Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Iranian opposition articles

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

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

POV pushing by Saff_V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

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

• Peykar: [15], [16], [17], [18]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [19], [20]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [21], [22]

• Maryam Rajavi: [23]

• Massoud Rajavi: [24]

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

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [25]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [26]

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

• Massoud Rajavi: [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

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

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

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

Last words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Adding Mhhossein to this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&action=history

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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

• Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [34], [35] and [36]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([37], [38], [39]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.

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

• He has made personal attacks against me notably by repeatedly accusing me of "POV pushing" numerous times ([40], [41], [42]), despite my warning ([43], [44]). In another place he commented on me by accusing me of "smearing a political group". It should be added that I had warned him in the past against commenting on the editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([45][46],[47], [48], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?

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

You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[49] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[50] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [66] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [67]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note to the admins: It should be noted that Alex-h and Poya-P, both active in Fa wiki, are editing ANI for the first time (See [68] and [69]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure(?)

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

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

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

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

Too complicated - Arbitration Committee

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

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

User:MetricSupporter89

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

---

Basically all of this user's edits have been edit warring over variations of American versus British spelling or edit warring over which unit (imperial vs. metric) comes first in an article. As hinted by their username, I think that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a very young editor who needs to gain a little more maturity before they can be a productive editor. Their personal goals are a bit at odds with the encyclopedia's. That said, I'm not prepared to say they're not here to help the project, but, having interacted with them a little bit, there is a certain absence of cluefulness. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now it seems that they are logging out to edit: [70] I will be blocking both for 24 hours in the meantime. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note He's been here before, for the same issue. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hm, seems I missed that. @Cullen328 and ViperSnake151: from the previous discussion. --Rschen7754 19:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I thought I had seen this issue before, and in fact I see I warned them about it already, just a day before the discussion linked above. See this discussion. I think that's enough warnings, and given their unusual user page (they're on a campaign to fully metricate the United States, they speak American English but "learned Canadian English", calling Spanish "stupid") the situation is not promising.

Proposal: MetricSupporter89 is topic banned from directly changing any unit of measure or any English variant spelling. They may propose changes on an article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems reasonable and might give them a chance to learn our ways. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. As linked above, the editor has been warned multiple times. The username makes this sound like it's going to end poorly, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Rschen7754 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The alternative is to waste time trying to persuade them to change their ways, but I've never seen that work yet with such a single-minded young person and it almost always ends in an indef block. Hopefully they can direct their energy in more productive directions, while maturing a little. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Although I worry that leaving the door open for talk page discussion is just inviting disruption of another sort. I have to say, with such a strongly evident WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW/WP:SPA focus. I'm doubtful there is a general purpose editor to be salvaged from this, and fear this approach will only allow gamesmanship, but if they become disruptive in their talk page interactions in advocating for particular spelling or metric idiosyncrasies, I suppose they can always be brought back here then--and in the meantime it is possible this approach will restrain their edit warring while allowing some useful changes relating to their fixation to filter through. It's worth a shot in any event. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoring as this was never closed. --Rschen7754 06:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. This seems to be an established pattern, and it's not a good one. Pretty much the last thing we need around here is another "style warrior" running around, especially when there's a weird nationalism bent to it, combined with a NOTHERE/SOAPBOX "campaign" angle. (I'm thinking back to a similar combination in another editor, which turned into several years of disruption, four nearly back-to-back AEs, a topic ban, a broader topic ban, a block, an indef, and then user-talk editing revocation; we don't need another of those, and should just nip this in the bud before entrenchment occurs). I trust in good faith that the editor can be productive, but this "American metric promotionalism at all costs" shtick doesn't qualify.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Iban violations: read what I actually wrote

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

---

I have just blocked Godsy due to a series of very recent violations of their interaction ban with Legacypac (logged at WP:EDR). This is the latest in a series of actions between the two editors which resulted in the interaction ban (discussed here) and due to Godsy repeatedly testing the edges of the original restriction it was refined here. Legacypac posted an admin request for review on his talk page, and after reviewing both editors' recent contribs I found that Godsy has been repeatedly editing drafts on which Legacypac is the next-to-most-recent contributor, and not much else (not just incidental while commenting on many drafts, for example). It's pretty clear to me Godsy has specifically targeted Legacypac's contribs, so this is a clear Iban violation.

Since this has been an intermittently active issue for two years and Godsy seems to be testing the limits of the refined restriction this week, I have blocked indefinitely expecting that the block will not be lifted without some kind of assurance that this will be the last time we need to discuss it here.

To that end, and owing to the scope of the hounding, I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.

