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

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Original report

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

---

Revisiting a case that was closed as I believe that there was no long term solution to resolve this case. An explanation of this situation is provided on the previous report that I have linked. The user that I have concerns with is NicholasHui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as they have been making persistent disruptive edits on certain NHL articles. Yowashi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have any specific examples? SportingFlyer T·C 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Don't expect people to wade through the wall of text from the previous ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on other account: NicholasHui had another account with which they edited with before. I had asked them to mark it as retired, or they could have stated a legitimate reason to keep it around, but they did not respond. I have since blocked the other account.[3].—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of NicholasHui's contributions that were incorrect. ([4], [5], [6]). I made corrections to these at a later time. The thing that I can't understand is why they can't just wait for the information provided by this source (which they don't use) to be updated.

Some information I add in to the GAA average for Goaltender Statistics comes from the NHL Teams 2018-19 regular season stats. An example is I changed Anthony Stolaz's GAA average to 3.43 because I saw it from the Edmonton Oilers regular season stats. But even though I put it to 3.43 GAA average, Sabbatino informed me that the information Yowashi gets is from http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=goaliesummary&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&playerPlayedFor=team.22&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=wins. I even said that on my edit summary from the Edmonton Oilers 2018-19 season page history. NicholasHui (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasHui (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the issues raised by OP, I am concerned by edits like this (possible sock?) and this (CIR). GiantSnowman 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that NicholasHui (evidenced by their own statement above and by the last ANi report) is not using reliable sources. As far as I could tell, NicholasHui was coming up with numbers on their own (failing WP:OR), taking them from live TV broadcasts of the games, or using unreliable sources (a fact which they warned about by Sabbatino here). I'll note that the last ANI was closed with this warning about about WP:V and WP:OR (as well as not socking). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article [7]. I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that I admit to calculating the playing time for Ottawa Senators goaltender statistics incorrectly was because the game was not totally finalized yet. That was why. Also, stop complaining how my updates are like when they are correct. Note that when you updated the Calgary Flames 2018-19 season player statistics when they lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, you forgot to add in the Games played for Garnet Hathaway and it was on your behalf. So that was partially on you. You look at the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season stats and you find that another IP User editing the Ottawa Senators page does it similar to how my edit strategy is because I was following that user's example on the Ottawa Senators season page since. NicholasHui (talk)

I didn't forget. In my defense, for whatever reason, NHL.com had Hathaway's GP listed at 61. Every other player on the Flames roster had been updated so I assumed that Hathaway's was updated as well. My mistakes are different from yours, as mine are not intentional, yours are, because you intentionally provide incorrect information. If you want me to stop complaining about your edits, then listen to what myself and other people have been trying to tell you this entire time. Other than that, I'm gonna keep complaining until you learn how to edit the proper way. Yowashi (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused on my talk page for not updating the stats correctly even though I explained the situation in my comment above. Honestly, in my opinion, this individual is not here to build an encyclopedia. Yowashi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment @NicholasHui: I'm unclear what you were trying to achieve by making accusations on Yowashi's talk page as well as here at this ANI discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most recent update @NicholasHui: For your most recent edit to update Toronto's stats (looks like an hour or two at most) after the end of their game, can you explain the specific sources you use to edit those stats? Thank you.—

The stats I add in to the wikipedia stats are from the recap games on the team stats for that game only. NicholasHui (talk) Sometimes, I might use the official team stat source if I was unsure of how my edits match to the official source.

Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I believe NicholasHui uses this as their reference. However, there is a waiting period until it gets updated. The only other possible source I can think of is this one, but this one doesn't display the player's stats for the entire season. So, my guess is that they calculate the new stats by adding on or subtracting any of the numbers from a player's previous game. For goaltenders, they definitely calculate the stats, considering a goaltender's stats for the entire season are not displayed anywhere on the game recaps. The recaps only show their statistics for that specific game only. Yowashi (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: NicholasHui might be using this (or any other teams' website) as his source, which does not get updated immediately. I must also note that teams' websites tend to list different information than the main NHL stats website. Seeing that stats differ, I assume that some teams calculate the stats differently than the NHL. In addition, teams' stats websites tend to list only current players and omit any player who was sent to another league (two-way players), traded, bought out, etc., which just shows that you cannot get a full list and correct stats from the teams' websites. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Perhaps NicholasHui does use the team's website as their source. For example, when they changed Anthony Stolarz's GAA to 3.43, the only source that I found that had that information was from the Oilers' official website. I initially thought that 3.43 could have been his GAA with the Flyers and Oilers, but I realized that the stats only reflect time on a player's current team. I still believe that NicholasHui calculates the stats, as there is no source that has all this information updated immediately after a game has concluded. They also update the stats section very quickly after every game, so that would eliminate the usage of sources besides the ones that I mentioned previously. I do believe that they had mentioned getting their information from the recaps sometime in the past. Yowashi (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't depend too much on official NHL team sources. Many of them haven't even updated their captains & alternate captains, for the current season. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent contributions by NicholasHui. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [8], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [9], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [10]) My contributions from March 16 that are corrections to NicholasHui's edits. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [11], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [12], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [13]). I used this website as my source. NicholasHui needs to be stopped from editing these articles, as it is clear that they don't use official sources to obtain their information from, and for refusing to rearrange the position of players based on total points. Yowashi (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, I would suggest we remain focused on 2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season for now, and not get too sidetracked with potentially too many open issues. I do notice that your source URL is diffrent from what is cited at 2018–19_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_season#Player_statistics. Is there any prior consensus among the WikiProject on 1) what source to use, 2) when it is reliable to update?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: We use this source instead of this one, as the latter does not show information on players that have been traded, sent down to other leagues (generally a team's American Hockey League team), their contract being terminated mid season, etc. Occasionally there may be some discrepancies between the two sources. For example, the first source that I listed from NHL.com has Frederik Andersen's GAA listed at 2.75, while the team's website has it listed at 2.74. We're not sure why there is a discrepancy, but considering that the team's website doesn't show information on players that are currently not with the organization, we have deemed the team's website as an unreliable source. Perhaps the sources provided on the team's article shall be changed to the other source, maybe during the 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, as we still have to do statistics for teams that participate in the playoffs, or change it when articles for next season are created. NHL.com usually has the information updated 30-40 minutes after a game has concluded, but some information gets re-evaluated. It is recommended to update the stats section on articles hours or even a day later. Yowashi (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a current discussion in regards to this topic over on the Wikiproject Ice Hockey talk page. Yowashi (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to digress from the issue at hand but Andersen's GAA is 2.744970798183. Shouldn't it be rounded down to 2.74? I didn't even know there could ever be inconsistencies between the league website and a team's website. When I'm updating the GAA leader in the infobox for the Lightning I always just plug in the numbers to this website after a game is over, unless the game ends in overtime. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that when you told me that Mike Smith's saves in total he had in that game against Winnipeg Jets, I checked my work and I added in the information correctly. So the mistake was on Yowashi's behalf as he forgot to add one more save in total in the game against Arizona Coyotes. I admit the mistake was part of mine because I assumed that Yowashi's edits where done correctly. Also, when I update the statistics for Canadian Teams, I add or subtract the players numbers from the recap game. That might be why I may be at fault for the mistakes if I was not using the official team stats source. But Yowashi has to be part of the blame too if he was not checking his own work as well. NicholasHui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For Mike Smith's SA, 919 was literally what I obtained from the source. So please tell me, how am I supposed to double check that, when these sources are supposed to give accurate information? Also, SA stands for (shots against), not saves. Yowashi (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC) How you double check the work is you also look at the recap games for the total amount of shots against he had in the teams stats for the recap game only. It can be added in to the stats on wikipedia. Mike Smith's total amount of shots against should have been 920 since he faced 26 shots against. Not 25 shots against.NicholasHui (talk)

You seriously expect me to do that? I mean, I shouldn't have to calculate numbers when I can literally take numbers from a source. Note, calculating numbers is very unreliable, and can lead to mistakes. So that's why I don't do that. Also, if you think you're so darn good at updating the stats, then you do it. We'll see how well that goes. Yowashi (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

[14] [15] Edits to standings by NicholasHui earlier today incorrectly indicating an eliminated team. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent contribution by NicholasHui incorrectly calculating Andrei Vasilevskiy's GAA [16]. It is 2.26 according to NHL.com. How many more examples do we need, to prove that this guy shouldn't be updating these articles? The fact that no action has been made against NicholasHui just blows my mind. Yowashi (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning from previous ANI In light of the blanking reported in subsection below, it seems that an earlier warning by admin Abecedare to NicholasHui after the last ANI got lost in the shuffle in this current ANI discussion. The previous post advise: If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies. A clear consensus was never established, yet the editor continues editing in the disputed area, even as this new ANI is active.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban

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

---

Clearly some action needs to be taken here. The time and effort of editors is being used to fix NicholasHui's continued mistakes. Thus I propose that:

NicholasHui is topic banned from updating sports statistics in articles for a period of 1 year, at which time they may appeal their ban at AN. Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR.

• Support indeff as proposer. Addendum: NicholasHui's conduct in this ANI makes me lean to indeff NicholasHui, per Bagumba's reasoning below. Failing an indeff, I think that a topic ban is a must. NicholasHui was warned at the closure of the last ANI involving them and hockey to follow WP:V and WP:OR. They continue to show disregard for reliable sources. Perahps some time away from sports articles will give them time to fully understand what reliable sourcing means. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum added. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: NicholasHui just blanked this section after I posted it [17]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning on his user talk page asking him not to do that, which he promptly deleted. Oh well... so long as he understands and he doesn't continue the behavior, that's the important part... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, this might be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, too. He's certainly not heeding any advice. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, it's hard to assume good faith at this point, especially given the several instances of comment removals. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, NicholasHui needs to be punished for their actions, as they have continued to refuse countless messages and warnings in regards to this situation. They continue to display odd behavior when it comes to editing NHL related articles, despite being told the proper procedure of updating statistics. Yowashi (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bans are not meant to punish, but rather to prevent further disruption. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Current block NicholasHui has been blocked for 60 hours. See details above.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

After the block expires, would we still be able to discuss this proposed topic ban? Yowashi (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignore my comment above. I posted my previous comment before reading the details in regards to NicholasHui's block. Yowashi (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the blocked editor is now editing signed out. Suggest we be on the look out for possible socks as well. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay - Where? Under what IP? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

At his talkpage, but I'm mistaken. It's just an IP, helping him with his 'unblock' request. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem; this IP user seems legitimate, so I agree that he/she appears to just be helping... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, looks like they needed similar help on their unblock request in February as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus my concerns about his competency on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment What are the other areas outside of hockey statistics has the the user made positive contributions?—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm checking their contribs reveals that Hockey is really their only area of editing. The only other area they seem to have contributed to has been rev-deled (at Ariel Castro kidnappings). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The revdel reason shows COPYVIO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well that doesn't inspire confidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment First off, I want to thank the admins and the others that participated in this for assisting with this situation. I think this situation would have dragged out even further if it weren't for the community. So, thank you all for that. Back to the proposal of the topic ban, I think that a topic ban would be the best solution for this. It's clear that NicholasHui didn't get the memo from their first block on February 28, and I don't think anything would change when their current block expires. For me, I'm pretty exhausted about having to argue about something like this, and I don't want to have the same thing happen again in the future. I'm open to any thoughts or suggestions from anyone. Yowashi (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My 'pedia experience tells me that NicholasHui, will merely continue his disruptive habits, the moment his 60-hr block is up. We'll likely be back here, seeking a full ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I think we should make a final decision on the topic ban within these 60 hours, rather than discussing it after the 60 hours are over. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Bagumba:, there's weird stuff going on at NicholasHui's user talkpage, that heightens my WP:COMPETENCE concerns about him. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is concerning. He has all of his IP accounts listed on his user page. The weird one on his talk page doesn't match with any of the ones listed. We should still keep an eye out though. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Something weird's happening. He claims to be the IP that corrected his unblock request & then reverts that very IP's correction of his unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the IP was actually him. Perhaps this needs more than just a topic ban, on WP:CIR grounds? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly a competency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this indeff territory tho? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If he keeps being disruptive (after the 60 hrs block), then it's indef territory. After all, blocks/bans are for preventative purposes. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Be prepared come Thursday night. A lot of NHL games scheduled. Five Canadian teams are set to play that night. Be prepared to be discussing here, because he is going to be editing those articles as soon as his block expires. Yowashi (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion It seems that it might be as or more productive to drive consensus on stats source usage at the relevant WikiProject Ice Hockey thread than to rubberneck on users' talk pages or speculate on what one may or may not do after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous comments. However, I just don't feel confident that things will change after NicholasHui's current block expires. I have since left some suggestions in regards to updating statistics on the WikiProject page for other users to take a look at. Yowashi (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we seriously need to consider a topic ban for NicholasHui. I just found this edit made by him. The GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate. I calculated both of their GAA's, which are totally different from what NicholasHui got. I didn't publish the changes in case my calculations were off, but I'm pretty sure my calculations are more accurate than his (update: my calculations were correct). The other contributions of his that I discovered that were inaccurate, were on the Calgary Flames, and Montreal Canadiens articles. I'll admit, on the Flames article, I accidentally put in the wrong link for the recap in the game log. NicholasHui corrected it, but his edit summary read, "Wow, a mistake I found. How surprising!!". I'll admit, I wrote a similar message in one of my edit summaries a while back when I had to correct one of his edits. I was tired and frustrated that one night, but that is no excuse for me to leave a message like that. However, I do believe that what he did was a new level of low. Yowashi (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing of the GAA Average was that when I calculated the GAA Average for Connor Hellebuyck and Laurrent Brossoit's GAA Average, I did not change Laurent Brossoit's GAA Average team leaders in case my calculations are off. I knew my calculations were off. Also, note that the recent player stats edits to Calgary Flames page, I do admit getting at least two errors for Travis Hammonic and Michael Frolik since I did not check my work hard enough. Note that when Yowashi has said that the GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate, I changed the GAA Average according to the Winnipeg Jets official stats website. NicholasHui (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have temporarily "indef-blocked" NicholasHui for their resumed problematic editing and WP:IDHT conduct immediately after the previous block expired. I have no objections to the block being lifted once this topic-ban discussion is concluded, or if the user can believably commit to not edit hockey stats without first establishing a consensus-based standard for how to do so. Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• No ban, keep indef block, otherwise ban WP:CIR is the main concern with their editing in general, and they have not been editing in any other areas besides sports stats either. Given the close of their last block that there was no consensus yet on whether their stats calculations were WP:OR or WP:CALC, and they were told to get consensus at the ongoing WikiProject talk thread, it's unfathomable why they would make the exact same types of edits fresh off their last block. There is either a WP:LISTEN problem or plain inability to comprehend WP:CONSENSUS. Then there is the buildup of minor issues, like inability to format a proper unblock request still (third block now), or problems signing their posts e.g. manually typing (incorrect) timestamps.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, an inability to grasp WP:INDENT & apply it to his posts. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Another example: saying they were editing as an IP to change their unblock request ("The IP reformatting my request is me"), then days later deniying it ("Were you thinking that I claimed to be the other IP user? No, I definitely was not that IP User.")—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment User has requested an unblock, so this should remain open in the interim.—Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Transgender-related POV

Involved parties

• A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mooeena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement

This user cannot separate constructive criticism and suggestions for changes to their pet project page from personal attacks. They take personal offense to editors who make suggestions that counter their agenda and argue constantly in talk pages that people who detransition, or "detrans people" as they call them, are oppressed by LGBT people as a whole, transgender people, and rogue political actors. The vast majority of their edits are dedicated to righting the wrong of detrans oppression or "spreading awareness" to their cause.

In addition, they seem to have developed a vendetta against me personally, and have accused me of interfering with discussions about Detransition for prejudiced, peosonal, or politically motivated reasons and attempted to get me banned from the topic. I find it suspect that this user keeps fixating on the fact that she believes me to be transgender in their ban claims, although I have told them multiple times that I am not.

1. [18] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
   1. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
   2. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
   3. 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
2. 14 March 2019 Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
3. 14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

I believe that I have been behaving appropriately regarding this article and this user has become increasingly hostile towards me for continuing to hold this article to Wikipedia's standards. This user has proven that they cannot edit pages related to this topic responsibly and neutrally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooeena (talk • contribs)

Response

This complaint was filed moments ago here, under the same seemingly inappropriate title. I asked there why it was described as a transgender issue, when the topic is detransition (separate phenoms, separate communities). I'll ask again here, please, why frame their concern for a detrans topic as trans?

Mooeena's criticisms haven't been "constructive", they've been hyperbolic and smear-based. Nearly every comment on Talk:Detransition takes a stab either at editors or at the subject matter. From merely their statement above:

• Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans).
• Calling the article "[my] pet project", "[my] agenda", and "[my] cause".
• Using scare quotes in naming detrans people, and adding "as [I] call them" (this is as detrans folk call themselves, and it's documented in news articles and around the web).
• Claiming that I argue detrans folk are oppressed by LGBT folk "as a whole".
• Denying the documented political suppression of detransition exists.
• Wiki-lawyering.
• Claiming that I've requested anyone's ban.
• Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity.
• Claiming that I "claim ownership" over the article.
• Claiming that I "deliberately misinterpreted" anyone.
• Claiming that I "stealth canvassed other editors" (an admin found this untrue).
• Accusing me of sock-puppetry.
• Shaming me for filing a COI (as they suggested suggested), and then an NPOV (as I was instructed by an admin from there).
• Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin).

Mooeena enterred the Talk page with slurs against the detrans community and smears against editors:

• Using scare quotes in naming detransitioners (implying they don't exist or their lives don't matter).
• Claiming the detrans community isn't marginalized.
• Describing presence of more than one citation as "sin".
• Claiming that anyone has argued detransition to be "a common occurrence".
• Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable.
• Confusing detransition to be a "transgender issue" (they're separate communities, that's like conflating gay with trans).
• Claiming Tumblr and "individual accounts" (unsure what that means) are cited.
• Claiming the article "conflates" transphobia with trans regret (this is among the least cited concerns of detransitioners).
• Using scare quotes for trans regret (implying it never happens).

And that's just our first interaction. And Mooeena has continually claimed to wish to re-focus on content, while returning to smears.

Mooeena's stance seems to be of the all-too-common political motivation that acknowledgment of the plight of detrans folk could somehow be a threat to the plight of trans folk.

Other editors and I have communicated civilly and reached compromises. I've repeatedly stated aim to avoid pitting trans against detrans, but rather to present the topic of detransition fairly. I'd like to continue work in improving this article, without the stress of attacks, please. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I looked at that archived talk page and the points of serious disagreement aren't obvious. Could we have more calmness and AGF in the discussion? This doesn't look like a battle of entrenched viewpoints so I'd like to hope the issues can be worked out. I could try to mediate a little bit tomorrow if that helps. I made an edit to the article (added mention of an old science fiction story to the "fiction" section) so maybe that makes me "involved", but I hadn't really heard of the detransition concept before, and my edit was quite far from any of the controversy. So I think I can be impartial. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm unsure of what is the actual problem here, there seems to be a lot of terms I'm not very familiar with. There seems to be disagrement between users but is it a ANI concern? I feel like this should be able to be solved some other way.★Trekker (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Having looked at the diffs linked, Mooeena's complaints seem valid. I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading.

Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity. You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable. I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere?

Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans). How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic?

Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin). This is valid. Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad.

So, A145GI15I95, unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. Natureium (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The arbitration looks like it will be declined. I've read everything and I think the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic, but setting those aside I believe the diffs provided by both users do show a problem with A145GI15I95's behaviour. One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, the other they link it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally after Mooeena pointed out possible twitter canvassing. I would support a topic ban, possibly short-term in order to encourage them to be productive in other areas of the project, or at least a short-term interaction ban, for A145GI15I95 based on the provided diffs, if they don't accept to change their behaviour voluntarily. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Natureium, to answer you:

I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading. Please let me clarify, and let me know if I can clarify further.

