Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Iranian opposition articles

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

---

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)

• Comment Levivich's comment show that PoV editing by Saff V. is still ongoing, in spite of this ANI report (which Saff V. mostly used to make accusations against other editors). When we misinterpret sources (seen on Levivich's content dispute list), or advance inclusion of unreliable sources in political delicate articles to support PoV statements, it becomes a danger of turning Wikipedia into fake news site. TBAN, WARN, whatever is needed to stop this. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think they has made a lot of contributions that are really helpful while some of their edits might be pushing POV I don't think they deserves a topic ban, I don't see any/many differences between them and some other editors who are calling for topic ban to him. warning would be enough--SharabSalam (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ... and keeps ongoing ... Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nikoo.Amini, How intresting! Is picking up unsorced material and mentoning violence agaist most of population in Kashmir by using RS considred as a POV issue? Be careful about hounding me!Saff V. (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

STOP accusing people who are partaking in this conversation of hounding you, or implying that people who have few posts elsewhere in Wikipedia are not allowed to partake in this conversation. ANI reports are open to every editor to comment on, and you are under discussion. If you want to defend yourself, that's fine, but continuing to cast aspersions by claiming that people are hounding you by participating in this conversation or that their participation is inappropriate is not acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please pay attention I just warn about houbding which means involveing following the target from place to place on Wikipedia, not participating in the discussion.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm paying perfect attention. People looking into your editing and bringing examples of it to ANI is not hounding. Stop accusing people who are discussing your edits here of hounding you. Grandpallama (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition I have to note that. Saff V. (talk) 08:36, 7 March 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
• "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}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (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}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (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}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
• "For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.", The New York Times, 26 November 2011, retrieved 1 December 2016 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (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)

While the "don't think any consensus here should be respected" wasn't phrased well, wikiprojects often do present WP:CONLEVEL problems, both in defying site-wide norms in a "special exceptionalism" manner for their topic of interest, and in the opposite direction, to try to force conformity on an article it claims within its scope (few articles are within the scope of only a single project, and wikiprojects have no authority to dictate content, layout, etc.). So, it's not invalid to raise CONLEVEL concerns. When one arises, a site-wide venue (like WP:RSN, if there's a sourcing dispute, as suggested) is a better choice than the article talk page, which is even more likely to represent an overly narrow view. If the matter's contentious and non-trivial, an RfC in article talk is often effective, however, especially if it doesn't rise to noticeboard level.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:42, 3 March 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 is enough. 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, which according to you were "not backed by the sources", 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)

• Comment: Besides what SMcCandlish proposed, I'd also request that Mhhossein be warned for making baseless accusations against other editors. For instance, see this TP discussion about Mhhossein omitting a sentence from the article's lede based on a "violation" of "extensive quotation of copyrighted text", even though the sentence had been admitted into the article via RfC consensus. When I offered to fix this by rewording other quotes in the lede instead, Mhhossein reported me here. There have also been other instances, and, apparent in this report alone, I'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of similar behavior. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just drop it! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In my assessment, these are valid concerns with evidence of WP:PA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, WP:NPOV, all of which you have dismissed as "just drop it!" (more WP:IDHT). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I have never found anyone who has helped to make articles more neutral than him. Adding him is an obvious "mistake". I have seen tons of pushing POV/s by some editors, who are commenting here saying he should added to the list. Mhhossein has done a lot of help for articles related to Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, instead of casting aspersions, how about commenting on the points raised against Mhhossein? In the 2017–18 Iranian protests page, for example, where Mhhossein consistently edit-wars to confirm that the protests were not ongoing, despite the ongoing unrest. Here are the edits with summaries, note particularly numbers 7 to 10:

1) 23 January 2018: "Those cities should be accompanied by RSs 2-The protests are finished and we should decide on the finish date" - removes "ongoing".

2) 4 February 2018: [36] - No edit summary, removes "present".

3) 7 May 2018: "settled down long ago" - Removes "Ongoing protests".

4) 1 June 2018: "unexplained removal of material" - Asserts that protests concluded on January 7th (2018).

5) 23 June 2018: "No..." - Removes "present" adds "7 January 2018".

6) 06:20, 26 June 2018: "certainly not ongoing, don't add it again" - Removes "ongoing" adds "7 January 2018".

7) 09:38, 26 June 2018: "Don't edit war, it's not ongoing" - Removes "ongoing" adds "7 January 2018":.

8) 2 July 2018: "Don't remove the balancing photos." - Removes "present" adds "28 June 2018".

9) 3 August 2018: "no consensus over it" - Removes "present" adds "7 January 2018".

10) 12:20, 30 December 2018: "must be kidding...this happened numerous times" - Removes "present", leaves a single date (28 December 2017):.

Alex-h (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Bad example - for many (or possibly all) of these Mhhossein was acting per talk page consensus - which you should check. Our initial article covered only the late Dec/early Jan large wave of protests. We had separate articles for subsequent notable protests. It was only much later, after RSes started treating 2018 as one continuing set of events - that talk page consensus changed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz, had missed them as many were archived. Still find the last couple of reverts dubious: On August 3, for example, where Mhhossein inserts that the protests had concluded on January 7th even though the article already includes protests in August (backed by reliable sources). Then, when consensus is reached about combining protests that took place throughout 2018 (where Mhhossein is the only opposing editor), on December 30 he removes "present" leaving a single date for the protests (28 December 2017), which gives the misleading impression that the protests happened on 28 December 2017. Alex-h (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Just mentioning that Mhhossein had previously been warned at ANI for similar behavior concerning having a particular and strong POV and being hard of hearing (Mhhossein also accused the editor questioning their edits of "hounding"...) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with SMcCandlish, there's not clear consensus on any action here nor is there any proposed course of action. A warning will be sufficient. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Mohammad Habali ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Already warned for political POV pushing and WP:IDHT. Recent edits don't show any signs of acknowledging or stopping. Poya-P (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: And this (unsuccessful) AfD by Mhhossein, where he claims that "We have already 2017–2019 Iranian protests at hand, where both political and economic protests are covered. Seems like a redundant duplicate to me" (however, labor strikes from the 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests are not covered in the 2017–18 Iranian protests, which Mhhossein should have been aware of since he already had opposed merging these topics). Alex-h (talk) 15:09, 5 March 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 [37], [38] and [39]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([40], [41], [42]) 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 ([43], [44], [45]), despite my warning ([46], [47]). 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 ([48][49],[50], [51], 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"[52] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[53] 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: [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]) 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 [69] 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 [70]? 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 [71] and [72]). 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)

• Oppose: does not merit boomerang, although the two users could be warned on further interactions with each other. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:48, 3 March 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

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

---

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)

Agree. Opinions to the effect that only Arbcom can handle something should come from editors who have been part of attempts to handle it here. EEng 03:30, 28 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.

Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157

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

---

I have tried to be patient and assume good faith but I feel this Admin is just hiding in the bushes and waiting to jump out on me if I happen to make a mistake. Around early January after making an edit to the article Bengal famine of 1943, he went onto my talk page and threatened to "block me indefinitely", as he believed that "I don't seem to be getting the message"[[73]]. This sounds irrational,rude and intimidating for someone to threaten an "indefinite block" over 1 or 2 edits mistaken edits. And then again yesterday Black Kite went onto my talk page and threatened me again that he will "block me" just because I am reverting likely sockpuppets[[74]]. Then when I mentioned that User:Orientls also reverted obvious socks of Abhishek9779, Black Kite's response is, "Yeah. The one that Orientls reverted obviously is a sock. You've been reverting ones that might not be, or in the example I gave above, obviously isn't." In essence this is an example of "I'm right your wrong!" or "It's my way or the highway!" logic that the Admin is using. According to this Admin, all of the socks I report are "not" and if another user does it, it is because the they are "obviously a sock". I know this Admin may try to bring this up so I will mention it. When he blocked me around December 2018, when I was still new, he completely ignored potential edit-warring and even meatpuppetry(suspiciously 2 more editors jumped in to revert me)by other editors on the article Al-Qaeda. This sounds like a second double standard made in which, other editors were allowed to delete a large amount of sourced information that I contributed based on it being "fringe" but all of a sudden I do that once(that too with the concern of sockpuppetry going on) he decides to make a fuss about it. Now I will admit that some mistakes were made early on by me but Black Kite's behavior is definitely not acceptable. So based on all of this I would like for someone to please look into this Admin's abusive behavior.Mountain157 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that Black Kite has taken some action against your obsession with this sockmaster. Your reports at SPI are a constant mess of speculation. It's like you see socks hiding around every corner. If you continue like this, you're going to end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not denying that I have made mistakes at SPI. However this notice is also about the general behavior that Black Kite has shown specifically towards me, even before I got involved in SPI.Mountain157 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157:, I suggest you withdraw this accusation, no matter how strongly you feel about the situation. I also suggest you work on some other topics, more benign for now, and gain an understanding of adding neutral facts about passionate matters. And withdraw the accusations, I will repeat that bit, and emphasise that it is important you do that! cygnis insignis 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I second Bbb23's assessment. You'll get blocked very soon if you continue edits accusing other editors of being socks, when they obviously aren't. Take a common sense approach and start being doubly cautious about accusing others of being socks. Lourdes 18:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I also agree with Bbb23. Deliberately accusing other editors of being socks without evidence is what I believe to be casting aspersions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• In fact I think it would be a good idea if you were banned from making reports at SPI. We have enough frivolous reporting at SPI from India/Pakistan editors already - if there is actually a good reason to suspect sockpuppetry, there are numerous experienced editors around the topic already who know what to look for. You can relax and do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've had my disagreements with Black Kite, but this complaint is nonsense. It's entirely a good thing that Black Kite has been examining your obsession with reverting suspected socks as quickly as possible, and your general battleground approach to editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well as I said above I have made mistakes on Wikipedia, but let me ask you this. Was it rational about a month back when Black Kite threatened an indef block over an edit?That too in his edit summary for Bengal famine of 1943, he did not even say that the death toll had been discussed extensively in the talk page already.Mountain157 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes admins threaten blocks for egregious edits given egregious histories. That being said, you're starting to stray into WP:IDHT territory: are you genuinely not seeing that sentiment is overwhelmingly against you? Ravenswing 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see two options. We can close this as unfounded and move on, or we can WP:TBAN Mountain157 from SPI. And, Mountain157, you might want to heed the advice given already. Black Kite is not abusing you. I'm sure they feel they are being patient with you as well. And if BBB23 feels uncomfortable with your sock seeing, I'm forced to agree with BlackKite in removing them. DlohCierekim (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  So Mountain157 walks into a highly contentious area in December 2018, has < 500 edits, sees socks all around, edits in a disruptive manner, and complains when warned about the disruption. Is this a Discretioanry Sanctions area? If so, Mountain157 needs to be so advised. DlohCierekim (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• new editors who enter contentious areas and start accusing others of being socks are socks themselves about 99% of the time. If I wasn’t on my phone I’d just block right now. But at the very least a complete topic ban would be warranted. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: How would you have justified your block? And I wonder where you got that stat? Let me make one: 50% of admins at ANI are caught in the super Mario effect. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  If you look at all of Mountain157's talk page, you will see that a final warning was more than justified. Certainly warning a disruptive editor is not admin abuse. And some non admins are very quick to scream "ADMIN ABUSE!" a little too quickly. DlohCierekim (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  The blocking part is justified. Shouldn't we check and prove if the admin abuse shout was indeed too quick in this case? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think this has turned into WP:BOOMERANG by Mountain157. That being said, what does Black Kite has to say here? I haven't (neither did others) checked whether their indefinite block threat was indeed "abuse of power" and too harsh. I suggest further investigations and if this turns out be abusive by the admin, they should warned at the very least. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have, actually, see above, please. DlohCierekim (talk)

• As Dlohcierekim pointed out, Mountain157 seems to be framing the issue and Black Kite does not seem to be abusing, they are simply giving strong final warnings. I don't agree with Floquenbeam regarding the "99%" stat, the accuser could themselves be the sock puppet (I mean look at the username, how simple and random could it be?). That being said, I am not trying to directly accuse them of sock puppetry (it's just my speculation). I would suggest Mountain157 to withdraw, like others suggested and just focus on other stuff in this community. I am sorry but you are indeed caught into WP:BOOMERANG. However, I still would like Black Kite to have their say. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • • Stop pinging me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Immortal Wizard,I actually did want to withdraw the complaint until Vanamonde undid my edit.Mountain157 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157: I am assuming you didn't know this, but you are not suppose to withdraw by removing the whole thing. If you want to indeed do that, state that here in the comments and a non-involved editor will close this thread. I hope you have learned something. I would suggest you to leave a withdrawal note and state whether your actions were a mistake and why shouldn't an admin block you in the future. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your fish is here DlohCierekim (talk)

• Personally I would support an indef tban from SPI and this should extend to "reporting people to editors talkpages" because we know it's gonna happen, Their SPIs are poor and as such they should be prevented from creating these reports - SPI is already backlogged on a daily basis as it is and these silly/useless reports certainly don't help,

Sitenote: Given they only started editing here in December 2018 I'm rather surprised they know the SPI easily..... smells fishy tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, meh. Levivich has been editing since mid-November and is already closing threads in AN/I. Nothing wrong with being new in particular. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT - Meh true but thread closing isn't that hard and doesn't require much knowledge atleast compared to SPI. –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, maybe a better example is I filed this (Note: I registered account in Sept. 2016, but I had only a total of 29 edits until November 2017). Either way, I wouldn't say my comment was meant to imply the user is not suspect. Their behavoir probably should be examined here. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi - I am away this weekend and am on my mobile phone. I would suggest to Immortal Wizard to read the conversation between myself and M157 on their talk page which they conveniently deleted before they filed this ANI. Reverting other editors claiming they are socks without any evidence is never acceptable, especially when it's obvious that some of them aren't the sock that M157 claims them to be. It's simple disruption, which is why I threatened to block them. I'll be back online tomorrow. Thanks - Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure I would support closing at this point. The boomerang is now in flight. Will await further developments. Sometimes we close threads a little too soon. DlohCierekim (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• comment I totally agree with Black Kite. I too, have been a victim by this user's stonewalling, ANI page, and AN3 notices back in December when he first started, both notices which were taken down once this user knew he was going to get boomeranged. I have argued, extensively, with him. At first, I thought he was a new user and did not know this project's rules which is why I invested time and tried to educate him. He simply deletes all my edits on his talkpage. However, it seems this is no longer the case. I have just glanced through his edits and there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing. He must be someone's sock. I've been in wikipedia for 5 years and Im not sure I know how to open a sock report yet he knew that since his first month. His actions should be scrutinized and no longer ignored. The community has decided his actions against me should be overlooked and passed since he was considered a new user, however opening this ANI against Black Kite shows that he did not learn his lesson and, in my opinion, forthrightly deserves to be sanctioned. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Wikiemirati: well I was a victim of your hounding when I was new to Wikipedia. At that time I didn't even know there was a user contributions list for each person. On top of that you started edit-warring on various different pages such as Haqqani Network,Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) among others. Recently even @SharabSalam: filed an edit-warring complaint about you. Mountain157 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Mountain157: Informally, you need to read the linked notice, going forward.-- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. DlohCierekim (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • More formally, Dlohcierekim they can read it on their talk page  :) ——SerialNumber54129 22:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Topic ban on Mountain157 from reporting any alleged sockpuppet anywhere

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

---

• Support Seems appropriate here. It took me years to figure out what an SPI was, but then I'm getting old. Seems fishy. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. At least 140 of his less than 500 edits are about sockpuppets. This user needs to demonstrate that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per Legacypac's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Surely the problem here isn't the SPI issue - though that is an issue - but the fact that they're reverting people "because I think they're socks whether they are or not"? Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the wording can be changed to a complete TBAN on mentioning or implying sockpuppetry. I think the only alternative at this point is an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Black Kite. Some of his edits involve adding Pakistan or other countries as allies to terrorist groups in infobox and when someone disagrees, he reverts them alleging them to be sockpuppets. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• SupportTBAN on reporting anyone anywhere for socking and reverting anyone, ever if they think/say/believe/find it's useful to say it's a sock. TBAN on calling anyone a sock in any form, anywhere, anytime. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bans from utilizing the tools necessary to edit here are always problematic, and rarely change behavior. If the editor is making malicious false reports at SPI, let's lay out the evidence and then block the user until the behavior changes. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI is not really a tool. The vast majority of editors never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not even know what a sock was until someone falsely accused me of being a sock from Japan. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Please reread the entire thread. Mountain has been filing disruptive SPI cases (often only because they were reverted in editing) and not being able to do so will in no way impair their editing. Hell, I didn't now anything about SPI until I'd made 1,000's of edits. Never impaired me in the least. DlohCierekim (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I've reread the discussion, but I don't know why you asked me to. Is this about my saying we should lay out the evidence? I'm not saying it doesn't exist. (Obviously that's why I proposed the indef block below.) I'm just saying no one has yet linked to any specific SPIs here in this discussion, and usually that's what we do here. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean a tool in the broad, dictionary sense, not in the technical sense like AWB or a javascript. I put it that way because it's no longer enough to say that things like SPI are not "topics". Topic bans work best when they restrict a user in editing a certain subject matter because of the disruption caused. From what I have observed, so-called "topic" bans from using things like noticeboards, types of templates, discussion prcesses, etc., do not work. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support If the editor suspects someone is really a sock, they are free to email me; I'll check on facts and report if required. Lourdes 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support for a period of one year or until they gain 3000 edits, whichever comes later. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Legacypac and Softlavender. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support this seems the best course of action for now. User did demonstrate previously that he can stop some actions deemed disruptive such as edit warring. I would also advise the ban to include reverting anyone for 'thinking they're socks'. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not really more to add then to all the abovee.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Calling someone a sock in a revert seems like a "report anywhere" in my original proposal. If they want to revert they should explain the revert on the merits of the action not because they see a sock. Hopefully this will cure them of seeing socks all around. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac Not sure if you're replying to me but if so then I agree, I've amended my !vote seeing as it focused more on SPI/talkpages then everywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a more general comment on various proposed amendment or clarifications of the intemt of this proposal, but yes we are on the same page. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Laundering socks is an honorable secondary mission in Wikipedia that must be secondary to improving the encyclopedia, and is being dishonored by being pursued to the exclusion of common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It is entirely possible to be a productive editor and never file a sock report. Mountain should give it a go. Ravenswing 04:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Making accusations of serious malfeasance without evidence is a personal attack; either Mountain157 will stop making bad reports or will be blocked for NPA. Should he end up being able to identify them properly in the future, no need to make him jump through hoops or ignore the situation totally. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Since there have been issues raised over the SPI's that I filed a while back, I will most likely stay away from the SPI,however I do not think it is appropriate to "ban"someone from there because in some cases it may be serious.Mountain157 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ain't the river in Egypt DlohCierekim (talk)

::The only thing serious is your seeing a sock around every corner and throwing out sock as an excuse to revert. You are not taking on board the advice of a number of experienced editors confirming this is necessary. This restriction will make your editing more enjoyable. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac:Wouldn't you define this as a genuine case of sockpuppetry?[[75]],[[76]][[77]].Because I think it does. (Mountain157)

Absolutely NOT that is simply IP editing. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like denial, just because you want to illustrate a point. These IP's trace back to the same location as other socks of Hassan Guy[[78]],[[79]],[[80]].Mountain157 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the feedback from the folks at WP:SPI is that you have been over reporting and that it has become disruptive. I this here discussion emphasizes the need to stop it. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim: Which I already stopped, a while back. So explain what you are trying to say.Mountain157 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not stop - you accused three IPs of socking right in the middle of a bunch of posts telling you not to call other editors socks. That this needs to be explained is amazing to me. Had hyou done that after the TBAN was imposed you would be blocked now. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I never ACCUSED anyone.All I was saying was it sounds suspicious to me. This is not at all appropriate behavior to be this suppressive of one editor. Mountain157 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support This editor can develop skills in other areas of the project without using this as the "go to" item in the toolbox. Edison (talk)
• Snow pile support <insert witty haiku here> A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Narrowly tailored. "Anywhere" to include reverting ordinary edits with allegation of socking. Leave all laundry work to others. Glrx (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

TBAN on Mountain157 from adding assertion that countries are allies of terrorist groups

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

---

• support per Wikieimrati concern above. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• support This user is heavily involved in India-Pakistan articles and certainly abuses Infoboxes by adding Pakistan as allied to terrorist organizations in controversial pages such as Taliban, Haqqani network etc.. among others. Sockpuppet accusations come forward when others revert him. Some of the links I remember can be found in my talk page User_talk:Wikiemirati#Mountain157, but certainly his contribution log can provide the bigger picture. -- Wikiemirati (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest TBANs I've ever seen suggested. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Legacypac - this is too bizarre to be effective. Make it about geo-politics in general and I might consider it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Tbans work, but certainly his contributions in India, Pakistan, Balchostan, Afganistan etc.. topics should be broadly examined by someone familiar with these kinds of sanctions. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Legacypac. Too bizarre to enforce. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Legacypac - Bizarre just about sums this suggestion up. Not enforceable anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• This is quite unenforceable. Upon closer examination of his contributions, an ARBIPA topic-ban may prove necessary, but something this woolly is a bad idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Alternative: Indef block of Mountain157

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

---

• Support. It is a waste of time to try to manage this any other way. Not a forever block, but a block until the user shows an understanding of the problem. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: If the user is demonstrably causing much more disruption than they are making constructive contributions, and if their purpose on this site seems to revolve around negative POV-pushing and accusing others of sockpuppetry and other malfeasance, then they should definitely be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also, a CU should probably be run on them. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I imagine they have by now. Certainly it would seem reasonable. They don't tell us everything. DlohCierekim (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Allow the block decision to be the individual decision of any admin. This is too trivial a matter to be decided by the AN corps. Lourdes 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a new user, probably trying to help. To the extent that their behavior has been disruptive a topic ban should resolve the matter. However I do agree that if the disruption persists then any admin is free to block on CIR grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per ad orientem They've been DS warned on ARBIPA. They've been told to less contentious in their approach and to not run to SPI to settle editing disputes. They may learn by doing. If we block them they will have no opportunity to teach them. If they avoid problematic behavior and learn to collaborate, we will have gained. DlohCierekim (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We jump to indef blocks much too quickly for editors in this topic, much too often without giving them any chance to improve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Dlohcierekim - If they continue after this thread then they should be blocked for an X amount of time without a new ANI thread but for now like Dlohcierekim says they'll hopefully learn and not repeat, –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. This was an attempt to withdraw the original complaint. I think they're getting the message. If, when they start editing again, they continue to show problematic behavior, then a block would be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose this editor should be given one final chance. I hope they have learned something. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the no sock hunting ban should do the trick. They can edit away happily but if they continue being a problem an Admin or this board will deal with it. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Post-closing comment

@Abecedare: - I don't quite see why you closed a proposal for a very straightforward and non-onerous TB in which there were 16 supports and 2 opposes as a simple warning to the editor. No offense, but I do not believe that your close properly summed up the consensus of the editors participating. Would you please re-open it and allow someone else to close it? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A narrowly tailored ban from SPI reports would be insufficient in that it would not prevent the user from improperly reverting edits that they imagined to be by sock-accounts (which is a significant part of the problem), or otherwise alleging/hinting at sock-puppetry outside of SPI space. The warning I issued for the user to stop with the "improper sockpuppetry allegations (in the form of reverts, edit-summaries, talkpage comments or SPI reports), or disregarding of feedback" covered the gamut of concerns and was IMO consistent with the views expressed above (it does not stop the user from filing a proper SPI report as a ban would but is that really an action we want to guard against?). That said, if any admin wants to replace my close with an SPI topic-ban, or any other remedy they consider an improvement, they have my ok to do so. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's only your opinion that the ban proposed by the community wouldn't work, and you really have no remit to override the community's opinion that it would be useful to try it. You reject that community's choice because you see it as flawed and ineffective at stopping specific actions, but your warning stops nothing at all.

