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

Regular edit-warring from user:Jim7049

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

---

Jim7049 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been warned since January against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. This user has also been blocked and unblocked multiple times by admins but again continued edit warring yesterday on 11 March 2019. Please look into the matter and determine whether this user should continue their Wikipedia editing. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already warned Jim7049 earlier today for edit warring on Portal:Current events/2019 March 11, and the edit warring has stopped since then. I chose not to block Jim7049 in order to give him/her a chance to put the brakes on the back-and-forth reverts and to discuss the matter properly; Jim7049's contributions show that he's/she's added a discussion to the portal's talk page, which means that he's/she's attempting to do so. There's no block needed at this time, so long as the edit warring doesn't continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also left him an in-depth explanation of policy, expectations, and how I step in and manage issues and disputes - see my resposne here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You may want to revisit. 1 / 2 / 3 reverts of the same user on Portal:Current events/2019 March 15 plus an admittedly noncontentious rv of a second user. This edit (a third user) shows willing to engage with disputes on talkpages at least some of the time; but, "Please stop this kind of false editing which is completely fake and disrupting," is not really the way to begin a content dispute in a civil fashion. Jim seems keen to improve the wiki, but is skirting boundaries a bit and could maybe do with mentoring. Madness ^Darkness 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Same situation, long-standing, on Commons; multiple explanations since January now. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I had recently declined an unblock for edit warring. Jim7049 was then unblocked after affirming understanding what to do instead. DlohCierekim 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jim seems to have gone quiet for now, although I'm not too optimistic they won't resume their warring upon their return. Madness ^Darkness 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I see that, after @Oshwah:'s attempts to get through to them without blocking, they proceeded to edit war at Portal:Current events/2019 March 15, over an editorial attempt to invoke the label "terrorism" without a source. This was not only edit warring, but a breach of WP:TERRORIST and WP:V (which dictates that contentious unsourced content that is removed can only be re-added with a source). This was while this thread was open. That, is aggravated further by the fact that they are already under a one month block at Commons for the same thing, to which their response was incredibly egregious. They falsely claimed that there was no reason for the block, and that the reasons given were false, and basically harassed Magog the Ogre into providing a lengthy-justification for the block, to which they responded by accusing Magog of being "hateful" and "bringing up past mistakes". Unreal. Seems to be a clear CIR case, with little chance of adjusting their behavior reasonably, so I will be blocking indef. If they want to continue editing they can go through the unblock process. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Adding dozens of non notables to article lists

• Korean Americans in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Yorkers in journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chinese in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indians in the New York City metropolitan region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)

Editor was alerted to this last year by DGG [4]. Has responded to my concern thusly: [5]. Many of the non notables are linked to family surnames, so as not to appear as redlinks. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I'm definitely not pleased to see Castncoot's reverts here and here to your edits and with the edit summaries he left, essentially calling your edit vandalism, implying that you're a product of sock puppetry, and that you have no policy knowledge. Have we tried going through each article and removing the people listed who don't need to be there? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hi Bob! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1) WP:NOTABILITY constitutes the potential for a standalone article, not that there must already be one. 2) I do suspect sockpuppetry here but cannot prove it. 3) In an article entitled "Korean Americans in New York City", a Korean surname is most certainly pertinent and notable for wikilinking, as long as it is done just once per surname. Castncoot (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Please take any concerns regarding sockpuppeteering to SPI, and desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Castncoot - I agree with your understanding of notability and the fact that it establishes whether an article should exist for the given subject. Having a requirement for a subject to already have its own article in order to be considered notable would be...... an infinite circle of logic and would make no sense, since that would mean that nobody would be notable due to the fact that having an article requires notability and then establishing notability would require an article.... lol.

I can assure you with the upmost confidence that this user is absolutely not a sock puppet, and he possesses a very high level of policy knowledge, experience, and dedication to the project. Can you please share the information and evidence you have that supports your accusation that this user is a sock puppet? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Initially I was going to say that I don't see how we can complain if Castncoot is including a reference for each one. But some of the references are broken and/or don't demonstrate that the person in question is a New Yorker or even that they have made more than one journalistic contribution ever. So although s/he is correct in saying that there may be potential for an article, there must be considerable doubt over whether that is actually the case. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically, lists of people that have a potently to be indefinitely long (such as a list of Koreans living in NYC, compare to a list of Nobel Prize Laurats), then in combination with BLP, the only people on those indefinitely long lists should be those with blue-links with very limited exemption. Otherwise these lists can attract anyone that can provide minimal sourcing to prove they exist (which is not the same sources that we require by notability). --Masem (t) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please also check the sources that are intended to establish notability; there's a linkedin and links to personal websites. The notability of persons I removed from the Korean Americans article is far from established--merely being a journalist isn't enough. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going through the lists so far, and I do see some problems. Don't get me wrong: I think that Castncoot is a good editor and he's doing a great thing by creating these lists. Compared to the editors and issues that I'm normally am asked to handle and resolve, the problems that we're seeing here with these lists are definitely minor when comparing it to someone causing vandalism, abuse, harassment, or disruption... lol. I just wanted to make that clear. :-) We just need to fix these issues that we're seeing so that these lists demonstrate and show the upmost quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness that we can write and provide for viewing and reading. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have no problem with that. I only have a pet peeve when someone who's contributed nothing to an article before suddenly swoops in rudely and deletes thousand of bytes and potentially hours spent of hard work without significant discussion first. Castncoot (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Castncoot - That's completely understandable and I don't blame you for feeling that way at all. Can you and who I refer to as "Bob" (this IPv6 IP user) collaborate and go over things together so that you're both on the same page (no pun intended) and can work together to resolve some of the concerns mentioned? I'm willing to help too if required; just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• We should only include people who actually have articles in these lists because that's the only way we can be sure that we're not just including names willy nilly. And, no, it does not follow that we would end up in an infinite circle of logic and no articles at all. The fact of the matter is that articles on people are vetted by the community and survive only if the person is notable. Names in a list, on the other hand, are not reviewed by the community for notability and anyone can pop in a name and probably get away with it. I'm trying to assume good faith here but linking to surnames smells of trying to avoid having to deal with names getting removed because there are no linked articles. regentspark (comment) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm taking one at random: "executive manager, five-star luxury Hotel Park Hyatt New York in Midtown Manhattan". Doesn't sound remotely notable to me and I, for one, would prefer to see a linked article to make sure that the person is actually notable enough for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding, then, is that the problem is that I "rudely swooped in"--sorry for the quotations, but there we are. The hours spent adding all those non notables now translates into a time sink for anyone who subsequently goes down the lines of inadequately referenced and unlinked people. The path forward would be for the editor who wishes to introduce the names to first create the stand alone articles, rather than deflecting by arguing that I've ventured into vandalism or using multiple accounts for no good. My first question is why these were all added to begin with. My second question is whether we remove unlinked names in these two articles en masse, or do a line item veto. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the accepted criterion for these lists is that they have to be shown notable in the sense of having an article or being obviously qualified for one, and there has to be evidence for their connection with the place or whatever. I normally remove any where the information given shows lack of obvious qualifications, but if there's no indication other than the name, I search to see who it is. It might be someone notable as Politician, for example. In that case I add the qualification and the reference, tho ideally I should make a stub article. (and for names removed from the list, it is unfortunately necessary to check they have not been added somewhere else equally inappropriately). DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. First of all, requiring that there already be a standalone Wikipedia article about a notable person should be a non-starter. To begin with, this would require changing the definition of WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia. It would also be a great way of closing off expansion of Wikipedia when we should be putting our best efforts into growing the project, rather than stunting its growth. Now, let me also put another issue into perspective - the issue of what makes notability on this list. See, you have to remember that this is an article about notable Koreans or Korean Americans in the New York City metropolitan region. Therefore, people who are local journalists are notable because they cover the local NYC area news and will be familiar faces or names to the local population. That's what the whole purpose of these regional list articles is, to bring out people who are locally notable in their own communities throughout the world. So for example, a Jakartans in journalism article or a Koreans in Jakarta article would include people of local notability. I don't see the distinction between the notability of local politicians, who are explicitly spelled out in local Category:Municipalities in New Jersey articles, even without their own standalone articles, versus journalists. There should be no distinction between a politician and the journalist who covers those politicians (not to mention other matters as well). I hope I've explained my rationale clearly. This will encourage the growth of other similar local and regional articles as well. If you shut the process down with arbitrary rules, it's simply a disservice for our readers not to be able to refer to information about local communities by putting a chilling pall on expansion. Castncoot (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no on all counts. We don't include people because they're known by some people in a local area. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and those aren't moveable goalposts simply because you or I have seen someone on local tv or read their articles in the local paper. Then there's the contention that there's no distinction between a politician and the journalist who writes about them, which is amiss on a fundamental level, per WP:NOTINHERITED. We do expect that a standalone article precede a listing, as several administrators have concurred here. That's a fundamental and non-controversial premise. I'm glad I've brought this here; the misunderstanding of notability guidelines is profound, and suggests a more thorough look through the edit history, beyond the two articles I've noted. As arguments for expansion, they exist outside the realm of our guidelines. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The regional lists are not to show people that are notable in a region, but to show people in a region that also are notable beyond that. We are not a who's who database, which is the argument that you are using. We avoid having articles on people that are only known locally since we are a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not every admin in this thread concurs that there needs to be a pre-existing standalone article to determine notability, as you see in the discussion above. I'm obviously not an admin, but I've expressed my opinion for whatever it's worth, in the event that a policy or guideline is in the works now to be communicated to all Wikipedia editors, many (if not a plurality) of whom likely have the same understanding I do. It seems to be a circular argument with a fundamentally flawed premise that there must be a precedent standalone article to determine notability. It's the presence of adequate sourcing which determines the potential for an article and its notability. That's precisely why we don't use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources. Also, this is a global encyclopedia to learn about locally and globally significant topics. Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's just not correct. Notability is based on independent coverage from secondary sources. And because of the promotional issue, WP:AUD says that topics that can only be sourced to local sources are not considered notable. We're also a who's who - just because we might be able to make these lists of all documentable people in an area doesn't mean we should.

This doesn't mean we absolutely need a blue-linked article, but the evidence to include should show a high likelihood that we would create a bluelinked article in the future. Such as if the person met WP:NBIO or if you can show a couple secondary sources. Keep in mind we do not have inherient notability, so just being a local politician or journalist or the like is not sufficient at all. But most of the time, these lists will only contain blue-linked names. --Masem (t) 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a third article above. And I've only gone back to mid-February. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a fourth article. Take, for example, the two Hofstra university professors in the list. If we added every Indian American professor (even just the tenured ones) we'll have a book length article in place. The "locally-known" argument is completely against policy not only because it goes against our definition of notability but also it implies that an editor could add anyone they happen to know as long as they can attach a profession to their name and, perhaps, a website somewhere that verifies the existence of the person, a bar that includes almost everyone today. --regentspark (comment) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's standard to only include people/objects on a list that have an article written on them. I thought that was a given. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I agree with you that that's a good rule of thumb but it is not currently, to the best of my knowledge, a requirement. The only requirement is "notability" in the sense that the person would qualify for an article on Wikipedia, even if one does not correctly exist. We probably need an RfC on this but, in the meantime, I think we can safely delete names that are not sourced to independent sites that demonstrate notability. I also think that we can use WP:BRD to push the onus for demonstrating notability on the editor adding an item to the list since we're only removing names from a list rather than deleting an article. --regentspark (comment) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this before but wasn't totally sure that ANI is the right place to discuss it. But since we are, I think we should try to separate the issues. From what I can tell, nearly everyone agrees that for a list of the sort outlined above, every entry should be notable. This means that an article could be created on the subject that would survive AFD. I think most of us also agree that at a minimum, every entry needs a ref that establishes this notability. If someone adds a bunch of names either without sourcing or without sufficient sourcing to establish notability then they should stop. Some random hotel manager is probably not notable without further evidence of notability.

There is disagreement on whether it's useful to add people who are notable before articles exist. From the little I've seen, the community has often rejected such lists when they get unwieldy i.e. there are too many people who lack articles. This is in part because with sourcing, it can be confusing to contest notability when it's not in the form of an AFD. AFAIK it isn't unheard of to impose a requirement that only blue links are allowed.

In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

While it may seem WP:LISTPEOPLE technically only covers stand alone lists, it makes no sense that such a requirement may exist for a stand alone list but not a list within an article where it generally matters more it doesn't get unwieldy. Besides the next section seems to refer to articles. By the same token, a common solution is that all entries should be wikilinks, whether red or blue. (To articles on the subject.) This tends to make it clearer that there is a problem i.e. too many people have been added without articles.

This does create BLP risks, if we link to the red link Axe Murderer intended for the future article on the Korean American in NYC and then someone with the name Axe Murderer gets famous for something dodgy, like killing people with an axe, and one of our editors creates the article without checking existing incoming links. But still, I don't think we ever agreed red links on LPs are banned and it's not like people don't sometimes blue link a LP without checking the target is the right subject.

I definitely don't think the whole name of the person should be wikilinked to articles on their surname. These sort of WP:easter egg links are too confusing to the reader. If you click on a link for "Michelle Yeoh", you expect to end up on an article for Michelle Yeoh and not Yang (surname). If there is really cause to link the surnames, this should be only on the surname not the whole name. Frankly I'm not convinced there is sufficient reason since it's not like there will be a direct link once all the articles on these notable people are create.

I also question how well the information has been verified if we lack a stand alone article and we're just relying on one or two sources. As always, editor WP:OR should be discouraged. For example, someone with a Malaysian Chinese father and a South or North Korean mother living in New York may very well identify as a Korean Americans in New York City so may reasonably be included in such a list. They may also identify as a Chinese in New York City or something similar, but even if they do, there's no guarantee all sources are going to note that, nor the info on their parents. If their name is Jennifer Lee, linking to Lee (Korean surname) could be weird if their surname actually comes from their father's Li (surname 李).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Some good points raised by people above. But I would implore people not to turn Wikipedia into an elitist platform, but rather one that really is open and relevant to everyone. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that local journalists and businessmen of prominence within Kigali, Rwanda simply don't have the same platform to become prominent in the same way that people under the glaring lights of NYC the media capital do. If we don't encourage the acknowledgement of their local notability, IMO we are depriving the people of Rwanda and states within its vicinity the encouragement and motivation to join the Wikipedia community en masse. Wikipedia abounds with obscure local human-geographic as well as local non-human geographic topics; why can't this same notability leeway be extended to local human non-politician non-geographic topics?...something to think about. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To the last sentence: WP:Other stuff exists. We are certainly aware that there is bias towards the developed, English-speaking world on en-Wikipedia, but we simply can't afford to extend notability to "people who could potentially be notable under our current rules if they were located elsewhere" - that would be entirely unworkable. ansh666 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, is there a consensus on these articles and edits? It doesn't appear that Castncoot accepts the policy yet. 2601:188:180:1481:DC58:C3F7:4619:B4D9 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we are a reliably sourced encyclopedia and not a crowd sourced one, we cannot add people to these lists with a "I happen to have heard of them" logic, whether they be from Kigali or New York. Reliable, independent sources must be made available. I don't think we need consensus to say that you can remove anyone who has an uncertain notability and leave it to the editor adding the names to demonstrate notability by providing reliable independent sources that support that assertion. That's totally in line with our policies on WP:V and the WP:BIO standard. Some "common sense" leeway is probably acceptable but a reliable, independent source is definitely a must (in other words, merely providing a link to an organization homepage is not enough). --regentspark (comment) 07:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done a lot of list maintenance since noticing several years ago their particular tendency towards being spammed without anyone removing the spam. To ensure we have encyclopedic lists and not something that falls into WP:NOT (directories, yellow pages, link farms, spam, guestbooks, etc.), we have things like WP:CSC and WP:LISTPEOPLE (and, well, WP:N). We don't want lists that are all inclusive with very few exceptions. Generally, it's ok to include some redlinks/blacktext in a list that can be exhaustive (discographies, lists of contributors to a work, lists of heads of state, list of letters in a given alphabet) but not for a list of examples. For those, we need to have a standard. On Wikipedia, we separate things in terms of what's notable. That doesn't, at least in an absolute sense, mean that lists of examples must all only contain blue links, but it does mean they should contain notable entries (established by our notability criteria, and supported by references that demonstrate that notability). As with anything else across Wikipedia, there's always a preference, but not a requirement, to search for sources before removing insufficiently sourced content. That goes doubly for lists of people as per LISTPEOPLE. Lists are articles where our policies and guidelines often go out the window -- many of them have few people watching, and they're very easy to say "hey, I'll add myself/my band/my company/my grandparents/someone I know who lives there". Wikipedia's policies do reproduce a lot of systemic bias from the rest of the world. To some extent this is unavoidable. The successful projects to address systemic bias work within Wikipedia's rules to ensure the representation of people from underrepresented peoples/subjects/areas who are notable according to our guidelines. It's an imperfect solution (hardly a solution at all), but while it's important to understand and keep systemic bias in mind for certain kinds of edge cases, it's hard to use it as an argument to simply put aside this or that guideline... All of this said, I don't know why we're talking about this on ANI. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Several administrators have voiced skepticism as to my bringing this here. I was clear about the rationale, which I think is adequate: I attempted to remove non notables from two articles (we've since added two more articles to those above), and had these edits reverted with the suggestion that I was vandalizing or a sock puppet (?). Then I added two appropriate maintenance templates, which were also quickly removed. The issue involves a prolific editor's misunderstanding of policy. I'd like to have a record of discussion here, should I be challenged again on non controversial removals. Thank you, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Original report

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

---

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

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

Note on other account: NicholasHui had another account with which they edited with before. I had asked them to mark it as retired, or they could have stated a legitimate reason to keep it around, but they did not respond. I have since blocked the other account.[6].—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of NicholasHui's contributions that were incorrect. ([7], [8], [9]). I made corrections to these at a later time. The thing that I can't understand is why they can't just wait for the information provided by this source (which they don't use) to be updated.

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

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

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

Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article [10]. I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent contributions by NicholasHui. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [11], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [12], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [13]) My contributions from March 16 that are corrections to NicholasHui's edits. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [14], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [15], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [16]). I used this website as my source. NicholasHui needs to be stopped from editing these articles, as it is clear that they don't use official sources to obtain their information from, and for refusing to rearrange the position of players based on total points. Yowashi (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17] [18] Edits to standings by NicholasHui earlier today incorrectly indicating an eliminated team. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban

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

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

• Support as proposer. NicholasHui was warned at the closure of the last ANI involving them and hockey to follow WP:V and WP:OR. They continue to show disregard for reliable sources. Perahps some time away from sports articles will give them time to fully understand what reliable sourcing means. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: NicholasHui just blanked this section after I posted it [20]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year)

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

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#User:2405:3800::/32
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Range_block_needed_again_for_Malaysian_nationality_vandal
• 2405:3800:502:1047:ccaa:3003:bae7:df77 (talk · contribs) (vandalize full name and change lede nationality )
• ‎2405:3800:400:7bf6:4c0c:5ef4:ce08:5df5 (talk · contribs) (vandalize nationality to hoax value)
• 2405:3800:483:97E0:ECB3:A26B:74EA:9F19 (talk · contribs) (full name vandal)
• Fernando Muslera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Uruguayan to hoax value: Malaysian, just like last two ANI filings)
• Wan Kuzain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fuad Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Faris Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Ariff Farhan Isa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Khairil Anuar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ki Sung-yueng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)

5df5 had a short block (36h) recently within this week, but it seem it need longer. Matthew hk (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Update. After 5df5 was blocked for 2 weeks, immediately ip hopping as usual to 2405:3800:483:62C7:8C9F:D50D:7AD5:84A2 (talk · contribs) and vandalise Sporting Kansas City again. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest is 2405:3800:402:7B3E:2425:BDA3:322E:5A8A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And now 2405:3800:401:2D2B:E967:2598:3310:7D03 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, pass WP:DUCK test on yet again vandalize Mulan (Disney character). Matthew hk (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• It became a ritual to list out how wide spread this vandal before getting someone else notice.