If there is consensus here in any direction, any admin is free to modify Godsy's block as I may be unavailable for some time today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Good block. Godsy was clearly—albeit subtly—continuing their feud with LP with draftspace the theatre, presumably as being further off the radar than mainspace. If this was a recent "thing" then it could probably be resolved, as there's usually the potential for self-education: but after two years, self-education would appear to be lacking. I daresay an appeal might succeed in the future; I wouldn't advocate one for much less than six months, though. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban from MfD, if unblocked. MfD is a high profile forum not amenable to subtle harassment. No sign of problems there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly sure editing after him is a violation. In fact, the I-ban page says "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other." I haven't seen any direct interactions. The specific terms of the I-ban also don't seem to have been violated. That aside, I'm really having a hard time understanding why Godsy feels the need to edit these minor drafts, and can't stay as far as possible away from Legacypac. While this seems to circumvent the interaction ban, this is definitely continuing the feud. I also have another minor issue with admins dropping indef blocks and then coming to the community for reinforcement. This in effect community bans the editor and makes a successful appeal much more difficult. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Remember this isn't simply a normal interaction ban. The wording was modified as part of this discussion Special:PermanentLink/800239899#So unhappy to post this as a result of community concerns. While the issues highlight above aren't direct violations of XfC limitation, they reflect the communities concerns about the two editing the same pages. Editors expressed concern about their fringe interaction in other places e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#IBAN violation?. I think there have been more but I admit I couldn't find them. Either way the editors should have understood the greater need to take care surrounding any edits which seem to relate to the other editor. Anyway more importantly, the whole point of interaction bans whatever their wording is to cut out interactions between editors when they aren't seen as productive. Editors are supposed to understand they need to stay away from each other as much as possible, not follow them around. If Godsy is mysteriously appearing on each page edited by LegacyPac, and often does not appear on other pages, this is a very strong indication they aren't obeying the iban. I haven't looked at the evidence, but if Ivanvector's assessment is true, it seems a very likely iban violation and would demand some sort of block for violation unless they can offer some reasonable explanation which doesn't involve them following the ibanned editor's contribs and then editing just after. (The only time I can see it justified looking the the contribs of someone your ibanned with would be when you're looking into filing a complain about a violation. And when you do so, you should never edit any page you saw in your investigation, even if you think you would have discovered it independently. Likewise, if you see the editor's name your watch list, you should likely ignore the page. I mean if it's had multiple edits it may occasionally be justified to check it out, but this should be done with great care.) Frankly the history means it's unlikely that Godsy has any reasonable explanation, and also means an indef is IMO justified. (And of course any block can be appealed, so if Godsy really does have a good explanation, they can still offer it.) Remember also this could easily be considered WP:Hounding even without an iban. This doesn't mean an editor just happening to edit a page not long after an editor they are ibanned with would always be a violation, since it's reasonable that may happen by accident especially if there is a good reason why both editors would have independently been interested in that page (e.g. it concerns something in the news, by which I don't mean ITN recently, it's TFA, it was listed on some noticeboard etc) but too many 'coincidences' give reasonable cause for concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite /= permanent. I see problematic behaviour and my two options are: do nothing, or block entirely. A more refined sanction is definitely apporopriate here but admins don't have the authority to unilaterally dole out limited bans in situations like this. So what should we do?

