April 2016 who was almost certainly a sock of someone. However, note that unlike the other 4, Jesse R. Waugh (artist) and Jesse Waugh (artist) were never actually created. They were pre-emptively salted. Voceditenore (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

• Propose site-ban per my calculations above which I gave up on when it got to 50. And the litany IV lists below. And also because, no IV, it does not seem to have been officially proposed, although it was mentioned as a likelihood by Nil Einne above. ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (assuming someone has already proposed it): let's see, we have canvassing, conspiracy advocacy, repeatedly not getting the point, conflict-of-interest editing, and just the whole idea of gender equality and feminism being a quota-filling exercise, which any reasonable person should find incredibly offensive. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, pretty much the closest to a textbook case I've ever seen. Go write a blog; if the artist becomes notable someone else will write about them. But they'll have to ask an admin to get them started, these titles are now regex blacklisted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've said enough already although the list of creations makes it even more clear cut since even their minor historic edits unrelated to their article can't outweigh the amount of our time they've wasted trying to create an article on themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the additional evidence provided by Serial, Montreal, et. al., and the editor's unwillingness to engage in appropriate editing, it's clear cut now that a site ban is appropriate and in fact overdue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support after multiple warnings, personal attacks and deletion discussions, all of which is built around self-promotion, it's time for the time-wasting to stop.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Ivanvector; this is ridiculous. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I will add I was not canvased, but yes it does appear canvasing occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. A Dolphin (squeek?) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Jessewaugh makes a very convincing case above for why he should be shown the door. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Confirming my support mentioned above. (non-admin) SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (or at a minimum an indefinite block). The sole purpose of this user on Wikipedia (either under this account or sock accounts) from 2012 to the present day has been to promote himself. The result has been 4 articles about him created under multiple variations of his name (in some cases more than once) and all deleted and salted. Three AfDs, two of which were infested with sock puppets resulting in two ANI reports and two sockpuppet investigations. Relentless canvassing and serious personal attacks on other editors which has continued to the present day and even in this very ANI discussion. The sheer amount of editors' and administrators' time that he has wasted is appalling. He's not here to build an encyclopedia and never will be. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned User:Cinesis, an account that seems emblematic of these shenanigans. It's also from 2012, which shows real determination over time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's quite obvious who Cinesis is, for reasons which I won't go into here. The irony of all this is that Jessewaugh blames the deletions of articles about him on a "plot" by the editors of Art+Feminism but three articles about him (Jesse Waugh in its first incarnation, Jesse R Waugh, and Jesse R. Waugh) were all deleted in 2013 before Art+Feminism came into being in 2014. The first two were definitely "paid for", created both here and transwiki by Nickaang's paid editing sockfarm. I strongly suspect the third one and Jesse Robert Waugh were also paid for. Obviously not wise purchases. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)<

• Support site ban Clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. Clearly here only to cause further disruption. Clearly thinks the community is "horrible" for placing our policies and guidelines ahead of his agenda(s) Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I hear WordPress has reasonable rates, tough I imagine a blog there lacks the exposure of Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Clear disruption, express declarations of WP:NOTHERE/WP:COI objectives, hostile responses to any contravening opinion and WP:PA's in reaction to every community effort to help them acclimate to our policies and processes, consistent efforts to canvas and otherwise game process to restore (and then presumably WP:OWN) an article about themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Unmistakably, self-admittedly abusing Wikipedia for personal purposes rather than to work on encyclopedic content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Peanut gallery pile on support Been watching this for a while and figured this was inevitable. I was not canvassed in any way, shape or form. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - No-brainer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP impersonation

On 14 February, I reverted in good faith an edit by 125.178.201.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to then-TFA Chains of Love (TV series), citing its lack of sources and vague language. I left a standard warning on their talk page. They proceeded to edit my user talk page comments. I reverted and warned them about talk page refactoring. They then impersonated me on User talk:ChamithN and attempted to reset my password with Special:PasswordReset. I think these two actions cross the line from good-faith editing to disruptive editing, and need an explanation. – Teratix ₵ 23:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The filter log also shows that the IP attempted to make a small edit to your userpage. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And they are still attempting to reset my password. – Teratix ₵ 09:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:ATX-NL

• ATX-NL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hedy d'Ancona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marcel van Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have reason to believe User:ATX-NL may be vandalizing Wikipedia. This editor has been active since November 2010, and has made 10,000+ edits, mostly related to Dutch politicians. On January 30th, I became aware of ATX-NL's presence on Wikipedia when I noticed two of their edits (Special:Diff/880930655 and Special:Diff/880938228) of Marcel van Dam. The former modified various dates, without citing sources. I tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}}. On February 13th, I noticed the editor changed (Special:Diff/882962904) the year in which Hedy d'Ancona was awarded an order, from 1994 to 1982. I could not find a source for 1982, while I can find many for 1994. This is why, on February 13th, I asked the editor for their source. The editor did not respond, but continued editing Wikipedia. On February 15th, I pointed to WP:COMMUNICATE and asked once more for their source. More recently I noticed that, on February 17th, another editor has posted on ATX-NL's Talk page asking for clarification, and also hasn't gotten a response, while ATX-NL continues editing Wikipedia. This is when I started looking at the rest of the editor's Talk page, and noticed this and a clear warning by User:Boleyn, and several more (User talk:ATX-NL#Source request, User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (2), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (3), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (4), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (5), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (6), User talk:ATX-NL#Source request (7)) from User:Robotje (not a bot). ATX-NL last edited their own Talk page in September 2012. ATX-NL did not respond on my Talk page, nor on the Talk page of User:Anomalous+0. I have contacted Kanselarij.nl, the official website about Dutch orders, and they've confirmed via e-mail that Hedy d'Ancona received her order in 1994. (In Dutch: "Dank voor uw bericht. Mevrouw H. d’Ancona is in oktober 1994 onderscheiden als Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw. Als het goed is zou dit zou ook te vinden moeten zijn in de Staatscourant.") I've looked at other edits by ATX-NL, and I see a problematic pattern. This is an editor that does not communicate, does not use sources, and adds inaccurate content either by replacing facts with fiction, or by adding false data. Their edits are generally big, and appear to be - at least partially - constructive, but upon closer inspection, are not. New articles are created without sources. Existing articles are edited as such: existing content is moved around, unsourced material is added to infoboxes and decoration sections, predecessors, successors, terms and other years are randomly modified, and some constructive changes are made to conceal the vandalism. This editor should be stopped, because of WP:VANDAL and ignoring WP:V, WP:EP, WP:ENGAGE, etc. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

At a quick glance I think someone proficient in Dutch (Category:User nl) should try contacting the user on Dutch Wikipedia, where they seem to respond to messages pretty consistently. They haven't edited their enwiki talk page in seven years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe (or maybe not, which I would understand because my wife hates being defined by her birth nationality) User:Drmies would like to take a look at this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at the Van Dam edits. I'll have a look at the Hedy d'Ancona edit in a minute. ATX-NL really isn't all that responsive on the Dutch wiki: they have a talk page full of notes, and their last response was from July last year. The one before that, August 2017. That's like two or three talk page edits in the last one hundred. In the last note they apologized and cited their autism.

  The comments there are very much like the ones here: unsourced changes, for the most part. So, I don't want to get too far ahead, but we have a serious lack of communication, or however that quote went. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the first two source requests I added on his talk page in June 2018 (Source request - concerning Jaime Saleh & Source request (2) - concerning Hans Wiegel). No reply at all but also the information that seems to be incorrectly added by him in the articles is still there. So he not only failed to give a source or explanation, he also did not fix the issue in the articles. Somebody wrote yesterday above in the discussion about him "... some constructive changes are made to conceal the vandalism ..." I don't think he is on porpuse hiding vandalism, but it is obvious to me he doesn't care about correcting issues that are most likely mistakes made by him in the articles. This is hurting the encylopedia even if the mistakes were not made on porpuse. - Robotje (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning for User:ATX-NL and hope they will respond. Failure to communicate and making unsourced changes are both blockable if they go on long enough. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:MPants at work reported by User:Luciusfoxx for severe Personal Attacks and threats

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

---

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

---

Page: User talk:Luciusfoxx (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MPants at work has engaged in severe (at times, even verbally violent) Personal attacks and threats:

1. [102]she tells me,"fuck off"
2. [103]tells me to "get over myself" for refusing to agree with her unsolicited opinion on politics
3. [104]threatens to wiki-lawyer me with frivolous ANIs
4. [105]she tells me,"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"

1. Personal attacks evidence Personal attacks from User:MPants at work began with remarks like "get over yourself" and unprovoked, pre-emptive thinly-veiled threats like "you just are just begging to be quoted in an ANI thread about you". They are clearly uncivil, lack good faith, and are forms of personal attacks. Yet after my humble polite warning to keep it civil, the editor doubles-down on her personal attacks from with verbal sexual assault telling me in her edit summary"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube."[106] and then vandalizing my talk page, saying "fuck off" and proceeding to threaten me with an ANI over what she considers to be "the blatant hypocrisy" my opinions.[107] Just because she does not like my opinion, does not mean she has the right to attack me. I would imagine anyone with enough knowledge and experience to threaten with an ANI is also knowledgeable enough to know that this kind of severe NSFW language and sexually derogatory harassment of another at least constitutes a personal attack, let alone language never acceptable here.
2. Warning given: I politely gave a warning to apply good faith and to cease the personal attacks.[108] In retaliation, the disruptive editor attacked me again, with two severe personal attacks, one of which (again) was verbally violent and sexually derogatory.

Personal attacks and threats against me AFTER my warning:

1. [109]
2. [110]

This is pretty cut and dry. For those reviewing, thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
@MPants at work:

• I'm not inclined to dig through the history here, but for a bit of background see the OP's fuckwittery and disruption at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza#Felony status, which appears to be the root cause of the dispute that led to this. Sure, losing one's temper is a bad thing, but it's clear there are very much two sides to this particular story and only one is being presented here. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The sandpaper comment is ... a lot, but I don't think this is really actionable. I'd recommend looking at the context for this, regardless: Talk:Dinesh_D'Souza#Felony_status. This looks like another case study in (a) how much leeway do we give someone when dealing with brand new blatant-POV-pushers with woefully poor grasp of NPOV or RS and a greater-than-their-edit-count grasp of templates and process, and (b) how much leeway do we give someone concerning their own talk page. The latter has typically been quite a lot. The former has typically been greater than when engaging with other editors clearly here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. Maybe better to just ignore, report to NPOVN, or wait for the inevitable TBAN... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Whose sock is this?" is a popular parlour game for American Politics articles... Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll play, Only in death. Five bucks says it's Hidden Tempo's latest. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

Tsk. I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead paragraph. However, it speaks for itself if you honestly think that sexually derogatory attacks or verbally violent language from an editor who has already been warned and been banned over this kind of behavior "is not actionable". Why have rules at all then in the presence of said anarchy and open-sport on depravity? However, flawed your logic is, thank you for your time and opinion.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I made exactly ONE mild edit to the D'Souza page, which was civil. When I was reverted, I left it alone. I kept my talk page discussion focused on content, not editors, and only offered my own humble opinion about D'Souza. There was nothing "disruptive" or even provocative about my personal opinion (which I kept to a minimum) regarding what belongs in a lead paragraph.—you are aware that we can read, right? Incidentally, see also this. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Substantially, I was referring to my one edit on the actual article itself. Not the talk. On the talk page itself was only one primary rebuttal, and three short replies (I think) to different editors. Not including minor edits to fix grammar and the like, it was hardly what you are making out to be.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I guess there are two options here (at least there are two that aren't counterfactual). (1) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be sanctioned, or (2) We can regard this as a two-way problem where both the accuser and the accused should be told to calm down and avoid one another for a while. I think the shortest route back to peaceful editing (which ought to be the objective) is number 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Broken promise on civility

MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and his alt-account MPants at work have engaged in gross incivility yet again. In October 2018 there was a turbulent ANI subthread about MjolnirPants' incivility: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Incivility. The closing statement was MjolnirPants (and MPants at work) has agreed to treat fellow editors with respect and to dial back on rhetoric when addressing blatant racism, and has been warned that any additional commentary suggesting a threat of violence will be met with an immediate block.

The ANI thread also lead to the widely-participated "Fuck off" RfC. During the RfC, MPants self-requested to be blocked and was done so for 3 months[111]. After coming back after the block expired on February 5, he has apparently returned to his old ways:

• Violence fantasies[112] The context here is humorous, but it's worth noting that MPants was warned for threats of violence in the last ANI thread.
• After being given a civility template by a new user called Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs), MPants removed it from his talk page with the edit summary: fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube.[113]
• He then banned Luciusfoxx from his talk page with the title "You can stay the fuck off my talk page"[114]

Clearly treating others with respect was just an empty promise to avoid being blocked in the last ANI thread. I have been banned from his talkpage for requesting him to remove a -180deg code there[115], so I am unable to bring this up that way. --Pudeo (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Luciusfoxx passive-aggressive bullshit really is tiresome. It does need to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. That is of course, not the same as saying Luciousfoxx needs to be fucked with a sandpaper dildo. A distinction which is pretty small to be fair. Asking for comments from 'non-liberal objective' editors is pretty much asking to be slapped with DS warning let alone being told in plain English 'keep this up and you will end up at a noticeboard'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This kind of comment speaks for itself, and the problem here.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have too much more to add to this beyond what I wrote above, but .... violence fantasies is nonsense. Objective3000 said, in the context of the sometimes unpleasant atmosphere in parts of Wikipedia, "I treat it like a video game with AI characters designed to annoy me." MP followed on that line by saying "I usually shoot annoying NPCs in video games." To read it here you'd think MP was issuing subtle threats rather than carrying on a jokey metaphor about nobody in particular... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

However, this is not simply jokey and you are placing less of a priority on that kind of behavior than what you just complained about. Obvious red-herring is obvious.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of responding to MP: “Wow, you need help – or more bullets.” Obviously, this wasn’t anything like a threat or even fantasy. And, I differ with MP as he likes guns and I think the age for ownership should be raised to 100. I am a strong believer in civility WP:5P4. Civility is lacking everywhere in human discourse and that’s problematic. But, I also believe in frank characterizations, which may border on incivility. Fact is, MP’s history clearly displays a willingness to argue for additions/deletions contrary to his own beliefs. That is, he takes the side of neutrality over what might aide a case for his own beliefs. We need more of this. We need editors that can call out POV editing even if it fits their own beliefs. How else can we stay true to our concept of neutrality and honest presentation in a time of great controversy? O3000 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious why Pudeo keeps showing up to complain about me, given that we've never interacted outside of these threads. Check our contributions; this editor has never interacted with me except by starting ANI threads in an attempt to get me sanctioned. It's childish and pretty much textbook harassment. And their "evidence" above is pure spin. "He enjoy playing Far Cry, therefore he must be menace!!" Give me a fucking break. One might note that in all of Pudeo's contributions at any of the drama boards, they've never once failed to a) attack a liberal-seeming editor or b) defend a conservative seeming editor. Add to that the fact that they kept a swastika on their user page with a pithy little note that reads more like an excuse to keep it up every time I see it, and a pretty clear picture begins to emerge of what, exactly, Pudeo is doing on this project.

As for Lucious; they insulted me twice while trying to be subtle about it (once asking for "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral) editors" after I responded to a ridiculous edit suggestion, and then again claiming they would be offended if someone called them a liberal after I self-identified as one), then had the audacity to template me for non-existent personal attacks. This playing the victim schtick from obvious POV pushers (how obvious, you ask? How about claiming that a convicted felon is "a law-abiding citizen unlike Weiner or the Clintons" in the same comment in which he directly accuses Hillary Clinton of treason).

So yeah, my response was salty. It was also another experienced editor's "favorite edit summary", because it is exactly what I wrote it to be: snort-milk-out-your-nose funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a quarrel with you. I pity you. I never baited or directed an insult, Mpants. My remark was clearly a general remark asking for non-partisan, non-liberal and, yes, non-conservative editors to come in and chime in on the debate since a non-biased editor who is not invested politically in the article carries weight. There was nothing in that remark directed at you, and I dare you, Mpants, to show any one where that was the case. And, yes, I did say that labeling someone as liberal, (or even conservative, etc.) would be insulting...as you don't know me and I don't know you. Labeling, period, is insulting. Again, nothing there directed at you personally. Your thin-skin is not my sin. You are just trying to rationalize clearly inappropriate behavior, behavior you've apparently been admonished for before. Thank you taking the time to open up about your motives.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. It's hard not to notice you since your hostile discussions take place on noticeboards. Just a while ago you had a spat with Walter Görlitz on RSN and said he might be blocked for insults like saying your thinking isn't clear.[116]. You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? That is very arrogant. For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. --Pudeo (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Name one.

Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. Bullshit. I just responded to a message that was essentially the same as Lucius' templated message by welcoming it.

You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? Walter directly insulted me, and is not blocked, so that's some bullshit, right there. But maybe you should ask yourself why other editors don't seem to want to come to your defense, while they seem happy to come to the defense of a guy whom you seem to think insults anyone who disagrees with him.

That is very arrogant. Being defended by others is arrogant? That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.

For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. You keep patting yourself on the back like that and you'll get tennis elbow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• And the editor who described it as a favorite edit summary was me. (Actually, my real favorite was when I reverted an edit at Flying Spaghetti Monster as being "unsourced and unsauced", but whatever.) The bottom line here is that MPants was baited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I get very uncomfortable excusing things because of "baiting" as though Wikipedia editors cannot be held accountable for their actions if someone else did something first. I wish that MP would just keep it mellow, or at least leave the spicy personal massagers and whatnot out of it (and, well, everything). While I don't think that baiting is a viable excuse, I do think that those rules about civility stem from the idea that Wikipedia is a community of editors. A probable sock clearly with no intention of contributing to a neutral, well-sourced article is not the same thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK, maybe "baiting" wasn't the most precise word choice (although the project has no shortage of master baiters), but I really do think that the dispute here begins with Luciusfoxx, whose user page is a declaration of pro-Trump POV-pushing, starting a discussion by saying that Trump's pardon of D'Souza means that D'Souza was innocent and was the victim of a "hit-job". Does that justify an angry dismissal from a user talk page? Well, the anger didn't just come out of the blue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• PS: found that gem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• TY! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I know it's a little early, but it's never too early to celebrate pasta. Dlohcierekim (talk)

• Welp, MjolnirPants, Any hopes I might have had for a collegial work environment with collaborative editing partners died long ago. Though the metaphors are quite . . . charming. On the other hand, Luciusfoxx, you ever here of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or even (for either if you) Wikipedia:Don't take the bait? If I were either of you, I'd have probably just thanked the other for their thoughts and let it go. Before it got to ANI, but here we are. Not sure I'd endorse any sort of admin action here other than to say SMDH. What Rhododendrites said. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm always polite to polite people, even when they look like fringe POV pushers (case in point). It's bullshit like Lucius' smarmy condescension and not-so-subtle insults that lends itself to smartassery on my part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll give you better odds - 2:1 - than Bishonen - it's User:Hidden Tempo. Purposefully trying to provoke one of his "old enemies" with passive aggressive bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I' will not take that bet. I know a bad deal when I see one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Without the tools, too risky a bet as Hidden Tempo is a chameleon. O3000 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The D'Souza talk page has gems like this from LuciusFoxxx: "the treason that Hillary committed by sharing classified emails and trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination". If I read that correctly he thinks Hillary Clinton committed treason by trying to destroy the Kavanaugh nomination. There's so many idiotic claims packed into that short phrase that regardless of whether it's HT or not, it's got to be either a troll or an extreme case of WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Yet democracy had its say on both Hillary and Kavanaugh. Winners don't call losers "idiots", they don't have to. Now that we both had our 2 cents, since it seems you are really obsessed with my opinion in no less than several posts from youabout me, can we keep the soapboxing out of this thread now that you got your fix? ;) As for the business of this thread - Having read up on Hidden-Tempo. All your PTSD and projection makes a little more sense. If he's a chameleon, then an elephant is an oversized rodent. Don't give that apparently no-there editor too much credit. For everything you must've put up with you'd have my empathy if it wasn't for all your subtle cligue(ish) trolling against me. Objective3000l, I'd listen to Mpants. Everyone else. I will take that bet, on me of course. Wishing this was Vegas about now. For once you are making sense, Mpants. I suppose even a broken record, I mean, watch can be right once a day. I know it's twice, and I have the feeling with your jokes and distractions, enabled by the other disruptive editors, that is your way of acknowledging the mistake in your actions in your own "salty" way. Your tonal change and h-mming and h-awing insecurity just barely under the words gives it away. So I guess that makes 2. If that's all it takes to get away with clearly and deliberately disruptive behavior --- bad joking around, distracting and whataboutism --- then the time is officially up insofar as my duty bring order to this unmanagable chaos. There is nothing "salty" or "jokey" about that kind of personal, sexually derogatory verbal attack. Lame excuses with even weaker words. Maybe wikipedia like the rest of the world is hitting rockbottom. Thankfully I have a thick skin, though I confess comparing me to someone like this Hiddentempo stung a little. Regardless of the outcome of this row, everyone, lighten up a little next time. Will ya? LoL Your blood pressure(s) with thank you for it.Luciusfoxx (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to close

Now that the spleen-venting and dazzling repartee have run down, and the discussion degenerated to base pasta-pushing, with an unknown effect on our blood pressures, can we close with no further action as victim and victor (whoever they might be) seem ready to move on. And shan't we all just "lighten up"?

• Support as proposer Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I really don't know why the OP's are allowed to !vote on proposals. IMHO, and as we already know the OP's opinon regarding evisceration and defenestration, !voting should be confined to those who are at least putatively neutral. Pudeo. Kindly. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'd like to see Lucius blocked as an obvious sock, first. Or for the equally obvious WP:NOTHERE POV-pushing. I mean, we're already here, right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:CIVILITY policy needs to be enforced in the light of one of the most egregious violations there have been, unless we are to stop enforcing the policy altogether. Again I refer to the civility RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Can an admin please explain to Pudeo that this campaign to get me blocked is not cool? Especially when it requires twisting the truth into a gordian knot to make a case. This thread was far more of a disruption than my edit summary was. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support close and boomerang it's clear as mud from here, and the trolling's not getting any clearer.——SerialNumber54129 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Obvious sock has been blocked; we should try a little harder not to get trolled so easily. MJP's "fuck you, you goddamn fucking fucker" shtick is getting old, but I assume we'll wait to do something about it until he isn't being obviously baited by a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ye gad! Who saw that coming? Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Now, how do we react more quickly than by baiting the baiters? Seems we need to go through this timesink process whenever.... And, these events are becoming more common. O3000 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: indef block for MjolnirPants

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

---

(I've renamed this section from "Pants Reopened" since a !vote for indeffing the user is apparently underway below. Isa (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

• The latest news is that I declined MJP's unblock request, since it did not adequately address...well you know the phrase. Admins, go see if you think my decline was fair. I do not like blocking an editor like MJP any more than Cullen328 does, I'm sure; I wouldn't have placed the block, but Cullen did probably also because he's more courageous than me. I would have likely granted a serious unblock request; maybe one will come, and I then someone should grant it. But here's the thing (see also Floquenbeam's comment right above this)--I do not really think MP was baited, and I think this might have been handled better earlier, with the help of an admin/ANI, and then Lucius (whoever he is) would have been done away with earlier. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• For good measure, I also declined an (even longer) unblock request from Luciusfoxx. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not really think MP was baited...

REALLY? Oh for the love of God. He was not only baited, the baiting was aided and abetted by Pudeo. --Calton | Talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with both the block, and the rejection of the unblock request. As with some others, I'm not seeing the baiting. The Dinesh D'Souza suggestions were silly, but while there were some minor personal attacks like "non-liberal, objective (read: neutral)", if people can't tolerate these sort of minor things without blowing up like that, I think the American politics topic area, or really any politics topic area, is not one for them. Likewise WP:DTTR does not mean if someone does template you one time, you can blow up in a way seriously out of proportion to the templating.

Note that I do not consider the silliness of the proposals at Dinesh D'Souza in any way baiting, or justification for blowing up like that. For starters, while the proposals may have been silly, they weren't someway intended to attack MJP. Or if there is some background that I'm not aware of which means MJP takes such silly proposals very personally, while they have their sympathies, but the best solution is for them to stay away from that article when it means so much to them. The non personal aspects of dealing with silly proposals is not justification for reacting in that way.

Ultimately paraphrasing what someone else said, while there are a lot of problems in the American politics area at the moment, comments like that of MJP aren't helping the situation any, they are making it worse.

(And frankly, I think there's a bias in the way we deal with these sort of things. I get the feeling if an Indian or Pakistani or a Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian had left a comment remotely similar in response to basically the same thing i.e. someone making a completely silly proposal, then say they wanted the opinions of non 'other side' editors (read neutral), then being templated with a civility warning, they wouldn't have received a block as lenient as 31 hours.)

Incidentally, I'm unclear what role Pudeo played in this. They don't seem to have made any comments at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza or made any recent at User talk:MjolnirPants. They did comment in this thread, or more accurately open this subthread but whatever the rights and wrongs of their comments in this thread, clearly they are not the cause of MjolnirPants making comments which are part of the reason this thread was started. Unless MjolnirPants is a time traveler, in which case can they tell us when the US gets rid of Trump?

P.S. In case it's unclear, I'm saying in my opinion the block was justified before the whole thread was started from what MJP had already did which was raised in the beginning of this thread, in particular that edit summary. Therefore comments in the thread itself are largely irrelevant to any baiting suggestions and I've only skimmed through it.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As a point of clarification, I would have far more sympathy if Luciousfoxx was expressing racist, sexist or other beyond the pale sentiments, but they weren't. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have left a note on Pants' talk page endorsing the block. I understand exactly where he's coming from on this, and get the frustration that comes from trying to keep ARBAP articles in check; however I cannot possibly work out any way that suggesting the other party inserts sandpaper in some unpleasant bodily part is in any way conductive or helpful to resolving the dispute. I suppose if I had to link to something it would be WP:NOTTHERAPY - you cannot say "fuck you, fuck you and fuck you .... who's next?" and not expect to get criticism over it being "an appropriate cathartic response". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also support this block and (not for the first time since they got the bit) I'm very grateful to Cullen for being willing to step in and take an administrative action necessary to enforce our baseline behavioural standards. And I say all of this as as someone who does think that Mjolnir was baited here--or at a bare minimum, the other party's conduct showed such tendentiousness and was so laden with a lack of self-awareness regarding their own personal attacks, that MP was well within their rights to treat those comments as functionally identical to trolling, regardless of original intent behind them. Indeed, I was contemplating opening an ANI on Lucius when I noticed that they had already opened their own here and torpedoed themselves, saving me the trouble. But Mjolnir's response was beyond the pall and well past anything that can be tolerated on this project, even had this been long-term and express harassment.

When I was a child, I was taught a simple maxim (indeed, it is so simple that Mjolnir may find it patronizing to have it raised here, but it nevertheless represents the crux of what cost him a block and why I think the same thing is likely to happen again if he doesn't make some adjustments to how he deals with conflict on this project): two wrongs do not make a right. Not only was it not appropriate for MP to respond to this behaviour with a counter-PA, his response in this instance was far, far more disruptive to good order and violative of our conduct standards than was the comment to which he was responding. Violent sexual imagery (or for that matter, any string of vulgarities directed at another user in the context of a personal dispute) is never the solution and it's never going to be ignored here. All one accomplishes in making such comments is to become assimilated into the troll's disruption. Bluntly, if a random strategic template is all that it takes to get that response out of someone, they need to adult-up and fortify their emotional discipline by a factor of about 10,000%, because that response to that situation was that out of proportion. Most users would have rolled their eyes and ignored that comment, maybe remove it from their talk page without comment. Mjolnir is not required to do that, of course, but his response needs to be something short of a nuclear offensive of sexually threatening language, as he is surely aware.

Indeed, not only do I have to reluctantly voice support for the short-term block for MP, seeing as this is this the first time that the community has asked him to turn down the volume in personal disputes (even where he is not the aggressor starting the brujaja), I think if we see anything of a similar tone in the future, the community will have to consider a more substantial, long-term response. I say this without enthusiasm, as MP was dealing with a clearly WP:NOTHERE editor, and because he delivers not-insubstantial contributions to the encyclopedia. But the costs to the project that accrue when we do not enforce our basic behavioural standards will always end up dwarfing the contributions of any one editor. I hope that Mjolnir will be able to see that almost every response that he has received asking him to make adjustments (both here and on his talk page) come with caveats expressing appreciation for his work generally, and he will thus be able to understand this is not a dogpile that embraces what might have been the troll's objective from the outset (tearing him down in the eyes of the community), but rather an effort to preserve a colleague's valuable contributions without compromising our standards on civility and disruption. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• As long as we are here again, I was going to wait for the dust to settle and then open an RfC on Pants excited utterances. SO I endorse his block and ask that he be admonished to just plain stop the problem behavior we are so aware of. Going forward, it needs to stop. Baited or not. Violent sexual imagery is right out; it should result in an immediate block if it recurs. He needs to learn to ignore or respond in a manner that does not worsen the situation and make him look like a hothead with poor impulse control. And, yes, I like most of what he does here, but he's becoming a net negative. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  oppose indef Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  I think an indef is too extreme at this point. First block for this particular issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Nothing against MJP but personally I endorse the block, It's one thing telling someone to fuck off but it's another to say what he did, Sure I've on the odd occasion told someone to "F Off or even "Go F Yourself" ... but IMHO they're nothing compared to his comment. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Am I the only one here who thinks that "Pants Reopened" was not the most felicitous choice of words? Anyway, Looking back at this ANI thread from top to bottom, I'm struck by all the piling on with endorsements of the block, after pretty much crickets along those lines before the block happened. Yes, it's very courageous to agree with it after someone else has taken the first step. I actually think in hindsight that the block was justified, but still. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• TBH, I recommennded closing too soon as I thought the fire was out, and then it was closed, reopened and closed again. That was my fault in trying too hard to get us past the issue w/o someone getting blocked. All fell apart, didn't it? Now both are blocked. Now that he is blocked, well Cullen was right. And as this has been reopened, we might as well as deal with the conduct here and now. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ironically, and in my defense, I was going for :Tryptofish option 2 Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• And in your further defense, both of us were right. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's not only possible but likely (given the sentiments expressed above) that most of those commenting since the block are admins who were absent for the initial (and very brief) discussion who would have been willing to let the matter drop without blocking MP, seeing as the discussion was already closed. But when Cullen did block MP and received a response from Mjolnir suggesting Cullen was out of line/"stirring up shit", those very same admins felt compelled to point out (in a civil but blunt fashion) that at the end of the day no one was responsible for that block but Mjolnir himself. That all seems pretty above-board, good-faith and perfectly reasonable to me--and I suspect that many of those users (just as yourself on MP's talk page) have his best interests in mind and are trying to make sure he takes away the right lesson from this, rather than just feeling embittered. That said, the message I hope he listens most attentively to is yours--particularly as regards the practical benefits that can be leveraged from using a reserved/civil approach even when dealing with those editors who deserve it least. One doesn't have to to be a saint to understand the advantages of keeping cool in the face of provocation, as you quite rightly point out there. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block And if the editor doesn't directly address the reasons for this block (I couldn't see any in his unblock request), extend block indefinitely to avoid disruption. I've seen many of his types and like his verbosity at a personal level (humour, et al); but crap is crap and should be sounded out and blocked. Childish behaviour really. Lourdes 00:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a truly terrible idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the number of times we waste our community's efforts discussing this editor at ANI is truly terrible. And the allusions to movie lines as being his reason for misdirected humour, are childish. This editor doesn't have a long future at a project where we should commit to stop abusing. I'll probably ping you and offer my happy condolences when the editor's tenure finally ends here. Editors like this are simply not welcome. Lourdes 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand the principle of what you are saying, but you don't understand the particulars. Anyway, I doubt that it will have consensus. (And I'll be fighting like hell if anyone acts on it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Meta-humor: "Pants reopened"? Was there a zipper failure?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, this one broke open: 🤐 Leviv ich 00:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Zip it, both of you! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Open this link at your own risk! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Is it safe to hover over, or can I catch mice?" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yawn. The good news is that MPants exposed a sock. The bad news is that MP went too far. I support his brief block, much as I really enjoy and value his presence. But, we’re piling time sink upon time sink. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse and endorse indef extension until the editor addresses the reasons for the block. This is a long-term behavioral pattern, and the current block is not achieving the goal of preventing continued disruptive behavior. I warned this user in March 2018: "Don't confuse our generally lenient civility enforcement with a lack of enforcement of non-negotiable policies. If you're under the impression that we're going to play games with you, you're wrong. You've established a serious behavioral problem, and I will be blocking you if it continues. ... As it stands, your behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project, and I'm not going to be spending my time arguing with you about it. You either need to do something about it voluntarily, or you're going to lose your good standing over this. None of this combativeness is going to be tolerated." (Note: This was after I left them a very respectful, amicable message attempting to resolve the issue voluntarily.) Here they are, blocked, and still not taking any of it seriously. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with swarm above, there is no excuse to use angry edit summeries referencing torture or sexual assault, I am very disappointed that some editors think being frustrated with a sock gives anyone a free pass for all abusive language. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, oppose current block as over the top. There's an encyclopaedia to be written, and some people here seem to have got themselves completely (over)invested in this. ——SerialNumber54129 12:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, oppose current block per Serial Number 54129. This pile-on is insane. Nihlus 12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nihlus. ∯WBG^converse 14:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Swarm. I've had a few run-ins with MjolnirPants, particularly [117] and [118]. This recent discussion just reinforces my view that his behavior is unlikely to improve ever. He has already been warned many times, yet continued UNCIVIL combative behavior. This even towards admins who just blocked him for behaving poorly! "I mean, seriously. The ANI thread was done, the troll was blocked and everything was settling down until you showed up and decided to act like johnny fucking law. You're not preventing shit: you're starting more." and "That was created between me reverting the troll here and the troll starting the ANI thread. But now, we gotta deal with this new shit that you brought here by deciding to punish me.". The pattern is extremely consistent and has persisted for years, in obvious violation of WP:CIVIL. ALL his last 5 edit violate WP:CIVIL often on multiple grounds. "Jesus, dude, did you even glance at the article before you decided to mansplain to us what's in it?", "If you can't understand how what I said directly addresses your objection, then you don't have the competence to participate in this discussion.". The user seems to be given repeated leniency in violation of so many different policies over many years. Deleet (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Deleet: Interesting that you cite an AN3 report that I closed and told MPants to knock it off, so if anyone has a right to complain about civility in that report, it's me. What I see is that you tried to get MPants punished, and it didn't work, so you've turned up to this thread trying to get your pound of flesh back. I saw nothing blockable at Talk:Eugenics and neither did any other admin. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shame on the editors minimizing/defending/making excuses for this behavior. ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Shame on you, Swarm for personalising what is already an-excessively personalised issue. If you think remarks such as that are in any way helpful... ——SerialNumber54129

