Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.") Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source" I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much. I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [1] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[2][3][4] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots). Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [5] [6][7][8][9]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[10][11][12] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [13], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[14][15][16] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

DK: "Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."

Continuing to make this claim even after I've highlighted it here suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are right here for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out." As I stated above, I later ammended this to "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT." At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You have provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" explicitly that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

"based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence multiple times on this very page: first in my initial statement, and here again today. You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have responded to this before but frankly I was feeling a little unheard. SWL36 explained to you why google searches are not evidence here. I explained that we were looking for reliable sources here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When the ratio is greater than 100:1, comparisons of google hits are taken very seriously—we even have this at WP:COMMONNAME: "generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". And of course I provided News results, not web results.

You very carefully avoid responding to the question of how a term that appears in less than 1% of newssources is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and what would a violation of WP:WEIGHT be if that's not already the threshold? I fully expect you will not hear the question—or will respond with "but CNN!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response is that 1) Using Google Searches in this way is problematic for the reasons SWL36 explained. 2) I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term. This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun and using terms like "SNC-Lavalin controversy" or "Lavalin scandal" which will catch other scandals SNC-Lavalin is involved in besides this one. There have been many others besides this one affair; none of those are known as LavScam. Others have pointed out to you before the problems caused by comparing the unique term "LavScam" and less unique terms. 3) The results have changed since you did this tally. It looks more like 8% on my math now (not that that is the defining issue). 4) While we rely on reliable sources, news articles are not the only form of reliable sources. Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public. While we need to avoid WP:OR, we should not ignore the fact that use of a term in other spheres is relevant to whether it is a WP:COMMONNAME. You were provided this WP:RS concerning the prevalence of the term on Twitter. 5) MOS:LEADALT 6) CNN! 7) Washington Post 8) The many other sources listed on the talk page here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term."—the onus is on you to provide counterevidence.

"This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun"—no, the results include the Toronto Sun. Are you saying you haven't actually clicked through the links?

"It looks more like 8% on my math now"—No search I do returns anything like it. The links above certainly don't. Where's the evidence? And how would 8% satisfy WEIGHT regardless?

"Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public."—neither do your "gut feelings".

"6) CNN!"—the same WP:IDHT as predicted. WP:WEIGHT makes no exception for CNN, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"The many other sources listed"—the same IDHT. List as many sources as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's a fringe term used by a very small minority of sources, thus highlighting it is in violation of WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify much of that with any response because you are not hearing any part of what I have said except for what you have chosen to quote, while ignoring the rest. Others can read the rest for themselves. I will say, I certainly clicked on the links and I note that you provided this link while noting "only 1,650 for "Lavscam" -torontosun.com" concerning this 1% calculation of yours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Those were not the links provided to support the "fraction of 1%" stat; they were to support the "2/3 of sources that use 'LavScam'" stat. Please demonstrate good faith now by acknowledging your error. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if I am mistaken on that I apologize BUT I don't think I am. You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers, BUT you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for "LavScam". You have cited so many Google searches it is hard to keep track. I assume you mean to say this comment is where your "one percent" number comes from. There you use similar search terms which catch unrelated materials, specifically trudeau lavalin vs. trudeau lavalin -lavscam. These search terms again create a false narrative because they will get numerous hits unrelated to the 2019 scandal. SNC-Lavalin is a company which has been around for more than 100 years. It was around when Trudeau Sr. was PM and then leader of the opposition and then PM again (leading to many possible erroneous hits). A quick review of SNC-Lavalin shows that they have been in many legal disputes and bribery scandals (some of which occurred while Trudeau Jr. was an opposition leader. A lot has been written about those which would lead to false positives. But I digress, you have been told about problems with your choice of search terms before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers"---that's right.