Please don't put the onus on another admin, the right thing to do here is to re-open the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He should not be filing any SPI which is why the TBAN restriction was crafted as it was. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: please revert your closure — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I, and several others, advised the user to take a step back, and I think that happened and the initial warning would seem to have been effective. There was also the usual pile-on, just wallpaper on this page, however, the discussion above showed a clear consensus emerging about future restrictions on contribs, which should not interrupt the users will but is the will of those involved in that discussion. I would also prefer it was reopened, rather than a consensual decision be short-sheeted. cygnis insignis 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I've seen now that the closer made a clearer statement on the user's page, and that reflected the emerging consensus. cygnis insignis 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have WP:boldly reverted this closing with no fault assigned to previous closer Abecedare. Previous closing statement was: User:Mountain157 warned that continuing down the current path will lead them to being blocked.. This is now reopened. (Non-administrator comment) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 13:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He accused three IPs of being socks in the middle of the discussion, and when I said they were not he argued. That is not stopping. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, here is the warning I issued to User:Mountain157. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, my apologies. {{tq}} does not allow me to link things like that for some reason. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs a close with TBAN

• Don't know why this is still open. IMHO, should have been closed as a TBAN on asserting other users are socks or reporting to SPI. But, I'd say that, of course. DlohCierekim 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes it does. No admin is willing to do a simple TBAN close? Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs a close with no result

• Since I tried to withdraw the complaint initially, this should be closed with no result.Mountain157 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not how this works. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well how can you demand a TBAN on me then? After all it is not up to a snow pile to decide it. Mountain157 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually ANi imposes TBANs all the time. While not properly logged, the TBAN on mentioning sockpuppets anywhere or reverting because you think someone is a sock is basically in effect. If you cross the line and accuse someone of socking I would expect you will find yourself blocked. Forget about socks and go donsomething useful. Leave this area to editors that understand it. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See, I am actually trying to acknowledge both viewpoints and admit that YES, not everything I did was right. Whereas the only thing you have had to say is that all I do is "accuse and revert others of being socks". Stop parroting the same lines over and over again.Mountain157 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000 continues WP:POLEMIC behavior on Venezuelan articles

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

---

Summary: RBL2000 has continued disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages.

Diffs:

• Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1

• Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ("media") and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3

• Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as "trolls" 1

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#RBL2000's_WP:POLEMIC_Behavior_at_Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis - Previous incident report by MattLongCT

Background: Venezuelan articles have always been controversial and that definitely has not changed with this new presidential crisis. RBL2000 has not been making constructive edits and it appears that previous warnings have not been sufficient. The user has continued to only be active on talk pages and harasses users working diligently at maintaining accurate information of a complicated conflict. On the talk pages, the user will continue with WP:MYWAY that does not help with genuine discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet caught up with today's developments, but I can say that, since the report from a week ago by MattLongCT, nothing has changed. We spend large amounts of time responding to spurious and tendentious talk page posts from RBL and this seriously detracts from being able to add content. The real problem is that RBL just keeps coming back, over and over, with more non-reliable sources, or more sources that don't say what this editor believes they say. I do not support topic bans for first offenses. This is ongoing, and unabated; this user abuses the talk page and appears unable to understand reliable sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See 20 February ANI report by MattLongCT SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears SandyGeorgia is unable to understand the difference between posting sources/links in Talk Page versus the Article itself, also I am not forcing SandyGeorgia nor any other editor to respond to my comments, criticism and suggestions nor I have implemented any "unrealible sources" since February 20th as SandyGeorgia implies in the narrative, but SandyGeorgia can say that isn't the case then SandyGeorgia should admit it was wrong about "unreliable sources" claim as it involves Talk Page and not the Article, the former where there is discussion and suggestions. SandyGeorgia as is any other editor can participate in Talk Page to have a discussion as that is purpose of the talk page involving the subject of the article and what is related to it. SandyGeorgia as is ZiaLater should refrain from making false claims about me, specially later when claiming WP:SPA while ignoring, yes ignoring my edits on other topics/articles. RBL2000 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and ZiaLater: I appreciate the pings. Dlohcierekim was the responding admin. I encourage us to get additional feedback from them before proceeding. As for my thoughts on this user, I would like to contrast them with Fenetrejones who has certainly improved immensely in working with others at the talk pages (I just gave them a barnstar for this_). I encourage RBL2000 to rethink their behavior before posting additional comments that might be considered bad conduct. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 16:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Fenetrejones does seem to be trying, but they also struggle to understand the correct use of sources. There are only about six bilingual editors struggling to keep a complex and fast-moving situation updated, and we are unfortunately spending a disproportionate amount of time on trying to deal with faulty use of sources from just a few editors. I would rather be writing content, and there just isn't time to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, next time it comes up- just ping me. I'll explain it. :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, at your request, you explained (thank you), and the only response so far is an invitation for me to leave the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to sort the responses below, but I can't address anything about SPA tags, as I don't place them, and no idea what the complaint about a French source is. It is constantly dealing with this sort of thing that has bogged down the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I mention you and Zia, then said "the latter" which means Zia. RBL2000 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing This looks like an attempt to remove an inconvenient dissenting voice from talk via the drama boards. I didn't see much indication of disruption at talk when I looked just now. The Venezuela articles are a mess. Considering Wikipedia's bias in favour of capitalist owned media and against publicly owned media from the southern hemisphere it never will be anything other than a WP:NPOV mess. Let's just close down this bit of unnecessary drama and leave it alone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  This response concerns me. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  This spurious and deeply bitey AN/I thread deeply concerns me. Has Wikipedia got to the point where political article content disputes lead to immediate calls for t-bans from whichever group has larger numbers? Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia has been dealing with this, but I believe RBL2000 needs to be blocked until they address these issues. They really need to respond here and in a responsive manner. The last discussion petered out on its own, and I guess the only suggestion was admonishment. Apparently admonishment has failed. Wikipedia is not a haven for "dissent." It is a collaborative effort, and disrupting Wikipedia rather than seeking consensus as a form of "dissent" is really disruption. Does anyone see an alternative? DlohCierekim (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim See below response to Fenetrejones ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• ZiaLater claim I am pushing for controversial by doing WP:OR is inaccurate as I did not make claim and potraying my commentary on article from the UN that Fenetrejones posted the source while also mentioning at that time what is the count on Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and continues as of time of writing this at number 52 while the UN article mentions 60. I did not claim that is the number for countries that support Maduro if that is you're implying. After all I wrote "if all sign document jointly and declare". Is it negative sentiment to point out for example with SandyGeorgia expressed having trouble with understanding what Fenetrejones requested numerous times, which was to move Ukraine and Morocco from supporting Guaido to supporting National Assembly as stated in sources, Fenetrejones repeated this several times yet SandyGeorgia asked him again for which Fenetrejones again made same request. I have explained what his request is to SandyGeorgia as it was frustrating to me read their conversation as it was frustraing to SandyGeorgia explaing to me which I acknowledge, yet depends if SandyGeorgia acknowledges that I acknowledged. What is the purpose of the SPA tag? Please tell me ZiaLater because to me it seems its there to be used as label that implies my comments/opinion should be ignored, not to mention that I made edits in other topics not related to Venezuela yet it is "single purpose" as according to ZiaLater who also asserts my actions as WP:OR in Talk page of all as if I made edits in the very article. This is my stance. RBL2000 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @RBL2000: You have only move to other articles after you are warned or tagged as a WP:SPA, but then here we are again. I have not seen an improvement.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, lie about me as usual, unsurprising and expected. RBL2000 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing RBL200,Looking at his posts, he really does not deserve a block.

Reasons to Not Block Him

A. He is not vandalizing anything

B. He actually puts something on the discussion before editing it

C. As frustrating as SandyGeorgia is probably to him, I have seen no rude responses as of yet. (I am not attacking SandyGeorgia, I am evaluating that from his responses)

D. With regards to Morocco, a French source would not unreliable. Yes, it is French, but take into context that sources for certain country positions have the possibility of being in different languages. Morocco's official languages are Berber, Arabic, and FRENCH. So, it is not crazy that Morocco's position on something would be French

However some better things to do is suggesting improvements and at worst he deserves a warning

If who ever does not want to discuss country positions, than just stay away from articles like that if it is that big of a problem.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like this is the kind of dispute that happens when we rely on primary sources, like a statement issued by a country, or a newspaper article reporting that a country issued a statement: we end up arguing about what this primary source or that primary source means. Instead of trying to compile a list from primary sources, it seems a list of countries supporting Maduro or Guaido would be better off sourced to secondary sources, such as other lists of countries supporting X or Y, published by reliable sources, like: CNBC "Guaido vs Maduro: Who backs Venezuela's two presidents?" (already cited in the list); Reuters "Guaido vs. Maduro - Who is backing Venezuela's two presidents"; and Bloomberg "All the Countries Recognizing Guaido as Venezuela’s New President". Also, seems like there are only a handful of editors on that article's talk page, and that may be increasing frustrations all around (the "trapped in an elevator" effect). If only we had a centralized noticeboard where this sort of thing could be discussed... Leviv ich 21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich the article was split from the main article less than two days ago because 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis had gotten huge-- to see the number of people actually contributing on talk, and the extent of the behaviors discussed in this section, you would need to access the talk page archives back at the original article. There is a note at the top of Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis explaining this. And while I generally agree with the way you (or I) might have created or not this list, that is a separate matter from the recurring behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, if you think that talk page is bad, I encourage you to look at Talk:Albania–Greece relations. Same editors with the same disagreements for months. Luckily, since the RfC was closed, nothing major has occurred. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fenetrejones, this user has been warned many times (see "Information about previous warnings"). Separately, as much as you might appreciate RBL2000 as an editor, I really recommend avoiding commenting at ANI if that is ever possible ^{(I probably should not have pinged you here tbh)}. Regardless, my suggestion is a temporary 1-3 month topic ban imposed by an uninvolved administrator. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to llover sobre mojado, but I'd like to late the noticeboard know that RBL2000 just edited in Jair Bolsonaro's talk page, an article they haven't edited until know, with a similar pattern as the one as in the Venezuelan articles. If a block is decided, I'd like to propose to broaden the topic to post-1998 South American politics.--Jamez42 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is, suggesting with the 1998 date, a chavismo-era split, I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am somewhat aghast that posting a source to talk, particularly one that would probably be considered reliable is being treated as WP:POLEMIC and sanctionable. Like much of the material at Venezuela-related talk pages, this smarts of civil POV pushing. Also of WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 Jamez42 has posted elsewhere today that he is editing from a phone and unable to seriously edit today. I suggest we view the post above in that context. I am reading it as if sanctions are imposed, they may need to be broader because of the chavismo element. I could be wrong, but until Jamez42 can speak better for themselves, based on limited editing expressed elsewhere ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RL2000 should have mentioned that he wanted to add the information that Bolsonaro praised a notorious dictator, which was reported in American mainstream media. Otherwise I do not see any problem with this. What you should do is tell the editor that they should have mentioned they wanted this information added. Whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT, it meets reliable sources and hence is worthy of discussion if not inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems more like a content dispute to me, hence no action is required. I note that RBL2000 is a new editor who has edited for less than one month. Instead of discussing the complexities of Wikipedia rules with this editor, other editors have gone straight to warnings and ANI reports. I suggest that editors read "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" for guidance in dealing with new editors.

I believe that SandyGeorgia's pinging of another editor who had filed an ANI report against this editor to be a violation of improper canvassing as is another editor's mention of this case on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro.[81] It is inviting editors to a discussion based on the likelihood they will agree with you.

I also question SandyGeorgia's concern about there being only six bilingual editors active on these articles. Current events in Venezuela are being covered extensively in English language media and any events or opinions they fail to cover lack weight or are questionable. Furthermore, English language sources are preferable, since many readers go to external links for further information and other editors use them for determining whether or not they are accurately reflected in articles.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit the Venezuela articles not because I can't read Spanish, nor because I can't find English sources but because I've rarely seen more POV fraught areas outside of the Falun Gong pages. That's why I'm looking so askance at requests for an editor who has expressed a pro-Maduro POV to be t-banned from such a ridiculously broad swath as "all Latin America articles post 1998" on such farcically weak grounds. I am sorry if my WP:AGF is weak here, but the truth is that if this were any less controversial article set, the presented evidence of disruption wouldn't even rise to the level of lv. 1 template warnings, let alone calls for broad-ranging topic bans. And I don't care to extend an olive branch to a user who provides such weak evidence of WP:POLEMIC just because they're editing mobile. If they had one good diff they should have provided it. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

TFD, would you say that is an example of canvassing? I had already been pinged by ZiaLater who had been the original one to ping SandyGeorgia. I don't see why SandyGeorgia should get the blame on that one. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed Conversation

I struck out my mention of her name. But bear in mind that the more often one is pinged, the more likely one is to respond. By notifying editors who are likely to support a ban, it is more likely that a majority of the editors responding to this thread will favor one. It is much better to post the complaint and see what uninvolved editors have to say. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Yep, here we go again. Muddying a thread when I did none of the original pinging. And interjecting the idea that anyone jumped to discussion of topic banning, when I decidedly opposed that in the first thread. Please try to read before you opine. And then more muddying with the bilingual issue: yes, we utterly prefer English-language sources, but they are often a day behind Spanish-language sources, so one has to take care with what is added. And, we have multiple instances daily of editors inserting text based on Spanish-language sources that a) is outdated or incorrect based on higher quality sources, or b) are not using reliable sources (as was the case that prompted this thread)-- it helps to be able to read those sources. You, TFD, are making the same point that I am, as to these editors using marginal sources in Spanish to cite text that is not sourceable to the citations given. Business as usual, along with misrepresentation of the entire talk page matter, which is that no matter how many times one explains reliable sourcing on the talk page, we get more of same over and over (with the exception of MattLongCT, who has seriously engaged to attempt to get these new editors to understand how to use talk pages, and how to use sources). Thanks, MattLongCT. And then further muddying the waters with the notion that MattLongCT is likely to <whatever>, when MattLongCT has tried to help these editors avoid sanction. Sheesh, TFD, did you try to inform yourself before lobbing charges here that only muddy the picture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I considered what is presented in this discussion thread. No I did not read every talk page discussion on every article about post-1998 South American politics. Certainly you cannot expect editors to do that before replying. It is the responsibility of the editor requesting sanctions to provide evidence in the discussion thread. Incidentally I did look at User talk:RBL2000 and saw that all anyone has posted to it are templates: one welcome, two warnings, and two notices that they had been reported to ANI. I did not see any attempt to engage RBL2000 in discussion about their editing.[82] Incidentally there is no expectation that Wikipedia articles scoop English language media on events in Venezuela. Believe me, if Maduro resigns or the U.S. and its allies invade Venezuela it will probably be picked up on CNN immediately. I assumed you pinged MattLongCT in order to remind them to contribute to this page in support of the ban request. Correct me if I am wrong. TFD (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC) The endless discussions about reliable sources are in talk page archives. As explained in this thread, and the one linked in this thread to the previous discussion. You are still not understanding the English-Spanish sourcing issues, which has nothing to do with a "scoop". We have, daily, editors putting non-policy compliant information into articles using Spanish-language sources. One has to be able to read those sources to know if they are a) reliable, and b) verify the text they are sourcing. I have already explained this. In the last two days, we have had three examples of editors inserting falsified information from Spanish-language sources or sources that have nothing to do with the text being sourced. It helps to speak Spanish to be able to sort that out, and it is very time consuming. You probably aleady know what they say about assuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC) The selective way Americans choose to situate public media from the southern hemisphere while ignoring the explicit lies of private corporate media remains disheartening. And that's why this is a content dispute. Wikipedia should be saying nothing and using no newsmedia sources for discussing ongoing politically fraught crises. To do so is to introduce an implicit bias. To selectively ban newsmedia outlets because the bias disagrees with their own exacerbates the problem. The solution is simple. WP:TNT and wait for the historians to assess the matter academically in hindsight. But it is not to WP:BITE the newbies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Reasonable mistakes were made. No need to dwell. Let's just move on. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 01:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I don't believe we have crossed paths in editing, but it appears we are in a similar boat. I stopped editing Venezuela articles for years because of recurring issues about reliability of sources.

Editing Venezuela articles is difficult when we have state-owned and state-run sources like Telesur (TV channel) and Venezuelanalysis and multiple documented cases of outright falsehoods. Text from those sources is often undue and conspiracy theory, which are daily issues in the Venezuelan suite of articles.

On the other hand, we have editors on record (such as yourself) saying that "The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet", and rejecting Wikipedia's definitions of reliability. I encountered the same situation years ago (decade maybe?) with TFD when that editor faulted me for citing "biased" sources like The New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Economist, etc.

So, yes, it is hard to maintain neutrality on Venezuelan topics, when the discussion often comes down to giving due weight to a multitude of mainstream high-quality English-language reliable sources versus known documented falsehoods generated by state-owned sources. Just this week, we had an editor wanting to insert this conspriracy theory, when the photojournalist who took the picture is on record as saying it was plagiarized by Telesur and falsely used. To TFD's misunderstanding of the need for bilingual input on these articles, if you don't access the photojournalist charges in Spanish, you don't know that we have another documented Telesur falsification.

I personally spend a lot of time on talk trying to explain sourcing to new users. The complaint from TFD here seems to be that is not on editor talk pages instead of article talk pages, which makes not a lot of sense to me, since there are at least four editors on those articles who similarly misunderstand reliability of sources.

And finally, would I have brought RBL2000 to ANI for this, in either instance? Not yet, and I did not bring either of these threads. The situation in this suite of articles now is not nearly as bad as years ago, when the charges were that I was using "biased" sources like the New York Times; progress has been made, and giving due weight to high-quality, English-language sources is now respected. I learned back then that ANI was unlikely to deal with editors who don't respect reliable sourcing. I also learned that I'd end up accused here, just for weighing in, even though I didn't do the pinging, and I didn't start the threads. ANI muddy waters always assures that no action is taken to address the actual problem. This is not a content dispute; this is repeatedly having to explain the same things on talk about WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and getting back IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IDONTLIKEIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Please assume good faith and do not accuse anyone of canvassing when only the links to users were used as identifiers. I have assumed good faith on numerous occasions for RBL2000; if you did not notice, I waited an entire week to see if they had made any progress. But their behavior has not improved as they have continued to treat the talk page like a forum and a soapbox. I am thrilled to accept newcomers who can help with Venezuela articles, for example Kingsif (not pinging) has helped tremendously. But more often the users that have arrived recently only edit with poor intentions. We have dealt with continuous sockpuppets for months. I have assumed good faith and waited for improvements, but something needs to change with RBL2000.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Canvassing" says, "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Whether or not that was the intention, editors who support a ban of RBL2000 were invited to the discussion, which could unfairly influence the outcome of this discussion. But to return to the subject of this discussion thread, editors frequently disagree on what content should be included in controversial subjects. It is often difficult to determine whether the resulting disputes are based on genuine differences of opinion or violation of editing policy and guidelines by one or more editors. I am not seeing in the evidence presented in this thread that RBL2000 falls into the latter category. That does not mean they don't but the evidence presented is not persuasive to me. And I don't see any attempt on RBL2000's talk page to engage them in discussion. TFD (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

No evidence of wrongdoing is presented but I also don't think we should be throwing boomerangs at the people who over-zealously tried to get rid of a new editor who was annoying them. This is pointless drama and I'd recommend some Admin kindly put this thread out of its misery before it stinks up the place. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And I suggest that your pony in the race ("The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet") means you are not the person who should be calling for closure here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just reviewed RBL2000's recent contributions, and as far as I can tell, the behavior has not repeated since this thread started. Is that because RBL2000 now understands that tendentious and repetitive talk page posts and barbs should stop, is it because the content generating most problems was moved to a sub-article and is getting less attention, or is it because of something else-- dunno. Time will tell. I do appreciate that MattLongCT has been willing to help so that others can try to focus on keeping the article, that is on the main page, in shape. In what manner the past behaviors should be dealt with or not is for someone uninvolved to say, and "uninvolved" here does not include either TFD or Simonm223. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck because I missed this, posted here yesterday:[83]

• Yes, lie about me as usual, unsurprising and expected. RBL2000 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you walk back that failure of WP:AGF all I've done here is support the principle of WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not edited or even followed any Venezuela-related articles since before RBL2000 began editing so have not based my view on any experience of their editing but on what was posted to this discussion thread. However I notice that probably most of the other editors in this discussion thread could also be considered involved in some way. I do not therefore see this discussion as leading anywhere and suggest it be closed.