• Swarm, this's a way out of line comment. Please retract. ∯WBG^converse 15:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Imagine being more offended by a generalized comment criticizing incivility apologists than by sexual violence. I kindly refer both of you to the quote at bottom of my userpage for my stance on what behavior is "out of line". ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, Swarm; I am not referred anywhere. But I note that you do not see the paucity of casting shade on editors in the middle of a discussion about that very subject; indeed, doubling down on it with suggestions that they are also "sexual violence" apologists is hardly an improvement. ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As you can see above, in the AN3 report linked by Deleet, I told MPants to just let things go and dial it back a bit. On his talk page I've advised him to resist the urge to retaliate. Yet I think kicking him off the project is a totally disproportionate response, and there's not been enough thought into what caused the outbursts in the first place. It is possible for a whole bunch of people to be wrong, to varying degrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you're being so defensive regarding a simple, general comment that criticizes editors who are defending egregious behavior like casually invoking sexual violence. That's something that's actually offensive, protesting such behavior is not, at least, not from a policy perspective, and not from my basic standard of morality. Honestly, it's a little concerning that you see an equivalency between egregiously toxic and uncivil behavior and simply criticizing such behavior. I had always thought you to be more reasonable than that. ~Swarm~ {talk} 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef if not explicit from my earlier comments. The October 2018 ANI thread already had an extensive diff collection of astounding personal attacks which he promised to dial down but did not. The hostile attitude is well conceived with his talkpage edit notice. No one should have to deal with a person who's this abusive. Nowhere did MJP admit any wrong-doing in this ANI thread despite the violent sexual imagery which I think is pretty much unheard of in Wikipedia, and instead attacked the admin who placed a short block. This attitude and failure to change it is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. --Pudeo (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Deleet. This isn't a one-off incident, or even a set of incidents. It's a long-term pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct.

Note that MJP's abusiveness is so ingrained that it is even in their editnotice, which is now up for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:MjolnirPants/Editnotice, after an even more abusive editnotice was deleted last year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose indef as completely disproportionate, no real opinion on this block. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any blocks at this time Walk a mile in MPants' shoes please. I haven't been blocked directly, but my local library was long-term blocked and I didn't want to log in, so I was prevented from improving the encyclopedia by a block. Yeah, I was pissed off about it and wrote a grumpy unblock request that was declined, making me even grumpier about it. A bit of empathy goes a long way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ritchie, you describe the situation as if MJP was blocked for some technicality and lashed out in shocked hurt.
    The reality is that this was an escalation of a long-term battleground approach. Yes, of course I empathise with MJP's clear need for improved anger management (or even for a few first steps on that path), but that doesn't alter the fact that en.wp has conduct policies which need toi be upheld for the sake of community health. We can't continue to indulge these systematic violations of core policy in the hope that MJP will develop anger-management skills which they have resisted for so long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me try and give an example of how this has blown up. Consider the following statements, which superficially might appear to meet WP:CIVIL but are quite unpleasant : "I sincerely believe that there is strong scientific evidence that white people are biologically equipped to have a greater intellectual capacity than black people. For example, consider these citations : [a][b][c]". Or "I think there's been a noticeable anti-Brexit sentiment appearing on Twitter. Is it just me, or is anyone else getting this? Those who voted remain should just accept a democratic result and stop being annoying. Britain is a white country and we are Christians. No deal!" Those aren't actual comments, but an example, although they are broadly based on real things I've seen on social media. I think my point holds - we really need to look at the underlying circumstances calmly and carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block but oppose indef mostly per Dlohcierekim. GAB^gab 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef If this is an example of his learning his lesson [[119]], seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your comment is a demonstration of the point he is trying to make. Nihlus 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How, that post is a massive PA against both a specific user and unnamed users (also outing, what are all those external links, they are not showing any edits here that would be problematic, what a user does off wiki is irrelevant). If he does not have the patience to deal with POV pushers, then this is not going to go away. Thus we will be back here the next time he decides to "not have patience", and we will go thorough this whole circus again, an indef prevents that (and that is what blocks are for, prevention). Just how many violations can you cram into one post?, it look deliberate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

FFS I did not follow those exlinks. If it is outing, then that does require and indef and those exlinks need revdel. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They have been redacted for that very reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well MJP's comment was shockingly unhelpful/unpromising/uninsghtfull. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Way out of line for the offense. PackMecEng (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose further action as it's clear from certain sets of comments both above and below that everyone has become too emotionally involved in this, myself included (see below), to make objective judgements. But MjolnirPants ought to consider this their super-ultra-final warning, boss mode bonus round: to put it simply, another incident like this and you'll be gone, and it's entirely on you to not let that happen. If you're being harassed, see WP:DWH, and ask for help. (edit conflict) I also think there are too many editors commenting here who still have swastikas displayed on their user pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef A couple of thousand article edits compared to 13,500 talk and WP is a lot of arguing. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• While I was writing my comment above, MjolnirPants wrote a bunch of grossly inappropriate things on their talk page which require oversight, and I have blocked them indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's funny what happens when multiple people over-personalize an issue, constantly badger someone, make ridiculous and unwarranted blocks, and continue to pile on before the user has even returned. This whole charade is disgraceful. Nihlus 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants:Request for specific remedies

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

---

What exactly do we need from MjolnirPants going forward? I mean, we’ve all applauded Cullen for blocking, but what next? I say no more sexually violent imagery. That using “fuck” to me indicates loss of self control, I would ask MjolnirPants to step back and not respond when angry. Yep, I see a lot of anger referenced in the earlier thread. (I am not talking about the word '’per se’’, but the anger it represents). And, pray to whatever god you worship we don’t meet in real life? Really? As Cullen put it, “By far the best way to deal with trolls is to deny them the attention that they seek.” And my way of dealing with trolls, as I mentioned-- I'd have probably just thanked the other for their thoughts and let it go. I guess that’s the point-- don’t rise to the bait; let it go. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I am inclined to say that there is no further need for action at this moment in time. Mjolnir already received a sanction for the immediately relevant conduct. I suppose we could enter a "no sexually violent language" statement into a formal close, but that almost seems to be suggesting that such a prohibition is particular to MP, while such statements are in reality always inappropriate for this project and should be met with immediate community action--so it seems rather redundant. Besides which, the previous ANI already included a statement in the close that MP is warned that any kind of violent language is inappropriate on this project and likely to result in a block the next time he used it. Although I think Cullen may have been unaware of that prior discussion, that is exactly what occurred here and so the community's resolution on that matter has been satisfied. Had the circumstances here been even just a little more different, I may very well have supported an proposal for a longer-term block. And make no mistake, I am very concerned about MP's WP:IDHT-heavy response to the block on his talk page and worry it won't be too long before we have to undertake another discussion, especially considering that MP landed here at ANI again very shortly after his previous (self-requested) block following the previous ANI.

But under the circumstances (ballsy provocation by a WP:NOTHERE editor and Mjolnir already sitting out a block for his comment, albeit a short one), I am not inclined to support further action at this time. I think if a formal close is given any teeth, it should be only to extent of making a clear statement that Mjolnir is being given WP:ROPE here but that such indulgence is almost expended and that further demonstrations of an inability to not escalate personal disputes will be met with further blocks which are to increase in duration from here--particularly where they involve violent or threatening language. Mjolnir does indeed need to accept once and for all that this is a work environment and that nobody should be subject to such language whether it is said as the result of an effort at intimidation or a loss of temper. But again, for the present situation and conduct, I think Cullen already established the community response and that matters should be dropped here in the hope that this will be the end of this behaviour. Given the attention this pattern has received thus far, I suspect the next occurrence, if any, will result in a lengthier block, which would be appropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I think that would work right there. I think @MjolnirPants: needs some specific guidance to avoid . . . problems. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Something I'd like to see addressed, that was brought up in an earlier ANI report, is MjolnirPants' habit of removing his opponents' talk page posts. The earlier report included a warning about this behavior from Ritchie333 [120] [121] along with three more examples of talk page removals from shortly after the warning. [122] [123] [124] Here are two current examples from a few days ago. [125] [126] The comments that he removed may have been clueless, but none of them clearly violated talk page guidelines, so these removing these other editors' posts is WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:OWNTALK. Nihlus 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  That is absolutely a non issue. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you look at the diffs? The posts that he removed weren't in his user talk, they were posts on article talk pages. 2601:42:800:A9DB:C9FC:9DE6:44A6:6E5A (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything really wrong with those removals. WP:NOTFORUM applies as well. Nihlus 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply to any of those edits--they all concern policy, content, and editorial issues. I'm not saying that they are great arguments, and it won't benefit us much to dig into the context much here, because whether they are right- or wrong-headed is not really particularly relevant: the IP (whoever they are...) is correct in at least this much: WP:TPG allows for the removal of another editor's comments under only very particular and narrow circumstances, none of which are satisfied in these examples, as far as I can tell. MP definitely needs to cease that habit immediately. It's a somewhat separate issue from the one we were previously discussing here and I really hope to not have a subthread develop concerning it here, but it would be cause for a separate ANI complaint at the least if it continues; editors are not allowed to sanitize talk pages of comments they don't like unless they are disruptive with no editorial value, and other than maybe this one, that test does not apply to any of the examples the IP listed. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I disagree on your personal interpretation of the policy and how it applies here as the policy is ambiguous in many areas. While it would be in MjolnirPants' best interest to err on the side of caution, I see nothing here that shows it is a clear violation of policy. Nonetheless, I'm not really invested enough in this to discuss it further than I already have. Nihlus 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policy language is at WP:TPO, which outlines the very small handful of situations in which removing another editor's comments are allowed, none of which were at play in the diffs the IP provided. Again, I think it would be just as well if we can avoid opening that can of worms here, in this discussion, but to the extent you're insisting again that these removals are not a problem, I have to point out that they are in fact against policy, and not just "in my interpretation" or that of anyone else who has commented as to this habit; take a look for yourself and then tell me which exception to the otherwise outright prohibition you think applies if you really want to insist MP was free and clear to remove in the context of those diffs. Otherwise, I suggest we just drop it for the sake of keeping this discussion as focused as we may under the circumstances. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• As mentioned above by me and Swarm above, we've repeatedly seen Pants pulling down other editors using inarguably abusive language. We've asked Pants in the past to come clean and stop behaving like this, but he has repeatedly continued this. I would propose the current block be made an indef block till Pants gives an unequivocal statement that he will stop using double entendres and abusive language, broadly construed. Lourdes 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  A ban on double entendres coming from someone who uses the phrase "Pants pulling down" in the same contribution? I don't think so. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest an extremely broad topic ban on sexually violent imagery in discussion, with known heavy sanctions for breaking it. I don't think this includes the word "fuck" or variations of it, but, you know, rape imagery is bad, mmmkay.--Jorm (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Adding absolute TBAN on removing other people's talk page comments, regardless of any possible reason to do so. This user sounds over wrought. May need a rest. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, the problem appears to be, quite simply, a straightforward lack of regard for the fourth pillar. "Civility sanctions" are silly, because they're redundant to existing policy. The most obvious solution is to extend the block to indefinite and unblock as soon as the user makes a commitment to changing their attitude. If we don't, the block will expire, and we'll just be back here down the line again. ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Egad! has anyone seen the edit notice on his talk page. That needs to go too, though it seems to be yet another attitude adjustment requirement issue indicator. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looking at the lede of his user page, he unapologetically WP:DGAF, admits to being uncivil, and we can pound sand if we don't like it. All of that is consistent with his actions. I see no reason to believe that, even if offered, a promise to change his attitude or actions would be sincere, let alone be something which he would actually fulfill. I don't want to have to run into this guy on a dark article or talk page somewhere, and neither should anyone else (especially newbies). We have a right to expect civil, collegial discourse. The obscenity that spews forth from this user's mind simply has no place here. "Society has a right to protect itself." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I thought he already has a "never be uncivil" restriction in place? (Note I have been (and am currently) in dispute with this user on a regular basis, and have been on the receiving end more then once of his attitude problems). As such I am sure about supporting an indef (I am hardly neutral). I support the idea of a ban on removing other users talk page posts (he can always ask someone one if they are genuinely a problem. Maybe the answer is to make it "no offensive or abusive language, be polite and respectful AT ALL times", thought I suspect he will find a way to wikilawyer around even that.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• It's not "anger", it's typing words on a keyboard. If MP was actually angry he wouldn't be composing perfectly-spelled and coherent screeds of fucks and dildos. What it is is showing off. It betrays an absence of understanding (or, worse, caring) that the Wikipedia username you're directing this stuff at in order to show how Internet Bad Ass you are is another human being. My concern is that just a few months ago, MP pledged to change his ways, agreeing to "treat fellow editors with respect", and just four months later - most of which he was on a self-imposed break! - we're right back where we were with him. The next infraction must result in a lengthy, lengthy block. It's not acceptable to speak to other people like this in a collaborative environment, whether you agree with them or not, whether you are upset or not; there's no justification. None. Had I been the blocking admin it would have been a far longer block than Cullen imposed. Fish+Karate 09:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Great Dlohcini-- sees all; tells all. Dlohcierekim (talk)

• • It's not "anger" .... That's mind-reading. No one but MPants knows his state of mind/emotions when doing something. It is however something that is controllable. Anyone who writes coherent content for an encyclopedia is by definition capable of communicating in clear, neutral, impersonal terms. This can even be done when communicating with trolls or other exasperating people. It may take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification like stepping away from the keyboard when needed, but it is something that's required on Wikipedia, and something MPants had promised to change. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I stand by my view that it's showing off, not anger. The benevolently chortling it off as "oh dear, look what MPants has said now, sometimes he says the things I wish I could say, what a rascal! Please don't do it again let's go back to editing with no further actions" attitude some editors and admins show to this sort of behaviour exacerbates this acting to the gallery and encourages further pushing of the envelope. Fish+Karate 11:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest that all the problems comes under the heading of WP:BATTLEGROUND. MJP repeatedly takes a confrontational, personalised approach to disagreements, and often sets out to "prove" that his "opponents" are mad+bad. He has a systemic unwillingness to consider that there may be more than one way of looking at things, or that he himself may be mistake.

If he'd drop the battleground approach and commit himself to collaboration, then the specific behavioural issues would follow.