"you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for 'LavScam'"—not "few"—I gave numbers in the thousands. The evidence shows that there are thousands of sources that use the term "LavScam" (primarily the Toronto Sun), but that there are hundreds of thousands that don't. There are undoubtedly "false positives", but we'd need evidence they are statistically significant. "'pierre trudeau' lavalin -justin" gets us 376 hits—a rounding error. Even with your "CNN" example, "LavScam" appears in a single article out of the six CNN has published on the affair; with the WaPo it appears in 6 out of 148. What about these "false positives"? We have strong evidence that "Lavscam" appears in a small minority of sources, and no evidence that it appears in a significant percentage. In fact, look at this: "Lavscam" set to pre-February 2019. Look at how many pages of "false positives" we get for "LavScam" before the controversy was even born! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This part of the thread is simply becoming a discussion of content and doesn't belong here. I am mindful of The Blade of the Northern Lights complaint about length of this ANI below. If you want to continue to belabour the point, I invite you to raise it on the talk page so we can disagree there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even name whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."

Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for (some sort of) closure

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "responsive" in what way? I haven't been ignoring anyone there—I've been responding with diffs, quotes & links from our sourcing policies. Here's my last response (nearly two weeks ago) to Safrolic, who opened this report—hardly "unresponsive", or even curmudgeonly, and Safrolic has refused to engage with it. The article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I just see that the complaints allege failure to address other's points/concerns/sources/rationales/etc., and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns. What I've seen doesn't really look that way, but if people don't feel heard then they don't feel heard, so one can try harder to make them feel heard. At any rate, I agree with you on the substance of the matter; there's a PoV issue going on at that article, and you're right to stick to a CCPOL-based position (without any "inventive" reinterpretation of what the core content policies mean and how they apply, which seems to be what the other side is doing). I think this ANI got opened because some of your responses were a little brusque. I doubt there's really anything more to it, and it's weird to me that this thread is still open, much less open with any doubt as to what the closure should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns"—uh-huh, and accusations of having an "agenda", both accusations of which are backed up with precisely no diffs, nothing. Here's a for-instance: I've demonstrated that the disputed alt-term appears in a small fraction than 1% of newssource hits, and 2/3 of that from a single newssource; the response is that CNN has used it (a single time); my rebuttle is that even including such sources still results in a small fraction of 1% of newssource hits, 2/3 of which come from a single newssource—WP:WEIGHT doesn't make exceptions for CNN. The response is that Curly Turkey is pluggin his ears: obviously I'm not—I've responded directly to the claims and demonstrated how the claims violate policy. Response: "Yeah, but CNN!" ad nauseam ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aye. I definitely noticed that "alternative term" analysis, and it's pretty obvious that including that barely-attested opposition slang in the lead would be patently WP:UNDUE (maybe even including it in the article at all would be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a concern, as none of the named editors seems to have expressed the slightest interest in putting it in the body—notice how many times I brought that up in the course of these "discussions". They're not interested in noting the term—their single-minded obsession is with highlighting it in the lead sentence. This would ensure maximum exposure and maximum spread in usage via Citogenesis. Putting it in the body would simply bury it—not worth the effort. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: from today—here's more of that WP:IDHT WP:CIVILPOV game I've been talking about—as if linking to every single source that uses the term somehow changes that fact that it's used by a small fraction of 1% of available sources. This is the same Darryl Kerrigan I quoted extensively for IDHT behaviour above. "Reasoning" is not a reasonable strategy against this type of persistent behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is not so so much lack of responsiveness – indeed, it seems to me CT tends to be over-responsive — as that he responds without listening. And he responds abusively. E.g., his first comment at the top of this discussion (at 07:47, 12 April): "So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ...", his suspiscion of "an astroturfing campaign", and his accusations that others are edit-warring. And that's without drawing on examples from any other pages. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  To the extent this may pertain to my own post higher up, what I mean by "responsive" is the narrow sense (i.e., logically and substantively responsive to what it's responding to, which I think is how this term is generally used in discourse and debate circles). I don't mean "simply making any response at all, just to make one". I.e., I wasn't suggesting CT should post more frequently or longer. I've suggested (albeit vaguely) that the opposing side don't seem to feel heard by him, so he can try to address their material in more detail or something; I dunno, really. I'm not a mind reader, and cannot intuit what exactly anyone wants out of him in any particular thread or subthread. More to the point, though, when multiple editors feel there's a PoV problem at the page ("whitewashing" or not), and as CT indicated there were several others until basically pushed out of the discussion, an ANI like this looks very much like an unclean-hands attempt at WP:WINNING. I'm rather surprised it hasn't boomeranged already. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that CT's tone tends to over-excite the "civility is more important than reliability" crowd, who hang out in ANI like this is some kind of nightclub.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: why did you revert (diff), without explanation, my response (diff)? to SMcC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I have no idea! (And that applies both to the revert and to the content of this discussion.) It has resulted, I surmise, from some Wikipedia incarnation of butt dialing. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I will attempt to restore my response, as follows. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mac: a certain level of civility is essential for reliability. This incident arises from a page where there are issues regarding (in part) the veracity of certain content, the reliability of certain sources, and even of verifiability (i.e,, whether content is supported by the source). These are not uncommon issues, and they usually are resolved (or perhaps not) without reaching ANI. What brings the matter here is an inability to resolve these issues at the article's Talk page. Whether there is a POV problem there is immaterial here; the issue here is why. And from what can be seen here the biggest factor running through all of this is the battleground approach taken by one editor: Curly Turkey. Is this not sufficiently evident from pretty much every comment he has made here? Or is it necessary to list and argue every point and response?

