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

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" : [1] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [2]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [3]), here are some examples : [4], [5], [6], [7]

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 : [8].---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.[9] 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 [10] [11] 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 [12], 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 [13] 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 [14] 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 [15]

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 provided 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)

I know for myself that I was certainly a newbie editor at 130 edits. Even though I'd been on the project for years, at 130 edits I just didn't know much about policy and mainly just fixed typos. It wasn't until I got several hundreds edits and started editing regularly that I got familiar with how stuff works around here. And English WP policy obviously differs from that of other projects. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 1 April 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)

Note to administrators : Please review this report, it's 12 days old and has been archived two times while there is a clear consensus for its outcome. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see anything in the recent editing history that would make me comfortable blocking this individual. UninvitedCompany 19:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the said user has stopped his disruptive editing since this report was filed, but they'll come at it again as soon as we will close it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps we just give them a warning for now, and the next time they are disruptive a block is highly likely. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 1 April 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 [16] 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 [17]. 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 [18]. 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)

When you fail to get supporters for your harassment at ANi, cite the thread at ArbComm as evidence. Comedy gold. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 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.[19] 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 [20] 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)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" [21], calling other users who are interested in portals as biased [22], and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not of fan of Legacypac's conduct by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand why other users are frustrated. Nevertheless, it was absolutely inappropriate for OhanaUnited to use the term 'xenophic' in this context. Such use of the term is insensitive to those who experience real xenophobia and is a plainly wrong representation of what Legacypac actually said. That much should be made very clear. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This Admin has not backed down on the use of this slur, and has doubled down at ArbComm. They exercise very poor judgement. Done in the context of a request for WP:ADMINACCT makes this especially offensive. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually subscribe to "there's one law for ordinary editors and another for admins" conspiracy type theories on WP but I think if this had not been an admin who made a grotesque personal attack on another editor they would have had to retract or at least receive a rebuke from an admin. I still think User:OhanaUnited didn't actually know what the word "xenophobic" means and has had to flail about to try to find some ridiculous, unconvincing rationale for its use. Those diffs User:OhanaUnited supplies do not justify the accusation of "xenophobia", it is an absurd and offensive slur.Smeat75 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest that, for starters, OhanaUnited re-reads WP:ADMINCOND, andthen perhaps explains how accusing editors of xenophobia represents an appropriate standard...of courtesy and civility. ——SerialNumber54129 17:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's not as if it were a random word choice - it was commenting specifically on the editor's perceived fear of the fact the discussion was closed by someone other than a "normal" moderator. We're making too much of this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We're making too much of this indeed. OhanaUnited has clarified what they meant, and that they are not accusing Legacypac of being racist. OU could and should have used a different word, but by continuing to focus on it we're just taking attention away from the actual issues with Legacypac's behaviour (oh, and that OU is an admin is completely irrelevant here - a non-admin making an inadvisable word choice that was understandably misinterpreted as a person attack but actually wasn't one would not be treated any differently). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that a non-Admin would have been treater the same. Even when the offensiveness of this slur was explained to this Admin - who used the slur in context of WP:ADMINACCT, they stand by the slur and have not apologized or retracted it, nor even admitted they used the wrong word. This shows very bad judgement for any editor, and especially for an Admin. Do we have open season to broadly accuse editors of anything we feel like? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The DRV overturned User:OhanaUnited's close which proves their complaint against me here is invalid. Now - what are we going to do about their conduct? Free pass because they are an Admin? Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac posted this diff on my talk page accusing me of supporting a personal attack. As I've described above, I do not believe OhanaUnited called Legacypac a "racist" as Legacypac claimed on my talk page, nor was the DRV technically "overturned" Wikipedia:Deletion review#Portal:Bacon (closed). I'm very concerned with Legacypac's behaviour here, not necessarily the posting on my talk page (which I found quite odd) but more specifically this battleground mentality against OhanaUnited and portals generally, specifically because the DRV closer mentioned the nomination itself, led by Legacypac, was defective. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• The admin has responded by saying that when he called Lpac "xenophobic", he wasn't saying that Lpac was racist, just that he has a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners. A fellow admin calls this "clarification"; I call it "doubling down on a personal attack". Tomato, tomahto, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leviv ich 17:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I assure everyone I do not have a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. SportingFlyer continues to support this smear against me even when I pointed out they should not be doing that. Indeed I withdrew the Mfd nom because the underlying article assessments by WikiProject Portals were screwy. SportingFlyer seems to have missed there is a big cleanup job around portals going on and nothing in my conduct in the cleanup rises to any kind of problem worth discussing. A non-Admin might have been blocked for making a personal attack like this, and this Admin did it in the context of WP:ADMINACCT. I want the attack removed by RevDel and an apology. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 2 April 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 [23] 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)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 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)

This Barb is aimed straight at ya'

EEng

Yeah, I believe that barb was aimed at me. Perhaps the aimer can clarify where I ever advocated such a thing, or, you never know, just apologise. Sheesh. -- Begoon 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "aimer" you are referring to me, then I don't see a need to apologise for stating something which is true: You desire to see portals deleted without regard to quality. Portals contain content (that it is republished content is the whole point of portals). Some portals you wish to see deleted contain content that is bad and/or badly organised, some portals contain content that is good and/or well organised (and others contain content that is between the two, it's not black and white). Therefore what you desire is the deletion of both good and bad content. You are perfectly entitled to have this opinion, but those of us who do not share that opinion are not being disruptive simply by disagreeing with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The TTH portals don't "contain" any content, contrary to your claim. They "display" content which is kept elsewhere. No content is deleted by deleting these portals. Twisting words to suit your purpose (like you did as well with your novel definition of "merging" at the CfDs, or like OhanaUnited did in a much worse way with their version of "xenophobic" as a synonym of "neophobic") is not a good thing, and seems to match the kind of comments and votes you argue to be stricken and sanctionable at the arb case request. Fram (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram, the very basic misunderstanding of the nature of portals which you explain so well there is quite fundamental to this whole debate, and the issues being considered. It's alarming that it should need to be set out at all, and even more so that it needs to be explained to an admin ... but it certainly does need to be explained.

It seems to me to be a central part of the issues being considered in respect of a possible arbcom case, so please may I urge you to add something to that effect to your statement at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fram? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[24]

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes [my] true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Wikipedia, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Wikipedia for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. [31] This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: Re dispute predating the article: I don't follow the pit bull article and have never edited it. Nor have I bothered to check revisions of the pit bull article. I didn't join as a wiki editor until Nov 2018, so anything that went on over there last summer was never on my radar and was not anything I was referring to in Talk:DogsBite.org. Neither did PearlSt82 come on my radar until I discovered the Dogsbite.org article (Feb 2019). Indeed, the entirety of the Talk:DogsBite.org page is only 38 days old. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: As for the lowellsun.com citation, it was removed by me once and also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I think for a total of three times. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over PearlSt82's edits again, and I didn't see anything really problematic. There doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR vio, nor does it seem like an edit war. They have been civil, and they have interacted on the talk page thoroughly. I think that the more problematic editor here is Nomopbs. Take for example this edit, showing a less than civil interaction. Or Talk:Dogsbite.org#Article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View, where Nomopbs seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't forsee this ending with a censuring of PearlSt82; I think their conduct has been admirable considering the situation. Rather I say that this matter either boomerang on Nomopbs with probably a topic ban, or the matter dropped. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. [32] I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs' edit history on Wikipedia (versus PearlSt82's ad hominem attacks)

Let's look at wiki's statistics (editor contributions), instead of simply jumping on PearlSt82's bandwagon and adding to his smearing my wiki reputation with an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

PearlSt82 asserts that I'm anti pit bull, however...