• Amirul Azhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (full name vandal)
• Ikhsan Fandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced full name)
• Irfan Fandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced full name)
• Fadzrul Danel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced change in name)
• Adib Zainudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced change in name)

Matthew hk (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now at 2405:3800:502:100A:862:AE07:E0E9:52AE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Matthew hk (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

New article victim Bryan Nickson Lomas. Matthew hk (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Asia's Got Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Asia's Got Talent (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saiful Apek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

KRU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syamer Kutty Abba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Now at 2405:3800:280:3D9D:8FC:3ED6:C6EF:D3D2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Matthew hk (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPv6 range 2405:3800::/37 for 3 months. This should put a stop to the disruptive editing observed and listed here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

175.143.166.187+175.143.166.162 (same user)

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

---

Ip user on 175.143.166.187 was given several warnings to not add unsourced content to GeForce 16 series and Nvidia PureVideo. User has refused to stop removing the unsourced content (1650) despite leaving a message on their talk page. User also decided to make an attacking comment in one of their edits on the GeForce 16 series insulting the editors that reverted the ip's edits. Ip's edits also caused several users to request page protection for Geforce 16 series page. After issuing the warning, user decided to change to 175.143.166.162 to readd the unsourced info. Due to persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material and after being recommended by one of the admins on the requests for protection page to report the user here if it were to continue, i decided to post this message here since the user appears to refuse to remove the unsourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmartbird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

After some time, 175.143.166.162 decided to remove the notice and the warning by blanking the page. User proceeded to re-add the unsourced/leaked info that ip admitted to doing, on Geforce 16 series, Nvidia PureVideo, High Efficiency Video Coding, and High Efficiency Video Coding implementations and products. The user did not blank the page on its other ip, but has shown that it has disregarded the the avi notice and warning that was posted on one of the talk pages the user has access to. Thesmartbird (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GeForce 16 series semi-protected for a week per WP:RFPP, but I'd like to see some discussion on the article talk pages. Miniapolis 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how effective that would be seeing that the user has jumped to another ip 175.143.190.121. On that ip, the user readded the unreliable info that was previously removed. Also on the Turing_(microarchitecture) page, 175.143.184.172 appears to be the same user as the other 3 ip's, having been previously warned by a different editor for vandalising that particular page. I placed the avi notices on the other ips. I'm not sure what action you would take, but it looks like that the user appears to not want to communicate at all (aside from the attacking comment it made on one of its edits on one of the ip's it used). Thesmartbird (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP range 175.143.160.0/19 for 72 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content to articles. This was the narrowest range that I calculated from the three IP addresses provided here, and should hopefully put a temporary stop to the issues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Transgender-related POV

Involved parties

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

Statement

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

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

1. [21] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
   1. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
   2. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
   3. 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
2. 14 March 2019 Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
3. 14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natureium, to answer you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

SportingFlyer, to answer you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been a bit quiet, but I think these responses speak for themselves. A145GI15I95 is projecting their own NPOV agenda onto other users. I have stuck with the research that is notable and reliably reported on, and this user has become increasingly upset that I don't go along with their editing agenda. I am not an activist, but this user consistently appeals to the community ofdetrans folk [who] have blogged, vlogged, and formed discussion groups online and in-person to support themselves in order to argue that it doesn't matter that the topic is understudied and undercited. They seem to firmly believe that every person who has exhibited any sort of gender fluidity is exactly the same as the users on the detransition subreddits that they belong to, and any removal from those specific people's experiences is some kind of attack. They're trying very hard to evangelize about these subreddits in Wikipedia, a place where that doesn't belong. Threads (like this one) balloon as they try to argue their position into notability. I would support a topic ban from at least Detransition and perhaps other gender-related articles because they have shown that they cannot play well with others on this topic. They've accused me and other users[23] multiple times of claiming "detrans lives don't matter" for holding the statistics on the article to Wikipedia's standards. That's not something to be accused lightly. That shows a deep level of attachment, and I honestly think it would be better for their peace of mind to step away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I would definitely say that I don't think A145GI15I95 should be topic banned (not that there are many pages for them to be banned from so far since there isn't much content about detransitioning) since they seem to be a good editor who just has gotten over their head since they're new and not 100% on all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet.★Trekker (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mooeena, consensus isn't a vote-count. I've followed WP:Cycle; please don't claim otherwise without evidence. Please don't suggest non-AGF with other editors; we're talking about you and me.
  • It's challenging to assume good faith when you say or else, call me disruptive, resurrect settled issues and revert stable content without talk, call for my ban, search for me outside Wikipedia and gather archived links of whatever you believe you found, and given your unfamiliarity with detransition and closeness to trans issues.
  • Imagine if a religious fundamentalist or hardline conservative appeared on the transgender page and declared it needed a complete rewrite, while being unfamilar with basic trans terms. It's fair to note when an editor's actions concur with activists who suppress a topic needlessly to further their own cause. I'd like your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly, please: Why such strong interest/motivation in reviving arguments and reducing content on a subject to which you're new and appear prejudiced? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with adding information to article

I wanted to add information concerning book written by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski called "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski". Recently Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) gave interviews with Polish Press Agency and weekly magazine "Sieci" in which he pointed out some mistakes that the authors made and addressed exact evidence to backup his arguments. One of the major pointed mistake is blaming Blue Police (which was not allowed to ghetto) for the crimes done by Jewish police inside Jewish ghetto in Bochnia (this case is well documented in files from Samuel Frish's criminal case).

Opinion of Gontarczyk was highly publicized in Polish media including the biggest TV channels, newspapers, radio, Internet.

The first time I added that information (to the articles about Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski) it was removed and I was told that the source was not good enough in some quite unusual manner of two tables with exclamation mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluffer8

Then I changed the source to the following ones:

https://afaae.com/poland/yes-ladies-and-gentlemen-this-is-a-new-school-but-not-the-research-but-the-deception-of-the-holocaust/

https://www.polskieradio.pl/321/1222/Artykul/2275685,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

and my update was removed again. I asked the editor Icewhiz (talk) about what was wrong and got the answer: "Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV".

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

In the same discussion I gave him many alternative sources from Polish TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and German media (newspaper Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat owned by Axel Springer SE), and asked for opinion. At this point to the discussion joined the editor Volunteer Marek (talk), they had some vivid conversation and here are the arguments that Icewhiz gave:

- Polish government was considering implementing law which would that supposed to end up "Polish death camp" controversy,

- The law was only a project and was no implemented, but for Icewhiz that case it is good enough to say that Poland tries to impose, what he calls, "Holocaust law",

- Because of this nonexistent "Holocaust law" Polish sources "are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history".

- The situation in Poland is similar to the situation in Russia - "state control or repression" and no free speech basically.

And in the last section Icewhiz said:

- Source of German owned newspaper Dziennik are also not allowed because: "All these sources, even those critical of PiS, fall under reach of the >>Holocaust law<<"

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

Maybe these arguments would make sence if Poland was totalitarian regime without freedom of speach and trying to impose their own false propaganda, and I was trying to add this lying propaganda into Wikipedia's article. But all I want to add is just well documented and backup criticism of a book done by a professional historian documented by dozen of sources.

It feels like Icewhiz's opinion is a pure form of antipolonism and censorship based on offensive, false and biased arguments that are hard to understand (vide fantasies about made up "Holocaust law" and ban on Polish sources based on subjective and offensive opinions). Apart from that there are plenty of sources based on Polish newspaper in the Wikipedia and they are also allowed in the article I wanted to update - here are examples from the article about Jan Grabowski:

https://www.rp.pl/Konflikt-Polska-Izrael/180229915-Polski-historyk-Jan-Grabowski-ostrzega-Izrael-przed-dialogiem-z-Polska.html

https://www.biznesistyl.pl/kultura/oblicza-kultury/5829_.html

"Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018

This whole case is example of censorship based on biases and wrong information - some updates of Wikipedia's articles are banned because of made up reasons. Please help me to add to Wikipedia the information about the arguments Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) used to point out mistakes from the book.

Bluffer8 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion is at the article talk page or RSN. Poland's "Holocaust Law" curtailed free speech in Polish media on the Holocaust (see article in Index on Censorship and very wide coverage on this). Adding Gontarczyk's opinions from a radio appearance to a BLP is more than questionable given that:

"Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation""

per academic source Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz words that "Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions" are clearly a manipulation. I have not done even one successful edit concerning Gontarczyk - all my Gontarczyk related edits have been deleted and one cannot count discussion about that deletions as "edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk".

What I would like to add to Wikipedia are concrete arguments of professional historian, based on well documented files from Samuel Frish's criminal case. Contrary to what Icewhiz says Poland is not a regime and there is freedom of speech in Poland - the best proof of that is that the book (we are talking about) has been published in Poland (and as far as I know - in Poland only).

One can find in Internet any source that fits into its thesis that slams any person or any country (in example Gontarczyk, Poland, etc.). But this cannot undermine that Piotr Gontarczyk is well known, respected, professional historian employed in history research institute and his arguments are backed up by solid evidence.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to 3 articles adding Gontarczyk, reverted by a number of users, and discussions of said edits (for some odd reason on my talk page, and not on BLP/n or the article's talk). This prior edit to Jedwabne pogrom is instructive - adding a paragraph denying (the mainstream academic view in all countries) Polish responsibility for the massacre and burning of Jews in a barn - sourced to a Polish-Canadian YouTube channel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what is wrong with adding testimony of living witness of Jedwabne pogrom (prior edit) unless one has problem with information that do not fit into his particular point of view - but this is not how Wikipedia should work.

In the link to Jedwabne pogrom that Icewhiz gave (prior edit) there is not a single word about Piotr Gontarczyk. Please note that Icewhiz manipulates again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluffer8 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If one submits the following sentence in Google or Duckduckgo search engine:

"piotr gontarczyk" "piotra gontarczyka" site:wikipedia.org

then it is clear that there are plenty of references to Piotr Gontarczyk and his work within Wikipedia and much, much more in other sites. If Piotr Gontarczyk is so evil, as Icewhiz says, then why is he referred so many times.

Bluffer8 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Considering these [24] [25] [26] appear to be the diffs that have started this, and considering the text appears to be the same, this raises large WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Reliable sourcing aside, the information does not even appear specifically related to any of the articles, apart from the fact they seem to have the opposite point of view. SportingFlyer T·C 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain me what exactly WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues does it raise? I could change the form of the article update.

This information is not just the opposite point of view - it proves serious mistakes found in the book. This information is related to the articles - it shows the controversies that authors/book raises and there are plenty of similar cases in Wikipedia (articles about authors) with proper sections which address controversies in the way I would like to do it - here are examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• For instance, on the Grabowski article, the controversy from Gontarczyk has already been given due weight in the diff of the article you linked under the book's heading. Splitting it out into a separate section overstates the level of the controversy. Also, the fact you're saying it "proves serious mistakes found in the book" is not a neutrao position to be taking for these edits. Removing the topic completely from the analysis, a historian published a book and received criticism from another historian in regards to the book. That's all this needs to be, especially given the contentious nature of the topic, and this has been already adequately represented in that article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see exactly where can you see "the controversy from Gontarczyk" in the article about Grabowski - he is not mentioned there even single time (I think he was mentioned but someone "updated" the article). Could you please point it directly? How can you say that this topic "has been already adequately represented in that article" if Gontarczyk arguments are not even mentioned.

If you look at the article into section "Dalej jest noc":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Grabowski_%28historian%29#Dalej_jest_noc

then you will find positive and subjective opinion/flattery about the book from historian Jacek Chrobaczyński. I completely cannot understand why I am banned from adding (into the same section or the new one) scientifically based criticism of the book, done by professional historian? And yes - according to Gontarczyk's word he found some serious mistakes, which are well documented and well described. In Wikipedia it is common practice to add criticism concerning books/authors - I gave examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child

If the source is right (it does not come from totalitarian regime where there is no free speech), if the author is right (he is a professional historian employed in well known history research institute) and the topic has not been described yet then what is the problem?

I hope we will reach the compromise here - which could be adding the Gontarczyk's opinion into "Dalej jest noc" section of the article about Jan Grabowski and creating "Controversy" section for the article about Barbara Engelking.

Bluffer8 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed Dalej jest noc has its own article where Gontarczyk's opinion appears. The book on Grabowski's main page links to Dalej jest noc, and has a sentence or two about the criticism it received. I would suggest not adding the Gostarczyk opinion back to any of the pages and instead focusing on Dalej jest noc, though I think what's currently on that page is good enough. In any case, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything actionable at ANI. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For me it looks like you are trying to stop adding of important Gontarczyk criticism of the book (and the fact that the book has been criticized) - because some other, older Gontarczyk's opinions are outside Wikipedia, in the book (could you please show me where exactly have you found it?). And at the same time you do not even allow to mention (in the article) that the book has been criticized in mass media and to inform why. I am not satisfied with that answer and I do not agree with this approach - I gave enough examples of the book criticism (in Wikipedia's articles) to see that double standards and censorship are applied here.

It looks like a group of editors usurp and owned the article, and disagrees on any changes because it ruins the point of view they try to convey through the article. One can see that to stop the article updates, Wikipedia users are flooded with arguments (sometime absurd - vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk) and that every bigger update to certain articles are immediately removed by the same editors.

It this is your final opinion, then I will proceed further with my doubts concerning the article update. Thank you for your time.

Bluffer8 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no interest in this topic at all but am trying to balance concerns with WP:UNDUE as neutrally as I possibly can. The current write up here clearly shows there has been criticism of the book. [27] Adding more specific criticism would violate WP:UNDUE. The book also has its own Wikipedia article here Dalej jest noc in which Gontarczyk's criticism appears. I haven't looked at anything outside of Wikipedia, but I do not see any problem with "double standards" or "censorship." I do have a problem with giving the criticism undue weight. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide COMPLETE information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean EXCLUSION of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

The Gontarczyk's opinion is not a view of "distinct (and minuscule) minority" and was highly publicized in all media (what is worth mentioning on its own) - weekly magazine Sieci gave this topic a front cover:

https://oko.press/images/2019/03/ok%C5%82adka.png

Gontarczyk works for Institute of National Remembrance and his opinion is not just a tiny, unimportant voice since he represents this institute.

In the meantime Polish League Against Defamation has joined to this case and publicly called authors of the book to address Gontarczyk's objections:

http://www.anti-defamation.pl/rdiplad/aktualnosci/oswiadczenie-rdi-w-sprawie-ksiazki-dalej-jest-noc-i-recenzji-dr-piotra-gontarczyka/

So as you can see this is not a voice of a small minority that could get undue weight by being addressed.

I am not trying to dominate the whole article with extremely big section "controversies". I just want to add valuable and important information (maybe one or two sentences) that would guarantee that "all significant viewpoints that have been published".

Bluffer8 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lest we forget, this is a professor at the University of Ottawa (covered in mainstream press and academia). Gontarczyk is covered this way in a RS: Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, Joanna B. Michlic, page 111. As for the nature of wSieci's covers, well: Polish magazine causes outrage with cover showing white woman being sexually attacked by 'migrants', Independent, 17 Feb 2016. A number of WP:REDFLAGs here - Bluffer8's edits were reverted by 4 different experienced Wikipedia editors. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As for the particular piece in wSieci, it is covered here (Polish): oko.press - which notes that aside from appearing on the cover, Grabowski and Engelking do not appear in the actual text (which discusses a chapter by Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska). The piece on oko.press (a fact-checking service) notes a detailed rebuttal by Polish Academy of Sciences (with whom Swałtek-Niewińska is associated with) which oko.press endorses - saying Gontarczyk omitted or failed to notice that Swałtek-Niewińska did cover the Jewish police as well. In regards to Gontarczyk's accusations of "introducing lies", oko.press conclude with the rhetorical "Did Gontarczyk mean himself?". Now - this all being rather off-topic for Grabowski (ignoring the sensationalist cover) - it would be questionable to include cited directly to Gontarczyk on a hypothetical page on Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska (TOOSOON). I would question whether Bluffer8 is possibly WP:NOTTHERE in regards to advocating inclusion of such material in 2 BLPs (Grabowsky and Engelking). Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The link to the book, that you gave, does not work - I get a message that some viewing limits have been reached.

That is ridiculous that you suggesting me being WP:NOTTHERE especially if one consider the argument that you use to stop me (and others) from updating articles (vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk). The history of the deletions (that you have done in the articles) also says a lot.