To be clear, what I would like out of him is: no more personal attacks, no more accusations of edit-warring, no more railing against everyone else, etc. In short, some civility. And then perhaps the discussion could get down to some actual issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have diffs that the "battleground" was well underway before I showed up (Littleolive oil was chased right off the page, and Legacypac's even been indeffed for his personal attacks). So much for your "approach taken by one editor"—and yet again no attempt on your part to back up your assertion—just attack, attack, attack—and accusations that a formal complaint against Legacypac's POV-pushing (backed with diffs) is a "personal attack". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

My statement (above, at 23:58 30 April) that your first comment in this discussion was an accusation of a personal attack I backed up by providing the timestamp (07:47, 12 April) of your actual comment. If you can't find it by eye use your browser's search function. If you really, pedantically insist on a diff, fine, here it is: diff. Is that good enough? I note that your comment was not a "formal complaint". Also, just because "someone else does it" is no excuse for you doing it. But if you insist on getting just as much as LegacyPac got, sure, let's do it: is indef good enough for you, too? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ): So open yourself an ANI. You're obviously WP:NOTHERE for anything but the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was suspecting something similar—there's a pile of people who'd love to pile on me for my language, but it's hard when I've sworn only once on the page. They can't "get" me, and it's a pain to have to engage with the actual evidence, especially when there's so much to sort through ... on a boring Canadian politics page. My concern now is the POV-push will win through attrition, which seems to have been the modus operandi before I showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @J. Johnson: I've provided diff evidence to back up my assertions. You've provided hand-waving WP:IDHT refusals to engage with evidence and policies. Examples of your own IDHT: "problems that exist in only one editor's mind" and "problems that don't exist"—a sampling of the long list of problems appears on this page from both before and after you showed up, as well as links to editors who have also identified problems. We can see Safrolic and Harris Seldon acknowledging sourcing issues I fixed at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Continued sourcing issues—they've both even thanked me![17][18][19]. It's hard to see these repetitions of yours as anything other than disruptive WP:IDHT, particularly as you have done precisely nothing to improve the article in any way.