I have read through RBL2000's postings on the article about recent events in Venezuela and will provide I hope constructive advice on their talk page. In the best case, this will enable them to edit better. If you want to return to ANI at a future date, the fact that another editor has made an attempt to engage with RBL2000 could be taken into account.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000 agreed to hear my advice and I have posted it to their talk page. If you want to add to or correct my posting please do so. I think that their willingness to listen is positive and suggest that you agree to close this discussion thread. If they do not accept our advice then you can bring this up again and mention that they have ignored it. TFD (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a very good attempt. Since @ZiaLater: is the editor who has been most affected by RBL's edits, and the editor who started this thread, I am pinging for feedback (ZiaLater is quite a busy editor). The Four Deuces, I don't want to jump into the middle of your attempts to dialogue with RBL, but this example of how we should use talk pages to develop consensus around reliable sources may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your posting about attendance figures is good. I look forward to hearing from ZiaLater. TFD (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Last chance.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Re-open

Support block, WP:NOTHERE. Sorry @The Four Deuces:; I believe you made a noble effort, but this user needs to be blocked. After meters of WP:ROPE, RBL2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) responds to your good faith effort by saying about ZiaLater, "Wish it was also last chance for him, lying SOB." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Since you know that both TFD and I have been working to provide some basic mentorship to this new user perhaps you could wait more than a day before trying to get them voted off the island again. You know, in the spirit of WP:BITE which I still suggest you need to look at. Their comments weren't apropos, but I'd say that some small latitude should be made for a comment that this user may not have even considered public. (I know they would be mistaken in that assumption but, again I have to stress this, they're new to wikipedia) Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In my advice to RBL2000, I wrote "you need to remain civil, per "No personal attacks." You should not accuse other editors of lying for example." You asked them to strike out their recent comment and they have not done so. The message to me is that they do not intend to follow policy and guidelines. However I would suggest a new thread rather than re-opening this one. TFD (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Have they edited anything since I said that to them? It hasn't been long yet. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block – For obvious reasons.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support block --Jamez42 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block (as previous ANI filer) - Let's give it some more time. I put my trust in Simonm223 and TFD. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose block DlohCierekim 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:ImmortalWizard NOTHERE

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

---

ImmortalWizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has really been pushing the limits of how annoying someone can be before they are blocked.

• I first remember interacting him when he added "I am not a homophobic as others say." to Jimbo's userpage and reverted my reversion.
• Last month, his actions were so aberrant that his account was locked because of suspected compromise. After getting his account unblocked, he did not learn his lesson and made a strange edit that he then reverted with the summary "Absolute false claim done by my sister in law"
• Other unhelpful edits include sniping at arbs trying to give advice on how to avoid being blocked
• Spamming a survey on other users talk pages, which brought admins telling him that this is the last straw
• And just today, trolling established editors
• And adding 700,000 bytes of nonsense characters to his talk page (not going to link to that diff; you're welcome), and making an announcement for administrators.

This editor has had 30 final chances. It's time for a NOTHERE block. Natureium (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note. I just want to point out that they sign talk pages as "THE NEW ImmortalWizard." I think that is rather funny (always figured that they had been blocked before).―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay,

• I apologized for my actions and also for the "joke", after my block, didn't take edit summary seriously.
• If you consider those unhelpful advice, then so many people did the same to me and I was singled out.
• Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning.
• Today, I did not absolutely get how that was a troll.
• 700,000 bytes was my own thing in my personal userspace.
• I had to give attention to admins because they kept on wikihounding me and telling me not to GA review, even though I know how to. And they don't take into account my several useful edits. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: THE NEW is funny but I don't think that's offensive. I took inspiration from Daniel Bryan. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning. That's misleading. Your subsequent argument over that survey takes up more than one screen on my 24" monitor. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I will state the case for ImmortalWizard, that though they may have a WP:CIR problem, I find no action should be required at this time. I find their contributions to be of value to the project and suggest we drop the matter here. There has been no discussion on User talk:ImmortalWizard concerning this specific matter. Also, Wizard, what was the block for in your view? (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Their entire talk page is about the problems they are causing. Natureium (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The block was initially because of account compromised because they detected me doing some unusual vandals (after the unblock, my made that, one edit summary compromise joke, which I regret). It was quicky proven wrong. However, in my unblock request, I clearly explained why I did those vandals (which I was because I "snapped" after some talk page dispute), but apparently the admin declined immaturely and I got really upset and though it was unfair (since I was blocked because of compromised-behavior vandal after dispute, but still not unblocked even though I was never warned prior). Luckily, the unblock was reduced to two weeks by UTRS. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support but I have to hand it to them for being creative enough to find a new way to be disruptive and annoying each day. This exchange supports that they are intent on couching Admins and the most established users User_talk:SoWhy#Traditions_and_progression Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your bed is here. DlohCierekim

Is couching admins similar to bedding them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No exactly like this [84] Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You forgot where their contributions to a recent Marne of an ANI thread—which they inserted themselves into, having had no prior interactions with either party—were summarised by Legacypac, when the Wizard had helpfully just proposed a block of TRM: "Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves.
  They've also begun working with Featured Articles, although this is with more mixed results: on the one hand, Iridescent has had to explain precisely what FAR's are for, but, on the other, The Rambling Man has welcomed Wizard's injection's at Alf Ramsay FAC, telling him "your comments here seem to have come out of the blue, but are very much appreciated".
  It might (would?) also be wrong to treat Wizard as the ~five-year-old editor they appear to be; a closer look shows he made a bunch of edits in early 2016, but the vast majority have been since December last year. There may well be an element of assuming experience on their part which they do not (clearly) possess.
  Having said all that; Natureium's very rarely wrong in these matters, I think, and that's a pretty solid wall of diffs up there. ——SerialNumber54129 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've given ImmortalWizard multiple warnings and strongly worded pieces of advice in the past couple of days[85][86][87] and I'm certainly not alone in it (see User talk:MelanieN#Invitation to User surevey 1 for instance), but I wouldn't consider him a straightforward WP:NOTHERE case. This appears to be someone who clearly wants to help, but seems intent in blundering into technical areas where they don't have the requisite competence, and becomes angry and defensive when it's pointed out that he doesn't have the required competence. Hopefully, a "stay away from the WP: namespace unless you're sure you know what you're doing, if anyone tells you to stop participating on any given page then stop participating on that page, and don't try to tell other people what to do" warning will be enough. Paging MelanieN and Floquenbeam, both of whom have tried and failed to talk IW off his apparent crash course. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also Premeditated Chaos, same subject heading. ——SerialNumber54129 20:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I never understood why I you asked me to not review FA and you didn't explain me properly. I should of course be unwelcomed when you reply to other user's page and bringing other matter about ANI and not reviewing FA. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Accused me of gravedancing which was dead wrong (pun intended) [88] Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I should remind that you have grudge of me like here for supporting another editor. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec)That is not a grudge, it is a promise. That reminds me of [89] where you were lecturing User:Beyond My Ken and threatened with a gravedancing block by User:TonyBallioni. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IW, you're sniping and bitching on the discussion about whether you're disruptive. Do you actually grasp that this is an academic project, not a chatroom, that we could all be doing something more useful with our time than playing whatever game you're playing, and that the ability to communicate civilly with other editors even when one disagrees with them and to comply with consensus are all non-negotiable prerequisites to editing Wikipedia? ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban or block. The most I would support is an admonishment. Maybe AN/I has a hostile view of them, but that is not the only place they have edited. For example, they have made constructive nominations here and provided decent insight here. I can get that a newer user can be frustrating to deal with, but this seems like a bit Bite-y to me. (Non-administrator comment) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Advice given here. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it would certainly be a shame for an established editor to bite a new editor who was just learning the ropes of Wikipedia's culture. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Iri. I'd echo a lot of what Iridescent says. I don't think NOTHERE applies, but I do think he is soaking up a lot of other editors' time, to the point where I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the cost. I've seen this with several different editors before: an inexperienced editor jumps into one area after another headfirst, and for some reason refuses to listen to advice from more experienced editors until they realize they might get blocked. Then they find a new area to "explore". The main pattern here seems to be a lack of consideration for other editors' time and effort. My main concern was when he started participating at ANI unproductively, making things worse, but he seems to have agreed to stop doing that. But it is just one thing after another, though. My own plan was to keep an eye on him and block if he did something else really outrageous. I don't necessarily support or oppose doing something before then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Given this, I now support an indef block/site ban. This comes a few days after accusing MelanieN of "assuming his gender", "forgetting" that he had identified his gender on-wiki(twice!) himself, on his user page and in his preferences. This is either incompetence or trolling. We need to assign more value to the time spent by good faith editors continuously cleaning up after someone who shows no interest in learning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Most of this stuff is pretty concerning. This was not okay to do at all, after a lot of admins have been trying to mentor and help this user get along with the community. They seem to refuse to listen to any concerns or suggestions anyone has. My main concern is this user doing WP: GAR and WP: FAR, when as others have said this user is fairly new. As can be seen on their talk page multiple users have taken concern over them doing GAR or FAR. I request, that at the least the three GAR and one FAR in my Wikiproject, that were started by IW are closed. This is because WP: GAR and WP: FAR say that individual assessment can not be done if considered controversial. Obviously it is here. StaticVapor message me! 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• And they don't take into account my several useful edits. Can you specify which several of your edits are useful and not related to drama? Natureium (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Another Comment. Given this, can we please stop pinging every single admin under the sun? They are willing to drop the stick. Users are welcome to suggest further action on my talk page, but I really believe that this doesn't require action by AN/I beyond an admonishment. This user is not beyond saving as many have suggested. I will take the blame if they mess up again. (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that an offer to take the same block Wizard gets when he gets the next one? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• IW may well be about to become a shining exemplar, but I'm just going to put Special:PermaLink/885561291#How to battle at ANI, which he appears to have been posting whilst you were writing the above, here. ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/885564726#How_to_battle_at_ANI, They just struck it, I believe. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've IAR reversed the blanking of his talkpage [90] for the convenience of users in this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac that really wasn't necessary. They kept it all in the archive. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving breaks links from this thread and makes discussion more difficult. It is just another form of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So they are no longer allowed to archive their page? That doesn't seem fair. Users could have easily perma-linked to the threads in reference. (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Burying the evidence during a discussion. Not all of us know how to permalink Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Not as NOTHERE (I don't believe that) but under WP:COMPETENCE. They repeatedly demonstrate an inability to behave acceptably towards others; whether by deliberate act or incapacity is getting to be moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE indef: I'm finding a pattern here. The user makes disruptive edits and tries to waste users' time, but when he is confronted in the slightest, suddenly the edit was made for humor or its purpose wasn't what you think. No biting is going on, the user has been here since 2014 and you would expect at least a slightly better understanding of Wikipedia good edit/bad edit rules. Giving the user yet another final warning would be a waste of time and reversions. (Non-administrator comment) GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  GN-z11, they have edited in 2014, but they really have only been consistently editing since December 2018. Also, they do actually edit outside of project space. I just wanted to put that in there. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MattLongCT: That's correct, however, I can't see a WP:HERE editor causing all the issues that different users reported above. Actually, the more I look into it, the more I see it as a WP:CIR, but I'm just not sold. I would supremely like to give them a chance, but it's way too late IMO. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 21:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't particularly want IW to end up blocked, I just want him to stop saying odd shit and maybe focus on basic content work for awhile. I could charitably believe that it's more of a language competence issue compounded by a strong desire to be helpful than an intentional effort at trolling/being condescending, but unfortunately, it has the same frustrating effect on others overall. The attitude problem is compounded by his absolute refusal to consider that other users might have something of value to say, no matter how polite they are. It's nice that he's agreed on his talk page not to comment on this thread again, but given his history, I don't think it'll last. I dunno. I don't support a block at this stage, but I would support a TBAN from at least ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest a topic ban from Wikipedia space, but he seems to keep finding more creative ways to act in a ridiculous manner. Topic banning him from Jimbo's userpage, Jimbo's talk page, everyone else's talk page, ... actually banning him from posting on anyone else's talk page or commenting on other people on his own talk page could work, but also make collaboration difficult. Natureium (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• If people are pinging every administrator under the sun, that’s because every administrator under the sun seems to have become involved with him - because of his many adventures in many different areas. For myself, I thought at first he had promise, and volunteered to mentor him. However, he made it clear he wasn’t willing to take advice so I bowed out. He then doubled down on his declaration of unwillingness to learn or be guided. I see that MattLongCT seems to be stepping up now as his defender and mentor, and I wish him luck. Personally I feel certain that some point IW will become so disruptive that he will get indeffed. I don’t know if he’s quite there yet, but as I am INVOLVED with him I will leave that decision to others. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLong seems willing to take responsibility for him but how exactly? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You might be right, MelanieN. However, I am the monarch of lost causes. 8) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 02:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE CIR block - Given they were mentored by Melanie I really did hope this would make a difference ... instead it appears to have done nothing and without any disrepect to Mel she's simply wasted her time as has everyone else on this editor, This seals the deal for me, The editor clearly doesn't have the competence to edit here and I don't think further mentoring will help in the end,

Time, effort and patience inverested in this editor could be better spent on articles,

Ofcourse indef doesn't mean forever and they can come back in 5-10 years when hopefully they've gained the sufficient competence. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of every administrator having become involved with him, I had this dispiriting exchange a short while ago. I don't think this is a NOTHERE situation. I examined some of his content-related edits: they suggest that he needs to be a little less zealous in sending things to GAR and FAR (and possibly AfD: he's active there, though I haven't checked his nominations), and that he needs to spend more time reading the policy pages he cites, but I think there's also a genuine desire to help. I think his biggest problem is that he's unable or unwilling to listen when people advise him not to blunder about somewhere where he doesn't have experience; Ritchie333, MelanieN, and I (and probably several other admins) all told him to stay off of ANI, and he reacted poorly. Really the only solution to this is for him to "get it", and beyond a point we can't help with that; but, to minimize the timesink, I wonder if a "meta discussion" topic ban would be useful. I'll try and formulate something shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IW's behaviour is reminiscent of Barts1a/Twitbookspacetube who had this obsessive need to police the admins. That's not an accusation of sockpuppetry but an observation of editors who deviate from editing and begin to spend more and more of their time on the noticeboards, without the experience or thick skin, where it usually ends badly. Blackmane (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread started he wants to [91] redeem himself by tagging a random BLP with 274 inline notes/references as Needing More References for Verification. Posted on talk too Talk:Alex_Ferguson#BLP_More_citations_needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And that was the last straw for me. I was unsure what to do about IW. Sometimes he seems reasonable and polite and productive, and other times he's a pain. There comes a time when incompetence cannot be told apart from trolling. Whichever this is, we don't need it here. I believe an indefinite community block is needed until IW can convincingly explain to the community that they're sufficiently mature and stable enough to edit here. At this point, I don;t think that's the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I removed his cleanup tag from the article Legacypac described above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

…and he immediately added another version of the tag. Interestingly, he had asked for advice at my talk page about this tag. But while I was was reviewing his edits so I could give him a detailed answer, he went ahead and replaced the tag BMK had removed with another, slightly gentler version of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of certain Wikipedia basics, tagging this article is CLEARLY wrong, yet argues that his "mistake" was the wrong tag, nothing more. A tendency to talk around all issues brought up in a constructive manner is a clear "I didn't hear that" mentality. It's not just user space. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, If you want to "redeem yourself" and show the community that you can contribute productively without causing problems, there are 183,000 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources. Finding sources for unsourced articles is very helpful, and doesn't require posting on anyone's talk page or in wikipedia space. Natureium (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block of up to at least three months in length. There's definitely some juvenile and potentially WP:CIR-relevant and definitely WP:IDHT behaviour going on here. But there's enough of a question about how disruptive they are intending to be that I'm not keen on jumping straight to an indef. (Nevermind, before I even hit the send button, I found this extra context). However, clearly something needs to be done get their attention. I'd support an indef, but I'd also be willing to see them blocked for a decent little chunk of time significant enough to make the point of how non-constructive their behaviour is found to be, followed by an extension of a last little bit of WP:ROPE. I can't say that I am super confident they are going to come back as a more focused and less problematic contributor, but the case is just close enough that I'm willing to support something short of an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support CIR block, which is unfortunate as I think IW means well. The ideas of banning him from Wikipedia space and/or trying to confine him mostly to mainspace were floated above, but IW has also been disruptive in mainspace. And regarding Natureium's suggestion that IW work on the articles that are completely devoid of sources, I don't have much confidence in IW's ability to find reliable sources and properly integrate them into articles. The community has been patient, as we should be given that IW seems to have good intentions, but we've reached the limit. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Beyond My Ken, and I'm going to call it per WP:CIR. What it really is is this: Wikipedia is not a game for you to play; we're not here for anyone's entertainment or to be the subjects of a social experiment in how many different ways you can goof off before you're shown the door. Most of the editors here are actually interested in a serious project to construct an encyclopedia, and stupid crap like this is just a pointless distraction and destructive timesink. Block them until they can convince someone they're going to take it seriously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef CIR block. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef until they can convince us otherwise. Nihlus 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef per CIR. It's too bad, but IW has been an annoyance for many editors. I recall him calling for a two-month block of The Rambling Man about a week or so ago- ridiculous. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support I no longer think a topic ban from wikipedia space would be a solution, as much of his CIR issues are on user talk pages. His retirement when things are getting sticky for him and immediate return is another example of his disruption. Natureium (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: meta-discussion topic ban

Proposal: User:ImmortalWizard is topic-banned from participating in discussions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, unless they are the subject of the discussion, or the discussion is related to a specific content issue.

• Support as proposer. I think what we have here is a genuinely well-intentioned user who needs to stop making such an effort to make an impression, and instead knuckle down and learn the ropes of building an encyclopedia. Consider this a last chance before a community-imposed site-ban, because I do think there's potential here. His approach here has been needlessly slapdash, but some of the issues has identified are quite genuine, and do require attention. If he can learn to critique articles in a slightly more constructive manner, he could be a genuine asset. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support concur with Vanamonde93 DlohCierekim 22:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Indef block per WP:CIR. Read current talk page. I'm gonna AGF the Hell out of this and assume user really is having memory/mental health/compes problems that cause all these lapses. SO after 6 months if they can address these issues. Maybe it's all just a breaching experiment. But please. DlohCierekim 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I think this could nip the issue in the bud. If not... GAB^gab 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose - One can only be given so much rope before they end up hanging themselves, IMHO discussions are a small part of the problem, He seems to be a problem whereever he goes, I'm opposing this in lieu of an indef block. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I completely understand where you're coming from, but my reading of the situation is that there doesn't seem to be enough support for an indef block, at least not yet, and I'd rather try something than have us do nothing at all. Perhaps you might reconsider and change to "support" under that reasoning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I completely agree something is better than nothing, Given there's more of a consensus for TBANning than there is for blocking I guess I've have to support this, Not happy about it but as you and I have said something's better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This doesn't really address the problem. He isn't just a problem in WP-space. (And BTW you should make clear that this is what you are talking about; "the project namespace" is jargon that may not be clear to him.) He is also a problem at article talk pages and user talk pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: I agree about jargon, I've tweaked the proposal, feel free to clarify it further. As to the rest; I agree that he has been disruptive elsewhere, but I think a lot of that has stemmed from his cluelessness about project-space discussions. He's definitely not the worst we have with respect to GAR/FARs, and I think some of the disruption stemmed from an inability to see that we would actually sanction him for causing trouble. I'm struggling to see any other alternative short of an indefinite block, which I don't think is quite justified yet. A somewhat unorthodox alternative might be to authorize community general sanctions that are user-specific rather than topic-specific; that is, authorize any admin to impose any sanction on him they feel to be necessary to contain disruption. That also seems like the community wouldn't be behind it, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 What is the intent behind "specific content issue"? Would that allow him to continue to do GAR, for instance? Would suggest maybe a tweak to or the discussion is related is replying to a specific content issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (and also @Snow Rise:, because this is relevant to your objections, even if it doesn't satisfy you); the intent is simply that he not be locked out of evaluating content, because a lot of content is evaluated in the project namespace, including at FAC/FAR, PR, and AfD. This is as close as I can come to formalizing what I would informally summarize as "mind your own business and work on content". It removes him from all the drama boards, as well as from maintenance-space discussions about broader issues that necessarily require more experience to participate in constructively. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

They should be locked out of GAR and FAR, someone "new", that we are trying to teach how to be a good Wikipedian, should not be given the confidence to reassess major articles on their content. When as has been stated, this user needs to focus on building content in the encyclopedia. StaticVapor message me! 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as solving part of the problem but it does nothing about his stupid comments on usertalk pages or his latest article tagging game. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as a way station on the way to an (I fear) CIR/NOTHERE indef block. I've been concerned about their recent, non-productive posts on the dramahboards; I'll help a newbie until the cows come home, but life is too short for a timesink like this. Miniapolis 23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I don’t want him to be indeffed just yet, although that may be inevitable if he doesn’t slow down and listen to those who are trying to help him. I advised him here to avoid drama and just write some content but it seems a formal restriction is needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Minapolis and Legacypac. I really don't think that this will turn out to be sufficient, but maybe it'll be enough of a kick in the behind to get IW thinking straight and on the right track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• If this proposal passes, I think it would be a good idea if the closer pointed out to IW that there was significant support for an indef block, and that a number of editors !voted for this with reservations that it would be sufficient. In other words, that his sanction (if this is it for now) wasn't a clean bill of health in editing other areas of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Like Pawnkingthree I don't think I'm at the stage of hitting the block button just yet because of the constructive work he did on the Alf Ramsey FAC today. However, he needs to give the maintenance areas of the project (including AfD, reassessments, tagging, discussions) a wide berth and stick solely to mainspace and improving content. I'm sceptical he'll be able to see March out with getting blocked by somebody, but we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt. Update : Having read through the discussion on Alex Ferguson, I've given him a serious shot across the bows - he needs to stop now before he gets blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggested sanction is too broad, to vaguely framed to avoid gaming, and too unworkable even if construed and enforced strictly. We really can't have editors who are allowed to have a half a foot on the project but are unable to contribute to basic community processes. That kind of situation does not prevent drama, it magnifies it several times over. It was clearly a good-faith suggestion, but honestly, it's a worst-of-all-worlds scenario that requires too much community supervision and mediation when problem editors are put into that situation. We should either come to the conclusion that the editor is prepared to contribute in a mature and productive fashion and comport themselves properly in community processes, or we should bite the bullet and place a sanction, temporary or otherwise. Going for a half measure only increases the amount of community time that will be consumed in shepherding their conduct and resolving disputes they may become involved in. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• IW commented on this proposal here. I think he feels unable to comment here because it is ANI and he was told to stay away from ANI. Sounds like he would actually be OK with it but he needs a little clarification what we are talking about. He may also need to have "topic ban" explained to him. Anybody? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• This could work, but a lot of the disruption is also to user talk and article talk pages. I can't think of a suitable way to prevent him from causing nonsense in these areas without preventing him from working collaboratively with others, because he is constantly coming up with new ways to cause nonsense and his creativity far outshines mines. Natureium (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Close only this TBAN section I've explained the TBAN in plain English and the user has agreed to it on his talkpage. An Admin can log it now. This is a long term wider problem though [92] Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose any sort of TBAN (in favour of an overall block). The problem is that this editor is a time-sink for others, with no evident prospect of improvement, all such efforts having so far failed. This won't be improved by focussing them into one un-TBANned area. Even if that does improve the state of mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Although I was neutral above, I now support this topic ban from WP space. Mainly because he has a mentor he is willing to listen to, and as long as he continues doing that I think he has a chance here. I am not putting down any money on whether he will able to keep that up, but he has agreed to this limitation and this approach, and I think he and Matt should be given a chance to make it work. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I withdraw my support for this proposal. It is based on the hope that with support and mentoring he will learn what to do and what not to do, and become a productive editor. Unfortunately that experiment lasted less than 24 hours; strong kudos to Matt for trying. But I now fear IW will never be a functioning member of the WP community. IMO he is too mercurial, too unpredictable, too easily offended, too resistant to counsel, and too lacking in judgment to be any kind of asset to the project. And I concur with Vanamonde that it would be a mistake to accept his "retirement" at face value and close this discussion as if his retirement has solved the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the Wizard's own good: none shall pass the Slough of Despond. Indeed, it's something that wouldn't do any of us any harm...——SerialNumber54129 12:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't address the issue, just gives the user something else to test the limits of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, oppose block Impose the TB, but I've seen more rage-quits than I can count. They're annoying (and bode ill for the future), but not block-worthy. Miniapolis 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that he should be blocked BECAUSE of the rage-quit. The discussion here about various blocks and bans is based on his activity before his resignation. The only reason people mention his resignation is to urge that we shouldn't drop this discussion and do nothing on the assumption that the issue is moot and he will never come back. After all most "retirements" here turn out to be temporary. So it seems like this discussion should reach some kind of consensus or conclusion based on what has been brought up about his editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban and block It seems that the editor was triggered or trolled and has lost his/her nerve and that's totally understandable. The editor has made a lot of good and positive edits I have been seeing him around and I never found any bad faith edit by him/her. I would support a respectful warning.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please point to the alleged trolling or triggering. If you can't see any bad faith editing by Wizard you either did not look or can't identify a bad faith edit. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support concur with Vanamonde93. User has retired but may decide to come back in the future. Not block worthy, a TBAN seems fair. Wikiemirati (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I wasn't going to particiate, but his latest "I didn't do anything wrong" comment (post-retirement notice) makes me believe something needs to be in place when IW returns to ensure a more contstructive approach to his time on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia namespace ban. I found this discussion because of this entirely careless AFD nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Indef TBAN from WP/T space with the exception of GA reviews, appealable in six months. This would be the last bit of rope or last chance for me before an indef CIR block. Leviv ich 17:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard has retired

ImmortalWizard has now un-retired.