Conversely, if he retains his the battleground approach, then lists of unacceptable conduct are merely going to displace the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"take practice and even some form(s) of behavior-modification"-- Yes. Yes it does. If I can do it, anyone can Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• A number of comments above appear to be referencing my close of a previous discussion as a warning against incivility. I want to be very clear that it was not, it was a pledge by MjolnirPants to be more respectful of editors with differing viewpoints, and in the same discussion I somewhat endorsed aggressive treatment of overt racists. The only warning I wrote in that discussion was this: "this ("pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person") is a direct threat of violence, and I don't care about context or emotion or whatever else, or whether or not you think you intended it to be read this way, if I see you write something like this again I will block you, and it will be for a good long time." I've already commented that I don't think this incident is a "direct threat of violence" though it certainly describes a violent act. I agree that we shouldn't need to warn editors not to respond to confrontation with descriptions of violent sexual acts, and at the same time I agree that we should do so in this case since MjolnirPants doesn't seem able to draw that line for themselves. However, I oppose any restriction against using the word "fuck", and I oppose any restriction that is generally worded as to prevent MjolnirPants ridiculing overt racists in ways that do not describe violence. (Racism itself is violence, but there is no need to respond in kind.) Frankly if racists don't edit Wikipedia because they fear abuse from editors like MjolnirPants, that's a good thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If MJP was reserving his abusiveness for racists, then you might have a point. But he isn't.

And in any case, there are plenty of ways of dealing with racists without being abusive. There's no need for other editors to reduce themselves to that level, unless they share MJP's battleground approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let's wait and see if the problem persists after the obvious WP:NOTHERE trolls are removed from the equation. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It has almost as soon as his block ended [[127]], what possible justification is there for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

60 hour block

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

---

I am not happy about BrownHairedGirl dropping a 60 hour block on MPants immediately after his previous block expired. While some people support a block above, there is nothing like a consensus for it, and unless anyone has got any good objections, I plan to unblock sometime this afternoon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if the point is to drive him away, an immediate re-block would seem quite effective. If the point is to temper his language, I hardly think a re-block would be the optimal path. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Per the comments on his talk, I have lifted the block per WP:ROPE. Let's see if the sweary personal attack stuff stops; if not a reblock will be in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And people wonder why MJP uses foul language. Hope he takes the message to heart. It should be coming through loud and clear. Again. First time blocked. If he learns, we are done. He escalates, the blocks escalate. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So far there have been two messy ANI threads with fighting over who gets to close them, different interpretations with no real solution and one WP:CENT-advertised civility RfC with no clear result. To be completely open, I'm thinking there might be enough failed dispute resolution for an Arbitration request at this point. The only reason I did not file RFAR yet is because Cullen328 issued the 31 hrs block so there actually was some kind of an action. But with the unblock request and new block being issued and unturned, it seems to be unconclusive again with no clear indication what would happen next if the F bombs continue. --Pudeo (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are stirring a quiet pot. O3000 (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Historically, "fuck" is not actionable here. Perhaps unfortunately. Even WP:civil makes note of that. And I'm sure we can count on you to provoke MJP whenever you can. potted beef? Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Quartertoten/Brian Desmond Hurst

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

---

I would request that administrators again look at the behaviour of Quartertoten on Brian Desmond Hurst, which was previously raised here as per IncidentArchive1002#Quartertoten. Quartertoten has insisted on reinstating substantially the same contentious material in this edit, despite previous multipe reverts, warnings, references to Wikipedia policy, and so on. These are covered in the Talk page sections Conflict on Film and "Conflict on film" genre. I am now disinclined to further involvement myself due to Quartertoten's intransigence, and I am now going to be offline until after the weekend after today, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Too rich for my blood. @Slatersteven and Oshwah: any insights? Prior discussion appears to have been archived without remedy or closure? NinjaRobotPirate's last recommendation was going up the WP:DR ladder. Perhaps that would be best? Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsure, it may well be this is a thing (given the existence of the book, but I cannot verify I do not have a copy). But the wording is odd, and may well be a degree of OR (as the wording is so odd). I am also dubious as to the fact the source...is the dust jacket of a book. This I think is just inexperience. Yes DR may be the best solution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The citation and quote was accepted in good faith, and in some versions of the page was included in the Books on Hurst section (e.g. that of 18 February ). The issue is more that Quartertoten insists that it needs to be in its own section, along with a non-standard list of applicable films (more recently with added explanatory text), even though this duplicates part of the existing Filmography. Originally Quartertoten framed the section more in terms of working through the question of who is the outstanding director in this supposed genre, with the citation at the end as confirmation (e.g. this version). Nick Cooper (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And y'all's not using dispute resolution over a content dispute requires action here? Gad. You're at loggerheads. Hold an RfC and post notices on relevant project pages. I see someone offered a third opinion and ran screaming from the page. Go up the dispute resolution ladder. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol is always a good idea - especially in this instance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Quatertoten for a week for continuing the edit warring today. FWIW, I'm not sure if further dispute resolution is needed here - enough editors seemed to have weighed in and while I've only skimmed over the discussions, there seems a near-unaminious consensus against Quartertoten, so what I'm seeing is a tendentious editor refusing to drop the stick and edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

RBL2000's WP:POLEMIC Behavior at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis

Hello all! This is my report.

Summary: I have sadly noticed on this talk page that a lot of users seem to be engaging in decently obstructive and divisive behavoir.

Diffs:

• [128]
• [129]
• [130]
• [131]
• [132]

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia

Background:

SandyGeorgia has given this user a LOT of WP:ROPE. They have finally begun to expand editing outside of the current mentioned talk page, but however their WP:POLEMIC remains as prevalent as ever. I do not know the solution, but I will imagine that a topic ban may be appropriate here.

Thank you all for addressing this issue! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, MattLongCT. I have long been on record as opposing topic bans for first offences; I believe they should be reserved for truly last resort. Something needs to be done with RBL2000's editing behaviors, but I am not sure what. There is a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE, and it has been remarkable that only three editors on that article (which is on the main page) are taking the lion's share of editor time, preventing other more productive editing from the few of us who are bilingual. Other than those three, it seems that the article is weathering the main page OK ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Let's try this. RBL2000 (talk · contribs), you are admonished to make no more polemic edits on any talk page. You will confine your edits to policy concerns. You will not accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. You will not use "you", "censor," or "revise history". You will address content only. Citing twiiter likes is OR. It is not citing RS. You will stop soapboxing. You have gone past a final warning. This is your last opportunity to avoid a topic ban or outright blocking. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Dlohcierekim, that works for me. SandyGeorgia, any further thoughts? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping; that works, but I am not sure how we get RBL to see and digest it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK. There is need to point out involving twitter is being extensively being used/cited/referenced in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and what I used/cited/referenced involving twitter involves Hands Off Venezuela which as you can see has article on Wikipedia and is their official account as evident by in their articles in Contact Us part linking twitter account @HOVcampaign thus there is clear connection, twitter links I used are not OR otherwise ones used in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis would also constitute as such. At heart of it is my view that article is not neutral considering overwhelming coverage and focus on Pro-Guaido and issue of official government sources such as involving Morocco have been disputed by SandyGeorgia when same is not applied for twitter accounts and tweet from politicians of various government such as Albania with their prime minister(https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis#cite_note-271) which are treated as RS. RBL2000 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am not going to get drug into trying to explain WP:RS to you for the nth time at ANI. I will say this one last time (because this is typical of how you have taken so much editor time).

  See this section in archives where I tried to explain to you under what circumstances WP:SELFSOURCE can be used, and also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article has almost 500 sources, and I cannot speak to every one of them; I can speak to the instances on the talk page that I have engaged, and Albania is not one of them. (Presumably the editor who added that did a translation and was convinced that is the official account of the president or some such thing-- I don't know. I am not responsible for every edit. YOU are responsible for YOUR edits.) You would like to use sources like HandsOffVenezuela Twitter account in ways that do not conform with SELFPUB. And that is only one of the many ways in which you have not shown an understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, no matter the time and good faith I have put in to trying to explain them.

  Again, you are intransigent in your response here.

  My suggestion is that you might need to be restricted to no longer editing the article, and proposing sources on talk, and then ceasing the IDIDNTHEARTHAT when multiple editors explain what is and isn't a reliable source for certain kinds of text. If that tweet is from the President, or Foreign Minister, or whatever of Albania, and if it is a verified account, and if it says Albania recognizes Gauido, then it is speaking correctly for itself and Albania. But I do not speak the language, did not make that edit, and do not know what the tweet says or who it's from. I know that YOU are repeatedly and exhaustingly using non-reliable sources, and not making a good effort to digest Wikipedia policies and guidelines and learn from other other editors what are appropriate kinds of sources for different kinds of text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  And I have an extreme amount of patience in trying to help new editors learn their way around in here, but you are running out of even my rope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I give up, because of your last edit I lost entire response due to your edit when you added this. Thanks. RBL2000 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I am really sorry about that; losing text due to edit conflicts is exasperating. And I have been losing article content because of your editing behaviors, so I hope you understand how much more frustrating that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I compose in sandbox or a text editor and then paste into wherever so I don't lose txt in an edit conflict. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Djln

User:Djln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) disagrees with a CFD nomination I have made, at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_February 19#Category:Foyle_College.

He is of course entitled to his view ... but he has chosen to express his disagreement in a prolonged series of personalised responses which seem to amount to a determination to prove that he has somehow caught me out on something. If he'd read the guidelines he'd see that he hasn't, but he says[133] Please don't just quote guidelines. Not interested in reading them thanks.

It's a long way from the worst personal attacks I have received, more like sniping, but the persistent personalisation and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is tedious to be on the receiving end of, and disruptive to a discussion which is supposed to be consensus-forming. WP:NPA is clear "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia".

Here's some of Djln's comments

• [134] Oh please crying "personal attack" when you've been called out !
• [135] You've been caught out
• [136] you need to get a life
• [137] Don't make me laugh. If you were a teacher, you would probably tell your pupils one thing and then do the complete opposite. Just like you have done here

I let it pass, but Djln doesn't seem to want to drop the stick. This started at 17:14 yesterday, but Djlns' last comment (above) comes 21 hours after my last comment in that thread.

Please can someone try to persuade Djln to either read the relevant guideline (WP:SMALLCAT) and discuss the substance, or withdraw from the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I created the perfectly legitimate Category:Foyle College. There are over 70 similar categories regarding schools and colleges. BrownHairedGirl nominated the category for deletion because it only had two items. When had I had the audacity to point out that she herself has previously created categories with just a single article she took offence. I find BrownHairedGirls behaviour to be patronising, bullying and totally inappropriate for an administrator. Djln Djln (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I see that Djln is still holding to his refusal to read WP:SMALLCAT, which is only 90 words long.

If an editor explicitly refuses to read the relevant guideline, then a feeling of being patronised by being asked to read it is entirely their own choice.

And no, I didn't "take offence" at Djln's observation that I had created a one-article category. I pointed to the section of the guideline which permits smallcats in some cases, and invited Djln to nominate the other cats for deletion if you so choose.

As to bullying ... just read the thread, and see who's hurling the persona absue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have read WP:SMALLCAT. It is just a guideline, it is not sacrosanct or written in stone. It is not law. Throughout this discussion your tone has been extremely patronising with an "I know better attitude". Moving this discussion here and "reporting" me is itself an act of bullying. Djln Djln (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, @Djln:, hauling you off to ANI is not bullying. You seem to be ignoring the cited guideline out of pigheadedness? You've offered no policy based explanation. Sorry if you don't like the expectation that you should adhere to the same rules as the rest of us. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion it is bullying. Just because you think different does not make it so. Plus the term "hauling you off" is totally inappropriate to use. That term is used describe a physical assault. In fact you describing her behaviour as such kinda proves my point. Denying somebody is being bullied when they have bought it to your attention is just as bad. As I have said a guideline is just a guideline. As I have said BrownEyedGirl has ignored this very guideline herself but has taken exception to me doing the same. One rule for me, another for her. Djln Djln (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Djln, do not take things like a CFD nomination so seriously. I suggest you read the guidelines, and contribute to the discussion civilly. If you continue with your conduct it won't end well for you. GiantSnowman 20:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, Djln, have it your way. Let's look at those edit summaries. They are wholly inappropriate, and your response to me adds to the appearance of inappropriateness. The whole category guideline discussion pales in its glaring brightness. Please, do heed GiantSnowman as they are wise. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. I guess there is no point trying to reason with a mafia of unreasonable editors/administrators over such a trivial petty matter. I suspect next you will threaten to block me and try to claim it is not bullying. Sorry for daring to express an opinion. Djln Djln (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• WP:SMALLCAT is guidance for the suitability of a category for creation. Djln has created a category which fails this particular test and cites at length various categories created by BHG which pass the test (if one reads the criterion properly). Djln is wrong and should make an apologetic retreat. Oculi (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Djln has been blocked before by BHG. Once bitten ... Oculi (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

I really don't think it's bullying. I really don't think "hauling you off" in the context of a disagreement on wikipedia implies physical assault. It's just an exchange between people who are passionate about the subject. His edits actually look fine to me. Contributions/161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Welp, civil, collegeal discourse seems right out the window on this site. Might as well change the name to Hooligans Den and be done with it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) @Dlohcierekim Now you're being childish. Maybe we should call it "Dlohcierekim's Nursery School Sulking Corner". 161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment How about we fix this like it should have been in the first place - User:Djln, if you carry on using demeaning edit-summaries like that you will be blocked. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and regardless of whether your sense of entitlement leads you to believe you can talk to others here like that, the fact is - you can't, so stop it. Now. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have withdrawn from this conversation. BHG can do what she wants. Not sure why other editors are carrying it on. I have learned that it pointless and a wasted exercise trying to reason with administrators. I have contributed 100s, perhaps over a 1000, quality articles to Wikipedia over the past 15 years. It would just be nice if I was occasionally just treated with a bit more respect instead of totally inappropriate and unhelpful responses accompanied by threats of blocks. Sadly this bullying behaviour is typical of some Wiki editors (and administrators) who are then happy to lecture others on their behaviour. Bringing up a previous block from seven years again is particularly childish. All this does is make me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm sure this comment will now lead to me being blocked. Djln Djln (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Not really seeing a lot to do here. Djln has created many CAT's, so I think we can allow a lapse or two. Perhaps a less escalative approach will allow for further editing? Perhaps an agreement to disagree and then move on? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Spoken articles files

I am not sure what to do ....we have an editor User:Walk Like an Egyptian removing Wikipedia:Spoken articles articles because they are older versions of the pages. I'm gravely concerned we're taking away an accessibility point for people with disabilities. Hearing an older spoken version of an article is not so egregious that they should be removed. I believe access to an older version is better than no access at all. What should be taking places in update not deletion. Was going to simply revert but see this has been done on a few pages and would like to get more input from the community. Should the work of hundreds of editor's be removed because they depict an older version of an article? Should these be reinstated? I agree many are outdated but they should be updated and the project expanded with more support..... just not sure how deletion helps our readers with disabilities in this case.--Moxy (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did this because other editors have removed outdated recordings from various articles as seen here, here and here. None of these articles have gotten an updated recording since then. Plus, I think some of my removals like this one are justified. Not only did this recording have far less information, it also had quite a bit of unsourced information. If you really want to listen to an article that doesn't have a recording, you could copy and paste the information into a text-to-speech website. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy paste. ...... why would we go out of your way to make it hard for our readers? Text to speech software problems is one of the reasons the projects exists Pls review why we make these....Always think of those with disabilities when editing. Again old version of articles are better then no articles. Files should not orphaned they should be deleted if there's a problem with verifiability.--Moxy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the broader issues about what to do about outdated spoken versions of articles/content will need to be decided by community discussion, probably WP:VPP. I can see some argument on both sides but I doubt very much the solution endorsed by the community will be uniformly "keep them all" or "dump them all after X amount of time"; I suspect the solutions will need to be quite a bit more nuanced than that. In the meantime, until such an inquiry is undertaken, I'd like to request of Walk Like an Egyptian that they temporarily forestall their clean-up activities in this area--I take it as granted that your efforts are entirely good-faith, but Moxy is correct, this is a clear issue of WP:Accessibility, which policy was created specifically to conform our approach to the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which is a priority that cannot be obviated. Given the importance the WMF and this community put on accessibility, I think we have a duty to at least discuss this matter in a central community space before we begin a wholesale removal of content which vision impaired and other users may rely upon, even if there are arguments for removing at least some of it. If you don't want the burden of opening such a discussion, I can spearhead the process, provided you are willing to wait a couple of weeks. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not all text-to-speech systems have problems. I was able to use a free and very intelligent text-to-speech system to make 35 recordings, but I'll just leave the list of spoken articles as is and let you handle this process. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC); edited 06:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There's something ironic about putting "Spoken Wikipedia Benefits" in a raster image that's illegible for screen readers and hard to read for people who need high-contrast etc. text... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep old recordings – they are better than nothing. Hopefully, the last update date is part of the recording. The user still has the option of using text-to-speech on the current article if they want. BTW, it would seem useful to make individual section recordings so as to facilitate updating just an edited section or two without having to re-dictate the whole article. Tools to manage the sections into auto-playlists, suggest stale section recordings needing update, etc. would all be good. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It does seem useful to record a specific section instead of everything at once. I uploaded my first recording a couple months ago and the corresponding article has gone through drastic changes already. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Two things. 1) yeah keep the old recordings. Better than nothing. 2) My eyes! Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I had not run across Wikipedia:Spoken articles before but it seems a valuable idea - perhaps the bigger problem is that there are 1,378 spoken articles in English. So its pretty clear this project isn't working. If it is valuable as a project it should get more support and attention, (for example - an idea off the top of my head would be making a spoken version a requirement to pass WP:FAC) - but if it is just going ot be a cul-de-sac of outdated (possibly COI or Copyright problem containing or otherwise violating our pillars) versions for a very few articles then a better solution should be developed to more seriously respect WP:Accessibility.AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say that there's actually less than 1,378 spoken articles in English. A bunch of subcategories, audio files, and a user page were using Category:Spoken articles, so it messed up the spoken article count. I edited these pages, but if there are other pages that still use the category manually, they should also be removed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I seem to recall we nuked a spoken version of one article that was made by a fringe proponent after editing the article, which was subsequently restored to a less fringe version. Was it cold fusion? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Personally, I question the value of spoken versions of articles if they are years out of date. It is a much more obvious option to use Microsoft Narrator or similar text to speech tools. The chances of having up to date spoken versions of millions of Wikipedia articles are practically zero.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by Sotuman

Sotuman has violated his AE topic ban ([138]) at [139]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no record of a ban in the log, to which Sotuman was referred by Bishonen, or at Bishonen, other than the notice on Sotuman's talk page, there was nothing. If there is a ban, the notice indicates that it applies to editing the flood geology article. It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page. Sotuman (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AS an uninvolved admin, I hereby advice you that the article content on your user talk is not acceptable and needs to be removed at once. You are skating on very thin ice. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, please allow me a reasonable amount of time to do so...