  You also throw this Catch-22 at me: "If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. ... By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't"

  You've nowhere demonstrated an interest in improving the article and appear to be bent on preventing me from doing so. Your one edit to the article has been to join in a tag-team editwar to remove the {{Cite check}} template to hide the continued sourcing problems from the readers with the specious reasoning that "its presence violates WP:NPOV". Again, no evidence to back that "unique" interpretation of our policies up—just the IDHT I linked to above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delayed response- I've been moving my apartment all of yesterday and will be all of today as well. So, there's two separate issues I have here; firstly, the uncivil behaviour (which I also hope will decrease now that lpac isn't exacerbating it), and the sourcing policy issues. With regard to Lavscam, I don't really care that much, but I was going with existing consensus and my reading of how we're supposed to interpret alternative names. I can see looking at the RfC that despite a lot of replies, only a few editors with more than 1k edits have chosen to weigh in, and among those editors it's about 50/50. I note that CT is wrong that none of the editors have suggested putting alternative names in the body- from my vote, I quote: Both [WP:LEADCREATE] and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name,.. This paragraph is still in my plans for this article- if you check the stats for the page, I've written about a fifth of the total copy, and I plan to keep going now that my exams are done.

Now, for sourcing; CT has made some fairly non-controversial edits. Things like fixing formatting, fixing wording[20], that's helpful. He's also made edits which I think are less helpful. Notably, he refused to accept this source, which you can read more about here (the whole section, but I've linked to my most relevant diff). There was also this dispute on my talk page and the article talk page. I originally made the ANI report after that talk page discussion. What I really want (what I really really want) is outside eyeballs on these policy applications, because I haven't seen anyone else 'agree with his interpretations of sourcing policies. J.Johnson was actually some outside eyeballs; someone who came in from his post on a notice page for sourcing in Canadian articles[21], and who was immediately accused by CT of 'joining in the edit warring' [22] when he removed an article-wide citation check template CT kept adding to the article. Basically the mirror image of lpac's treatment of Bradv above. As mentioned above, I won't be able to read/reply to this again until later tonight or tomorrow morning (pacific time), so thanks in advance for your patience. [Safrolic @ 13:58]

"Notably, he refused to accept this source, "—I didn't "refuse to accept this source"—the source remained in the article. You've WP:3RRed to keep that source placed after a quotation that does not appear in the source,[23][24][25] and the article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. You had this explained regarding other sources and again on the talk page:

• "If it's meant to source earlier portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and only the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't."
• "There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly)."

Along with detailed explanations of our sourcing policies. But rather than implement either solution, you've gone the WP:IDHT route (you still haven't replied nearly two weeks later) and have 3RRed to keep the article in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state (where it still is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say anything in your last reply to that discussion which wasn't addressed earlier, or which was supported by anybody else looking at the discussion/the edits themselves. I don't feel the need to get The Last Word in, generally, so I decided to let it stand until/unless someone else came along and agreed with you on it. So far, no one has. Safrolic (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is about the most exasperating IDHT I've seen from you yet, Safrolic. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith, nor in upholding our core content policies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of "you're being the problem", "no, you're being the problem" in this thread, which is pretty typical for drawn-out ANIs. I've seen JJ's comment that the most important thing is civility (a paraphrase; I don't mean to straw man). But it's not. WP:ENC is. Civility is an important conduit by which we get there, but we also have the WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK principles, and the "WP is not a suicide pact" one; we are not bound to be sweet-toned and fawningly courteous and perpetually good-faith-assuming after evidence of protracted non-encyclopedic editing. Where there is evidence of an UNDUE problem and a tag-teaming to stonewall against fixing it, it's generally a guarantee that civility is going to erode; the community knows this and doesn't shit its own pants about it. One thing going on here, too, is a bogus reinterpretation of "civility" on the fly to just mean "everything about CT that made me unhappy". Using swear-words isn't by itself a civility breach; we just had a site-wide RfC about that last year, followed by ArbCom using that community decision in their own case reasoning. Being critical isn't a civility breach or personal attack, or we couldn't ever deal with any controversy. Pointing out edit-warring problems and an ICANTHEARYOU pattern isn't a civility or NPA breach (how could ANI exist?), especially when the other side are pointing the exact same fingers at the other party. What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute. Neither side in the dispute needs censure, though neither is exhibiting perfect comportment. The dispute needs to be actually resolved.