• PearlSt82's wiki statistics [33] show that PearlSt82 has made 108 edits to the Pit bull page, 44 to Dogsbite.org (whom P considers is anti-pit bull), and the rest mainly to "men's rights movement" type pages.

• Nomopbs' wiki statistics [34] show I have made 290 edits to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page, 40 to Dogsbite.org and a bunch of miscellany. I have made ZERO edits to the pit bull page, and just 6 edits (link maintenance) to the American Pit Bull Terrier page.

So tell me... Which editor is looking like a pit bull advocate? And which editor is NOT looking anti-pit bull?

Destructive editing:

• Going backwards in time, the last 8 edits PearlSt82 made to the pit bull page were REVERTS, earlier was 2 contributions, 3 reverts, 1 contribution, 3 reverts, then 2 contributions.
• PearlSt82's last biggest contribution on that page was the removal of 11,612 characters,[35] an entire section of 'studies about pit bulls', the majority of which pointed to them being dangerous and implicated them in a higher percentage of attacks than their population percentage indicated.[36] That was in 2016.
• PearlSt82 did the same thing in 2015. [37]

That's a lot of destruction and not a lot of construction.

Whether or not the reverts were warranted isn't my point. What I'm saying is that in the last three years, PearlSt82 destroyed/removed/reverted more than he contributed (on the pit bull topic). Why? Are the majority of his 108 edits even more years back when he established the page and now he's taken ownership of it (WP:OWN) and is guarding the pit bull article against all comers who might say something unflattering about pit bulls? Scroll further to see the full extent of PearlSt82's reversions on the pit bull page:[38] What you'll see is a long series of reverts. Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"?

The article Dogsbite.org, though created by editor Dwanyewest, was immediately taken over by PearlSt82. Every single one of his edits contributes only to "criticism" of DogsBite.org as an organization. He has contributed nothing constructive or even neutral. He has railed against all of my contructive or neutral edits on that page. A little bit about DogsBite.org (based on what I see in their website and have read about online): they collect information on fatal dog attacks, they post statistics about such attacks, post that pit bulls are the majority breed involved, post proposed solutions to the pit bull problem including breed specific legislation, and it could be said they are anti-pit bull. Considering PearlSt82's edits on the pit bull page, and the POV you can conclude from those edits, I can see why he must only write criticism on the DogsBite.org article. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't excuse his reversions, nor his disruptive editing against me.

Constructive editing:

On the other hand, I have been a heavy contributor to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. My edits have been "constructive" (adding text), rather than "destructive" (removing text) or "inhibitive" (reverting). And I don't discriminate between incidents with pit bulls versus non pit bulls. Here [39] is my log of edits to the fatalities pages, just search for "added victim" (from the edit summary column). The last 10 additions I made of victims (in reverse chronological order) were deaths caused by the breeds Rottweiler, Rottweiler, Unspecified, Pits & mixes, Presa Canario, Great Dane, American Bulldog, Pit mix, Pit bull, and German Shepherd. I have added 158,203 bytes to that article and deleted 9,666 bytes (less than 1% of my addition count). Now THAT is a lot of work. If I hated pit bulls, wouldn't I have been adding only fatalities caused by pit bulls (to increase the percentages)? Wouldn't I have quit spending so much time researching, getting citations and writing new entries for fatalities caused by non-pit bulls? It takes about 30 minutes of work for each single fatality I add, and I've added dozens, maybe even a 100 by now. I have been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia on this topic. The fatalities page got so long, someone split it in half (made another page). And then later split it again. So now there are three wiki pages to cover all the fatalies by dog in the USA.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking into (not 'at') my contributions/edit history would have seen my neutral POV with respect to pit bulls. If my agenda was to push an anti-pit bull POV, then I would have been done with my work on the Fatalities page long ago. This disruption by PearlSt82 re Dogsbite.org is just a sideline distraction that is keeping me from my real work.

Disruptive editing:

PearlSt82 only used an ad hominem personal attack to get me out of his way, to try to get me banned for WP:SPA or WP:COI, and to try to get sympathetic support for his viewpoint against me (to obtain a false concensus; not based on facts). PearlSt82 accused me above of being "a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages." However, there is no evidence that I have made ANY anti-pit bull edits, NOR ANY pro BSL edits. He has failed to support his claims. His 'smoke and mirrors' contribute to my claim that PearlSt82 has been WP:DISRUPTIVE (as he was in 2015 on this very same subject!).

Four years ago, PearlSt82 displayed in great detail his disruptive behavior about DogsBite.org in a 2015 discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [40] It involved EIGHT OTHER wiki editors (User:Epeefleche, User:AndyTheGrump, User:EvergreenFir, User:Blueboar, User:DrFleischman, User:GRuban, User:Arkon, User:RightCowLeftCoast) and no one took PearlSt82's side. PearlSt82 was combative, refusing to get their points, continued to argue "content" instead of RS, and wasn't interested in concensus. For whatever reason, or for no reason whatsoever, PearlSt82 is rabidly opposed to DogsBite.org, and has been since at least 2015. Which is why I groan when PearlSt82 posts (for the umpteenth time) about trying to get concensus on the issue today, when his opinions and behavior towards THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT hasn't changed in four years despite other editors chiming in.

When is enough enough? When will the disruption end?

Nomopbs (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I was referring to in my initial response. I find this bit: Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"? particularly telling, as this is the exact same line of thought Dogsbite.org has been criticized for by RS, and is what Nomopbs has objected to, in part calling it libel. In light of this libel accusation on the talk page after the ANI report was filed, I'm a bit concerned by this phrase in Nomopbs' initial ANI filing: PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia) - what do they mean when they say "at least two" reports? How do they arrive at a figure of multiple filed reports, but an indeterminate number? Are they saying that they themselves have filed multiple reports? Or do they know of others that have filed reports? If the latter, how do they know this? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

racist admins

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

---

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui

the irony is not lost. immediately after the christchurch attacks, admins sought to delete a perfectly fine article on the basis that it used sources from foreign media. allegations were made that it was biased, on the basis that they could not read French. As they could not read French, they could not assess notability and therefor it was not a notable article. A 2017 BBC article lists the top news agencies in france. and the topic was mentioned in all the top news sources listed by the BBC.