To answer your question, Sotuman is a name I made up a long time ago but I don't identify with it to the extent that I only use first person. It also helps me to be professional and objective in my responses. It means I don't take things too personally. Sotuman (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is dif of the notice on Sotuman 's talk page. However, such need to be appropriately logged. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Okay, I cleaned up the talk page, please advise whether further action is required. Sotuman (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I missed logging Sotuman's topic ban from Flood geology and related pages (now rectified). I apologize. But is this an excuse for him to violate a clearly described ban?[140] No. Please note that my ban notice contains the sentence "Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is". WP:TBAN is a brief, pedagogical explanation of what a topic ban is, which makes it perfectly clear that the ban applies to the article's talk page (if "Flood geology and related pages" didn't do it). Ignoring my information and then claiming that "It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page" is a poor show. The ban applies to discussion of flood geology on all pages on Wikipedia, including talkpages, including Sotuman's own talkpage. Sotuman, go read WP:TBAN now, please. I for my part will excuse any topic violations so far, with only a warning; I usually do, since experience shows that many or even most users start off by violating them. Any further violations will be met with escalating blocks. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, please respond to this comment relocated from your talk page:

Recently you placed a notice of a topic ban on Sotuman's talk page, and directed Sotuman (this writer) to the log. However, upon searching, nothing was found about a ban applying to Sotuman there. Even so, Sotuman was careful to not speak on the topic, not only on the article itself, but also on the article talk page, even though the discussion was not entirely concluded. Sotuman did respond to some user input on his user talk page that had accumulated while he was away, including to your notice. In the response to you, Sotuman explained why it seemed to him that there was concensus for the type of improvement he had wanted to make to the article: adding an about template at the top so that people confused by similar terms would be able to quickly and easily go to those pages. But it seems that someone had blanked part of his talk page before he had finished making his responses, and when he finished the edit, the previously written content on the topic was restored from being blanked. This incidental restoration, which was part of a the larger edit, is now being used as grounds for accusing Sotuman of violating the apparently undocumented topic ban. Could you please answer and explain what is going on? Thanks so much. Sotuman (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In brief, no, I can't. I just wrote up a full reply to the above, explaining what was going on, only to be met by an edit conflict when I went to post, because by then you had moved it to ANI. Please stop yanking people around. I'm not inclined to recreate my longish reply, since I have already answered above, but I will say this: don't you think it's a little inconsiderate to expect me to dig out your edits from the history of your talkpage, which you have now archived, in order to deal with them in detail? It's the middle of the night here (I'm not saying that's your fault). Maybe I'll have the time and energy to deal with the finer points buried in your page history tomorrow. BTW, do you realise just how irritating that referring to yourself in the third person is? There's nothing "professional and objective" about the impression it makes. Your way of writing may help you, even if I don't understand how, but it does a disservice to your reader. Please remember the aim of writing is communication. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

It's okay, take your time, no worries. Sorry I don't have a lawyer, so I have to represent myself. Sorry for relocating the comment here. Maybe it was a mistake for me to put it on your talk page in the first place. I just want everything to be ordered and in the same place before the proceedings begin. Thanks so much for your patience, and I hope you have a good night. Sotuman (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking these are proceedings, or that a lawyer would be of use. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (another link in my ban notice which you may or may not have consulted). Sanctions such as these are called discretionary because they are placed at an administrator's discretion. The idea of that is to avoid the full pomp of arbitration cases and/or ANI discussions every time an editor disrupts "our most contentious and strife-torn articles". For the basics, it's really enough to read the "nutshell" at the DS page. I acted within my discretion when placing the topic ban; you, in turn, have the right of appeal. Is that what you're doing now, here — appealing? I don't know if you read the last sentence in my ban notice, or read it with any interest); it says "If you wish to appeal against the ban, please check out the process described here, or ask on my talk page and I will explain how to do it." You didn't ask on my page, and you haven't used any of the recommended venues, which are WP:ARCA, WP:AE, and WP:AN. But you have written a good deal here, on ANI, in a thread started by someone else. If you'd like to consider this thread your appeal, that's fine, we needn't be bureaucratic about it. Or would you rather start over with one of the recommended boards, so that you can shape your appeal from the beginning? I'll leave that to you. Here at ANI, as at WP:AN, the community will review your appeal; at WP:AE, uninvolved admins will; and at WP:ARCA, the arbitrators will. (I don't recommend you start at ARCA; the arbs are glacially slow, for one thing.) Whichever one you choose, you have already made it pretty inconvenient for people to review, since you have removed everything you want to refer to from your page. I'd advise you to put it back, if you expect people to take the time for a review of your appeal. Remember everybody's a volunteer here. Please let me know if this thread or something else is your appeal, and whether or not you intend to take my advice about putting back the relevant stuff on your page, such as my ban notice and whatever else people will need to consult. (Only the relevant stuff, please, as that would be in everybody's best interest.) Then I'll reply to your questions. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Sotuman: Please refer to yourself as "I". The third person stuff makes it too hard to follow a conversation. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17

Over on 2019 Formula One World Championship we are in the midst of a...extremely lengthy and surprisingly heated debate regarding the proper way to sort our tables, in which Mclarenfan17's attitude is becoming extremely disruptive. He can't really seem to discuss anything without lying about what others are saying, especially me, which normally I don't think would merit this post, but when I've made note of this behavior his response has been to:

• accuse me of "lashing out"
• accuse me of being uncivil
• decide by himself that "the rest of us will ignore you"
• gaslight me about his actions and attemptto pin the blame solely on me for getting "worked up"

Now this is obviously a small thing that we've all gotten a little too heated about, but I think his actions clearly cross the line. I can recognize an obvious troll when I see one. Statements like this:

"You need to stop taking things so personally. You should also read WP:AGF. And until such time as you can behave in a civil manner, you should probably stay out of discussions. Lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you because they disagree with you won't achieve anything except a headache. The rest of us will ignore you and get on with the job of improving the article."

And this:

"If you choose to interpret my comments as a personal attack, that's your prerogative. It's also your mistake. So I suggest that you take a minute, stop working yourself up and think about how your attitude might make others feel about working with you. If you value contributing to Wikipedia and if you want your contributions to be valued, you might reconsider how you interact with others. Shouting at people isn't going to make them listen to you."

Are pretty blatant concern trolling. I don't believe we need administrator intervention in the debate itself - it's a silly topic to begin with, and somehow we actually seem to have a compromise on the table - but this user's actions are completely unacceptable, and not the way discourse is supposed to work on Wikipedia. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be most helpful if you supplied the dif's for those edits. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

First edit and Second edit Wicka wicka (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

[141] and [142] as diffs, so people don't need to dig through the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• So just to be clear, Mclarenfan17 went ahead and made an edit without consensus, Wicka wicka reverted it, and a mutual ballyhoo started? Am I missing something? Because all I see is a disagreement. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — quite. I felt that the edits were justified at the time, but admit that I made an error in judgement. I did, however, point out that Wicka wicka had been wrong to revert them without checking what he was reverting as I had also fixed some errors in the markup. He refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and ever since then, I have felt that his behaviour has been uncivilised, particularly given that he advised me to "forget my password" or the way he referred to my post as "shocking, shameful behaviour" when I first pointed out that he was being uncivil. Or when he then declared that he did not want to address me any further. I feel that I have tried to handle the situation appropriately, and have repeatedly advised him that his behaviour is unacceptable. He has chosen to interpret these as personal attacks. If I think his behaviour is uncivil, does it beggar belief that others may, too? How does he expect others to respect him when he refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing and thinks "forget your password" is an appropriate response to a disagreement? Can you really blame other editors if they see his behaviour and decide against working with him?

Truth be told, I do not even know what he wants anymore. This little flare-up seems to have been triggered by Wicka wicka's suggestion that the discussion should be closed and my response that I felt he had not made his case. I think Wicka wicka just wants me to give up and let him have his way in the discussion, which is not how consensus works—and if you ask my opinion I think he is trying to use ANI to get an admin to punish me. He has clearly tried to portray me as a bully, but as I have demonstrated with diffs, he is hardly an innocent victim, if he is indeed a victim. Perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG or a WP:TROUT is in order. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Neither of you come off looking particularly good in this. In my mind, Wicka wicka was justified to revert the entire revision without fixing the markup since no consensus existed for the edit itself, but also displayed more of the "uncivil" behaviour on the whole. That said it doesn't seem to me at least like there's much if anything actionable here. This seems to be a disagreement over content that got a bit out of hand. Since the topic has turned contentious, I would perhaps recommend either starting a formal RfC process over the tables due to the horrible organisation of that entire conversation, or just forgetting the whole thing for now. If an RfC DOES get started, I don't want either of you responding with each other. Just post your !vote and leave it alone. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I give you my word that if you see an ANI involving myself and Wicka wicka in future, it won't be because of anything that I have done wrong. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer Do you see this last comment? Do you not see what he's doing here? This blantant, obvious trolling. I would strongly ask that an administrator look into this. This is not acceptable. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to chip in here because unfortunately I have detected a wider pattern of poor behavior against other users by the reporter editors. They have the unfortunate habit of resorting to rather aggressive personal attacks whenever they feel things are not going their way in a discussion. Their most common tactics then are to either question the contributors competence/intelligence or simply trying to devaluate the other party's comments by claiming they haven't made enough contributions to the subject. Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users: Klõpps [143], [144]; Me [145], [146]; Fecotank [147], [148]; Pelmeen10 [149]; Unnamelessness [150], [151]; Sabbatino [152]; Pyrope [153], 12; Speedy Question Mark [154], [155]. Note that these diffs strem for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.Tvx1 17:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: this is helpful for general context - I didn't look too hard for this once I figured out Mclarenfan17 had posted under two different accounts plus IP address(es). In terms of the context of this case, and others may disagree, but I don't think that context all that helpful. It seems the primary conflict here has to do with Mclarenfan17 not accepting the reversion of their edit, and then the secondary edit came after Wicka wicka proposed to "close the discussion and maintain the table in its current format" in response to another user called them out on being "defensive" and "quite rude" (which had nothing to do with Mclarenfan17) and Mclarenfan17 called Wicka wicka out on that. I'm slightly concerned with Mclarenfan17's "give you my word" statement above because the user implies they have the upper hand in this conflict when their error led to the initial kerfluffle, but I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again and Mclarenfan17 is found out to be wrong. But I maintain neither party comes off well. Still not sure there's anything to recommend here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: — what I meant is that I can't promise that I won't be at ANI again, either as the complainant or as the subject. After all, we all make errors in judgement. But I can try to avoid being the subject of an ANI post by exercising my judgement properly. I cannot speak for Wicka wicka, though. I am sure he will end up here again at some point, not because I think little of him, but because he, too can make errors in judgement. So when I say "if you see an ANI involving myself and Wicka wicka in future, it won't be because of anything that I have done wrong", I am not implying that I have the upper hand. I am simply saying that I can only exercise my own judgement. If Wicka wicka says or does something that sees him before ANI, I won't be responsible for it because of the way I try to exercise my judgement in the situation. I think he takes everything personally, even when I tried to reason with him. My intention was to remind him that aggressive and uncivil behaviour is unlikely to get results in discussion, though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more. The solution is simple: don't engage with him. It's not worth the effort. So if you do see him at ANI again, my name won't come up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mclarenfan17: I appreciate the clarification. I take your statement as stating you will voluntarily not interact with Wicka wicka. I also hope you note the diffs above generally to help guide what not to do in your future interactions. I'd say this doesn't mean you can't comment in the same topic for consensus reasons, since you're clearly both interested in editing in the same space, but I would take any evidence of conflict between the two of you as blockable behaviour going forward. Wondering if anyone else not involved to this point would agree? SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: The reason he is so quick to volunteer to "not engage" with me is because his entire MO is based around subtly instigating conflict with other users. He doesn't even have to directly address them to achieve this goal. This is day one trolling, and he's been doing it for a very long time, as evidenced by the examples provided by Tvx1. I can't even comprehend how you can approach his statements in good faith when he says things like, "though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more." This is explicitly intended to get under my skin, to make himself look better than me, to set the tone that I am angry but he is not. Again - day one stuff. Really, really, ridiculously obvious. It's the internet equivalent of your younger brother who breaks the TV and convinces your parents you did it. Unfortunately this is not uncommon on Wikipedia.