You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist. My concern is that Mooeena may be letting her personal stance on gender politics interfere with the editing of this delicate topic. I presumed Mooeena to be trans due to the five user-boxes employing gender-essentialist language on her user-page (most of which she's now removed). I've already said there's nothing wrong with being trans or gender essentialist. But detransition is not a gender essentialist topic. Furthermore, detrans folk are politically where trans folk were a decade ago: struggling for recognition to receive neglected legal and medical services. There are many activists online who wrongly see detransitioners as a political threat to trans rights. Mooeena has repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs. That is troubling. I attempted to reason with her, but she told me to file a complaint. So I filed the COI (where I wrongly guessed she was trans, I was corrected, I apologized, and I explained my concern is for politics not identity). I was instructed by an admin on COI that my concern is more appropriately NPOVN, so I moved my concern there.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable—I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere? The link again is here. The Atlantic author is Jesse Singal; the Stranger author is Katie Herzog. The claim that they are unreliable is indeed written by Mooeena.

How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic? To say or imply that detrans folk are a kind of trans folk is like saying trans folk are a kind of gay folk. They're all related categories, but they're separate groups with different challenges and strengths. And there is a documented history of trans activists harassing detrans folk, hence my concern that no such thing should happen here (as it already has from other editors on the detrans talk page).

Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad. Thank you for acknowledging the attempt to dox (by a third party, not Mooeena) was bad. Please hear me, though, when I say again that I didn't canvas, as another admin confirmed, and I'd like please not to need to defend myself against this charge every day.

…unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. I can answer more questions if you like. But respectfully, I'm not harassing her. And the amount of time I've had to put into writing these defenses, it feels like the reverse.

SportingFlyer, to answer you:

…the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic… I can answer further questions, if you've any.

One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page Which diff do you mean? I've employed no sock. If someone else is socking, it's not I. Please, I've had to re-explain this repeatedly. Another user attempted to dox me and accused me of canvassing. Someone else reported it to an admin, who immediately redacted the dox. I thanked them privately and asked advice. They instructed I change my name, and assured this would reduce my problems. However, Mooeena has not let this go, she continues to accuse me of canvassing, and since the name-change she's accusing me of sockery. And now you seem to say also that I appear to be a sock, unless I've misread you. I've only followed my name-change instructions.

…it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally… My impression has been that Mooeena has taken something personally against me. I linked the new Detransition article to a handful of LGBT info-boxes and articles, and Mooeena seemed to follow me and unlink nearly all of them.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mooeena removed several userboxes recently, but I do not see which ones she removed which were gender-related.
• You claim Mooeena "repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs." I have not seen a diff yet which shows this to be the case. Please either provide diffs or apologize.
• Upon investigation, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog are journalists. From the diff you posted, it makes it seem as if Mooeena has decided to randomly ignore these, but they provided a helpful response here: Talk:Detransition#NPOV.
• You need to stop assuming everyone is accusing you of being a sock whenever a sock is mentioned. There's a pattern forming here. The diff you linked was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, so I have to discredit it.
• Mooeena is within their right to unlink the links per WP:CYCLE. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• There was a subsection statement and a subsection response. I have added a subsection discussion just below. Because of a possible intent to comment about the said statement and its response. Pldx1 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  Follow-up: I have a problem with the first subsection, i.e. "Involved parties". I already know this was a part of an Arbcom filling, but this doesn't make sense here. To be suppressed or to be neutralized by adding User:Mooeena as a party ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena removed several userboxes recently, but I do not see which ones she removed which were gender-related. The five gender-politics–related user-boxes here say: "This user identifies as a woman", "This user prefers to be referred to using feminine gender pronouns", "This user identifies as a lesbian", "This user identifies as a girl gamer", "This user identifies as a gaymer". Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with gender essentialism, and I've apologized for possibly sounding as if I suggested that such stance might be unacceptable. My intention was to voice concern that such politics might preclude an NPOV.

You claim Mooeena "repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs." I have not seen a diff yet which shows this to be the case. Please either provide diffs or apologize. Mooeena began this conversation with scare quotes and suggestions that the detrans community doesn't exist or doesn't matter. She wrote here: "…seem to argue that 'detransitioner' is a marginalized gender identity…" And here: "This article mentions 'anti-detrans' activists… The 'expert' cited…" Detransitioners are indeed a marginalized community, and this was already sourced in the article. So why suggest otherwise? I brought to her attention here that the use of scare quotes is unnecessary, and that denial of detrans folk would be inappropriate, but she didn't reply. When she used these again, I asked outright here if she intends for these to be scare quotes, but she again didn't reply to this concern. She also wrote here "I am gay and am close to many queer and trans people of all sorts…" Hopefully this was well-intentioned, but it could sound like the old "I'm not racist, I have a black friend". I tried politely to voice this concern, but this seems to've been ignored too.

You need to stop assuming everyone is accusing you of being a sock whenever a sock is mentioned… If the accusations of sockery in the two filings Mooeena has reported against me (here and here) weren't meant to be directed at me, than I've misunderstood. An unknown editor also reported me for supposed sockery amidst all these conversations. I apologize if my tone has become defensive when attempting to work with Mooeena, but she began her NPOV complaint on the article's talk page with words that appeared to show she herself lacks NPOV, and I've since been hit with a doxxing attempt, a smear campaign (including Mooeena refusing to drop the false claims of canvassing), and yet another editor (granted, not Mooeena) equating detransition with gay-conversion therapy, so it's been a rough week here. I'd like to mention that, of the three open reports (here, here, this page we're on now), the tone of the responses have differed greatly ("keep talking, report is premature", crickets, and this discussion now).

Upon investigation, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog are journalists. From the diff you posted, it makes it seem as if Mooeena has decided to randomly ignore these, but they provided a helpful response here. I'm sorry, but I don't see where she where she addressed this concern. It appears that Mooeena decried these journalists for reporting stories that activists who wrongly see detrans folk as a threat to trans politics attempt to suppress online. And to be clear, I'm not accusing Mooeena of being activist, I'm asking if her politics might outweigh her POV.

The diff you linked was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, so I have to discredit it. Again, please, which diff I linked was posted by a sock?

Mooeena is within their right to unlink the links per WP:CYCLE. Yes, but it could be, as you say, a pattern, which is what I've asked Mooeena to consider.

There was a subsection statement and a subsection response… and Follow-up… I don't understand what the entries above by User:Pldx1 are intended to mean, or if I'm asked to respond.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are some serious WP:AGF issues in your above post. None of your diffs support Mooeena calling you a sock, and in fact Mooeena herself said she never accused you of being a sock. Mooeena did purge several of her userboxes recently, but she did not purge the major ones relating to gender issues. I don't see any problem with her behaviour, in fact I don't see a single "smear" as you've described. I see a general problem with you assuming she is against your point of view, and your attempts to own the article by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you from not having a neutral point of view. I apologise you've been doxxed by a third party, but that's beside the point on this very specific issue - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and based on the evidence provided above, you are not editing collaboratively in this area. (The diff you provided which was originally posted by a sock was [19].) SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The diff you provided which was originally posted by a sock was [2] Thank you for specifying the link that I mistakenly pasted above to a conversation between Mooeena and a different user. I apologize for this error on my part. The diff I meant to link above to show where Mooeena told me to file is here ("if you believe that I am acting maliciously towards you, feel free to request…").

None of your diffs support Mooeena calling you a sock, and in fact Mooeena herself said she never accused you of being a sock. The two links again are here and here, where she wrote "including one who appears to be a sock". I read that to be claiming or suggesting that the other person is somehow my sock, or that I'm his sock.

I don't see a single "smear" One smear is that she has four times repeated the accusation of canvassing (here, here, here, and here), which was found to be untrue, and three of which were stated after I asked her to stop.

I see a general problem with you assuming she is against your point of view I feel this whole issue has expanded far beyond where it needs to be. Please see that it began simply when Mooeena tagged the article NPOV, and she began its linked conversation using language that itself lacked NPOV (scare quotes, denial of detrans community's marginalization, claims of Tumblr citations, characterizing valid citations she dislikes as sins, calling The Atlantic and Seattle Stranger unreliable, claiming conflation of negative emotions with transition regret). I asked her to recognize her language itself could be read as not NPOV, and she didn't reply. I absolutely understand Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I'm grateful for that. I believe I've been able to collaborate with other editors, including those with whom I've disagreed and compromised. Examples include dropping my objection to inclusion of the WPATH/Danker study; and continuing to meet the months-long demand of those supporting the Medref warning, working to find and include more and more medical sources (up from zero now to twelve, though those weren't all my additions). This long week of attacks from multiple editors has stretched my forbearance (and to be sure, I can't blame Mooeena for the other editors' wrongs, I just wish to give context). My concern has been whether Mooeena has an NPOV on this topic, based on her language choices, as stated in my first parenthetical of this paragraph (scare quotes, existence denial, Tumblr, sins, sources, and conflation). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Pldx1, I have added myself to the Involved Parties section. I had originaly posted this to the wrong noticeboard, and the formatting is simply an artifact from that.

I've been a bit quiet, but I think these responses speak for themselves. A145GI15I95 is projecting their own NPOV agenda onto other users. I have stuck with the research that is notable and reliably reported on, and this user has become increasingly upset that I don't go along with their editing agenda. I am not an activist, but this user consistently appeals to the community ofdetrans folk [who] have blogged, vlogged, and formed discussion groups online and in-person to support themselves in order to argue that it doesn't matter that the topic is understudied and undercited. They seem to firmly believe that every person who has exhibited any sort of gender fluidity is exactly the same as the users on the detransition subreddits that they belong to, and any removal from those specific people's experiences is some kind of attack. They're trying very hard to evangelize about these subreddits in Wikipedia, a place where that doesn't belong. Threads (like this one) balloon as they try to argue their position into notability. I would support a topic ban from at least Detransition and perhaps other gender-related articles because they have shown that they cannot play well with others on this topic. They've accused me and other users[20] multiple times of claiming "detrans lives don't matter" for holding the statistics on the article to Wikipedia's standards. That's not something to be accused lightly. That shows a deep level of attachment, and I honestly think it would be better for their peace of mind to step away.

As for "smears," the accusation of canvassing was not found to be untrue. Your previous username and a link to a tweet where you canvassed were simply censored for your privacy. That admin did not make a statement on the authenticity of User:Equivamp's claims. In fact, I found two additional instances of you asking people off-wiki who share your point of view to back you up on the talk page. (Archived links available to admins upon request.) That is canvassing. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

From that post it sounds like if I wanted to know more about detransition, I'd be better off reading the subreddits than the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what to conclude from that. I do see a bunch of stuff reverted on MEDRS grounds. If that's for medical info ("the recommended dose of hormone X is Y milligrams per pound of body weight") then MEDRS should be adhered to, but if it's about non-medical (e.g. sociological) aspects, then sticking to MEDRS tilts the article to the "medical point of view", which is not neutral (see medicalization). I haven't had the energy to look much further into this (might have more time in a few days). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why won't Mooeena answer my concerns (scare quotes, denial of marginalized community, claim of Tumblr citation, characterization of contributions as sins, attempt to discredit reliable sources, and claim of conflation), please? If her statement at the top of this page started instead …or "trans people" as they call them…, we'd question her POV. Instead she admits she wants me banned. I've not called her an activist, I've noted her wish to suppress certain studies that disagree with her politics is shared with anti-detrans activists. WP:PRIVACY instructs I "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information" of her now admitted attempt to stalk/oppo/dox me. I can respond privately to admins. A145GI15I95 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think most of us know that there is such a thing as a trans community. It never would have occurred to me that there was also a detrans community or anti-detrans activists. Mooeena may have used scare quotes based on a similar reaction. Do the activists consider de-transers to be traitors to a cause, or what? If someone detransitions and becomes a transphobe, I can see them taking flak for it; but if they just go back to whatever they were doing before transitioning, why would the trans community care? Are they satisfied if you re-transition after de-transitioning? Do they hate everyone who transitions an even number of times (so they're back in the gender they started with) but like anyone who has transitioned an odd number of times? Does anyone ever actually transition more than twice? I think it's reasonable to ask for some kind of sourcing for claims on such topics. That said, if there's not much mainsteam sourcing I personally don't mind seeing stuff from less prominent outlets that might bother the harder core RS zealots around here. Our readers are adults and we shouldn't worry about warping their minds by presenting diverse viewpoints on stuff like this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't addressed some of your concerns I didn't feel I needed to continually answer for the specifics of a post I made after one read through the article and before joining the discussion (and frankly they came in a very long list) but I'll do so now for the sake of other editors not having to dig through diffs.

• Scare quotes: "detransitioner" and "detrans" are novel terms that I and most other editors had not heard before, so I put them in quotes. The term seems to be the self-identified term for a community, which is obviously fine, but most of the sources I have seen do not contain people self-identifying as detrans, which I believe is an important distinction.
• Denial of marginalized community: I had never heard of detransitioners before, and the article seemed to be about a concept, not a community of people. I am not, of course, saying that that community doesn't exist and that their feelings aren't valid, but that the article doesn't seem like it's about the community.
• Claim of Tumblr citation: The Katie Herzog article references a tumblr blog with around a hundred followers to reference the number of detransitioners, which seemed to me on my first reading of the wiki page to be too small an online community to be notable.
• Characterization of contributions as sins: I apologized for my wording right after you objected to it because I saw that it could be construed as aggressive. I'm not sure what else you want here.
• Attempt to discredit reliable sources: On my first reading of the wiki page, the Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal articles stuck out to me because those authors were well known (Though I had mixed up Katie Herzog with Katie Hopkins at the time) among the transgender community for their anti-trans rhetoric, but it would clearly be hypocritical of me to remove them because I disagree with the authors' politics. I haven't, because on the many read-throughs I've done since two weeks ago, I realized that those are really the two best news sources there are on the topic.
• Claim of conflation: See discussion here. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not doxxing you. I have given no identifying details that may identify you off-wiki or irl, just noted a fact for the benefit of qualified admins who know how to confirm claims while protecting your privacy. I don't want anybody to harass you off-wiki. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Let us try to do our own home work. First of all, page Detransition was build by 480 [Edits], among them 196 edits ($\approx 40.000$ bytes) by [A145GI15I95] and 6 edits ($\approx -9.000$ bytes) by [Mooeena]. Among the last 6, the first two (2019-03-02) are "POV tag", the other four are suppressing citations "en masse", without detailed discussion. Saying source contains a slur, isn't noteworthy, and doesn't contribute to the article when removing [seven references], is not an honest way of proceeding. Each of them contributes, i.e. is clearly about to the topic of the article, while "contains a slur" are only weasel words: which reference among the seven contains which alleged slur ? Moreover, the question is not if you like or not what the references are saying, the question to discuss is sources or not sources, i.e. should we repeat what the references are saying with our own voice, or only quote the reference as what was said by such and such and maybe quote another reference saying otherwise ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  
  This user is an Angel.
  This user is a cat.
    About infoboxen. User: Mooeena uses these two infoboxen. This amounts to assert that it exists cats that are also angels. Such a strong philosophical assertion should have been backed by strong sources, but I don't see them. When asking my own cat for a second opinion, then undisclosed_possessive_pronoun_for_my_own_cat answer was: any angel would have guessed that using The biggest sins [of A145GI15I95] in a complaint is boomerang-prone, while any cat would have known that using his pet project to describe an article about gender identification is only horrible and disheartening. Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a good point. I have tried to keep out of the article space until the BRD cycle is concluded. I intend for the discussion to come to a consensus before I move in and make changes on the article.
  • I made an honest mistake in that I only saw one added reference, which I hope you can see why I found it problematic. Said adding user was a sock who immediately proceeded to post slurs against multiple groups on my talk page, so I didn't consider the rest of the edit in good faith once I had noticed my mistake. If some of the other sources that he added would actually contribute the article, I have no problem with them being added back.
  • It's true that the phrase The biggest sins is aggressive. I recognize that, and I apologized for my wording right after I said it, and here I'll apologize again.
  • I would contest that {tq|pet project} is disheartening, but I will apologize for that too. I consider creating articles for underrepresented woman firsts my pet project. That doesn't invalidate the subject, but it also doesn't mean that I get upset when other people make suggestions. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Dear User:173.228.123.166 (how to ping?),
    • It never would have occurred to me that there was also a detrans community… I grant that, yes. My concern is the combination of words (noted parenthetically above) that sound like rhetoric used by anti activists (such as Julia Serano).
    • Do the activists consider de-transers to be traitors to a cause… Yes. This is noted and sourced in the article under the "Cultural and political impact" section, first paragraph, last sentence, "detransitioners express experiences of harassment from activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights" (four citations there).
    • Dear User:Pldx1,
    • [The] page Detransition was build by 480 Edits, among them 196 edits… I apologize for submitting small edits across multiple successive commits. Mooeena criticized this on the talk page, I apologized, explained I'm new to the system, and I then took to submitting combined work instead.
    • Dear User:Mooeena,
    • I have tried to keep out of the article space until the BRD cycle is concluded. Thank you for this. I, too, have stepped back a bit, and I'm glad to see the pool of contributions has grown over the last few days. And I recently submitted RfC in the hopes of welcoming even more fresh voices.
    • It's true that the phrase 'The biggest sins' is aggressive. I recognize that, and I apologized… Your linked diff apologized for [coming] on a little clinically, which sounds different, but I'm encouraged to see your clear acknowledgment here, and I very much thank you for this good-faith sentiment. Apology accepted.
    • I would contest that 'pet project' is disheartening, but I will apologize for that too… Thank you for apologizing for this too.
    • The term [detransitioner and detrans] seems to be the self-identified term… These terms are used by journalists in the article's sources.
    • …the article seemed to be about a concept, not a community of people. The article is about the concept and the community, as evidenced by its sections.
    • I am not, of course, saying that that community doesn't exist… Thank you for making this clear.
    • The Katie Herzog article references a tumblr blog… Yes, and nothing from that portion of her article is sourced in our article.
    • …on the many read-throughs I've done since two weeks ago, I realized that those are really the two best news sources there are on the topic. Thank you very much for saying this.
    • Claim of conflation: See discussion here. That discussion is regarding desistance, not negative emotions or trans regret.
    • I'm also not doxxing you…just noted a fact I don't know what you're doing or what the correct term would be, but it seems like stalking or oppo research or doxxing, not simply not[ing] a fact.
    • Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Who's on first? EEng 22:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• A145GI15I95 and Mooeena, are things reasonably peaceful between the two of you now? If yes, I'm glad it worked out and maybe someone can close this thread. Otherwise can you more clearly identify the remaining points of disagreement where you think you need outside help? Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I didn't come here in order to give a point-by-point apology. Now that they see (I hope) that other editors are not doing it out of malice, I would like User:A145GI15I95 to defer to consensus made by other users in the following discussions at Talk:Detransition or else be temporarily topic banned:
    • Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#What_WPATH_didn't_say
    • Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Coleman_statement
    • Talk:Detransition#Detransition_vs_transgender_desistance
    • As well as reducing language such as Detransitioners (persons who detransition) have similarly experienced controversy and struggle. in the lede which references relatively non-notable anti-detrans activism. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • An or else ultimatum does't seem collaborative. Consensus was reached on the two archived items over a month ago; resurrection would be counter-productive. The third item was just introduced last week, a related RfC was opened last night, and its OP has today expressed satisfaction with the current state (consensus has been reached). The lede has been stable for a month; I've said repeatedly I'm not married to its wording. The sentence you quote is backed by at least seven separate sources, and it applies to the majority of cases; it's unclear how it could be non-notable. You're familiar with trans causes, but unfamiliar with detransition. There's a history of suppression against the topic from parties who fear it as a political threat. Would it be fair to ask your motivation in coming to a new topic and seeking this many deletions, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Mooeena, may I ask you please to continue this conversation before reverting consensus on the article? A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Mooeena, I've not added or deleted content to our contested article during this ANI conversation. Why would you ask here about reverting content more than a month old, and then push twice a revert with neither completing this ANI conversation nor start a new conversation on the article talk page? Please, continue talking and be collaborative. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that the issue had been resolved, but I see now that it has not. I have made a minor change in wording supported by four different users on the talk page. The only user objecting was you, and you were very gently told why this could be worded better. There is clear consensus on the talk page for this change. You yourself have edited the page a dozen times since I posted this ANI, so I'm not sure your point here. I had hoped that we had come to a resolution, but it unfortunately seems that you are continuing to be disruptive. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would you assume resolution here? My recent edits have been talk-page or technical (typos, punctuation, formats, citations; not content). Your change deleted a sentence; that's not minor. Please don't call me disruptive during conflict resolution. Resurrecting settled issues (especially without new discussion) is counter-productive. Please answer my question above regarding motivation, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena has changed language of the article for a third time today, without continuing this conversation here. May I please request administrative intervention until we resolve our differences? Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A145GI15I95, Mooeena - You're both engaging in edit warring on this article by reverting each other in a back-and-forth manner and can be equally held accountable for these actions. Please don't make me have to impose any admin actions or apply any blocks..... I really don't want to have to do that. Both of you need to stop making edits to the article and discuss the dispute per Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A145GI15I95, Mooeena - I had the pleasure of speaking to you both individually on your user talk pages following the warning that I left regarding the edit warring. You both responded in a logical, level-headed, civil, and understanding manner, and I appreciate that greatly... seriously. :-) For two editors who both appear to be experienced, intelligent, knowledgeable, and understanding in regards to policy, guidelines, and process.... I'm sorry see you both in such a deep and complicated dispute with one another... I hope that you two work things out and that the dispute comes to a peaceful close. I think that you both would make a great team given your similar level of intelligence and expertise. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95, what would you like out of this discussion before it is resolved? You've said There's a history of suppression against the topic from parties who fear it as a political threat. Would it be fair to ask your motivation in coming to a new topic and seeking this many deletions. I don't fear detransition as a political threat. I am not one of the anti-detrans activists that you've discussed. I harbor no ill-will against people who detransition. I came here hoping that you would begin to assume good faith of me and other editors to the Detransition article and allow the WP:Cycle to proceed smoothly, but that has not been the case. What would you view as a favorable outcome? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• To Mooeena re your post of 02:22, 19 March (sorry for the slow response, and also it's late for me now so I'm groggy): I looked at those three talkpage discussions and I think it's misstating things to say A145GI15I95 is resisting consensus in them. Or if by "defer to consensus made by other users" you mean refrain from contributing to the discussions but just go along with the outcome, of course A145GI15I95 is as entitled to contribute as anyone else. So I feel like you're having trouble explaining what dissatisfies you about A145GI15I95's editing, and are instead putting up examples that miss the mark.