No specific criticisms were made. if you have any particular questions I can answer them but I dont really feel like writing a PhD length reply to explain each point. Retired but just came back to answer questions.

also wow, if you thought the article was biased, check out english language news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

References

WP:DRV is the place to go, but without the accusations of racism and bad faith. Stop that now. Right now you're just calling attention to your own conduct. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

bad faith closure of topic

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

---

admin user:Acroterion believes it is evil to call someone racist for pointing out admins have deleted a topic using French references because those admins believe French is an insignificant language. I dont think he knows what racist means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.21.145 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to open a new main heading for this so I've moved to be a subheading of the original topic. It seems to me you're running a strong risk of a WP:BOOMERANG by not just dropping it since WP:NPA applies to admins too but it's your funeral. BTW why are you editing logged out? Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually are you @Verify references: or not? I assumed you were but reading your comment more carefully, I'm not sure if you are or are just someone else interfering.

Anyway while Acroterion did make a comment on the inappropriateness of what Verify references said, Acroterion was not the one who closed the topic. That was User:Amaury who I AGF from their closing statement is not an administrator.

Also only two admins were involved in the deletion discussion, User:Liz and User:Miniapolis. Neither of them said anything about any problem with references being in French, let alone French being an insignificant language. I'm not counting the closer/deleter, Beeblebrox as they were only involved in an administrative capacity and so I assume have no personal opinion on whether the article should be deleted and are simply going by the consensus they read in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AbdelFattah Rahhaoui.

User:Peter303x is the only one who said anything about the references being in French although still nothing about French being an insignificant language. Special:UserRights/Peter303x is not even extended confirmed! They are probably not aware of WP:NONENG as they are a relatively inexperienced editor. (The account has existed since 2013 but they still have less than 500 edits.) Provided they're willing to listen and learn and take care, this is fine, they will learn over time. The "significance" of a language is of course irrelevant to NONENG concerns anyway, as it should be. I'm assuming User:Beeblebrox who closed the discussion mostly ignore that !vote since it wasn't well grounded in policy and wikipedia norms so it's irrelevant to the deletion.

Which means, there's actually a good reason for a block of Verify references and whoever is behind the IP if the personal attack isn't withdrawn immediately.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Verify references has been to ANI several times for various wild claims. The most recent ANI ended here after Verify references "retired". (Verify posted this ANI, but it quickly boomeranged on Verify after they made repeated use of slurs and refused to acknowledge their incivility and offensiveness). @Dlohcierekim: ended that ANI by asking for an indeff of Verify, considering that they retired. The ANI was closed before an indeff materialized. But it seems that such "retirement" was disingenuous. I am of the opinion that Verify references is WP:NOTHERE. I do have an edit conflict in this issue, having been involved in the last two ANI's with Verify as well as a strange content dispute on Talk:Black-throated finch (for which Verify tried to snipe me at in a totally unrelated ANI??), so take my opinion for what its worth. But I think the links alone tell the tale. Also note this wild ANI which Verify posted, in which they accused a long gone editor of sockpuppetry; the resulting conversation devolved quickly. Moral of the story: I support an indeff for Verify references. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP, who is obviously just looking for somebody to fight with, and indef-blocked Verify references, who is also looking to pick fights. I don't think the appearance of the IP is a coincidence, and their method of spewing accusations in all directions speaks for itself. Verify references appears to be unable to assume good faith on several fronts, and prefers to see racism behind everything. The bogus French reference complaint is a Verify references thing. (I've written dozens of articles using French references, by the way). I see no chance that this will change. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Biased and Improper Conduct by User:Ad Orientem (self reporting)

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

---

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I have been accused of improper conduct.[41] by Diligens and I place my actions before the community for review. The immediate issue stems from warnings I gave to Diligens for violation of WP:NPA here. This was in response to this edit on the article The Singing Nun which in turn was the most recent edit in an edit war between Diligens and Contaldo80. Subsequently I issued warnings to both editors regarding their edit warring and locked the article for 48 hrs. There followed a discussion on User talk:Diligens which eventually migrated to User Talk:Ad Orientem that I think may be worth reviewing in its entirety.

For background, this is merely the latest chapter in an ongoing content dispute revolving around whether and how to address allegations of homosexuality in The Singing Nun. This first popped up on my radar in early February (see link below) when Diligens sought my opinion on the issue with a question that was framed as a hypothetical.

• First contact where Diligens presented a question with relevant details omitted and asked my opinion on including allegations that "most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief."

There followed a brief discussion and then I found myself drawn into the discussion on Talk:The Singing Nun. I regret that the discussion is lengthy. During the course of the discussion I offered advice and opinions to an extent that I believe I became WP:INVOLVED. My participation ended on the 15th of February, approximately six weeks ago. Whether or not that is enough time to remove the taint of INVOLVED is perhaps closer than I would like. If the community believes it is too close, I am more than happy to step back entirely from this article.

A review of the discussion will show that there was some heated back and forth including accusations of bad faith editing and so on. At the end of my involvement I advised Diligens that I believed they should step away from the article.[42]

Some final thoughts: I believe Diligens is well intentioned but their editing history appears tendentious. In particular I think their obvious hostility to homosexuality is coloring their editing to an unacceptable degree. That is not to say that I think their concerns are baseless. As I stated back in February the question of sexual preference is one around which the community has consistently chosen to tread very carefully. But that question is merely background to the issues I am laying before the community here. In my opinion Diligens has raised enough red flags in their editing on this article to cause me to support some kind of topic ban. Probably the most narrow would apply only to The Singing Nun. A broader one might cover the topic of homosexuality broadly construed.

If the community concludes that I have in any way erred in my own conduct, I bow to its judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• What??? EEng 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to say what EEng has to say but much less concisely. Having read everything, where do you think you erred? SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't (conceding that some might say six weeks is cutting it close for INVOLVED). But Diligens made accusations after being cautioned more than once about their editing and frankly I think this needs to be looked at by other experienced editors. Admins generally can't impose Tbans unilaterally (rare ACDS exceptions conceded). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I fail to see how an uninvolved admin would've handled it differently. So, a trout? Or maybe just a minnow? Regarding Diligens...there are red flags for sure, but I would err on the side of ROPE for now. The situation definitely needs an rfc/input from fresh peeps TelosCricket (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I struck the trout/minnow as withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Appendum I'm revising my position: I fully agree there was no wrong doing on Ad Orientem's part. The trout/minnow was a jest and has been withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's what needs to happen, in my opinion:

1. The article needs to be unprotected immediately; we shouldn't have a wiki article with the blatantly POV header "False Rumors" (that the rumors were false is unproven and POV), not even for 48 hours.
2. The version prior to Diligens' edit war needs to be restored.
3. Diligens needs to be warned that any further personal aspersions or attacks will lead to an immediate block.
4. Diligens needs to be reported to WP:ANEW if he reverts again.
5. Discussion needs to proceed only on article talk, never usertalk.
6. If necessary, an RfC can be started.
7. An admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this.
8. If Diligens continues to be disruptive regarding the article, then a new ANI thread should be opened regarding a TBan.

--Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse, the hell, me! What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? Are you sure you want to travel down that road? Is this true for all religions? Then Jewish editors shouldn't handle Jewish-related or sensitive articles/disputes and Muslims shouldn't voice their opinion about Muslim-related articles/disputes and so forth? How do you define "practicing"? Should we believe the same about political allegiances? Democrats shouldn't negotiate disputes about Democratic candidates because they can't be impartial? Talk about casting aspersions! I'm going to edit another page now before I say something I later regret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not say or imply any of that. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you say a Catholic admin shouldn't handle this dispute? I am a Catholic and have many gay Catholic friends. This isn't 50 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Because that is my opinion, as I clearly stated, regarding this dispute. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that reasoning being a slippery slope, how would any user prove they are or are not Catholic? And, conversely, how you could prove that was or was not true? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think SL's point 7 is within reason. Catholics are, necessarily, pro-Catholicism and thus have a POV on Catholic subject articles. This gives, at the very least the appearance of, a COI for a pro-Catholic admin to take admin actions on Catholic subject articles. Hence, someone without a POV or COI should be handling the admin actions. What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? <- you need to re-read what SL wrote, Liz, if that's what you read from [a]n admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this. You're free to edit the article as much as you like within the bounds of WP policy and guideline, but I'd caution against using your tools there. To answer your counter-example: an admin that is registered to the DNC should not be using their tools in Democrat/Republican disputes because they have an apparent COI. That does not mean, and SL has not suggested that it does mean, that they can't edit the topic area or engage in dispute resolution at all. On a separate note, I kinda like the Wiki prayer ubox on your userpage – even as an atheist. I may borrow it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object to the notion that a Catholic admin shouldn't get involved in perform admin actions involving Catholic subjects—that seems as ludicrous a stretch as it would be to insist that LGBT admins not deal with LGBT topics. Cheers, gnu57 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Not what I said. I advised against using the tools to officiate, not against getting involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a distinction without a difference to me- and my questions above still stand. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec)It's interesting to see your report, Ad Orientem, because I had already read the two conversations (but not the entire article talk page) and was about to protect the article but saw that you had already done so. I think this is an obvious step to take, whether you were involved or not. This dispute has been going on for weeks and will continue to erupt until it is resolved on the talk page, probably through an RfC. I think it is admirable that you reported yourself but, in this case, I think you are not guilty of anything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm eyerolling at how offtrack that talk page discussion kept getting. I'm also confused as to why they spent so long arguing over an interview about a book instead of discussing the book, but I guess no one had it / could read it. But I don't think you got yourself permanently involved. Maybe if you had blocked someone then and there, but you were just trying to focus the debate and telling everyone a fairly straightforward summary of policy. I don't see that interaction is permanently involving you. You were, in fact, aggressively neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe that Ad Orientem is involved with respect to the dispute at The singing nun, or that any of their recent actions even deserve a trout. Their participation on the article talkpage was in the form of informing and guiding editors about the relevant wikipedia policies and did not display a bias with respect to the content of edit-dispute. Admins, if anything, should be encouraged to take this approach and not just rely on issuing warnings and blocks from the fear of being perceived as being involved. Diligens's conduct, on the other hand, does need to be reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have informed Diligens of the Gamergate-related discretionary sanctions assuming that "any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" encompass sexuality (please let me know if I am wrong about that interpretation). Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• ’’’Comment’’’ as one of the editors involved in this article I do not believe that ad orientam has any reason to admonish themself. They have been nothing but courteous and professional. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry you're in this unreasonable situation, Ad Orientem, it's never fun. Reviewing the situation, it seems the root of the problem is quite clearly that Diligens is a tendentious editor with baseline competence problems. They blatantly personally attacked Contaldo80, a highly-established, long-term editor in good standing, and proceeded to employ the "it's not a PA if it's true" defense, which is clearly not applicable in this situation. That sentiment, that one can engage in negative personal commentary when expressing legitimate grievances with supporting evidence, obviously only applies to formal behavioral complaints in an appropriate forum, with supporting diffs. It does not give one license to say "You are proven to be one of the biggest liars and violators" in an edit summary during a content dispute, simply because one feels they've been misrepresented on the talk page. On that note, examining the talk page, I do not see any blatant behavioral issues from Contaldo, only an experienced exasperatedly pointing out how unreasonable and unhinged Diligens is being. Therefore, AO's warning was not only entirely appropriate, but rather cut-and-dried. Diligens aggressive response to the straightforwardly-justified NPA warning brings up further CIR concerns, and both AO's block threat and Softlavender's proposed solution going forward seem to be completely in-bounds. I don't understand Liz's offense here. Requesting an admin who does not have a potentially-inherent COI (i.e. a practicing Catholic admin sorting a dispute regarding a stigmatic allegation against a Catholic nun) is not particularly unreasonable, and if one is so severely offended by that suggestion, then one is likely not the impartial admin to be dealing with the situation. While it may not happen in this thread, I would be in favor of a straight-up indef for Diligens. If that does not come to be, please submit an AE report upon the slightest continuation of disruption, now that the AE awareness criteria are satisfied, and we will not hesitate to impose AE restrictions. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you call it, Swarm, when a person double-quotes me as saying something that I didn't say (wasn't even a paraphrase) in order to make it look like I cussed him out when I did nothing of the sort? It's called an egregious lie. You make it look like you read the conversation, but you sure missed a most crucial point. --Diligens (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think that it is exemplary that Ad Orientem has requested an independent review of their use of administrative tools. I see no misuse. I have been aware of this content dispute for some time. This was an incredibly talented and unique woman who came to a tragic end. She was a complex person not a plaster saint and our biography must accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about her life, per WP:,NPOV, a core content policy. Efforts to either whitewash or denounce her are disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Lourdes 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: wut^^^ ——SerialNumber54129 15:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This here issue is supposed to be about Ad Orientem and his handling one PA, nothing else; this is not about the article in dispute. I read PA, and it clearly mentions if there is evidence it is not PA, and it must also be a repeated thing. Ad Orientem jumped the gun, and DID NOT ask for evidence, nor did he wait the patient amount of time for it to even be repeated. I merely said something once off-hand in an edit summary, and BAM! Nothing here convinces me that he didn't handle this PA issue correctly. I don't hold it against him as if this is a WP law case or something, I merely mentioned it to him for his own personal use to help him handle PA better next time. I am done with that. I also thanked Ad Orientem just previous to that and told him I would pursue RfC about the editing issue. And, I will pursue it. WP is FOREMOST about "common sense", which is said to rule even over Reliable Sources. It's absolutely against common sense to blindly stand ground upon RS against reason. RS is not simply a "ticket" to what one wants. --Diligens (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• This editor is a
  Master Editor IV
  and is entitled to display this
  Orichalcum Editor Star.
     User:Softlavender is a Master Editor IV, as attested by the userboxen on her user page. Therefore
    1. when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    2. when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    3. if she would come saying that her previous post was rather strange, and against quite all of the letter soup, this would be an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
  What about a self trout? Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic" -- I never said that. "when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian" -- I never even remotely said or implied that. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wouldn't self sturgeon be more appropriate? He can't get off that easy... Dawnseeker2000 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Massive Trout for the self reporter Ad Orientem navel gazing is too fine an expression for this trivia of a text wall. An admin should well understand what this page is actually for, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems his bringing this concern here prematurely is a dereliction of his duty to resolve disputes and respond to complaints without unnecessary escalation.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Govindaharihari: if that was a joke, it wasn't funny. If you're serious, you must not have read the above or if you have just dismissed it. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have read the above, my comment is not a joke. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh, wow. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Alright, let's just do this: We can all choose our own fish and just have at him Private pyle style. Dawnseeker2000 20:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How about John Cleese style? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Even better, lol! 🐟 Dawnseeker2000 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Break