As for not violating "the specific terms" of the ban, that's kind of a side point here: the history of this dispute has several examples of Godsy clearly following Legacypac but not quite violating the specific terms of the ban, which is how I read the conclusion of the second discussion I linked to. As Legacypac pointed out in today's talk page request, the drafts which Godsy edited after Legacypac this week were all obscure pages in idle userspaces which Legacypac moved to the draft namespace, which Godsy then commented on less than a day later, during a time when Godsy was not doing anything else. All 14 of the drafts that Godsy edited today (15 Feb, UTC) were recently edited by Legacypac, all but one of those on 13 Feb. The last time before that that Godsy edited a draft was on 3 Feb, which was also the next edit after one by Legacypac a few days earlier. I am open to there being an innocent explanation for that pattern, but with Godsy being known to have some kind of grudge against Legacypac it seems doubtful. To me it suggests that Godsy was specifically going to pages appearing in Legacypac's recent contributions, not just going around flagging new promising drafts as part of their regular activity and incidentally overlapping with drafts Legacypac had edited. And that is a continuation of the hounding behaviour referred to in the second discussion, so additional action is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My view on this is that if you think a block you have just made needs to be reviewed on AN/ANI, you should probably bring the matter to AN/ANI for discussion before a block is placed, not afterwards. I don't think Godsy necessarily needs to be restricted from all draft space, just from editing drafts that Legacypac has edited, as that appears to be the issue. Fish+Karate 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the block to be reviewed. I'm very comfortable with this block. If there's not consensus to do something else here I'm quite happy to just leave Godsy blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If you are not asking for the block to be reviewed, then what are you asking for? Note the title of this section is "Iban violations: request review". Paul August ☎ 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think the point is that if there is consensus for any other action, then hopefully someone will enact this consensus. This would I assume include a consensus for an unblock or reduction of term of the block, since a community consensus shouldn't be ignored. (I'm assuming it's following our policies and guidelines since otherwise it isn't really a consensus.) Ivanvector has specifically proposed an alternative which would allow an unblock, but it's the communities decision if they want to endorse that proposal, suggest something else, or just leave things as they are. If there's no consensus for any other action, then the block will stand, although of course since it's also a simple administrative block and not a site ban, it may be lifted with by a suitable appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For editors to review Godsy's I-ban violations, I assume? ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this is clearly an IBAN violation; I don't think it justifies an infinite block (a week may be enough IMO), but indef != infinite. The reason for the interaction is clear; Legacypac has been moving a lot of {{Userspace draft}} tagged draft-like pages from user space to draft space recently (where they would be eligible for WP:G13 deletion). Draft:Marin_Kristo_Frasheri-Gjoca, for example, was created in 2011 by an editor with 3 edits and has been ignored since then. I'd support in principle a restriction along the lines of "Godsy may only edit articles in draft-space by adding referenced content to them to improve them so they may be moved to mainspace", but from experience that will result in at least two more ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• From the description, it sounds to me like an IBAN violation. Maybe a week or two for reflection. Their unblock request is most unpromising. It is a shame that this goes on. Such a waste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I think the TBAN is not good. I agree with GoldenRing that cautioning Godsy (which I did on his talk page earlier) to check more carefully about avoiding the appearance of violating the IBAN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• An iban is an iban, I guess. However, it is not possible for someone who cares about drafts (whether in draftspace or userspace) to engage with that area without interacting with Legacypac. An iban with legacypac goes a long way towards a de facto tban on drafts. I don't think it's controversial to say that legacypac's approach to drafts can be, well, controversial. He is the one (in my perhaps limited experience, anyway) far and away most likely to push the envelope with regard to deletion of drafts, with apparent willingness to take actions or !vote in ways that test the procedural gray area or subvert deletion-related PAGs/conventions. As consistent as he is with this, it makes sense to me that someone who cares about what happens in draftspace/userspace may likely take issue with Legacypac's methods. In other words, if one is looking for particular issues or actions that come up regarding drafts, it's not unlikely that legacypac will be the one that pops up as responsible. The reality is that if one person is best known for a pattern of controversial actions in an area, there will be corresponding patterns of people addressing those actions, and that could be framed as hounding rather than more straightforward maintenance/editing. I'm not trying to turn this into a case against legacypac here, to be clear (I also don't want to give the impression that I don't think legacypac doesn't do some good work around here), but rather trying to frame the nature of such an iban/tban in such a space. We'll see if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I guess, though. I don't think I know anything about their history, hadn't seen the past threads, and haven't read gone through them with any real thoroughness, so there might be more to the story than I realize. Ultimately, an iban is an iban, I suppose, and so a block seems merited. Indef + tban definitely seems like overkill for this situation though. Without knowledge of the past, I wouldn't formally weigh in on the block, but Oppose tban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I am a little uncomfortable with this block. Editing pages that have been edited by the other user is not a violation of the letter of an interaction ban (so long as the edit is not a revert). And while Godsy's contributions could be explained by him following Legacypac's edits, the explanation he has offered also seems very plausible to me, when combined with the insight from Rhododendrites above. I'm not saying Ivanvector acted wrongly - I would almost certainly have done the same - but I think, given the explanation, that Godsy ought to be unblocked with a ticking-off for not checking which user has moved pages to draft space. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing are you aware he flooded my watchlist to let me know he is watching me twice before? Once it was a series of meaningless edits to random pages and another time a series of opposes to a bunch of MfDs I started.

His current unblock request is an attack on my editing that violates the IBAN.