  Regarding the varying usage of "detransition" and "desist" across sources, the obvious thing is put a mention in the article noting it. Regarding Eli Coleman's talk, maybe someone can email him and ask if a recording is publicly available. The wording of the lede is of course something to discuss on the talk page.

  Detransition is apparently a novel topic though the French Wikipedia has had fr:Détransition (transidentité) since May 2016. That article is more relaxed than ours about including useful-looking links (they are not RS, but their content is not being cited in the article) in the further reading (lectures complémentaires) section. They look likely to be appreciated by readers trying to research the subject in more depth. Unlike (say) a history article, this article is more of an information resource than a narrative. And again, it's an area where readers have to use adult judgment on whatever they read, whether it is in RS or not. From that perspective I have to see deleting stuff from the article as often more tendentious than adding stuff, even if the stuff being deleted is on the weak side compared to what we'd expect in e.g. political BLP's.

  Therefore I can't possibly support a topic ban of A145GI15I95, who seems to have done a lot of good work despite making some new-editor errors. Is there anything that anyone still wants from ANI? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would definitely say that I don't think A145GI15I95 should be topic banned (not that there are many pages for them to be banned from so far since there isn't much content about detransitioning) since they seem to be a good editor who just has gotten over their head since they're new and not 100% on all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet.★Trekker (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mooeena, consensus isn't a vote-count. I've followed WP:Cycle; please don't claim otherwise without evidence. Please don't suggest non-AGF with other editors; we're talking about you and me.
  • It's challenging to assume good faith when you say or else, call me disruptive, resurrect settled issues and revert stable content without talk, call for my ban, search for me outside Wikipedia and gather archived links of whatever you believe you found, and given your unfamiliarity with detransition and closeness to trans issues.
  • Imagine if a religious fundamentalist or hardline conservative appeared on the transgender page and declared it needed a complete rewrite, while being unfamilar with basic trans terms. It's fair to note when an editor's actions concur with activists who suppress a topic needlessly to further their own cause. I'd like your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly, please: Why such strong interest/motivation in reviving arguments and reducing content on a subject to which you're new and appear prejudiced? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to suppress a topic. I came across an article that I believed was non-neutral, and I am discussing the article because I still believe that language in it is non-neutral. It's much better than it used to be, but there are still parts that need improvement. I could ask you the same thing. Why such strong interest/motivation in the topic? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Can you point to a section which you think has non-neutral language right now?★Trekker (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
        • For instance, A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% desisted from their transgender identity before reaching the age of 29,[15] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20. in the Occurance section misrepresents the studies in question to conflate "detransition' and "desistance." They make no mention of a child's transgender identity, nor desistance before a certain age. They studied the persistence of gender dysphoria at follow-ups after/around puberty. Gender dysphoria in these studies is not defined as identifying as transgender but as discomfort with their own sex and gender roles and higher scores on the [Gender Identity Interview for Children] respectively. There are some other instances, but that discussion would be better located on the talk page.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 07:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
          • They make no mention of a child's transgender identity, nor desistance before a certain age: Yes, they do. It appears you've not read the studies and their third-party, medical-journal-published analyses. Do you suggest that terminology and those ages were invented for Wikipedia? You're proffering a view voiced not by reliable sources, but rather by activist bloggers who see detransition as a threat to transgender issues.
          • My interest has been to improve this article on a topic with which I'm familiar. I worked with others to add significantly more news stories and medical journals, and to improve the accuracy of their summations.
          • You've admitted you're unfamiliar with the topic, your background suggests bias against it, and you've seemed unable to view this topic on its own (outside the realm of transgender politics).
          • I appreciate you now softening your criticisms of the article (from needs complete rewrite to needs improvement), and you stating now that you don't consciously fear detransition politically and aren't actively seeking the topic's general suppression. But to suggest your strong interest is coincidental, given your past words and familiarity with a conflicting topic, is suspect.
          • I'd ask you, please, to continue not altering content within this article (it's fared quite well these past two weeks), and to pursue topics with which you are familiar or to which you appear less biased. I'll similarly not alter content within primarily transgender-focused articles if you wish. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

Ted hamiltun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ted hamiltun made some very sporadic edits since the account got created in 2017, but his activities suddenly intensified in March 2019.

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : [21] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [22]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [23]), here are some examples : [24], [25], [26], [27]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : [28].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The reported user has battleground mentality and aggressive behavior. He's unable to participate in a proper way. See how he replied to my comment.[29] Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Qahramani44:. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing [30] [31] Not to mention he has a PHD in spamming talk pages with his rants (I can't be bothered to show 8 links for this one, just look at his every edit basically). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm dragged into this now, may as well add another point too that hasn't yet been stated. Besides his ethnicity-baiting posts, falsifying sources/pushing non-RS sources, and edit-warring, he also seems to have blatantly ban-evaded here [32], with this new IP that only posted once, in the same page that he was edit-warring in before, immediately after he was banned for edit-warring. Qahramani44 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Users user:Wikaviani User:Qahramani44, User:Wario-Man User:HistoryofIran

Note: Ted Hamiltun opened this new thread. Since it is the same issue, I am merging it here to centralize consensus building. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear Wiki Adminstration these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team taking advantage of wiki rules to push their Ideas in different articles and boycott any other source of Information which contradict their views

If you have noticed they're all take part in attacking and reporting Individuals that they consider a chalenge to their views, accusing him with all sort of accusation , aggressive, mentally ill, fabricating sources, racist, nationalist, having Agendas and etc....

This all started when I asked them to remove a phrase that Is not in cited source which meant to eliminate the presence of a whole population of a province a phrase which spread hatred, User:Wario-Man with aid of User:HistoryofIran changing role continued reverting my ask for providing a sourc to that phrase or just remove it, I even express my concern about the issue with them In talk page [33] but no one responded, due to this Ignoring and aggresive behaviour my last attempt to solve the problem was to write for other editors to take part in this discussion and put an end to this illegal behaviours [34] which User:HistoryofIran interpret as ranting against "Persian editors", and reported me, I got Blocked 48 hours for  reverting my legal request to remove a racist phrase which is not in the cited source after I wrote for you and other editors "finally" User:Wario-Man removed that phrase, with so much anger you can see they have highly an Anti-Semitism view to the topics that they engage [35]

Now they changing, The other member of the team user:Wikaviani is reporting me  with his team mates, and again they are all came back accusing me with all kind of accusations Just to eliminate me once and for all and make It easy for themselves to apply their Ideas with out any question

I ask you to take a carefull look at these unjust acts and misusing of Wiki environment

Thank you  Ted hamiltun (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ted hamiltun: What ideas do you believe those editors are unfairly pushing? Can you provide more diffs? Bold claims require appropriate evidence. My advice to you: instead of leveling personal attacks on editors like Wario-Man, or reporting those who reported you, you should be examining your own conduct and responding to the valid concerns brought up about you at this noticeboard. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

taking advantage of wiki rules Boy I sure hate it when folks follow the rules around here... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SHOT and abusing report system. This is 2nd time this user shoots himself in the foot. See how he tried to delete and manipulate another editor's report on 3RR noticeboard.12 --Wario-Man (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment "these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team" just another example of Ted hamiltun's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and ranting toward a group of editors.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: He's WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. Look at this diff. He deleted and manipulated this report just like what he did on 3RR noticeboard. Clearly he has no idea what WP is and uses it like a forum. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ted hamiltun just posted this on my talk page. I think the real highlight is this personal attack: It's so simple these guys all are Iranian with racist agenda attack individuals. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a big WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. For instance, reporting the users who reported them, repeatedly using personal attacks about race and ethnicity, and POV pushing. At any rate, I think there is also a serious WP:CIR issue. I don't use CIR lightly, but I think that this is such a case. While I understand that English is not everyone's first language, this is the English Wikipedia. CIR presumes that users have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively as well as the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. Ted's talk page messages are cryptic to the point of unreadable, their edits to Persian Gulf and the subsequent talk page conversations show that they are unable to effectively communicate, are unwilling to follow sources, and can't be bothered by consensus. Combined with their generally uncivil handling of this ANI, I think Ted is WP:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, i forgot to mention his WP:CIR issues (inability to speak and comprehend English properly). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Proposal: As numerous editors pointed out with their above remarks, it appears quite obvious that Ted hamiltun is not here to build an encyclopedia, has some serious WP:CIR issues and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Therefore, i propose an indefinite block for this user as previously suggested by an admin at AN3.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above comments and evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per my above comment. I do however see that this user only has 130 edits, so I don't necessarily want to bite a newbie here. Note that I have slightly reformatted the proposal to remove excessive bolding. If anyone believes that to be an inappropriate refactor, please revert me and let me know :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he's only 130 edits, but he has been editing here for about 1 year, so, he's not really a newby IMO. Also, thanks very much for removing excessive bolding of my proposal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reason that he doesn't seem to have learned or changed his behavior in any way over the past month, even after being banned once for edit warring. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support The compelling evidence shows that he's indeed not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Without a doubt WP:NOTHERE INeedSupport ^:3 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorism

• Ck4829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created Category:White nationalist terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and added hundreds of white nationalism-related pages that have no apparent connection to terrorism. Many of these pages are BLPs. To give an example, they added Jack Posobiec to the category. I have no love of Posobiec (or any other white nationalist person or group), but he is most definitely not a terrorist. I would have taken this to BLPN, but many of the pages they added are not BLPs, and there may be some value to the category so XFD doesn't seem like the right place either. I think this is best seen as mass disruption. R2 (bleep) 22:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment I noticed this too, the editor seems to have a history doing the same thing. Appears to be an ongoing attempt to game Wikipedia (I'm no fan of these right-wing extremists either). Bacondrum (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the only thing they have been doing for the past year has been adding POV-pushing, mostly inappropriate, categories. Category:Heresy in Christianity to some religious Trump film[36], creation of a now-deleted category called "Perceived judicial activism in the United States" (and adding that category to articles the editor finds to be judicial activist), mass-adding Category:American conspiracy theorists to BLPs that do not contain any sources about them being conspiracy theorists[37][38][39][40][41] Another mass-categorization based on his "Militarization of society" was found to be "completely inappropriate" at CfD. Clearly, if Ck4829 fails to accept that categories need to be supported by the content and sources of the articles (and that this is vital especially in BLPs), he needs to be stopped. --Pudeo (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the user has chosen not to respond here or at there talk page but continued to add the category including clearly erroneous cases [42] (thus so far failing the Turing test), I blocked them for 31h. I encourage users to continue discussing here, since, if the above remarks are correct (which I did not have time to check), the user should not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the examples I put above (and you could find a lot more) about the category "American conspiracy theorists" had no mentions of conspiracy theories at all, yet he categorized them. However, I said "mostly inappropriate" because some articles do mention conspiracy theories like Michael Flynn[43]. But per WP:DEFINING it's probably still not right to categorize Flynn as a one. Given that the majority are completely unsourced, this is a mass BLP violation that requires a lot of cleanup. Back in 2017 Graham87 stated on this user's talk page that you've been making problematic category edits for the last eleven years; please knock it off. and he did not respond. --Pudeo (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick sampling shows that the editor has been tagging everything that could be remotely construed as racist or white nationalist as "terrorist." This is at least an overreach. In general, categories are supposed to reflect explicit sourcing, and nearly all of the articles that have been tagged have no such description in referenced content. These should all be rolled back, Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to lack of competency and failure to communicate. The last time that they communicated with anyone on wiki was 2006. Given the warnings by Graham87 and Doug Weller that were ignored, this person has used up the good faith of the community.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Rollback all categorizations into Category:White nationalist terrorism. If that category should exist, then pages should only be added to it upon careful consideration, not in the indiscriminate rapid-fire manner that Ck4829 did it. Deli nk (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hold the phone, here. @Ymblanter: you identified this as "clearly erroneous". In that example, we have an article on a Black American war veteran being beaten almost to death by white assailants in a clearly racially motivated hate crime, along with the local and state law apparatus refusing to prosecute. It would be a valid editorial discussion to debate whether or not this qualifies as terrorism, but it is not clearly erroneous. If your block is based on that, it's a bad block.

As for the supposed erroneous conspiracy theorist categorizations, all of them are easily sourceable with the simplest Google search:

• Paul E. Vallely: CNN: "... Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a promoter of the birther conspiracy theory ..."
• Gordon Klingenschmitt: Huffpost: "Klingenschmitt claimed [...] that he was booted out of the Navy because of the form of his prayers, when, in reality, he deliberately got himself court-martialed by disobeying a direct order not to appear in uniform at a political rally ..."; also MSNBC: "Klingenschmitt is a rather notorious figure, best known for, among other things, writing a book that argued, in all seriousness, that President Obama is possessed by demons."
• Peter Sprigg: SPLC quoting Sprigg's 2010 book, Homosexual Assault in the Military: "Welcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military." Sprigg's view has been widely criticized as corresponding with the widely-debunked homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory.
• Wiley Drake: Word & Way: "Drake is plaintiff in a federal suit asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to void California's electoral votes for Obama on grounds that he did not meet all the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office of the president." Or just Google "Wiley Drake birther". Note also all of the widespread coverage of Drake encouraging his followers to pray for Obama to die.
• Tony Perkins: also a birther, among other things; read the article's Controversy section.

If the categories are being added without the sourcing being up to date in the article, then the correct, WP:HERE way to fix that is to add the sourcing to the articles; that's how we get an encyclopedia built. Removing the categories when they're clearly correct does not: it satisfies BLP on the face but actually it's hiding reliable negative information in what could reasonably be seen as an effort to promote these individuals through sanitizing their unsavoury political activities. We should fix these articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding categories which are not backed up by sourced material is a BLP violation. Doing it instead of addressing the concerns does not make it better. Though of course if someone wants to unblock they are welcome to do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but categorizing someone as a terrorist or a conspiracy theorist and having it sit there for months for someone else to back up, is a completely wrong course of action in BLPs. Also as mentioned, it's important to consider whether these are WP:DEFINING characteristics of the BLP. --Pudeo (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that many of these are WP:BLP violations. The terrorism and conspiracy theory categorizations should be immediately removed from BLPs and only restored after there is explicit consensus that it is appropriate for that article. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in the two cases I reverted the categorisation I checked that the word terrorism was not in the article--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × several) Okay, fine. See the collapse below for sections taken directly from the articles, as of Ck4829's edit:

Excerpts from Wikipedia

Paul E. Vallely: In 2010 Vallely was one of three retired general officers who expressed support for U.S. Army Lt. Col. Terrance Lee Lakin in his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan based on Lakin's claim that President Barack Obama had no legitimacy as commander in chief. In an interview, Vallely stated, "I think many in the military—and many out of the military—question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama." Gordon Klingenschmitt: In 2014, Klingenschmitt wrote in an email that openly gay U.S. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) wanted to execute Christians; both political parties in Colorado disavowed Klingenschmitt. In 2014, Klingenschmitt (then a Republican candidate for Colorado state representative in an eastern El Paso County district) frequently compared President Barack Obama to a demon, saying on one occasion that he was a "demon of tyranny" and was among "the domestic enemies of the Constitution." Klingenschmitt also asserted that "Obamacare causes cancer." In March 2015, in response to an assault where a woman from Longmont, Colorado, had her 34-week-old fetus cut out of her womb, said the incident was evidence of the "curse of God" for abortion. Other Republicans denounced Klingenschmitt's comments. Despite Klingenschmitt's apology and recanting of the remarks, he was removed from the Health, Insurance and Environment Committee for two weeks. He voluntarily suspended his television ministry for six weeks. In July 2015, Klingenschmitt responded to the Boy Scouts of America lifting their ban on gay scoutmasters by saying that this would lead to an increase in child molestation in the organization. The following month, Klingenschmitt reportedly stated that gays and pedophiles are influenced by different demons. In January 2017, he stated that gay men should be disqualified from teaching positions because of "their immorality." Peter Sprigg: He has linked homosexuality to pedophilia, and argued that homosexuals are trying to brainwash children into accepting homosexuality through public schools. Wiley Drake: On The Alan Colmes Show on June 2, 2009, Drake stated that he is engaging in imprecatory prayer, praying for God to kill President Barack Obama, who he claimed needed to "turn his life around." In 2008 he was party to a lawsuit in federal court, Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama, which claimed that Barack Obama was not an American citizen and therefore ineligible to be President of the United States. Also in 2008 he said that God would punish Rick Warren for agreeing to give the benediction at the inauguration of Obama, who he called an "evil illegal alien". Tony Perkins (politician): In 2010, the Family Research Council—under Perkins' leadership—was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which characterized the group as "a fount of anti-gay propaganda". Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as a political attack on the FRC by a "liberal organization" and as part of "the left's smear campaign of conservatives". Perkins has also made statements critical of Islam. In September 2010, Perkins claimed that "the ultimate evil has been committed" when Muslims interpret the Quran in its literal context, that Islam "tears at the fabric of democracy," and that World history classes dishonestly portray Islam in a positive light by providing an "airbrushed" portrait of the religion itself. In 2015, Perkins affirmed the debate over Obama's birth certificate as "legitimate", remarking that it "makes sense" to conclude that Obama was a Muslim. References