• Some observations and comments
  • It appears that the community has concluded my actions were not improper and were within my discretion as an administrator, for which I am very grateful.
  • A number of editors above have gone further, expressing serious concerns about Diligens editing.
  • Although I did not put much emphasis on it in my opening summary, I remain convinced that Diligens' editing has been tendentious. His two comments on this thread have only reinforced that belief.
  • While Swarm suggested an indefinite block, I am thinking that some sort of topic ban might be in order.

Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are jumping the gun. I have not yet presented my case at RfC. And the issue has not been presented well here. --Diligens (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is indef territory, though I am still very concerned about the editing patterns, and the wikilawyering to say the personal attacks (and looking at the contribution history, Diligens repeatedly called another editor a "biased troublemaker disrupter") were justified. I'm not prepared to suggest a sanction, though - I'm somewhere between warning with next strike an indef (if the tendentious editing continues during the RfC Diligens has proposed) and a topic ban. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion the section False Rumors of lesbianism should entirely be removed. The subject of the article denied lesbianism. I feel that speculation about lesbianism does not belong in this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, your statement belongs on the talkpage of the article. ANI is not the place to debate content -- it is for discussing user conduct. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Remember: at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 06:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK, Softlavender. Sorry 'bout that. (My post is already on the article Talk page.) Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile - It appears that Diligens has violated 1RR and Enhanced BRD (albeit prior to warning) at Fox News. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting Diligens' editing history:

• 406 edits between December 2005 and June 2006 – during which he was involved in ongoing disruption – see this archive where he declares himself "a very active traditional Catholic" (which might explain his recent behaviour) and was warned and blocked by JzG for edit warring.
• 35 edits in 2007
• 1 edit in July 2012
• 262 edits since January 2019 – disruption similar in style / approach as to that demonstrated in 2006

Ordinarily, such long ago edits would be ancient history, but with so few edits and similarities of style, I think it's worth noting. Diligens, I doubt anything will happen now unless you start campaigning again, but please recognise that WP functions on consensus and your approach, both back in 2006 and recently, is neither helpful nor appropriate. By all means, present source-based facts, discuss edits, persuade others... but if consensus disagrees with your view, try to accept it even if you can't respect it. EdChem (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Full support for the comment from Ed Chem. Diligens please be aware your contributions are considered by multiple users to be a bit controversial and and please back away from contoversy or I am certain you will be restricted. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Singing Nun article says: Increasingly frustrated at what she perceived to be the Catholic Church's failure to fully implement the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, she released a song in 1967 defending the use of contraception, called "Glory be to God for the Golden Pill". This led to an intervention by the Catholic hierarchy in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and one of her concerts was cancelled. Several major tour venues subsequently cancelled and the tour was effectively derailed.
  Do you really think that all these "progressive writers" will circle the wagons and make some hype around and defend the Golden Pill ? They have other things to do! Their only concern is about "what was she doing with her crucifix behind her closed curtains" ? Let us apply the duck test: who is the most probable papist secret agent, someone branded as a Traditional Catholic in 2006 (for those having difficulties with their maths, this is $2019-2006=13$ years ago) or those that are using any speculation (probably, says page 33) to derail the article ? Glory be to all those who fight for free access to contraception, and the right to abort if one has to. Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

.

Pldx1, this is not the page to discuss article content, though I am sure multiple perspectives would be welcomed at the article talk page. As for here, if you can't see why someone who identifies as a Traditionalist Catholic (rejecting Vatican II, etc) might hold views that end up causing disruption relating to that page and to The Singing Nun article – and thus could benefit from advice to respect consensus – then I have serious doubts about you having anything useful to contribute to this discussion. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content and non notable persons, with an occasional dash of vandalism as leavening

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

---

• Dodo elmoghazy (talk · contribs)

Blocks don't seem to deter. No communication, no edit summaries, just plows ahead. JNW (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. I have serious NOTHERE concerns about this one and left a note making it clear that any further disruption will result in an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. JNW (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Odd IP edits

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

I'm not sure whether or not this requires action; posting here to be on the safe side. Relocation to a more suitable venue would be welcome

A few hours ago User:80.116.234.171 made a number of edits to archived talk pages, doing no more than tweaking white space. For example, this.

Three questions:

• Should such edits be made?
• Should they be rolled back en-masse?
• It's possible that this masks a single or small number of significant changes to relatively unwatched talk page archives; does anyone have any tool for checking?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Filter 973 (hist · log), though it wasn't created in response to this user, may be useful here. I've given it a more meaningful name; perhaps it should start tagging edits as well. I have no idea what this IP is doing, either. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified the IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith editing at Howrah

User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are continuously making disruptive edits on the article Howrah. Myself (User:Master Of Ninja) and User:Jeet Dev have been frustrated by this. We have tried to reach out to the users, as can be seen on their talk pages, as well as inviting them to discuss the issues on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. However there has been no indication of discussion nor stopping of this behaviour. The problem with the edits have been discussed on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. User:Dirkbb has done a previous reversion as well. It is believed also that User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are sock puppet accounts since they make the same edits. Diffs are as follows:

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]

There have been edits from an IP address with the same changes before this. I have made efforts to reach out on the Howrah talk page as noted above. Multiple messages have been left on the relevant user talk pages. However the continuing repeated edits have made both myself and User:Jeet Dev feel that these are being done in bad faith. We are hoping to get some administrator input to try and stop these edits. Could we please get some assistance how to take this from here? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• As per reporting guidelines I have put messages on the relevant users pages. Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have indeffed The king is back here (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock/meatpuppet and blocked Bubun khanra (talk · contribs) for 3 days. Note too that at least some of the text being added was copied from other wikiprojects (compare description of Shibpur in this edit with the Wikivoyage page); such copyving is a copyvio unless done with proper attribution. Finally, the accounts have also been editing as 2405:204:41AA:DC51:84C9:57D5:6DA9:2750 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and may be related to Anirban9019 (talk · contribs) but I am not certain enough yet to act on the latter. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should block the user for a week.. For not getting the point despite having it spelt out letter-to-letter. The Duke 20:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated

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

---

Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeated warnings about adding unsourced material to articles here. There also appears to be a violation of WP:Username policy as the name suggests that it is a shared account on behalf of a community. Blue Riband► 23:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for the username and the edits. Any unblock will have to address both. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:John from Idegon's hostility and generally disruptive behavior

I want to call attention to this noticeboard the extremely hostile edit summary from a supposedly-experienced editor, User:John the Idegon. It was an out of the line, bullying attempt to own the Evansville Central High School article, despite my vast and uncontroversial addition to the article (I added notable alumni, all referenced with reliable sources).