While I work to delete a lot of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log I also regularly move AfC pages and old userpages into mainspace that meet our N and V criteria. I operate well within policy and practice. I've even helped write some of the policy and guidelines such as the current G13 wording. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week. -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think t-bans should imposed unless there's any evidence of actual problematic edits in the area. And of the two editors concerned, it's not Godsy the one who's been engaged in draft-related activities that they know the community disapporoves of. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a very good and serious point. Legacypac does a massive amount of abandoned draft rescue, but he has a small error rate that multiplied by the number results in a fair number of individual problem actions. I don’t review Legacypac’s work, there is no way I could keep up. Godsy reviewing legacypac’s work is in principle a good thing. What was not ok was Godsy doing massive numbers of pointless edits to pages in Legacypac’s wake, thus filling Legacypacs watchlist with Godsy links. Godsy should be allowed, encouraged, to bring to a forum actual problems, but he should not be doing trivial edits specific to Legacypac’s recently edited pages. Follow Legacypac’s edit history to review, for sure, but do not make a noise doing it for pages where there is no substantive problem, and if there is, bring it to some talk page for others to review. I suggest WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. A clear cut rule for Godsy would this be: Do not edit drafts edited by Legacypac, instead raise problems for others to review at WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. MfD should not be part of this, as MfD is already an active well-watched forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you suggestion we remove the iban? Because if not, sorry but Godsy reviewing Legacypac's work is not a good thing as long as the iban is in place. Godsy should not be following or reviewing Legacypac's contributions or work, and they should not be bringing any problems relating to Legacypac anywhere except iban violations to ANI or somewhere else appropriate. If Godsy is actually doing anything you suggest, then the the indef is a good thing, and should stay until they can convince us or at least an admin they will stop it. But I think Godsy understands this though, since in their appeal they appear to be denying they are in any way intending to review Legacypac's contributions, they are just reviewing an area of interest without paying attention to who made said contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I read the Iban differently perhaps. There is nothing wrong with Godsy reviewing legacypac contributions, as long as he does it silently. The trivial edits were harassing. I think there should be no issue with Godsy lodging a complaint about Legacypac, as long as the complaint is upheld. The following and editing of pages is what is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I won't say it's okay for Godsy to review Legacypac contribs silently since it misses the purpose of iban i.e. that Godsy needs to stay away from Legacypac (which is ultimately the over-reaching goal of any iban, the community no longer trusts them to interact so they are required to stay away from each other). But it's technically not sanctionable if Godsy does nothing about what they review. Of course it's likely to destroy any chance of the iban being lifted if we become aware it's happening. I'd note if Godsy really is reviewing Legacypac's contributions, then they have no excuse for what happened here. They clearly knew it was Legacypac. As for complaints being upheld, it depends what you mean about complaints. Complaints to arbcom would generally be fine. Complaints ANs may occasionally be okay, but if Godsy keeps opening them, they're likely to find at least some of them aren't upheld. And even if many of them were, there's going to be very low tolerance of someone with an i-ban opening complaints which aren't upheld. Notably, when these complaints aren't to do with iban violations, I think people are going to question why Godsy is the one who keeps bringing complaints and even potentially ignore them or simply say no because it was Godsy who opened them. (Also realistically, if complaints against Legacypac in ANs keep getting upheld, it's unlikely Legacypac will still be around to complain about.) Starting discussions about anything Legacypac did anywhere else are not on, whether WT:AfC, WT:Drafts or whatever. Note that I don't use the word "complaint", since a discussion at WT:AfC, WT:Drafts shouldn't generally deal with user behaviour anyway AFAIK. It would be disagreement with something Legacypac did and discussion over the best way to handle whatever it is, not a complaint about behaviour. Godsy shouldn't be doing that as long as they are ibanned, they lost that privilege. Other people can deal with it independently. If they don't tough. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think the block was harsh and that Godsy was not in violation of his i-ban. I also believe more attention should be paid to the action that was taken by Godsy and whether or not it was appropriate. If it can be demonstrated that the action itself was inappropriate, that would raise a more legitimate concern regarding a potential violation of the iBan. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock and remove i-ban. This is a perfect example of an i-ban itself being more harmful then any harm it was meant to avoid. In short: I don't see anything wrong with Godsy's edits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tavix it is not the substance of the edits we are dealing with. This is textbook WP:HOUND and remember that Hound is why I tried multiple times to get this IBAN instated and that at least twice before HOUND has been breached by them after the IBAN was imposed. At times hounding me is pretyy much their only activity on site. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You are very messy editor and I am grateful that Godsy is willing to clean up your messes. We should be encouraging this clean-up effort instead of blocking him for it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Remove your baseless personal attack. 2. Following me to a series of obscure draft pages is not cleanup any more than when he followed me to a bunch of random pages (including ones up for deletion) to make whitespace and other meaningless edits or the time he followed me to a bunch of MfDs to oppose my nominations while doing nothing with any other MfDs or anything else on the site. I ran a friendly demonstration for User:SmokeyJoe] so he cound understand the problem. I'd be happy to run one for you with your permission. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I regret and apologize that you took my observation as a personal attack. It seems we have different opinions on what constitutes clean-up and/or hounding, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support tban, good block, per Ivanvector, SmokeyJoe and Nil Einne. Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another. Four reasons I support:

1. When the original iban was imposed, Godsy changed his userpage to a countdown clock for the 12 months until he could appeal the iban, with the edit summary "It is important to note that there is a great deal of hope. No, no?". Unfortunately, that obsessive behavior continues to this day.
2. It has been suggested in this thread and in Godsy's unblock request that if you threw a dart at draftspace, you're likely to hit an edit by Legacypac. Somehow, none of Godsy's edits in 2019 have been to pages edited by Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) until February 15, when every edit Godsy made was one or two edits after Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff), including gems like these:
   • at Draft:Lake 'n Sea – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
   • at Draft:Jesus Northwest – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
3. This is not a new thing. When ArbCom denied Godsy's case request against Lpac, he was advised both gently ("...there are lots and lots of articles to 'unambiguously improve' on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Legacypac, and those other articles are where you should be investing your content efforts...") and directly ("Don't modify Legacypac's edits."). In his unblock request, Godsy more or less says he will continue this behavior.
4. The revised iban obviously isn't working, and a stronger community sanction should be in place when Godsy is unblocked. When Godsy's behavior led to a revision of the iban, the closer wrote "...editors have been community banned from Wikipedia for considerably less disruptive activity than that demonstrated here." The ban proposed by Ivanvector seems like a sensible intermediate step to try. If Godsy can't keep away from Lpac's edits in draftspace, then Godsy shouldn't edit draftspace (and related areas). Leviv ich 04:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the considerable effort taken User:Levivich to pull that all together. This response [71] gives me no comfort that they will abide by the IBAN for it critiques my editing and suggests wrongly I'm the only user moving WP:STALE userpages. If I'm the allegedly the only person doing something why exactly is he "monitoring" with a view to "remedy" my actions when he is IBANed from me? Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per broad consensus vide most of the comments above, I have unblocked Godsy and told him to use common sense in not undertaking edits that seem to be gaming the i'ban terms. Lourdes 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Yurikanger