Note that Ck4829 did not add or modify any of this text, they only added the category. I had to modify one of the references because its website has since been blacklisted, otherwise this is what is currently published on Wikipedia and has been for months at least. These edits were from last November, and the categories are still present in all of those articles as of right now. Why the push to whitewash those articles now? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. No one here is defending white nationalism. Calling something "terrorism" is different. Natureium (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the "conspiracy theory" categorisation here. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivan could you refactor and perhaps put the conspiracy theory bits under a subheading? I thought I was the only one confused by this. Fish+Karate 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to whitewash anything. It's reasonable for us to expect that categories should not represent one editor's original research or synthesis, and to demand that care be exercised in the use of narrow, pejorative categories. One can make a convincing argument that lynching amounts to terrorism, for example, but that doesn't mean that we should find every article concerning lynching and place a terrorism category. At the very least a consensus needs to exist. I've removed the more obvious examples that I came across. All due care must be exercised for BLPs to ensure that "terrorist" has an explicit basis for inclusion in a BLP, not just an argument that they're bad people deserving of the appellation. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could add a sub-heading, but it would be below the second comment in the thread. My point, really, is that having brought up these seemingly unrelated categorizations at all (which, as noted, are all properly sourced and were added months ago universally without objection) seems less like it has anything to do with objections to the white nationalist terrorism category and more to do with using this opportunity to suppress valid categorizations which the complainant disagrees with. If someone can pick apart the thread to pull out the influence of that false allegation on the calls for sanctions, they are welcome to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: it would be helpful if you could stop attributing motivations to other editors. I've removed the "white nationalist terrorism" from The Turner Diaries, a racist polemic that advocates racist revolution, Wouter Basson who was unsuccessfully prosecuted for allegations of systematic murder from racist motivations, ghost skin, a racist lifestyle, and others that are tangentially related. Applying "terrorist" to all horrible things cheapens the appellation. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries is literally a fictional account of a government led by African Americans and Jews being overthrown by a violent white nationalist revolution, which was used as a manifesto by the Oklahoma City bomber and numerous other violent white nationalists, but okay, it doesn't belong in Category:White nationalist terrorism. That sounds like a wonderfully encyclopedic approach to a sensitive topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You appear to think I'm arguing about this. You're wrong. I just think that slapping the "terrorist" tag on everything that is unambiguously bad and which can at least tangentially be linked to terrorism, at whatever distance, should be carefully reviewed and discussed. Many of the editor's tags look OK to me, but it is clear that they've been using a very broad brush. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, we agree on that point. I've reviewed a few - it's not just that some of them are inappropriate (I removed one from Golden Circle (proposed country)) but some are just technically improper: they added the category to Dylann Roof, which definitely qualifies, but that article is already a member of a container category that is also a member of the one we're discussing, so it just didn't need to be there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we're working along the same lines. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• All five diffs showing the addition of the "conspiracy theorist" category seem correct for those articles based on the content of those articles (see excerpts posted by Ivan above). For my part I think it's an appropriate categorization of Flynn, too (he promoted the Pizzagate nonsense and led crowds in chants of "Lock her up!"). I also agree that Isaac Woodward's case is an example not just of white national terrorism, but state-sponsored white national terrorism. Christian heresy seems an appropriate category for The Trump Prophesy, as the article has a quote that says, "unbiblical at best and heretical at worst". (Also, suggesting a president is a prophet is kind of the definition of heresy, isn't it?) Mass categorizations of hundreds of articles–especially controversial categories added to BLPs–certainly make me nervous, but looking over these diffs leaves me asking, "where's the beef?" Leviv ich 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Again, in the case of Isaac Woodard this might or might not be terrorism. This should be a subject of a discussion. The article currently does not mention terrorism. However, the user so far did not discuss anything, they just continued adding categories like a robot, even after warnings and a message that the ANI discussion has been opened specifically about this issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  There is recently (since approximately 2016) some indication that past incidents of white nationalist violence are coming to be seen as terrorism, or at least being compared to incidents of violence perpetrated by non-whites which were described as terrorism at the time. It's pretty likely that the editor was swept up in that when they created this category, and there are several examples of inappropriate categorizations (related to Category:White nationalist terrorism specifically) in their recent edits. This probably should have been addressed by discussing with the user, but you can't discuss things with a user who doesn't interact, so I have to agree with your block (I'll strike my "bad block" comment as soon as I can find it in the mess of edit conflicts). I object to further sanctions, at least not yet - see if the user responds after their block. As for the category itself, it's valid at least on the face of it although it could probably just be up-merged into Category:White nationalism, and many of the articles it's been attached to do need to be reviewed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes I think we all agree that these categorizations (like all categorizations) are subject to review and consensus by editors. But I see these as good faith additions–BRD means I can add a category, and somebody can remove it, and as long as I don't re-add it, I'm not being disruptive, right? So by "where's the beef?" I mean, "where's the conduct issue?" ("beef" as in "complaint", that's the double entendre, you see...), not that every categorization was correct. So far the ones I've seen are at least correct or could be correct and thus made in good faith. By the way, for my part, I think all lynchings are terrorism by definition and that all lynching articles should be categorized as terrorism, and if government officials aided or permitted the lynchings, then it's state-sponsored white nationalist terrorism, but that's a conversation for another page. (Someone ping me and I'll bring the sources.) Leviv ich 17:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Copied from Ck4829's talk page by Leviv ich 18:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC):

Hello, I'm serving my time as I should, I am appealing nothing, I meant to disrupt and I succeeded, guilty. My edits went too far, maybe? But I sought out include individuals, cheerleaders, ideologues, organizations, symbols, rhetoric, propaganda all as white nationalist terrorism. While it's clearly a very uncomfortable subject, I find it odd that practically nobody corrected my 'overreach' with what appropriate examples are, if someone were to tell people in that discussion something, one could tell them "I put absolutely nothing in that category as a joke or to be ironic and I sought out to populate it as quickly as possible."

I hope that helps, I've been told by a friend I should probably limit my time on Wikipedia for a while, especially going through all those disgusting pages.

Ck4829 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be honest folks, the collective reaction to my complaint sickens me a bit. Pudeo's perfectly reasonable pointing to Ck4829's past questionable behavior over conspiracy theorists quickly led to the discussion being railroaded in an inappropriate direction. What on earth are we doing picking out one or two of the hundreds and hundreds of questionable categorizations to bicker over whether they're correct or not? It shouldn't matter. If an editor indiscriminately mass-tags 500 articles, and 250 of them end up being correct, does that mean the mass tagging was appropriate? Does it mean we now have to pick through all 500 of them, and does it mean the editor wasn't being disruptive? No of course not; if half the stuff in the Wikipedia is incorrect and inflammatory, then that stuff does FAR more damage than the good that's done by the half that's correct. Not to mention the ridiculous burden that's placed on the community by this sort of indiscriminate mass tagging. Throw in the BLP dimension, and the contention that we should pick through these categorizations one by one is flatly contrary to core policy. I mean as best as I can tell, this editor literally was taking every single white nationalism page and adding it to white nationalism terrorism. That's blatant disruption. It might even be part of an effort to game search engine results. Don't lose the forest through the trees, guys. Geesh. R2 (bleep) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Are 250 out of 500 incorrect? I look at Category:White nationalist terrorism and while I haven't gone through each one of the 100+ pages, scanning the list, it all seems in order: KKK, White Patriot Party, assassination of Barack Obama plots, Emmett Till... granted, these may have already been cleaned up by others, and I can't see what it used to look like. Spot checking the contribs, I'm seeing instances of other editors edit warring to keep in his categorizations. None jump out at me as incorrect. Some are not properly diffused (or whatever you call it), but... maybe I'm just not seeing it. Leviv ich 19:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have clarified, that was purely a hypothetical. However I just looked through Ck4829's 10 most recent tags, and only 3 of them said anything about terrorism. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I went through 50 or so before petering out, and the proportion that mentioned terrorism stayed at roughly 30%. There was some wiggle room due to ambiguity of what might be considered a reference to terrorism. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, we're talking about these 10: Eutaw, Donald, Rosewood, Till, Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, 16th St. Which of these are not proper for the category White nationalist terrorism? Leviv ich 19:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they're improper, but I think that the category structure would be better served if the category were applied to a higher-level category which these incidents are already categorized in. For example, Category:Ku Klux Klan crimes ought to be a member of the white nationalist terrorism category, and that would catch most of these articles already. Possibly also Category:Lynching in the United States, and/or Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans. This is my point, anyway, that the categories aren't really incorrect, they're just incorrectly applied. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Well, when a new category is created, it needs to be populated. We have several "terrorism" subcategories within other nationalist category trees, and (as I observed above) the subject of white nationalist terrorism is being actively discussed recently, and so mass-populating the new category with articles related to white nationalist violence is a reasonable approach. Most have been fairly accurate, some are a stretch, a handful have been shown to be editorially inappropriate, but I don't think anyone so far has found one which was definitely wrong (as in, say, dropping Abraham Lincoln Alexander Hamilton into this category). Regarding Posobiec: it is a reasonable view that deliberate alt-right false news constitutes terrorist propaganda; it's not right for Wikipedia to repeat that opinion without decent sources and considering an appropriate balance, but this falls within my definition of stretching. Most of the obvious problems that I've seen while picking through these is that they are duplicates via parent categories, and so while the category is valid it's also redundant. None of this on its own should've been grounds for a block, but there were other factors.

A bigger question maybe is if Wikipedia can describe these incidents as terrorism, I mean I would, but if sources don't agree then the category needs to be renamed. Category:White nationalist violence would be a suitable replacement title. It would usefully narrow the category and simply definitions that way: people like Posobiec who promote nationalism through their media channels but don't themselves actually participate in violent incidents would be excluded, and it's more likely then that remaining members of the category would be defined by this aspect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If only all editors got the level of "stretching" that you're giving this editor. I mean no offense but a garden variety alt-right Twitter troll like Posobiec is in no way, shape, or form a terrorist nor a terrorist propagandist, and saying otherwise seems like a pretty clear-cut BLP vio to me. But that's just my opinion, of course. R2 (bleep) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, these sources appear to disagree: [44] [45] [46] - I'm not saying these are good sources, we probably couldn't use them (really, they lie between "probably not acceptable" and "what the fuck were you thinking?"), I'm just making the point that calling Posobiec and/or other promoters of conspiracies and fear news "propagandists" and "terrorists" is not exactly novel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this comment reflects well on you. Your sourcing standards... leave a lot to be desired. I don't know what part of the encyclopedia you've done most of your editing in, but that would never, ever fly in the AP space. R2 (bleep) 20:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You do see where I wrote that we couldn't use these sources, right? I'm demonstrating that Posobiec has been described as a terrorist (an "information terrorist", most directly) in one or two opinion pieces (and self-described, but obviously in jest), not that Wikipedia should describe him this way. And if one were to subscribe to that opinion, then categorizing Posobiec's bio in a "white nationalist terrorism" category is definitely a stretch (by which I mean that we cannot do it), for Wikipedia's purposes it's wrong, it violates a bunch of editorial policies, but it's just reasonable enough that it should not be considered a blockable offence (in isolation). I was expecting you would be able to see that point, as I thought I described it reasonably well, but I'm also tiring of your subtle personal attacks so I'm going to stop trying to explain this to you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I understand now. And to clarify my position, I never suggested that this editor should be blocked for a single miscategorization. Hell no, that would be awful. The problem is the volume and the amount of painstaking work required to fix the violations short of a mass rollback or a TNT deletion of the entire category. R2 (bleep) 20:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• No offense to him or anyone else, but I think it's fair to ask if this edit renders Ivanvector involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure I'm involved. What's your point? Unless you have a specific involved administrative action of mine that you're suggesting should be reviewed by the community, this just looks like trying to stir up shit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all. Why does my being or not being an administrator have anything to do with it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy to take this to user talk, but continuing the bad-faith accusations here is disruptive. Just calm down, dude. You're a good admin. I didn't mean to get under your skin. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Then maybe don't start tossing around accusations of administrative misconduct in a content dispute, if you don't want to get peoples' backs up. I'm not the one who made a bad-faith accusation in this section. If you want to move on that's fine by me. I'll start a discussion on that article's talk page about the blurb I added that you reverted, but I'll have to do it a bit later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that there may be a better name for the category, and that and all other categorization discussions should be had somewhere other than ANI. Bringing it back, I still do not see diffs of activities that merit bringing this editor to ANI and blocking him without so much as a talk page warning or any other attempt to communicate at their talk page. If all we have is what's been brought here so far, I respectfully suggest the editor should be unblocked, this thread closed, and a dialogue should be opened with them on their talk page if there's any problem with how they're categorizing pages. It took me all of five seconds to open communications with the editor, so I'm not sure why others have skipped this step in this case. Leviv ich 20:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here mainly because I think their categorization effort should be rolled back, and I didn't know of a better place to request that. I still don't. It's odd to suggest that I was somehow required to discuss the matter with an editor who hadn't participated in a single talk page discussion since 2006 before attempting to address what still appears to be a serious and widespread BLP problem. R2 (bleep) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To me that's a strange reason not to try and communicate with someone. Anyway, I think an attempt at resolving a dispute on a user's talk page should be a prerequisite to filing at ANI. Leviv ich 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like an overcat for many entries. Something can be a massacre, a crime, segregation, whatever, but one needs an RS explicitly telling that "event X was an act of terrorism". For example, not every crime against humanity was terrorism. I think this needs to be discussed at the CfD, and people should check the pages and sub-categories if the category will be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

behavior

• " I am appealing nothing, I meant to disrupt and I succeeded, guilty." 1 Still support indef block based on behavior. He would do it again. The content dispute above should be left off as we don't have content disputes at ANI.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would also support an indef based on that. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, I suggest instead a topic ban from categorization, as in, they may not create or edit categories, and neither add nor remove categories from articles. Their "I meant to disrupt" treatise isn't promising, but I'm hopeful it's a result of broken English, and anyway I'm not aware of any disruption not directly related to categories. Point taken about content disputes. There's some cleanup to do as a result of the incident reported here, maybe editors would like to meet me at Category talk:White nationalist terrorism? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, you are involved by your own words. The !voting should be from uninvolved editors shouldn't it?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I'm curious as to what you mean with this comment which I might call nonsensical if it had been written by someone else. We do not restrict editors (admin or otherwise) from making comments in community discussions, with exceptions of a very small few who are subject to specific restrictions, unless I am very badly mistaken. "Editors involved in disputes hashing it out in public" could easily be a subtitle for this page. I'm just honestly confused by your comment. The statement you're referring to is not intended as an admission of involvement but a question to the accuser of why in the hell it mattered whether or not I was involved. And seeing as I was being accused of desysop-level administrative misconduct (WP:INVOLVED) pretty much out of nowhere ("admins should be aware" my ass) yeah, I was angry about it. I have no prior association with the blocked editor nor as far as I know outside of this thread with the original poster. My entire "involvement", outside of having commented here, is one edit I made to the white nationalism page today (this one), which was reverted by the OP, and which I have not (yet) challenged. I haven't taken any administrative actions here or anywhere in relation to the issue being discussed. Even if I had, going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting tool misuse had occurred. A fair question was asked "No offense to him or anyone else, but I think it's fair to ask if this edit renders Ivanvector involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute." 1. The correct answer is yes and he never alleged tool misuse at all. I believe that he was trying to really find out your status and whether you would be involved if you took admin action. You accused him of "trying to stir up shit". He clarified, "Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less." Your reply was "No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all." That is an allegation without evidence as he never accused you of administrative misconduct and I do think that he has a valid point about "weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved." But to answer your question, "Even if I had (taken any administrative actions), going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter?" Then that would most certainly be tool abuse.
• Comments are allowed by all editors here but they should be given appropriate weight. This should be decided based on the neutral parties. Not looking to make an case of this, but you need to realize that you are indeed involved in the dispute and are not being impartial. Someone came here because they needed to report something and you have involved yourself in the content matter which isn't something that I've seen from the other admins in this thread. I don't think that your !voting is made by an impartial admin in this case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  How can an editor be in a content dispute if they never communicate and never revert? How can an admin be involved in a content dispute if there is no content dispute to begin with? Leviv ich 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• You would be arguing with him because in his own words, "Then maybe don't start tossing around accusations of administrative misconduct in a content dispute" 2.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, now who's wikilawyering, Berean? :-) Leviv ich 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just countering the goofiness.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when does WP:INVOLVED forbid administrators from commenting on editorial disputes and suggesting or commenting on proposed courses of action? I'll answer for you, to save you the "goofiness": it doesn't. If I wrote the fucking category myself and tagged every page in the fucking encyclopedia with it, those actions would not bar me from commenting on another editor's issue with the category. It is not tool abuse to comment. It isn't. It's "goofy" that you believe it is.

Calling out my supposed involvement here has nothing to do with an impartial review of the reported matter, it's plainly meant to have a chilling effect. If I had made an administrative action or suggested that I was going to, then calling my status into question would have been completely valid. But pulling it out of nowhere just to tell other editors that my comment should be disregarded is plainly an ad hominem meant to cast doubt on my ability to comment, based on my userrights and having nothing to do with the substance of my comments. It's plainly a personal attack, and I'm annoyed that you keep repeating it. If editors can use INVOLVED to scare off any admin that makes a comment they don't like, we have a problem. That is clearly not the policy's purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "goofiness" is in reference to Levi's wikilawyering that there isn't a content dispute, among other things below that had nothing to do with you. I never said that it was tool abuse to comment, "Comments are allowed by all editors here but they should be given appropriate weight." I have made no personal attacks. You seem to be equating that INVOLVED must equal an allegation of wrongdoing which is incorrect. And your involvement runs deeper than the one edit. I imagine that it would be confusing of R2 to report a matter here and think he is getting an impartial admin review. You didn't give that. "I'm not the one who made a bad-faith accusation in this section." 3 but yes, you did when you said "Why the push to whitewash those articles now?" 4 which set the tone between you and R2 and others which is casting aspersions by questioning their motives. Another admin has told you that "...it would be helpful if you could stop attributing motivations to other editors." 5 but you still haven't stopped.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You started out this sub-thread with a suggestion that I shouldn't comment here because someone else suggested I was involved. Your "should be given appropriate weight" comment, directed to my response, suggests that other editors should view my comments as inferior, that they should be ignored, because I happen to have not agreed that one instance of apparently incompetent miscategorization ought to lead immediately to a site ban for a 13-year veteran with no prior blocks, and that I gave my opinion that the mischaracterized categorizations from last November were not relevant to the issue at hand (they were revealed correct with minimal investigation, they do not indicate a pattern, and so on). I agreed that lack of communication is an issue and one often met with blocks, although Levivich has aptly observed that other editors made only cursory attempts to communicate with Ck4829 over this particular incident before reporting it here. I suggested a different sanction, even, intended to address the core complaint (of poor application of categories) following the user's not-really-fantastic reply less than an hour after Levivich reached out. I've also tried to work with editors in the original main thread to resolve the issues with BLP violations in the category: I suggested renaming and refocusing, I reviewed and reverted a number of the articles myself, and I suggested that anyone interested should continue discussing it on the category's talk page, before Fram mass-removed the category (which was the right thing to do, in case anyone's going to come after me for attacking Fram next). I like to think that my approach to solving problems is more nuanced than just pointing fingers at who should be blocked and for how long, and that's what I tried to do here; if your view of that is that it makes me involved then so be it, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it. This isn't a topic I have any interest in throwing myself into, but neither am I going away because some editors insist I'm up to no good. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction without warning – If you look at User talk:Ck4829, there was a level one template warning given for one particular page 21:43 17 March, and a half hour later, 22:18 17 March, an ANI notice. The editor did not edit in that half hour. The prior warning was five months ago in October. The editor made many edits between October and March that apparently nobody complained about, at least not on their talk page. It's unfair to sanction an editor without giving them a warning first and a chance to actually respond to that warning. Leviv ich 21:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ...he picked right back up and started the same thing at "23:03, March 17" 1 totally ignoring the messages that three different editors left him. Ymblanter's block was because the guy intentionally ignored communications and you have made a ridiculous argument. He admitted it and here you are wikilawyering an untenable position. He was given warnings that he chose to ignore.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

    Berean Hunter, what messages that three different editors left him are you referring to? Before this ANI was filed, there was one message, and it did not say "don't add more categories". The ANI notice doesn't say that (nor does it say, "come to ANI and talk to us"). Nobody at any point left any messages on his talk page asking to stop doing anything, or asking him to join a conversation, or asking him anything. When I posted a message, I got a response in minutes. Can you post a diff of a message that he "ignored"? I have no idea what editors are referring to when they accuse this editor of a communication problem. He was taken to ANI and blocked before anyone even said hello. Leviv ich 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Sure it does. From the very first message, "please stop adding POV categories to pages." 1.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That level one template message was left at 21:43 17 March. They added Category:White nationalist terrorism to the following pages after that, before their block:Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, 16th St. For which of these pages is "White nationalism terrorism" a "POV category"? Do you disagree about that categorization for any of those pages? (Spoiler alert: On the Duluth talk page, you'll see I posted sources supporting that categorization, like the New York Times, a peer-reviewed journal, and a book from a university publisher, so I guess that makes me involved, too.) Leviv ich 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I'm not getting into the content dispute and second, you did not address where I just flatly proved you wrong. Can Leviv admit they were wrong about the first message where you said, "Nobody at any point left any messages on his talk page asking to stop doing anything".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That message was posted 30 minutes before the ANI was posted (I'm running out of ways to emphasize that), and they did not edit between the posting of that message and the posting of the ANI (as I said above). After the ANI was posted, their categorizations weren't POV (I posted the diffs above, twice). Leviv ich 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So, no Levi can't admit when he is wrong. You wrote "Before this ANI was filed, there was one message, and it did not say "don't add more categories"." but clearly it does and your arguments fell apart. No one is going to believe your arguments because they lack credibility.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Berean, the one message said "please don't add more POV categories", and he didn't add any categories between the message and the ANI post, so what justifies the ANI post in the first place? And, he didn't add any "POV categories" after the ANI post, so why the block? I guess since "POV" has no real meaning in the phrase "POV category", yes, technically someone did tell him to stop adding categories before the ANI was filed, so I was wrong earlier when I said that template didn't say that. I don't think that really undercuts anything about how this editor was given no warning before being taken to ANI (since they didn't edit in the half hour between the level one template and the ANI post), but I'm happy to leave it there. Leviv ich 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef, per Berean Hunter. Besides, anything less would send a very bad signal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. Sure, that message looks really bad out of context, but reading the entire post does not suggest to me an editor who needs to be hit with the fullest possible force of the banhammer or anything remotely close. It looks clear to me that the editor does not understand the special idiomatic use of the term "disruptive" in our community and was not trying to express that they were trying to disrupt our processes, but rather were trying to "disrupt" in the sense that an activist might use it--now, the user clearly needs to be educated as to the fact that the one can become the other in a hurry and that activism itself is often incompatible with good editing--and vitally, engaging with the concerns of other editors is a must when they feel you have crossed the line on appropriate editing. They should be made aware that "as quickly as possible" is close to a complete inversion of the approach we favour here. But far from convincing me that this user is so disruptive that they cannot be allowed to continue to contribute, their talk page message actually openly contemplates that their are reasonable limits to what content should be added, and that they understand their edits may have crossed that line.