He then reverted my undo-ing of that, inciting further hostility. If his edit here isn't a blatant violation of WP:OWN, then Wikipedia has lost its way (i.e.: why does he get the make the unilateral decision that my sources aren't reliable? So you're telling me, the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't qualify as a RS? User:John the Idegon would likely be the only person to think that, yet somehow the onus is on me to show it otherwise???).

I took a look at his overall editing history of late, not just this high school article. Turns out, he doesn't play well in the sandbox ([50][51][52]). There is a distinct vibe of "above the law" with him because... hold my drink... ah yes, he's in the top 1,000 of Wikipedians by edits made (golf clap).

His aggression is what allows Wikipedia to slowly die. New editors get torched by people like him. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Those edit summaries and edits are neither hostile nor aggressive. Also, I have notified him of this thread. Nihlus 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}} Whenever there is a content dispute, talk-page discussion is a (some would say the) first place to go to hammer it out. There, you can make your case that the source(s) are reliable and others can weigh in to get WP:CONSENSUS. No matter how convinced you are that you are right (and regardless of how right you may actually be), nothing is lost by talking it out and repeating your same edit that is disputed is not the way forward. JfI's summaries are formal in tone and explicitly advise to you follow that WP:BRD policy. I see no hostility or aggression. In this time, you could have looked at the target articles and seen if there are additional or alternate sources cited for these biographical details and posted a list of diverse refs that all concur to help defend against a concern about the first source you found. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries are not hostile. The OP would do well to read WP:ASPERSIONS and then take the good advice offered here about a talk page discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit summaries are mostly ok. John of Idegeon does have a habit of jumping to user warnings far too quickly though, and that does come across as overly aggressive. Maybe that could be toned down? New users are going to make mistakes, but dropping warnings on them for a reasonable error isn't the best option. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree none of the edit summaries posted are hostile, nor are they intended to show ownership. They all encourage use of the talk page in order to gain consensus. He's not making any "unilateral decision," but he disagrees with you, and now it's on you to get consensus for inclusion on the talk page. There were no warnings posted here as far as I can see, so I don't think that's an issue. I recommend a talk page discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and added reliable sources. That's all I wanted to see. I'll not be responding further here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

As a new editor here on wikipedia I agree with the OP. I added a well sourced section to the article Chicago regarding the high taxes. John from Idegon seems to hide behind his interpretation of BRD and seems to revert quite often. From what I have read on Wikipedia the justification given for reverting content is not supported in the Wikipedia Reverting policy The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. This editor twice reverted my content and then posted a warning on my talk page when I reverted his edits. The way I understand it, reverting is best used to edit out vandalism. This editor seems to misuse or misunderstand BRD: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. I submit that reverting well sourced content is not necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting. One only needs to look at this user's talk page to see multiple editors questioning his version of BRD. I did not know how to link to the section of "What BRD is not" so I placed a shortcut.

Gristleking (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat from Ald81

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

---

New user Ald81 made a legal threat against me here. I advised Ald81 that per WP:LEGAL, that simply is not allowed and that he should remove the legal threat; see here. In response, Ald81, rather than remove the legal threat, or clarify that he was not actually making a legal threat, simply added ranting comments to his talk page. See User_talk:Ald81#I_am_not_a_vandal. Per the advice at WP:LEGAL ("Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator") I am reporting this here. I leave administrators to deal with the issue in a way they consider appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. Someone takes their philosophy very seriously. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• It may seem like ranting to you, but remember these are phenomenologists we're dealing with. EEng 10:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The account requested unblocking (which I declined), however on a check through the talk page I found a claim of isp editing which when checked resolves to Milan, Italy. Combined with the poor English I wonder if if this account could be related to one of these. Is there enough evidence to check? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @TomStar81: Putting aside Italy, what behavioral evidence is their linking the new account with that case?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Relatively new account (suggestive of a sock), a notice for adding copyrighted or closely paraphrased information to Wikipedia, quasi questionably English, and lastly almost 20 hours of being up which can occasionally make veteran editors )like me) see things that look compelling up close but not really when you step away to take a shower and come back to it half an hour or so later. I think perhaps I was correlating a few things that may not have actually been there, in which case I'll go back to the bathroom and yell at myself again about checking twice and publishing once. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism only IP now engaging in hate

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

---

IP 212.219.232.143 recently made this edit [[53]], looking at their talk page it is a list of blocks for vandalism. I think a block is not in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. The IP has only edited disruptively ever, but the range is registered to a Welsh county council so there's a fair chance we're either looking at a school or a public library. I don't know if there might be mileage in a note to the council involved? GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Abusive administrator (April Fools joke)

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

---

I want to complain about a very abusive admin called CambridgeBayWeather. He abuses me on a constant basis and refuses to let me edit, just look at my contributions. I demand that something be done about him right away. I would notify him on his talk page but I'm too scared to. Airport Manager, Talk, Contributions 13:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's ok about the notification, your ping above will have alerted CambridgeBayWeather who will probably be here soon. IMHO btw, I believe that you are totally wrong in your assessment of CBW's behaviour, and it is you who is at fault. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support boomerang block. Someone ban this sock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Actually, I have discovewred that CBW is an arsehole too. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

+ + + Flames the snowman + + + -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Snow melts and extinguishes the flames. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it [54]. And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in [55]. They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz

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

---

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is openly distorting biographical note. He's openly a political activist associated with a Jewish organisation ADL and hides crucial information about the nationality of WW2 criminal Salomon_Morel. Icewhiz presents factually incorrect information and given his background a conflict of interest is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcheeks (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"Associated with the ADL" - you're "accusing" someone of being connected to an organization which opposes anti-Semitism and bigotry. It is unclear why you would find that objectionable or concerning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you prefaced the ADL as "Jewish" shows you may have a political agenda. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 14:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that whoever this is, they aren't going to be a useful contributor - given "Both when Jews were victims and when they were perpetrators committing genocide on Germans" the "interesting" take on historical matters. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

35 edits, and only the first one (to Income tax threshold) doesn't try and white wash Nazi Germany. Can somebody block this NFer please. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:WIKIPEDIA is WP:NOTHERE (April Fools joke)

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

---

Here the colander makes it pretty clear this isn't trolling.