Recommend closure without action at ANI, and an RfC at the article's talk page or at WP:NPOVN, to actually resolve the real dispute..
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but are engaging in strawman argument. (E.g.: swear-words? No, I that is not why we are here. Nor is there any tag-teaming here: that is solely CT's bogus accusation against me.) And you do a disservice in suggesting that the civility issue here is simply a lack of "sweet-toned and fawningly courteous" behavior. Civility is the core issue here.

Nor is the issue here (ANI) any matter of encyclopedic content, POV, RS, etc. Those should be dealt with on the article's talk page. This page is for (per the statement at the top of this page) discussion about "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And that is exactly what is evident at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, and here: pervasive behavior, mainly by one editor, that confounds all attempts sort out the issues. (Do you need an annotated list of diffs?)

As a counter proposal I recommend this: TBAN for Curly Turkey, and see if the remaining editors can then sort out matters; post a request for more eyes if there is any concern about the article or its remaining editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Do you need an annotated list of diffs?"—yes, that's a basic requirement at ANI.

Discussion has returned to the talk page, and happily Littleolive oil has returned to the discussion since Legacypac's indef, and we've enlisted Blade of the Northern Lights to monitor. J. Johnson, who has contriubuted nothing but belligerence to the discussions and nothing to the article, can thus continue his drahmah here without interference.

I do agree that the issue here at ANI was never a "content dispute", though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you. But if you insist diffs are required, by all means please show us diffs of your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior"—I never admitted uncivil behaviour. I retracted my accusations against Pavelshk. This is you moving the goalposts to kick up more drahmah. WP:NOTHERE Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not "moving the goalposts" asking for diffs: that is your requirement (above, at 22:12: "that's a basic requirement at ANI", and further above at 22:28, 1 May, and following, where your complaint seems to have been that I had not provided a diff). Why are you unable to play with the same "goalposts" as everyone else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles

TBAN from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic for persistent POV-pushing, sourcing-policy violations, and WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer per copious evidence in the sections above. None of these editors will give up on contaminating the article or preventing it from being cleaned up, and have already driven others from the page via attrition and personal attacks. At least four editors have noted POV issues with the article. Our WP:Core content policies are at stake—we cannot allow it to spread by turning a blind eye here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Won't even dignify this with a vote. This is an embarrassing and vindictive way to try to win a content dispute when you haven't provided solid diffs of these editors doing any of the things you have accused them of, additionally you didn't user link a single one of them and I'm sure they would like to defend themselves against these charges: Legacypac (talk · contribs), Darryl Kerrigan (talk · contribs), Safrolic (talk · contribs).