You try to disqualify weekly magazine w Sieci based on some cover and I disqualify oko.press (the source of your information) because oko.press is highly controversial ultra left-side portal, which promotes lefties aggression and physical violence towards jurnalists:

https://www.tysol.pl/a28879-OKO-press-jeszcze-wczoraj-promowalo-autorki-ataku-na-Magdalene-Ogorek

From what I know Gontarczyk's objections have not been answered yet - this article proves this:

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/438334-zlapani-na-klamstwie-zamiast-powaznej-odpowiedzi-grozby

If you have a good source of information concerning that case (Gontarczyk's criticism of the book) then I am eager to add it to the article. The case is developmental and the new information comes every few days. That is why I suggest adding the new section "Controversies" which could be updated accordingly to the news.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE for User:Stevenhksar

• PCCW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hong Kong Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PCCW Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CSL Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stevenhksar (talk · contribs)

There was an ongoing RfC for the disputed edit in Talk:PCCW, but he just not able to understand English and policy. Admin please have a look on his blanking of the section of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:PAID relationship with the subject of the article:[28]. That diff is not really good communication either: bad english and shouting when not absolutely necessary.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a longer communications in User talk:Stevenhksar, which he blanked it all, after receiving ANI notice. I can use Cantonese/Chinese to communicate with him, but it is no point since this is English wikipedia. He also preformed bold merge of PCCW Mobile and CSL Mobile, but since he blanked that section of his user talk, i assumed he read that section and "understand" it should follow WP:merge. But for how hard i communicate, he still did not provide valid reason of cut a section of the article to another, or just blank it. It is not the matter which direct parent company that business division Cascade (did it ever equal to PCCW Engineering) was, it was the matter of keeping a brief section for the second-tier subsidiary of a company PCCW or not. He want to c&p to intermediate holding company Hong Kong Telecom, i disagree, i started WP:RfC for him, telling him internal email cannot be used in wikipedia as a reference, and he still not able to understand it and do his stuff again and again. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As a note. After this ANI was opening, he still posting internal email as well as section blanking. He clearly unable to understand. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The PCCW article has been fully protected so that Stevenhksar and others can take the issues and the dispute to the article's talk page and sort them out. I definitely agree that the user has issues with understanding what reliable sources are, as well as in areas involving his repeated removal of content. They appear to me to be issues that stem both from inexperience along with trying to publish the content and venturing into the threshold of edit warring and without listening to feedback - which (as we've seen many times before) is a combination of issues that cause a lot of disruption if repeated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The article was suffered from suspected paid editing for so long. Many Hong Kong articles are deserted after the initial creator took wiki break or just retired. Many articles are with very serious problem of failed verification or in another spectrum, a relic of direct copying from source as copyvio. Some of the "paid editing" in PCCW may in fact voluntarily done by employee, but edits such as just c&p whole paragraph from the annual report of the company, or trim the article under the agenda of company promotional scheme, are unacceptable (at least, discuss in talk page after the group made a Matryoshka structure of companies which Pacific Century Group, PCCW, HKT Limited and subsidiaries PCCW-HKT, "Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited" are in fact the same group as different tier). There was yet another request from teahouse to move Console Connect to Console Connect by PCCW Global due to unfamiliar to policy by the paid editors. For Stevenhksar in specific, moving the article title of Gateway Communications to PCCW Global just due to Gateway was acquired by PCCW Global, is also unacceptable. To sum up, i really have no idea on dealing such paid editing as they are more familiar with internal document (but lack of sense of WP:V) and what the company want to promote (but certainly WP:COI edit are never able to WP:NPOV), which i am not sure lock down the article and then with a deserted RfC are the right move. Or it will became a battle ground to me when i tried to verify statements and add back citation to those so many deserted Hong Kong articles. Matthew hk (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

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

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

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : [29] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [30]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [31]), here are some examples : [32], [33], [34], [35]

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 : [36].---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.[37] 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 [38] [39] 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 [40], 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 [41] 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 [42] 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 [43]

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 indeff

• 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)

User:Mountain157

Mountain157 (talk · contribs) is pushing their POV onto the article on Tartary, attempting to pass a fringe theory that claims Tartary to have been a historical country whose existence was suppressed after its demise as undisputed fact wrong section, please see here instead. In Talk:Tartary they have constantly levelled personal attacks against me, accusing me of violating various Wikipedia policies when I attempted to revert the article to a Neutral POV in an attempt to discredit me even after an administrator ruled that "many of Mountain157's accusations are unsupported and constitute personal attacks" above. (Though I have previously opened a content dispute, I believe it to no longer applies and have requested it be closed) Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This user did not try to revert to a Neutral POV. He removed various sources, and maps that had to do with Tartary possibly being a country[[44]] back to a version that had no sources at all. I am not pushing any "fringe theory" despite this user claiming that I do. That itself actually constitutes a personal attack because WP:FRINGENOT says that accusing others of Fringe theories is often cited in discussions and edit summaries to demonized viewpoints which contradict their own, for which this user has exhibited on multiple occasions such as comparing the existence of Tartary to "Glester John"[[45]] and claiming the sources I added were "outdated by centuries".I cited a CIA document [[46]] that talks about the re-writing of Tatar history by the Soviet Union, so I am pretty sure this is a reliable source. [[47]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this user has opened up another another notice against me so I am moving this here[[48]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157: The main source I see you used was this book, published before 1832. Its no wonder that Midnight-Blue766 reverted the edits based on it. I think part of the problem here is that the source is using outdated terminology. It refers to Tamerlane as emperor of the Tartars, when he was in fact emperor of the Timurid Empire. Newer, more reliable sources are needed. Even if the CIA source claims that the Soviets rewrote history, the Soviet empire has been dead for decades. Should Tartary be a real place, then modern scholarship should be able to confirm that fact. This boils down to a content dispute, one which should be handled in a civil manner, using reliable sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thank you for your response. Here are all the sources that I did use to base my argument that Tartary was a country aside from the document above,[[49]],[[50]],[[51]],[[52]],[[53]],[[54]].

Thanks for sharing those. Again the issue here is that these sources are centuries old. We need modern scholarship that confirms the existence of Tartary as a country, and not just a region of the world. For instance, the title of one source, writing in the 1650s, refers to a Tartar conquest of China. But other sources hold that at that time China was conquered by the Manchu in the Manchu conquest of China. I believe that the word Tartar in these conquests has wide application to any number of central Asian peoples, such as the Manchu, the Mongols, the Timurids and the like. The Tartar disambig page says that a Tartar is Someone from Tartary, the historical central Asian landmass populated by Turks, Mongols, Manchus and others. There remains no reason to believe that Tartary was an organized nation-state with an established Tartar government. I think it boils down to four-century old Europeans not knowing the difference between eastern peoples and labeling them all "Tartars" and ascribing the deeds of many nations to one. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 12:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but why then as recently as 1865 is Tartary listed as a country and having a a flag?Mountain157 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Read this source, which seems to eloquently cover the European misconception of the supposed country. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Midnight-Blue766: Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks by Mountain157, aside from the content of the previous ANI involving yourself and M157? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already provided the diffs to Talk:Tartary; the majority of the statements I construe as personal attacks should still be up there. My own talk page also has some of his vandalism accusations. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Our article Tartary is in terrible shape and is a perfect opportunity for a competent editor who understands Central Asian history to do some good work. A poorly refererenced article on an obscure topic is fertile ground for fringe editing. There is a serious underlying problem because this topic is a subset of a fringe disinformation theory called New Chronology (Fomenko) which is one of the most sweeping and disruptive and bizarre conspiracy theories of the last 50 years. Wikipedia editors simply cannot allow this delusion to infect our articles, although we must describe the theory itself in neutral terms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick googling reveals that Tartary is the subject of a great deal of kooky fringe theories (such as the Russians and CIA conspired to hide its existence, or it was a perfect civilization built using the Ark of the Covenant). Its resurgence does appear to be concurrent with New Chronology, (as evidenced by the fact that Vladimir Putin gifted a supposed map of Tartary to Tatarstan in 2017 [55] (note that this article concludes that Tartary may have been just a misinterpretation of the Golden Horde). This is an article that needs some attention for sure, lest folks push some wild POV. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to point out how convenient it is for an account after a month of inactivity to wake up with this gem and then for the WP:BOOMERANGed user to blank everything except that message. And, as it turns out Thegman81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has strongly overlapping topic areas. Does anyone else hear quacking?Thunderchunder (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a small note which may be unrelated to this discussion, there is currently an AE notice filed against User:Mountain157 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mountain157. Just wanted to point this out here. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring from User:Alex95-Ukraine

User:Alex95-Ukraine has made countless edits to 2019 Australian Grand Prix adding flagicons to tables (an example seen here, and here are 2 example) citing a consensus when in fact there was a consensus made a few days ago on the talk page for the opposite, (s)he has been informed of this several times but still refuses to wait for the outcome of the new discussion he has started on the talk page. On top of this he has also accused me of WP:SOCK (here) without any evidence. SSSB (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was only about adding entry list to the article which I dont mind. There wasnt any consensus about removing flags from the tables and also at least 4 users are against removing (while only 2 want to remove them) but still you decided to change the consensual version of the article to the version which you want. Alex (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the discussion fully you would know that the main reason the entry table was added was to remove the need for 2-3 flagicons per driver, therefore there was a consensus, as for the discussion it currently stands at 2 v 2, (Alex95-Ukraine, EchoFourFour v me and Mclarenfan17, those are the only people who have contributed to the new discussion you started, there is no consensus for the reintroduction for flagicons in results tables. SSSB (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to ignore opinion of other people like Admanny who also written in that talk page that he thinks that article should be kept like in previous years? Also 2-3 flagicons per driver is not 15 like it the wrc article. There is no reason to remove them. Alex (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring I just didn't see as it was a different thread, but 3v2 after a few hours still isn't enough to declare a consensus, in response to your other comments, they should not be discussed here but on the talk page. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Whereas the behavior of both Alex95-Ukraine (not constructive participation at the talk page) and SSSB (warnings of vandalism about behavior which is clearly not vandalism) is not exactly constructive, I think the problem can possibly only be solved by starting an RFC which would include other similar pages as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but overnight the talk page has flooded with responses from editors supporting the reinclusion of flags in all tables and all based on the same argument. Now I have been around a long time—I used to edit as Prisonermonkeys—and I have never seen any of those editors before. One has never edited a Fornula 1 article for anything more than spelling, one has been inactive for a year (save for a single edit in September) and one has only ever contributed to the discussion on that page. It feels a little suspicious. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, I have nothing to do and have 10 accounts. That what you wanted to say, right? Alex (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. It feels more like canvassing to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we can deal with this here, at least not until the canvassing accusation has been proven. A RfC, however, will solve the issue for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is necessary, there is a clear consensus in favour of keeping flagicons and until these canvassing can be proved we will simply have to follow it. SSSB (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter — I'm not accusing anyone, just voicing suspicions that something is amiss. When four editors (and one IP) with little to no history of editing Formula 1 or motorsport pages (I think they had two edits between them) all descend on the same talk page within hours of one another, it gets my attention. It could be that this is just the first race of the year and so there is an upswing of new editors, but when that has happened in the past, those new editors work on a much wider range of related articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't think there was canvassing here. If there was, it would be easy to detect that in their contributions. I think there is just a clear comment interest, namely Australia. The subject is the Australian Grand Prix and it seems some user just came by to edit the article on their home Grand Prix. A number of them edit frequently on Australian motorsports subjects. Now, you should not be voicing concerns over other users' contributions as your recent contributions don't demonstrate exemplary behavior either. In the past 60 or so hours you made one, two, three, four, [56], six reverts on that article regarding the flags. The first four of them where a clear WP:3RR violation. You have been blocked many for that behavior when you were still known as Prisonermonkeys. I don't know why you weren't blocked for it this time. It appears that in all those years you still haven't learned.Tvx1 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And you have been lobbying for me to be blocked at every opportunity. You have a history of misrepresenting things to the point where admins were ignoring your reports. I know that at least one admin felt that you were using ANI and 3RR to settle personal scores. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope that was you with that sentiment. The admin gave you a boomerang. You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own. The facts are the facts though and the evidence in the contributions for this article is clear. Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me. And that "every opportunity" claim is a joke. I think the last time I reported you for anything must have been over a year ago.Tvx1 02:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me."

And we have misrepresentation. First of all, I was the subject of the first ANI (which went nowhere), while I was referenced in this ANI as someone who could attest to the initial complaint. Your comments about "ending up at ANI" imply that I was the subject of both reports, which is not true.

Secondly, you have been involved in both ANIs. In the first instance, you took it upon yourself to lobby for the admins to take action when none did. I don't see how you can claim that neither ANI involved you when here you are trying to draw the admins' attention away from the original subject. That's involving yourself.

"You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own."

Maybe I am trying to throw shade on others to avoid attracting attention to myself—but that doesn't give the admins nearly enough credit. Maybe they really do feel that your habit of misrepresenting things (such as suggesting that I was the subject of this ANI) calls into question the merits of your reports. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you were not the subject of this report, it’s your actions again that are the root cause of why someone got reported here. Youre edit-warring to the point of breaching WP:3RR again is what caused this sorry mess. And I’m sorry to say this but I think SSSB mishandled the situation and blamed the wrong person. It‘s very telling that the OP of the first report predicted to SportingFlyer that wouldn’t be long before we would return here for an incident sooner rather than later. And barely two weeks later here we are. It’s clear that these are not isolated incidents. And my comments regarding involvement did not deal with the ANI reports, but with the incidents that led to the reports being posted. What I meant to say, is that I was not directly involved with the altercations that caused these reports to be posted, and I stand by that.Tvx1 13:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment. If they violated or gamed WP:3RR, we have a special place you can go to report them, which is where this report should be based on a look at 2019 Australian Grand Prix, but they did not. It's the correct place to file a report against the user reported here as well. I've read the entire talk page again and I can't see anything remotely sanctionable. Also, as someone with little interest in racing, I would like to remind everyone involved the article should conform with WP:MOSFLAG, which it does not currently do. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not want a sanction per se. I want Prisonermonkeys/McLarenfan17 to finally have an insight on their behavior so these sort of incidents just don’t happen anymore. Do you really believe that the Wikiproject F1 members enjoy gettin embroiled in this from time to time?? As for MOS:FLAG, there was a large discussion over there years ago and the consensus was that F1 articles do conform.Tvx1 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and personal attacks

I feel as if M.Billoo2000 has been edit warring with me. He takes offense to almost any thing I do relating to Pakistan Super League. Most recently, he has used ad-hominem attacks against me as noted here [57]. He wants to blank the pages I create and delete my entries for example [58] and [59], but he refuses to use appropriate methods like WP:AFD as mentioned here and here. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have been resolved (of sorts), with other editors adding content to the meantime. If any editor thinks that creating the page for the 2020 tournament is too soon, then they should take it to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Great Replacement conspiracy theory

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

---

I've semi-protected the talkpage due to the volume of trolling associated with this topic's relation to events in New Zealand and blocked a bunch of users and probable socks. A few more eyes on the subject would be helpful - there are a lot of people that are all stirred up. Nearly every subject involving racial conspiracy theories and racist extremism has seen a significant uptick in trolling, sealioning, and outright hate speech. Acroterion (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And Unite the Right rally is seeing similar trouble. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection at Unite the Right rally would be helpful. Leviv ich 21:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I've given it 3 days to see if it helps, and anyone else is welcome to adjust that as needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Watchlisted. MastCell ^Talk 14:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

White nationalist terrorism

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

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

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

Seems like the only thing they have been doing for the past year has been adding POV-pushing, mostly inappropriate, categories. Category:Heresy in Christianity to some religious Trump film[60], creation of a now-deleted category called "Perceived judicial activism in the United States" (and adding that category to articles the editor finds to be judicial activist), mass-adding Category:American conspiracy theorists to BLPs that do not contain any sources about them being conspiracy theorists[61][62][63][64][65] Another mass-categorization based on his "Militarization of society" was found to be "completely inappropriate" at CfD. Clearly, if Ck4829 fails to accept that categories need to be supported by the content and sources of the articles (and that this is vital especially in BLPs), he needs to be stopped. --Pudeo (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the user has chosen not to respond here or at there talk page but continued to add the category including clearly erroneous cases [66] (thus so far failing the Turing test), I blocked them for 31h. I encourage users to continue discussing here, since, if the above remarks are correct (which I did not have time to check), the user should not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the examples I put above (and you could find a lot more) about the category "American conspiracy theorists" had no mentions of conspiracy theories at all, yet he categorized them. However, I said "mostly inappropriate" because some articles do mention conspiracy theories like Michael Flynn[67]. But per WP:DEFINING it's probably still not right to categorize Flynn as a one. Given that the majority are completely unsourced, this is a mass BLP violation that requires a lot of cleanup. Back in 2017 Graham87 stated on this user's talk page that you've been making problematic category edits for the last eleven years; please knock it off. and he did not respond. --Pudeo (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, these sources appear to disagree: [68] [69] [70] - I'm not saying these are good sources, we probably couldn't use them (really, they lie between "probably not acceptable" and "what the fuck were you thinking?"), I'm just making the point that calling Posobiec and/or other promoters of conspiracies and fear news "propagandists" and "terrorists" is not exactly novel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts

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

Rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My view is there are multiple potential categories here: (1) White nationalist violence/(2) White nationalist terrorism are subcategories of (3) Racial violence and (4) Racial terrorism. "Racial terrorism" is the term I've seen used the most to describe things like Lynching in the United States (check the article, it's in there, sourced) and Klu Klux Klan. Some examples: The Smithsonian: Inspired by the film Birth of a Nation, they burned a cross and swore their loyalty to the Klan, ushering in a new era of white nationalist terrorism. [71]; The New York Times Editorial Board: "Lynching as Racial Terrorism"; The Washington Post: "‘Lynch him!’: New lynching memorial confronts the nation’s brutal history of racial terrorism"; The Nation, in a piece entitled, "On White Identity Politics and American Terrorism": The Brooklyn Museum mounted an exhibit on white racial terrorism this summer. It draws on research done by the Equal Justice Initiative, documenting 4,425 lynchings of black people by white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Another term used in the literature is simply "white terrorism" (because that's what it is, as opposed to "Islamic terrorism"), but I'm not even gonna try and propose that one cuz people will go apeshit. Leviv ich 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged out editing: IP 82.165.86.117

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

---

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

Appeared out of the blue and leaving DS alert on user pages, lawyering, and reverting on obscure Wikipedia essays. Ignored requests for them to log in on their talk page. Need a block and a SPI. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting upon the merits of all this, the IP is quite right to complain about the way anonymous editors get treated (which is, like garbage). Madness ^Darkness 22:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yawn... show where the IP is being distructive or doing something wrong. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe their (very short) contribs history? This: [72] (twice) is pure disruption, especially given Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9#Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE.

And don't use "Yawn..." as a prefix when you've been too damned lazy to look for yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I already watchlist that page - saw the reverts before this was filed. The editors that reverted the IP should really discuss the issue on the talkpage first. I already looked at all their contributions before posting so don't call me lazy. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) Did you seriously use the fact a user was editing from an IP as your explanation for reversion? WP:HUMAN Madness ^Darkness 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not disruption. If you have a redirect to a Wikipedia page, and a deletion discussion closes with no consensus, then there is definitely no consensus for having the shortcut in the Wikipedia page, and if there is no consensus for a shortcut then it gets removed, obviously.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not how "no consensus" works. There was no consensus to delete the redirect. You're in the opposite position here.--Jorm (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Deletion of pages does not happen with no consensus, usually. I didn't do that. Removal of shortcuts is obviously something different - shortcuts should be universally accepted(they suggest that you can use the shortcut without problems) plus the shortcut is longer than the page name(which renders it meaningless).Lurking shadow (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of this redirect, as was obvious for every editor at the RfD, was to be used from this page. It's not a typical mainspace redirect, it's a WP:ALLCAPS one. And there was no consensus to remove it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• So your "Yawn..." doesn't mean "Just ignore this, it's only tedious low-level vandalism" it's actually, "Don't mind them, they're just a logged-out experienced editor doing my 3RR and 4RR for me"? Is it you that we need to run a CU on? Seriously unimpressed with your behaviour now. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Multiple ec) User:Andy Dingley accused me of sockpuppetry. SPI is the correct forum for that accusation, and I want them to retract the accusation here. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish disregarding ban from my talk

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

---

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

---

User:SMcCandlish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SMcCandlish posted on my talk to query an RFC close I had made, as he is of course entitled to do.[73]

Two rounds later, he was making maliciously false accusations of bad faith[74] putting into my mouth the words "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".

So I ended the discussion[75] at 0043

At 00:47 I hatted it[76] with a ping to SMcCandlish, saying "Stay off my talk".

Meanwhile, SMcCandlish had begun a series of edits to one of my userpages which was clearly headed This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.

Those edits were timestamped:

• 0030 [77]
• 0044 [78]
• 0051 [79]
• 0056 [80]
• 0102 [81]
• 0103 [82]

I reverted or removed all of those, using undo wherever possible to ping SMcCandlish, and noting every time which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???

I replied to one of the group working on that who had posted[83] If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I agreed wholeheartedly; we had just had a live demo of the futility of trying to discuss a disagreement with SMcCandlish.

SMcCandlish then posted again on my talk page[84], despite being explicitly asked to stay off it.

Please can someone who speaks the McCandlishish language try to convey to him the meaning of that "stay off my talk page" and his page is for discussion by invitation means?

I have work to be getting on with, and don't want to waste time in a sprawling edit war on my own userpages with an editor who assumes bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: did you mean this page? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes she means "This" page which is not for "It" to disrupt. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I was drafting a WP:AN report about BrownHairedGirl's behavior in the same "incident". BHG's diffs above are a very incomplete and misleading picture. Not only is the "ban" bogus (there's not actually any such thing, per WP:USERPAGE, and especially not for an admin, per WP:ADMINACCT; what there can be is a request to stay away from someone's talk page, then not abiding by it for unconstructive purposes being considered a form of disruptive editing), BHG repeatedly made demands that I take the matter under discussion to her talk page after supposedly "banning" me from it, a blatant case of WP:GAMING#Gaming the consensus-building process.