I see ImmortalWizard has retired. Do we need to keep this thread open? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC) How long do you predict this "retirement" will last? Natureium (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Even his retirement message is troll like. If you want to close this up as an Indef to match the retirement, go for it. 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) I think we need to proceed as though he's still around w.r.t. the sanction. Everything he has done so far suggests his actions are driven by impulse rather than careful thought; he could be back tomorrow, and we'd be back to square one (and the kitten god killed when this thread was opened would have died in vain). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I say the most equitable solution would be to impose the topic ban since there seems to be consensus and issue a temporary one-month block for now citing "self-imposed retirement" or the like. I say that as a !voter against indef. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 18:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) He retired, so just to ensure that this isn't a cheeky attempt to close any block/ban discussions, I strongly support an indef. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC) And the retirement message clearly shows that he cannot handle even minimal heat in discussions, so I don't think he will come back constructively in the future. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Support per Matt, Lpac and Melanie, out of deference to the recommendations of the editors who have taken the time to help/mentor IW. Leviv ich 07:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Support - I wasn't going to particiate, but his latest "I didn't do anything wrong" comment (post-retirement notice) makes me believe something needs to be in place when IW returns to ensure a more contstructive approach to his time on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC) @Levivich and MPJ-DK: What are you supporting? This section does not make a proposal, it is merely about how to handle his retirement. Are you supporting the the "Meta-discussion topic ban", and should your comment be moved to that section? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC) @MelanieN: I support placing a sanction despite the retirement notice. As for a specific sanction, I'd support any block/ban that other editors agreed upon. (I believe IW has already agreed to a tban from WP/T space.) Also strong support for an admin closing this and memorializing the tban/block. Leviv ich 23:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC) FYI, he has now indicated on his userpage that his "retirement" is temporary. Natureium (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC) @MelanieN: Yes I was a section off. Moving my comments

Request for Close

I just put in a request for close at WP:ANRFC. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 16:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• And he "unretired" already, just a note to whomever is going to.close this. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would Take a Look at him .. he is NOT retired and he is making a lot od Edits today Jena (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked ImmortalWizard for a period of 7 days whilst this discussion is wrapped up. I would close this now as having consensus for an indefinite block per CIR/NOTHERE, but I would like to give participants time to review their decisions and comments based on their retirement and rapid return to editing, which could possibly be perceived as an attempt to avoid sanctions. Nick (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• support indef Given the above shenanigans, it is time that people leaned that retirement is not a way to get out of (or cover up) blocks, it is gaming the system and shows they are not going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick, I'm not sure I agree with this block. His intent during his recent barrage of edits was to show himself editing constructively - This is so disappointing to get blocked even though I am making good edits. :(. Maybe he should be given WP:ROPE enough to show us what he regards as editing constructively? Or maybe this brief sample was enough. During the interval before you blocked him he did give us some idea of what he regards as good edits. Some are helpful, like this improvement of references, and this withdrawal of a bad AfD. Some are tagging things with cn or unsourced - not particularly helpful, such as this cn tag on a single sentence of an otherwise well sourced article. Some are just confused: for example here and here he changed the title External Links to References in an otherwise unsourced BLP, so that it now has a References section, but here an identical article that had external links was tagged as an unreferenced BLP. Here he attempted to add a reference to an unsourced article; good intentions and he could be taught how to do it right. I'm not advising any particular action, but I do think that these recent "look how helpful an editor I can be!" edits give us additional data points to evaluate his competence and overall helpfulness to the 'pedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think his resignation should be seen as an attempt to game the system or avoid sanctions. IMO he's not that sophisticated. I think it was an impulse, an angry reaction to the things that were being said about him here. Lots of people, including many still in good standing here, have made that kind of impulsive/angry retirement but have come back after cooling down. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a slightly unusual set of circumstances - there's already consensus to indefinitely block ImmortalWizard, the closure of that discussion and enactment of the indefinite block was interrupted (rendered irrelevant) by ImmortalWizard's retirement, so allowing their return to editing whilst this ANI thread was still open seemed inappropriate, but similarly, jumping straight to an indefinite block (with suitable log entry) without allowing the type of input (particularly when we are dealing with a good faith editor) from experienced editors like MelanieM also seemed inappropriate as it would make any further discussion here largely pointless (since it would be enacting a community sanction/ban). I believe a finite block for the duration of this discussion was the most appropriate way forward for the time being, particularly as it allows a further three outcomes - (i) the block expires because there's no consensus on a formal sanction, (ii) the block is replaced by a formal sanction block (noting community consensus and the appeal mechanism etc) or (iii) the block is lifted (being an admin block rather than a community sanction, my block can be lifted by any other admin) enabling ImmortalWizard to resume editing. I hope that explains my decision process. Nick (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there really a consensus for indef? I haven't been tallying. But thanks for your explanation; that makes sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Still support indef. I tried to help him and he just kept finding new ways to troll. Acts too immature to edit here. Treats disruption as a game. His short lived retirement was just the latest game. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Legacypac has hit the nail squarely on the head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not trying to double vote, just noting that earlier today I changed my opinion in the first section above, and think an indef is in order; I suspect I should have commented in a newer section, as that might get lost in the sea of old comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've gone through the comments, and it looks like (sorry if I missed anything) 13 people are in favor of an indefinite block; 3 are opposed, with Vanamode and Miniapolis thinking a topic ban is more appropriate, and SharabSalam arguing that ImmortalWizard was "triggered" and thus not at fault; and 2 editors, Ritchie333 and Iridescent are in the "not yet" camp. I did not tally the topic ban conversation, but that looks to have broad support as well. Unless the not yet-ers have any thoughts to add about events from the past few days, I think this is ready for someone to close it. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• My thinking is similar to that of MelanieN. My impression is that IW is a good faith editor who's vastly overestimated his own abilities and consequently keeps doing things wrong and getting upset when people point it out to him, as opposed to a true troll. Given that there have been numerous instances of editors in similar situations who then go on to become productive editors once it's hammered home to them at indef-point that following consensus even when one disagrees with it isn't an optional extra (WBG immediately springs to mind), I still oppose indef at this stage.

  To me, this is a classic WP:ROPE situation. Events of the last week have hopefully made it clear to IW that any more messing about won't be tolerated—in light of that, I'd have no problem with an unblock with a "you're not to do anything other than write articles for the next few months, and if I see your name at GAN, AFD, FAC or any other page with an alphabet-soup acronym you'll be immediately re-blocked" condition, to give him the chance to prove that he gets what Wikipedia is about. ‑ Iridescent 10:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with all of Iridescent's comments above. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I thought I'd already opposed an indef block above; I see I did not, so I oppose one now. Notwithstanding that, Nick's block was a necessity of the time. I still support a topic ban from purely administrative boards—so "Narrowly construed", say—but it's perfectly possible for him to learn to do constructive work in article review process. Indeed, his input into the Alf Ramsay FAC seems to be appreciated by the nominators, and in any case, we don't consider incompetence at reviewing grounds for topic bans until it becomes absolutely disruptive; I don't see that in IW's case, merely inexperience. And the only way to counter inexperience is to let them learn. If nominators at GAC and FAC repeatedly consider his input disruptive in future then that should be the time—after IW has demonstrably had the time to learn and failed to do so—for sanctions. Iridescent's emphasis on article creation should probably be part of the conditions though as well. ——SerialNumber54129 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• You guys really think this isn't trolling, but a good faith mistake?? He replied at the ANI thread 9 minutes after the notice, so he obviously saw it. Then 4 days later claims to have "forgotten" about the notice? Days after pulling a very similar "oh, I forgot" troll on MelanieN? Bull. Shit. He is lying. Not just stupid, but lying. He's trolling in the middle of a discussion about an indef block. I really do not understand WP sometimes. If we're not going to indef, then somebody at least close this stupid thread so I'm not tempted to look at it any more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef - give him a last chance to work on some articles per Iridescent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• As I have said, I have no position about the outcome here - indef vs. topic ban vs. whatever. I just want to say: I see suggestions above about letting him work on GA and FA nominations. If that is agreed to, I think it should have a caveat: he can work on nominations - either helping get them to GA, or even reviewing them - because it appears his input in those areas may be helpful. But he must NOT pull existing GA articles into GA review. In that area he has shown poor judgment and been disruptive. He could make improvements to such articles himself, or even suggest improvements at the talk page, but he does not have the judgment to tell the difference between between "this article is so seriously flawed it may not be a GA any more" (and thus needs GA review) vs. "this article is slightly short of perfection" (but GA review would be inappropriate overkill). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  MelanieN Thanks for putting that into writing. I have really only experienced them at GAR where I found what you wrote above about disruption. I had held off writing anything here (beyond trying to clarify the proposed TBAN) given the positive reaction TRM had at FA but I think your distinction here matches my limited experience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I could support a block due to all the games and trolling this user has done throughout the encyclopedia (WP:CIR). Even after given a last chance, they fake a retirement and resume to bad mouthing others on User Talk pages. If this is to be a topic ban, I echo MelanieN's points. The user must also be banned from GA reassessments and probably GA reviews. This is where some of the disruption was coming from. StaticVapor message me! 20:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Don't know anymore where to !vote, so changed to indef above. Per CIR. (Is this the longest ANI report ever or what?)21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC) DlohCierekim 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, sadly it's the fourth-longest ANI thread on the page right now. Leviv ich 22:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I know why this thread is so long and still unclosed. It's because nobody really wants to indef this guy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we can blame Nick for preventing anyone from getting even more frustrated while we're discussing. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit war on Scotland at the FIFA World Cup

• Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dolfinz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scotland at the FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These two users are repeatedly reverting each overs edits without much discussion of the problem. Both editors are being very uncivil in this article, but Jmorrison230582 in particular is refusing to cooperate civilly, even telling me to "piss off" when giving a warning about WP:AGF [93]. He repeatedly removed edit warring discussions from his talk page [94]. As for Dolfinz1972, he misued rollback to undo non-vandal edits to continue the edit war. funplussmart (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted those edits to the Scotland at the World Cup article because they appeared to be vandalism (unexplained deletion of sourced content). You accuse me of edit warring and not assuming good faith when I am faced with apparent vandalism - why should I? I also have the right to edit my talk page as I please. The issue is now being discussed at WP:FOOTY and there is a clear consensus against the deletion of the content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not misuse rollback. The lead should be only about the country at the World Cup. The qualifying and the tournament overall have nothing to do about it.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you definitely misused it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I had already full-protected the page and warned the users, and thought they were discussing it, but now I see they're actually following each other around revert-warring on other articles (see Germany at the FIFA World Cup). I'm blocking both 31 hours to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also pulled Dolfinz1972's WP:ROLLBACK bit, per edit warring on a very large number of articles, though they only seem to have abused rollback on these two. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind that struck bit, they've used rollback for plain content reversions on a huge number of articles today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It was explained (I.E. " not even relevant ") and it is hard to see it as vandalism. I would say that is far too detailed for the lede (especially as it does not seem to reflect anything in the body). I would have deleted it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't really care, to be honest, but if you want to work on it be my guest, I'm going to lift the protection. Dolfinz1972 reverted four times in a matter of minutes, and did so using rollback more than once. That's a bright line WP:3RR violation with abuse of rollback to boot. Jmorrison230582 chased them to a different article to revert after hitting three reverts on this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support IBAN. funplussmart (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Wait until blocks expire While I do believe some kind of ban may be nessesary in the future, we can only know once the blocks expire and the users begin editing again. funplussmart (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think an iban is the right approach, personally. This doesn't seem to be a personality conflict but a content dispute affecting a large number of articles. An iban here would seriously impair both editors' ability to edit. I'm reserving confidence that both editors will behave in a more collaborative fashion when their blocks expire. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just musing, =maybe mooting it (even if we do not act on it) might have a sobering effect.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose for now—while they're blocked they've had one imposed on them, so the better strategy is to wait until the blocks are up and see if they have encouraged a change of approach. If the blocks teach them anything—to cooperate collegially—the Iban would be unnecessary. Indeed, it's probably overkill for what seems to be quite a short-term dispute. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And comments like this [[95]] and this [[96]] tells me it is not going to go away when (and if) they edit again.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing like a bunch of over-officious admins who don't know shit about Wikipedia policies. WP:CDB and WP:VANDTYPES in particular. I'll remember to avoid you in future. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ibans (ironically, before seeing this I've just performed an almost identical revert on the related England at the FIFA World Cup). I don't think the content in question should have been removed—and it was a total abuse of rollback to use it in a content dispute—but I can see a good faith argument on both sides. The argument for removal is that readers can see the parent article if they need this information and that it clutters articles up with text which the majority of readers already know; the arguments for keeping is that because of the World Cup's prominence it attracts an audience who aren't usually familiar with football and consequently won't be familiar with the context the WP:FOOTY regulars take for granted, and that articles are reused elsewhere without their interwiki links and consequently need to include enough context to stand alone ("would this make sense to a bright 14-year-old reading a printout of the page?" is always a good thought experiment). Unless there's evidence of a pattern rather than a one-off flare up I don't see what purpose an iban would solve. ‑ Iridescent 07:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Dolfinz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to the end of his block by edit warring (just broke WP:3RR on England at the FIFA World Cup) on this again. Spike 'em (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop please. I I were you I wouldn't care. I want to kill myself now.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Take a break then (or engage in some civil discussion rather than mass reverting). Spike 'em (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Stuff me with green apples, some people do not learn.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle and RM closures

I'd like to ask for some help in resolving a disagreement with User:Born2cycle. It's something I've tried to work through one-on-one on their talk page, but unsuccessfully. (Others have seemingly done the same recently with a similar result.) Put simply, I'm concerned about B2C performing non-admin closures (NACs) of requested moves for the reasons below, and have asked that he please refrain from them in the interests of avoiding disputes.

Per our instructions, it's important to avoid even the appearance of partiality in closures, and to err on the side of caution in who performs them — and I think history and evidence suggests that Born2cycle is not suited to this task. The reasons can be found in previous threads here at ANI (e.g.) and elsewhere, but in brief: Born2cycle has a lengthy history of disruptive behavior overwhelmingly related to RMs and title policy, which has led to a number of disputes and sanctions. From March to June of last year he was blocked for tendentiousness, refusal to drop the stick, and failure to consider views contrary to his own in a dispute over an RM and related title policies. Per the ANI originator: "He has consistent[ly] shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him." For any editor with this kind of history regarding RMs and title policy to then start ruling on RMs is I think a cause for concern.

My attempt to resolve this with B2C led only to claims that I was harassing him for personal reasons, that his sanctioned behavior was unrelated to RMs, and that he would not agree to refrain from more NACs. To be clear, I believe that B2C operates for what he believes to be the betterment of the project, and regardless of whether I disagree with his interpretations (I often do), I see nothing wrong with him voicing his opinions or advocating for his views so long as he does so without disruption. My concern is just that it's problematic and disruptive for any editor with this history to be undertaking RM NACs, and problematic that he refuses to consider editors' concerns about it. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, so thanks for any thoughts/input/guidance. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify that this request is not about questioning or arguing the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs; it's simply about whether Born2cycle should be closing any move requests. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this about an inciting incident significantly different than the above thread on this page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The timing is certainly—interesting. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What 'inciting incident', I think it is said at the outset it concerns no particular issue. I can go into the follow up to the above thread, how the user continued to champion their own behaviour and attempt to repeat the action that saw the above thread opened. Not interesting, five-four-one-two-nine-uh, this thread is as inevitable as the last. cygnis insignis 14:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: out of curiosity, wot does the -uh mean? ——SerialNumber54129 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

that you are listening-uh, to the band that other bands must be judged by …uh? I truly don't know, or what the connection actually, I like mysteries, SN54129 cygnis insignis 15:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely correct, cygnis insignis :) always different, always the same! ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

wow, exactly … "very clev-uh" I was paraphrasing John Peel. Please don't explain what the name means tho', the song is perfect without context. cygnis insignis 15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Recent diffs or boomerang. Let's see recent diffs of bad closures or other disruptive activity. If recent diffs of wrongdoing cannot be provided, then the filer should withdraw or a boomerang sanction should be applied to discourage editors from casting aspersions or making ANI filings without evidence. Leviv ich 14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Born2cycle_yet_again cygnis insignis 15:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [fix link after that prompted manual archiving] cygnis insignis 18:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The consensus at the last two ANIs was that moving on to other topics would be more productive.

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.
  — WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

  Leviv ich 16:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich: Please see my addendum above. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Huwmanbeing: You're saying there is a chronic problem but you don't want to talk about any individual instance of the problem? That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to argue the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs, then please provide recent diffs of the "disruption" of which you accuse this editor. You're basically proposing a TBAN from RMs. This was proposed at ANI last month and rejected by community. I don't think it's proper for you to take up the community's time by raising the subject again unless you have diffs showing that there is a problem since the last time this suggestion was rejected. If you want to TBAN someone from something, you should provide evidence of a problem. BTW I heard WP used to have this thing called WP:RfC/U but did away with it years ago. Leviv ich 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  A very censorious attitude, you are fickle on who gets to say what. cygnis insignis 17:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  How is asking for evidence censorious? Nobody is stopping you or anyone else doing that, so the second half of your comment doesn't make sense either. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  New user is crying boomerang! and placing demands for particular incidents, to pick apart in a faux wikilawyering analysis and announce 'they are done here!', yet preaches "defending to the death" the imagined right of 'anyone' to say and do as please—in this case for over a decade—and all others must plead their case to undo their actions. I am, unashamedly and openly, censorious, Levivich is using noisy means to disrupt, distract, turn tables, and muddy discussion that is in effect censorious. As far they are concerned the matter was resolved by them, and seem annoyed that was not the end of it, me too. B2C continues to harp on and reopen the very discussion that saw many users try and fail to find a middle ground: between doing nothing until the next time or blocking. I asked B2C to own it, stop moving and closing, rather than being made to walk around in a hair shirt for things he simply cannot see. cygnis insignis 18:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Will no one rid me of this turbulent newbie? My work here is done. Leviv ich 18:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  … and it "hasn't been particularly time consuming or difficult"? cygnis insignis 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why not, instead of providing us with such evidence-free ranting, just link to a couple of move discussions that this editor has closed incorrectly? Then we could all base our opinions on the facts. I have no idea who is "right", if anyone, in this matter because nobody has provided any evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Because I have already done that. Pointing out disruption is not a rant, and I am not the one playing sides or opening posts here or voting on solutions or interjecting with nitpicks and demands for an personal executive summary of information that is readily available and linked on an exceptionally well known contributor. cygnis insignis 20:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich: Again, unlike others I'm not addressing any specific RMs; the concern I'm sharing is about NACs being performed by an editor with perennial problems directly related to RMs and title policy discussions — which per the evidence is not AFAIK in question. As I said, I'm just looking for guidance on how to proceed, given that I tried to resolve my concerns directly with B2C and was unsuccessful. If the consensus is simply to close, I'll certainly abide by that. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• The way I see this, you went to b2c's talk page with some rather patronizing suggestions that are patently not your remit and didn't get much traction. What exactly did you expect? That b2c would say "Wow, you're right. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks a lot!"? Clearly, you've been reading Bishonen's Optimist's guide to Wikipedia. I suggest that someone close this before boomerangs begin to fly. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

There may be some misunderstanding about what I'm asking for guidance on here — that's my fault and I'll try to clarify. I wasn't involved in the previous ANI regarding B2C but had understood that it concerned the rightness/wrongness of moves to certain articles such as MMR vaccine and autism. To be clear: my concern is not about that and does not relate to whether any particular move he's made is technically correct or incorrect. This is why I felt it would be acceptable to raise my own question here in order to get input on if/how to proceed (since direct talks failed). If the consensus is that this is materially the same question as before, then closure is fine and I'm happy to abide by that.