So the real issue here is that they need to learn to become more engaged with both the consensus process and responding to concerns. I think that can be effectuated in this case well short of an indef--or at least that we can afford to start with WP:ROPE in that respect. If the propensity for adding the same kind of problematic edit and refusing to engage in discussion persists, then I think we are starting to look at a long-term sanction, but I don't think we're there yet. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If they have competency issues that is their own fault as they never responded to any messages where it could be discussed. It isn't because other editors haven't tried repeatedly. They have over 2400 edits and they are a 2005 account that ignored warnings and didn't communicate until they were blocked. He has said that he isn't appealing but I believe that we have the right to get assurances that it won't happen again and he hasn't given us that. Keep him blocked until he does. Indef doesn't mean forever and he is the one that can do something about that...but none of you can.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is because editors haven't tried repeatedly. Diffs or it didn't happen. I posted the timeline above: there was a message in October, and then a level 1 template in March, and 30 minutes later they're at ANI. I hate peppering this thread but you're kind of stretching the facts IMO. Leviv ich 02:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You got it wrong and most everything else, too. I posted the correct diff above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So you said It isn't because other editors haven't tried repeatedly. and as evidence you post a diff of a message 30 minutes before the ANI was posted and you call that support? The last talk page message before that diff you posted was in October. That's why I said what you said wasn't factual. Leviv ich 03:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I was answering to the longer wiki career and the other warnings that admins and editors had left for a very long time. The one diff was to refute what you had written in a different post. They are not the same. Two different posts and you have mixed things up again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

They edited between October and March, adding a bunch of categories and nobody complained. Then there was a level one template, and after 30 minutes in which they did not edit, an ANI post. Then they added Category:White nationalist terrorism to Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, and 16th St, and were blocked, and now you think they should be indef'd. Are you disagreeing with the facts as I've laid them out in this post? Leviv ich 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think they should be indeffed until we get our assurances. ROPE comes after.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you just say ROPE comes after an indef? :-D Leviv ich 04:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it is usually done. See ROPE...particularly When not to use: "If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many of these edits are to BLPs, where we must have definite cast iron sourcing before we class people as White Supremacist Terrorists (or involved in White Supremacist Terrorism). The editor does not seem to express any understanding of the vital need for such sourcing. They should remain blocked until they make it clear they understand the requirements for BLPs (and probably should be topic banned from categorisation even if they are unblocked).Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. Seems like the categories were being wielded as a weapon to serve a greater cause. I can sympathize with that, but applying a contentious category to a BLP should be done thoughtfully and with consensus. Extended failure to communicate isn't something to encourage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree extended failure to communicate isn't something to encourage, but when I posted a message to their talk page today, I got an answer within minutes, and I think I'm the only one who has really tried to reach out to this editor, ever, so I don't see an extended failure to communicate. Leviv ich 02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Shortcuts

• Support indef This editor is clearly gaming wikipedia by adding completely POV catagories, hoping they will go unnoticed - the user is simply attaching them to anyone with far-right views and has been doing so for years. Of the pages I watch that the editor added this category to, only one actually covered a subject that has been involved in terrorism of any kind. (For the record, I utterly despise Neo-Nazis and White supremacists with every fiber of my being, I think they are the scum of the earth, not that it matters, wikipedia is not a place for me to hate on fascists, it's meant to be an encyclopedia - I only mention this because I don't want to be called an apologist for nazism for simply expecting the user to not game wikipedia with POV catagories). The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, it's deliberate and ongoing POV vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban from categorization This is a BLP issue, but he hadn't been warned, so he didn't know this was a problem until now. Maybe a few months will help. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that the user engaged in WP:BLP violations, having unilaterally imposed contentious labels in inappropriate circumstances, via categorization. The primary defense seems to be that some of the labels were retroactively justified, but if there are any BLP violations, which there are, then good edits are not a defense, because editorial/opinion-based judgment casting from Wikipedia editors is not a valid reason to violate WP:TERRORIST. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. I stand by what I've said here up to this point, but this edit from today, after being blocked for this, shows an incredible willingness to ignore community advice, as well as incompetence (as in lack of understanding of how categories work). If they successfully appeal their block in the future, then they should be topic banned from categorization. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahem - [47]. I don't suppose there are any uninvolved admins watching this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Alexandre Bissonnette is a white nationalist terrorist, and his attack, Quebec City mosque shooting is an example of white nationalist terrorism. It says so in our article, and also The Atlantic, NYTimes, WaPo, CBC. White terrorism also seems like an appropriate page for the category? I'm curious because I would have added those same pages to that category myself–that would have been wrong? Is it because he's adding categories to redirects? Leviv ich 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: there are a number of problems. Most importantly is that they're continuing to place the category after this discussion should have been an indication to knock it off. But also: adding the "white nationalist terrorism" category to the "white terrorism" category is backwards, it's putting a parent category inside what should be a subcategory. White terrorism is not a subset of white nationalist terrorism, it should be the other way around. It's like standing on top of an umbrella and expecting to stay dry: it doesn't work. That was one of the complaints raised in this thread, that Ck4829 doesn't understand how categories work and is just tagging things blindly. As for Bissonnette, yes, it's inappropriate to categorize that way, because potentially defamatory information about living persons is required to be referenced where it appears, and besides, there is not universal agreement that Bissonnette should be described as a terrorist. Lots of outlets have repeated it, and it's probably valid, but our article also spells out that he was not charged with a terrorism-related crime, so this is a subjective value-laden label. And besides that, the page that the Bissonnette redirect redirects to is not a member of that category. If the category should be anywhere, it's there. The real issue is that it should be discussed, but Ck4829 is just continuing the same behaviour that they were blocked for just a few days ago. And even though you reached out and did get a response, they obviously haven't actually heard anything, or they don't care. This is indef territory either way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To prevent the topic from being arxived--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef I was trying to avoid "voting", but if we're still waiting for a clearer message, then yes they should be blocked for the BLP violations and the extremely bad-faith reaction "I meant to disrupt" to it. Similar to the WP:CIR concerns mentioned above, they've just added a sub-category as a category for the main topic[48] (Donald Trump isn't a Trump administration controversy). So I don't think they currently have the competence required for mass categorizations, which is bad since that's really the only thing they are doing, and then there's the disruption and attitude part. Obviously they could be unblocked if they demonstrate they can communicate with others, understand cateogorization better and drop the "I meant to disrupt". --Pudeo (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, The user continues adding inappropriate categories without discussion and apparently does not care about this topic. I was considering blocking them indef for some time, and decided not to, since I have blocked them for the first time and posted in this thread defending my actions, so that some users could consider me involved. However, this just can not continue, and also the additions of categories by this user need to be rolled back.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, you reverted the editor's addition of Category:Nationalist terrorism to the article Christopher Paul Hasson with the edit summary "no evidence in the article". But that article already says he is (1) a white nationalist, and (2) a terrorist. It is sourced to some 30-some-odd references that describe him that way. The article is already in the categories Category:American white nationalists, Category:Terrorism in the United States, and Category:White nationalism in the United States. I believe the mistake is that the editor should have added the subcategory Category:White nationalist terrorism ("WNT") instead of the parent category Category:Nationalist terrorism ("NT"), but then that WNT subcategory had been previously added by the editor and was rolled back. So, I re-added the WNT category. If the editor gets indef'd for lack of communication, that happens, but "no evidence in the article" doesn't strike me as accurate, and I don't think this particular categorization is an example of any kind of POV-type issue. (Lack of communication being a separate issue.) Leviv ich 17:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  If a category Category:Nationalist terrorism is added to the article, the article at this point must say that the subject has to do something related to Nationalist terrorism. If our only evidence is a combination of categories, this is original research, an in relation to BLP articles also BLP violations. Strategy "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles" is absolutely unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable if we are talking about BLP articles (the main interest of this user). So far, they had enough chances (were given enough rope) to listen to this to know better.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with what you wrote. What I'm saying is that Christopher Paul Hasson meets the criteria as you describe it, without it being OR. The article already says he is a white nationalist terrorist. There are 30-something references supporting that. Here is one example, The Washington Post headline "... A self-proclaimed white nationalist planned a mass terrorist attack, the government says". I think the editor's addition of the category was OK, not an example of "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles", but an example of a correct application of Category:White nationalist terrorism. Leviv ich 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Before writing what I have written (and in fact before removing the cat) I checked all occurences of "terr" regexp in the article. None of those was coming in a combination "nationalist terrorist" or similar. Whereas the guy can likely be a nationalist terrorist, and whereas it might be possible to justify this point of view by checking the sources which are in the article (as you have done), this information must be present in the article before the category has been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

There's a lot of discussion here about sanctions, but meanwhile we have hundreds of miscategorizations, including BLP violations. (Isn't that the more pressing issue?) I propose a rollback of all of Ck4829's additions to Category:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 06:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The category has been removed everywhere. Fram (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm not sure if you're saying that you removed it, but if so, you missed redirects and other categories where it's still in use. I presume you'll correct that (I'm apparently not allowed) but also I have a question. Would you entertain a discussion on proper use of the category and/or renaming/refining its scope, or is removing it from all pages an indication that it should not be used anywhere? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual existence of the cat, and no objection to people using it as any other cat (under BLP rules and the like). The reversion (which I'll complete, thanks, my AWB option was too restrictive) is about the way it was added here, in an indiscriminate (or way too braod and problematic) manner, for a category that is obviously controversial if used incorrectly. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

{@Ivanvector and Fram: I'm pedantic, so for me, putting "symbols" and vague "rhetoric" and people who he decides (not sources) are "cheerleaders" into a "coat rack category" is not the proper course of action. Instead of making categories for "WNT in [country]", he messed up the format by putting the one into several country categories.

If I wasn't so busy, I might consider populating the main category exclusively using "events"/"attacks" (confirmed by sources, of course), and groups (that have been confirmed by sources). With lynching, you could probably make the KKK crimes category a subcat. We should also sort the events by country and put them into a "WNT in country" cat that fits. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Category is now truly empty. Fram (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I'm confused about what happens from here. May I boldly add that category back to pages (including some which you removed them from), or was you rollback a reversion in the BRD process, such that you and I must now discuss 100+ pages and whether they fit into that category? Leviv ich 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I would go with it being more or less a reversion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If you decide to add this back, it should only be added to articles where reliable sources explicitly label it as white nationalist terrorism. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been planning to suggest renaming the category to "White nationalist violence" (or just starting over with a new category) because "terrorist" is a fraught label, and that is at least a significant issue with the original complaint. I don't think most people would object to most articles in the former set being described as "violence". But it's also true that whether the category is "terrorism" or "violence", it's probably better off as a parent category for things like KKK crimes and lynchings and nationalist-driven racial violence, rather than being populated with specific incidents. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My view is there are multiple potential categories here: (1) White nationalist violence/(2) White nationalist terrorism are subcategories of (3) Racial violence and (4) Racial terrorism. "Racial terrorism" is the term I've seen used the most to describe things like Lynching in the United States (check the article, it's in there, sourced) and Klu Klux Klan. Some examples: The Smithsonian: Inspired by the film Birth of a Nation, they burned a cross and swore their loyalty to the Klan, ushering in a new era of white nationalist terrorism. [49]; The New York Times Editorial Board: "Lynching as Racial Terrorism"; The Washington Post: "‘Lynch him!’: New lynching memorial confronts the nation’s brutal history of racial terrorism"; The Nation, in a piece entitled, "On White Identity Politics and American Terrorism": The Brooklyn Museum mounted an exhibit on white racial terrorism this summer. It draws on research done by the Equal Justice Initiative, documenting 4,425 lynchings of black people by white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Another term used in the literature is simply "white terrorism" (because that's what it is, as opposed to "Islamic terrorism"), but I'm not even gonna try and propose that one cuz people will go apeshit. Leviv ich 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We have already Category:White nationalism. I do not think we need anything else. That was good rollback. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Precedent for "white terrorism" is here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This particular subdiscussion should probably continue at Category talk:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Which editors are watching an esoteric category talk page, exactly? ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Most likely everyone who has commented here, at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so. It's just that I genuinely don't think I've ever even seen a link to a Category talk space, ever. I, personally, would never even have considered checking out the talk page. It's never crossed my mind that people actually use Category talk pages. I did not mean to be rude, R2's idea just genuinely struck me as absurd. In fairness, I have never been involved with Cat meta-maintenance. If my response was rooted in ignorance, I apologize. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It was my suggestion, really, but way up the thread, and I didn't interpret your comment as rude. It's a good point. My logic is: here's not the right place for content discussions, so might as well use the page-in-question's talk page. Category talks are quite rare, but not unheard of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. I'm not a category person either, but it seems that if there's a discussion to be had about a specific category's scope or inclusion criteria, that discussion would live most appropriately on the category's talk page. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic user at Mary Kay Letourneau

Mary Kay Letourneau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Firstly, I'm requesting an immediate block for gross WP:NPA here, particularly this: You're a creep! And now you, creep, say you're some kind of authority over me? You're trash!, directed at me. There's no way we can ever tolerate that.

There is much more, but I'm on my phone and pulling diffs is difficult at best on a mobile device. I'll add more later, and ping Bullrangifer and Flyer 22 Reborn, two other editors who've been having difficulties with this user at MKL and also COIN and BLPN. I think we're minimally looking at a topic ban from MKL, more likely a topic ban from BLP, and possibly an indeff for CIR/NOTHERE.

There is no reason for anyone to have to endure that gross an insult, and a block for NPA is certainly warranted. I'll be back later today with more and thanks for your attention. John from Idegon (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut a user a little bit of slack when they're responding to accusations of being a "pedophilia apologist" (diff). I'm not sure of the rights and wrongs of all this, but at face value you are hardly the only one who could cry NPA. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Read it again, GoldenRing. I didn't accuse him of that, I said he was beginning to appear that way...not an attack, advice. And that was several days ago. His attack was last night. Where's his slack? John from Idegon (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reping BullRangifer and Flyer22 Reborn. Managed to screw both of them up. John from Idegon (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(S)he is really losing it. I just left a message on their talk page: "Mcfnord, you really need to disengage and stop the highly emotional ownership behavior. There is no justification for cussing us out and acting belligerent." This is an extreme case of SPS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Because telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is so much less offensive than calling them a pedophilia apologist.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I do apologise, what an important distinction you raise. I'm sure you go around telling people they only appear like pedophilia apologists all the time and they think you're just wonderful. GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I should do that the next time I want to call someone an idiot. "You're beginning to appear like an idiot" will surely go over much better than the more perfunctory alternative.--WaltCip (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mcfnord's user page has now become a WP:POLEMIC, complete with a reference to "BullFinger". Putting aside the issue of personal attacks, Mcfnord's comments when talking to other users is several notches below par, and we could really live without the constant use of legal terms, e.g., slander and libel.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The editor simply does not understand WP:BLP (not in a fully competent way anyway), and has argued in ways that don't align with the way Wikipedia works. For example, Mcfnord keeps talking about writing conservatively in ways that are more flattering to Letourneau. We can see that with this RfC where others have thus far disagreed with Mcfnord. And I've already pointed him to WP:Legal threat regarding his comment that Wikipedia can get sued. At the WP:COI noticeboard, he wrongly accused me of having a WP:COI because I edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics and, per WP:Child protection (and the POV-pushing that usually occurs when self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors are involved), am against self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors editing Wikipedia. I did make it clear that Letourneau is not technically a pedophile. She (as Smmary) has, however, edited in a way that screams "COI." And, obviously, she has a COI. At the WP:BLP noticeboard, Mcfnord has also gone on about me supposedly editing inappropriately; Zaereth, who'd briefly weighed in before, stepped in to defend me and to respond to Mcfnord's other arguments. Mcfnord has made a few decent points, but a lot of what Mcfnord has argued doesn't align with how Wikipedia works and Mcfnord is coming across as proxy editor for Letourneau. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a note....the userpage edits Bbb23 references above were all made today, all since the attack I referenced above, further justifying my request for a temporary block per the preventive purpose of blocking. And he continues editing it up to a few minutes ago. Re Flyer's comments above, his userpage screed indicates a lack of understanding of the most basic principle of Wikipedia, consensus. Despite the presence of an RfC on the page, no one is agreeing with him on any major points. And the fact that he's online and actively editing and has not responded here is also a bit problematic, no? John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The edits to that userpage are poorly disguised attacks, rendering it a sort of attack page and advocacy. A bit of griping can be allowed, but this isn't constructive, and definitely not collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• So it seems that the entire dispute is over the victim's age? Beyond ridiculous. Clearly both parties are guilty of personal attacks. Telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is not helpful. So to be fair, either no action or block both.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not just about the age. See the multiple RfCs on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- It seems someone has invoked my name and summoned me forth. I'm always loathe to come here and discuss another editor's behavior, but in this case I see many a real problem. I got involved when I saw Mcfnord trying to rationalize BLP policy in a way that would justify the use of court documents in the article. Of course, this is not allowed under any circumstances, no matter how one tries to wikilawyer a loophole. In looking at the article's history, I was rather shocked to see the amount of edit warring going on. Not the revert/re-revert type war, but the kind where if one tendentious edit fails a different one pops up in its place. (Whack-a-mole war.) Mcfnord has made several comments and edit summaries that, to me at least, suggest some sort of ties to the subject, at one point suggesting he speaks for the subject. The use of legal terms (incorrectly I might add) and the desperation with which even trivial details are pushed, such as a child's exact age, seem to indicate an unusually strong attachment to the subject (emotional, financial, or other, I don't know). From the small amount I've seen, their rationalizations seem to suggest synthesis, both in interpretations of BLP policy, in facts and conclusion about the case, in evaluating sources, and even in interpreting advice given by myself and others. They seem to interpret things through their own rose-colored glasses, seeing the parts they like and missing ones they don't, and really do not appear get the concept of forming a consensus nor how to go about doing that, and in this WP:COMPENTENCE seems to apply. I think at the very least a topic ban from this article is in order, if not more. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)RR
• Comment -- There seems to be a civil discussion in progress on the article's talk page. Both sides should be on notice that name-calling is not acceptable. I see no need for further action here.--agr (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold (agr), civil discussion in progress doesn't mean that Mcfnord won't continue to be a problem at that article or at other BLP articles. Like Zaereth stated above, Mcfnord seems "to interpret things through their own rose-colored glasses, seeing the parts they like and missing ones they don't, and really do not appear get the concept of forming a consensus nor how to go about doing that, and in this WP:COMPENTENCE seems to apply." Similarly, BullRangifer stated to Mcfnord, "You seem to have created your own extra conservative, outside-our-rules, BLP whitewashing policy. You don't get to do that unopposed. We are defending our policy and you are not following it." But I guess this thread can go ahead and be closed since it seems that Mcfnord won't be topic-banned at this point in time. He's also already clearly been reprimanded by others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Shannya Sabru

User:Shannya Sabru has been adding a contentious and unverified sentence to Joey Allaham: "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits". As this is a BLP, a claim like that requires solid reliable sources to back it up. The user has been providing five sources to the sentence but none of them are acceptable per policies. The first source is a WP:UGC as any reader can submit their own story and it gets published. The user-submitted article which Shannya Sabru has cited was taken down a long time ago (the links for all other user-submitted articles from that list still work) which is why the user is using a web.archive link. The remaining four sources [50] [51] [52] [53] state that Allaham was one of many people named in the same lawsuit filed three times by one Elliott Broidy. The lawsuit has been dismissed twice in court of law and the third hearing is yet to happen. The user has been combining these four sources and drawing an incorrect presumption of multiple lawsuits which falls under WP:SYNTH. I have tried engaging the user in a meaningful policy-based discussion on the article talk page but every single time the user displays signs of WP:IDHT and goes on to re-add the sentence without any valid argument. I sense WP:CIR issues.