  So, do we want to merge these ANI and AN threads? I'm raising ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND concerns in the AN I opened.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  To address some of the above, here: "we had just had a live demo of the futility of trying to discuss a disagreement with SMcCandlish" – No, what you had was a weird over-reaction to someone criticizing one of your closes, then you ignored every single substantive thing I was saying about the RfC draft (which has nothing to do with your close or my criticism of it), and censored my input from the page you directed me to, pretended to "ban" me from your user talk, then demanded 5 or 6 times that I take the RfC drafting matters to your user talk (after supposedly banning from me it), censored the material again, ignored my e-mail trying to smooth this out with you, and instead opened this bogus ANI report. You're also engaging in blatant WP:FACTION behavior with Legacypac (note the above attempt to tie this to a completely unrelated kerfuffle from last week – this is about personalized vindictiveness, not substance). This is conduct grossly unbecoming an admin. All after I repeatedly made clear to you that my only intent is helping produce an RfC that is likely to come to an actual consensus, and that we're in damned agreement that many of these portals need to be deleted, than an RfC is necessary, and that the community does need to establish standards for them. All this pointless drama because I dared to very mildly criticize one of your related closes (and even conceded to every point of your rebuttal but one, the "mandate" line, in which you denied the reality of having said that). Look, you had an actual ally in resolving the portal mess, whom you instead decided to dress up in an enemy costume and shoot at just for your own stress relief. Very silly. I would suggest WP:BOOMERANG, because you can't bait an editor into a "you can't use my talk page but you must use my talk page" trap and then ANI them for it; but I think the AN thread will have this covered.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC); revised 03:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Cross reference this subtread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-open_drafting_of_an_RfC_about_portals,_and_BHG_behavior_in_relation_to_it Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  So uptight and seeing conspiracy around every corner they don't even find their own jokes funny. Not a productive contributor to the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds self-referential to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Update: I'm done for the day, and may not be back tomorrow, at least until late. I've said all I need to say about this here at the AN thread. The short version is that BHG assumes awareness of her intents that I did not possess at the time, and nothing excuses the "you can't use my talk page but you must use my talk page" trap-baiting. This ANI is unclean hands and vexatious. However, what I really care about is the RfC that emerges, as covered at the AN thread, which is broader than this ANI one (i.e., merge in that direction if we need to consolidate the discussions). The inter-editor dispute aspects of this can just go away for all I care. While I've raised ADMINCOND concerns, I'm not pressing for anything but an admonition, and have tried twice in e-mail to let bygones be bygones about all this "malicious" finger-pointing. But that really is an AGF problem; disagreeing with someone isn't "malice".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your massive timewasting sprawl of bad faith, misrepresentations, outright falsehoods, character attacks, smears, dismissal of multiple requests not to post on my talkpages, and allegations that I am somehow gaming the consensus-building system are a disgrace.

It appears that you have decided to

A/ throw a tantrum because your misrepresentations and repeated assumptions bad faith make you impossible to work with

B/ try to throw up enough FUD to bully me out of my attempt to work with a small balanced group to refine a draft RFC whose specific stated aim is to to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences.

I will pick apart some of the lies in SMcC's para above:

1. weird over-reaction to someone criticizing one of your closes
   No, SMcC, there is nothing weird about breaking off communication in response to your malicious claim that I was spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent. That outrageous allegation that I am acting dishonestly in bad faith makes dialogue impossible.
2. ignored every single substantive thing I was saying about the RfC draft
   It is being drafted by a small group. We did not invite your input, and given your conduct earlier I do not want to engage with you.
   I have no interest in dealing with any of the substance of what is said by someone who behaves as badly as you have done in the last 12 hours. I am astonished by your extraordinary sense of entitlement that you believe you have some right to go to a page explicitly for the use of 5 editors, and post vast screeds to it, after you have already made bogus assertions of my bad faith
3. You're also engaging in blatant WP:FACTION behavior with Legacypac. See User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft_RFC_on_Portal_criteria#Can_we_draft_a_joint_proposal where I set out how I invited four people to work with me, not one, and how two of them are on the opposite site of the debate to me. That's all publicly visible, on a page you edited many times -- so your alegation that i am faction-forming is quite transparently something which know to be false. In other words, it is a deliberate, malicious falsehood.
4. a blatant case of WP:GAMING#Gaming the consensus-building process.
   Again, malicious nonsense, easily disprovable. My aims are set clearly set out at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Intro and User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can_we_draft_a_joint_proposal. See for example my reply[85] to Legacypac's suggestion that a section be omitted: Please remember that what we are trying to do here is to identify proposals worth presenting to the community, not to reach conclusions on whether any of us supports the proposal.
5. nothing excuses the "you can't use my talk page but you must use my talk page" trap-baiting
   There was no such trap-baiting. There was 1) a request for you to stay off my talk page, which you ignored; 2) a page to which you were not invited, which clearly listed those who were invited, and which clearly said those who were not invited should not post them.
   That's not trap-baiting; it is either a comprehension problem on your part, or a choice by you to simply ignore what was clearly written.
6. I've raised ADMINCOND concerns
   No, you raise a legitimate question about an RFC closure, and when I answered you honestly you chose to falsely accuse me of "spin and "venting". It is no part of ADMINCOND to put up with malicious accusations of bad faith.

I have can only guess at what you are trying to achieve by this shitstorm of malicious misrepresentation, but it looks like the behaviour of a drunk spoiling for a fight and lashing out in bogus accusations because you had not comprehended plain English. I hope that you feel better in the morning, and that you do not repeat such shameful tantrum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

---

Follow-up notes

• I've removed the personal recommendation from the close as closes are meant to be editorial and consensus-based in nature (none of which was made here) and not opinionative. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 07:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  I woke up early, and have a few minutes to go over this. "SmC to respect BHG's wishes on the two points listed above" is off-point, really, since I was clearly not posting there at all (to either BHG's talk page, other than for a required WP:AN template, or to the RfC draft talk page, which is technically a subpage of BHG's talk page) after noticing her "ban". The close is trying to "stop and prevent" something that wasn't happening and won't happen. I'll also add that our third round of e-mail has been a failure. Despite me reiterating that this has just been an assumptions-predicated communications failure we should drop, BHG threw this back in my face with another round of projective "malicious" finger-pointing, and ratcheted up the hate-mail tone with a strange accusation of being an "angry drunk" who should "sleep it off". The only one angry here is BHG (and maybe Legacypac for other reasons); my tone in this has been entirely matter-of-fact. I'm not butt-hurt about this stuff, it's simply evidence that BHG is displaying a temperament unsuited to adminship. If it continues, it will lead to an RfArb, since persistence in assuming bad faith and seeking to intensify instead of rectify a dispute is an ADMINCOND failure, as was opening an ANI after baiting someone into a trap. The close above is in obvious error in being one-sided. It's not an error ArbCom will make.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  That is your prerogative, but the thread has been closed and you have been asked to refrain from addressing BHG for a couple of days. Fish+Karate 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, the conclusion is you had best not contribute to BHG's user space, itemised as 1 and 2. Is this not acceptable? cygnis insignis 13:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• Just to say that BHG and SM are both editors whose talents I value, and I hope they can, with time, put this behind them. Maybe, someday soon, they will find some little task somewhere they can collaborate on, and thus heal the rift. EEng 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That would be fine by me, but seems unlikely when one side is convinced (without any evidence) that the other is "malicious". I don't actually have a theory about why BHG is behaving this way (I'm not a mind-reader), but obviously nothing constructive can come of it. I'm a big fan of WP:SHUN in such cases, but that means that BHG has to stop e-mailing me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• To answer Cygnis insignis's direct question: Yes, of course that's acceptable, but it was already the status quo. However, the one-sidedness of this close has had consequences already. I asked BHG to stop e-mailing me and told her that future rants from her would go unread. My filters tell me I've already received two more since then (I can tell they're rants since I get a preview of the content's first line). It's starting to look like an RfArb is inevitable. It's not permissible for a WP editor – much less an admin – to engage in offline harassment of another editor in furtherance of on-WP disputes. And the hypocrisy of it is just amazing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If this does go to arbitration, then part of my evidence will be the full set of emails, which will deminstarte that SMcCandlish's comment above is yet another bare-faced lie. (By "lie" I mean untrue as matter of provable fact which was known to SMcCandlish when he made the claim)

1. This discussion was closed at 07:12, 18 March .
2. My last email before then was timestamped 03:47.
3. The next email in the series is from SMcCandlish to me, timestamped 12:42. It's a rant, startring with the words "More projection".
4. I replied at 20:56 with two words "get lost".

So far from me engaging in offline harassment, the evidence will show that SMcCandlish continued to harass me after the closer here recommended disengagement, and that my response was "get lost".

It is utterly disgraceful that SMcCandlish continues to hound me at all, but it disgustingly despicable for him to come here and make a demonstrably false accusation that I have been hounding him.

I hope that some restraint will be placed on this barrage of malicious falsehoods from SMcCandlish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: interaction ban and kick to Arbcom

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

---

Well, this seems like a thread which some editors won't let die, and the matter of unwelcome private communication off-wiki is one which by its nature can't be settled by the community. To put it to rest I propose: that BrownHairedGirl and SMcCandlish are mutually interaction banned, unless and until one of them files a case request with the Arbitration Committee to examine the alleged off-wiki communication and determine an appropriate course of action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support SMcCandlish has acted in a despicable manner around the WP:X3 discussion but BHG is inflaming things. ADMINACCT and ArbComm was raised. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac: AFAICS, the only allegation against me which falls within the scope of WP:ADMINACCT is that SMcCandlish initially approached me with a query about an RFC close, which is an admin action. Here is that discussion is in full, including my close of it.

In summary, I responded fulsomely and civilly until I was accused of bad faith, when I closed the discussion. Where is the failure of ADMINACCT in that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I never suggested there was a failure in ADMINACCT only that it was raised, I think over in the TTH subthread. Let him/it file an ArbComm case rather than continue ranting. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither here nor there, I'm not getting into this dispute, but wikt:fulsome isn't a good thing; I don't think anyone will be confused, but it could potentially. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BHG is Irish. While it may have negative connotations in AmEng, it has no meaning other than "copious" in common usage in England (it means something else in Scots), and given the similarities between the two I'd be fairly certain Irish English is the same. Characterized by being full of some commodity or material; abundant, plentiful; providing a copious supply, rich; (in later use also) complete, comprehensive., if you want chapter and verse from the OED. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• SupportOppose It's becoming fairly obvious who is at fault here. No problem with pushing it to ArbCom, though - indeed that might be a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support some form of IBAN ARBCOM - Ivanvector's point is completely spot on. Given the inability for it to be settled and now accusations we can't examine ourselves, I'd rather we didn't just sit at an IBAN but had it progressed to resolve the issue properly - even if they just reformalise the IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd considered it before my initial comment, and have rethought post @Cullen328: - who makes excellent points as regards the fairness of the 2-way proposed IBAN. I factored in, to a degree, wanting to just make it more practical while ARBCOM was processing off-wiki content. Given SMc's behaviour below, regardless of his behaviour elsewhere, I'd be inclined now to give him a full 1-way IBAN and just ask @BrownHairedGirl: to be extremely careful in areas both might be, given evidence is now significantly 1-sided. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Yes. Let's. FFS, grow up. Both of you. DlohCierekim 00:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: Please. Don't send it to me. Please send it to ArbCom.

  @SMcCandlish: I think maybe BrownHairedGirl wants you out of her life and away from her userspace. Ya think? DlohCierekim 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence indicates to me that SMcCandlish is the harasser and BrownHairedGirl is the victim of the harassment. A mutual interaction ban is the wrong solution. Counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: I haven't !voted yet, but I'm inclined to agree with you: a mutual IBAN normally suggests that there's a two-sided feud that requires a two-sided sanction, and it does feel wrong to invoke such a thing when the situation is alleged one-sided harassment. But, it seems like the only way to decisively settle this issue, given the existence of off-wiki evidence, is through ArbCom, and the intent of this proposal seems to be a temporary, short-term, unprejudiced, full stop on any and all problematic interactions, pending the advancement to that venue, at which point it will automatically expire. If @BrownHairedGirl: is truly the victim, surely she wants her grievances heard and rectified in the only forum available to her, and would be fine with a straight IBAN in the meantime. Based on her comments here, she seems to be okay with it. So, I'm leaning towards supporting, but for the same reasons you share here. Thoughts? BHG, are you willing and intent on taking this to ArbCom? ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm:. All I want is for this shitstorm to stop. That is all I have sought since 00:47, 18 March 2019‎.

I would very much welcome an Iban, preferably a complete one rather than the limited version which SmokeyJoe proposed.

I have no desire at all to get caught in the massive timesink of an arbcom case. I have complete confidence that the evidence I can present demonstrates how I have bizarrely been harassed by someone who falsely accuses me of harassment and many other things ... but weeks of diff-farming while SMcCandlish continues to spout more lies until they are disproven one by one is no fun at all. So I will not be opening an arbcom case, and if the next step in this nonsense is for that, then I will reconsider whether I want any to participate any further in Wikipedia.

I tried at 00:47, 18 March 2019‎ to WP:DISENGAGE with an uncivil, editor who was taking advantage of ADNINACCT to personally disparage me. I am already utterly sick of this.

It is already surreal that having opened a discussion here about 30 hours ago to try to uphold my attempts to WP:DISENGAGE, I am still being dragged back in as my good name is further traduced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, if BrownHairedGirl is the victim of harassment here (as I believe based on the evidence I have seen so far, but I suppose I could be wrong) then such an interaction ban is terribly unfair to her and draws out this bizarre drama for weeks or months to come, as ArbCom ponderously considers the evidence, and the inevitable bafflegab walls of text trying to discredit her. What is needed right now is an uninvolved adminstrator who will examine the evidence and take decisive action promptly. I certainly do not want to lose BrownHairedGirl from this project which seems to be a real possibility at this point after the aggression she has been subjected to. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Your thoughts on a one-way Iban where SMC is banned from interacting with BHG? If SMC is the problem here, that might solve things, and perhaps more eloquently and justly than a 2-way. Regardless, I suspect the issue has become too complex for a single admin to swoop in and solve things – some kind consensus is needed, else its gonna go to ARBCOM (which would be drawn out, and painful..."In its belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a… thousand years"). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Evidence. I have a screenshot of my mail index of the entire email chain. I think that it is sufficient to conform that I respected the interaction ban, apart from relying "get lost" to SMcCandlish's breach of it.

Please will all those supporting action against me read it?

@Ivanvector, @Legacypac, @Nosebagbear, @Dlohcierekim: I would email it to you directly, but the on-=wiki email interface doesn't take attachments. However if you email me, I will send the screenshot by return. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - I highly recommend that you keep this evidence for ArbCom only, and that you don't share it openly with others. One reason is that such emails and information could contain some personal identifiable information belonging to SMcCandlish that he did not disclose publicly on Wikipedia, and sharing screenshots of this off-wiki evidence could inadvertently violate Wikipedia's policy on outing. Once it's shared, it can't be taken back... and this could put you under much more hot water if you're not extremely careful... Please be mindful, take all of this into thought, and make good choices. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, :Oshwah. I will refrain from sending full emails other than to arbcom. The screenshot is a narrow excerpt containing only the index to my email inbox, which includes the full sequence of emails since I BCC to myself every email I send. Each entry contains only the name of each user, the first ~5 words of the mail, and the time. No email address or other personal info. My email name is "BrownHairedGirl", @SMcCandlish's is "Stanton McCandlish", exactly as displayed on his userpage.

So I'm still happy to send that clipped screenshot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl - Okay, good. You appear to have looked carefully over this, double-checked, and made sure that nothing would be disclosed that shouldn't be, so I'll just respond here with, "be careful". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• (newer bolded !vote below) Support limited interaction. Each is limited to 1000 characters per week, posted to or about or on the other's usertalk pages. BHG is excessively prone to prickliness and an inability to be talked into calm, and SMC suffers chronic abrasive verbosity. Apart from these little flare ups on isolate lines of disagreement, both are usually respectable, professional, and productive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe, please can you revise that 1000 characters per week to zero?

Ever since I closed the discussion on my talk and banned SMcC from my talk[86], I have been trying to get his to zero, but have had to cope with a SMcCandlish shitstorm in 5 different places: two of my talk pages, McCandlish's lies here in response to my request that he disengage, his bogus allegations on WP:AN, and emails. So please, please, please, please: zero.

And yes, I am prickly when accused of bad faith. For personal reasons, I have a very low tolerance threshold for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I daresay, you weren't as nearly annoyed when he was only up to 1000 characters. To you. About you. Comments on your talks pages. Email should definitely be included. Yes, he needs to stop. If you count his characters, how many weeks would it add up to? If SMC wants to link his version of a better version of the Portals RfC for you to read, I should be allowed to do that, 100 characters? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Both of you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. BHG's responses in here seem to have no sense of the actual flow of time. But whatever. No, no one needs a block. Yes, a mutual i-ban is acceptable to me; however, since we're both active at CfD, I would suggest that the i-ban be loose enough to respond not in a personalized manner to each others' proposals there. I was already going for WP:SHUN, i.e. a voluntary i-ban. However, I asked BHG to stop sending me hostile e-mail over 15 hours ago. Then these AN* threads closed, about 14 hours ago if I'm counting right. That's two signals to BHG to just drop it. But no. I got more hostile e-mail from BHG only 7 hours ago (1:56 Pacific Time) and reported that here, and BHG is right back at the aspersion-casting here again (see below), not sticking to facts but hypothesizing inappropriately about motives and personality. By contrast, you'll note that I'm not making any ad hominem commentary of any kind, just laying out facts and their timeline. If BHG is "prickly about being accused of bad faith" she needs to stop doing it to others over and over and over again. It's really annoying. Having criticized one of her closes, and provided feedback on a draft, isn't bad faith nor an accusation of bad faith. The simple fact of the matter is I supplied some draft-RfC feedback in quick succession without noticing BHG was reverting it (much less that she'd "banned" me from her talk page). She repeatedly insisted I take that RfC feedback to her talk page after her "ban". After tricking me into posting it there in "violation" of her preferences, which I had not seen yet since it was just in an edit summary (see WP:REVTALK) she opened this bogus ANI report. It's blatant entrapment and an abuse of process. Frankly, I have no more time for this nonsense. Busy week. I may be absent for most of a day or more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC) For god's sake, SMcCandlish, cut the lies and the shit-stirring. What is wrong with you?+ You write here I got more hostile e-mail from BHG only 7 hours ago (1:56 Pacific Time) and reported that here As noted elsewhere, my two word email to you said simply in full "get lost". It was timestamped 20:56 UTC, and it was in response to a lengthy email from you timpestamped 12:42 UTC, i.e 5 hours after the interaction ban imposed here. So at 12:42, you broke the interaction ban, but yet at 22:56 you[87] falsely accusing me of offline harassment of another editor, and now you repeat that lie. That can all be verified if it does go to Arbcom, so I have no idea why you continue to try to smear me by denying it. What is wrong with you? And the rest of it is all about you coming to my talkpage, being rude and alleging bad faith on my part, and then refusing to respect my request to get off my talkpage. What is wrong with you? You initiated the email correspondence, I have sent precisely one reply to each of your emails. It is bizarre for you to accuse me of "harassment" for replying to email you sent me, and it is utterly malicious to repeatedly misrepresent at ANI a set of communications off-wiki which you initiated and which cannot be verified at ANI. What is wrong with you? Your claim of "entrapment" is yet more malicious nonsense. You chose not follow the two pings in the two posts in which I told you our conversation was closed. You chose to regard my note about the existence of page as invitation to post there. You chose to ignore the instructions of the page you posted on, which made it clear that you were not part of that process. And they you came back to my talkpage, and just below the closed section in which I banned you posted again, in defiance of that notice. What is wrong with you? You posted a long rant on WP:AN in which you falsely accused me of multiple sins, including the preposterous "Gaming the consensus-building process" by excluding you from private conversation on my usertalk. You seem to think that you have some absolute right to post on my talkpage, and that a restricted-group but entirely above-board, on-wiki conversation on my talk about possible paths to consensus for a major dispute which I explicitly labelled as an attempt to put all options on the table is some huge breach of policy and of admin responsibilities. This entire shitstorm you have created is outrageous. I know that lies left unchallenged risk becoming accepted, but am utterly fed up with having to spend my time producing the evidence to counter your serial fabrications and your maliciously false allegations. What on earth is wrong with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Support Two-way interaction ban per Ivanvector. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support IBAN, as support by both involved. Apply it ASAP. It must include referring to the other, talking about each other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I don't think it's really going to matter all that much, but you have two bolded !votes here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC) fixed SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per BHG's comments. If this IBAN turns out to be indef pending an Arbcom case that never happens, that is a far superior alternative to losing one of the most valuable editors this project is privileged to have. Implement ASAP. ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't recall anyone talking about quitting; BHG's just angry at me (for entirely imaginary "maliciousness"). For my part, I just don't have any more patience for this silly game playing and drama mongering; it's unseemly. Neither of these are WP:HIGHMAINT "I'm gonna quit Wikipedia" things, just passing irritations that mutually appear crystal clear on one side and inexplicable on the other. [sigh] I would be open to sorting that out calmly, or just agreeing to drop it with zero further recriminations in either direction, but that's obviously not happening any time soon if at all. It can't if one side insists on assuming malice, and the other is assuming nothing but a bad mood leading to dispute-escalation behavior. I don't think even that's "malicious", it's just unconstructive and un-admin-worthy. I even trust that BHG will realize this when her irritation fades, and not repeat it in her next dispute with someone else.