What I'm seeking input on is this:
Does an editor who's demonstrated repeated difficulty accepting the validity of others' views specifically in RMs and title policy discussions create a problem when he then begins NAC'ing RMs? Evidence cited in the block discussion as linked, and many of the previous ANIs as also cited, put B2C in this category, so put simply: are NACs under such circumstances problematic? Is B2C doing so problematic?

I'm not calling for a specific action to be taken either over the NACs or B2C's unwillingness to consider refraining despite requests from editors to do so. I'm just uncertain if/how to proceed. (And again, if consensus is that there's no need to proceed at all, that's fine.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in February. I don't see a problem in January. Are we going to do this again in a month? Leviv ich 20:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, probably more like six months based on multi-year averages.[97]

Once again: the fact that B2C is performing closures is not in question. The question is whether it's appropriate for him to perform them given his lengthy history of sanctioned and disputed behavior in RMs and title discussions. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The newest ANI report on that list is from 2017. Leviv ich 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The compiler stopped after three pages but you can peruse further or read other B2C ANIs in archives here, here, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If B2c isn't subject to an extant move-ban then whether they've been doing RM closures is irrelevant. The question is whether there's a pattern of mischief or negligence in those closures, and you're not establishing one. When someone has a history of issues in an area and isn't subject to a ban from it, the gist is they're learning from past mistakes (or are presumed to be, absent proof to the contrary).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

B2C likes to act and then discuss that ad nauseam, he is addicted to that, like a long distance runner (or cyclist). He is not going anywhere, he is looking for internal chemical high that only comes when others begin to be exhausted. Feels good [so he can't be wrong] man. B2C is barely aware of the grey bits below the title, this is unrelated to his pursuits, but this is what we are actually supposed to be doing here. cygnis insignis 10:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of B2c's excessive focus on RM (which I say as an RM regular and PageMover), and I've noticeboarded him myself for disruption in that area, but it was a long time ago. He's gotten much better. Last year-ish, he was railroaded (mostly over WP:BLUDGEON) with some accusations that were not actually true (I did a detailed analysis of them at his talk page). And he was ANIed about a month ago, unsuccessfully. There's really just a camp who want to nail him to the wall, seemingly over old personality disputes, and it's getting a little tedious. If someone doesn't have a solid diff pile that clearly demonstrates a pattern of disruption, they shouldn't open an ANI (not about a long-term editor). This isn't "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Vague misgivings and hand-waving".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I know he was at AN/I a month ago, and that he is still trying to redo the move that saw the thread opened two days ago, because he belives that the result was a ringing endorsement of his compelling others to pay attention to him. diff! — cygnis insignis 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea what B2C nor any other editor for that matter is thinking about anything. Such comments are an unwarranted PA and should be struck. Discussion here should be about editor behaviour, supported by diffs, we are not the thought police. This diff shows nothing other than a perfectly normal and acceptable discussion about how to proceed in an RM. Frankly, I am getting very tired of seeing B2C being brought here by the same old parties, raising the same old unsupported claims, apparently trying to settle some ancient dispute these people have had with them. Time to grow up people and drop this particular stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not striking that because I believe B2C when he says he sees no error in what he did, he was 'helping'. The smart thing to do after ignoring those objections to his time-consuming behaviour [by those who are obviously biased and have some ancient axe to grind, according to you, so obvi you can make that accusation] would have been to move on to the next move and see what discussion will be generated from that. What he did was ill-considered, it created a shitstorm, he resumed compelling the admin moderating the discussion to re-engage with him. B2c is the only one with an axe to grind. cygnis insignis 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That diff doesn't show anyone "trying to redo the move" (or moving anything), nor anyone claiming there was a "ringing endorsement" of anything. That diff is an editor posting on an article talk page discussing options for achieving consensus. The horror! The horror! Leviv ich 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Huw, I don't think the NACs were the problem here. PTAL: WP:PEPPER ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Colonestarrice

Colonestarrice (talk · contribs) has a tendency not to use edit summaries. If you look at all of their contributions, you'll notice that very few of them have explanations. It's at least the seventh time now that this user has been warned to use edit summaries, and according to this archived message in their talk page, users can be blocked if they don't use edit summaries. At some point, some form of action will need to be taken because that's just way too many warnings. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

But isn't this issue not a big enough issue for ANI? Surely edit summaries not being included is that much of a problem. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are optional and no guideline obliges you to use them. The majority of all edits on Wikipedia do not have an edit summary. I'm not not using edit summaries to provoke other editors, I just simply don't know what to write in them most of the time and I do think that the reasons for my changes are obvious anyways.

"and according to this archived message in their talk page" – User:Corkythehornetfan is not an administrator and does not have the authority to spontaneously threaten me with sanctions. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I only mentioned that because I’ve seen it happen. It’s pretty dang rude to the rest of the community when you’re too lazy to type a few word to explain your changes. Corky 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice: To clarify – when you provide an edit summary, it gives a user who has watchlisted the page the option of trusting that your edit summary is accurate and not having to look at the diff; this makes a huge difference in the time required (allowing the user to keep an eye on more pages, improving the quality of the whole project) and shows collegiality and respect for your fellow volunteer editors and their time. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Recommend close as non-actionable. No wrongdoing has been proven on Colonestarrice's behalf. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, the argument that Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary is not a policy page is not a good defense, because the underlying idea itself is rooted in policy. Per WP:UNRESPONSIVE: "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." You are not required to explain your edits via edit summary, but you are required to explain them. Communication is required, and ignoring repeated requests from others to be more communicative strikes me as fairly tendentious. It's especially concerning to see a lack of edit summaries even when reverting. From WP:EW, another policy page: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page." ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Pardon but this is inaccurate; I may not have used edit summaries for regular edits, but I always stated an edit summary for reverts (expect if the reverted version contained obvious vandalism or misinformation). But I apologize for not having used them most of the time and will try my best to routinely use them from now on. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Colonestarrice, the best way to use them is to set the preference in the "Editing" tab of the Preferences page ~ it just reminds you if you forget to give that basic communication before saving your edit. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It need only be a word or two-- "added source", "added content about (insert noun here)". Sometimes I just copy a portion of the text I added. DlohCierekim 12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

White trash and User:Sangdeboeuf

The lead for this article includes the statement "...[the phrase "white trash"] may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle." This is supported by 4 sources, and has been in the article in one form or another since 30 December 2008 [98], when it was added without any supporting source. User:Sangdeboeuf doesn't believe that these sources support the statement, but does not have access to the sources to verify this. Because of this, they insist on tagging the statement with a "citation needed" "origninal research" tag, and they are edit warring to keep the tag in place.

I believe this is inappropriate. That Sangdeboeuf doesn't personally believe the sources support the statement is irrelevant if he cannot verify whether they do or not - his disbelief is essentially a negative form of WP:OR. In addition, a "citation needed" "original research" tag is only appropriate if no sources have been provided to support the statement. I'd be more than happy to remove the statement if Sangdeboeuf can show that the sources do not support it, but in the absence of any evidence of this, the sources are more than adequate to keep the statement in the article.

I ask that Sangdebouef be warned not to continue to edit war, and told that the "CN" "OR" tag is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

For some reason I wrote "CN" instead of "OR" in referring to the tag. "OR" is actually correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

CN is the wrong tag (unless the citations themselves are challenged and removed as non-RS) - the correct tag is Template:Verify source and a request for quotation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah...OR isn't technically the appropriate tag, but the underlying concern does seem to be perfectly reasonable. There are sources, but all four citations fail WP:CITE#Books. Nothing in the sourcing information purports to satisfy WP:SOURCES, and honestly, at face value, none of the titles of the sources strike me as reliable academic works, nor do any even have quotes or page numbers from which which one could verify the claim, even if they had access to all four books. For all we know, the claim could be original inference, synthesis, or purely made up, and it's not reasonable to just tell a user the burden's on them to read all four books to verify a claim for themselves. I would actually say this situation would qualify as legitimately "challenged material", which could be validly removed outright under WP:V until verification is provided. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree on the paucity of the sourcing; [99] this is the kind of thing you're looking for BMK, although I'm not actually saying that it would support the exact assertions you're talking about here. ——SerialNumber54129 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Except this statement is in the lede and well supported by several paragraphs amd examples in the body. It is also a true statement as can be easily verified. For example a humor book [100] that does exacly what the sentence says. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: BMK has breached 3RR on this article; see complaint at AN/3. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Sangdeboeuf, I was going to raise the matter of your blatantly-retaliatory filing at WP:ANEW here; in the context of WP:BOOMERANG. Just because discussion here may seem to lean towards your position vis á vis sourcing, using Wikipedia's own processes as a weapon in a content dispute is about the crappiest thing you could do. You do not come out of that edit-war spotless either: be mindful. ——SerialNumber54129 08:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

BOOKCITE is not applicable here, and we don't need page numbers. The titles of the books use the term white trash in exactly the sense noted. I also dug up some quotes of very famous and not so famous people using it as self targeted humor. Sangdeboeuf's rejection of all the obvious evidence supporting this statement is unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I guess it makes more sense when you're viewing the book titles themselves as the sources, but in that case, the sources are primary sources being combined, and the claim in the article is an original analysis, which would make the tag correct. If the actual reliable sources are in the body, and the book titles are just meant to be examples, that's fine, but then they should not be masquerading as reliable sources, but converted to footnotes. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: what you call "blatantly retaliatory" I attribute to the fact that collecting diffs for AN/3 takes time to do, which I was busy with at the time this complaint was made. I suppose after being threatened with AN/I over a content dispute, I'm supposed to patiently wait for the community to weigh in before I can report a 3RR vio? BMK wrote a total of one comment on the talk page before coming straight to AN/I. If anything is retaliatory (not to mention frivolous), it's BMK's complaint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Which would be slightly more convincing if you hadn't also had plenty of time to edit war while you did so. ——SerialNumber54129 10:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? My last edit to the article was at 07:20 UTC. I posted a 3RR warning on BMK's talk at 07:37. Their AN/I complaint came several minutes afterward at 07:41, followed by my AN/3 complaint at 08:15. That's it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that everyone had stopped edit-warring 45 minutes before your ANEW report? Ah, cheers. ——SerialNumber54129 14:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing what that has to do with anything, unless 3RR resets to zero after 45 minutes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Bad day to be BMK. Do we have a "white trash" userbox? Need to get me one of them. DlohCierekim 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment' Unless I'm missing something ( like coffee ) I think this could be relegated to the (white or otherwise) trash heap of actionless, "no bill", going nowhere fast, archived discussions. DlohCierekim 20:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lmao. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see this. :-( Sangdeboeuf and Beyond My Ken are both good guys. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC).

• If I gave anyone the impression that I didn't think that Sangdeboeuf is a "good guy", then that's my error. I have no reason to think that, and in fact, I do not. It's a dispute, simply that, one in which I think Sangdeboeuf is wrong and he (I assume) believes that of me. That doesn't make either of us bad guys, it just means that we disagree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ditto, but I'm bound to say that the article as it stands [101] has good dose of OR and SYNTH and not-the-best-sources. No, you can't cite the statement re may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle to books such as The White Trash Mom Handbook: Embrace Your Inner Trailerpark and White Trash Cooking (whether their covers or their insides), and I'm very skeptical about sourcing a statement about high blood levels of testosterone ... He proposes that a Mid-Atlantic state, Southern and Western propensity for violence is inheritable by genetic changes wrought over generations living in traditional herding societies in Northern England, the Scottish Borders, and Irish Border Region to a book entitled Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America – even if those ideas are in-text attributed. (And it's weird for them to appear in a popcult section of the article.) EEng 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the "In popular culture" section is the weakest part of the article, and I when I was working on expanding the article, I considered just removing it, but decided not to for a number of reasons: (1) It seemed adequately sourced to me, even though I did not have access to the sources to verify them; and (2) I'm generally opposed to the wholesale remove of "pop cult" sections, because the community has never reached a consensus that it's a good idea. I prefer to weed popular culture material rather than do mass cutting.
  Be that as it may, the bulk of the article is -- I believe -- cleanly sourced, although I would prefer more variety in the sourcing. That may be improving, as I'm now reading a book which could well have material which will be applicable to the article. (I've already added one paragraph to the article sourced from the book.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I hate to disagree with EEng because he might put some strange image on my user page or remove the nice image that he already left there, but "White Trash Cooking" should not be dismissed out of hand. This was one of the best selling cookbooks of the 1980s and was widely reviewed and praised by august publications like the New York Times for being much more than a cookbook but also an incisive look into a regional subculture, and its photography was widely praised as well. Read up on the book before dismissing it out of hand. This is essentially a content dispute and as the experienced among us know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. If there are weaknesses in sourcing, then the solution is to search for better sources and provide better bibliographic information about the existing sources. That is what I have done in recent hours and there is more work to do. Anyone remotely familiar with American English and the culture of poor whites in the South would not contest the assertion that the term "white trash" is often used in a humorous, self-deprecating fashion. Instead, such editors will set out to improve the referencing of such an assertion. Note: I am an American of white working class background but not a Southerner. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Take that, Cullen!

-EEng

If White Trash Cooking contains an explicit statement to the effect that white trash "may also be used self-referentially by working class whites to jokingly describe their origins or lifestyle", then great. Otherwise, it's OR. (Even if we all know personally it's true.) EEng 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Re "the term "white trash" is often used in a humorous, self-deprecating fashion," Please see my comment above. DlohCierekim 03:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng, another source that I recently added to the article, written by a Missouri academic, says "The more contemporary cultural phenomenon of the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" is another example of how us rednecks are naming ourselves. Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, and Ron "Tater Salad" White use the self-deprecating humor of us redneck white trash hillbilly crackers to engage us in a Rabeslaisian carnivale in comedy clubs and on cable channels across America." I think that the cookbook source supplements that, if you read the reviews of the cookbook. Since my wife collects cookbooks and used copies of this cookbook are dirt cheap, I think that I will buy a copy so I can quote directly from its content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328's source would seem to be sufficient; synthesizing the same claim from book titles is thus no longer required, so the issue just evaporates. There's no action to take here in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm all choked up over this. Fish anyone? DlohCierekim 12:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You know I'm all for it. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of block

74.195.159.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Here is where I left a block rationale effectively indeffing (though only blocking for a year) an IP editor who has had multiple blocks for disruptive editing relating to Ben Swann. The block I made was on the grounds that:

• their edits to articles had a WP:GEVAL effect for WP:FRINGE ideas: for example, vaccines and autism, removing "conspiracy theory" when describing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account"
• they had wasted a lot of other editors' time and patience outside of articles: when it's clear that consensus isn't going to go their way, they look for any reason to keep arguing. I've seen minimal acceptance of others' input from this IP, only enough to avoid trouble.

I had pointed out issues with a few of their claims prior to blocking them, to confirm that they weren't going to listen to anyone who didn't agree with them. One user has asked on my talk page if that makes me WP:INVOLVED. I'm not going to argue either way, though I am willing to bet that there's plenty of other admins here who would affirm that if this IP user had been using an account, they would have been indefinitely blocked under WP:NOTHERE already.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block - we don't need more Infowars puppets here. The IP is static, I say the block lengths should be measured in years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Ian.thomson: Just a note, but you only blocked the IP for a month. Nihlus 4:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)

 Fixed Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block (the corrected one :-)), since the IP is static. Miniapolis 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Shoot I guess maybe it's just me. I don't understand how changing from...

This: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks.

To this: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting Pizzagate. On his personal YouTube channel he questioned the official accounts of the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks.<ref name=haberman />

...is indef-block-worthy. Another editor just made a similar change, perhaps because it's per the source [102], which says: Ben Swann is an award-winning television journalist who, on his own YouTube channel, raised questions about the collapse of one of the buildings at the World Trade Center and about official accounts of the 2012 mass shooting in Sandy Hook, Conn.. Similarly, I don't understand how changing Russian propaganda to Russian narrative is indef-block-worthy, when both words are used multiple times by the source (as discussed on the talk page). I don't mean to argue content at ANI, but I don't want to get myself blocked for POV-pushing, so maybe someone can explain to me what policy these edits violate. Is it required that in every article, every time we mention Pizzagate we must put "conspiracy theory" in front of it, or every time we mention anti-vaxxing we must say it's "false"? Even if it's not the subject of the article at issue, and even if the source we're citing doesn't say it? And if we disagree about it on the talk page, we get blocked? Leviv ich 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not commenting on the block (because I haven't looked at the details), but Levivich, the immediate prior sentence in the source to the one you quoted (Ben Swann is an award-winning...) is ...a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events to make its case. and the crux of the source article is that the subject is a "Conspiracy-Minded Journalist" and therefore it was a surprise that he was picked by a mainstream politician. So IMO leaving out 'conspiracy theory' in wikipedia's version would indeed be a subpar summary of the source being cited. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, to be clear, there are two different edits, weeks apart (the diffs cited for this block are from Jan 29, Feb 14, and Mar 4). The one I quoted above was the Jan 29 one, described above as saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account". Here is the Feb 14 one, which is the one described above as removing "conspiracy theory":

From: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. He has also questioned the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, whether United States had a role in the development of ISIL, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.

To: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting Pizzagate. On his YouTube channel he espoused conspiracy theories surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. He has also questioned the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War, whether United States had a role in the development of ISIL, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.

The phrase "conspiracy theories" was kept by the editor, just moved from the first sentence to the second. Both edits distinguish between what was said on the Reality Check show and what was said on his personal YouTube channel, and that is per the source cited. It doesn't seem to me like the edits change the meaning of the paragraph from "conspiracy theorist" to "not conspiracy theorist", particularly since that phrase was removed in the Jan edit but kept in the Feb one. Now, if it were up to me, I would put "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, but that's not the point. Content disputes are normal–I'm questioning why this is indef-block-worthy. I was recently involved in POV disputes about ISIS and illegal immigrant crime. In both those AfDs, there was wide-ranging agreement of a POV issue, but no admin came and blocked anyone. Instead, posts were made to ANI about "what to do" (they are still on this board right now). But in the case of this IP, it was an admin-placed block without community discussion first. I don't understand the difference. But I appreciate Ian opening up this thread and if it's just me, I'll stop. Leviv ich 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: In isolation, each of the IP's edits can be considered edit-disputes but looking at their complete edit-history, starting from May 2018, I see a pattern of civil POV-pushing in which they try to minimize the "conspiracy theorizing" aspect of the subject's journalism.

Such patterns are clearly problematic but when exactly to pull the plug and go from discussion to sanctions is always a judgment call. For example, IMO the IP remained unblocked for so long because afaict they were always civil and didn't cross red-lines such as 3RR. And, as you point out, in the "illegal immigrants and crime case", discussion on the appropriate sanctions is still ongoing, IMO, because the editor involved is (unlike the IP) far from an SPA. I rather think that, at least in theory, this disparity is a positive feature of wikipedia administration since our aim is not "same time for same crime" fairness but to tailor our response to what we think is best for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.

Anyway, it would be best to move such philosophical discussions off the busy central boards, and unless there are any more objections to the IP's block this section can perhaps be closed. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Abecedare, taking any one edit in isolation and saying "this one edit here is not something we block a person over" is, of course, always going to be true, and always going to be a very poor defense against a block. A multi-yearmonth ed: corrected per below, POV-pushing, tendentious editor who isn't interested in presenting a neutral narrative based on mainstream understanding of the world, but instead will use a multitude of small, incremental, minor changes to gradually shape the tone and narrative towards their own POV and against the mainstream understanding of something is EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here. Their deviousness in making incrementally small, and individually less innocuous changes to shape the narrative is especially problematic, and all the more reason for a longterm block. These changes are clearly calculated to effect the change in narrative they want, and instituted in such a way as to give them the exact sort of plausible deniability you, Levivich, are all too happy to grant them. They were not blocked for those two edits, but are instead blocked for the sum total of all of their work. Which is not what we want here. --Jayron32 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was OK to let this drop, but... multi-year? Unless I'm missing something, the IP's contribs run from May 2018–March 2019, or 10 months. A multitude of small, incremental, minor changes? They have less than 25 mainspace edits in those 10 months, perhaps because they were blocked for 6 of them. The blocks in 2018 for edit warring were well-deserved. Since they came back, they haven't broken 3RR, they've spent more time on Talk pages discussing edits instead of edit warring (the exact thing that was asked of them), and they're not even terribly active as participants on those talk pages. Their edits to Ben Swann bring the prose closer to the cited New York Times source (differentiating between the conspiracy theories espoused on his TV show and those on his YouTube channel), and another editor has recently made very similar edits (which have also been reverted). So yeah, I have a hard time understanding the indef, which seems to be caused not by any POV-pushing or tendencious editing or edit warring, but for disagreeing on a talk page about a content dispute. I generally have a hard time understanding the concept that a series of accurate, policy-compliant edits, taken in total, can reveal a bad-faith editor, or that an editor who adjusts their behavior after being blocked should be blocked again anyway because we think they're EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here. I guess I'm just a naive enabler. Leviv ich 22:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So corrected. --Jayron32 13:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure Leviv and I have shared much agreement on anything, but on this, I find myself empathising. It seems on some topics one must stridently toe a certain line, for even any mild reformulation is liable to be perceived as minimization and result in harsh penalization. It is equivalent to a requirement that a "!" must be added in every mention of certain sins, and failing to add the "!", the editor is now minimizing that terrible, horrible thing that we all must denounce, to the point that if the "!" was left on the immediately precedent sentence, but not on the next sentence as well, the guilty editor has now become the kind of editor we don't want around here. XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite block request for Aimsplode

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

Since 2012 this user is trying to redirect his user page and talk to the main page. I just link some examples for the user page (Sep 2012, Jan 2015, Jan 2019) and for talk (Sep 2012, Feb 2013, Sep 2014, Jan 2019). As you can see by his list of edits,his only contributions from 2013 are this edit wars of counter-rollbacks, in spite of any warning, onto his user and talk. Vandalism-only account active for 6 years: the infinite block is necessary. I suggest to delete user page and talk and prevent its creation, thank. --95.235.37.216 (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This editor has made 125 edits over 8 years. The last time they edited an article was 2013. Is this really an urgent issue that needs immediate attention from administrators? Most of his/her edits are to user space. I don't think this is an urgent situation and I don't know why this editor even warranted your attention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

LMAO. Howsoever, no idea how to handle this. DlohCierekim 12:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an object lesson in WP:NOTHERE to me. ——SerialNumber54129 13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not even WP:NOTHERE. Their article space edits are constructive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Were constructive. As pointed out above, they haven't edited an article since June 2013. Which means that however much they were WP:NOTNOTHERE nearly six years ago, that's clearly not the case now. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

They can do what they want with their user page, really. Well, within reason, but I don't see how redirecting to the main page is inherently disruptive. But their talk page is not theirs to do with as they please, it's a community page for discussion with the editor; if they are repeatedly redirecting it elsewhere, a block with TPA revoked is reasonable. As for what to do about it? Nothing. This all happened years ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I deleted this nonsense trolling by 1.128.105.118. Of course, he is Aimsplode: 2 minutes after this "comment" (lol), he did this vandalism on that talk. A blatant vandalism-only user. --87.3.19.233 (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

NPA violation by Störm after warning

Störm has been removing content from Abhinandan Varthaman, either by providing misleading edit summaries,[103] or providing no edit summaries at all.[104]

For this disruption, I and Myopia123 warned him on his talk page.[105] Störm removed the messages as "stupid, flash in your toilet"[106], after that he corrected his typo "flash" as "flush" by making a dummy edit.[107]

I warned him against this NPA,[108] to which he responded by writing in edit summary that "should I build one?", meaning "should I build a toilet?". Shashank5988 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

While not at all responsive or collegial, I don't see the personal attack. Seems to be commenting on content. DlohCierekim 21:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A number of editors have been heatedly editing that page. And I don't see the edit summary as misleading. Unfortunately, edit summaries are not obligatory (unless you were running for admin in the past decade). Perhaps @Winged Blades of Godric: can had some insight. DlohCierekim 21:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Google the edit summaries written by Störm. You would know that Störm is throwing racist jokes to deal with his opponents despite warning. 115.164.81.107 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued incivility and defiance of consensus by Carmaker1

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately, it's come to this yet again. Carmaker1 is continuing to behave in an uncivil manner and continuing to defy project consensus.