As a side note, I want to mention that I had a strong feeling that this account could be related to a sockpuppet banned several months ago due to their identical editing pattern (blocked sockpuppet's edit, Shannya Sabru's edit 1, Shannya Sabru's edit 2) which is why I opened a SPI. The checkuser determined that the accounts are technically unrelated. The user has since then targeted this accusation of mine in their subsequent arguments. WP:ASPERSIONS is not applicable here a there was "reasonable cause" for me to think that they are the same user.

I had initially filed a WP:DR but a volunteer there closed that discussion with the suggestion that ANI would be a better place to request action on this. BhasSpeak (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what USER:BhasSpeak is fighting to have removed from the Joey Allaham article:

"Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits."

Because I've added this to the article, BhasSpeak has accused me of making violations, filed a sockpuppet investigation against me, and when this turned out negative, accused me of being a meatpuppet (plus the CIR, SYNTH, IDHT suggestions against me here, I don't know if there are any other violations left that I may have broken with this insertion!). Here's the Talk page discussion. Shannya Sabru (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Mnpie1789

User:Mnpie1789 has repeatedly made edits at the Bobby Beausoleil article, with the clear aim of seeking to present the (living) article subject as an artist who is incarcerated, rather than as a notable murderer who has artistic interests. The edits started in December 2016 and have continued ever since, in some cases adding poorly-sourced material and, more recently, blatantly edit warring to impose their wording, particularly in the opening paragraphs. The issue has been raised at Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation", and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil, with a clear consensus among other editors that some form of action needs to be taken against the user concerned. To date, they have given no indication that they will edit according to community consensus or guidelines. As a (largely) single purpose account, is it the view here that some action should be taken against that editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and reverted the last edits the user made, shortly before you filed this. A quick look at Mnpie1789's edit count shows the degree of interest he has in this article's subject and how little in anything else. While his editing is problematic in the apparent desire to present Beausoleil in the best possible light, i would like to see something from him indicating his understanding of the issue and intent to correct it; only if that is not forthcoming ~ or the behaviour continues ~ would i hold the view that action should be taken. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 00:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Every effort has been made to resolve editing conflicts with this user Ghmyrtle and other editors, in comments when doing revisions and discussions at Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation" and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil.

As I have said multiple times before to these editors, no attempt is being made to leave any of the negative aspects out of reporting. I am attempting to give a balanced view since, Beausolell has made significant contributions in the creative arts both prior to and during incarceration. It is well documented that Beausoleil began playing music professionally at age 17. He played with Arthur Lee’s Love when it was called the Grass Roots. He formed the Orkustra in 1966 which became The Diggers’ house band. Due to one of his Orkustra performances, Kenneth Anger wanted him to be in his next film, Lucifer Rising. Beausoleil agreed to it only if he was allowed to do the soundtrack. When things fell through and a short time later, Beausoleil was convicted of first degree murder of Gary Hinman, Anger got back in touch and had him create the soundtrack for Lucifer Rising (after scrapping Jimmy Page’s score for it). This soundtrack has also been used in several other movies by such filmmakers as Gasper Noe (Love) and Chris Moukarbel (who most notably included parts in his recent documentary about Lady Gaga). In addition to this album that he created in prison in the late 1970s (a feat pretty much unheard of then), he has composed and released 8 others which are all in worldwide distribution. He has been also been creating art since the 80s with a gallery show in 2005 in California (at Clair Obscura) which is referenced on his page (using a parole transcript that another editor left up and one that I have attempted to remove due to the editors/Wikipedia guidelines saying anything court related is not allowed) and one in 2015 at the Contemporary Art Tasmania in Australia.

Since there were issues with me using blogs and his personal website that have lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. In an effort to fix this, my latest revisions reflected that...but they have now been reverted back to the narrative style that the editors had such an issue with and wanted changed immediately.

While I understand that some editors have issues with anyone who has been associated with Charles Manson, this cannot be what guides factual reporting. There is no dispute that Beasoleil murdered a man. It was a savage crime that he has been incarcerated 50 years for. However, Beausoleil is also a respected musician and artist with a modest following of fans around the world.

It is clear that the reverting the other editors have done this is an attempt to vilify Beausoleil. The comments in both sections of Talk and Biographies of Living Persons well as the reverted edits, have said that if anything his occupation is prisoner, that he is primarily notable as a murder, and how he is a very minor and probably non-notable musician and artist. The Wikipedia guidelines for living subjects clearly specify that information reporting on a subject should be balanced and not be used to push a particular agenda. I have clearly stated in the discussions with other editors that my purpose is to make the article balanced by including the positive aspects of the subject’s life without removing or significantly editing the information in the article referencing the crime he committed fifty years ago. This editor maintains the position that this is consistent with the Wikipedia parameters for living subjects. Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

These comments essentially repeat those made previously by this editor, and it seems to me that they fail to identify or resolve the matters of concern. The fundamental issue is one of judgement and balance, but I have not seen any other editor sharing the view that the edits made by Mnpie1789 meet the criteria in WP:BLP and MOS:OPENPARABIO for a balanced approach. No-one is trying to unduly "vilify Beausoleil", but the fact that he is notable as a murderer rather than as an artist needs to be accepted. In my view the article lead must focus on the reasons for the subject's notability - that is, as a murderer rather than as an artist (as in the current version) - and the citations derived from the subject's own site should be removed (or, at the very least, minimised) along with the material they support (currently at least 19 of the 49 references derive from that personal website). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page [54] suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD [55]. There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question [56]. as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever.[57] and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process [58] Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time [59] so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Pattern of abuse by IP

78.54.44.99's comments at this tfd are clear personal attacks in my opinion. There is no reason to be throwing accusations at Markussep, a very well respected and established WP:TPE. I've chosen to open an ANI because this represents a pattern of disruptive behavior by a user who continues to hop IPs all over the place. Given the differing IPs I'm not sure what admin action can be taken, but I would like to have an admin at least comment on this and see what can be done.

Examples:

• Special:Contributions/78.54.190.20
• Special:Contributions/89.12.133.115
• Special:Contributions/77.183.29.94
• Special:Contributions/77.183.172.102
• Special:Contributions/77.183.12.176

--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See also this diff, showing earlier inappropriate behaviour (and again pointed at me). Markussep ^Talk 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA account's userpage

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

---

Could someone please remove the "CU" category from this account's userpage? Obviously they're not a check-user. Thanks. 45.72.222.149 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Marcolacson

I'm starting to get a little frustrated at user Marcolacson as he keeps adding unsourced claims as well as stuff that is not in the source given: [60], [61], [62]. Despite sufficient warnings given as well as a 31-hour blocked imposed by an editor a couple of months back, the adding of unsourced/improperly sourced material is still a common occurrence from this user. If possible, I'd like this user be blocked indefinitely; there's really no helping this user be a productive contributor to this site. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to a be a WP:CRYSTAL issue going on here, evidenced by List_of_Philippine_films_of_2020, an unsourced and premature article which they just created and I have XfD'd. Their edits seem to show a pattern of speculating release dates for films. They may still be salvageable as an editor however, as they were at least willing to offer this, which shows they are at least willing to apologize and interact. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing links to The Daily Stormer from article talk pages

Yesterday, NikitaSadkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a post on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings which purported to suggest that we use The Daily Stormer as a source for (false) claims that the mosque was linked to al-Qaida. I (and others) protested that The Daily Stormer is patently and irrefutably unusable as a source on Wikipedia because it's a literal white supremacist neo-Nazi website, and then removed the link and suggested that the user should review our policies on sourcing before attempting to further contribute.

Today, Wnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) put The Daily Stormer link back on the page, declaring in the edit summary that he was "de-censoring the talk page" and telling me Do not censor other people's comments. There is no basis in policy to do this and there is every basis in policy not to do this.

Wikipedia is not a free speech platform. Article talk pages are not forums for general discussion. There is absolutely no reason we should host links to virulently-racist, anti-Semitic white supremacist nonsense — much less even *consider* their use as a reliable source in an article about a white supremacist terrorist mass murder. It is not "censorship" to remove such links. So I removed the link again, and I believe there's an opportunity here for the community to make clear that The Daily Stormer is never an acceptable source for anything and that removing it is not only not against policy, but in fact, policy demands that we do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate for WP:RSN, but seeing as the lead reads The Daily Stormer is an American neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews., it also this seems like the kind of thing that is so obvious that there doesn't need to be a rule for us to know that it is not a reliable source for anything. Natureium (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum to ask for a ruling on article or talk page content. Surely there is broad support for the proposed action, but that should be handled at the RS noticeboard. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Given that even Wnt agreed that the source was not credible, their reinsertion of the link to an article calling for the death of all Muslims was pretty pointy. I hope they don't do so again. There are other venues on wikipedia to discuss the general issues of free-speech vs censorship vs editorial judgment. The talk page of the Christchurch mosque shootings‎ article is not one of them. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

When The Daily Stormer and its related sites have come up at WP:RSN, consensus is that these are not reliable sources. Allowing them in talk pages will not be productive. I think an edit filter is merited here. 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caknuck (talk • contribs)

Talk pages are different from mainspace. It is 100% completely fair to include a link to a source deemed normally unreliable to ask about inclusion; the only case where we'd be more careful if we're talking flat out lies and accusations made towards BLP being propagated by that source. Talk pages do not require the same type of "cleanliness" from bad sources as mainspace does. It doesn't mean we're going to use that source at all, but there may be appropriate discussion around the source. --Masem (t) 05:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely inappropriate to have posted and then restored the link once it was removed. This is not about censorship but about basic decency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• The Daily Stormer is completely unreliable garbage, but I disagree with the removal of the link on the talk page - there is no justification in WP:TPO for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTADVOCACY applies to article talk pages as well, if someone needs a justification. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - we need to be careful in endorsing blanket removals of the Daily Stormer from talk pages. Yes - it is a completely inappropriate garbage source for anything in main space. However it might contain links to sources, and more importantly sometimes is an indication that a certain source is bad (e.g. if some source is little used in an academic setting, but is discussed in a positive fashion on DS - that is a huge red flag regarding the source). I don't quite see how it is useful in this particular instance - but I have seen the DS elsewehre used to point out that a certain source was mainly popular in neo-Nazi circles. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with Icewhiz: Daily Stormer shouldn't be automatically removed from talk pages. But it should never, ever be used as a reliable source nor purported to be one. The real problem here is the Streisand effect: folks made a big fuss about it and deleted it, which attracted even more attention (clearly the opposite of what was intended). The content was manually redacted, but that is somewhat irrelevant because the content still exists and hasn't been rev-deled. The only time DS links should be removed should be when they meet the regular criteria for RevDel, such as being grossly insulting. And of course, anytime a DS link is added, it should be pointed out that it is absolutely not a reliable source. I think editors should strongly avoid ever using or mentioning the DS. If they do however, I say: keep the DS in talk pages. Why? If someone has to invoke the DS to support their point, it should be an immediate red-flag! If someone is using a DS source to support discussion or a claim, they should be examined very closely for serious NPOV problems, and may not be suitable for inclusion at all. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum I do think that the user that posted the original link should be warned about using reliable sources, and chastised to not use the DS. In fact, I think any user that posts a DS link ought be strongly warned of the same. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely ridiculous. There is quite literally no reason for this project to host links to a neo-nazi website, and deleting such links is not "censorship", and attempting to revert such deletions is inexcusable. It has no place here, and if neo-nazis somehow see that we're deleting links to neo-nazi content, and complain about being persecuted and censored, no one here should give a shit. This is a serious academic project, not some experiment in radical free speech where we debate the merits of hosting vs removing extremist ideology. Jfc, I can't believe we're even discussing this. Is this really the hill you want to die on? ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is an experiment in free speech. Otherwise, how can people collaborate to make an encyclopedia? Radical doctrines like "neutral point of view" don't make sense when there are points of view that contributors dare not let each other read. When proclamations of political and ideological loyalty take priority over letting Wikipedians research what is actually being said by the people in question - even when those people are repellent - you are not writing articles, you are writing propaganda. And when you reduce yourself to that, there is no reason why the racists cannot, or even should not, win an argument against you, because you have reduced yourself to a straw man.

  I should note that I was very much in favor of Wikipedia linking to ISIS videos and their other propaganda when that organization is active. And while my few efforts on this one site were insignificant, in total, that group's love of exposing its true nature has led, this very day, to its final defeat in combat -- because there was no nation that would dare cozy up to it, and people didn't forget what they saw. Meanwhile, things like the atrocities in Rakhine State and South Sudan go unremarked and unattenuated. When people push to censor content like this, they are basically trying to make the underlying problem go on unresolved. There is no dividing line between censorship, falsehood, and evil. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's literally not. Not only is it not an "exercise" in free speech, but it's not even a platform for free speech, as a matter of policy. There is no pretense of "free speech". Speech is regulated here. Not in the way where we suppress controversial/offensive speech. Censorship for that reason is prohibited. Of course we encourage discourse regarding the most controversial sources and views, when there is an academic reason to do so. That does not mean anything offensive is automatically protected from regulation. We can and will suppress even the most innocuous discourse, if it does not relate to the project itself. So, this notion that we're jumping to suppress something simply because it is controversial and offensive is incorrect. If there is an academic reason to link to and examine neo-nazi blog posts, then literally no one will care. But that's not what happened here. Here, a user claimed they were presenting news sources, and provided a neo-nazi blog post as one of those sources. That is not a reasonable, academic reason to link to highly offensive and extremist commentary, and linking to such unhinged, extremist shock-content under the false pretense of providing reliable news sources is something that is never going to be tolerated. This is not something that should ever be controversial. If you think we should refrain from regulating such content even in those situations, for nuanced ideological/free speech/anti-censorship reasons, then that's really too bad, because Wikipedia does not care about your ideology, nor your advocacy for free speech. It's an encyclopedia. You can go anywhere else to exercise your right to free speech, but if you're editing here, you're expected to check your high ideals at the door. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Particularly in the last several years, there has been a trend of editors - experienced ones at that - not wanting to discuss the broader state of sources on certain topics, creating this ivory tower approach which is a major source of contention for newer editors that are legitimately interested in helping expand WP but having the door slammed in their face. (granted, there are probably many more times the number of newer editors that simply instead we much include far-right nonsense too, and are not here to help build the work.) This is absolutely not a healthy or helpful situation to be operating the site, as it is sometimes necessary to have a discourse on talk pages about what we know we cannot include but be aware of what's out there. For example, were the Daily Stormer publish a brand new wacky conspiracy theory about a BLP, I would think it wise to alert the editors on that BLP's talk page and other relevant pages to be aware of this potential nonsense. Other cases, I have seen unreliable sites have an article that does include content that has the ring of truth that would be useful to include on an article but not directly from that source. Posting that article may help point editors to find better RSes that include that material. And there still remains the potential of RSOPINION being met, if BLP isn't outright violated./ So there are good reasons on WP that one would want to link to the Daily Stormer, and the attitude that we should never touch it on a talk page (or other sites like it) is not helpful at all. Delete Stormer links that are clear and outright BLP violations, but overall removal is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For example, were the Daily Stormer publish a brand new wacky conspiracy theory about a BLP, I would think it wise to alert the editors on that BLP's talk page and other relevant pages to be aware of this potential nonsense – This is the correct analysis. I'm pretty sure an edit filter can be made to selectively apply to, say, everything other than article talk pages. EEng 03:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Why on Earth would Wikipedia, a crowdsourced encyclopedia which apparently has no shortage of people eager to remove Daily Stormer links, have any use for a Master-Robot to tell people what they aren't allowed to do for political reasons? There is some kind of contagious lunacy going on around that New Zealand incident -- editors turning up whose main concern is that we write about an evil act of white supremacism without saying who did it, where to find his video, or his manifesto, or having a map of the locations, or pointing to any site representing his ideology, or naming the people he killed or telling their stories. When an encyclopedia is written by people whose main concern is to not pass on information, it's not much of an encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say we need an edit filter (yet) in the case of this source, simply pointed out that if we get to that point there's some tweaking available. We o use edit filters when there's a chronic problem of insertion of sources that essentially never should appear in articles. (In most cases an admin can edit through the filter if there's a bona fide justification for insertion of the source.) EEng 06:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just making a neutral comment. But if you're mischaracterizing my view as "the attitude that we should never touch [offensive sources like DS] on a talk page", then you didn't properly read my comment. A good portion of it was to acknowledge the fact that there can absolutely be legitimate reasons to dive into such sources without being censored, but there are inappropriate and appropriate contexts for linking to extremely offensive material, and that "free speech" is not factor. You cannot credibly argue that linking to a neo-nazi blog post under the false premise of providing news coverage for a mosque shooting is a reasonable academic instance of examining extremist ideology. That's ridiculous, even if you wouldn't have personally removed it. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more this part of your comment Here, a user claimed they were presenting news sources, and provided a neo-nazi blog post as one of those sources. From what I can tell of the user in question NikitaSadkov is "new" and trying to contributed honest. Instead, the first think I'm seeing editors do is immediately strip out the source they brought forward and get in a panic about its inclusion. Yes, it is a bad source, but we should be explaining that to new editors. If the user continued to add in more Stormer links after being told they were never going to be used, then I could see their action, but AGF on the user, it was a fully honest suggestion. That's not a reason to remove the link. --Masem (t) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone who is arguing that we should host or link to white supremacist content - for any reason, whatsofuckingever - needs to step back and take a very fucking deep look at themselves and their motivations as to how human they actually are. There are exactly zero reasons to include this kind of content that are not also in the service of furthering white supremacy ideologies. I'm not saying that the people think it's okay to include this are white supremacists, but I am very specifically saying that arguing for its inclusion aids and abets the cause of white supremacy. Think about why you want this.--Jorm (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, calm down. Read Masem's post just above. And I do believe Masem is human. EEng 03:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• It is absolutely unacceptable to link to neo-Nazi websites anywhere on Wikimedia projects, and it is particularly condemnable to post such link on high-traffic articles and talk pages such as Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings. Nazism actively hurts our community and paradox of tolerance apply. Other than academic, administrative, or genuine ignorance reasons, linking to Nazi websites on talk pages should be aggressively purged and any editor who revert such removal or who attempt to add such link to article namespace should be awarded a summary block. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A babushka with a walking stick enters a public bus, but all seats are occupied. Will you give up your place to a babushka? If your answer is "yes, I will give up", then you are a communist. If your answer is "depending on the babushka", then you are a Nazi. If your answer is "no, I wont give up", then you are an egoist anarchist. If you can afford a personal car and don't ride public buses, then you're a capitalist. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Unacceptable What the hell? If you believe the only case where we'd be more careful if we're talking flat out lies and accusations made towards BLP being propagated by that source, why would you not immediately object to its inclusion as an attempt to specifically allege the Christchurch mosque was al-Qaida? The hypocrisy and blindness there is dumbfounding. And I cannot believe all the other editors here contorting themselves to create situations in which the use of a site which advocates genocide would be potentially acceptable, even on a talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• There's no need to contort oneself to point out that Wikipedia links to their website in more than one place on The Daily Stormer article and has done so since the very first revision of that page. Not to mention that it's used as a source, currently, on a handful of articles: [63]. Nobody needs to create these situations, they already exist, Grandpallama. This is technically a dual response, since it applies as much to Tsumikiria's comment, specifically the incorrect assertion that [i]t is absolutely unacceptable to link to neo-Nazi websites anywhere on Wikimedia projects, as it does yours. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think you're proving, other than that there are other places on Wikipedia (except, perhaps, for the article on DS itself) where links should be removed. Grandpallama (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am currently censoring my opinion of users equivocating about this, adding toxic links to talk pages is very unlikely to be related to improvements of the article. The only profit in this discussion is to the DS, with the perhaps unsolicited testimonial "well-written and occasionally witty" by the user who thinks it better to perpetuate discussion and continue promoting the site here. It is cunning in a ugly way. cygnis insignis 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt

WP:TALK permits certain deletions of "prohibited material". I was a bit concerned about WP:BLP so I glanced over the target article but saw nothing particularly atrocious at the personal level -- statements about a mosque in general are not made about a living person, and besides, it really said little that the sources it and the OP cited didn't say; it just says it in a more offensive way with some gratuitous cheerleading tossed in. Removing the Daily Stormer link greatly strengthens the OP's position, and I didn't want to see it strengthened.