EEng

I am here to report that this user has a "narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing" when it comes to Wikipedia. Some of the edits include: "Look at me I am the best encyclopedia ever!", and "JIMBO RULZ". I strongly recommend that "Mr. Wikipedia" be shut down before the internet explodes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to view this as anything but trolling. Knowledgekid87, he only edited for one day FIFTEEN years ago. What's your point? John from Idegon (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: this thread actually goes to the trouble of labelling itself an April Fool's joke in the section heading, and you still fell for it . Must have hit its target then...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

<weeps quietly> EEng 15:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, "AF" usually means something else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

True, but seeing what day it is I wanted to label this right. Happy April Fools everyone! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia really is WP:NOTHERE af. Leviv ich 15:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Are any of us here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see this is going to be a long day. EEng 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• What a bunch of fucking children. Seriously. And yes, I did interpret (af) as "as fuck". This is not the place for your childish not funny attempts at humor. Pull that crap on your six year old and chortle in delight all you want. We are here to work on a reference work. Trolling becomes not trolling because of the callander? Talk about situational ethics. Geez. John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  fucking children – Ahem. Please review Wikipedia:Child_protection. EEng 16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Zingarese talk · contribs 16:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe you should just stick to article space for the day... Natureium (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm guessing the FBI got him! (af) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)\

Quick call James Bond to go rescue him! (Plot twist?) (af) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why its called "April fools day". Now I suppose for some everyday is April fools.... but for today its a chance for us editors to have some harmless funz. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Fake references

Thanks to Doug Weller for spotting the pattern here. I think the following search results speak for themselves:

• "Effect of etafenone on total and regional myocardial blood flow"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase isoenzymes in human and rat brain"
• "Digitoxin metabolism by rat liver microsomes"
• "Antidepressant drugs affect dopamine uptake"
• "Action of propranolol on mitochondrial functions--effects on energized ion fluxes in the presence of valinomycin"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase by acidic metabolites of the biogenic amines"
• "Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study"
• "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning"
• "Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin"
• "Studies of oxygen binding energy to hemoglobin molecule"
• "Maturation of the adrenal medulla--IV. Effects of morphine"
• "Comparison between procaine and isocarboxazid metabolism in vitro by a liver microsomal amidase-esterase"
• "Radiochemical assay of glutathione S-epoxide transferase and its enhancement by phenobarbital in rat liver in vivo"
• "Effect of chloroquine on cultured fibroblasts: release of lysosomal hydrolases and inhibition of their uptake"

"Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin" is being used to support statements in Alluvial fan, Urban open space, The Arena (Ahmedabad), and Draft:Saudi German Hospital Group, among others. "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" is being used in Chilik River, Holcomb Fire, Baja California slider, Lolita Lebrón, and >40 other pages. And so on. As far as I can tell from Wikiblame, each time the refs ahave been added by a different ' user. One theory is that there's some "How to create a Wiki page" tutorial that's using these as example refs. But when I Google for the same titles, I find no such tutorial. So what, exactly, is going on here? I'm willing to list some of the users doing this, but before I start leaving scary ANI notices, does anyone have an explanation for why so many users might be doing this? I don't think it's a sockfarm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited articles have PubMed IDs in order, starting with PMID #1 (Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning). I bet there's some citation tool where if you click it, it adds the next PMID that's not already in the article as an example, under the assumption that the article author will fill it in with the desired metadata, and that these are just ones that never got filled in. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Random paranoid suggestion - someone doing research on reliability of Wikipedia by adding BS refs and seeing how quickly we remove them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Goldenshimmer's answer makes much more sense. Occam's razor :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a reference that's just a number in Visual Editor produces a PMID reference. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how this PMID thing happened, but I'm going to start removing these from articles where they clearly don't belong. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by TannerGoethals3 – rangeblock?

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

---

TannerGoethals3 was blocked fo continually putting unreferenced stuff into music articles, including violations of WP:NOR. Tanner was interested in some schools in Utah.[56][57]

The Utah IP Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:C8BE:1EB9:690F:8D0 was blocked for the same stuff, adding unreferenced material to music articles. Other IPs in the range have been blocked.[58]

Further disruption continues from the /64 range. Can we put a block on Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, everybody is blocked and tagged. Nothing more to do here. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi

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

There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language). Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned), particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context.

This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection [59]. He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example [60]). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.

And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.

ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN.

Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I won't be able to take a look at the editor conduct issues in any detail at the moment, but given the resumed edit-warring I have full-protected Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, and informed Bhaskarbhagawati about the discretionary sanctions applicable to India-related articles. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonations of admins?

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

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Ster401 (talk · contribs) impersonating Joe Roe (talk · contribs)? This new user (with a fake checkuser category / topicon on their user page) "closed" several WP:SPI investigations with a signature imitating Joe Roe's and then proceeded to comment on various AfDs. They also created the talk page for JJMC88 (talk · contribs) (now indefinitely blocked) who seems to have been impersonating JJMC89 (talk · contribs). — MarkH21 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well it's definitely not me. Presumably a sock of User:Estup329, who did the same thing last week. @NinjaRobotPirate: who blocked that account. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This troll has been very busy for the past couple weeks, mostly vandalizing SPI cases. It's probably a bored kid who's looking for attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Kenmont Primary School

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

---

Hi. I templated Kenmont Primary School this morning with a {{merge school}} suggesting it should be merged to Kensal Green, its locale. I opened an initial open discussion at Talk:Kensal Green#Kenmont Primary School, asking for comments. Edwardx (talk · contribs) reverted my template quoting WP:GEOFEAT as his rationale for why the school is notable, I presume because the school building is Grade II Listed. I have suggested to him that this is not a given because the section says "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", restored the template and added a comment on his own talk page suggesting we discuss it where the template suggests - at the talk of the proposed merge destination. This is the destination linked from the template and makes a lot of sense as the locale article is likely to busier than a very small primary school article so will invite a greater variety of opinions. Edward has now reverted my restoration of the template again suggesting that the school building is an Artificial Geographical Feature as per the first bullet of WP:GEOFEAT. I have asked him to revert his reversion as I dont want to get into 3RR argument. Can someone please restore the template, as it is the only pointer on the article to the appropriate discussion page. And if anyone wants to share their opinion I'd be happy to engage with it. Fob.schools (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdwardx&type=revision&diff=890618056&oldid=890615465 Fob.schools (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please close as user has now restored the tag. Fob.schools (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Saoirse fírrin and POV / TROUBLES

Saoirse fírrin (talk · contribs)

A handful of edits and they're all seriously failing WP:NPOV, in the territory of WP:TROUBLES. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a DS notification; if they continue, AE is probably the right venue. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lucaspipet