  I'll try to pay more attention to the little "you have notices" icon at page top (easier said than done on a monitor this size). It's not like I would have intentionally kept posting to the draft RfC page if I'd noticed I'd been reverted at it; I didn't notice until I decided to re-arrange the material in section-number order instead of policy-priority order, only to find it was all reverted, with an edit summary of 'which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no desire at all to get caught in the massive timesink of an arbcom case. I have complete confidence that the evidence I can present demonstrates how I have bizarrely been harassed by someone who falsely accuses me of harassment and many other things ... but weeks of diff-farming while SMcCandlish continues to spout more lies until they are disproven one by one is no fun at all. So I will not be opening an arbcom case, and if the next step in this nonsense is for that, then I will reconsider whether I want any to participate any further in Wikipedia. — BrownHairedGirl --~Swarm~ {talk} 07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I'm uncertain of the fairness of a two-way interaction ban. However, the community cannot examine all of the relevant evidence, and so pending an ARBCOM case I think this is necessary to minimize disruption. The IBAN should be complete, with the only exception being arbitration pages; the looser IBAN proposed above is much too complicated to be worthwhile. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  There's nothing complicated about "it's okay to support or oppose in a CfD, RfC, etc., opened by the other party". Part of the erstwhile close above is an instruction to do just that when the draft RfC at the heart of this is no longer a draft. Anyway, I'm going to bed and hopefully this is just the end of it. I'm not sure when I'll get back around here given what's on my plate off-site in the upcoming days.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Cullen328. This should immediately go to ARBCOM. This has grown bitter and the community is at wits end. There is too much for the community to fix here, including private communications. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BHG is not keen on the idea of initiating the draconian month(s) long public process that is an Arbcom case, and surely anyone can understand that. If a third party wishes to start one on her behalf, fair, but short of that, surely this is better than no solution. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

BHG's above comments certainly make me reconsider. The project shouldn't lose a talented editor like her, and I agree that ARBCOM is a painful process. With that being said, if it doesn't go to Arbcom, I'm not sure if an interaction ban is gonna solve things long term. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I also don't really like the idea of a 2-way ban, per Cullen's comments. But as BHG herself is happy with the idea, I'll Support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify, that's support the IBAN but then no need for Arbcom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  Pretty much agree with Iridescent's comments below, too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, I'm switching to Oppose a 2-way ban. It's becoming increasingly clear who's in the wrong here and not being honest, and BHG should not be subject to any bans - she can voluntarily keep away from SMC, but that's up to her. In short, Iridescent has it just about right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. I take dim view of IBANs typically; I feel that if an editor can't find a way to comport themselves with regard to any one editor, their problems are unlikely to be addressed long term merely by isolating them from that person--and indeed, many IBANs involve one or more parties who ultimately go on to be regularly disruptive. In short, IBANs are the community's single most common (and probably problematic) means of kicking the can down the road. In this particular case, I am further concerned by the fact that, having reviewed the comments and links here, and crediting both sides with good faith in their assertions, there is definitely one side who looks more aggressive in pushing and maintaining the conflict here, which makes a two-way ban not 100% palatable.

That said, this should go to ArbCom, and I wish we had an admin here willing to step up and shephard it there in a neutral way; not only will ArbCom have the tools necessary to discretely inquire into the email exchanges, but they will also be more systematic in deconstructing the exact timeline/sequence of events across multiple spaces and services. In short, they can arrive at actual outcomes, whereas the crossfire between the parties here accomplishes nothing. And yet it is clearly not going to stop here, short of a formal ban. We could also add language to the close stating that this is meant to last until any ArbCom resolution of the conflict between the two and that the committee can undertake to decide whether the IBAN should be maintained, modified, or dissolved following the case. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I share previously expressed concerns about (a) effectiveness of IBANs in general, and (b) the justness of a 2-way IBAN in this instance. Furthermore, since the two editors share significant interest in some hotly-debated areas (CfDs, policy-crafting, and especially the current debate over Portals), I fear that if an IBAN is imposed admins will soon be grappling with the question of whether certain responses in a discussion (or, just the cumulative volume of responses) violated the IBAN or not. Willing to give it a try though because informal measures, lacking teeth, are certainly not working and because the two editors accept the remedy. Abecedare (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I've notified Arbcom about this case via email, with CCs to both users. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good call, just so they have a heads up and are aware of this ANI discussion and what may (or may not) be requested at ArbCom somewhat soon... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We don't impose bans on people for being the recipients of harassment. One or the other of BHG or SMC is clearly lying here, and given the increasingly fantastic excuses ("I can't see the "new messages" notification on my monitor so I wasn't aware I'd been asked to stop", "I wasn't aware that it might annoy other editors if I made major changes in their userspace without asking"…) it's fairly clear which it is. If SMC isn't willing to let this drop, then punt it up to Arbcom, but imposing a topic ban on the victim in the meantime for complaining about harassment would be wilfully perverse. ‑ Iridescent 09:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any action and suggest we let the issue quietly die. I don't think interaction bans are effective, usually leading to later blocks, bans, and squabbling. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have read, at great length, the entire chain of discussion, and the whole thing is a bit of a mountain made out of a molehill. Both SMc and BHG have taken the most negative possible slant possible on various things each has said to the other and each post of their discussion spiralled further into "he said she said" and compounded this further. I don't think an interaction ban is really warranted, although SMc does need to let this particular issue lie and trust that someone else will make any objections to the RFC that he wants to make if they are sound objections. I don't, though, see why one spat should mean BHG and SMc should be banned from ever commenting on anything the other does. IBANS are for long-term chronic differences that cannot be resolved any other way short of blocking. I don't think this one disagreement amounts to that, and I can't imagine Arbcom would take much in the way of actual action at this point in time. I note, though, that anyone opposing a two-way IBAN because "it wouldn't be fair to BHG" has missed the point that BHG herself is in favour of one. Fish+Karate 14:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Proposer comment - I didn't propose this because I think both editors are in equal standing here, I proposed it because as each of the above discussions were closed, someone (not generally one of the two editors named) left a parting shot which reignited the conflict, and because the "he-said-she-said" back-and-forth is difficult for the community to evaluate without making public all of the nominally private off-wiki communication between the two users. The proposal isn't meant to imply wrongdoing on either editor's part, but to get them to stop sniping at each other (and being sniped at by others) in a forum that's not equipped to resolve their conflict. Arbcom is the right venue for a dispute involving private evidence, and I think the Committee is also better equipped to get to the root of the problem and craft an intelligent solution. I totally understand not wanting to be subjected to a weeks-long case, though. If both editors think that the issue between them is resolved, whether that means they're just going to steer clear of each other or whatever it means, then it's fine by me to close this without any formal action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but please don't take me to Arbcom as well. I just don't like being wrapped up in big drama. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - IMHO we should let this lie for now, If SMC continues it then send it to Arbcom but right now I don't feel an IBAN is warranted atleast not for BHG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any interaction ban until either this case blows over and then wakes up again, or ArbCom can handle. Support sending to ArbCom. By the way, there should be a rule that the community can mandate that a contentious case be handled by ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon, anyone can request an arb case provided it can be demonstrated that all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help; on deciding whether or not to accept the case they will take into account, but will not be bound by, the views of the parties to the request. (SMC is well aware of this, as this was the situation regarding the dispute between himself and Fae a couple of weeks ago.) I personally think this is an utterly shitty rule, that if neither party feels an arb case would be useful then arbcom has no business unilaterally knowing they know best and taking the case anyway, and that had I thought through the implications of this line at the time I wouldn't have voted to ratify the change and the same probably goes for most of the other 17. However, whether we like it or not this is the policy we have, and given that getting the wording of WP:ARBPOL amended is roughly as easy as getting the wording of the Catechism of the Catholic Church amended, this is the policy we're stuck with. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Alternative proposal-- 1 week block followed by mutual IBAN

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

---

• Support Despite the significant value of each's contribs, the disruption is just too much and too on-going. Need to wake them both up. Whatever has gone before, neither sees the need to drop the poor, battered stick. DlohCierekim 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I'm not taking sides, but given the uncheckable (for us) nature of the e-mail accusations, if one of them is telling the truth and the other is lying, one may not actually have done anything wrong. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Per Black Kite. Whichever one is telling the truth hasn't done anything wrong since the close. Also, give whichever one isn't telling the truth time to recheck timestamps and apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam and @Black Kite, if either or both of you would like to review the emails, I will be happy to send them to you promptly in the most fulsome format I can manage. (I use MsMail for Win10, on a Gmail account). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I wouldn't be able to review them until tomorrow, and I'm not sure I'm the best person for the task (I've had my beefs with both of you; nothing earth shattering, but whoever disagreed could claim I was biased and then we'd just go 'round again). I'm not sure admins can actually do anything with emailed evidence anyway. You might forward to Arbcom? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Punishing the harasser and the victim is wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Why block me?

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

---

These proposals for a block on me are shocking and hurtful. I have been pursued by an aggressive bully, accused of lots of bogus things .. and all I have tried is to break off dialogue while countering the public falsehoods.

1. This started with a SMcCandlish posting[88] on my talk to question a close, accusing me of "scare someone into silence" because I commended consensus-building
2. I responded fulsomely and civilly, but SMcCandlish needled and insulted, until I realised that dialogue was futile, so I ended the discusison[89] and banned him from my talk.[90]
3. I then discovered that SMcCandlish was busy spamming a private page of mine despoite a heading at the top saying not to, so I reverted that, and he then reposted it on my talk. I reverted that too
4. I took it to ANI asking nothing other than that he desist; SMcCandlish took it to AN, and then he started emailing me. Stupidly, I did reply twice by email.
5. This morning both the AN and and ANI discussions were closed with a recommendation to disengage, which I welcomed. It is exactly what I had been seeking from the outset.
6. Nonetheless, SMcCandlish posted again below the closed discussion
7. SMcCandlish emailed me 5 hours after the disengagement was recommend here. I replied with two word "get lost"
8. Yet SMcCandlish falsely accuses me of harassing him

This is appalling. I have not followed SMcCandlish around talk pages. I have not visited his talk page. I have no invited him to my talk pages. I have not initiated email correspondence. I respected the close of the discussion here until a new set of allegations were made against me. I respected the interaction ban.

And now I am being falsely accused of breaching the interaction ban. If any admins are willing to examine the emails to verify what I have asserted, I will send the entire set. It will take about two minutes to check the timestamps and verify that I am telling the truth.

So why exactly am I being threatened with a block? Everyone here wants disengagement, and that is what I have been trying to do throughout. It's why I opened this ANI discussion in the first place.

I feel really fed up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl - For what it's worth, the proposal to block you is very far from reaching any kind of consensus (as of the time of this writing) withdrawn. It's frustrating for you to see such a proposal and I completely understand that... just don't let it overly distract you or get underneath your skin, and keep yourself focused on the primary goals of Wikipedia and doing the things you enjoy here, and everything will be okay - one way or another. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: This is not an endorsement of anyone's behaviour but if SMC's actions are affecting you this badly, take time off Wikipedia instead of batting away at the wound. This is a general approach to any issues on Wikipedia honestly, it's just an online community and should not affect you to the point that you have to keep retaliating. Just my two cents. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 05:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

True in most cases, but when the issue is alleged bullying and harassment, on what is supposed to be an academic project of collegial civility, respect and collaboration steeped in good faith, "take some time off" is not a particularly constructive solution. I can think of several damaging real-world parallels that should not be encouraged. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We cannot expect no conflict in a place where collaboration is the principle itself - and at a certain point, things will get ugly. No one is encouraging any parallel, sometimes it's better to focus your efforts on places which require them, shutting out aspects you don't like is necessary, and escalating it at every step will simply make the entire situation worse. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 05:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Serial Number 54129 removing valid warnings on anon talk page

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

The anon reverted a valid an edit by a new anon. I welcomed the new anon and after reading the notice placed a request that the IPV6 anon provide edit summaries.

• 22:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Prime Minister of Canada. (TW)"

That's when the protection started.

1. 22:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888401889 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Good; carry on."
2. 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 888401402 by Walter Görlitz (talk) I'm afraid you don't get to edit war on this page; be mindful."

I started discussing, but go no answers.

1. 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Seriously */ new section"
2. 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "R"
3. 22:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Seriously */"

Is there any reason this anon gets protection from editors? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is simply Wikipedia:Etiquette. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• ANI? Really??? EEng 22:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I would be happy to move it elsewhere. Where would you suggest? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The bit bucket. You could just let it go. EEng 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: please do not remove warnings from another user's talk page, regardless of how valid the warning is (I have no opinion on that matter). ansh666 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: thanks for trying to close this, but the anon's edits are only peripheral to Walter's complaint. ansh666 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Walter's complaint is a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Then close it again with a summary that actually addresses it... ansh666 22:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• This "dispute" is so Wikipedian.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• This is so weird. Ansh is obviously right. One should never delete another's comments, unless in specific situations prescribed by the relevant policy. DTTR is not a violation, and as a "social" offense, it's relatively minor. Deleting others' comments, on the other hand, is a genuine policy violation that can get you into hot water. Aggressively edit warring over it makes it even worse. Surely Serial Number knows this, and was willing to risk getting blocked over it (not saying I would block, just that it is technically blockable). Then, when Walter comes here with a perfectly valid report that they're being treated inappropriately, he gets treated like the bad guy? Why does this IP need such hardheaded protection from being templated? They even have a warning box preemptively threatening users who would template them, that seems to be of dubious appropriateness. Maybe I'm missing something. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned at Walter Gorlitz's talkpage, I'm having a hard time finding a grievous, disruptive policy violation worth bringing here in a small edit-war over a template for not using edit summaries. Is this what we need to bring to ANI? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 takes a lot of warnings from editors who see an IP and immediately template, that's why the notice is there at the top of the page. Editors, registered or not, get sloppy sometimes and don't use edit summaries. All that justifies an edit-war and ANI? Acroterion (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I take no issue with this assessment, just with the disproportionate reaction (Walter being condemned, where he technically didn't do anything wrong, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to Serial's violations). It may be a petty issue, but I'm sympathetic towards Walter, who I don't feel was treated particularly fairly. Usually DTTR situations are not meant with summary deletion and edit warring, so I'm wondering what the big deal is with this IP, who is surely capable of responding to or removing templated messages at their own discretion. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• I'm not sure why my attempt to provide a constructive dissenting opinion was force-closed with another "waste of time" closing statement. The original close already did that, and I was making a point that I felt the response Walter received was a bit one-sided and not entirely fair. To have a respectful dissent to a close immediately shut down, with a closing statement that does nothing but flatly restate the closing statement that is being disagreed with, is a bit offensive and absurd. I have the time to comment on this, and I don't need a closer to tell me I am wasting my time by trying to make educational policy points and constructive criticism. If this is such a petty, unimportant issue, then there should not be these aggressive and repeated attempts to forcibly suppress commentary. That, to me, suggests not that the complaint is mundane and unimportant, but that tensions are far too high and people are acting without calmness and restraint in attempting to stifle a reasonable complaint. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this certainly was a valid complaint by Walter. No comment on whether the initial posting of the template was appropriate or not. Serial Number 54129‎ simply does not have the authority to remove something from another editor's talk page and edit-warring only makes matters worse. The only person who should be removing the template from the talk page is the IP user and if he/she has a problem with Walter they can bring forth the proper complaint, there is no reason for someone else to be acting on their behalf.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• JESUS CHRIST, JOSEPH, MARY AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, Walter shouldn't have templated a regular (even if it's an IP regular), and he should have realized that, at latest, when SN 4129 removed the message. But after Walter restored the message, SN54129 probably should have left it be (possibly adding a soothing counter-message of his own). So everybody did something inadvisable. OK? Now stop it. EEng 02:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Oh, dear. The cobra ate your kittens, ok? DlohCierekim

• Contentiously force-closing good faith meta-commentary on the contentious force-closure of good faith meta-commentary on a contentious force-closure. Well played. Credit where it's due, I do love a good absurdist comedy. Very well, I'll take my measured views, balanced responses, and objective considerations of policy somewhere that they won't evoke some bizarre level of hostility and outrage. This can be closed, again, since that's apparently what we're doing here for some reason. ~Swarm~ {talk} 05:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• What EEng said, though Swarm has a point. DlohCierekim 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Camps Maria and Plastiquedoll12

Can someone enlighten me on the edits of

• Camps Maria and
• Plastiquedoll12

They seem to be keeping stats in their userpage, and (for Camps Maria) zero edits outside of that. The (minimal) edits that Plastiquedoll12 does outside of the userspaces of the two accounts seems to give the suggestion that the stats are related to RuPaul's Drag Race, mostly Season 11, but I then fail to see a (direct) connection between the edits performed on the userspaces and on the articles.