There are at least two ways, both of which I oppose, by which NorthBySouthBaranof could have deleted the content that would have been harder to argue. He could have explicitly pursued the BLP angle, which as I said I was at least worried about, or he could have deleted the entire section as "trolling", which is possibly true but also wrong. (I don't think that "trolling" is really separate from politics, and this was a point I found worth discussing if only to emphasize how weak the 'case' against the mosque - including in the mainstream sources - really is) Instead, he chose to delete the link without leaving a note, as WP:TALK advises, and based only on the idea that the link is awful, as largely distinguished from what it says. That cannot pass.

Those concerned about the Stormer should reconsider how they act on that concern. The site is well-written and occasionally witty, but the inherent dumbness of racism will outweigh this provided that the site is not repeatedly ennobled by persecution and publicized by censorship attempts. At the moment a significant fraction of the content on the site actually gets a favorable reception from me, not to suggest I believe in racism, but because given their circumstances they complain bitterly about censorship around the world. But if people would just play things by the book and accept the author's right to speak, then there would be little call in this world for a Nazi site that moonlights in standing up for civil liberties.

The freak-out going on here reminds me of a joyful summer week in my childhood vacationing on Nag's Head, where the first day I paddled my little bodyboard into a rip tide. Alarmed by my sudden departure from shore, I stayed calm and reasoned that it must be a narrow river that could not flow against the ocean forever, and staked it out for the rest of the week as my conveyor to pull me back out to ride another wave. Toward the end I was warned that rip tides are very dangerous! And indeed they are dangerous - to people who think rip tides are dangerous and exhaust themselves in a futile effort to swim directly toward shore! That is what some here propose to do. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a "freak out", Wnt. This is many editors telling you they disagree with you and your apparently neutral stance towards racism and anti-Semitism and your inexplicable desire to want to defend the Daily Stormer when other editors are telling you that it is in no way a reliable source. Instead of trying to present a wall-of-text saying how the Daily Stormer really isn't so bad and racism isn't wrong because it is evil but because it is "dumb"--as if there might be grounds to argue FOR racism if you could make a smart argument--try to read what other editors are saying and take their views seriously. Editors are telling you, "NO!" and it's like you're saying, "But, they really aren't THAT bad, guys! Give them a chance!" That might not be what you're trying to say but that is how you are coming across. There is no one forcing you to be the devil's advocate here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not how he's coming across at all to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension.Drilou (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• The removal of the link was entirely appropriate, and we should not host links to such sites under any circumstances. If someone really wants to find the site, they can use Google and find it. We frequently remove all links to sites, even on talk pages, which are far less abhorrent (for example, copyvio sites) and I can find no reason why even a talk pages link to the Daily Stormer should stand. It was a good removal. --Jayron32 03:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly linking to a neo-nazi blog under the guise of providing news sources is not an easy mistake to make, and if the user in question ever pulls this shit again, I'm blocking them indefinitely. ~Swarm~ {talk} 03:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

NikitaSadkov's most recent, albeit almost a day old, post on the article talkpage doesn't make it likely that the linking to DS was an innocent act born of ignorance. I have issued a warning for now. Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Give NikitaSadkov a break! It's not like he burnt a hamster alive or anything. Oh. Never mind. Mister Trilobite (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess you know who I'm and what I'm planning to do, so accusing me of being a Nazi is a nonsense. I don't belong to any nation or a race. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So should we mark WP:NPOV historical, or try to explain that Wikipedia is only neutral toward some points of view? To threaten to totally throw an editor off the project because they mention a site on a talk page for discussion with "the wrong" ideology is a new low for Wikipedia. How is that any different than purging Gulenists in the name of stopping 'terrorism'? If racism is an ideology that militates against our heartfelt beliefs and core principles, surely censorship should be even more so. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The chances of DS being used as a source in a Wikipedia article are as close to zero as you can get. Anyone who posts a link to a DS article should be told this. However, unless the link contains material that is likely to be illegal in some jurisdictions, it isn't a big deal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As much as I think Jorm should receive a warning – honestly, a block – for stating that anyone who doesn't lose the plot at the sight of a Nazi is inhuman or insane, what you're writing here Wnt is ... questionable. How is that any different than purging Gulenists in the name of stopping 'terrorism' <- These Gülenists? Are you seriously equivocating moderate Muslims to Neo-Nazis. Moreover, are you seriously equivocating mass imprisonment with losing your editing privileges? You don't lose your liberty by being blocked for god's sake. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"I agree with the thing I think you should be blocked for saying". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Jorm (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with what you said Jorm. I don't think anything is the fuck wrong with Wnt, let alone do I think that anyone who is arguing that we should host or link to white supremacist content - for any reason, whatsofuckingever needs to reassess their own humanity. What I think is questionable in Wnt's statement is the false equivocation – also their understanding of NPOV – but not their sanity. I'll concede that the block comment was a step to far here, and have struck it accordingly. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is clear about not affording equal weight to every point of view. Fringe and extremist POVs are not, and should not be, considered to be neutral and we have no reason to take them into account, except by acknowledging that they exist and describing them in appropriate places without using their own propaganda channels as sources. That's how NPOV is supposed to work. --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Further on Mr rnddude's point, I find it extremely bizarre, and beyond belief, that you're invoking NPOV. You seem to be suggesting that it is non-neutral to exclude the neo-nazi point of view here. Sure, we acknowledge and balance different views, but that only applies to mainstream views. An essential component of NPOV is WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE: we give points of view the only weight they're due, relative to mainstream sourcing. We give extremist, fringe points of view no weight, and when we do need to discuss them, we discuss them though the lens of mainstream sources. It is truly bizarre that you view this as a problem, and that you apparently think that Wikipedia should balance the views of mainstream sources with extremist, fringe views. By your standards, we would acknowledge Holocaust denial as a fair point of view, and would have to put "allegedly" next to every claim in The Holocaust, in order to maintain neutrality. Your views are, frankly, out of line with everything Wikipedia stands for, and it is appalling that you are seriously arguing this as an established editor. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I know full well that Daily Stormer is not a reliable news source, and I was never proposing it to use it in the article. Not even the IP proposed to use it in the article. Furthermore, what some people here omit is that I spoke quite clearly against the argument the IP was making, telling him at some length that the "link" claimed by the neo-Nazi source and the mainstream sources it cited that one of two men later droned by the U.S. went to a local mosque to convert to Islam before going to join his brother meant absolutely nothing. But deleting the Daily Stormer link did nothing to weaken the IP's argument; if anything it made it seem stronger. So why do it?

The reason why this impinges NPOV is that when editors are afraid to link sources based on ideology, there is a "chilling effect" on all discussion. If they cannot link to the Daily Stormer, can they link to the strongly anti-immigrant commentary of Trump supporters? You are pushing for an environment in which a broad group of people - exactly the sort of people Wikipedia should be educating about racism -- are able to say, quite truthfully, that their input will get them banned on the site. This will nix our credibility, not improve it. Wnt (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this. There's a trend that has no clear end-point and makes WP turn into thought police (evident by some of the comments against Wnt below). --Masem (t) 14:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not the thought police. We're not even saying we won't allow people to discuss the Daily Stormer on Wikipedia. What we're saying is that there is a difference between discussing it, and generating traffic from the Wikipedia domain to the Daily Stormer domain through a direct link. People that want the link removed are not saying that the speech about the Daily Stormer is to be censored. Not one person has said "We shall not discuss the Daily Stormer, and we shall take action against the words themselves". What people have said is there is a difference between discussions of the Daily Stormer, and creating a link between the two websites via a clickable link. Whether or not you agree that should or should not be allowed can be argued, but to deliberately mischaracterize the argument as censorship, or as you have put it "thought police", is a terrible way to argue, and does your own position no service. Argue the merits of the link itself, don't create a false narrative of your opponents position and then argue against your own imagination. --Jayron32 18:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Thought police" is not the whole argument, but it is a significant part of it, and apparent from some of the discussion above and below, which stops just short of an NPA-type accusation. I get it that people hate the far-right and would love to have WP have nothing to do with it at all, but if we're trying to discuss the academic nature of how to present articles, we're going to have to know and walk in that minefield of bad sourcing. Just because an editor suggests that we should look over there to a source like the DS in no way should be turned into an attack on the editor for that suggestion, which is almost what is happening in this thread. It's clear Wnt has zero interest in promoting the DS, they only reverted the removal of the DS link because there's no policy-based reason for modifying talk pages like that (After reviewing the link themselves). --Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, how do you discuss a source if you can't link to it on a talk page? If anyone can find it just as easy via a Google search, then what harm does linking to it on the talk page do? I mean, if I want to discuss DS article X, and I say, "google DS X to find the article", that's really the exact same thing as linking to it, isn't it? Leviv ich 19:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• We have editors removing links to the Daily Mail and Gatestone Institute and yet the Daily Stormer is somehow supposed to be OK so as to not fall into their hands and play their game? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is links on talk pages, not mainspace. I would expect any reasonable editor to remove DS links on any mainspace page outside the page about DS itself. But talk pages do not have the same restrictions. --Masem (t) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree, if you need to use the Daily Stormer in any way shape or form to get your point across, then it's time to rethink. If it's a valid opinion, I'm 100% positive that there is another site out there to use. We should not be giving them the traffic at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Wnt

Given that Wnt decided to explicitly praise Daily Stormer as "The site is well-written and occasionally witty", trivialize racism as mere "dumbness", and completely misconstrue WP:NPOV, there need to be not another second for Wikipedia to be a platform for such vile horseshit. I am proposing an indef block for Wnt, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZIS/NOPLATFORM. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus, no. Wnt is just too against censorship. He wasn't arguing to use TDS as a source. Though some of his above comments are perplexing, that doesn't mean that he's "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". It doesn't mean he's a Nazi either. He's created 79 pages on this project. Let's all calm down on this matter, and not rush to block.

starship.paint ~ KO 09:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly, support. Wnt is not just against censorship, but has stated that he feels neo-nazi ideology is a valuable point of view that should be included in the interest of NPOV. Any newbie this brazen would be indeffed without hesitation. At the very least, a TBAN from fringe sources/ideology is definitely warranted here. ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: - where exactly did he say neo-nazi ideology is a valuable point of view that should be included in the interest of NPOV? I don't see it at all. What he did say was To threaten to totally throw an editor off the project because they mention a site on a talk page for discussion with "the wrong" ideology is a new low for Wikipedia. That's totally different from what you are alleging. starship.paint ~ KO 09:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Across his small handful of comments above, he has established that he is a reader of the neo-nazi blog in question, that he supports much of it, and that attempts to remove it are in violation of NPOV, and he has suggested that anti-nazi sentiments are due to “political reasons” and “contagious lunacy”. Not sure how you missed all of that. ~Swarm~ {talk} 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, he has read the blog, he is against censoring them, but he is also against their racism. I'm not sure why he invoked WP:NPOV, he doesn't actually explain. He should be given a chance to explain. He certainly never said we should use TDS as source to satisfy WP:NPOV. He's anti-censorship, that's what he is. starship.paint ~ KO 09:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Wnt's position, Swarm. Also, we don't block people for reading whatever they want in their private time, or for holding any beliefs they hold, as long as their actions on WP do not violate official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

By "political reasons" I mean that there are a wide range of political factors influencing this discussion here other than neo-Nazis planning to take over New Zealand - for example there are large internet providers working together to assert new powers to censor internet connections and exert influence on other firms [64] and controversial action by government censors to block access to material based on ideology. [65] That's not even getting into the gun debate. By "contagious lunacy" I mean that locally on Wikipedia there are people saying that we shouldn't name the killer in an article about a mass murder, removing links based on their ideology, and resisting inclusion of various other information based on non-encyclopedic concerns. Wnt (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, you say "Not sure how you missed all of that." I'm not sure how you deduced any of it from what Wnt actually wrote. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not hard to deduce in the context of the situation. Replied at length below. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMPETENCE Gamaliel (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'll support this. Wnt seems to view wikipedia as a personal platform to spout his bizarre WP:RGW nonsense ad nauseam. His odd 'crusade' has gone on for far too long, and User talk:Jimbo Wales will survive without him. -- Begoon 11:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Begoon: - you allege a history but do not provide any evidence only link to a talk page with one post by Wnt - that is far from a history. starship.paint ~ KO 11:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm comfortable with my comment. Thanks for your concern, and the 'ping'. -- Begoon 12:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Most disturbing. I really don’t want to read a neo-Nazi site’s witty remarks on a TP of another article on a mass shooting of a class of folks considered lesser under Nazi philosophy. And, freedom of speech is not relevant. I’d be OK with a broad vacation from AP2 and BLP. WP:CIR O3000 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it? Isn't it enough to recognize that they are utterly wrong, without pretending that they can't occasionally write well, or providing any explanation for how they attract a readership? Would you truly condemn Wikipedia editors even just for looking at a site to see what people with a certain belief are saying? Please understand that this sort of overbearing "political correctness" is not actually useful to your cause, but has actively contributed to the sort of right-wing political phenomena, such as the rise of Trump, which the New Zealand shooter praises and which I have opposed. I have been trying here, not to "right great wrongs", but simply to keep Wikipedia on track with its own core principles, just as I have urged with a whole slew of other issues over the years ranging from linking ISIS videos to citing the diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning. Yet this is the first time I recall being proposed for a ban simply for advocating the right of Wikipedians to evaluate the source material! Also note that I said in my first statement above that the initial IP's comment was probably trolling, and you would have had a better case simply deleting the whole section as trolling, yet your preferred fix is to turn on me and to continue the argument that individual source links (or even readership) are now intolerable based on ideology. Who is really "righting great wrongs" here? Wnt (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  QED. Thank you. -- Begoon 12:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I fear if I respond, I’ll simply be handing you another shovel. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• No For many years, I have found Wnt's opinions frequently idiosyncratic, but I'm not sure that's blockable. It's a bridge too far to block him for what he's expressed so far. Writing an opinion should not, of itself, be blockable. Instead, we should only block him if he persists in re-adding the link once it has been removed. If we have consensus to remove the link, and then he persists in re-adding it after we've established that, then we can block him. --Jayron32 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"idiosyncratic"? "In cloud cuckoo land" seems a better analysis to me. -- Begoon 13:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You have your synonyms, I have mine. --Jayron32 18:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Mostly per Jayron32.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Jayron32. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is not a platform to discuss the "good and bad" of explicitly neo-Nazi writings and beliefs. Support indef block for NikitaSadkov too, for this race-baiting garbage. If you find yourself at any point confusing WP:NPOV with "let's try to listen to what the Nazis have to say", you should not edit this website. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Because sharing any common ideas with Nazis is wrong and plainly evil. A permanent ban will make him/her reconsider his/her despicable views. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, noting that I may change my mind if I can be shown one actual instance of unequivocal soapboxing for Nazis, or disruption to an article, both of which I am yet to see. Fish+Karate 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not going to jump on the "Indef block Wnt" bandwagon on the basis of this one incident, but would ask him to bear in mind policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It's pretty obvious that The Daily Stormer is not a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. Wnt's main redeeming point here is that some people have blown this incident out of proportion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. Nothing in Wikipedia's policy provides for blocking for having an opinion that people disagree with. This is an excessive emotional response.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose / content dispute per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:ELMAYBE. An external link may be justified if it contains valuable information, even though its accuracy may be worse than a stormtrooper's. For example, the article Hassan Ngeze contains a link to his personal website, which may have contained coded messages in support of genocide according to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. A self-published reference can both pass WP:ABOUTSELF and advocate for genocide. For example, Media of Rwanda contains references to genocidal radio stations and TV channels. wumbolo ^^^ 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wnt is not advocating for using Daily Stormer as a source and is not in any way supporting its ideals, but is opposing those who wish to forbid even talking about it on talk pages. Much as I dislike giving nazis, racists, bigots any platform, I find the "You're not even allowed to look at it or talk about it to make up your own mind" approach pernicious. Wnt has an oft idiosyncratic take on things (sometimes even bizarre in my view), but those who have mistaken that, in this case, as anything like support for the odious site's political position are badly wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support especially after reading this, "Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it? " Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This has indeed been blown completely out of proportion. Wnt's position is not what some users here have claimed. It's simply firmly against any sort of censorship. I disagree with their position, but we are not banning someone with a non-neutral point of view who is using Wikipedia to push their own specific agenda, it's that we should consider our actions before removing any material, even contentious material. A ban here would be a really frustrating thing to see, since we'd be using consensus to effectively shout down someone with a critical viewpoint. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Many of the users above seem to be failing to fully understand the situation here. No one's trying to punish Wnt for thinking that we should be able to academically examine and employ offensive sources as needed, without getting offended and emotional and rushing to censor them. That's not even a point of contention, and it never was. Framing this as some blind, irrational, emotional backlash to censor a user who has purely academic interests in a neo-Nazi source is nothing but a false narrative spun by the user. The actual context of the situation is that a user linked to a neo-Nazi blog under the guise of providing news sources. The link in this context had no academic interest, and absolutely no redeeming encyclopedic/academic qualities whatsoever. There was no reason to defend the source, indeed there was no reason not to block the user who posted it—and the user who posted it is now blocked as a racist troll. However, when it was deleted, Wnt became irrationally hostile, and everything you see above is his subsequent crusade against the deletion of a link to a neo-Nazi blog that should never have been posted in the first place. Crusading against the removal of a neo-Nazi blog for academic reasons is highly dubious when there never were any academic reasons the whole time, and even more dubious when the same user claims that they are a reader of the neo-Nazi blog in question, and they have an affinity for it. The users skimming over this before drawing conclusions should not play into Wnt's "victim of outrage" act and feel the need rush defend him against some purported anti-Nazi overreaction. This behavior is seriously dubious when the context is examined from a logical perspective, and he is not being crucified out of some emotional flareup. If one feels the proposed sanction is not warranted even in this context, then fine, but many users seem to be buying into Wnt's misrepresentations of what's going on. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, echoing Jayron, F+K and Boing! Blocking somebody because of what they read or what they think or what they have affinity for is Nazi-ish. (Also, suggesting that an editor has an affinity for Nazis is probably a serious personal attack.) Here's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold: we should be able to link on talk pages to the sources that we discuss, even if those sources are odious and unreliable. Reasonable people can differ on that reasonable opinion, and we can decide the matter with consensus. Exactly as Jayron said: there's no edit warring or other violation of policy; there's no grounds to block. Leviv ich 20:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• ’’’Oppose’’’, simply, with no hypothetical conditions asserted. Note jayron speaks about if wnt does x against some hypothetical future consensus then block. There is no such hypothetical future consensus, and no reason to limit wnt who has been perfectly reasonable. So simply there is no basis to block or ban. —Doncram (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looking at the history of the talk page in question, I think the indef block is unwarranted and founded on exaggeration or mischaracterization. Deli nk (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as extremely excessive - support closure , clearly never going to be a consensus for this. I would be happier to block the proposer User:Tsumikiria, why propose an excessive restriction against a respected long term contributer. I will also note that one of the involved parties user:NikitaSadkov has since been indefed - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, you're absolutely right: Nikita, the user Wnt has been crusading in support of this entire time, is indeffed as a racist troll. What a coincidence! ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't support a block but, seriously, think twice about giving equal time to neo-Nazis. There is a time when being "balanced" means being suppotive to ethnic cleansing. Do not take being NPOV to absurd lengths. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody here is suggesting "giving equal time to neo-Nazis", and if you are accusing Wnt of that then you are seriously out of line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have mixed feelings about linking to terrible sites on the talk page if/when they're relevant to the discussion, but in the case of the Daily Stormer, I'm inclined to think there's almost never going to be a valid reason to do so. I've found Wnt's responses throughout this thread to be ... less than reassuring ... but I really can't see indeffing someone with a clean block log and 30-someodd-thousand edits before even attempting something less (a topic ban on reinstating removed links would be a specific, albeit unusual, remedy, for example -- not that I'm proposing as much). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, well, how about this as an alternative suggestion? A topic ban for not reinstating website links to neo-Nazi or white supremacy websites onto Wikipedia articles except for on pages about those organizations? How can anyone object to this? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Why wow? This doesn't seem like a serious proposal, but correct me if I'm wrong. My big question is why the very first proposal is indeffing someone with no other blocks and no other proposed remedies. This is not a Wikid77 scenario, where there's considerable evidence of a long-term pattern of problematic behavior with regard to race, etc., just bad judgment (and doubling down) in this case. Maybe others have more experience with Wnt than I do and can provide additional diffs to other discussions, but I don't see this as a scenario where we should be indeffing someone as first recourse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess you have not been a reader of his posts to Jimbo Wales'talk page where he/she has defended individuals who've been censured for their sexist, racist or homophobic points of views. He frequently defends the otherwise indefensible. I have no problem with an individual who wants to give the Daily Stormer the benefit of the doubt despite their racism and anti-Semitism. But it should happen OFF of Wikipedia, not in our articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Without examples to review and know the details, the broad fact that Wrt is trying to make sure that editors are not punished simply for holding a specific view and otherwise are editing per all other expected decorum is exactly correct; as soon as we condemn editors only for viewpoints they have and not because of their actions, that breaks the openness of the project. I could care less if an editor is a card-carrying member of the KKK, as long as they are not pushing POVs, treat editors with respect, and otherwise edit competently, it should not matter despite that most would consider that membership repungnent. This is my thought-police concern from earlier, which is absolutely unacceptable on WP. --Masem (t) 01:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