Incivility: Carmaker1 routinely attacks other editors in edit summaries. He has been blocked and topic-banned for this behavior in the past. Most recently, he dug back over a decade in the page history for the sole purpose of harassing another editor and myself. His response to my warning was even more uncivil. (As an aside, I'm not entirely offended, but I also can't say that I'm enthusiastic about an attack against me being immortalized in the page history like that, and I suspect Srosenow 98 would not be either.) He is also fond of posting "only warning" templates for what were either innocuous edits, possible good-faith confusion, or an IP's first edit (e.g. [109], [110], [111]).

Defiance of consensus: WikiProject Automobiles came to a consensus that model years would be used to describe North American vehicles, and calendar years for Europe where model years are not used. Carmaker1 seemingly does not accept the model year system's existence and has made it his mission to purge it from Wikipedia. A recent edit to Ford Fox platform went directly against this consensus. Carmaker1 was correct about one thing - the table heading stated "production" instead of "model year" as it should have. After I reverted the edit and corrected the table heading, this smug diatribe was posted on the talk page, all but admitting that his flouting of consensus was disruption to prove a point and get someone else to fix the heading.

And, most recently, this edit where he restored the incorrect date system and accused me of "edit warring" for having reverted it (once). This needs to stop. Carmaker1 continues to show what is either ignorance of or contempt for WP:Civility and WP:Consensus, not to mention other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Repeated AN/I discussions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and short-term blocks have not helped in that regard. --Sable232 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I do observe, Sable932 has made it a habit, to WP: HOUND/stalk me and my editing history, focused on undoing a large portion of my recent contributions, on some conviction my edits are not in consensus or plain personal offense (at being to the letter accurate), that goes against their opinionated beliefs.
Attempts to either highlight in automotive articles BOTH the model year (MY) and year of introduction or start of production, are just as equally, frequently removed by the said user in question. It is very obvious when articles, that had little to involvement with said user, end up seeing random changes (for the sake of it)
. A large amount of my recent edits, are deliberately reverted or changed, items that are perfectly factual and clean-up issues with timelines, which are murky with model years. When a vehicle has a build date in late 2018 and was launched this past January as a 2020 model, one has to highlight those differences and specific timelines.
This is strictly the case of an individual that despises the style of my editing, which puts a focus on BOTH MYs and calendar years, but does not favour prose that gives the misleading impression, that a model year is an actual date in time and not a designation with numerical proximity (incoming calendar year). I take major issue with that and like a few other editors, Sable932 takes offense towards that approach, searching for loopholes to undo contributions of mine. I don't think I see that with anyone else, outside of plain vandalism. Doesn't do me any good to introduce false information into an article.
Therefore, I am not going retain false information in an article if I spot it, so trying to attack me for seeing statements that claim "Ford started selling the Ranger pickup in 1983" as misleading and hurting Wikipedia credibility, I will correct that to "Ford started selling the Ranger pickup in 1982" in reference to its March 1982 launch date.
I previously let the fact that I was falsely accused of hoaxing slide this past December and never took to task, the gaffes made on that one, so I will not let false statements be made against me in the future in a rather petty manner with doctored or deliberately distorted evidence.

Waging a campaign to ban someone, because they criticized unnecessary extra work you created for them and failed to fix yourself over a long period of time, has hardly any merit. Unless any collaborative edits are in progress, needing back & forth feedback or ANI notices (like now), I do not want to see Sable932 on my user page nor my talk page. I have expressed that, therefore them going against my firm demand, constitutes unwanted harassment. Article talk pages are there for a reason, which Sable932 goes out of their way to ignore them and not respond to anything said on there by me. I really do not have time for this, but unlike last time I will not get caught up in daily life and leave this without early input from me. Wikipedia is an occasional task, where I research, edit, and submit my contributions, expecting that when fully valid and cited/sourced, my edits are only to be genuinely improved upon with good faith or elaborated upon. NOT dumbed down or reverted for causes, other than being unverifiable or plainly false. Vandalism and plain edit warring (removing content by an editor over personal reasons), is unacceptable, so I really do not have to accept that. The claim of incivility is absurd, as it is already disgusting some of what one sees in parts of Wikipedia in regards to racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and worse pass through without much scrutiny (other than the offended party).
This individual is going out of their way to monitor my edits and see in what way they can possibly pick at them or remove them altogether, knowing that if great time was spent in some cases, it will be taken as intended insult, if the item in question didn't require any fixing. And yes, there is a difference between correcting a false statement and that of deliberately rewording someone's text for the sake of it, then feigning the claim "not in consensus", when consensus has never for one day championed the need to type up statements that will be vague or misleading to readers.

If Sable932 was very serious about making sure things are crossed and dotted, there are plenty of articles that need cleaning up and changing text in this area, along the lines I have been doing. Or it is just easier, to see my own edits correct a DATE to an actual FACTUAL date, that just lessens focus on the model year as a consequence and then remove them in some pissing match? I have no reason to be okay with an article stating "Lincoln Aviator came out in 2020", which doesn't even tell the end user what "in 2020" refers to. Was there an Aviator available in 2019? YES! Did Ford start building them in 2020? NO! Is anything U625 Aviator before 2020, false or fake, not a production model and just a prototype? The average person may or may not understand these differences and figure out a 2019 build date, doesn't negate the MY 2020. It's just an industry standard, which I want to make as obvious as possible in EVERY automotive article so it becomes well known. I have heard Chrysler's PL Neon be referred as being released in 1995 and failing to meet a expectation, that wouldn't have been available at SOP in 1993 and by being a design signed off in September 1991. The person responsible for such a statement, was ignorant to the fact that "seeing 1995" didn't refer to the date when the first units were produced.

Therefore, I highly disagree with Sable932 edits to block counteracting that phenomenon (of confusion), borderline edit warring to prove a point themselves. There is an obvious pattern, that targets my contributions (despite their own edit history not always being so stellar) and don't think I am going to overlook that, when it erases my contributions with an unwillingness to compromise or genuinely collaborate with me. I am equally unimpressed with Sable932's own past edit history, which showcases very uncivil statements towards others. I don't believe I would be in the middle of such a matter, if not for their own issues that manifest in what matches up to tattle-telling over petty personal offense.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am actually more concerned to see that the "model year vs actual year" dispute is still ongoing—seriously, it's been years. For all of the complaints about Carmaker, they all seem to stem from the fact that this stupid disagreement can't be resolved. How hard is it to draft up a guideline on when to use the model year and when to use the actual year, and implement it via a centralized RfC? This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here, but a local WikiProject can't make the sort of binding, cross-article ruling that would be needed. I mean, Sable, come on, you've been arguing about this for over a decade. It seems absolutely ridiculous that your priorities are to complain about and report Carmaker's petty incivility, again, and again, and again, rather than work towards a decisive community decision to settle the issue once and for all. And, yes, I recognize that Carmaker can't keep his mouth shut, but it's clearly a side effect of this intractable squabble. If I'm wrong, and it's already settled as you suggest, and Carmaker is just "ignoring consensus", then please point me to the centralized, pan-article RfC that Carmaker is ignoring (as it was strangely omitted from your complaint), and I be happy to take a look at re-blocking. Otherwise, I'm of a mind to propose a two-way IBAN, if not a two-way TBAN from motor vehicles. Please keep in mind that accusations not directly proven by diffs will be considered personal attacks, and excessive, back-and-forth walls of text will be considered disruptive. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, it was settled years ago. See WP:MODELYEARS. --Sable232 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, I apologize for NOT providing diffs such as Sable932 did. I admit I am in a bind right now task wise and essentially posting on the fly via my tablet. It isn't a good excuse, but I am rather tied up sadly and it really bugs me to not be fully 100% here and very responsive, with useful diffs. I will get on that, if allowed to do so within the next hour.--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sable232: that's a non-binding advice page. What Swarm asked for was a link to a centralized, pan-article RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's the product of consensus among WikiProject Automobiles members, which I presume was discussed at the project talk page although I don't recall for certain. As far as I know there was no Wikipedia-wide RfC on it, and I wasn't aware that the lack of one invalidated the WikiProject consensus. --Sable232 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the model year problem has or hasn't been resolved, or who is right or wrong about a model year, the fact is that the precise model year of a vehicle is just not that important. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is bound to have a thousand issues like this. Why do we have motorcycle tyre and yet, also, tire???? The humanity! The Automobiles project was once thrown into civil war over whether rpm should be expressed as min^-1, or whether PS or HP was always correct and "standard", whatever "standard" is. Or something. Tomato tomato. You can't edit Wikipedia at all if you can't pick your battles and prioritize. Decide which hill you want to die on. Being picky about details makes for great copy editing, but for issues that are known to be basically skunked, where nobody will ever be truly happy, color or colour, petrol or guzzoline, one needs to have a little chill. Be a little bit flexible, be willing to work with others constructively rather than jump down their throats.

It just doesn't matter that much whether the final production or model year of the Chrysler New Yorker was 1996 or 1997. That's a trivia question. For encyclopedic purposes, it was in the late 90s, and that' is the main thing. Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. (Disclaimer: that's my pet essay I'm promoting. But I wrote it because I think it matters.)

Also, there's admins who have significant history with Carmaker1, and I'm not offering any opinions one way or the other on what they should or should not do in this case. I'm only here to say that one needs to know when to relent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Detroit and my father (briefly) and my grandfather (for many years) worked for major car companies. As a child as far back as the early 1960s, I thought that it was odd that a car manufactured in 1961 would be called a 1962 model. But that is the way Detroit worked and marketed its products, and it would be foolishness to try to claim that an iconic '57 Chevy does not deserve those digits, just because many were built in late 1956. Instead of spending a decade arguing, the way to resolve this issue is to conduct an RFC so that many editors can agree on a model year/production year standard that can be applied consistently across all American automobile articles, thereby avoiding or at least minimizing the endless bickering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, I'd support an RfC if that's what it comes to. I thought WikiProject consensus was sufficient, and while my personal preference would be to not reopen that can of worms (in those discussions years ago I was repeatedly accused of deliberate ignorance and bad faith for resisting attempts to eliminate U.S./Canadian nomenclature), if it's the only way forward then that's fair enough.

What an RfC would not do is anything about Carmaker1's persistent incivility, including harassing others in his edit summaries. I find it strange that such behavior is seemingly well-accepted now. It appears to have gone on long before I made the mistake of attempting to engage with him, indicating a high likelihood that it will continue beyond this specific issue. --Sable232 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You’d support an RfC “if that’s what it comes to”? Seriously? This dispute is going on for years, apparently because nobody can be bothered to start an RfC, something that is step-one for most people in the most minor disputes...but you’d be willing to “support” one, “if that’s what it comes to”? Facepalm. Quit bringing this to AN/I and work on dispute resolution. Go start an RfC. Now. Go. Oh, and for future reference, a WikiProject consensus means nothing. I don’t know where you got the ridiculous idea that a handful of editors on a WikiProject have the authority to make binding decisions that apply to any articles they want, and then they can just run to AN/I when someone doesn’t abide by them. You’ve certainly been here long enough to know better than that. At this point, you’re certainly expected to have figured out the fundamentals of dispute resolution and consensus. Ignorance certainly isn’t a good defense from an editor who registered in 2006. There really is no excuse. ~Swarm~ {talk} 12:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Facepalms now? Really? Talk about dialing it down a notch. WikiProject consensus is a level of consensus. It doesn't trump broader level guidelines, but then we have no guidelines that would contradict WP:MODELYEARS. The reason the Automobiles and Motorcycling projects haven't felt any urgency to fight this fight is that there's no right answer. US carmakers have had their quaint tradition of model years (and goofy 1/2 years), which they have always followed -- except when they don't because lulz -- and non-US companies have sometimes used this system but mostly not. It's an arbitrary construct -- who's to say when production of something with thousands of parts made in 30 countries "began"? Or ended? Trade rules define what country a car was made in, but that's an arbitrary percentage of parts. Knock-down kits are a goofy workaround to such trade laws.

For our purposes, we need to remember that Wikipedia doesn't have the power to make a messy world neat and tidy. And it isn't worth the effort. Putting a car in the wrong decade is bad; being off by one year is less important than the Oxford comma. Explaining why the October Revolution wasn't in October ranks a lot higher priority than untangling the knot of production vs model years.

Sable232 is exactly right that this isn't about the WP:TRUTH of model years. It's about correcting a car's year from 1985 to 1986 without flying into a frothing rage attacking the IP editor who, 9 years ago, got 1985 out of Car and Driver magazine instead of from an obscure out of print auto industry trade journal written in Swedish. Even when correcting inexcusable errors, even deliberate vandalism, edit summaries should be civil. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect Dennis, is this really about the content issue at hand or it more personal, stemming from a past AN/I on outrage over my "hick..." statement sometime a year ago, which you feigned outrage over as a "racist" statement? In fact, regarding this matter at hand, because of rather obtuse journalists not doing due diligence with their reporting, I have had to spend a LOT of effort, assuaging people on a forum (Bronco6G) for the Ford U725 aka the future Bronco, to understand why Ford marketers' statements of "Coming by 2020" or "Coming in 2020", has NOTHING to do with the model year nor their expectation they should expect it to be revealed this year as a 2020 model year vehicle. Based on the internal information I have access to thankfully, I pointed out to them production on the U725 Bronco is not until December 2020 as a 2021 model and that never for one day, did the SOP date have any single day in 2019.

All this confusion came from clueless journalists creating their own narratives since January 2017 announcement, that any references to 2020 by Joe Hinrichs at 2017 NAIAS, meant model year and not actual introduction, Job 1, or launch date.
I detest having to do such clean up or corrections ever so often, because public sources such as media, Wikipedia (dependent on content), and etc cannot get the facts right.

In regards to Wikipedia, myself and others armed with such knowledge, can make such a difference much quicker. I believe in both use of model years and real-time dates (months/day+year), if possible. But please do not substitute introductory dates/timing, with simply the MY. It isn't accurate nor will the average person see pass that. It has to be broken down for them, to fully understand, when, where, how and why something was introduced. The new USDM 2019 Ranger pickup and the 2018 Lexus LS 500, narrowly avoided this being "a point of contention", by being vehicles launched the same year as their designations, even if production began the previous year. It's really simple. Take it from someone, who essentially fought with User:Stepho-wrs and User: OSX on this topic many years ago on the side of Sable932, only to realise they weren't wrong. The idea to implement both in articles, came from them and keep all happy. What I do not understand, is there being an issue with having both or that I should leave statements are not phrased correctly. Not to beat this horse to death, but why would it help an article, to put that "Ford introduced a new Explorer in 2020", instead of "Ford introduced a new Explorer in the 2020 model year"? That really shouldn't be an issue.

As for my incivility, the only thing I see as uncivil, is my talk page angered response on being harassed and to only address me on article talk pages. I have been told that by 1-2 users in the past and I complied as requested. I do not endlessly post on their talk page, despite being told otherwise. It serves no purpose, than to antagonize them and violate their personal request. Additionally, it was only by chance, that I saw that Sable932 was responsible for some longstanding errors in a Ford article, but I happened upon it and did not seek errors on their part to criticize. I don't have time to chase their editing. I do such in-depth edit history reviews to figure out how and why errors are missed for long periods and where they appeared. If a consequence of vandalism or done by well-meaning editors and why they weren't spotted earlier. If I was really that awful as being proposed, wouldn't I hound their edit history and pick out ways to target their work (independent of my own contributory areas), as has been done to me for some peculiar reason.

Not to be combative, but I did have to question here if Dennis' perspective is fully objective and not particularly tainted by the fact, that my past "hick" statement and AN/I by him was not dramatized enough or "handled" to their satisfaction? Some of the ideas being proposed by Dennis, don't really mesh well with what my intentions truly are and seem deliberately distorted, similar to Sable932 doing so. One can hopefully trust it is coming from a place of genuine objectivity, as opposed to personal reasons. I don't see how any of us have the authority to decide, that "it's just not important" or "trivia".--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dennis, thank you. The personal attacks and other incivility are the primary issue here, and thank you also for noting levels of consensus.

Swarm, I'm not keen on being bullied into filing an RfC by your degrading remarks above. This dispute has not "been going on for years" - the WikiProject's consensus has been in place for years (since 2010). Why should it have escalated to an RfC when the local consensus worked without issue? This is, to my knowledge, the first time it's been challenged like this. If Carmaker1 had shown more interest in discussion and less interest in personal attacks, there was nothing stopping him from re-opening that discussion. Yet even in his paragraphs above, the ad hominems and dancing around the issue continue.

I am aware how small the calendar vs. model year issue appears, especially to uninvolved editors. However, it's one of the first things a reader will notice if it appears wrong. There were enough cases of IPs changing calendar years back to model years because of the lack of clarity in that respect - it's part of the reason why the WikiProject came to the compromise it did. When readers find what appears to be incorrect information, Wikipedia loses credibility, whether the information is indeed incorrect or simply not presented clearly.

Once again, this is primarily about Carmaker1's incessant incivility. It would have been quite agreeable to simply discuss the issue, whether with the WikiProject or with the community at large, but he showed no interest in that. --Sable232 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I dealt with a similar dispute some time back, but I forget the specifics. Anyway, I seem to recall coming away with the impression that Carmaker1 was usually right (or could at least back up his arguments with sources and facts) but needed to work on his interpersonal skills, and for me the issue is not really "civility" so much as when he is challenged, he leaves a giant wall of text for some poor schmuck to wade through and try to work out what he's talking about. The most obvious example where he was blocked for a month last year, where he accused just about every administrator looking at the situation of "abuse" in an unblock request that was, not surprisingly, declined. This is probably why he's run into trouble, as any admin looking at it thinks "I can't work out what the issue is, but he seems argumentative so, meh, let's block him".

Anyway, having an RfC on this issue definitely needs to happen, to stop these continual feuds. Don't look at me, I don't know anything about cars other than you need one if you want to go roadtripping on the A82 through the Great Glen. Somebody who knows what they're talking about needs to start one.

Wikipedia is a collaborative work. It's not enough to be simply right, you have to be able to convince everyone else that you're right too, and if you treat people like idiots, you won't get the result you want, and you'll walk away with Wikipedia being wrong. That's not good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Very fair point, as yes it is collaborative on here. All of that is entirely accurate, as people should not be made to feel like idiots on a collaborative project. The last time there was issue, no actual infraction was committed by me genuinely and holes were poked through the claim. It was indeed taken advantage of by none-other-than..., that select administrators did not want to put in the effort to understand the situation and just left a mess as-is, simply citing false reasons such as "hoaxing" with citations, instead of the fact they disliked my methods of defense and lack of humility, plus purportedly some wanted past vengeance for me not being "taken care of". When they couldn't prove and use gross incivility or legal threats (example) as a reason to block, a false claim of email abuse or "hoaxing", was kept in place instead.

Other than that, I believe an RfC is the best way to resolve all of this.--Carmaker1 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about an odd series of changes

This is obviously not vandalism or any other serious misconduct, but is there a case for intervening in a case like this? This user Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53 recently made a change (lengthening a sub-heading) to a page I was watching which I thought unnecessary, so I did an AGF rollback. Looking at a fair number of their other edits, they seem to be mostly adding a "History" heading with an {{Expand section}} template underneath. Is this something which should be standard practice? Being a non-registered user, it makes me suspicious. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up. Having just returned to this, I see that this user has been continuing to do the same thing, with another editor and I reverting them at the moment. I think it needs to be reported as vandalism. Pointless waste of time for everyone involved. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, I found two more IPs (also from Queensland) doing the same thing, going back to November: 121.222.88.51 and 1.128.108.214. When they're not adding an empty history section, they enjoy adding the word 'history' to section headings, or creating a section for history and changing previous level two sections ==Example== to level three ===Example=== so that they fall under the mighty banner of History. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea, hmmmm, that's odd. What do you recommend? Report as vandalism? At best it's misguided; at worst, mischievous and time-wasting for those of us who have better things to do! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I spot-checked some edits and they seemed on the surface reasonable, though it would be better if they were adding references. Could you please give a specific diff for an edit which you found troublesome? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm on a very slow tablet and about to pack up, Mackensen, but there was a whole string of basically pointless edits, some on stub articles, which just added a History sub-heading with nothing but a template (forget its name now, sorry) saying something like "empty section, you can help by adding to it"; others shuffling other bits into a history section without improving the text or citations and sometimes IMO incorrectly;and always with no edit or summary. (Thanks to both of you for having a look.) Laterthanyouthink (talk)

@Laterthanyouthink: Yes, the lack of edit summaries is a real problem and I've left a comment of my own to that effect. I see what you mean on Dinka language: [112]. On the one hand I can understand putting down a marker, on the assumption there's something to be said on the history of the language. That said, an empty section isn't doing much good. What you think of the IP adding the {{Missing information}} tag instead, with a specific call to action? Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that they're mechanically tagging article after article. The missing information template would simply substitute one template for another. A bot could do the same kind of tagging, but the task would never be approved.