You say above, "I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again." It has happened again. This is not the first time. Far from it. If sanctions aren't applied now, we're just gonna be back here in the future. This is not an issue between myself and Mclarenfan17, and it does not get solved simply by the two of us somehow not engaging with each other. There is a clear pattern of misbehavior and he is the person involved in every example. I would strongly request input from an administrator because I cannot imagine this is behavior they want to tacitly encourage. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I'm quite happy to accept those terms. I would, however, like to see Wicka wicka accept the same or similar terms as a sign of good faith. After all, he has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits. As you said, "I maintain neither party comes off well". If we are equally responsible for the devolving situation, then it stands to reason that we should be held accountable under the same terms. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Wicka wicka: (edit conflict) What exactly are you asking for? Mclarenfan17 agreed not to engage with you above. Their alter ego, Prisonermonkeys, has been blocked several times in the past for several different reasons for up to three months. (I note that Tvx1, the other participant in this discussion, appears to have been involved in some of those.) If they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread (though as a note I expect you could be blocked as well if you've baited them into it.) Which for you is a pretty good outcome considering this seems nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SporringFlyer: — I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to this resolution unless Wicka wicka and I are subject to equal terms. As you yourself said, "[Wicka wicka] also displayed more of the 'uncivil' behaviour on the whole". It is, as you pointed out, "nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript". I think Wicka wicka came here anticipating—and maybe even expecting—that I would be on the receiving end of some kind of punishment. When he did not get it, he immediately started lobbying you to reverse your decision. I believe that he would treat any kind of sanctions against me as a personal victory in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As I pointed out, has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits and so I simply do not with him the power to refer back to this discussion thread for sanctions in future. Now, I am willing to enter into some kind of agreement here, but it must be a two-way street. This dispute might be between myself and Wicka wicka, but his attitude towards others in the past has been poor as well:

"You have to be completely and totally clueless to not realize the inherent advantages of a table over prose ... Stop blindly quoting wiki policy and use your brains"

"Don't just rush in and revert stuff and spam me with meaningless guidelines"

"Your edits look like garbage"

"Is there seriously nothing we can do to fix this stupid split? This is yet another great example of poorly thought out, idiotic Wikipedia bureacracy"

"There used to be so many more people around, and they all left, because you can't do anything unless Tvx1 approves it"

You will note that I was not involved in any of these discussions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• What makes you think there's a resolution here for you both to agree on? You clearly stated above the "solution is simple: don't engage with him." Whatever they do or do not do shouldn't impact what you've clearly identified as a solution: for you not to interact with them. Considering this conflict started because of your refusal to accept they had the right to revert your edit because no consensus for it existed, considering you've already identified your own best solution, and considering your own block history, you're hardly in a position here to dictate terms. So which is it? Do you want to turn this ANI thread into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or do you want to solve this conflict and move on with the solution you've identified? SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer — I'm not trying to dictate terms, just find a mutually-agreeable solution. Yes, not engaging with Wicka wicka is the obvious solution, but I think the most effective solution is if he agrees not to engage with me. That way, neither of us runs the risk of accidentally setting things off again. I also think my concern about his openly declaring that he won't assume good faith should be addressed—what's to stop him from opening another ANI a week from now over some perceived slight? Wicka wicka's above post makes it clear that he does not think my agreement will have any effect, so how can I have any confidence that he won't try something? As you said, "if they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread". How on earth does it benefit anyone if I'm held accountable to him when he has made it pretty clear he wants me to face a block? Some of his comments suggest he wants a permanent block and I have have every reason to believe that he will try to get me blocked at every opportunity. I'm not looking to turn this into a battleground. I'm looking for a solution where both of us are held equally accountable. If I am to face a block for engaging in conflict with him, then Wicka wicka should face a block for engaging in conflict with me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• From my point of view, if this conflict were limited to the discussion at hand, abiding by your statement would have the impact you need. You're both here to build an encyclopedia, and you both need to assume good faith even though that's gone out the window for the time being. If you don't engage with Wicka wicka, and I clearly mean don't engage to mean anything which could even be considered as perceived engagement, and they drag you back to ANI, what do you have to worry about? That would take a dedicated and continuing lack of good faith. That being said, Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) has said this issue a larger one and has asked for an administrative review of conduct, but has only provided diffs for this current issue, which has in my opinion confused things. A read of Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship and Talk:2018_World_Rally_Championship mentioned by Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are some of the more contentious talk pages I've had the pleasure of reviewing. (The other diffs mentioned were older.) There's also a contentious talk page here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally which ended up in despute resolution. There's definitely an editing problem here beyond the diffs that were reported showing a pattern around edit wars and not accepting consensus, and the initial revert issue fits into that larger pattern. However, Wicka wicka wasn't directly involved in any of those disputes and hasn't had much interaction with either Prisonermonkeys or Mclarenfan17 if the analyser is to be believed (though the dynamic IP used to edit for a bit does leave a gap.) I think a voluntary interaction ban would solve the particular problem Wicka wicka brought to ANI, but I'm not sure it would solve the larger issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer I don't know why you are so insistent upon narrowing your scope to this one incident. As Tvx1 (talk · contribs) has shown, this is only the latest in a series of incidents with this user, and no action that's been taken to date has had any long-term effect on his behavior. I can restate my original report and include Tvx1's diffs, if that helps? Again, you keep saying "come back if he does it again," but that's what we're doing right now. This is us coming back for the nth time. And please don't pretend that the two of us ignoring each other somehow solves anything. It doesn't. He's had conflicts with several other users. This is not about me. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Wicka wicka: Because I'm trying to figure out the problem you want solved. Prisonermonkey/dynamic IP/Mclarenfan17's actions on those talk pages above greatly concern me, mostly as a result of being quick to edit war instead of trying to build consensus around changes to pictures/tables on these pages. I didn't see anyone report it to ANI, though it did go to dispute resolution at one point. But in terms of trying to solve this conflict, Mclarenfan17 wasn't the only user you got into a heated content dispute with on that page, nor do I see anything particularly egregious, apart from the conflict regarding the initial revert continuing a pattern of behaviour. I've searched the ANI records and there have been a few blocks for edit warring and a few odd ANI conversations over the past few years, but I don't see anything which supports "coming back for the nth time" as if this little dispute is somehow the last straw you seem to be making it out to be. If I'm wrong on that, please provide better diffs. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: I'm not going to give you more diffs when 1. we've provided a wealth of evidence as it is, and 2. he's trolling in this very discussion and you're completely oblivious to it. This is precisely why an admin needs to be involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I will not stand for these constant accusations of trolling. Everything that I have said and done in this discussion has been said and done in good faith. I value what Wikipedia represents and have made tens of thousands of positive contributions to it. I occasionally have an error in judgement, but we all do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mclarenfan17: The problem from my end is that the contentious editing practices shown on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship, Talk:2019 World Rally Championship, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally, and the page you've been reported for are more than just an "occasional error in judgment" but rather a "continual error in judgment" that started this conflict in the first place. Your argument with Klõps on the World Rally page concerns me the most, because even if this were resolved in a mutual voluntary interaction ban with Wicka wicka as discussed above and you both respected it, some other user would probably drag you back to ANI because of this. I would support some sort of sanction, perhaps a 1RR sanction on motorsport pages and a general behavioural warning to stop making edits without consensus when a discussion continues on the talk page and no consensus has been reached. I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages. I don't think that will be a problem, though - I'm just noting it because it did make sorting through these things confusing. Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) I've assumed good faith at every point in this discussion and as such don't see the "obvious trolling." I don't know why I'm the only one moderating this discussion, or why no admins have posted in this thread since the outset, but I still don't know exactly what outcome you're asking for here, which makes it very difficult to advocate for a particular solution. Whatever happens, though, you should both strive to stay away from each other. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer — I know that you have assumed good faith throughout this discussion. If I may speak freely, I feel that most of Wicka wicka's comments here have been lobbying for administrator intervention as a form of payback for disagreeing with him. I have not seen him say anything in his comments about me that could not apply equally to him; as you opined, he displayed more of the uncivilised behaviour, and I have demonstrated with some diffs, his attitude towards other editors is questionable. Telling another editor "your edits look like garbage" is completely unacceptable. If I am to be the subject of administrator sanctions, then I feel that they should apply equally to Wicka wicka.

"I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages."

I have no intention of doing that again. It was mostly because I had forgotten my password and was having problems with abuse and harrassment from another editor, GeoJoe1000. Joe went on an extended abusive rampage after I reported him to the admins. After that, he created a series of sockpuppet accounts that were intended solely for the purpose of harrassment on my talk page. When I forgot my password, I didn't create a new account straight away because I would need to declare that I was using a new account and that would just invite another abusive tirade that would spill over into articles. Joe seems to have given up—we've seen neither hide nor hair of him in six months—so I created a new account. I know that sounds like another editor I was in conflict with, but this is the sort of thing Joe was posting. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek casting aspersions

I know coming to AN/I usually ends up being a negative incident, so I am going to be as concise as possible. I am going to highlight the comment and diff and request a one way IBAN. I was brought to WP:AE ,and Volunteer Marek in his statement (after going through my talk page archives) (as uninvolved editor, not the one bringing the action) said that " Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself" He then lists 4 diffs:

[156] [157] [158] [159].

Now, even if I were guilty, the latest of those diffs are from 2016 and one is from 2014.

However, only one of those diffs actually show a real 1RR violation and I was blocked for it. The other diffs show discussions. In one case, someone said I violated 1RR and I said the article in question is not a 1RR article, and he's "oh, yeah, you're right." In another diff, the person thought that multiple edits were a violation of 1RR, when we all know that is not the case, we can make multiple edits to an article, as indeed, admin @Bishonen: pointed out to the editor. So VM stated I "routinely" violate 1RR and that I game the system, which is casting aspersion. He provides 4 diffs which don't show that. My only interactions with him have been negative. I hereby request that those comments be stricken and a one-way IBAN be implemented. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure why one issue should lead to a one-way interaction ban. Interaction bans are for long-term chronic behavioural issues where two (ostensibly) useful contributors are unable to work together due to (usually petty) personal differences. You not being happy about one issue is not going to lead to an IBAN. While I agree that two of the diffs VM provided aren't good examples (the other two are), it is not unreasonable for VM to suggest you have breached 1RR restrictions, here's other examples he could have used - [160],[161],[162]. We are not going to interaction ban people who comment on arbitration enforcement discussions just because you don't like what they are saying. Fish+Karate 09:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with F+K here. I don't see a IBAN happening and suggest Sir Joseph taking a step back from the whole mess because I am pretty sure a WP:BOOMERANG request is next. Regards SoWhy 11:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Sigh) "negative incident" usually means one failed to realize one was wrong to begin with in one's interpretation of events. Thanks, y'all. I sent 'em here from my talk 'cause I figured as much and I don't have the endurance for this much digging. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see dif's from 2016 as overly germane to a current situation. I also didn't/don't see an IBAN. WM can be quite outspoken, so you might want to question his neutrality at AE if you've had prior history. Don't know how that works, though. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

it's not just this one incident, and thanks for showing why this place is negative. Vm stated I routinely violate 1rr AND that I try to GAME the system, and I don't. That's casting aspersions. Why do I need to be worried about boomerang? Ani is where I'm told we are supposed to get report uncivil comments. So I did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I provided the diffs. Folks can check your talk page. It's not "aspersions". It's at WP:AE so I'm sure the admins there can evaluate my claims. Now, the fact that this post of yours is obvious payback for the fact that I had the audacity to point out something obvious at WP:AE (i.e. that you pretty much admit yourself you made a revert, but then try to deny it once brought to admin board) and the fact that you're trying to make an ANI issue out of this (oh no! Someone criticized me!!! How dare they! Ban them!!!) does indeed show you have a habit of trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, this place is not necessarily negative, but you do need to provide a full explanation of the issue(s) if you expect an informed response. If it's "not just this one incident", then please provide link(s) to the other incident(s); how are we to know what these are otherwise? Based on what you have provided thus far, this complaint is reasonable in that 2 of the 4 pieces of evidence provided by VM appear to be specious, but this does not make it an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I do believe Volunteer Marek could have worded his submission to AE more thoughtfully - for example, I would not have used the word "routinely", been more selective with the 1RR-related diffs (noting I managed to find 3 more which were valid, in about 2 minutes of looking), and just stuck to the facts - but that's not anywhere near enough to warrant an interaction ban. Fish+Karate 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

he did not just say that I do 1rr, he said that I also try to GAME the system. Your diffs that you found didn't show that. He also opened an AE against me that was mostly unanimously shut down by editors and admins alike. As for venue, where else am I to go other than ani? Again, he said I routinely violate 1rr AND GAME the system. Your diffs shows that I reverted when asked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Places you could have tried before ANI if you have a concern with evidence provided at AE:

1. The Arbitration Enforcement page itself (you did this and gave VM exactly 57 minutes to respond before posting here).
2. The other user's talk page (you did not do this)

I see you dislike the "gaming" comment VM made. All you need to say is, within your AE section, "I object to the representation of my edits as "gaming 1RR" by Volunteer Marek and note that no evidence provided supports this". That's it. It will be read. You don't need to coming bounding along to other venues - Dlohcierekim's talk page, here, wherever - asking for further action. Of any kind. It fragments the issue. Also, you haven't provided a single diff to support your (ahem) aspersion that it's "not just this one incident" (or why not one to support the claim you made on User_talk:Dlohcierekim that Volunteer Marek "has been gunning for me for a while"). If you expect a certain level of conduct from others, you need to be at least at that level of conduct yourself. Fish+Karate 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is just an impression, but coming to my talk as you did could lead one to feel you might be attempting to game the system by coming to a little-watched user talk page ex parte and requesting sanctions. And it is not at all confidence inspiring to see you requesting an IBAN because you did not like a user's comments at an AE. It would have been far better to simply rebut VM at AE instead of creating all this drama. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dessert anyone? Dlohcierekim (talk)

I came to your talkpage because I noticed you were online, and I wanted someone to address the comments because as you can see from the AE, people just look at someone posting comments and diffs and then go from there. And VM brought me to AE before and has a history with me. Again, I have no interest in prolonging this but if ANI is not the place, and asking an admin is not the place, and AE is not the place because you need an AE sanction to remedy for, then what is to be done? Just close this and be done with this. I've had enough. No wonder WMF comes out with surveys asking how they can improve the ANI process. For the record, here is the AE request he opened against me, [163] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You need to (re}read F+K's post above. AE was the place. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: 57 minutes, eh? And still had time to stop by at my place for lunch. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To his credit, I expected more words from VM. perhaps I misjudged him. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't do AE. Blood pressure, you know. As this is all discussable at AE, that's the place to discuss it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How is AE the place? Under what sanction? It wasn't under an article, so ARBPIA or US Politics wouldn't apply, discretionary sanctions only applies to articles to my recollection. That's why I asked you. In any event, apparently discussing this is considered lawyering, which apparently is the worst crime in Wikipedia. And since VM loves looking up archives, why not look up VM in the AE archives? You'll see how many times he's there. I truly have no idea why he is negative towards me and that is why I asked for the iban, I know it's a long shot but I have no interest in having negativity around me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of a discretionary sanction depends on the specific sanction. See WP:DSTOPICS, where many (the majority?) of the DS topic areas are defined as "pages" and not "articles". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of discretionary sanctions are generally understood to include AE complaints brought under those sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell not one of your diffs includes a posts by VM.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE-- Sir Joseph has been blocked regarding a matter at AE.' Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Would anyone care to close this as being without merit. VM has done nothing actionable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Phadendra

• Phadendra (talk · contribs)

This editor came to my attention on February 20 after creating Template:Address and Rosmi Ghimire, which were CSD'd under A7 and A1. I sent them a personal message [164] telling them to slow down. They failed to heed my advice and have now created more than 6 pages all of which are being Speedied. I am coming here since despite my persistent requests for communication they just created 2 new pages right as I am typing ([165], [166]) which are not ready for main space yet and has still yet to respond to any of my messages. I think they are trying to fill in all the redlinks on their userpage but this is not the way to go. This is becoming very disruptive and has taken the valuable time of 7 editors to combat this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 I can't figure out why, but this pattern seems so familiar... If I think about the SPI case name I will post it to your talk page later. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Deleted the deletable, tagged pages. Left my standard deletion notices and a couple of warnings. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work/response. Hopefully it doesn't start up again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

According to their user page, they are 19 years old with less than 100 edits. Can we treat as the new editor that they are? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz Yes, I saw that they said they were 19 (somehow they were born in 2057 though) which is why I sent them personal messages instead of always templating them. That being said, their edits are still disruptive and they are still creating a lot of work to clean up. If they want to edit on English Wikipedia they need to communicate. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer, I’ve taken suspicion on their recreation of Samata Shiksha Niketan only minutes after the unsourced draft was declined. And yet they continue to create such unsourced Nepal school pages? At this point, WP:COMMUNICATION applies. Unsure about WP:CIR though. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

New editors are not exempt from policies and we had a 'crat who was 15 at the time. I educated them as best I could-- which is what we must do for new editors who are moving too fast. That they did not hear with the non template approach required a stiffer message. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The DOB is comforting as it means man is still alive and woman can survive. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz, wait... is that young? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Too young? That depends. "For a mountain (it is) not even begun in years. For an apricot, (quite old). For a head of lettuce, even more so. However, for a man (it is) just right. "Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:BF93

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

---

• BF93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Signature Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BK10021

Despite multiple attempts to engage in conversation with User: BF93 on their talk page and the Signature Bank article talk page, they keep reverting updates made without explanation. They've indicated, in the comments tied to their edit history, that they feel the bank is "removing negative facts/truths" from the article, but this is untrue. The edits in question are not being made by the bank and I'm not removing any negative information - simply removing redundant information and trying to better organize the existing information. You can see a list of the most recent proposed edits on the article's talk page. I've attempted a WP:30 filing, but that was declined due to the fact the user will not engage in conversation with myself or other moderators. What're our next steps? Welltraveled (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

They’ve not edited since the 20th of Feb and edit infrequently. Blocked twice for edit warring by EdJohnston. I warned them that they must respond to the ANI thread before editing further. Both BF93 and Welltraveled have been slow motion edit warring. BF93 has spurned requests to discuss. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User: BF93 sock blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Large rangeblock needed for Guatemala vandal

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

---

There's a persistent date-changing vandal from Guatemala described at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/190.104.120.240 who has been active since November 2017 in the range Special:Contributions/2803:7000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32

Since this vandal is the only one using the /32 range for the last 15 months I would like the whole /32 blocked for a long time. Can that happen? HJ Mitchell blocked the /32 for two weeks but that was two weeks ago, and disruption has resumed. Previous rangeblocks listed below. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dl’oh-nuts! Dlohcierekim (talk)

• 2013 – 190.111.10.32/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2013–2015 – 190.106.222.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:1661:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:379:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2018 – 2803:7000:4800:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019 – 2803:7000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• SOft blocked the /32 for one week. Someone more experienced w/ rangeblcoks should check my work. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  The CIDR is /32, so it looks like I blocked the entire country of Guatemala. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

D'loh! Jip Orlando (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: - that's almost Stocks worthy! Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I grabbed the list of contribs for 2803:7000/32 and played with it a bit. Of 2336 contribs dating back to 2016-11-24, all but 146 are in the 2803:7000:4800/48. Most of those outside that range are old. The ones that are within the last few months don't really fit the pattern, though some are undesirable as well. I suggest tightening the range to the /48. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsure if there are actually any good edits from the /32 since 1 January. But whatever rangeblock is chosen might have to be in place for more than a week. Scanning all the edits from the /32 since 1 January I only found this edit which is not an edit of a song article. But this one is vandalism as well. My guess is that *all* the edits of song articles are by the same guy and are worthy of blocking. Suggest that the one week block might need to be extended up to a month. The same guy has been active since 2013 according to the LTA case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y’all, soft block /32 1 month. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the /48 for 6 months - as far as I can see every single contribution on that range is them, and they've been at that for more than 2 years - Dlohcierekim I've modified the /32 to display {{rangeblock}}; I have to agree with AlanM1 that I don't think the /32 rangeblock is necessary - every edit that is in the /48 appears to be the LTA and every edit outside doesn't, so a /48 range block accomplishes the same without blocking other users (although 495 of the last 500 edits from the /32 range are from the /48). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis needing a block

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

---

David Curits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock per redoing edits by recently blocked CU-confirmed socks of Evlekis, reverting recently made edits by me (which is typical for Evlekis), and this edit summary, with a "handcrafted" link to nonexisting User:Epsom Nutcracker, a clear reference to blocked Evlekis-socks User:EPSOMNUTCRACKER and User:Epsom's Nutcracker. 89.240.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems to be connected to this. Pinging Bbb23 for a CU-check since Evlekis usually operates multiple accounts simultaneously... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• And here's number two for today: One 2 three 4 5 six 7 8 nine ten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Capman Crunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Misuse of Rollback right

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

---

I made this edit on 64th National Film Awards. Vivvt rollbacked my edit two times without explanation. The first time itself I had reminded him his obligation to provide an explanation. But the user rollbacked again, which I undid asking why he is not providing an explanation. Per WP:ROLLBACK: editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.