I've tried to ask both editors what they were doing 2 weeks ago, but neither have responded thus far. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this before on other accounts and user pages, too. To be honest, I'm not completely sure. I just moved on and called them "test edits" in my mind... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm thats weird, I've seen those types of edits before, and with a variety of users. Boggles me as to...what or why, not sure if its socking or what. In the past I've just tagged it for U5 WP:NOTWEBHOST speedy deletion, which is what I have done for these userpages at the moment. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and CaptainEek: I was hovering between the 'test edits' and 'notwebhost' type as well (they did not really bother me, except that they hog an edit filter). Lets see what happens next ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra - Indeed. With the accounts that I saw that had this same kind of user page, I didn't see much happen beyond the creation of the tables. Some did update them later (if they were sports scores, or something else that needed such), but other than that... I don't remember seeing anything else happen. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I've blocked this person before, but – if I have – I don't remember who it is. Anyway, the following are  Confirmed to each other: Camps Maria, Idol Academy, DanceSchool2019, Plastiquedoll12, The Next Drag Superstar, Lolitadragracerace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Oh wow... thank you. That puts things into perspective... I'm still puzzled as to what these pages are even for? Is anyone opposed to me (or someone else) deleting them per U5? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Zakkarygraham (user page) - another? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been considering whether this is some game between some of the fans of this Drag Race. As the ratings come out they (sometimes) update the pages itself, and for the rest play their own game. That would certainly qualify this material for U5. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I found one that was blocked: Renten12 (talk · contribs). Some others: Unrulydragbrunch (talk · contribs), Birdsofpreyshowdc (talk · contribs), Dragbingo2 (talk · contribs), Dontitodragbrunch (talk · contribs), Christianloera20 (talk · contribs). For some reason, these "contestant progress" socks trip filter 643. I still haven't found any that I personally blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Interesting thought. I went ahead and U5'd the user pages of the accounts you listed that still had tables and information published. Worst case scenario, one of them will message me on my user talk page about it and explain. Restoring the material is easy to do if it turns out to be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: it appears to be tripping 643 (written to catch a sock that as one of their MOs is editing to win/brag about prizes in contests and hence links sometimes to that in their edit summaries) because they consistently edit sections that state ..'/* Contestant Progress for Season 1 */ ...' (at a rate that trips the filter). It is a false positive in the terms of what I try to catch, and, as I said, rather annoyingly clogging the filter. Hence my attempt to communicate (and now I am here after lack of communication) to figure out whether I should filter them out of the filter, or whether we should just 'block, delete and move on' as this is WP:NOTHERE material. Seen this communication, I think a future block-delete is the appropriate action. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Christianloera20/sandbox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Missedge1/Archive may be related, too. One of the socks has a "contestant progress" user page. These accounts don't seem to be hurting anything, but it looks like a few of them have been blocked for WP:NOTHERE or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was sure that issues surrounding articles pertaining to the show had came up before and sure enough it seems I'm right [91]. I had a quick look and most of those editors seem to be in good standing although there was one or two who was blocked or an IP. And nothing struck me as particularly similar. But I can't be bothered investigating in detail, so does anyone know whether this could be related to previous problems? Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Danny84willis

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

---

• Danny84willis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This editor has been making incorrect edits to footballers' infobox statistics since August 2017. When I noticed in August last year that they weren't updating the timestamps, I dropped the editor a note, and followed this up the following month. @Mattythewhite also left a template message regarding that issue earlier this month. That, in itself, may seem like a small issue, but when you have been advised three times of the correct process and ignored it, that does suggest an issue.

However, this is compounded by the fact that the stats the editor adds are simply incorrect much of the time. The edit pattern is replicated on others, but taking as an example Diego Lainez, which is one of the editor's most frequented articles, their last two edits have added a goal and an appearance that don't exist. Lainez has scored a goal in the UEFA Europa League, but this still doesn't make sense as the appearance data would be wrong for 'all competitions' stats. I've have nevertheless explained to Danny84willis that the infobox stats should represent the domestic league only, as is stated at the bottom of the box and in the documentation.

The main issue, though, is communication. Several attempts to engage with the editor have been ignored and I don't see that situation changing. My last message was again ignored, and the editor seems oblivious to the reality that every one of their edits is subsequently either fixed or reverted by someone else. I am therefore asking for a block until the editor acknowleges the concerns of other editors and agrees to communicate. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I see in the user's contributions, Danny84willis has made no edits other than problematic ones to articles. No talk, user talk, or Wikipedia edits - no attempts to communicate at all. I've indefinitely blocked the user for the repeated and persistent addition and modification of content without citing any reliable sources. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• @7 qz: Per the closure, I don't believe there's any suggestion of socking in this case. Nzd (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

POV pusher

• Balolay (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This editor is obviously pushing a POV. he/she keeps adding images about Arab slavery into articles and adding "Islam" to Arab trade slavery removing responses to cristism of Muhammed and Islam(doesn't respect balance). I am going to start with each of his edits.

• 1-He has got reverted multiple times by two different editors after he added an image to the lead and yet he ask us to get consensus although he is the one who has to make a consensus. he added the image here he got reverted here and so on until I and him got blocked after he reported me immediately (I have reported him but I got no response so I got upset about it and editwar happened).
• 2-Slavery article after we discussed this and we got consensus about this issue which was that he don't put the Arab Slavery photo in the lead and he somehow agreed on that(see the talk page) he added the image again saying that Musicfan122 is has no responded to him although I did response to him and he didn't come back with anything just said (okay thanks for pointing that out)
• 3-adding the images of Arab slavery into different articles you a can see that from his contributions.
• 4- calling other editors edits "possible vandalism" he was calling this edit btw a possible vandalism and actually he made an edit war there with Ross Finlayson because of this simple issue he just don't want to listen. He also used Wikipedia as a source in another article here

I am totally disgusted with this type of behaviour can you do something about it? My English isn't so good to actually describe this type of behaviour and extensively explain how all of his edits like putting unbalanced images into the lead please see talk:Slavery as I explained to him that and he didn't response and again he reverted it's totally disrespectful. I feel like if I am being trolled (to be honest) by that revert BTW. I have made a promise to MSGJ that I am not going to edit in any slavery related articles and I did my promise BTW I am not topic banned or something I am by myself choose not to contribute in that area any time soon yet I can't actually stand this behaviour so I decided to ask you guys to help me..--SharabSalam (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the articles that you both have edited, I see a lot of edit warring and disruption between the two of you. You both are equally responsible and can be held accountable for resorting to edit warring instead of following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and working things out. I saw that Balolay added an image from this topic area (Arab / Islamic slavery) onto the Photograph and Photography articles; I removed the image added to the photograph article, as it clearly isn't necessary at all. This unnecessary addition of images from this topic (as well as Balolay's edit history which looks to be almost exclusively within this topic area) shows that Balolay might have a single-purpose point-of-view and hence be a single-purpose account in regards to this topic area. Edit warring doesn't make anything better, however. If Balolay starts repeatedly reverting your edits to an article, you should stop reverting things back and instead file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I'm no expert in this topic area, but I can definitely say that things can't continue as they've been doing, and a deeper look into Balolay's edits may be warranted here. I'm happy to see that you've kept to your word and have stayed away from this topic area. Otherwise, I believe that the back-and-forth reverting and other issues would've just continued and resulted in more administrative action taken against the two of you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

After I got blocked I did not edit war with him but it got my attention that he readded this image into the lead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/888145117 totally ignoring me and saying that another editor hasn't showed up see the talk page and what we have reached too literally he still didn't come back with any response to my argument this is trolling and unhealthy for me--SharabSalam (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Oshwah Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Regarding my edits on Photography, I don't think I was pushing a particular agenda since it is a totally unrelated topic. However, I added the image since it's an important historical piece highlighting the importance of photography in raising awareness on particular issues. And my edit history shows that I add images to various unrelated articles fairly frequently. I hope this clears any doubts. Regards

@SharabSalam I think it's highly unfair that you are blaming me considering the fact that the other editor you were supporting turned out to be a sockpuppet troll account. You have previously reverted my good faith edits on other articles such as Islam, which were later corrected by other editors. I have engaged in countless productive discussions without offending other editors such as the one on Talk: Criticism of Muhammad. Regards Balolay (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay, there is no way in which this was a revert of "possible vandalism". And please see WP:TOPPOST on organizing posts. You had four separate paragraphs at two levels of indenting: very confusing. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• And I'm beginning to think there is something to the complaint. Take this edit, which is also, really, this edit. Balolay adds images of the enslavement of Africans by Arabs, and that such enslavement happens is clear and not part of the discussion, but why that image (which is heartbreaking, of course--looking at all those images, ah humanity...) ought to be in Photography or Abolitionism is entirely unclear. It is true that photography was helpful for some abolitionist, but the sources make that case for Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, not for abolitionism (some of which preceded the invention of photography) as a whole, and certainly not for the slavery that this photo illustrate. One can say that one image can stand for all, but if it is true that the editor also likes to add "Muslim" or "Islamic" or whatever to "Arab slave trade" (we will need to see evidence of that), or that otherwise the editor seems to have an anti-Islam POV, then the selection can be seen as part of POV-editing. And even without that evidence, I just do not see evidence for Balolay's claims that these images are inherently applicable to these articles. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and sorry for tagging you. Here the addition of Islam/Muslim to Arab slave trade. Special:MobileDiff/885936221 here he added "Arab Islamic world" here I reverted Special:MobileDiff/885945047 here he readded it Special:MobileDiff/885965956 I reverted again Special:MobileDiff/886041705 with the edit summary that you can see. notice that this is 17 days ago. one day ago he added it no edit summary whatsoever Special:MobileDiff/888475680. 10 mins ago his edit was reverted.

now for the Slavery article I will explain what was happening he had an edit war with a user called Musicfan about an image in the body of the article again they were arguing about the image in the body of the article while they are arguing he added an image to the lead that is mainly about Arab slavery I objected that edit and started discussing that in the talk page and as you can see at the end of the discussion that I explained why the lead should not contain that image per MOS:LEADIMAGE. he asked me what is my position on the image of the body(that he was arguing with Musicfan) I said I don't have any problem with it(and I have said that before in the discussion) he readded the image of the body to the article saying (per TP) although he didn't make any consensus with Musicfan about the image in the body. This whole problem that is about the lead image started 2 weeks ago. 2 days ago he readded the image of the lead saying (Restored image in the lead after no response from Musicfan122 for more than 7 days on talk page.) and I was like: WTFFFFFF that's was between me and him and he didn't make any reply to my argument!! he totally dismissed me and that edit summary was IMO pure trolling. same as calling other edits possible vandalism. This behaviour is totally toxic to me. The conclusion that I have reached from his contributions that this user is actually pushing a POV and that the talk page are worthless to him. he says that he has commited and discussed with other edits in another articles then why doesnt he do that with me why did he totally dismiss what I said in the talk page of slavery and went and readded the image to the lead? Also tagging Eperoton who might have an opinion about his edits. also I want to clarify that I made a promise that I am not going to edit in the slavery article again because it is a sensitive issue and I don't want to say or do things that could be considered offensive. I didn't edit any slavery article since I had that problem with him. However, yesterday I reverted his edit in Photography or Photograph and Slavery because I saw that no one noticing what he is doing. (Forgive me for using he/his/him but it's hard for me to not use them) --SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies makes a point. On closer look to Balolay contributions some of his contributions are highly unnecessary and only questions WP:HERE motive. Such contributions are mentioned above, as well as this [92] and/or adding controversial statements [93] and/or removing others [94]. This looks like this user harbors anti-Islam POV to me, but a more experienced user could perhaps investigate further. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I want also to add something to what Wikiemirati said. The user has added a passage into the Criticism of Muhammad and it was removed here [95] if you took a look at it it is sourced to Wikipedia article but what Wikipedia article? An old version of the same article (Criticism of Muhammad)!!!! I find this hilarious tbh. Do you know why he did that? Because that passage was challenged before and was already removed because the source doesn't say what the passage says. See talk:Criticism of Muhammad--SharabSalam (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Rogers Communications LTA.

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

---

• Cathay Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hong Kong International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 99.251.225.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Long term abuse from a customer from Rogers Communications Canada

Can anything really can do with the LTA from the ISP Rogers Communications? Write a LTA filing? Let see

Remove the Chinese word Limited (有限) from Chinese companies article

Engvar and date format vandalism, especially in species and airport (e.g. Special:Diff/887905462 at Hong Kong International Airport, HK use dmy and he changed to mdy)

Change the name of Cathay Pacific Airways to hoax value (see Special:Diff/850109976 in last year (Rogers IP, blocked), Special:Diff/879379397 in January (despite not a Rogers Communications IP) and this in March Special:Diff/887930659)

Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've semi protected both articles listed here for two weeks and temporarily blocked the IP listed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not list Marsh Harbour Airport as i can't verify it was a good faith Engvar fix or not, and end up wrong. I will post it to page protection if something else happened. Matthew hk (talk)

Marsh Harbour was not good faith. Reference shows it as Marsh Harbour, and it's the Bahamas anyway which is en-GB spelling. Bizarre thing is, that's the spelling for Rogers Communications customers in Canada anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know if I can do anything else for you and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Asking for advice to avoid being accused of edit warring

Guy Macon and I are embroiled in a dispute involving White genocide conspiracy theory, Population decline, The Turner Diaries, the ORN and NPOVN noticeboards, WP:JIMBOTALK (where I complained because there was a related discussion ongoing and I felt like I was being stalked and bullied -- but that only escalated the problem), and WT:OR#"Directly related to the topic of the article" does not mean explicitly referring to it, which is a balanced discussion on the central issue involved. I've engaged with him civilly for the past three days, but I no longer think he is acting in good faith.

He had objected to a paragraph about birth rates I added to White genocide conspiracy theory#Criticism because he, along with several other people, considered it original research because it was not related directly enough to the subject. So I added essentially the same paragraph, plus another source which two editors had approved of, to Population decline#Interpretation of statistical data, which he has now deleted twice; diffs: [96], [97]. On the talk page he said that the inclusion was OR, but he didn't say which statements, if any, were unsupported by reliable sources, and he didn't say that the issue of low birthrates was unrelated to the article's subject. However, in his initial edit summary he said that he was deleting the passage because of WP:NPOV, which he didn't mention on the talk page. The only third party on that article's talk page says it should be included in the body, not the introduction which is the only place that I've ever included it, although I originally proposed adding it to the intro. I would like to replace the paragraph in the body of the article. Question 1: If I do that now, would that risk the appearance of edit warring? If so, which dispute resolution method is appropriate in this case?

I also don't think Guy is being sincere because of his false claim that, "you won't find any specific mention [of] the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Diaries."[98] I'm sure he didn't read the book or do a thorough search for sources on the topic, as explained at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory? which I copied to the book's talk page to support the correct claim there. He has repeatedly been deleting my replies to him on that and other topics at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Proposed Criticism section inclusion; diffs: [99], [100], [101]. He thinks he is allowed to delete my interspersed replies to his several bullet points even after I restored his original comment to its precise initial state. Does he have the right to delete my interspersed comments just because I quoted his subsequently? WP:TPO appears to say just the opposite. Question 2: If I tried to replace my reply to his several bullet points for a third time in Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Deleted responses, could I be accused of edit warring? If so, how should I handle this?

In any case, I'm going to step back for a few days during which I intend to limit my editing to this thread only. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a complicated content dispute, just small advice to you, some things on this wikipedia are just not worth the stress, take those pages off your watchlist and let them go, in time the articles will get improved as is the way of things and you will also be happier. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Standard ANI response: As is my policy, if any administrator tells me to stop doing something I stop doing it immediately, whether I agree or not. If I really feel the warning was out of line (this has not happened yet) I will discuss it with the admin on their talk page rather than ignoring the warning. I would urge any admin with an itchy trigger finger to please try warning me before considering a block. I have a history of 13 years with no blocks and want to keep it that way.

OK, let's look at a timeline with diffs:

At 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited one of my comments.[102]

WP:TPOC says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" and "you should stop if there is any objection".

The help page WP:TALKPAGE says: "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it."

At 03:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I removed the edits to my comment with the edit summary "Deleted clear WP:TPOC violation. Don't edit other peoples comments."[103] (1RR)

At 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I warned EllenCT on their talk page.[104]

At 07:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT cut and pasted my comment to a new section (retaining my signature, making it look as if I had written those words in that section) and once again interspersed her comments.[105] (1RR)

At 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I deleted the edited cut and paste of my comment.[106] (2RR)

At that time I added the following advice:

Nowhere in TPOC or any other policy is there an exception to the rule against editing other people's comments just because you tacked on a {{tl|interrupt}} template, nor are you allowed to cut and past other people's comments (along with their signature) and edit the cut and pasted version. Please read WP:TPOC and follow Wikipedia's rules.

The usual way that this is handled without a WP:TPOC violation is to use this format:

In the comment above, Larson E. Whipsnade says "the moon is made of green cheese". I disagree. According to[107] the moon is made of Regolith. --~~~~'

At 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT ignored the above advice and once again posted the edited version of my comment.[108] (2RR)

At 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I reverted the edit of my comment with the edit summary "Editing other people's comments, including interspersing your own in them, is a violation of WP:TPOC."[109] (3RR)

It is incredibly annoying to write something only to discover that it now has someone interrupting it after every sentence with a rebuttal. It is also annoying to find that -- despite your objections -- a talk page now looks like you posted the exact same message to two different sections, and you are not allowed to remove the copy. Might I humbly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are annoyed that I rebutted each of your bullet points, but why do you think you have the right to delete my quoting them, along with my original replies? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer 1 The content is disputed and there is no consensus for it on the talk page, so don't add it back. You could leave a note at WT:SOCIOLOGY to get more eyes.

Answer 2 Don't use the {{interrupt}} template anymore; per it's documentation, it's only to be used when the in line responses can't be undone because they're too old. It makes following a conversation impossible to follow. Copying Guy's remarks again and using the {{interrupt}} tag is just as confusing. Instead, do what Guy did for your comments: Quote them, in a way that makes it clear to the reader that you're quoting him, and then respond to the quote. Most people do this by using {{green}} or italics or a {{quotebox}}.

Answer 3 I know there was no Question 3, but @Guy Macon:, while I can understand the frustration, please dial back the hostility some. It makes it that much more difficult for uninvolved editors to be able to, or to want to, participate. This will all eventually work out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you. I will do those things after a few days. I had no idea inline replies were deprecated.

I'd like to ask your advice about a related issue. I started editing these articles after reading the New Zealand mosque terrorist's manifesto, and then doing a web search on the keywords he repeats in front of it, many permutations of which (e.g. [white birth rates Europe]) lead to sites like [110] and [111] on the first page of Google search results. How can we best help impressionable researchers seeing such sites for the first time as they look for answers on such topics get a more balanced, less extremist point of view countering those organized attempts at radicalization? Is it something that is easier to do elsewhere than Wikipedia? Are there people at Google who monitor these sorts of things? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean how do we make Google searches show better results? I suppose one step would be to have good Wikipedia articles that would take the top slot, but there's nothing WP can do to push the loony results further down the Google search results page beyond that. I know very little about Google's algorithms or their monitoring system, but my understanding is they really don't like to get involved, and prefer to let the algorithm do what it does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• EllenCT Forgive the fly-by response, but I am just out the door and wanted to respond to you quickly before doing so, since I think the issues here are easily addressed if further entrenchment by parties does not first set in: 1) the process you are looking for to resolve this stalemate is a WP:Request for comment, which should, given the topic of this article, attract a fair few community members to help resolve the deadlock. However, whoever writes up the RfC request should be careful to make sure that it is neutrally worded--if you're feeling uncertain of availing yourself of this process because of unfamiliarity, let me know and I will assist at my next earliest opportunity in opening and framing the discussion, as a neutral third party. 2) Guy is absolutely correct that it is generally not permissable to break up another editor's comments into chunks by embedding your own responses within them. This is non-standard for the project and becomes far too messy as discussions progress (and people respond to your responses) and in general. It will keep people from being able to easily track the course of the discussion and the "owner" of various statements and assertions. It really shouldn't be done in any event, and once Guy reverted and asked you not to repeat such edits, you definitely are required to stop at that juncture.