You asked about troublesome edits. Here's an example: They add a 'history' section to an article about the village in Kenya where Obama's father grew up, followed by one sentence mentioning that. This will come as no surprise to anyone who saw the article before the IP did, because there's already a two-paragraph section, 'Obama fame', which explains the same thing in more detail. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a bizarre edit. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Having just wasted more time following up on a few more of the changes and looking at the types of changes made, IMO these four are either deliberate time-wasters or adding nothing of value, or at best very little, of questionable value. In the one I just spent some time on, they had actually removed some information of value. I think that they need some sanctions. It appears to be deliberate and there's never an edit summary. These are the four: Special:Contributions/118.208.136.99, Special:Contributions/1.128.108.214, Special:Contributions/121.222.88.51 and Special:Contributions/58.161.80.53. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Aha: 2001:8003:E405:F700:81AF:834C:4682:8533 is also from Queensland, and makes the same kind of edits. And they're blocked for block evasion as part of a range. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, who took care of them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2001:8003:E405:F700::/64 is someone who mostly edits adventure films, lists of adventure films, visas for various countries, and tourism articles. I don't really feel comfortable naming the registered account this person used because some of the blocks I've done have been CU-related. Anyway, knowing the sock master's username wouldn't help because it only made a few edits. I never noticed this editor to care about history sections, but I guess anything is possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Another one has just started up. Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69. (I tried posting the other four on the admins' vandalism page earlier, but my post was removed and not acted upon.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe most of those edits as vandalism, mindless/tiresome as they are. Maybe when it cools off they'll find something else to do, or someone will discover they share an IP range with a sock and give them a nice, long holiday from the labour of building an encyclopedia. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, BlackcurrantTea, I know; they manage to just toe a line which is annoying but not blatant enough to be obvious vandalism... I did suggest sock puppetry but there's a different process for that but I don't know how to establish, determine or prove that they are. Oh well. I saw earlier that an admin had drawn their attention to this complaint on one's talk page (maybe same one then started that new one I posted above?). Thanks for your help. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a note for 58.161.80.153 IP and am prepared to block if they continue. Some other IPv4s listed by various people above are not currently active. If Special:Contributions/124.150.90.69 turns out to follow the same pattern it may deserve a block also. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2 March may be too far to go back for this, but if not, I'd add 124.19.16.206 to the list.

I happened to run across Japan–Korea disputes: it's been a playground for this editor since November, when they apparently paid a visit to New South Wales. If I'm counting right, out of 14 edits, there are two registered editors and one unrelated IP, and the rest are the same person (various IPs) making pointless history-related edits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you for leaving them the note. I hope that will get their attention.BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: That topic area has been home to dozens of sock farms going back to the beginnings of Wikipedia, and virtually no attempt to connect the dots has ever done much good. If you have a clear smoking gun connecting two named accounts to each other, you need to open an SPI posthaste, but don't be surprised if you were wrong -- there are literally millions of people on the Japanese archipelago who all share similar views and largely make the same English mistakes that most English Wikipedia editors might mistake for unique linguistic quirks, and the exact same is true of the Korean peninsula. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I've no idea who the named editor might be, if they have an account (or several). The edits simply point to a single editor in Australia (not Japan or Korea) making very similar changes over and over. I found it interesting that they repeatedly returned to Japan–Korea disputes over a period of months, when their usual routine is to make one or two edits per article in widely varying subject areas (e.g. Fence, Hainan cuisine, Bambara language, Albert Street, Brisbane) and move on. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Live updating on 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article

There is an IP user that makes live updates on this sports article before the team's match has reached a conclusion. The match concluded at 21:42 EST according to this link. I will provide diffs as evidence that this IP user is updating while a match is still in progress. (e.g. [113],[114], [115]) Please look into this. Yowashi (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem to be something that needed to be brought here, as the game is over and the IP has stopped editing, so there's not really anything that needs to be done. But do we have guidelines anywhere on live score updates? WP:LIVESCORES appears to be specific to Wikiproject Snooker. Fish+Karate 10:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: - LIVESCORES is also used by WP:FOOTBALL and probably needs to be brought into 'mainspace' policy/guidance as it's good. GiantSnowman 13:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS(1), (2), and (4) all seem relevant. Looking at the /64, it's been going on for over a year: 2607:FEA8:E2E0:7C2:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). I'd be happy to see a mandatory delay (end of season or tournament) before updating player/team stats. Aviation (flights, equipment, destinations, etc.) suffers a similar problem. I wonder what percentage of editor and computing resource is wasted by contribution and review of this sort of thing, seemingly against fundamental principles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see similar behavior in American football articles and also on some railroading articles with the movement of heritage units. NOTNEWS governs here, but it's a losing battle to enforce it (see for example the edit history of Super Bowl LIII, with score updates while the game was played). It's not best practice, but as with any live event it's going to happen, and there's probably not much which can be done to stop it. Also, I suspect that we gain new editors this way. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

At what expense, though? And what good are those editors if that's all (or most of what) they do? If we agree that it's against NOTNEWS, shouldn't it be dealt with in the same way as with any other disruptive editing? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Request semi-protection (long term) for the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Don't semi-protect stuff. People probably shouldn't waste their time live-updating articles about sporting events in progress, however, it is even a BIGGER waste of resources and a more onerous problem for us to do anything about it. Think about 1) the number of manhours we would waste patrolling, chasing down, chastising, warning, discussing, and trying to stop people from doing this and 2) the amount of good-faith work we block by protecting the articles. Just don't. I would advise people against editing articles about events in progress but I also don't think we should stop them. People making good-faith accurate additions to Wikipedia should be welcomed, not shooed away. --Jayron32 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Jayron32. I don't really think this implicates WP:NOTNEWS, either. It's an article that would be updated either way. I don't encourage live updating of it either, but I really don't see this as a big problem unless it's vandalism. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I know in the past at the hockey project we did suggest people follow the same idea that LIVESCORES indicates. But we also tell people not to worry about fighting with people who insist on editing before the game is done because it just isn't worth it. As long as they aren't adding fake information it really isn't that big a deal. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

IP appears to be an SPA, as its contributes show it to be focused near exclusively on the Ottawa Senators. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose this case can be closed, considering most of the participants in this discussion agree that this isn't a serious issue. Yowashi (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Date format IP

I have recently encountered a number of Brazilian IPs making changes to date formats, mainly from DMY (or UK style) to MDY (or US style). First it was 189.115.188.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which geolocates to Salvador) about 2 weeks ago; yesterday it was 191.33.110.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which also geolocates to Salvador); today it is 177.42.228.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which geolocates to São Paulo). They have never responded to talk page posts. What should we do? It's not a vandalism-only account, but it's certainly disruptive. GiantSnowman 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

177.42.228.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is still active. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited for 24 hours? GiantSnowman 20:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Azure service mis-used as block evasion proxy (update, now need global lock?)

• 23.99.0.0/16 (talk · contribs)

related ANIs

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#LTA on the loose who keeps evading blocks and creating usernames similar to Gay Nishikori
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Questions about a low profile edit war

Long story short. There were at least two sockmasters on edit war on Italian IPA (and extended to other languages), which was discussed in ANI and the SPIs page (Ragaricus and ZenZung) and my talk page. Suddenly, an ip emerged in my zh-wiki talk page: zh:Special:Contributions/23.99.115.89 as apparent cross-wiki block evasion. Despite the exact ip did not have any edit in en-wiki, it looks strange in the same range there is a stale ip unblock request that ranting to one of our en-wiki admin, Zzuuzz . So, it looks unusual for a range attributed to Microsoft. Is there something we don't know, so that we need to block that range as open proxy? Matthew hk (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the recent non-stale edit from the ip range, seem not that constructive (adding red link person to notable people list, may be constructive or entirely self-promotion), which, that David Mahon (b.1985) the ip was concerned , was different from David Mahon (46) who killed partner's son. Matthew hk (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

update. According to this personal blog, it seem the ip was from Microsoft Azure, which very vulnerable to use as block evasion proxy or just open proxy instead. Matthew hk (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's actually easier than that. I'm an Azure customer myself. [116] spryde | talk 16:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

At least one of those IPA sockers is a proxy-hopper. I have no idea who was ranting at me, but I think you can guarantee that it was also one of our proxy-hopping regulars. User:SQL previously blocked all the Azure ranges, so I'd pass that on. I'm a bit wary of pre-emptively blocking whole swathes of the Internet, as sometimes these services can be used legitimately. This particular range is 23.99.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but I think it's certain they'll have moved on by now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Two issues. Now there is one sockmaster appeared in wiktionary and wiki commons (see my talk page thread User talk:Matthew hk#5.171.0.0/18 and User Natzione). Secondly, https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/index.php?user=23.99.115.89 and https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/index.php?user=23.99.116.84 leave cross-wiki message in many wikis that i barely edit such as Serbo-Croatian, Albanian wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: And i also suspected they used open proxy or using server hosting service as a mean of proxy for so long, May be this 5.101.99.101 (talk · contribs), this 43.240.30.160 (talk · contribs) and this 85.86.64.236 (talk · contribs) are related to one or two of the sockmasters. Which make other people so difficult to AGF to ip new user on editing IPA due to ip hopping. Matthew hk (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk, 43.240.30.160 belongs to SonderCloud... A colocation webhost. I've used the rangefinder to go ahead and block every ip range that they use for hosting. I'll get to work on Azure in a little bit (it's a lot of ranges however), after I'm done dealing the IP's on my talkpage. SQL^{Query me!} 04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk, Done, 88 azure ranges blocked. Microsoft Azure is problematic the same way Amazon AWS is, and Google Cloud / Digital Ocean / OVH / and others that I regularly block. As such I've blocked all remaining Azure ranges based on data provided by microsoft. I can't globally block these, but if a stew is interested, I can adapt / share the tool I use for global use. SQL^{Query me!} 05:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

IP Hopper on blocked range

2600:1017:B810:0:0:0:0:0/44 was blocked as a shared IP range for racist swinery. However, there is still persistent vandlaism coming from 2600:1017:b819:cafd:309e:f47:ac36:bad7/43.

Evidence: [117] [118] [119]

Submitted, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Added reason for block 14:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Update:2600:1017:B800:4891:4DB1:9A78:15B3:7BAF was just blocked by Edgar181. Almost all their edits have been oversighted besides the ones to Aboideau's talk page/.\ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Aboideau, I'd be happy to hide the edits to your talk page too if you would prefer that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oversighted on Aboideau. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! -aboideau^talk 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This individual has been persistently making these types of edits since at least last year, with wide IP ranges that are also used by constructive editors. Unfortunately, finding range blocks that will be effective may be difficult and finding ones that will also have an acceptable level of collateral damage will be even more difficult. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Concur. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wider rangeblock shouldn't be necessary due to update to the edit filter for them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Eyyyy, nice!! That's some pretty good news to hear (I monitor Special:AbuseLog). Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jugrla70

While not a blatantly promotional username, Jugrla70 has posted using the plural pronoun "us" and confirmed that the account is a "PR and management team" here. Obviously in conflict about shared accounts and using Wikipedia for promotion and should be blocked accordingly. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Willsome429, can you please link the guideline that you're referencing? I'm in no way trying to break wikipedia guidelines and only one person has access to the email address associated with this account. At the end of the day, I made edits to the page based on third party reliable/official NASCAR sources because the page was outdated (therefore inaccurate)...additionally, the information you tried to revert back to was also outdated therefore a misrepresentation. Jugrla70 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This being the case, I gave them a "PAID" notice. DlohCierekim 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well....you paid-noticed the OP :). Lectonar (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I put the standard COI message on Jugrla70's talk page. They seem willing to use talk pages going forward. - MrOllie (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Spammer...

Honestly, I don't know why everyone's so down on spammers. They're very handy around the house.

-EEng

24.7.22.23 (talk · contribs) has made many (now reverted) damaging edits (especially on the Smitty page) advertising Flex Tape (such as this one) and should have all their contributions examined immediately for proof of other incidences of this.--Neateditor123 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Blocked and unblocked. Dynamic IP and last edit was in february. /24 shows no other edits, so I guess they've stopped. Will check /22. DlohCierekim 16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

/22 showed no recent problems. /20 would result in collateral damage. DlohCierekim 16:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Somebody needs their eyeglasses adjusted as they have clearly misread "spammer" as "spanner". (rolls eyes meaningfully) DlohCierekim 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's called a wrench, you monarchists. Leviv ich 15:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Did someone say wrench?

-EEng

User:TurokSwe's issues on the Alien and Predator hasn't changed

The user TurokSwe has been in trouble several times because of his edit warring and controversial changes to the Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator franchises. He's been on the template talk page, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, spam blacklist and on had an AN/I before. On the ANI it was said that he would be forced to stop edit warring and ignoring when people told him what he was doing wrong. Since then he's edit warred again (this time on the Alien navbox), and once again just replied that he doesn't understand. I say he should be topic banned, at least temporarily.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said I didn't understand something, but I have merely been asking of you to properly explain why you oppose my edits, which you haven't really done. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I did, several times.★Trekker (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been properly explained to you countless times in every conceivable arena. Other editors - especially administrators - have walked you through it in the minute detail that's appropriate for a brand new editor-- but, you're not new and you've been blocked for this multiple times. The problem is not with other editors not helping you, it's with you refusing the acknowledge consensus or the rules. If you don't like consensus, don't edit the articles that are irritating you, like everyone else has to do at times. And, for the record, consensus on all these issues were reached in January and you still are doing this. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly did you explain it? All I can find are responses which either simply claim "Predator is not connected to Alien" (which is demonstrably false) or that I supposedly "don't understand" something, or they bring up past personal issues (which is not what I'm talking about) unrelated to the question (regarding how Predator is connected to Alien and vice versa) being discussed. Also, which "controversial" changes are you even referring to? - TurokSwe (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I never tried to remove the Predator franchise from the template, which is what I feel like you're trying to imply here. I moved it down, because as I said, it's not as connected as the Alien vs. Predator is.★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was implying, but it's precisely the fact that you moved it down to a section that mentioned articles which were not connected to the Alien franchise, and Predator is undeniably connected to it, and there is no real differentiation between the three franchises that would warrant moving it down to the lower section. This is very vague reasoning if anything, and it honestly does seem a little silly that it would be that difficult to resolve. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion that "there is no real differentiation between the three franchises" is once again 100% your personal opinion.★Trekker (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that's supposed to even mean or how it addresses the issue. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You keep making assertions that pretty much no one agrees with.★Trekker (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you referring to here? And if my assertion is demonstrably true then what does it matter if people oppose that fact? We're not rewriting history are we? - TurokSwe (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm refering to every single conversation that's been had about you before now.★Trekker (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You're being rather vague again here, I still don't know which [relevant] "assertions" you're referring to. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not remotely vague, you know very well that you've been involved in tons of disputes on this topic and pretty much all of them have ended with people telling you to knock it off.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You are being very vague from what I can tell. I know full well that I've been involved in countless disputes on topics such as these (and certainly not limited to Wikipedia) but I have no idea what you're referring to specifically. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• So, to be clear, the previous AN/I dealt with TurokSwe edit-warring over Alien and Predator related articles, during which a large number of editors suggested some sort of sanction was requred, and also during which it was clearly stated by Jehochman that "I shouldn't block them until their next incident of edit warring. For the moment I may just tell them to behave as if they are under a 1RR restriction and if they get into another edit war, I will indef them." Now, TurokSwe is edit-warring over exactly the same subject, and at Template talk:Alien (franchise) is again a litany of WP:IDHT. I also note that TurokSwe said here that "I can see you are currently using past discussions (which were messy and troublesome to say the least, but which I've moved on from, and which are not relevant to the discussion) in order to justify your rejection of my edits" when the situation is exactly relevant to the discussion, because it's the same problem. Is that a reasonable summing-up? Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Noting that what I was referring to was that this edit warring issue was not what I was addressing on the talk page, as I thought was made clear, and I was not the only one engaging in edit warring, and I was not without strong justification for keeping the edits I made, unlike the other individual, and thus the edit warring issue is being used to unjustly force me to comply with said individual's opinions, without the person explaining their stance. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? - TurokSwe (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling most people would not agree that you had good reasons to edit war.★Trekker (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Everyone and their dog told you in January where they stand! DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying she had good reasons to edit war? - TurokSwe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bemused myself. It was clearly explained by *Treker in that discussion why she considered that TurokSwe's edits were wrong, and yet they've been persistently edit-warring over the last week or so despite what the previous AN/I said. I can't see any other option but some sort of sanction here, but would welcome further comments. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she technically did "clearly" explain why she thought my edits were wrong, and her reasoning was simply that Predator is not as connected to Alien as AVP is, which is very vague reasoning if you ask me and she did not care to elaborate any further. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is going to come of as rude but the truth is that I just assumed someone with capable of logical deduction would grasp the concept that something called Alien vs Predator is more connected to Alien and Predator than Alien and Predator are to each other. This is what I mean when I say that you're refusing to understand something, you should be able to understand it but you're willingly ignoring it to try to force your will.★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the titles alone here, in which case I would agree with you, but when looking to the actual contents of the material published under said titles it's a very different story. It's like arguing that Alien: Covenant is more connected to Alien than Prometheus and therefore the latter should be moved down a section dealing with articles that are not connected to the Alien franchise. It's silly. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if you ignore the fact that Predator did not start out as a spin-off from Alien, then yeah sure.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It may not have started off that way, but after the first movie it sure became one, and this has only been further established and embraced in the following decades (and thank you for at least admitting it). - TurokSwe (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Admit what? You're talking nonsense by now.★Trekker (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you did disregard the remainder of the franchise past the first Predator and said "then yeah sure" so I just assumed. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Assumed what based on what? Are you for real so close minded that you're just projecting your opinion onto what I write?★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you due to my aspergers (in which case I apologize), and I'm not trying to be in any way arrogant or disrespectful, but the way you phrased your response made it seem as though you were silently agreeing with me in regards to Predator being connected to Alien. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Courtesy ping to admin who gave this warning as a result of the last report of TurokSwe. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In my point of view I think a topic ban would be much better than any block. Turok seems to be a decent editor, just blinded by his fandom of this franchise.★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@TurokSwe: you are hereby topic banned from any page related to Alien or Predator for a period of six months. You are free to edit the other 99.999% of pages on Wikipedia. Should you violate this restriction, you may be blocked, and the blocks will escalate with each violation. Anybody who wants another admin to enforce this should log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Noted. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• concur w/ TBAN Alien or Predator DlohCierekim 21:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Now that there is a topic ban, acknowledged by TurokSwe, there is no need for further discussion between @TurokSwe: and @*Treker: above. Sorry for all that bolding, but the long back and forth between you two is really, really annoying for everyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just saw this, it's true. I will not be adding anything more.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I too apologize for the dragged out discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon

A. Randomdude0000 Tony85poon (talk · contribs) has been engaging in troubling editing and talk page behavior, especially at Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign and Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign. This has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the user appears to have a WP:POINT, which happens in this case to be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on behalf of feminism. Case in point, this edit. Note the editor was blocked for two days in late February. I consider myself too WP:INVOLVED here, but I suspect a topic ban for post-1932 U.S. politics or women's issues might be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Also notifying some other involved editors: @A. Randomdude0000, Another Believer, Mélencron, and Ahrtoodeetoo: – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Muboshgu's assessment of Tony85poon's behavior, which is becoming increasingly brazen. A few examples: [120], [121], [122]. It seems as if he is saying "go ahead and block me, I dare ya". So I agree that a topic ban, at the very least, would be in order.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been troubled by their edits. They are clearly not here to be constructive and cooperative. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• I share the others' views of Tony85poon's conduct but disagree about the appropriate remedy. I believe a topic ban would be an example of biting a newbie too hard too fast, something we do too often in the AP space. I think this editor deserves a firm and frank, high-level warning from an admin about what the project is about and how they can contribute productively. If they persist, only then should they be topic banned. Tony85poon has undoubtedly been disruptive, and I'm concerned about potential listening and competence problems. But I believe he is here in good faith to build an encyclopedia--he just needs to better understand what that means. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Partial retraction of that view. In this recent edit, Tony85poon did actually dare me to ask for a block, suggesting that it's not his job to avoid disruption. This isn't a problem with AP-related articles, it's a problem with his understanding of community-wide standards. I suggest escalating blocks. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a textbook WP:CIR case to me – not capable of exercising editorial judgment in their edits and constantly adding irrelevant content despite other editors' efforts to get them to stop engaging in such behavior. Mélencron (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Melencron. Their problematic behavior relentlessly continues despite the efforts of multiple editors to keep it in check, and the editor in question gives no indication of putting the brakes on anytime soon. At this point, I believe a block is in order. The disruptive behavior needs to be stopped ASAP.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The listening and CIR problems are relentless. This editor needs a hefty block. R2 (bleep) 00:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• If there's a competency issue, do we think there's a mentor out there who might be able to guide this user in a more productive direction? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Edits like this convince me that we either have troll on our hands, or someone who simply does not possess the competence to edit an encyclopedia. Having seen very similar behavior from other users in the past, I'm betting that we have a troll. Regardless, this has become quite disruptive and we need an admin to step in. - MrX 🖋 03:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• If I can throw my two cents in here: This is pretty much a CIR issue. Repeatedly starting barely understandable RfCs for trivial matters (eg "Can a political campaign article have a "Positions" section?") or adding completely unreadable (and overlinked) sections eg here and here is disruptive and just sucks up other editors' time. I'd support a (second) temporary block, removed only when and if another editor offers to mentor Tony85poon. Hydromania (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I would say the user covered a lot of fields, and may be from Hong Kong so that he also covered topics from Hong Kong. WPHK talk page had die off and people works as lone wolf. And active user would also have a risk of too strong personal POV, which i feel it looks playing fire on cross-wiki edits around Cory Booker (say, Korean wiki, da-wiki, Greek wiki, hi-wiki, ca-wiki, etc). As an user that joined wikipedia for so long, I would say new user have to learn that wikipedia is based on secondary source, which each other have their own POV and people defend it, but the basic ground on editing, was given fair weigh on reliable source as WP:DUE. Once he learn that , there is no need to warrant an indef block. And yes, i personally seldom touch ethnic or political articles. Matthew hk (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Race and intelligence IP

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

---

Can someone take a look at Special:Contributions/2601:42:800:A9DB:7C8C:99A8:4EE9:72F1/64, it’s quite clearly one of the various race and intelligence banned users block evading or someone with an account editing on a new range in an attempt to avoid scrutiny for their views. Their recent contributions at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis are nothing short of trying to inflame tensions on this issue after MPants was blocked. As the IP range has been stable for months and /64s are normally one person, I’d recommend a longer range block. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Although it's true that IPs can voice their opinions, but I feel like he's just here to push a POV. You should encourage him to defend himself here. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather not see him pontificate on his efforts to denounce WP:NONAZIS at ANi. He is a single topic editor. Legacypac (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Block the range, make it a long one. Obviously hiding offline to evade a block, and judging from their actions around MjolnirPants and a certain obvious gap in their contribs, I'd wager a guess to checkusers who it is. I'd block myself but I'm on mobile. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd block as a sock but I'm not allowed any more, sorry! GiantSnowman 11:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for three months. The combination of race and intelligence and NONAZIS is a red flag, and a registered account would be topic-banned or blocked by now. It's obvious that this is block evasion or evasion of scrutiny by someone who had an account. Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threats related to editing with COI

User:Mark Jean has admitted to a conflict of interest in relation to the company Evolution Aircraft here. He stated, "AHunt - EAC is definitely doing business. We have the tax documents, several dozen invoices, and payroll slips to prove it.)" After several edits today, and several warnings and a personal note on his talk page regarding editing with a COI, the user made this edit with the following edit summary: "BilCat - per Wikipedia's published guidelines, you are vandalizing EAC's Wikipedia pages. Tomorrow, we will consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps. No COI exists. Your incorrect changes are intended to misrepresent the facts and create damages." This is a clear legal threat. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia Rules to Justify Vandalizing Company Wikipedia Pages (apparently with the intent to create damages)

User:BilCat is clearly a Wikipedia "super user" of some type. I am not. I have no idea who BilCat or Ahunt are. I am a novice to Wikipedia. However, the previous inaccurate postings by other users to "Evolution Aircraft" and "Lancair Evolution" have created damage. This is not a "legal threat" - it is simply a fact.