Vivvt started a discussion only AFTER the second rollback. I was not informed and found it by chance while looking for any previous discussions (as if it was the reason for his rollback) and reversed myself until a consensus is reached. The ideal thing was to begin a discussion first and revert my edit with an edit summary pointing towards the discussion. Rollback is for undoing "obvious vandalism", but Vivvt has misused it. Admin who granted him the right is now indeffed with a global ban, so couldn't inform him.--Let There Be Sunshine 16:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Vivvt: WP:ROLLBACK is for obvious vandalism only. In all other cases you are expected to provide an edit summary. Please keep in mind for future use. I don't think admin intervention is necessary at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I also note this invalid rollback. ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd give that one a pass: it's not an ideal rollback, but it's a sourced figure and number-change vandalism is rampant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, okay, the figure seems to be open to interpretation: the source given beside "ninth" is an Indian government source but not an ordinal list, while our List of Prime Ministers of India lists him sixth seemly due to counting Indira Gandhi's two separate ministries as one, and discounting both of Gulzarilal Nanda's ministries as "acting" PM. It's hard to say that was an inappropriate use of rollback, but there probably should have been some discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector that action isn't necessary at this time. Mistakes happen, and nobody is perfect; I'm not at the stage of being alarmed or overly concerned yet. However, if Vivvt continues to misuse rollback and to revert good faith edits without an appropriate edit summary, the user right will be revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

SWAGnificient

SWAGnificient (talk · contribs)

So I was/am involved in a small content dispute with this user at the Nigel Hasselbaink‎ article. I've reached out to them numerous times on their talk page (ignored) and have also raised the issue at a relevant WikiProject. They continue to edit war and breach MOS.

Upon digging further, I've found a serious history of edit warring on various articles; other users have warned them about this in September 2018, September 2018 (again), September 2018 (a third time), November 2018 and December 2018. Other users have also warned them about unsourced content and original research; their talk page is littered with warnings (and pretty much nothing else), and nothing has changed.

I am concerned that this user lacks competence to edit as part of a community. I welcome other user's review and comments. GiantSnowman 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

lol. as if you don't make any mistakes. besides, the source for the fact that he's also surinamer is in the page itself on the international section. dual nationalities exist. SWAGnificient (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the source says he played in an unofficial game for Suriname. I could play in an unofficial game for Suriname (if it wasn't for my dodgy knee) - doesn't make me a Surinamer. As I told you on your talk page, all other sources refer to him as Dutch.

My concern here is that you have a long history of edit warring. GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Borderline. They've never been blocked for edit-warring, so I have to assume they're heeding the warnings when they're given. In this case you're both discussing through reverts with edit summaries, and it's not one particular edit but a series of different content that you seem unable to agree on, so I don't know if I'd call this an edit war per se. But I agree that discussing on a talk page would be better, and so I've protected the page for a couple days, and I'll take a quick look through for BLP issues but otherwise I expect you're on your way to the talk page. If you've agreed on something on the talk page feel free to edit through, or ping me and I'll review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above prior to edit-conflicting with SWAGnificent's comment, which I find unimpressive. Anyway, to the talk page with you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I posted multiple times on the user's talk page (no response). GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, but I get the impression they were trying to communicate through their edit summaries, which isn't ideal, but let's say I'm assuming good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And SWAGnificent: please don't do that. When someone approaches you with a concern about content you're trying to add or change, you're expected to reply to their message, not just continue editing. That makes it look like you're ignoring them. Please see Wikipedia:Communication is required. If you keep not communicating you will find yourself blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the weekend now - but I've already made my point here and on the users and the article talk pages, so let's see what others have to say... GiantSnowman 16:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looking over Swag's talk page, I can see GS isn't the only editor to have their politely-raised concerns brushed off. The response to the report here could also be better. Leviv ich 03:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod and The Rambling Man

I recently tried to sort out a report at WP:AN3 from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) against Johnbod (talk · contribs) on Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene and various other articles; essentially TRM likes web citations to use the full {{cite web}} template, while Johnbod prefers bare URLs manually formatted citations. I agree with TRM's point of view on this issue; however it's not an admin's job to take sides in a debate, so I had to close the report as "stale"; although Johnbod did violate 3RR, the last reported edit in the sequence was about 18 hours ago. Not to mention I need very solid policy-backed reasons to block a prolific mainspace contributor out of the blue.

As you might imagine, TRM is upset by my decision to mark the AN3 thread as stale, and both him and Johnbod have been trading mild insults towards each other on the talk page. So, could I request the wider community to have a look at the issue and see if there is a systemic problem with reverting well-formatted citations to bare URLs, whether this is a sanctionable issue (I know parts of the MOS are under discretionary sanctions but I'm too terrified to look at the specifics), and what action, if any, we should take. Thanks.

I really don't want to cause anguish and drama. I've met Johnbod at several London meetups and have had fruitful discussions with him, while TRM has been very helpful in conducting GA reviews when nobody else has stepped up to the plate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any DS or other sanctionable action applies; TRM has a civility-driven editing restriction on them but I don't see this crossing that line. I agree with the close, that as long as a talk page discussion is going and Johnbod is not engaging in 3RR over the same issue elsewhere, its not really actionable, but it should be clear to Johnbod that this idea of revert full-formatting changes to citations is not really acceptable and that if they are continuing to do that repeated after this incident, that could be actionable. --Masem (t) 17:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The incivility was entirely from that user towards me. And please note the matter was closed without anyone even notifying that user that they had, indeed, contravened editing policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That why (to be clear) I don't believe yours (TRM's) editing restriction even comes into play, only noting it is one of those areas of concern raised by Ritchie to just make sure what DSes and other restrictions are identified and if they applied. --Masem (t) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about civility restrictions at all; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation is what I had in mind, though I don't think it's relevant in this case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(watching, and ec:) Johnbod doesn't prefer bare urls, but untemplated citations which is a big difference. - On the other hand, if someone improves my references (which happens often) I click "thank you", and don't use rollback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Put quite simply, my aim was to improve the look and utility of any article going onto the main page. This was just one. Yet I was confronted with revert after revert, including abuse of rollback, along with accusations of being a vandal and a troll, and plenty of other commentary on my editing preferences. This particular user had come grave-dancing to my talk page last June, so it's clear that there's more to this than simply just reverting and violation of 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking generally, this was a misuse of rollback; this edit-summary was needlessly patronising as well as containing a veiled hint at meat puppetry; and calling someone an idiot is generally unnecessary. FYI'all. ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And Johnbod's reward for the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks and the brightline 3RR violation? His personally preferred version remains in place, and he continues such behaviour on at least one other article. Excellent result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the closure of the AN3 report. If the edit warring seems to have stopped and the reported user is responding and participating in a relevant talk page discussion, blocking the user for edit warring wouldn't be the right action to take at this time. This of course would change once any edit warring continues - but as it stands, it would no longer prevent additional disruption to the project, but would instead prevent Johnbod from continuing to do the correct thing - which is to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, and come to a consensus. While I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth bickering between the two on the article's talk page, that's a different issue typically not handled at AN3. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocking at ANEW is a popularity contest. Some will be blocked for 2RR, some escape blocking for 4RR. We should be consistent on this. No-one is forced to 4RR edit-war, not even established editors with friendly admins. So if they choose to do so, then they should not be surprised (and have no excuse if they are then silenced in any talk: threads) as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, which is why I chose to block neither editor. The only other fair option, as EdJohnston has stated on AN3, is to block both editors for edit warring. It has to be both, or neither. And blocking both would probably result in us coming here anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On what possible grounds could you have blocked me? Did I break 3RR, violate the terms of use of rollback, resort to multiple NPAs etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the general principle, rather than this specific incident. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's not helpful then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear tendentious, unconstructive edit-warring from Johnbod, so let's impose some sort of huge block or ban for The Rambling Man. It's The Wikipedia Way. Now get those wagons circled and close down all debate before anyone starts to look rationally at any of this mess. 8-(

This is a right mess. Johnbod is demonstrating his perennial sense of OWNership on an article and its formatting, against all policy, practice or simply trying to make things better. But TRM is out of political favour. So close the ANEW report as "stale" (which is nonsense - Johnbod repeated the same changes just this morning) and instead find some excuse (for that's all it will be) as to why it's TRM's fault instead.