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

Vandalism only account. He/She only added grossly insulting nicknames to Argentine football club's pages.---Darius (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This requires referral to the WP:BOOMERANG department. Four of Lucaspipet's edits are good faith reversions of apparent vandalism by the filer. An obvious example is DagosNavy's repeated change of 'River Plate' to 'Riber Plate' repeatedly reverted to the correct 'River Plate' by Lucaspipet. The remaining two are good faith additions to Boca Juniors, the first of which was incorrectly performed, but correctly done at the second attempt (mistakes can be expected from a four edit old new account). 81.129.194.138 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he corrected "Riber", but in the same edits he added the grossly insulting "los mas chorros y putos" (I will not translate) as a club nickname. Same for the Boca Juniors infobox changes.---Darius (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No he didn't he removed it. You re-added it [61]. ---Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am only restored "Riber" by accident (as yourself have acknowledged).---Darius (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@DagosNavy: Are you really that incapable of reading a diff, even when someone has given you the hint that you're reading it wrong? A vandal added it, not Lucaspipet. Lucaspipet removed it. You re-added it (see diff I actually provided above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs)

He reverted one vandal only to intentionally vandalize the page himself. And please, keep an eye on WP:CIVIL (and sign up your comments)...Darius (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Being simultaneously smug and incompetent is not a good look for you. I hope this is not your normal state. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @DagosNavy:, you are in the wrong here, and owe Lucaspipet an apology. Please look at your edits again. You are accidentally restoring vandalism, while Lucaspipet is removing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider this one (still unreverted) a constructive edit by Lucaspipet?---Darius (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it a while ago, and it may or may not be correct; he needs to add a source. But by that same logic, should I block you for your "vandalism" as well? Why are we supposed to assume bad faith for them, and good faith for you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Lucaspipet is right: [62]. That isn't a reliable source, but it shows that he's not just vandalizing. Now are you going to apologize? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cebollitas subcampeón" is a taunting nickname in Argentine football, generally used to degrade runner-ups. Not to mention the racial slur "Bolitas" for Bolivians. It's quite difficult to assume good faith in this case if you speak Spanish...Darius (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

S/D: BTW, yahoo answers in Spanish is far from being a reliable source...Darius (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No shit. I literally just said that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Then don't use it here in WP, please.---Darius (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, by that logic I should assume you are a vandal too; you called them putos, not Lucaspipet. I'm leaving, you appear to be a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, quotation marks are used to mark the "repetition of one expression as part of another one". So the expression "putos" is clearly not mine.---Darius (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I blocked the vandal who actually vandalized the page (User talk:Dddcooooo), I've removed the incorrect warning at User talk:Lucaspipet and thanked them for removing the vandalism, I've reverted Lucaspipet's addition of other nicknames pending a reliable source (if any, I don't know) to back them up, and I've given up on trying to educate DagosNavy on diff reading, assuming good faith, and not being a dick. So an uninvolved admin could probably close this; if desired, with a reminder to me to remain polite and not lose patience with idiots so quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated reversions by "AhmadLX"

For the past few weeks, a Wikipedia user going by the name "AhmadLX" has been going through my edits and undoing several of my valid edits for no proper reason. Following are some examples of this:

• On March 16, 2019, I made an edit on the page Fadak. The article basically describes an issue between two people, Fatimah and Abu Bakr. However, the issue was (partially) described using a quote from a book that read: "There was no denying the populist appeal of the message Abu Bakr sent by denying Fatima's claim". This was quite obvious POV, so I removed that quote. However, that edit was reverted by AhmadLX the same day, claiming that it was not POV.
• On March 26, 2019, I made a series of edits on the page Ali. The edits fixed a grammatical mistake (missing the word "the"), standardized the spelling of the word "Kaaba" (at least two different spelling variations had been used), and grammatically changed part of a paragraph, among other issues. In addition, my edits cleared up a rather confusing, hard-to-read paragraph. My cleaning included the addition some content that was supported by multiple sources; while some content in the messy paragraph was deleted, any deletion was un-sourced or unneeded. However, AhmadLX summarily reverted all of my edits to the page that day -- the grammar fixes as well as the cleanup.
• Some time ago, there was an IP edit that removed some information from the page Uthman. Previously, a sentence on that page read, "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to both Shia and Sunni sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." That sentence included both Shia and Sunni sources at the end. That IP, edit, however, removed the fact that Sunni sources attested to that (despite the Sunni references) -- it was changed to "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to Shia sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." I undid the IP edit, as there were multiple Sunni references at the end of that sentence and to remove such a statement is misleading, but AhmadLX once again reverted my edit.
• Perhaps the most telling occurrence happened today, on the page Succession to Muhammad. There was a quote from a book by Wilferd Madelung on the page, but the word "supposedly" had been inserted to the quote (despite it not being there, in that place, in Madelung's book). I removed the word "supposedly," but AhmadLX undid that edit, re-adding the word "supposedly" into the quote despite it not being there in the original text. This clearly violates WP:QUOTE, which states that a quote should be "unedited, exact reproduction of the original source".

If only one -- or maybe even two -- of these edit reversals had been done by AhmadLX, then it could be assumed to be good faith reversals. However, it appears that AhmadLX is specifically targeting me/my edits. His constant reverts violate WP:QUO, which states that "reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." The edits that I described do not fit that description, and thus the repeated targeting of my edits by AhmadLX is unjustified. Like all of you, I am trying to help to improve Wikipedia, but as you can probably imagine, this can be difficult when edits are reverted for no good reason. I would really appreciate your help in sorting out this matter. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AhmadLX has been notified of this discussion. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fadak edit is this. It was a properly attributed quote from a book on the topic, presented as quote. To Snowksy Mountain it appeared POV because it presented views which he perhaps doesn’t agree with. So he removed that quote attributed to author as POV.

Edit that I reverted on Ali is this. Here Snowsky Mountain replaced RS like Wilfered Madelung & Encyclopedia Iranica with questionable sources like “A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims”. It should be noted that he was warned not to use this source, and other sources like this, in his previous ANI report.

My revert on Uthman is this. Again, based on either questionable sources, including Al-Islam.org, and other unverifiable refs. Furhter discussion about this can be seen on his talk page.

My revert on Sucession to Muhammad is this. In this case, Snowsky Mountain is right. I failed to see that it was a quote.

This user has long record of POV pushing on Islam related articles. His editing has been contested by several editors in past, and continues to be (see his activities on article talk pages for example). Details can be seen from his talk page history. As mentioned above, he was reported, by somebody else, for his tendentious editing, and later, after another report -made by me- was blocked for the same reason. Since his return, he has continued editing in similar manner. Apart from above, a few more examples of his insistence on promoting certain viewpoints can be seen here, here, here or here. Again see sources used: Website like “Islamic Moral Stories”, and “Al-Burhan Fi Tafsir al-Quran”. If further info/elaboration is required, feel free to ping me. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Wright (author)

Help's needed here. I'm attempting to restore a stable version to the lede, and can no longer do so without warring. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back the problematic edits. Hopefully this causes the editor to stop. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jip Orlando. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)