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

---

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

Hi. Some strange edits going on with this user. They have been warned by several users about making null edits, or adding un-needed spaces in the category section on articles (example). However, despite this, they are continuing with this (one, two). Maybe it's linked to the countless declined drafts listed on their talkpage. I don't know if this crap-flooding of watchlists is disruptive, but they don't appear to be communicating about this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They don't seem to notice toned down messages about their behaviour and the need to stop it. I've given them a warning that should be more effective in getting their attention.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped editing (for now). File this under close and keep an eye on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The user resumed editing instead of discussing. Made a strange error, too. I think all solutions that do not include a block have been exhausted.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Odd behavior in new accounts

I apologize if this is a false flag, but i've been taking a look at some new accounts that were created. Upon looking at their user pages, all of them have the same format. They all introduce themselves, list some hobbies of theirs, and put a link to their blog. The blog links differ, and by looking at some of the urls, some of them are related to gambling. I don't feel comfortable clicking on them so I'm not entirely sure. I just thought this was a bit odd and would appreciate any insight on these accounts.

I should also add that there are a lot more accounts listed than these. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 08:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting these. They're commonly known as spambots (although probably human). You can usually see a few each day, but weekends and especially Sunday mornings, for some reason, are a popular time for them. This lot seems to be quite rampant. I'll take these ones out. Just add any more to the list above, or you can often just report them to WP:AIV where most admins know what they are. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING by User:Binksternet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term political activist edits by Instaurare

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Levalbert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New articles by Shevonsilva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconstructive image replacements

Please see his contribs.

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

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

Recent examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somewhat arbitrary section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cristina neagu

Cristina neagu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last warning at [89] (13 February 2019). Then Tgeorgescu is a very difficult person it seems, not just a reporter, but also a Christian interested in Masturbation, pornography and is supporting some of the sins of the Decalogue. Basically a freak, but that's just my opinion. at [90] (18 February 2019). And Yes, you are poisoned by some non-biblical ideologies but your hatred is gonna bring you down. at [91] (same date, for some reason misspelled as 16 February 2019). A problem of WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be sure: in at least one of the messages she discussed the TBAN she just received. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, User:Cristina neagu received a 6-months topic ban from Romania and Romanians at AE just yesterday (see here.) I would characterize the two comments cited above as WP:NPA violations. I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have blocked for personal attacks. My block is strictly regarding the personal attack, and is unrelated to any topic ban, lack thereof, or for any other reason. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Huh, I didn't even really notice this among all the other ranting, even though it was on my talk page. I also believe a NPA block would be appropriate. Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Was just reading over this, and I endorse the block too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content and promotional edits by COI accounts

• Sambo (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Berzaev Rustam (talk · contribs)
• Countercombatclub (talk · contribs)

The current account began editing after Countercombatclub was blocked for username violation, with a promotional history. The primary aim appears to be promotion of a fight club and Mr. Sudoczki. An explanation was offered here, but the sources are pretty thin [92]. Yesterday I requested a block, and the page has mercifully been protected, but I take some issue with the characterization of edit warring--I was intent on removing unsourced COI content. More attention will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Jesse" [93]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yes there was also perfectly fine notification of previous participants of the AfDs [94]. (Well at least the text seems perfectly fine and suggests the selection criteria was fine, I haven't checked to make sure it wasn't selective.) Meanwhile, there's this Special:Contributions/81.44.32.50 [95] which is clear cut inappropriate canvassing. (I have no idea how those editors were selected but even if their selection was somehow appropriate, the message was clearly not neutral.) To be fair, I think that canvassing also spectacularly backfired, and we have no way of knowing whether it could have been a false flag attack so we can't say for sure it was people on Jessewaugh's 'side'. Ultimately however, I think the AfD demonstrated one key thing namely that canvassing doesn't generally work. Especially in cases like this. The AfD happened because it was the correct result based on the sources etc at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I'd support a long or indef block for WP:NOTHERE and personal attacks. I have no problem with a topic ban of Jessewaugh from anything to do with themselves excepting BLP-vios obviously, although it's likely to have the same effect. While the canvassing is concerning, especially since the editor clearly knows it's inappropriate and there has previously been canvassing which appeared to be trying to support Jessewaugh's side i.e. keeping the article albeit not clearly linked to them (the only previous canvassing that I can see clearly linked to Jessewaugh is this dumbness [96]), the personal attacks are IMO much more concerning by this stage. Jessewaugh has already been told multiple times [97] [98] [99] (coming in part from this ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Jesse Waugh AfD) that crap like this [100] [101] [102] is unacceptable. Yet in the canvassing they repeat the same sort of stuff [103] impugning the motives of other editors with zero evidence. Even above, they continue to make accusations of a "politically motivated takedown". The latest messages are a little less extreme then the previous ones, they seem to have cut out the attacks based on where people live for example, and so if this was a constructive editor who let emotion of a COI get the better of them, perhaps a warning or short block would be sufficient. But Jessewaugh has done nothing since the previous AfD. Clearly they aren't here for anything productive. Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don’t have anything to add here, that hasn’t been said here, or in the AFD. He has repeatedly made personal ad hominem attacks against me [104][105]. This is harassment. He has proven again and again that he is WP:NOTHERE in good faith. Hijiri 88 said it best: “Why are we still having this discussion?” --Theredproject (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Other evidence for an indefinite WP:nothere block, (above and beyond the personal attacks) include the many years of Jesse Waugh articles, and the time consumed taking them down:

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

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

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

Proposed site ban

• Propose site-ban per my calculations above which I gave up on when it got to 50. And the litany IV lists below. And also because, no IV, it does not seem to have been officially proposed, although it was mentioned as a likelihood by Nil Einne above. ——SerialNumber54129 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (assuming someone has already proposed it): let's see, we have canvassing, conspiracy advocacy, repeatedly not getting the point, conflict-of-interest editing, and just the whole idea of gender equality and feminism being a quota-filling exercise, which any reasonable person should find incredibly offensive. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, pretty much the closest to a textbook case I've ever seen. Go write a blog; if the artist becomes notable someone else will write about them. But they'll have to ask an admin to get them started, these titles are now regex blacklisted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've said enough already although the list of creations makes it even more clear cut since even their minor historic edits unrelated to their article can't outweigh the amount of our time they've wasted trying to create an article on themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the additional evidence provided by Serial, Montreal, et. al., and the editor's unwillingness to engage in appropriate editing, it's clear cut now that a site ban is appropriate and in fact overdue. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support after multiple warnings, personal attacks and deletion discussions, all of which is built around self-promotion, it's time for the time-wasting to stop.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Ivanvector; this is ridiculous. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I will add I was not canvased, but yes it does appear canvasing occurred.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. A Dolphin (squeek?) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Jessewaugh makes a very convincing case above for why he should be shown the door. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Confirming my support mentioned above. (non-admin) SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban (or at a minimum an indefinite block). The sole purpose of this user on Wikipedia (either under this account or sock accounts) from 2012 to the present day has been to promote himself. The result has been 4 articles about him created under multiple variations of his name (in some cases more than once) and all deleted and salted. Three AfDs, two of which were infested with sock puppets resulting in two ANI reports and two sockpuppet investigations. Relentless canvassing and serious personal attacks on other editors which has continued to the present day and even in this very ANI discussion. The sheer amount of editors' and administrators' time that he has wasted is appalling. He's not here to build an encyclopedia and never will be. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban Clearly not here to build the encyclopedia. Clearly here only to cause further disruption. Clearly thinks the community is "horrible" for placing our policies and guidelines ahead of his agenda(s) Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support: Clear disruption, express declarations of WP:NOTHERE/WP:COI objectives, hostile responses to any contravening opinion and WP:PA's in reaction to every community effort to help them acclimate to our policies and processes, consistent efforts to canvas and otherwise game process to restore (and then presumably WP:OWN) an article about themselves. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Unmistakably, self-admittedly abusing wikipedia for personal purposes rather than to work on encyclopedic content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Peanut gallery pile on support Been watching this for a while and figured this was inevitable. I was not canvassed in any way, shape or form. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP impersonation

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

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

User:ATX-NL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:DGG is engaging in disruptive editing wrt Moderation Management and Death of Amanda Froistad

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

---

There was consensus on the Moderation Management talk page that there was too much detail in the Moderation Management article about the related Death of Amanda Froistad, and that the information about the death of Amanda Froistad should be placed in it's on article, lest there be an appearance of WP:COATRACK in the Moderation Management article. There is now an AfD discussion on the Death of Amanda Froistad (which was nominated for deletion by DGG) and the context of why that article was created has been lost because User:DGG placed a G11 speedy deletion template on the Moderation Management article and that article has since been deleted. This significantly handicaps the AfD discussion as editors commenting on it are unable to see the significant discussion regarding the background of the creation of the Death of Amanda Froistad article. When I asked DGG why he used a speedy deletion template for unambiguous promotion, he couldn't point out a part of the article that was unambiguous promotion but rather said parts of it may not be of interest to general readers and admitted that there was no explicit promotion of the organization. The appropriate way to go about this would have been to nominate both of these for AfD, rather than handicapping the conversation about one by removing the other. Additionally, by DGG's own admission, using a G11 speedy deletion was inappropriate for the Moderation Management article as there was no explicit promotion (and I would say no implicit promotion) of Moderation Management in that article. An archived version of the Moderation Management article is linked here for non-admins: https://web.archive.org/web/20190219111822/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation_Management