As an example of organisational failure, this looks about as effective as the Labour Party. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Am I correct in understanding that Johnbod is reverting to an MOS violating version and that TRM is reverting back? That being the case, Johnbod needs to stop doing that. Now. He should then follow all the standard remedies it takes for an editing dispute and achieve a consensus for his changes before adding them back. And maybe Johnbod should avoid TRM interactions in the future. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  And as we are on a Civility kick of late,maybe a final warning to Johnbod on his rude, patronizing, incivil, uncollegeal edit summaries and comments as well. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Gad. I am a slow reader. We need to remove rollback if this is what he uses it for. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Without getting into the rest of this mess, I do think Johnbod needs to address their use of rollback in a content dispute; I have seen rollback flags removed for less. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: Johnbod wasn't using bare URLs but manually written citations, which shouldn't be changed to templates over objections. See WP:CITEVAR. After Johnbod's first revert, the issue should have gone to talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we all agree on that, but this does not excuse the various violations, including but not limited to 3RR, NPA, rollback abuse etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  What happened here is that Johnbod created an article about an area in which he has some expertise. You then arrived to make several changes, including changing his chosen citation style. When he reverted, you reverted back, and things got heated. The whole point of WP:CITEVAR is to prevent that. Therefore, you should either have checked on talk first and suggested the citation changes there, or you should have done so after the first revert. That applies to the other edits too, per WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds too close to ownership for my taste as noted by others. And what's the excuse for the 4RR after the discussion on the talk page? That's just fine and excusable is it? Along with the personal attacks and rollback abuse? What is also missing from this discussion is the fact that I wasn't simply "changing the style", I was making each and every reference correct and more comprehensive and less susceptible to linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's not about ownership but about respect for someone else's editing choices. I used to dislike citation templates, but then I started using them occasionally to teach myself how to do it, mostly for the benefit of linking short to long cites, but also for the benefit of avoiding linkrot, as you describe. Therefore, I do now sometimes add citation templates to articles with manual cites. But I do it only where it seems clear from the edit history that no one will mind. It would never occur to me to do it on an article recently created with manual cites by an experienced editor in his area of expertise. That would feel very provocative and doubly so to revert over his objections. That's why he got annoyed, and it all went downhill from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, by far the best way to improve such references is to add the citation templates and then include information (such as publisher, publication date, access date etc) that wasn't there to start with. Which is what I did. If someone gets so annoyed that they can resort to the various violations because I actively worked to improve the content and presentation of the templates, well that's a thing that seriously needs addressing. Trying to excuse the various violations because I kept trying to improve the references seems most peculiar to me. Seriously peculiar. Are you actually suggesting that to improve the verifiability of a source and reduce linkrot, we are stuck to existing formats, no matter what??? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:CITEVAR states emphatically that "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates" is "To be avoided". TRM was therefore wrong to do so and Johnbod was entitled to revert this action. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  He wasn't entitled to use rollback, call me a troll and violate 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not 4RR he wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• • I disagree that the version that Johnbod was reverted back to was a "consistent", given that the books were in an appropriate form, while the named external link "references" lacked the same features that should be common to the book (date of publication, title of work, publication), and most importantly for an online reference, accessdate. TRMs version to make those named piped ELs into templates to match the books is bringing that inline with a consistent format. --Masem (t) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Why is this even an issue? .... As far as I know filled out cites are better than bare URLs and IMHO are far more helpful to everyone, I don't quite understand why the need to revert and more specifically (like I said above) I don't quite understand why this is even an issue .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having just read CITEVAR apparently I've been violating it for well over 4 years although I've never once had any crap for it.... Maybe this should be updated to say Bare URLs should be filled in .... I don't see how Bare URLs can be better than it all being filled out?.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• WP:OWN is enough. 8-( Just try disagreeing with Johnbod some time and see the abuse you receive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's rather disappointing tbh, I could understand if this was a ENGVAR thing or DMY vs MDY but Bare URL V filled out ? .... really ? .... I like both editors both do great work here but I feel this really is a silly edit war over something that isn't a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As an aside this is the state of the article before TRMs edits - there are no bare URLs. There are some plain external links in the notes section, but no bare urls (which is something like https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Saint_Sebastian_Tended_by_Saint_Irene&oldid=882241816) It helps things if folks use correct terminology. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'll reiterate, I wasn't changing the refs purely and simply to my preferred format, I was enhancing just about each and every one of them to include either corrected titles (for linkrot) or additional parameters (such as access dates) for the purposes of verifiability. To ensure consistent outputs after such edits, it is much simpler to use templates rather than try to hand-craft text into existing refs. I think it's very convenient to overlook the fact that I'm actively improving these articles for our readers, to mistakenly focus on some claim I'm violating CITEVAR (which isn't even a policy) and thus ignore the various violations committed by Johnbod, many of which were policy violations, even after discussion on the article's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify I was saying The Rambling Mans edits were fine and that he shouldn't of been reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring any fallout post the ANEW discussion, looking at the state of the article prior to TRM's edit, I do not think WP:CITEVAR is sufficient to protect Johnbod's edits. Specifically, I would not be able to reproduce those citations to those URLs with the information in the page there should the pages go offline in some way, which is a requirement of the whole rest of the PAG in which CITEVAR is placed. It is sufficient to protect his choice to use manual rather than template citations, but I do not think it is sufficient to stop either a) corrections to add information to the citations or b) anyone from re-formatting the references to use a recognizable manual citation style (e.g. MLA/APA/Chicago, etc.). The more-appropriate action for both TRM and Johnbod to have taken would thus have been to add the information for each URL to the page in some sort of manual citation method and/or start a discussion on the talk page to change the page to use template citations. As a result, I think the decision that it would either be a block of none or both, rather than one or the other, was probably correct. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely, wrong; I have gone into more detail at the article talk page. In particular you are ignoring that the key information to find the page when the museum changes all its addresses was already in the text. Eg "One of the earliest paintings of Sebastian being nursed is by Josse Lieferinxe in about 1497, part of a cycle from an altarpiece in Marseilles (now Philadelphia Museum of Art)" - that is what one would base a search on. In two cases TRM reverted several times to remove the key information (clearly because he did not realize that it was. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, I warned Johnbod he was about to hit 3RR so he just waited a few hours and went past it anyway. And that was after the personal attacks and rollback abuse. That's an overt brightline violation. I did not pass 3RR, nor engage in personal attacks, nor use rollback abusively. I'm not sure what you think I could possibly be blocked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As you'll note, I did not comment on personal attacks, rollback, or other items. "His behavior was worse" does not absolve your behavior, nor the fact that you had alternative paths to adding the information that WP:V/WP:Citing sources requires for the citations in question. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  I was using standard citation templates which enable us to present to our readers a consistent and professional approach, and adding more comprehensive detail to each rather than simply changing the format. It's remarkable to see how many people are here defending the bright line violation of 3RR, amongst other things. And no, I was doing what was in the best interests of our readers (and our project, see WP:LINKROT), not focusing on the needs of an individual user. My "behavior" was simply that, to promote excellence and verifiability on the main page, but apparently the bureaucracy now is such that the main point of Wikipedia appears to have been lost in defending the indefensible. But in summary, thanks for your neither/both conclusion. I'm not sure how it helps now we're much further down the line. As you yourself acknowledge, there are many other issues now, with regard to the brightline 3RR failure, the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a sorry mess. TRM is often seen on this board as a troublemaker, but Johnbod's abuse of rollback (which is for vandals and vandals only) in a content dispute is a big red flag. Support a sanction of Johnbod for rollback abuse and violating WP:OWN. Miniapolis 22:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Johnbod has been a rollbacker since 2008. It would be a pity if he were to lose it because of one use during this dispute; it's normally removed for persistent misuse. Perhaps instead he could be reminded to follow WP:ROLLBACK, and The Rambling Man could be reminded to respect WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis and SlimVirgin: I have asked Johnbod above to explain his use of rollback. I think the decision about whether to sanction him is very much contingent on his response; that it was a mis-step is certain, but the real question is whether there's danger of a repeat. Also, if the problem is rollback abuse, I wouldn't support any sanction other than pulling the rollback flag, because that's the most obvious preventative measure. Again, whether that's necessary depends upon his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) Duly pinged :-). Under the circumstances, I agree that Johnbod shouldn't lose the rollback flag solely on the basis of this. However, I've been around long enough to know that WP is a house of alliances and there's often a rush to judgement in any dispute involving TRM. The sorry mess is when two experienced editors square off over what should be a non-issue. Miniapolis 02:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• We have WP:CITEVAR for a number of good reasons, and changing someone's established citation style (which according to everyone was NOT bare URLs, but a citation style preferred by MANY of us) amounts to just being plain stubborn and intrusive about something not worth being pig-headed about. SlimVirgin is right, Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR and how irritating it is to write an article to a certain standard and then have someone arbitrarily change it, and will we ever see the day when TRM stops behaving like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia "Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR" - You make it sound like I'm new here .... I've been here 5-6 years although granted I don't know every policy on the project, I know what CITEVAR is ... I've just never bothered following it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything about how long you've been here. I did point out that SlimVirgin has experience with CITEVAR and producing top content, as does Johnbod, and there are a whole lotta people weighing in here who nothing about either. Ealdgyth, who has weighed in, was one of maybe three of the top people for evaluating sources and citations at FAC a few years ago, and I doubt that anyone has risen to her level of knowledge in my absence from FAC. And it is quite apparent that a bunch of people weighing in here are probably used to citing articles from google using websites, and have never encountered a correctly written short-form citation for a real library source, which is what the link to Ealdgyth's version of Johnbod's article shows. Pure case of capricious CITEVAR breach by TRM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the citations in the pre-dispute version linked by Ealdgyth, this was not an adequate citation “style” to begin with. Shorthand references and abbreviations are not proper citations, and I am astonished that anyone is questioning filling in the complete cites. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I shudder with despair every time I see a heading "X and The Rambling Man". Regardless, the precedent here seems clear: in reference style disputes the status quo ante bellum always prevails. (If there's sufficient appetite otherwise, ask on my talk page about starting an RFC.) Neither of them should be commended for their behavior here, but likewise neither should be sanctioned, and Johnbod's version of content should prevail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Johnbod response I'm sure we don't need to prolong this, so I'll just thank many people for the sensible comments above. No my citations (most to single museum website pages on paintings) were not bare URLs, & part of my complaint was that TRM several times removed the key bibliographic info from one citation (& has refused to grasp this). Really TRM's topic ban for DYK should cover things like this also (irf it already doesn't). Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: Several users above have questioned your use of rollback, yet you have not addressed that at all. Let me ask you directly, again: why did you use rollback in a content dispute? Can you commit to not doing it again? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  With respect Vanamonde, your questions reeks of uniformed jumping in; given the established sequence of TRM following JB about here. Its important not to confuse run of the mill instances of justified and correct uses of roll back with encounters where the antagonist is clearly hounding. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Ceoil: I can perhaps see why you think that, but you're quite wrong. I'm not ignoringblind to TRM's infractions: I'm leaving those to people who are uninvolved, and to whom TRM has a less allergic reaction. Explore the last couple of ARCA requests related to TRM if you wish to understand why. Regardless, the fact is that editors with the rollback flag are required to keep their cool and not use that button even in heated content disputes. An one-off slip-up is not something to lose the flag over, but Johnbod needs to convince us that it was, indeed, one-off. Ignoring requests for explanation from neutral administrators, and generally avoiding the issue altogether, isn't helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Point taken Vanamonde. My POV is that Johnbod is a highly productive editor of some odd 14 years experience, who is a content expert on the article subject TRM is now foraging upon with MOS niceties. Johnbod has never been particularly litigious, as opposed to TRM, who lets be honest, is a loose cannon and so pumped up on hubris he is like a man in a late night carpark looking for a fight. Poke the bear often enough and you will get a response, seeminglythe basis for which you now (it seems) are grasping at to strip JB of editor rights. To put it another way, "the last couple of ARCA requests", which you brough up, are TRM'S baggage, and nobody else's. Some projection and false equivalency might be at play here. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having had my own disagreements with TRM on CITEVAR (specifically over whether it is ok to change one allowed date format to another) I can see why Johnbod might have been annoyed. I think no action is required here, perhaps beyond reminding TRM that CITEVAR is there for a reason (to head off this kind of stupid dispute). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that TRM is far more interested in Johnbod than Johnbod is in TRM, and the pursuit is one sided. Tonight I got into this nonsense on an article Johnbod wrote, without realising the broader harassment campaign had reached an an/i complaint. In context, this is textbook following and baiting behavior on behalf of TRM. For the first time in my 14 odd years here, I see a need for a block of an established user acting prob in good faith but who is intent is misguided; enough blind hubris already, if allowed to continue unabated the potential to damage productive editors is great. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerns of editing NHL Canadian Teams

I have concerns of how Yowashi and I edit hockey teams. We are frequently making incorrect information because of where we are getting the stats from and how I put the numbers in. There are times where I misplace the numbers because of the numbers I add in from the team stats. Yowashi's source of the stats information comes from the regular season stats on website and sometimes, its not immediately up to date. Yowashi keeps complaining to me of how I add incorrect information when this user helps me with my editing with player stats. But Yowashi has to realize that he too has added incorrect information since the stats from hockey.com can be misleading. Also, I had corrected a handful of times of incorrect stats before if I am really suspicious of Yowashi's edits. There is one more thing that does not seem to be necessary for Yowashi to say is reordering stats to most points to least should always happen after I add in the team stats from the recap game. Their is no such difference if I did not reorganize the stats to most points to least. It can be done anytime. NicholasHui (talk) 11:04am, 22 February 2019 (PT)

These are the teams I edit with Yowashi are the 2018-19 season pages for Vancouver Canucks, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Winnipeg Jets, Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens.

NicholasHui Its not quite clear what the problem is. Can you provide diffs of the specific problem? If this is a problem involving Yowashi, you must notify them on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ Edit: I have notified Yowashi, but in the future you MUST notify users. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators has been clearly overlooked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are they a NHL team yet? Who knew? Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page by Yowashi Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC) : "Hello CaptainEek. This is just a response to the message that you had left me on my talk page. I am a regular contributor to the National Hockey League's teams season pages. Since October, NicholasHui has been persistently adding inaccurate information in regards to a player's point total located in the player statistics section. I will refer to this page 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, as one of the examples. I had informed NicholasHui about them not adding accurate information in regards to the player statistics. I find that their information is often incorrect, which leads to me having to correct the information that they have provided. I have told them to stop adding incorrect information on their talk page and also within the page's history log. However, they continue to add information from either no source, or poor sources. I told them to use this website, (Statistics), as it includes all of the player statistics from every National Hockey League team, and is also the most reliable source. This is only the first issue. A second issue that this user is also involved in, is that they are unable to reorganize the player statistics section, which is supposed to be organized from a player's point total (most points to least points, or in other words, top to bottom) system. This user occasionally refuses to reorganize the statistics section based on most points to least. For example, in the player statistics section, under "Pts", one player will have a total of ten points, while another would have eleven points. The player with eleven points would be positioned underneath the player with ten points. This is supposed to be vice versa. The editor refuses to reposition the players based on which player has more points. I had also discussed this situation to the editor, but they still occasionally refuse to do as I have told them. Another user like Sabbatino also discussed this issue with NicholasHui when he was using his former account Portmannfire. I honestly don't know why he is complaining about me when I am the one that is trying to fix his persistent errors. Please visit the Edmonton Oilers page that I had provided you with earlier in this message, so that you will have an understanding of what I am talking about. If any clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me. Just a reminder, I do correct the errors that NicholasHui makes. So if you don't see any physical evidence, just know that I correct the errors. Yowashi (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)"

As a reminder, I am not an admin, and my role on this board is merely to help with uncontroversial and routine tasks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We may have a WP:Competent problem, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not very often someone reports themselves. Why the rush? Wait until complete info is published in RS. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So, is there anything that can be done about this situation? I'm only trying to update these pages because they barely get updated by others. In addition to that, I also want these pages to have accurate information from reliable sources, so that when these pages are visited, people are not mislead from the incorrect information that has been continuously added on these pages. Yowashi (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The individual should be blocked, if that's the only way to get through to him/her. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Block request

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

---

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot. Since the operator (Smith609) has not edited in almost 2 weeks, it is requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Sandstein 20:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Relatedly, see Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#CiteSeerX and Citation bot for an unrelated but also problematic behavior of the bot and its maintainer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox medical condition

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

---

Prior to today, we had a long-established template called Template:Infobox medical condition and a more modern version called Template:Infobox medical condition (new), which works in conjunction with Template:Medical resources. To a first approximation, the contents of {{Infobox medical condition}} were split between {{Infobox medical condition (new)}} and {{Medical resources}}.

Following an undiscussed request for move by Zackmann08, Template:Infobox medical condition was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition (old); and Template:Infobox medical condition (new) was moved to Template:Infobox medical condition by JJMC89, although can see no trace of the corresponding talk page archives being moved. Maybe that's just how it shows in the log. Later today, Doc James moved Template:Infobox medical condition back to Template:Infobox medical condition (new).

The situation now is that we have three templates, but both Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and Template:Infobox medical condition are redirects to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). So the original template has disappeared completely without discussion. However, Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old) exists, but Template talk:Infobox medical condition redirects to Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new). The talk page archives are now at Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old)/Archive 1,2,3,4 and Template talk:Infobox medical condition (new)/Archive 1. Could we please rationalise this and actually get some discussion on the steps necessary to deprecate the original template? Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh what is this doing on the incident noticeboard? What misconduct are you asserting? Also if you are asserting misconduct by me, you have failed to notify me which you are required to do. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So the issues with removing the "new" from the template name is that it breaks all the wikidata inter language links. This confuses the content translation tool such that it no longer can use the "new".

Content translation / wikidata inter language links have trouble with redirects. A trouble that should be fixed but one that I do not have the ability to fix.

Thus I have moved the template back to the "new" name. I and a number of others have deprecated the remaining instances of the "old" template such that it is no longer used in main space. So IMO it makes sense to redirect the "old" one to the "mew" one to discourage people from using it going forwards.

I do not think we have any misconduct here. Simple that all the issues need to be dealt with before doing such a move. And the move was made without taking these issues into account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I'll just direct you to the notice at the top of this board: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." My post has nothing to do with behaviour or individuals. It's merely a problem that requires administrative attention. You were pinged as a matter of courtesy, but I have not started a discussion about you and there is no requirement to notify you. Is that clear enough?

@Doc James: This board is used for more that just behavioural problems. If you believe it's okay to delete an unused template without discussion, who am I to disagree? However, it leaves us in a position that it is no longer obvious where to find talk page discussions or file histories. Having studied what went wrong, I suggest that if you want to fix it, an admin will need to move Template:Infobox medical condition (old) and its subpages over Template:Infobox medical condition without leaving a redirect; and Template talk:Infobox medical condition (old) and its subpages over Template talk:Infobox medical condition without leaving a redirect. That would restore the position of two templates, with the page histories intact and the talk pages and their archives in the obvious places, with Template talk:Infobox medical condition as a redirect to the new template. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing urgent about this... It needs to be discussed at the template's page for sure before proceeding, but opening an ANI incident because you don't like the way things are going is nuts. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to note that RexxS made ZERO attempts to discuss this anywhere else before opening an ANI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:RexxS. Agree and have restored the other bits to how they were.

This by the way this is the number one used template by Wiki Project Medicine. A template on pages with more than 50 million page views in English a month. We need to move carefully and we need to make sure we have the involvement of core members of this project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: You call me 'nuts' once more and you will find yourself on the end of behavioural report at ANI. I hope you understand NPA. Your precipitous action triggered this mess and you should learn to discuss moves that you don't understand before requesting them in future. It is not acceptable to have page histories, talk pages and their archives marooned in no-man's-land for any length of time. There was absolutely ZERO point in my posting a note at one of the talk pages, because thanks to you, they had all been moved. I have no idea how long it would have taken to attract more eyes to the issue on unwatched talk pages, but I felt that getting more eyes on the problem was a priority before it became any more complicated, hence the post here. If you feel embarrassed by your actions, I'm sorry to hear it and didn't make a point of drawing attention to your failures in my original post, but you don't seem to understand when to drop the stick, do you? --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it we have the issue solved and happy to see this archived. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've modified the Template:Infobox medical condition page and restored it back to the original template code before it was replaced with the redirect to Template:Infobox medical condition (new). This is what was missed during the effort to undo the template page moves and fix what became broken, and what was causing the original template to no longer be displayed. I don't see this discussion here as necessary, as administrative action isn't required here. Mistakes happen; communication and proper processes break down, connections get severed, and things break... it happens. As far as a discussion and action on this noticeboard goes: Just let this be a lesson to those involved (as well as anyone out there) that moving any live templates, modules, scripts, or other transcluded pages must follow a wide outreach and communication along with very careful planning and pre-rollout steps first so that deployments and changes like this go forward smoothly and with as little disruption as possible to the project. Anyone considering executing a page move with a template or other page should look at the "What links here" link and look at the number of transclusions as a first step. If it has a high transclusion count and to many pages, that's a red flag to say, "No - this needs to be discussed and planned carefully first." :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User: Lowercase sigmabot III wonder edit behave like a human

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

---

User: Lowercase sigmabot III archiving pages of Wikipedia , but recently I found that User: Lowercase sigmabot III a bot behaved like human .It was reverted an edit, how its possible ?

if my question is suitable for discussion I can provide links for that ...

(LLoxydr (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

LLoxydr - What edit are you referring to specifically? Where? What page? This doesn't appear to be the proper place for this discussion. Have you perhaps tried messaging the bot's owner with your question? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

1 . First editor removed the subject from discussion https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=884351302&oldid=884351230

2 User: Lowercase sigmabot III reverted and archived https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=884351302 (LLoxydr (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

User:Oshwah , User: Lowercase sigmabot III work is to archive pages , in special circumstances User: Lowercase sigmabot III can behave like human and revert. ? (LLoxydr (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

Looking at the two diffs you provided, it appears that the edit was made to the discussion just as the bot was executing the task to archive it. The bot was probably in the middle of capturing the text from the discussion to add to the archive and remove from the noticeboard when the edit occurred. If I'm correct, what you're seeing is a side effect from very rare instance of two changes being made at the same time. It's not something I would worry about unless it was happening regularly. To be able to pull this off requires near-perfect timing. The odds are very low, but (assuming that I'm correct) that's what happened... Just accept it as a rare occurrence and don't worry about it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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