True I do not often pay much attention to Jimbo's talk page. Perhaps if I did, I would have enough concrete examples of wildly inappropriate behavior and/or bad judgment that I'd be more sympathetic to an indef proposed as first and only option. I am basing my response on this thread, though, and the evidence presented here, and I don't think it's fair to expect people to voice an opinion about what is nearly the most severe recourse possible based on anything else. My bar for an indef is perhaps high. I feel like other, lesser sanctions can fix most things well enough while also letting the user stick around to evaluate their own actions and convince people something has changed down the road. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support of course. Wnt's passing mention of anything marginally positive in any way related to neo-Nazis and his refusal to unequivocally condemn them as nothing less than child-molesting cannibals from Hell makes him highly suspicious of dissidence. But it's his blatant defence of information over antifa doctrine that condemns him as a heretic. Since it would be difficult to [unnecessary violent imagery redacted by Floquenbeam], a permanent ban will have to do for now. Drilou (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone here ever wanted to establish the "antifa doctrine" and personally locate and beat up Wnt for not painting Nazis as child-eating demons? This is really some graphic and grotesque strawman. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• That is in fact exactly the sort of thing antifa do and advocate. And I might point out that you openly admit to supporting antifa. Which is exactly what I expected to see on your user page, as it's certainly in line with demanding the ban of a user solely on the grounds of suspicion that he might be a secret "Nazi", because he dared defend another user based on the idea that discussing sources and their contents on talk pages should be allowed. Drilou (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yea, I'd expect a new batch of straw man. Why do you feel that it is imperatively necessary to highlight and expose a user's off-wiki, ideological support for an antifascist movement? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Tsumikiria: - hilariously dishonest. Your "ideological support for an antifascist movement" is definitely on-wiki. [66] You added the Antifa userbox to your userpage in October 2018 with the edit summary fash trash go to ash. starship.paint ~ KO 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I support Swarm's comment above. Both Wnt's die-on-the-hill explanations and attempts to frame this as some emotional backlash, pure content dispute, or censorship of dissent opinions are extremely disingenuous. Wnt's defence and even praise for a neo-Nazi website, and express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology, is truly appalling and fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. This is not something that could be redeemed by edit counts. Per WP:NOTHERE: Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention: Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". A sanction such as indef block or TBAN from broad AP2 topics is absolutely warranted, as alternative TBAN proposals won't restrict Wnt an inch and he will very likely continue this behavior based on his postings above. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Hi Tsumikiria, can you please give us a link to Wnt's "express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology"? Genuine request, as I must have missed it myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have phrased better, but "Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it?" is not encouraging at the very least. In addition, misconstruing our NPOV policy in defense for a Nazi website to be displayed in equal validity among other sources on a talk page section that serves to suggest a vile lie against the victims of Christchurch shooting, is inexcusable. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV has not one iota on talk page discussions, outside of guiding principles of what was to put to the mainspace page. --Masem (t) 01:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Tsumikiria: - read your own quote. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". Congratulations, you've undermined your own argument. Anyway, I have seen Wnt being extremely anti-censorship, but I have not seen Nazism from Wnt. starship.paint ~ KO 01:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wnt has the right attitude not just for Wikipedia but for all online and real-life discussions. It's precisely the attitude taken by his opponents here that causes people like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte etc. to get elected. While we do have the right to remove links, boot people out we don't like etc., making that choice can have negative consequences. Neo-Nazis thrive on the idea that there is a conspiracy against them. While we're not going to change the minds of any hard core Neo-Nazi, the support base of extremist politicians will contain many people who can be persuaded to change their minds. They are mostly invisible to us as most of them only watch a discussion instead of posting themselves. If they see that we have good arguments we win, if we remove posts and boot out the Neo-Nazi for anything less than a violation of our core policies, we lose the argument. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• You've hit the nail on the head, Count Iblis. If we go down the path that mere express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology (not that I've even seen Wnt do that) is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia and warrants an indefinite ban, then we are truly lost. We are forcing ideologies and not focusing on the core policies. starship.paint ~ KO 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced pages

I recently rewrote[67] the article "Mirza Khizr Sultan" due to it being almost entirely unsourced and barely comprehensible.[68] User:Nafeessiddique, who had previously contributed to the article, quickly restored their own, unsourced content under the sub-headings "Family" and "Ancestors" (since corrected to "Descendants").[69] I asked them on their Talk Page if they could provide references for their additions,[70] and when they did not respond, I reverted.[71] They then restored their content, and responded on their Talk Page that if I wanted sources, I should "go To Rampur Raza library or Istanbul Museum" to prove it for myself.[72] They followed by complaning that "the deep state" was trying to restrict information [73] (these responses were written under separate sub-headings).

They have since created two more, closely related articles in the same vein, with the two references between them not actually mentioning the subjects.[74][75] I have not been able to find any coverage of either of these individuals and I don't think they can be considered notable, even if they did exist.

Also note that the content they added went far beyond the scope of the article, including descendents born all the way up to the 1990s. The fact that Nafeessiddique mentioned that their "jewellery" was all the historical evidence they need for their content,[76] leads me to believe that they are basing their info off their own family traditions and family members, possibly posing a conflict of interest. They have since stopped responding in the Talk Page, ignoring my continued requests for sources.[77]
Alivardi (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted them, given them a 3RR warning and pointed out that Royalark.net isn't a RS (discussed at RSN). They don't seem competent, eg this comment by them on their talk page: "I know that you want to be create a environment regarding Great Empires of the world if you don't want to give correct information for the people then we don't need to go Sach type of one sided world in which everything information according to Deep state who is ruling the real world just like they did in past during University of Qurtba every documents Steeled and then a rule passed by Government that everyone should go to patent his discovery in the Royal Scientific Society . So Don't worry we have historical evidence of documentation .. which is our Jewelry.." Huh? Doug Weller talk 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Muhammad Khanbahadur which bundles both new articles. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Evlekis: extension of range blocks and removal of TPA requested

• 46.233.78.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (Telefonica O2 UK; apparently Evlekis's home range)
• 94.119.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (The Cloud Networks open WiFi)
• @Boing! said Zebedee, NinjaRobotPirate, and Edgar181: Both of the ranges above are currently rangeblocked (the first one CU-blocked and the second one blocked for masive vandalism), with blocks that will soon expire (the first range three days from now, the second one on 3 April), blocks that prevent Evlekis from using the ranges for vandalism, but doesn't prevent him from spewing crap on talk pages of various IPs in those ranges (see recent contributions from the two ranges), so I'm requesting long extensions of their current blocks, to prevent them being used for vandalism (since Evlekis obviously is still using them, and is showing no intention of ever stopping...), and removal of TPA for the whole ranges, to stop Evlekis from posting abuse, and wasting other editors' time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: please don't reply to threads like this saying something is done when you haven't done it. I'll take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding my own comment, the blocks were extended by another admin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer article and categories (including Sub-Categories)

I consulted the Users talkpage regarding my objections, but the User just didn't get my point. Therefore, I am posting here. (It is the first time for me, since all disputes before could be handled on a talkpage. But the user here is making several questional edits in a short time). It is about Category:Lucifer and the sub-categories in general nad not only about different versions of one article (for that reason I do not use diffs but only links to the articles and categories). Since there are several issues I would make a list:

• I stated that Lucifer (the fallen angel or Satan in Christianity) has no official offspring. The sub-category Category:Offspring of Lucifer‎ is undue.
• Further, I objected the category itself, since we already have a Category:Satan. Both would be just Content fork.
• On talkpage he answers that this category is not intented to be abuot the fallen angel Lucifer but about the Greek deity Phosphorus (morning star). Both are, although both derive from an interpretation of the Planet Venus, distinct figures. Simultaneously, he added Category Lucifer to several other Categories, which are not related to the Greek deity Phosphorus in any way, such as Bogomilism (In Bogomilism, Lucifer is only a demiurge not related to the phosphorus legend in any way, but is only Lucifer in the sense of Satan. Further he also added his new Category to Category:Fallen angels and Category:Satan, thus the Category covers two distinct ideas and merges them together.
• I further suspect Original research, sinc creating a genealogy between a Planet, considered as a deity, who literally begets children, absent in later myths, which derives from this, could be a conclusion by the User himself/herself. As stated above, I tried to talk to the User, but the User only offered me sources, which do not even support his claims.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Largely irrelevant. The article Lucifer is not about Satan, but the mythological god/figure from Greek and Roman religion. As the article already states:
• In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch. The Greek name for this planet was variously Phosphoros (also meaning "light-bringer") or Heosphoros (meaning "dawn-bringer"). Lucifer was said to be "the fabled son of Aurora and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.
• The second century Roman mythographer Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:

"The fourth star is that of Venus, Luciferus by name. Some say it is Juno's. In many tales it is recorded that it is called Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Luciferus and Hesperus."

• Ovid, in his first century epic Metamorphoses, describes Lucifer as ordering the heavens:

"Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae took flight, in marshaled order set by Lucifer who left his station last."

• "In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths, though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."
• Phosphorus (morning star) is not a distinct deity, but the Greek version of the same mythological figure, the son of Eos/Aurora (mythology).
• VenusFeuerFalle claims OR, despite both the article on Lucifer and his parents and offspring already having sources on the genealogy of this deity. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you both might get better results with a third opinion. @VenusFeuerFalle:, I noticed that several times in your discussion on the Talk page that you said "let an admin decide", but admins don't mediate content disputes. Try the third opinion option, or Dispute Resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Also try the article talk page. The diffs from the article's edit history really don't show that much of a disagreement, just some bluelinks/bible verse links added/removed. Seems to me the disagreement is whether Lucifer and Phosphorus (morning star) are separate entities or not? This is a pure content dispute and as such you need to either get more opinions or go to dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to call an Admin, since this was recommanded when someone makes several edits, which might be disruptive. It is not only the Lucifer article, but also the Category: Lucifer, there different concepts are merged together. As an ordinary user, I can not revert so many Category edits over and over again. But when I will try the talkpages.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I would recommend admin oversight specific instances, especially in cases of WP:3RR, but I see this so far as a pure and honest content dispute between two experienced editors. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Date format IP

Previously raised here. IP is now back at 187.114.163.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (also in Salvador, Brazil). @Oshwah: who assisted last time. GiantSnowman 09:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oswah has been inactive since 21 March. He might be on a wikibreak. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's only 4 days including a weekend, so he might just have a normal life ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, Oshwah? Surely you jest. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who has over 400K edits doesn't have a normal life. Still, he didn't edit the (extended) weekend of March 16 either - someone needs to talk to him about his responsibility to be available 24x7.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we start a Go Fund Me to send User:Oshwah on a vacation where there is no wifi? He shouldn't be in the Top 100 admin counts so soon. He's s still a young'un for an admin. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible advertising

User:Mmkulu has been kept creating articles about some unknown guy named Muhammad (or Osman) Kulu. He won't stop even after several warnings. Judging from his name, he might even be describing himself or promoting here. Can we do something, such as cooling him down with a short block? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not all, his user page has been deleted several times for "web host". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CHecking their edit history, the page they created this morning was the first edit they made at all to Wikipedia since 2015. I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet (though to be honest, I'm surprised it didn't happen years ago). I'll keep an eye out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've creation protected the userpage (repeatedly recreated since 2011) and also Osman Kulu. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Ktf87 and personal attacks

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

---

• Ktf87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After reverting some edits by Ktf87 at Infinity and Infinity (philosophy) (see recent article history and some brief discussion on the article talk pages), I was called a racist by them, first on the second article talk page (diff). I gave them a warning on their talk page, to which they responded by doubling down (diff). I gave them a final warning after that. After I also undid an edit of theirs at Fred Moten, they've now taken to the talk page to continue to call me a racist and such like (diff). I think I've had enough at this point.

On a related note, I'll point out that I found the Fred Moten edit after seeing a whole mess of similar edits from a lot of different IPs and new users on some related pages. I don't especially think this is a big socking effort, but looks more like some sort of class assignment. Some of the additions have been okay, but quite a lot of them seem to cross the WP:POV line. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read through Ktd87's edits and conclude, politely, that they are not improvements to the encyclopedia. The ones to infinity, in particular, I have read five or six times and still can't understand what it is they are trying to say. CIR, plus accusations of racism, probably should result in a block. Fish+Karate 15:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeffing now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what part of

"1 (life) ÷ 0 (blackness) = ∞ − ∞ or ∞ / ∞: On Matter Beyond the Equation of Value": What I do in this text is activate blackness’s disruptive force, that is, its capacity to tear the veil of transparency (even if briefly) and disclose what lies at the limits of justice. With a thought experiment that I call the Equation of Value, designed to help the imagination break away from the enclosures of modern thought, this speculative exercise reaches for The Thing, which is the referent of blackness, or that which in it is exposed as the excess that justifies otherwise untenable racial violence. When taken not as a category but as a referent of another mode of existing in the world, blackness returns The Thing at the limits of modern thought. Or, put differently, when deployed as method, blackness fractures the glassy walls of universality understood as formal determination. The violence inherent in the illusion of that value is both an effect and an actualization of self-determination, or autonomy. My itinerary is simple. It begins with considerations of the role of determinacy—formal determination articulated as a kind of efficient causation—in modern thought, and closes with a proof of the Equation of Value, intended to release that which in blackness has the capacity to disclose another horizon of existence, with its attendant accounts of existence.

is unclear to you? EEng 17:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an attempt to summon The Great Old Ones (or possibly a Cenobite). Ia! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's WP:OR, that's all. Fine for a college paper but inappropriate for Wikipedia. No need for mocking. Lots of people misunderstand what WP is for. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Au contraire, mon frère. Mockery is absolutely needful here. Imperative, in fact. Not optional. Heaven and earth cry out for it. Jesus cries out for it. Joseph and Mary the Virgin cry out for it. The Saints and Apostles cry out for it. EEng 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Linda Gottfredson

Sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I don't usually edit in contentious areas like this. There's some edit warring going on here, even though the article is under discretionary sanctions. Perhaps somebody experienced in these matters can have a look. (not me, and I'm involved as I have commented on the talk page). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Randy, the correct venue would be WP:AE as there is a violation of WP:DS per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvurta - again again.

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

---

Straight out of his latest block, Tvurta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding the exact same contended material that caused his last two blocks. Also still not using edit summaries. IT seems clear at this point that there will be no change in his behaviour.

• Edit to Lord Voldemort to add contested occupation[78]
• Changing Snape's name to include "Professor"[79]

Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reblocked the account for making the same edits that led to the previous blocks. They can be unblocked when they agree to follow our policies and guidelines with regard to sourcing, consensus, and communication.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff Clearly Tvurta is unwilling to learn or change their behavior, making them WP:NOTHERE. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• A mention on WP:LAME seems appropriate too. Wow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the previous blocking administrators, I endorse this indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is [80]. Past IP edit examples: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87].

The motive behind these edits is unclear (anti-Semitic? Zionist?).

These edits from this range are sparse, so a range block would be inappropriate. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that can be done (edit filter maybe?) but figured I should let admins know about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing a person's ethnicity to "Jewish" has at times created a lot of negative feedback. There was an enormous to-do over indicating Bernie Sanders is Jewish back in 2016. But there are different reasons for this reluctance so I, for one, would have to know why the IP editor was insistent over changing this aspect of a bio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "ethnicity" but rather changing what was previously a person's nationality or citizenship to "Jewish" in the lead sentence of a BLP. This is inherently disruptive because it promotes the inference that Jews are not legitimate citizens of the countries where they live and hold legal citizenship. The comparison to the 2016 "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish" controversy on Wikipedia is not valid. Not one single editor ever advocated that the lead sentence of his biography should be changed from describing him as an American politician to a Jewish politician. In brief, the issue was instead whether an ethnic Jew who is not religiously observant should be described as "Jewish" in the infobox, which implies religious affiliation. That was a far more nuanced and intelligent discussion and completely different from going to articles about Swedish citizens and American citizens, removing their citizenship, and calling them "Jewish" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Death threat

I think this deserves an indefinite block. There's really no way anyone can believe this is acceptable. To be clear, [...] child-molesting cannibals from Hell makes him highly suspicious of dissidence. But it's his blatant defence of information over antifa doctrine that condemns him as a heretic. Since it would be difficult to have him located and shot, a permanent ban will have to do for now. is not something that someone needs a warning against. Natureium (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: Someone removed the post, and he replaced it with Since it would be difficult to have him located and beaten to a pulp with metal rods, a permanent ban will have to do for now. This is still completely inappropriate. Natureium (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't defend or support the thinking behind it, but this is clearly hyperbole in the service of sarcasm, and the user actually supports Wnt. As such, it is not a death threat, nor is it a threat of physical violence. Now someone may or may not want to remove it anyway, but don't indef the guy for making threats when that wasn't his intent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We indef people with no questions for legal threats, but not for violent threats? It being sarcasm doesn't make it less disturbing. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a violent threat. It's saying that people who want to block Wnt are the same as people who want to kill him or beat him up. It's not useful, and I don't care if someone wants to remove it for one of a couple of different reasons, I'm just saying he is not threatening anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't read even the updated version and be clear it is meant to be sarcastic. There's a reason we have TROUTS to slap people around with in a sarcastic manner, but suggesting physical violence given everything around it? No, I don't expect Wrt to be in any threat but its still language we do not want editors using lightly. --Masem (t) 00:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Point taken. I guess people have different ideas of what is acceptable for a public forum. Natureium (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, I've redacted the particularly over-the-top portion. An action which, I guess, Wnt would hate.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it as inappropriate. The second offense was also inappropriate. But, WP:BITE applies. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clear to me that the editor didn't mean the post as a death threat (especially since it was posted in an ANI discussion). But it does highlight that legal threats are frequently handled with an immediate indefinite block while violent threats are given more nuanced consideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the implication, Liz. I've been dealing with actual violent threats for a while. I don't give actual violent threats "nuanced consideration". The violent imagery was, as someone said above, a strawman. So is implying I care less about violent threats than I do about legal threats. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a strawman it is in a sense. Problem with nuanced violent imagery, is many folks don’t ken nuance. That’s why I removed it. Still think BITE applies and a mild, unlogged warning might help the user. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I didn't read it as a threat at all - just a sarcastic comment on those who seek sanctions for Wnt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I volunteer to be blocked for making this [88] death threat. EEng 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone knows the risk they take by visiting your talk page. Natureium (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)