I hope this helps address your questions. In generally, this clearly a content dispute, rather than a behavioural issue, so this is not likely to be the ideal space for further debate on the underlying issues. As I said before, if you two are at a loggerheads, then RfC is your best way out--let me know if you'd like some help with it. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thank you. I would love help with an RFC by a neutral third party. As I said, I'm going to step away for a few days so there is no hurry, but please don't let that stop you either. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I will wait on your return to do any work so I can be able to consult with you to be certain that I am faithfully representing your editorial stance on the issue. Of course, there is nothing barring Guy from initiating the RfC or another dispute resolution process in the meantime, but provided that he is in no hurry, I'll be happy to make an effort at rendering both your stance and his in a few days, or whenever you return--just toss me a note on my talk page or ping me, at your convenience. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "please dial back the hostility some": (Big smile, as in "you make an excellent point and I will be happy to comply") Sir yes sir! Dialing down hostility now sir! [GROUP HUG] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "I had no idea inline replies were deprecated", might I gently suggest that when an editor repeatedly tells you that you are violating WP:TPOC you simply read TPOC and any linked help pages do what they say rather than going to ANI? The phrases "you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies", "you should stop if there is any objection", and "If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it" are extremely clear. Your claim that you did not understand such crystal clear language strains AGF to the breaking point. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the record. I would oppose any sanctions against EllenCT at this time, and I personally would not have taken this to ANI. I would be satisfied with a commitment by EllenCT to read and follow our policies and guidelines in the future.

To bring up another example of this behavior (and trying very hard to focus on the user behavior and not the underlying content dispute) I cited one of the foremost academic experts on The Turner Diaries[112] (J.M. Berger of The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism) and EllenCT responded with her original research and interpretation about what the primary source The Turner Diaries really means.[113]

Given the pattern of behavior we are seeing, what do you think will happen when I point to the specific words in our policies regarding what reliable academic sources say about a primary source vs a Wikipedia editor reading and interpreting the primary sources? I would also mention that after posting her personal interpretation of a primary source on a talk page, she proceeded to insert the same OR into yet another article.[114]] That's another part of the behavior pattern; try to insert OR into an article, get pushback from the other editors, try to coat rack the same OR into another article. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Long story short, I have to agree with Guy here. She is ignoring what a number of editors have told her about basic policy. If she continues with this I think sanctions might be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Follow WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. We too often forget that it's OK if one person disagrees. Involve others and see what the consensus is.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't try to use Wikipedia to change Google search results. That amounts to soapboxing (WP:SOAP). It's supposedly a standalone encyclopedia and we'd be better off if we blocked Google from indexing it forever. Also I think everyone is trying pretty hard to ignore the contents of the shooter manifesto, which by all reports I've seen doesn't contain much of substance anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is a case where our rules (don't read and interpret the manifesto yourself, apply WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and when appropriate report what reliable independent third part sources say about it) really shine. In this case, one of the sources says:

"And now there's the guy who just slaughtered at least 49 people in two New Zealand mosques. His manifesto emerges, dripping, from the memes-and-shitposts world of 8chan, 4chan, and similar sites. Parts of the document are obvious put-ons, even as the blood in Christchurch reminds us that the killer wasn't kidding about his lethal intentions... the document isn't always so straightforward; at times the terrorist is trying to fuck with his readers... At one point in his attack, right before opening fire, the killer said, "Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.".. The words "subscribe to PewDiePie" are themselves a meme. Reciting them before you shoot people is the internet-age equivalent of murdering someone while you repeat a Saturday Night Live catchphrase. The fascist terrorist is also a fascist troll. Reading him is like seeing a Pepe meme carrying an actual gun."

I write the above not as a comment about this particular manifesto, (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content) but instead as a comment about how when we follow Wikipedia's rules it protects us from the mistake of not realizing what is and is not internet trolling and from conducting original research by reading and interpreting the manifesto ourselves.

Source: The Shitpost Terrorist: When a murder manifesto shows signs of irony poisoning, Reason Magazine --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 move warring

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

---

On March 9 I suggested moving a recently created page, one linked to by exactly one other page on Wikipedia besides the newly created redirects from the move warring. That suggestion was received warmly by the only editor of the article (besides a few technical edits) and no other comment was made on that for a few days so I moved the article. Concurrent to this, Wikieditor19920 had been in an editorial conflict with me at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu#indictment in lead. Having lost that argument, with unanimous agreement against his position there, Wikieditor showed up to argue against the move at the previously discussed article four days later. I dont want to get too far into the weeds of the content here, but WP:RMUM is clear. When there is a conflict over a move performing that move is move warring. The editor knows full well that his chosen move target is contested, given it had already been reverted once. I request that the move be reversed and the article be move-protected. If this user feels his move target is appropriate he is free to open a requested move. Hounding my contributions to move a page in a way expressly prohibited by policy should not be one of the options. This is not the first time this user has hounded my contributions. To date the users only contribution to the Category namespace followed a conflict at another article. A reminder that WP:HOUNDING is inappropriate would also be useful in my view. nableezy - 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding move protection to the article now. Please file a requested move if the article should be renamed to something else. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thats only half of it though, the move warring should not be rewarded through protection. Ill file a move request if necessary, but violating policy should not result in a new status quo. nableezy - 20:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy - Looking at the article's talk page, I don't see a consensus to move or keep the article title to a certain name - unless I'm missing something? Status quo isn't as important as stopping the move war and the disruption. Unless the current title violates policy or if there's a past discussion about this article's title and with a clear consensus to keep the title as a different name than it currently is, I don't favor one side over the other and I protect the page as it is (similar to WP:WRONGVERSION). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at the dates of the talk page. I proposed moving the article. One user responded with agreement, with no other user saying anything until Wikieditor19920 hounded me there. The first user to say one word against a move was a week later. Yes, status quo should not be important, but this isnt a topic area where "no consensus" is not the majority close. Two users who have added absolutely nothing to the article besides changing "regime" to "system" are being rewarded through two moves that expressly violate policy. When I made my move there was unanimous consent, and complete silence for 4 days following. When both of the other moves were made they were in violation of policy. nableezy - 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy - Fair enough. I'll go ahead and move the article back to its original title. This was not the original title, and I've moved it back to the actual original title. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. nableezy - 20:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy - No problem.  Done. Continue the discussion with Wikieditor19920. If move warring occurs again or if the user performs any more page moves in a disruptive fashion, file another report here so that we can investigate, handle the issue, and (if necessary) take appropriate action. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Nableezy has been misleading here, and this should not be rewarded. There was an agreement in the talk that "Israeli permit X" was factually inaccurate as the article was on the West Bank or oPt requiring an "in the oPt/West Bank". The STABLE version (prior to 12 March) is with "system". The "in" part was added following talk page agreement.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz - Lovely..... lol. This is the reason why I just protect the article as it is and without changing anything, and then have the users involved file a move request if it needs to change. I should've stuck to that. ;-) Alright.... I'll change it back.... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz - Can you confirm... what exactly was the article's title originally before any moves were performed? I'm trying to locate the original move log to make sure that I'm changing it to the title that it was. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Israeli permit system from Feb 2019. First move is this diff. The TP has consensus it should be "in opt" or "in West Bank" (more or less the same). No consensus on regime va. System.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like "Israeli permit system" was the article's original title, and if it was agreed upon that adding "in the West Bank" to the title was acceptable as Icewhiz pointed out, then yes - the article should be "Israeli permit system in the West Bank". I'm going to change it to this title and then that's it - any future renames will need to be performed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah you are misreading the talk page. The article was created by Nishidani at yes system. He agreed to the move to regime. And then there was unanimous agreement for a week, with no other users editing either the article or talk page. Thats fine, I get this is complicated. But you are very much rewarding out of process moves here, and hounding at that. nableezy - 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry... you'll need to file a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves; I'm not making any more page moves due to arguments made here by any involved users. The article title as it is right now ("Israeli permit system in the West Bank") is what the article was originally before any recent moves were performed, and is also what the title would have been had I just done what I should've done (and what I usually do when applying protection to a page) - and left it alone. Other than the move warring, is there anything else I need to look into? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine, do what you want, but you are rewarding move warring. That is unequivocal here. Two users made moves that are disallowed by policy and you are allowing it to stand. Based off an involved users dishonest summary. nableezy - 21:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about who is correct and who is wrong; this is about putting an end to the disruption and helping everyone involved to resolve the matter appropriately and peacefully. Wikipedia is not about winning. I need to take the appropriate actions that are appropriate, fair, and (above all else) the right thing to do - and I believe that the action I took (not touch anything, the net result after the move I made and the second move undoing my first move) was the right thing to do here. I'm not doing this to "award any wrongdoers" or make life difficult or frustrating for you; I'm doing what's necessary to fairly and neutrally help resolve the matter and point everyone to the next step in the process. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regime is a non-neutral title and should be avoided, that is why we should use system which also makes sense which is what it is, it is a permitting system. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• In terms of move warring here - there was a move on 12 March by Nableezy. It was objected to well prior to becoming stable (4 days). The 12 March move by Nableezy was OK - but it was challenged. The only user who moved the article twice was Nableezy - moving back on 19 March to regime after it was challenged. I will also note that this article was forked off the occupation article - which is well watched.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

When you performed your move there was opposition to it. I reverted it. Please do not misrepresent this situation. nableezy - 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As Icewhiz has, ironically, dishonestly accused me of being dishonest, Ill lay this out, with diffs and dates.

• Article created Feb 2 by Nishidani at Israeli permit system
• Article is suggested to be moved March 9 by myself to regime
• Agreed to by the only editor, besides minor technical edits, of that page, Nishidani
• There being no other comment for three days, I then moved the page
• The first opposition to that move came four and a half days later here

I was not dishonest in my description Oshwah, Icewhiz was. And he performed a move that had explicit opposition to. When I moved the page there was unanimous consent and complete silence for four days prior. Please do not allow these gaming tactics of making assertions without evidence by Icewhiz to succeed. nableezy - 20:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not work on a deadline, and no one OWNs an article. The 12 March move was an OK bold move, however 3 days of discussion (proposed 9 March) are not a typical closing time for any discussion type on enwiki. I (and other editors) watch many articles - I don't respond every day to every one. The bold 12 March move was reverted well prior to this being stable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You made moves with express opposition to them. That is a straightforward violation of the move policy. nableezy - 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nableezy - I'm not saying that you were being dishonest at all. In a nutshell: there was a discussion to move the article from "system" to "regime". One person agreed. After three days of no additional input, you performed the page move (which is too soon; discussions should be kept open for at least one week before closing them). Someone added opposition to the discussion after you performed the move, move warring started, and now we're here. We need to backtrack to the discussion and allow it to remain open for its full allotted time before it should be closed. Had you done so, the input in opposition for the name change would've been made before you moved the article and this mess would've been avoided. It's okay, things happen and people make mistakes. It's not a big deal, but we need to stop the bickering and finger-pointing, take a few steps back, and finish out that discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not too soon, come on. There are still less than 30 watches of that article, Id bet it is still 6 as that as the number of editors. Yes, a requested move needs to stay open for 7 days. But when there is complete silence on a matter we do not need to wait that long. And there was another period of complete silence after that. But even with 7 days there was still unanimous support for the move. The only reason there was any dispute at all was that an editor got upset that he lost an argument elsewhere so he hounded my contributions to the permit regime article. I made a move that had unanimous support. Two users made moves that express opposition. Yet those moves are being allowed to stand. Its fine, Im not even blaming you. The problem is with the users such as Icewhiz who misrepresent the situation knowing that it will get too complicated to wade there. nableezy - 21:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, its move protected and I filed a move request. But please allow an I told you so when no consensus due to counting no votes (note not actual reasons) happens. nableezy - 21:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment nableezy, Oshwah is right when he says that 3 days is really too soon for such moves regardless of how legit the said move is, some users only edit Wikipedia only one or 2 times a week. I'm quite surprised by this answer of yours : No, it was not too soon, come on., i think Osh just knows very well what he's talking about. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Hip hop music disruption from Ohio needs another rangeblock

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

---

The range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E7A0:4FC0:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked twice by Ferret, and now the Ohioan is back at it, genre warring and generally removing stuff he doesn't like, and adding stuff he does like.[115][116][117]

Looking for a longer block this time. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've extended the block to three months. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:RonBot trouble possibly in need of intervention

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § User:RonBot trouble possibly in need of intervention

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Automated script being used by user without permission

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

---

FR30799386 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user, FR30799386 had resorted to using some sort of automated process to create more than a hundred redirects. I had emailed you'all about him earlier at which somebody had left a note on his t/p asking him to get consensus. However, he has disregarded it right now and has created more redirects right now.122.163.89.181 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a link and notified the editor of this discussion, per the big yellow "you must notify them on their user talk page" advisory. Reviewing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this complaint is premature. They've created five redirects. They were all created at approximately the same time but it takes very little time to create a redirect, and they're all obviously correct. I don't see a problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: No opinion on whether they're correct, but there are a lot more than five - see this editor's history on 15 & 16 March. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like they were warned on 17 March for that. Probably should wait to hear what they have to say, then. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a clarification, there wasn't any automated script, it was just that I prepped some of them up in some browser tabs and then went clicking Publish Changes rapidly. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism explosion from IP 111.94.20.179

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

---

Someone please block 111.94.20.179 (talk · contribs), who is making rapid small vandal edits. For one example, at Thermometer he sabotaged the link to Daniel Fahrenheit by removing the last name "Fahrenheit". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:  Done - though in future WP:AIV is a better venue. GiantSnowman 13:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh... 8 years here and that's the first I've noticed that venue. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Mass deleting broken inline citations

I'm uncertain about what new user Talk about confusing is currently doing to old refnames in articles. They seem to deleting them in bot-like fashion. Example diff: [118], my revert [119], their re-revert (edit summary: You find it) [120]. Systematically removing all broken refs without checking article histories seems like a bad idea to me, because it's basically throwing away other editors' research. At a minimum, if something needed a source in 2007, it probably needs to be cited with something now. Am I missing something here? Geogene (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so to me, Geogene. Generally, the folks here want to see diffs, but in this case, the editor in question's talk paints a clear enough picture. He's been counseled by multiple editors multiple times on this subject to which he has either ignored, sidestepped or responded belligerently. TAC needs to respond here with an explanation or explain themselves in an unblock request. Enough already. According to his talk page, this isn't his first trip here in the 6 weeks he's been around. John from Idegon (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are more diffs that show what I mean by "bot-like, systematic, mass deletion" of broken references. Here we have deletion of a reference at Croatian Pure Party of Rights at 13:41 [121]. Three minutes later we have deletion of two references at Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young discography [122]. At 13:56 there's a deletion of one old reference at Cross-linked polyethylene [123], and one minute later a deleted reference at Crossfire (Brandon Flowers song) [124]. I'm not saying that broken references can't ever be deleted, but the tempo of these edits, the potential scope of the editing (which I'm assuming is large since it's being done in unrelated articles in alphabetical order), and the dismissive remark from the editor, all have me concerned about whether TAC is exercising appropriate judgement here. Lost citations can be difficult to replace. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is extremely alarming. The user has ignored all attempts at communication, or has responded with personal attacks. They also do appear to be operating an unauthorized bot of some type. I do not know how else someone could crawl Wikipedia and identify and remove broken refs at that speed. Even if they're not actually using bot scripts (which I doubt), it's definitely bot-like to the degree where it's inconsequential. At best, this is a CIR issue, and I have blocked the user immediately to halt their disruption. They will be instructed that they will have to fully engage with this inquiry as a start, and if they do so we can start to think about unblock conditions. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Jahmalm and Ahmedo Semsurî

Two separate but related reports, combined by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism". No talk page posts by either editor. If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer. Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing POV-editing and vandalism by user

I was told to write here by the folks at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[125], so here I am. I want to report Jahmalm for vandalism. Every single edit of his is POV-related and vandalism (I'll actually call it smart vandalism since he actually uses sources (one source (author) over and over again in tens of pages). He's ignoring my edits and demands for sources/clarifications/better sources by reverting ([126][127][128]) and claim that I'm just 'an ethno-pov changer' every time (despite using various and diverse sources to support my changes (historians, linguistics, etc.). He even had the audacity to report me for vandalism, when I confronted his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any edits that would be within the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Can you provide Help:Diffs? Or are you actually just having a content dispute that would be best resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a 'content dispute' since it's not about supporting two contradictory academic arguments. He's just reverting my changes when it doesn't fit his point of view. I cleaned up after his mess on three articles, always academically sourced [129]. Now instead of having a sober debate on why he adds content with blogs as a source or oeuvres by one particular historian whose views he supports, he reverts and calls me a Kurdish nationalist. And note that I've worked hard to remove pro-Kurdish vandalism on Wikipedia as well([[130]). Concerning Help:Diffs, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I would gladly provide it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One example: I stated why I removed a map he added and why I added templates to various sentences.[131][132], but instead of looking into them, he just reverts [133][134]. It doesn't seem like he's on Wikipedia for any other reason than to force his views despite having academia against him. I'm really trying to make him argue for his changes, but he accuses me of being a nationalist.

Also, I'm pretty sure that he'll breach the Wikipedia:3RR today. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues as I write [135][136][137] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only account User:Ahmedo Semsurî by a Kurdish nationalist

Vandalism and POV changes by User:Ahmedo Semsurî a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday—Jahmalm (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious question, is this how 'a Kurdish nationalist' works? [138]. Seriously, it's time to stop vandalizing --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I had some skepticism that this was a behavioral incident for this noticeboard until Jahmalm's report above. It is patently obvious that User:Ahmedo Semsurî is not a vandalism-only account. So, @Jahmalm:, why would you claim that? --Bsherr (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD clerking by User:SS49

In the last 3 months, SS49 has been repeatedly given advice, warnings and direction to stop improperly clerking AFDs, specifically as it pertains to relisting per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELISTBIAS. Today after asking SS49 a final time to stop clerking, TonyBallioni also reached out and SS49 declined both of our advice and stated that he would continue to relist no vote/discussion AFDs. Also worth noting that 572 of their last 1000 edits are related to AFD maintenance. Anyway, tl;dr here are the bullet points of why this is a problem:

• Response to TonyBallioni after removal of my request, stating that AFD with no participation should be relisted. See below for multiple explanations of why they are incorrect. I did not include the numerous relists where NQ/soft delete should have applied due to no participation, but here are some of the most recent:
  • HSC Medical Center twice relisted by SS, no discussion at any point
  • Glenn Taranto no comments at relist by SS49 on 3/13, two keeps at relist by SS49 on 3/20
  • Meiling Melancon one week keep prior to relist on 3/20, though I suspect an admin would have made a judgement call to delete given the only response was actually not based within any sort of policy, that aside, the point is that he's not just relisting "no comment/vote" AFDs
  • Nathan Gorman two keeps prior to first relist (not by SS) no comments between that relist and 3/20 relist by SS
  • Committee_for_the_Abolition_of_Illegitimate_Debt relisted originally by NA1K and then by SS on 3/18 with no discussion or votes between, nor a rationale for a second relist
  • Kitty Crimes two keeps prior to SS relisting, even the nom is unsure
  • Jennifer Wright relisted originally by NA1K after a few comments and one keep, then again by SS with no discussion in the week between first list and no rationale for relist
  • Bedros Kapamajian relisted twice in a row by SS, the first following 2 keeps, 1 delete and the second with no discussion between what so ever.

• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation 3 from J947
• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation 2 from J947
• Timing of AfD relistings Amorymeltzer
• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation from J947
• follow up discussion on my talk page in which SS49 asks to be blocked and essentially trolls myself and Amorymeltzer after he was asked to stop erroneously relisting AFDs that hadn't reached the 168 hour mark yet
• Relisting AfD for 3rd time without rationale from Bakazaka
• Delsort spacing from Bakazaka
• deletion sorting
• FYI, Artist sort is only for visual artists, Artists deletion sort 3 threads with in depth warnings and detail from Montreal IP about incorrect deletion sorting
• multi issue warning about general disruption WBG

I'm requesting a topic ban for SS49 from clerking AFD (deletion sorting, relisting, closing.) As noted above, several editors have tried to discuss this with them, only to be met with hostility or immediate archiving of the concern. This is not conducive behavior to a collaborative environment, it's a time sink and disruptive. I intend to respect their wishes that I refrain from editing their talk page but as per ANI policy, my final edit there is this notification. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban given the history here, which I was unaware of when I talked to them, and their response to Praxidicae on her talk page, I don't think talking will do much good. To be fair to them, yes, there are many admins who will relist low discussion AfDs (even though community consensus and policy has been that this should be the exception rather than the rule for the last two years-- PROD is the default for expired AfDs), the community is broadly on board with the ideas behind RELISTBIAS and typically non-admins should be relisting discussions where delete is a valid option under policy since they are unable to implement it. To address the double standard argument that I'm sure is going to be raised: one of the reasons that soft delete isn't used more often by admins likely is that there is a pretty continuous group of non-admin AfD relisters who it seems just wait to relist. The membership changes over time, but when one stops a new user appears to do it. We need to actually enforce the policy rather than just accept a status quo that the community as a whole has rejected and that people complain about every time it is raised.
  Also, I'll take this opportunity to encourage admins to follow the RfC that was held on this and evaluate expired AfDs as PRODs rather than just relist. This is what the policy is, and non-admins follow our example. It is difficult to explain to users that they should not be the ones interpreting the deletion policy when they don't have the ability to select the default outcome called for by the policy when some admins seem to be ignoring the policy themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support formal warning per Bsherr and Serial Number 54129's comments after I made this, and the message on my talk, I'm fine with no TBAN for now, because the ANI thread itself seems to have done the point. At the same time, given how they've reacted to Praxidicae and other's comments in the past, a warning from ANI should document this in case the behaviour does not stop. Trust but verify/document and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. SS49 has not edited at AfD subsequent to the most recent discussion at SS49's talk page mentioned above, and has now (subsequent to the above comments) posted this message that suggests SS49 will be showing improved behavior. I think a wait-and-see approach is justified for now; hopefully the message has sunk in. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, oppose per WP:ROPE, mainly because—as Bsherr's diff suggests—there is a possibility (however belated) that "the penny's dropped" and they finally realise the degree of their disruption. However, two caveats. One, that it is emphasised that this piece of rope is so short and tenuous, they couldn't tie their laces with it. Secondly, that they realise that this is without any prejudice—if they touch another XfD—to an admin blocking on the basis of Praxidicae's diffs. No trip to ANI; no discussion; no promises. I note, too, that in their comment they says they will hardly relist AfDs; this is less reassuring, and they should either make their topic voluntarily, or the community will do it for them. ——SerialNumber54129 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support formal warning per Tony et al; also respectfully suggest that SS49 apologise for the snark/dismissive attitude towards Praxidicae, who took the time to offer constructive advice several times before this ended up here. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Full disclosure - I !voted on one of the AfDs listed above that was relisted. I wasn't that bothered by the relisting, and that hasn't influenced my support for the warning, but noting for transparency.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your support. Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs. ~SS49~ {talk} 18:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SS49 Can you clarify on what you mean by "hardly relist"? Are you going to address your combative WP:IDHT approach to editors addressing your behavior? Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae, OK I understood I won't do relisting. If sorting is also a problem, I won't sorting too. From now I won't relist any discussions. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I was typing a response about coming around to potentially withdrawing my TB request given the support for a formal warning here, however SS49 has continued to edit at AFD, although not relisting, I find it somewhat problematic that he is still doing maintenance tasks despite this lengthy discussion and with no acknowledgement or assurances that there won't be further disruption. His request on Tony's talk, combined with this edit on mine and this ani comment does not leave me with much hope that rope will prevent further disruption. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per WP:COMPETENCE. I have no confidence that SS49 has understood the nature of the problem here. He/she should not be clerking AFD if he/she does not understand policy and procedures. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeees; "I've got a bad feeling about this"—specifically that it's the penny has not dropped. @SS49:, much as I appreciate your thanking me for my post above, it would be very wrong to read into it any kind of support for your position. Quite the opposite; I was speaking against a topc ban on account of you—at that point—having seemingly stopped from clerking AfD, and on condition that you ceased all activity at XfD. Which, it now apears, has not happened. ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129:, I won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• There seem to be some major WP:CIR issues here. As WBG's last warning may indicate, a topic ban on AfDs may not be enough, but I think that's the best course of action for now. (On a side note - I didn't see your reply to me on your talk page until now, Praxidicae, and you're right. Sorry.) ansh666 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. SS49's "Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs" really doesn't give me any confidence that the problems are understood, and that is reinforced by the comments linked above by Praxidicae. I'm seeing problems with comprehension and competence here, and I think this is someone who just isn't suited to clerking activities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just add that SS49's various comments suggest they are not a native speaker of English. And while a native command of English is perhaps not necessary for understanding and performing clerking tasks on the English language Wikipedia, I'm not seeing sufficient competence in our post-Norman tongue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Anyone who doesn't follow advice given to them on their talk page basically by definition lacks the competence to be relisting discussions or doing other similar work. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support tban. The large percentage of their overall work spent clerking, given the issues well documented here, is concerning. Even more concerning is that they couldn't accurately discern that doing nothing in AfD in the near future was the right course given the comments that were being offered here. I feel like they used up what little ROPE might have been extended during this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Formal warning. What's this editor's offense, departure from a guideline and dismissing others' advice? What percentage of the community is guilty of the same crime, 25%? More? The concern that this editor's actions was biasing AfDs was a legitimate one, but generally speaking we don't sanction editors simply for departing from the rules. This editor has a proven interest in AfDs and should be commended for that. They just have to learn how to do it right. Some editors with listening problems just need a kick in the pants. If they continue not to listen, that's another story. R2 (bleep) 21:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. There are masssive CIR issues at play here regarding the relisting and AFDs in general. It either shows a clear lack of understanding of policy or a refusal to abide by policy and community established norms. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support relisting discussions is almost always a lazy action that helps nothing. Instead of relisting exercise some judgement and !vote. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Non-admins should be discouraged from relisting discussions, especially the ones with no / low participation. Let an admin relist it or (better) close as a soft-delete. AfD needs more voters, not clerks. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on AfD clerking. SS49's recent responses suggest a basic misunderstanding of clerking's purpose, which is to reduce demand on the valuable time and attention of editors. A topic ban on AfD clerking will leave SS49 free to apply their own time and attention as a participant in AfD discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - clearly warranted. In fact, this feels like a fairly modest gesture in recognition of obvious CIR issues, troubling responses, refusal to communicate, and refusal to respond to legitimate feedback. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on AfD clerking -- long-standing issues, coupled with a lack of communication. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• I thought there are no problems with deletion sorting so I sorted again. If you all want me to leave AfDs, it's ok. I won't harm Wikipedia. I won't do sorting too. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I accept my mistakes and apologize for that. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by Purgy Purgatorio

I have tried to stay off of ANI for as long as possible but this has become resort for unacceptable behavior. Purgy Purgatorio (talk · contribs) has made repeated personal attacks after repeated requests to stop. In particular, he has acknowledged the past attacks and been made aware of the corresponding policies at WP:PERSONAL. This has become harmful, disruptive, and repeated after several warnings. I have run the gamut of other dispute resolution methods, have repeatedly tried to de-escalate the issue, and have tried to resolve this as calmly as possible. It does not seem like there are many other options now, so I seek your help with this issue.

The relevant incidents with diffs:

1. (Feb 24-25) See section "Legal threat by User:Purgy_Purgatorio": Purgy was indefinitely banned for an issue about saying "Next time I will... use the means provided for libel." This was later unblocked upon further review as Purgy clarified that no legal threat was intended. No issue.
2. (Feb 26) His comment on the TfD for the infobox: Do you still like your creation that much, is it worth this all? I don't see this as a personal attack, but he implies that I am causing him problems due to some kind of ownership of the template.
3. (Feb 26) His comment to me on his talk page: Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.
   1. (Feb 27) My comment to him on his talk page: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop. Explicit link to WP:PERSONAL.
   2. (Feb 27) His comment to me on his talk page: Struck out the quote from 2 and apologized OK, my turn to apologize to you. I am sorry for my remarks about you feeling as a mathematician. It should not have happened and I have stricken this.
4. (Feb 26) His comment to Gerda Arendt on her talk page: Describes Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (and RexxS (talk · contribs)) as a militant pro-boxer and aggressor to my mistakable summary.
   1. (Feb 26) Gerda Arendt's edit summary to him on her talk page: Purgy, calling someone a militant boxer is not the kindest way to talk about a colleague.
   2. (Feb 26) His edit to his previous comment on her talk page: Struck out militant pro-boxer and replaced with infobox-activist, rarely offering flowers.
5. (Feb 28) His comment on his talk page: Talking about RexxS (talk · contribs), "The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes" and "RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me".
   1. (Mar 2) RexxS's comment on his talk page: Identifies the above personal attacks and wrote I am now asking you politely to remove them from your talk page: WP:TPNO expressly forbids personal attacks.
   2. (Mar 2) RexxS's comment on his talk page: Disputes that those were personal attacks but struck out the respective passages for courtesy.
6. (Mar 11) His comment to me on my talk page: Recognizes his past apology, I apologized already once for impeaching your qualification as a self-appointed mathematician, and won't do this again, and then accuses me falsely of canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP, exclaims that I am blockheadedly exploiting some WP-eternal feud for your toy?, and declares this is his Last flare-up on this matter.
   1. (Mar 11) My comment to him on my talk page: I address his canvassing accusation and other outbursts without trying to provoke anything, point out WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL, and declare that I’m glad this is your "last flare-up", enough. Finally, and least importantly, stop referring to me as a "self-appointed mathematician".
   2. (Mar 11) His edit to his previous comment to me on my talk page: Points out the mathematician user box on my page, emphasizes that he is accusing me of WP-approved canvassing (although it is not WP-approved by definition in the second sentence of WP:CANVAS). Demonstrates his reading of my comment.
   3. (Mar 11) My edit to my previous comment to him on my talk page: Point out that his baseless canvassing accusation and "blockheadedly exploits" outburst are both personal attacks by WP:WIAPA.
7. (Mar 20) His comment to me on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page: I can't help but explicitly outing self-appointed wannabe mathematician MarkH21 as the author of this template under discussion, certainly planning for adoption of this IB at any math statement looking out of WP. An explicit personal attack and claim of "outing" (which might be another misuse of English similar to the "libel" case, as this is not WP:OUTING).
   • This is in response to me opening an RfC after counting that there were only 3 opposes and 5 supports in the previous discussion (note that I was in support so I was not opening an RfC because I was in the minority) and per the recommendation of arbitrator Worm That Turned (talk · contribs).
   • Note: Purgy characterizes me as one of three manifest IB-promoters, although this is the only infobox that I have created and this is the only infobox discussion that I have ever been involved with.
   • (Mar 15) I even called for a de-escalation and defended him when he was being criticized by another editor.

Please add to the above if I have mischaracterized any of the above events or if I have forgotten any. I believe there is a missing earlier one, given my Feb 27 comment This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. I apologize for not having it here now, but I will continue to look for it.

I don't know if this counts as WP:HARASS in addition to multiple and repeated blatant violations of conduct, but there is a clear trend of repeatedly making personal attacks (points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and potentially the missing earlier one) and striking them out after they are pointed out as so (3, 4, 5, 6). In particular, 3 & 6 were clear explicit warnings that were understood by him. I hesitated from directing this towards ANI multiple times, but this is absolutely unreasonable. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to read and action this myself, but just a drive-by notification to any passing admin who does have time that Purgy is on a final warning from myself that "Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia", and if he's continued to be disruptive on the topic of infoboxes he's also undoubtedly aware of the discretionary sanctions in place (as he threw a monumental tantrum at being notified of them so definitely read them), so if he's continued to do so, don't feel he needs to be warned again before taking action. Per my previous comments, I get the strong impression that this is someone with a very poor grasp of English who doesn't appreciate how poor his grasp of English is and consequently misunderstands the comments of others and unintentionally makes inappropriate comments himself, as opposed to someone acting in bad faith, but the net result in terms of disruption is the same. ‑ Iridescent 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up that warning. The personal attacks and unevidenced canvassing claim from that incident may have been what I was forgetting.
There may be some language issue, but using blockheadedly exploits, self-appointed wannabe mathematician (the third such instance after explicit requests to stop), etc. and multiple unevidenced canvassing accusations after being directed at the relevant policies is beyond language issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Seek community sanctions (indef Tban) re user Bought the farm

Seek community imposed Tban against Bought the farm (talk · contribs)
Topic areas Climate change, Energy, US Politics, broadly construed

First TBAN

• 22:21, October 6, 2018? Power~enwiki issues DS Alert US politics
• 03:42, October 12, 2018? Drmies imposes 3 month topic ban on US politics
• 04:23, October 30, 2018 Cullen328 Imposed block for Tban violations
• 18:44, October 30, 2018 Cullen328 Unblocked him, on AGF acceptance that user made an honest mistake
• Later, October 30, 2019 Multiple admins endorsing Tban
• Jan 12, 2018 approximate date Tban expired

New evidence

• Feb 1, 2019 Editing blitz adding section "Trump Administration" to United States energy independence. Some samples

• 02:29, February 1, 2019 POV (Trump cheerleading)

The permitting (for Keystone XL pipeline) comeing two months after Trump, only days into his presidency, signed an executive order aimed at reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines

• 20:02, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on WP:Original research

"This proposed (Green New Deal) would effectively end U.S. energy independence gains and the benefits to the American middle class."

• 21:05, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on conservative editor's opinion at an online blog (The Morning Jolt by Jim Geraghty)
  

• Feb 18 16:20, February 18, 2019 POV FRINGE

Identifies Trump investigations as a "notable example" of a Seditious conspiracy.... so far the entire thread is his and it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff to me

• Feb 19 00:17, February 19, 2019 POV FRINGE

At Deep state in the United States this ed pushes addition of section "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration"

• Feb 19 02:01, February 19, 2019 POV / OR

In DRAFT namespace, he uses Wikivoice to describe "descendants (of US slaves), who are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party"

Bought on the Farm submitted this draft to AFC three times and was rejected all three times. Then he posted this article live on his own hook.

• Feb 26, 02:32, February 26, 2019 POV/Fringe,

Asserts personal view that Deep state "is a very real thing" and changes lead from saying "conspiracy theory" to the far more credible "theory"

• Mar 13 21:49, March 13, 2019 POV (democrat bashing)

Tells how there was clapping after Trump said something about energy and then adds "However, the democrats did not applaud." (in the next edit he adds a Wordpress blog as an RS)

• Mar 19 POV/Fringe at Global warming

• 19:19 and 19:30 BTF added copy vio content to Global warming that has since been RevDeleted by Diannaa
• 19:27 I issued BTF a DS Alert for climate change
• 19:30 I left BTF a noted cautioning about POV editing and reminding BTF about the prior Tban and DS Alert for US Politics
• 19:37 at article talk BTF pushes new section "History of ongoing fearmongering"
• 20:21, March 19, 2019 BTF admits his confirmation bias saying derisively, "I read the source as the beginning of the continual revisionist theory regarding this subject - Human existence on planet earth on the continual brink of disaster, due to our mere existence here."
• I told Bought the Farm that per TPG section headings must be neutral and I deleted the word "fear-mongering" from the section (see edit summary this edit). No matter, after Dave souza collapsed the thread, Bought the farm simply started over, with a new thread simply titled "fear-mongering"

• Mar 20 22:15, March 20, 2019‎ POV, Launches new article The Democracy Integrity Project based on uncertain one or two sources. Claims

• "'The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP), is a multimillion-dollar stealth organization'"
• uses scarequotes "that provides daily "research" briefings "
• asserts ulterior movites in wikivoice "'spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting. "
• I would go on, but I hate to repeat the allegations in the BLP vios.

Topic ban

Having just come off of a 3-month Topic ban, here we are. This editor is incorrigible and is now producing low quality high controversial articles (Democratic plantation and The Democracy Integrity Project. Seems to me this editor should be community topic banned from energy, climate change, and US politics. They are on notice about DS for the last two subjects. Thanks for reading NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef Tban, as proposer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. All of that is correct, as evidenced by the constant WP:IDHT. Combine POV pushing with taking dozens of edits to make a single substantial addition, and it is still subpar. As an alternative, I'd support requiring them to cite a source for every statement they write (because that's where the problem lies), and a topic ban if they misrepresent sources. wumbolo ^^^ 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note that the March 13 edit probably isn't "Democrat bashing". It is factual and of significance. Reliable sources often report on Democrats not clapping. That the edit wasn't supported by a reliable source is a separate issue. wumbolo ^^^ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Exactly, there was several times during that speech when the Democrats did not clap after Trump made what most would consider to be uncontroversial statements. One that sticks out in my mind is when he announced that African-American unemployment was at an all-time low.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • But User:Wumbolo, are we really going to include every single time that the opposing party didn't applaud for one particular bit in every SOTU? That's cray cray. Such things only become encyclopedic when reliable secondary sources spend significant attention on it. We can't make that call, though we can discuss when the sources make it encyclopedic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support
  • I've deleted The Democracy Integrity Project as a G10, with a dose of IAR, with the deletion summary "We're not your blog".
  • As for Democratic plantation it needs to go the same way, but I'm unsure how to proceed with this. I have, however, edited the ridiculous - and racist - opening sentence which talked about this racist slur in Wikipedia's voice EDIT: I've pushed it back to Draft, as I note that the Draft was rejected 3 times at AFC but he created it in mainspace anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see that this editor is here to provide the encyclopedia with anything useful. A TBAN is the least that will suffice here. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose- This is mostly a content dispute. Although the editor needs to do a better job attributing opinions. I understand the term "Democratic Plantation" may be offensive, but it is a term used in reliable sources, so that page should not be deleted as per WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't know what was in the Democracy Integrity Project article, but a quick search shows it is a real organization.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Shall we just say that it was a very short unsourced article, and one of the sentences read "(TDIP) is essentially a "Trump-Russia 2.0: Dossier-Tied Firm Pitching Journalists Daily news on Collusion" spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting" Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • perhaps deletion was appropriate then, but that doesn't change my overall view on the matter. The diffs above either contain no problems or minor ones due to poor sourcing or lack of attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Do you not think that someone who's just come off a AP TBAN and is creating articles in mainspace like that probably shouldn't be editing in that realm at all? By the way, their reaction to this ANI is, er, this. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. And the problems signaled here make me wonder if the user understands anything about Wikipedia. Rusf10, if you think that this merely indicates something about attribution or poor sourcing, I can't help but wonder... NewsAndEventsGuy, I had no idea it was this bad, but it is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • seeking community acceptance and a desire to contribute relevant info here. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • What does that comment mean? And what is this? Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: All I see here is a repost of something the President tweeted in which the President expresses his belief that there was a conspiracy by those within the government to remove him from office. I am almost certain that you personally do not agree with that, but you want to sanction someone for posting the president's tweets? That's really extreme.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Wait, you don't see that they were proposing to have Wikipedia categorize something as a "seditious conspiracy" based on a crazy tweet sketching a ridiculous conspiracy? When we say "notable case" on Wikipedia, in article space, what do you think we mean? And why do you say that I'd ban someone based on the president's tweets? Has he tweeted about this user? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm inclined to see this as a WP:CIR issue, coupled with very strongly-held political beliefs. It's especially difficult to learn policy when you're working in a contentious area. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Supplemental ... now thinking site ban to be clear, I started this thread. If there were the slightest hope of reform or being able to work in any area, we would be seeing at least an iota of dialogue. Instead there is user talk ranting and NPA vios. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • he called you the "wiki-police"? that's a rather weak personal attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)