I have no issue discussing (or making) changes to content in either article, but the way this was conducted by DGG was unnecessarily disruptive and lacked due diligence, specifically for an administrator. - Scarpy (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@RHaworth: as it was he that did the deed. It might have been best to discuss with him if we are contesting the deletion. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion: A trout to DGG and a visit to Deletion Review would be the best cause of action here. We don't need an ANI thread, as that is for chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If I am missing something here, please tell me. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@CoolSkittle:My friendly amendment here would be that there is appropriate notice is given on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Amanda Froistad to review Talk:Moderation Management when it's restored and that the closing admin on that AfD reviews that same page before making a decision. On a more personal level, myself and others have spent hundreds of hours working articles in the addictions and recovery project. I push myself to maintain due weight, NPOV and to collaborate productively with other editors on addictions and recovery topics that are already very contentious. Hundreds of hours isn't an exaggeration, if I really added it up I'm sure it's closer to thousands between finding the articles, reading, writing and collaborating. Articles like Recovery International and Debtors Anonymous alone were over 100 hours. My contributions to MM wasn't as much, but I do hold myself to very high standards on the topic, and I take the time to read the research carefully, write and collaborate to the best of my ability. I'm not perfect, but a G11 speedy deletion for unambiguous promotion is like someone watching someone burning a book I contributed to in front of me. I'm not expecting a lot of sympathy, but please do realize this kind of behavior has impacts on editor retention. Wikipedians really should treat each other better than this. - Scarpy (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: Your first step is to appeal at WP:DRV. If the reviewers thee agree with you t will be restored. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

1. [106]she tells me,"fuck off"
2. [107]tells me to "get over myself" for refusing to agree with her unsolicited opinion on politics
3. [108]threatens to wiki-lawyer me with frivolous ANIs
4. [109]she tells me,"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube"

1. Personal attacks evidence Personal attacks from User:MPants at work began with remarks like "get over yourself" and unprovoked, pre-emptive thinly-veiled threats like "you just are just begging to be quoted in an ANI thread about you". They are clearly uncivil, lack good faith, and are forms of personal attacks. Yet after my humble polite warning to keep it civil, the editor doubles-down on her personal attacks from with verbal sexual assault telling me in her edit summary"fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube."[110] and then vandalizing my talk page, saying "fuck off" and proceeding to threaten me with an ANI over what she considers to be "the blatant hypocrisy" my opinions.[111] Just because she does not like my opinion, does not mean she has the right to attack me. I would imagine anyone with enough knowledge and experience to threaten with an ANI is also knowledgeable enough to know that this kind of severe NSFW language and sexually derogatory harassment of another at least constitutes a personal attack, let alone language never acceptable here.
2. Warning given: I politely gave a warning to apply good faith and to cease the personal attacks.[112] In retaliation, the disruptive editor attacked me again, with two severe personal attacks, one of which (again) was verbally violent and sexually derogatory.

Personal attacks and threats against me AFTER my warning:

1. [113]
2. [114]

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

Comments:
@MPants at work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broken promise on civility

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

The ANI thread also lead to the widely-participated "Fuck off" RfC. During the RfC, MPants self-requested to be blocked and was done so for 3 months[115]. After coming back after the block expired on February 5, he has apparently returned to his old ways:

• Violence fantasies[116] The context here is humorous, but it's worth noting that MPants was warned for threats of violence in the last ANI thread.
• After being given a civility template by a new user called Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs), MPants removed it from his talk page with the edit summary: fuck your shitty, condescending bullshit sideways with a sandpaper dildo and hot sauce as lube.[117]
• He then banned Luciusfoxx from his talk page with the title "You can stay the fuck off my talk page"[118]

Clearly treating others with respect was just an empty promise to avoid being blocked in the last ANI thread. I have been banned from his talkpage for requesting him to remove a -180deg code there[119], so I am unable to bring this up that way. --Pudeo (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My gripe is that you are driving other editors (some of which I happen to like) away with your extreme hostility. Yet if anyone says something negative, you ban them from your talkpage. It's hard not to notice you since your hostile discussions take place on noticeboards. Just a while ago you had a spat with Walter Görlitz on RSN and said he might be blocked for insults like saying your thinking isn't clear.[120]. You realize he or I would be blocked for saying what you just said because we don't have a WP:UNBLOCKABLES posse defending whatever we do? That is very arrogant. For what's it worth, it's also important to oppose these kind of double standards on policy enforcement because what's enabling your abusive behauvior is that you know you can get away with it. --Pudeo (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pants Reopened

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

I do not really think MP was baited...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yawn. The good news is that MPants exposed a sock. The bad news is that MP went too far. I support his brief block, much as I really enjoy and value his presence. But, we’re piling time sink upon time sink. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

GokuFan2001

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

---

• GokuFan2001 (talk · contribs)

Editor is making repeated unhelpful edits, from adding in unsourced information to removing content with reason. Editor had been warned by myself and others but shows no interest in engaging with other editors. Rusted AutoParts 01:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A bunch of talk page notices. No replies. No talk page edits. Few edit summaries I let them know that communication is required. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They have paid no mind to your talk page comments, they’re still just doing their disruptive editing. Rusted AutoParts 03:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Jwray

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

---

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

This post [121] and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MjolnirPants/nonazis along with some interesting recent edits like [122] [123] [124] [125] gives me pause to wonder what User:Jwray is up to at Wikipedia. Seems to be here to WP:RGW and rejects the idea of a neutral editor. Perhaps Jwray would like to explain what his purpose is at Wikipedia? See Special:Contributions/Jwray Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unless they're a sock, I don't see any reason for this page to sanction them at this time; they do seem close to a Discretionary topic-ban from American Politics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Didn't we just deal with Wikid77 for his blatant racism?--Jorm (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• ... And that is related how? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an emerging agenda? Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting a bad feeling from what I'm seeing. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Off hand, I'd say there's this book by Dale Carnegie MjolnirPants should read. Either that or he's being targeted by people with a different political bent than his own with a nothere agenda, and his underlying tendency to use unfortunate metaphors make him an easy target. Or both. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