Also, my stating that I need to "consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps" is not a threat. I have no idea what the laws are for people slandering businesses on a public facing website. What are company's rights? How do they inform Wikipedia.org about personnel who appear to be vandalizing the information about their company? What are the correct steps to take? Finding out what the correct steps to take re. vandalism on Wikipedia is not a threat of legal action. It is a statement of intention to "find out what the heck to do." (Right now, I have no idea what to do about people who intentionally damage company's public facing data on Wikipedia. Readers view these Wikipedia pages as "statements of fact." It makes no logical sense for someone to intentionally create obvious issues for someone they do not know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Jean (talk • contribs) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have always viewed Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information. If it is Wikipedia's intent to communicate inaccurate information, this is news to me.

Correcting incorrect statements is based on a desire to provide Wikipedia readers with accurate information.

Evolution Aircraft Corporation is definitely in business. Please advise what the company needs to provide Wikipedia to correct what is being incorrectly published to the public.

Thank you. - User:Mark Jean (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Viewing "Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information" is your first problem. Any idiot can post any nonsense they want here. Wikipedia is a good place to start your own investigation to find correct info. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Here you say "this is not a legal threat". There you say "we will consult with an attorney familiar with this area of law for next steps.". How are these compatible? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Mark Jean: You can start discussion and rfc on the content of wiki article in the talk page of the article, especially concern on not in WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE claim, or even content that never able to WP:VERIFY, but not ranting legal threat. However, wikipedia is not the webhost of ad either. Matthew hk (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Jean: Your statement is a legal threat, and you are liable to immediate block unless you retract it. That being said, you should also work on some of your other inaccurate statements, such as confusing "slander" with libel, your airy and unsupported claim that these companies have been "damaged" (one might be forgiven for thinking that their Facebook pages and websites being abandoned, phones not answered, and industry articles claiming that they're defunct are far more injurious to sales) or your presumption that those making edits of which you disapprove have malicious intent in so doing. Ravenswing 09:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Ravenswing, Please allow me to clarify I was not threatening to take legal action. I have no intent to take legal action. Because of its impacts already, we will find & hire an expert in this area. Obviously, I'm new to Wikipedia & not an expert with the rules for correcting inaccurate information. The positive guidance has been enlightening. From your response, it's clear you have an excellent command of legal jargon. Thank you for your feedback. Mark Jean (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Greatly Appreciate the Feedback

A number of people do view Wikipedia as a source of accurate, factual information. However, thank you for pointing out they probably should not. We've advised customers they should not. But this did not dissuade them from repeating their concerns. We will invest sufficient time & resources to appropriately address these issues, and stay within the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you for your valuable feedback. - User:Mark Jean (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I investigated a little and found this article [123] confirming the business is shut down. Their facebook page has no new posts since the fall of 2017 but there is a comment about them closingfrom a reviewer. I can't call the company in the middle of the night but it sure looks closed to me.Now I realize that businesses that are not operating often continue to exist legally with assets (which an aircraft manufacturer likely has) but from the outside world's perspective this company is out of business. If you have news articles that show they restarted that is a different thing. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Legacypac, Appreciate your feedback on the above article. I was not aware of it. If you'd like to meet me at Evolution, I have a few open days next week. We can show you the aircraft kits under construction, and our parts department that continues to support EVOs around the world. - User:Mark Jean (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark Jean, thank you for clarifying that you are not threatening legal action above. We have a strict policy that such threats are not allowed. Your invitation to Legacypac is inappropriate, for one because he is unlikely to be able to visit, and also because even if he did we would not be able to publish anything based on your meeting, as we would not consider it verifiable. We base our articles on information published in reliable sources, which means we publish both positive and negative details on a topic seeking to achieve a neutral point of view; we unfortunately cannot update anything based on assurances. I've checked briefly this morning and it seems that the information currently published is clearly verifiable with respect to the company's "apparent" closure, though I do not see that closure has ever been confirmed. If you know of any independently published information which clarifies the company's current status, we can easily resolve the situation. I'll follow up later this morning on your talk page: the legal threat situation seems resolved, and this forum is poorly equipped for content issues. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I don't know if Mark Jean should be blocked for NLT, but what I believe is unquestionable is that he is in violation of the TOS for paid editing. If he cannot understand that he has a COI, and does not comply with WP:PAID, then he should be blocked on that basis. R2 (bleep) 17:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but we give editors the opportunity to self-correct first. It's being handled. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Colonies Chris

• Colonies Chris (talk · contribs) – This user keeps indiscriminately unlinking random words for no reason. I tried having a discussion with them, but they didn't reply and resumed editing just as before. They should be blocked per WP:MEATBOT until they promise to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In the absence of diffs, I'm going to say that it's reasonable per MOS:OVERLINK to unlink things like fire, water, and sunlight. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I routinely unlink common words such as those. There may be certain contexts where such links are useful - I don't think that's the case in any of my recent edits. We can discuss specific examples. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You're indiscriminately unlinking light from the vacuum article [124], or time from the Stefan–Boltzmann law [125], even though those are clearly relevant links, that weren't overlinked. But more importantly, we shouldn't be at AN to get you to engage in discussion. The rest of the edits were fine, but the mass unlinking is indiscriminate and has to stop.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb is pretty much spot on with this statement, especially the part about having to come here to force discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who's reading an article on the Stefan–Boltzmann law may be assumed to be familiar with the concept of time: they're not there for a philiosophical discussion on the nature of time. That would be helpful in some contexts, but not this one. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Time is specifically mentioned as a physical concept. That is a topical link, not just "after some time, the thing happened" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to quote the full sentence here:

"Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time $j^{\star }$ (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

There's nothing there that would require any reader to have a grasp of the concept of time beyond the everyday understanding. There are several technical terms there that are rightly linked, but 'time' is not one of them. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC).

Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A quote from MOS:OVERLINK: "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.". There's no benefit to a reader here. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Quite a few are disputable. "English language" is OK here. "Altitude" might not always be obvious, especially to non-English speakers [126]. "Netherlands" is always worth linking, especially given the confusion with "Holland" [127]. Some of the the edit-summaries are not always accurate - this one claims it's changed "Hansel and Gretel" to the opera, which it hasn't (which is just as well, as the story is correct). So, yeah, it's not terrible automatic editing, but it could be improved a bit. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The offical tourism site for the Netherlands is www.holland.com Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Altitude" is just an ordinary English word, not a technical term: WP:NOTDICT. It may well be worth linking "Holland", where it's not synonymous with The Netherlands - but not vice-versa. "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar". Yes, the edit summary was misleading, but no incorrect edit was made (I undid it before saving). Colonies Chris (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Altitude is a relatively ordinary word, yes, but this is a topic related to atmospheric entry, and is something that is very much dependent on altitude. Again, the link is germane and topical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. If I may borrow a perfect summation: "Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical." Just because you don't elder the topicalityif a link in an article you e never edited before does not mean the link should a automatically removed because it's a common word. Removing a link to time from any article on a time-dependent physics concept reveals simply that one shouldn't be editing that article in the first place as they lack the competence regarding the subject area. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, links aren't only for when the reader doesn't known something. They are there for when something is important to the topic. Removing a link to time from an article on time-dependent physics is beyond crazy and as oknazevad says indicates not having knowledge of the subject. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think one key point here is that these mass edits should stop once anyone objects with a reasonable rationale. Not all articles are the same, and we really don't need this kind of one-size-fits-all approach which changes thousands of articles a week. I particularly object to the reconfiguration of piped links to redirects, under some pretence of "NOTBROKEN" yet many of these pipes were created as such, and the violation of NOTBROKEN is actually that being committed by these runs of thousands of semi-automated edits. And I have seen examples of times when user will wait until the article is "out of mind" before reasserting the edits. There's no real excuse for continuing to edit time after time against consensus, or even against one reasonable complaint, yet it continues time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no-one has addressed the crucial question I quoted above from MOS:OVERLINK: "... whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from.". There's no point in a link that does not benefit the reader. Just about anything mentioned in an article is relevant to the topic - if it weren't, it wouldn't belong there - but that doesn't mean that linking it provides any benefit to the reader. We don't link items just because they're important - we link them in order to help the reader to a better understanding. We had these discussions years ago about overlinking - this is settled policy. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And what seems clear from above is that numerous editors here believe that the items you are delinking would help someone. You, on the other hand, disagree with those multiple editors and continue to edit against them, hundreds of times a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, no-one has claimed, for example, that a link to 'time' would be helpful. They're just insisting that it should be linked simply because it's important. And that's not how we do linking - that's been settled policy for many years. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that you're making semi-automated edits, masses of them, to enforce something subjective in each and every case. I think we can all agree that's an unwise use of a semi-automated tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Would Chris perhaps agree to voluntarily stop making semi-automated edits? Deb (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm with Colonies Chris on this one. I have not yet seen one example of a removed link that was useful to keep. As above, the Stefan-Boltzmann link to 'time' is to the top-level general-audience encyclopedia article on time. Not even any technically subtle meaning for time within some narrower and more relevant context. I can't see any use to it, even worth the slight annoyance of increasing the bluelink density (and thus diluting the prominence of the major links). Is a link to the Netherlands needed, in case it's confused with Holland? No, because neither of those have any substantial relevance to the topic. "The Low Countries" would be adequate, so long as some vague notion of "the 17th century Western European coastal bit that wasn't England" was in there. We don't need links to convey that.

Small trout for failure to discuss earlier.

As to "semi-automated tools", then I have no idea what they are using, and it is entirely irrelevant. It also raises a real frown (and gets my fish-bucket arm twitching) to see other editors trying to stoke up an ANI on that basis, having failed to make a case as to the links themselves. Is there any credible claim that Chris' automated tool (if indeed there is one!) is malfunctioning? Is it making edits that they would not otherwise wish?

There are two questions here: should the links stay or go? is it mis-use of an automated tool? The first is obviously subjective, but neither have any real support. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the tool is AWB, and it's use is not entirely irrelevant. If, per Headbomb, it is being used to make "indiscriminate edits" at high volumes, then it ought not to be, especially when requests to desist have come from multiple editors in this case alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As anyone can see from my contributions to the discussion above, these are not 'indiscriminate' edits. I can justify every one of them, with reference to long-settled linking policies. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:159.15.129.71

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

---

Can someone please apply some sort of blockhammer to this character who thinks that constructive editing to improve our home here includes replacing everything with pictures of scrotums? They've popped up at Postman Pat and now seem to be going through Liquorice and Lavender. Cheers Lemon martini (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

chacun à son goût DlohCierekim 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Stalker is harrassing me

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

---

He/she is following me and undoing my edits for the sole purpose of harrassing me. See user:LightandDark2000 his/her edit of Bonyad (as only one example). Please stop or warn this editor. Thanks. 66.87.9.161 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You are required to inform editors when you raise a case against them here - there's a yellow banner telling you that when you edit the page. I've put a notification on the user's page for you.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, he made one edit on that page, reverting you just the one time. I can't see anywhere that could be called "harassment". You're going to have to come up with some more comprehensive evidence than that. I can find no other time he reverted you. Reverting one edit, one time, on one article is not stalking or harassment. --Jayron32 18:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this ANI edit is the first contribution by the IP in over a year. It's not clear how LightandDark2000 could be stalking someone with a dynamic IP (if I knew how to do that, it would make anti-vandalism work a lot easier)... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

simple, (thank you). You need to see the edit history of the ip address he has reverted at Bonyad (as indicated above)...

(He is carefull to disguise his edits as "bona fide" edits also. His edit summary does not make any sense!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.31.201 (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you indicate other examples of where he harrassed or stalked you. He made one edit to that article. One edit is not harassment. Please provide evidence or else stop making accusations. --Jayron32 19:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Doing a bit of research this sticks out spryde | talk 19:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm seeing a pattern here, alright. IP, was either this edit or this one yours? How about this one? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this is not a good sign. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Same here. Reverting supremacist/hate content isn't vandalism, even if it's just one person adding it. We have zero tolerance for any of it. Out of curiosity, has the IP concussed itself yet? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like /18 was too small a range. Expanding to the /17, I think I've found the source of the IP's claim of "harassment". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Are any of the websites they're mentioning in their edits blacklisted either here or at Meta? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: Dear fuck. rense.com is being used as a "source" in dozens of articles right now. I just had to remove this link to jewwatch.com. Perhaps they should be, not that it would have stopped this IP's edits. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I must say I 've seen wp:admin LIE on simple facts alone (exactly: attribution of edits to wrong ip addresses willfully/repeatedly). So forgive me but i will keep my report at the above. Peace.66.87.84.225 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You'll find that Wikipedia admins generally do not share the same cluelessness as the general public does with regards to IP address allocation. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is collateral on the full /17, but Special:Contributions/66.87.9.0/24, Special:Contributions/66.87.30.0/23, Special:Contributions/66.87.84.0/23 are all this user, and they have a pretty long history of overt antisemitism. Going to block, just figuring out settings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thoroughly unpleasant fellow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Indef block request for Ian D 123

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

---

Ian D 123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For this edit. WP:NOTHERE/WP:NONAZIS.

User was blocked for 24 hours by MSGJ for violating 3RR as reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ian_D_123_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_(Result:_blocked). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That 24 hours should be an indef and a talk page revocation if all they're going to do is spout supremacist slogans. They want unblocked, they can go thru UTRS. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I bought this from a rice trader.

-EEng

"Race traitors"? Give me a break. Textbook NOTHERE case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

They're now indef'd, and I've reverted the trash off. They still have talk page access, though. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That phrase proves that we are dealing with a white supremacist. I extended the block to indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do they still have talk page access? They're just going to post more trash screeds.--Jorm (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Typically we don't revoke editors' talk page access until they actually abuse it. But I've called WP:IAR on this one and revoked it anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the "race traitor" comment was made while he was blocked, so a talk page revocation was appropriate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Eatcha

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

---

He has been redirecting many Bollywood song articles without opening any consensus. Some of them may be reviewed before being potentially restored. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so why did you post this here? Go post to the user's talk page and discuss it with them. If that doesn't work, use dispute resolution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Kailash29792, SEE WP:NMG and which one of the song that I redirected should reviewed ?? Please note that on an average each Bollywood movie has about 4-5 songs and check List of Bollywood films of 2018 this means a hell lot of articles and never ending discussions just on some none notable Bollywood songs. I think there are many more important topics that are left out without an article. Eatcha (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• I too feel it's not necessary to post everything on Administrators' noticeboard as they have many more important things to do. Eatcha (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have restored some of the song articles because they were particularly famous and comprehensive. But Eatcha, in the future please remember to go for AFD rather than boldly redirecting articles. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

71.209.247.135

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

---

This IP 71.209.247.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked on March 1 by Doug Weller for 31 hours after diff, diff, diff. Today: diff. I left a 4im on the talk page. It's a dynamic IP but I thought it was worth raising the issue anyway since this IP seems to be targeting a particular editor for harassment. Leviv ich 05:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I ran a check to see if it was logged-out harassment. It doesn't seem to be, but all of the edits are from the same person. Since this disruption has been ongoing for a while now, I did a one-month block. I could shorten it if people seriously think this person is likely to make constructive edits, but I really don't think it's going to happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

PatriotMan1776

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

---

PatriotMan1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has graduated from vandalism[128][129] and being an Infowars foot soldier[130] to editing other people's comments.[131] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. For what it's worth, accounts like that can be reported to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Thehobit00

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

---

User:Thehobit00 should be indeffed for this lovely bit of Holocaust denialism. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build a factual encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done by Doug Weller. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Camorra

Persistent re-introduction of mass copyright violation from multiple sources. See also related crime syndicate articles:

• Camorra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marco Di Lauro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Contini clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Di Lauro clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I requested assistance from Diannaa with rev/deletion of these articles late last night [132]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that rather than deleting entire sections of text it is a much better idea to rewrite any paragraphs that may have been copied, however simply removing all of it without any discussion is never the way things should be done! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Our policy is to remove copyright violation content when found; there is no requirement for the editor who removes it to then rewrite the content in acceptable form, nor is discussion necessary prior to removal. Vif12vf restored the content in question at least three times, and at least twice warned me that I would be blocked. He also dismissed the copyright violation warning I posted as irrelevant [133]. There's a resistance demonstrated to respecting Wikipedia policy re: copied content. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I should probably point out that some of the information you changed or removed were details that themselves dont have anything to do with copyrighted text. This includes years active, countries where active, allies and even some sources from these sections. If you feel the need to remove information that might be direct copies of other peoples works then feel free, but dont remove other types of information that might be sourced! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There was a mass of copyright violation edits over the last few days by several accounts. It is standard to revert to the last stable version, even if that means removing small amounts of legitimate content. Until Vif12vf is willing to grasp the intent of copyright policy, and understand why the warnings given me were inappropriate, we now have multiple issues at this article: the initial additions of unacceptable text, the argument defending restoration of that text, and, hopefully, rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

2601 is right. Every time you edit, you will see a message "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted". I have scrubbed the copyvios and indefinitely blocked Dijalbinha2019 (talk · contribs). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

User is constantly removing sourced info from List of Britpop musicians even though several different editors have reverted him here, here and here to name just a few. When it was brought up on the articles talk page, he provided more sources, one of which also described the band as Britpop. He has been asked and given final warnings repeatedly on his talk page but simply deletes the pleas and warnings. User has already been warned by Michig for edit warring and I don't want this to end up there so am avoiding reverting. Here you can see where I re-added the info with sources attached but user seems to have a preference for personal opinion as opposed to sources as can be ascertained from some of his edit summaries on that article's history alone. Robvanvee 16:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, this relates to User:Dean12065. They have received dozens of warnings over the last couple of months, including final warnings (all of which they have removed from their talk page). They were warned for edit warring on Suede (band) but continued to edit war on the same article after the warning ([134]). They don't seem to do anything other than make contentious edits and then edit war over them when they are reverted. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that user Dean12065 has been constantly undoing my additions of several bands to the Britpop list, despite the fact every band I added came along with many reliable sources that made their presence in the list valid. He simply erased the bands, using personal opinions as 'arguments' and never, even once, coming up with a reliable source to justify his removal of the bands. This type of behaviour looks a lot like harassment. CouchJarvis (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

dick picks on the Wikipedia app

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

---

Hi, I guess I'm not at the right place but given the magnitude of the vandalism, I have no time to find the best place to talk about it. There is currently a vandalism that occurs on the Wikipedia app. Some articles have now by a dick pick (File:Streaker_Hong_Kong_1994.jpg) as cover picture. I found the vandalism on timeline of the Syrian Civil War but you'll find it on other articles, for example Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2019) and on all the articles that strart with Timeline of the Syrian Civil War... . I use the android Wikipedia app.--Kimdime (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be the "page preview" hover-over, as I'm getting it in Chrome when I hover the mouse button over the link that is provided. 94.196.202.213 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Yeah in desktop pc web browser, the page preview also show that picture. It seem the image is not inserted in timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2019) (Q60543952), nor in the code of the article Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2019). It seem the script of "page preview" had been hacked. Matthew hk (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (strike off 17:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC))
• It was this edit. A vandal includeonly transcluded the entire Exhibitionism page, of which that image was the first, onto Template:Campaignbox Idlib demilitarization and frozen conflict. It lasted just over an hour, and was reverted over 11 hours ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, it was crafty ! apparently not all the pages where this model is transcluded displayed the vandalism on the app.--Kimdime (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Rare campaign sign displaying Dick pic.

-EEng

User:Jayscott253 and Texas state highways

The user User:Jayscott253 is creating a lot of one line articles like this Texas State Highway Loop 564. I've been moving them to drafts and a few editors also posted messages asking him to complete the article first before submitting. But this user doesn't respond to that at all and keeps creating more articles. Daiyusha (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Regular disruptive editing from an IP range in film Cast section

It been two or three weeks since a particular IP range is making mass changes in Cast section of Malayalam films, mainly reordering cast and adding CAPS to non-nouns, such as [135], [136]. Tried to talk through edit summary in [137] [138] [139] but it was ineffective; communicating directly is not that useful as the person's IPs are frequently changing. However, not all edits are problematic but most edits are.--Let There Be Sunshine 18:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)