PS MjolnirPants blocked 31 hours by Cullen. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've alerted them to discretionary sanctions in this area. If they continue to push an agenda or behave disruptively, they can be dealt with at WP:AE or by myself or any other uninvolved admin. I see no direct need to sanction now. They're alerted to DS, which means they know to be on their best behaviour. If they aren't we have means to deal with it quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: You have the patience of a saint. A saint. this edit, made before you DS'd them, mixed with all the other pointyness, merits a nothere block. Specifically, undoing the close of the MJpants thread above, nominating one of his user pages for deletion, and now this bit of disruption/trolling/what have you. Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no consensus to close the thread yet in the subsection you created, and you are allowed to undo non-admin closures. It's a poor practice to NAC controversial ANI threads anyway. That's why the block was done after the premature close as well. So don't hold that against this user in any case. --Pudeo (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't try to sidetrack this thread about another user with gravedancing and to dead horse beat another editor. There can be reasons to unclose a thread but we don't expect a sub 1000 edit user to reopen a thread closed by an 137,000 post editor to post smack like he did. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack this thread. I'm saying he shouldn't be blocked for undoing a non-admin close as that was mentioned. --Pudeo (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with that specific point. I was surprised that thread got closed as quickly as it did. But I also don't mind looking through the user's contributions for pointyness given their post after undoing the close there and I think Tony's got this spot on. We can probably close this? SportingFlyer T·C 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, I think it's worth noting the one point in User:MjolnirPants/nonazis that Jwray tagged as needing a citation, labeling it a fringe view. I think the DS alert is all that's needed at this point, but we need to be alert for racism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and pretty much the same thing here (though that was self-reverted). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I closed that MfD as speedy keep before noticing this thread here. In my opinion, any editor who insists that Wikipedia must entertain the views of FUCKING NAZIS has missed a very fundamental point about what we're doing here, and would be better off joining the nutjobs at Rightpedia. See tolerance paradox. But in general I endorse TonyBallioni's approach at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I would find it hard to disagree with you on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• endorse close per above. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Before we close this, I do think we should consider this edit. Quote Seriously, fuck wikipedia. It's a cesspit of liberal bias and it mindlessly repeats every obvously false & scurrilous slander ever uttered by the likes of Rita Skeeter. That's the sort of stuff that, combined with trying to delete a whole anti-Nazi essay under the guise of issues with one single line, suggest a WP:NOTHERE attitude at least as far as race is concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit has been linked a couple times in this thread already. Only editing pages on alt-right personalities, whining about Wikipedia not being far enough to the right, and trying to get a "no Nazis" essay deleted, all adds up to not being destined for a long career here. Worth keeping an eye on but IMO not definitely worth a ban just yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I saw that. Tony saw that. Still endorsing to close and let the DS notice sink in. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not file this seeking specific sanctions, just to get more eyes on the user's activities. I'm ok with a close. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Quartertoten/Brian Desmond Hurst

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all! This is my report.

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

Diffs:

• [126]
• [127]
• [128]
• [129]
• [130]

Information about previous warnings:

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Again, you are intransigent in your response here.

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

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

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

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

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

References

User:Djln

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

He is of course entitled to his view ... but he has chosen to express his disagreement in a prolonged series of personalised responses which seem to amount to a determination to prove that he has somehow caught me out on something. If he'd read the guidelines he'd see that he hasn't, but he says[131] Please don't just quote guidelines. Not interested in reading them thanks.

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

Here's some of Djln's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I really don't think it's bullying. I really don't think "hauling you off" in the context of a disagreement on wikipedia implies physical assault. It's just an exchange between people who are passionate about the subject. His edits actually look fine to me. 161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Welp, civil, collegeal discourse seems right out the window on this site. Might as well change the name to Hooligans Den and be done with it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim Now you're being childish. Maybe we should call it "Dlohcierekim's Nursery School Sulking Corner". 161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment How about we fix this like it should have been in the first place - User:Djln, if you carry on using demeaning edit-summaries like that you will be blocked. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and regardless of whether your sense of entitlement leads you to believe you can talk to others here like that, the fact is - you can't, so stop it. Now. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

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

---

I saw this note on a vandal's talk page: [136]. It implies that the account is evading a block, but I don't know the background in such a way as to suggest an SPI. Pinging Meters in case you would like to comment. I'm also not sure whether this would fit with a not-here block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by way of the insertion of multiple "possiblies", "maybes", "might have beens" etc [137] is characteristic of a vandal I've seen and had blocked before. Unfortunately I cannot remember which account it was. There's no hit for this behaviour in my SPI aide memoire User:Meters/SPIs so I don't think there has ever been an SPI. For that matter, I may have overstated things in my warning since I could be wrong that it was an indef block on the original account. Meters (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you are not sure that this actually was another account, then perhaps no action might be needed. But it still might be worth a look if it looks familiar to anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Confirmed

• Bob1310 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mikkel13101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mr. Gruk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Then I'm glad I brought it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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