The only instance of blatant sourcing violations was the "illegal political interference" statement added by PavelShk [26], this was rightly fixed by Curly and no one objected. This [27] appears to be Curly misunderstanding citations, the first sentence in the paragraph is a paraphrase from the CBC citation, while the quote is from the National Post citation and no violations of souring policies occurred here, except removing citations for well-sourced content. SWL36 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The source was never removed—it was moved only to content it supported (your diff even shows that)—but this keeps being framed as "removing sources". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with SWL36. This is not way to try to win a content dispute when solid diffs have not been provided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unsurprisingly, I agree with SWL36. This is an attempt to win a content dispute which has been discussed at length on the talk page. My dispute with CT relates to that issue. I think I have stated solid reasons for forming the opinion I have, namely MOS:LEADALT, WP:POVNAMING and the consensus on the talk page. I have also taken issue with CT's disruptive behaviour toward others here and on the talk page. From where I am sitting Safrolic has done nothing but attempt to discuss edits and improvements with CT in good faith. PavelShk, a new editor, made the inappropriate (but I assume good faith) edit adding the term "illegal". This was reverted and there does not appear to be any continuing debate about it from him or anyone else (CT excluded).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Good morning to you too! My diff from two weeks ago should provide some additional context to SWL36's reply. Note that there is significant overlap between the Natpo cite and the CBC cite, and the CBC cite is fine for everything but the exact wording of the quote (CBC paraphrases it). I still await someone else supporting your interpretations of sourcing policy. Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  So again you admit the quote does not appear in the citation, but 3RRed to keep it where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm still puzzled as to what the perceived problem is with this paragraph, both citations cover the content and a quote is used from the NP citation. There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph. SWL36 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  SWL36: "There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph."—under the condition that both citations support the whole paragraph. When they don't, we place the citations after only that content it supports. Look at the first paragraph of the first section of Today's Featured Article. There are two citations. The first supports the first half, the second supports the second. Putting them both at the end would imply they both support the whole paragraph, which is an WP:INTEGRITY violation. I've given more details here. Keep in mind that I've been involved in scores of WP:FAC and WP:GAN assessments (both giving and receiving)—this isn't my interpretation of sourcing requirements, but what the community has required for many years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Even if I accept your narrow reading of WP:INTEGRITY, the two sources support the paragraph as a whole because the CBC source closely paraphrases Dion's quoted words: "Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act." (from cited CBC source) "Dion said he has 'reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 (of the act) may have occurred.'” (from NP source; the text in single quotes is what is quoted by the wiki article). This non-violation of a very-narrow and atextual reading of WP:INTEGRITY is not sufficient for a Tban, a trout, or even just a revert. SWL36 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  So—you admit, and provide evidence, that the quotation is not in the source cited. No policy allows the sourcing of a quotation to a paraphrasing of a quotation, which the community would never support. This is but a symptom, though, of wider behaviour patterns throughout the various disputes on the page—the TBAN proposal is for those behaviours.
  I'm curious, though, SWL36—what problem could either of my proposed fixes cause? Neither removes the source. Nobody has engaged with the question, or seems concerned that Safrolic would WP:3RR over it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I appreciate Safrolic's view that this proposal should not be dignified, there needs to be a clear and definite rejection of this one-sided, disruptive, and even frivolous proposal. It is also quite inappropriate. There is a rather entangled dispute about content, sources, and POV, but all that belongs on the article's Talk page. What is pertinent here (as I have said above) is why these issues have (so far) not been resolvable. That is due mostly to CT churning the discussion so much (such as with this inane proposal) that there is very little chance for anyone to grapple with the issues and sort them out. I explicitly reject his various contentions (such as "copious evidence", "WP:Core content policies are at stake", and the rest). But as CT has raised the issue of a TBAN, I think we should consider a boomerang. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, unsurprisingly, I agree this should boomerang towards CT. I see more WP:IDHT behaviour above and to SWL36 immediately above concerning citations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR, on behalf of basically everyone who hasn't already commented here. I'm not sorry to say, the sheer length and hydra-esque quality of this thread basically kills any attempt to get any definitive resolution. At this point, I think the verbiage is enough to bore a judge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand this. (how) Can we fix this, so that some kind of resolution can be found? Safrolic (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'd like to ask a favour. I've opened a discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam"—out of the numerous disputes, this is the most contentious. I've headed it with a note to keep on topic and refrain from personal remarks. Could you monitor it to ensure it does indeed keep on topic, and that participants refrain from dragging in other (or past) disputes, WP:NPAs, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, etc.? I'm not asking you to so much as peak at any other part of the page. Or if you're not up to, do you think you could recommend another admin? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can watch over that discussion. I don't have any strong views on the subject, so it shouldn't be a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks enormously! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My single edit has been mentioned here multiple times. Let me explain. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I created an account specifically to edit SNC-Lavalin Affair page. I've done a lot of research for that page when it was just starting. I did make that edit where "illegal" political interference was mentioned. I had my reasons for it because that was my understanding of the source after reading it, but when it was reversed, I agreed with the reversal and never tried to edit it back. So it should be a non-issue. Also, it looks like I correctly tried to remove citecheck from that page. Mr Turkey never explained to me what specific sources must still be checked. However, Mr. Turkey immediately accused me of being a sock puppet, astroturfing, being a single-purpose account, violating a million wikipedia policies I have no idea about, and all other imaginable sins in figurative language! So, by now I pretty much lost any desire to contribute my time and edit anything more here. I though experienced editors like Mr. Turkey would be supportive and help new editors instead of trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents. PavelShk (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@PavelShk: I hope you won't be disheartened by one uncivil editor. It is because of his continuing "trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents" that we are here at the Administrator's noticeboard, hoping that some administrator will step in. If you have any questions or would like some help please feel free to ask on my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bookmarking yet another in a long series of WP:NPAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify: Pavelshk removed the {{Citecheck}} twice in one day, once as an IP and once under their username. This appeared to me an aggressive way to game the system, especially given the amount of editwarring that has been going on at the page since before I even showed up—including by IPs, and including removal of maintenance tags—and the continual aggression and editwarring from several of the other editors. I jumped to conclusions about PavelShk's motivations. I thought we had cleared this up weeks ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you shouldn't have to be told to not bite the newbies. It is a further indication of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that at no point did you attempt to advise the new user (neither on his talk page, nor the article's talk page) on his missteps, but you immediately accused him of sockpuppetry and of ulterior motives. If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I already retracted them. Now it's time for you to "apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior". Not expecting anything, given your comment above above "one editor" that has been refuted multiple times now. Here's your chance to prove you're not here just for the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retracted? That looks like false statement. Which being made knowingly sure looks like nothing short of a lie. But show me wrong: give us some diffs (you like diffs, right?) where you have retracted the several comments where you accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry, ulterior motives, etc. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh ... scroll up? But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording. Like I've been saying: WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As I just noted further up: I am not "mov[ing] the goalposts": providing diffs is your requirement. As to your sockpuppetry accusations (such as here): I see no retraction, neither with strike-thru text nor any follow-up comments. Your statement that you have "already retracted them" is false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Heads games—WP:NOTHERE. Won't be responding to your belligerent horseshit further. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Curly, I am trying to keep an open mind but I have to agree with Johnson: you need to "give us some diffs". - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I retracted the accusations against Pavelshk in this very section, so I'm not buying there's any good faith in demanding diffs from an editor who has refused to provide diffs either here or elsewhere. J. Johnson's now framing it as if I need to provide diffs for an "apology" (having moved the goal posts). I haven't apologized and won't—my concerns with Pavelshk's inappropriate edits were legitimate. Nothing will satisfy J. Johnson regardless, who has contributed nothing to the article or the discussions that hasn't been pure belligerent drahmah—and with no diffs to back up any of his horseshit claims over these weeks.

So, Ret.Prof—when will you demand diffs for any of the claims J. Johnson's made over the last several weeks? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for Legacypac, no vote for others: I don't see this as fair to LP. The editor is currently blocked and can't post in their own defense. It seems very unfair that LP might come back from that block and then find a TBAN. Additionally, my feeling is that LP's current block boils down to a civility issue. I don't think anyone has accused them of competency issues. Thus if LP's block is lifted it will almost certainly come with a new understanding of civility. That should address any concerns that a TBAN was meant to address. Springee (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Involved parties should not be proposing sanctions against those they are in a dispute with. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Springee Legacypac has in the past threatened to have someone sanctioned at a noticeboard while they were blocked for simply removing his uncivil comments from there talk page.

I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off there talk page WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [28] that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [29]

He has also more than once had his competency questioned. By admin BrownHairedGirl[30] and in the GiantSnowman Arbcom Case[31] he was removed from participating in the GSM case because of this and his incivility. There are also numerous other examples on his talk page. And this was the reasons behind his incivility issues along with differing opinions (which is all he is brining to the table).

As to his current block it seems admin Floquenbeam (who apparently trumps all others) is giving him a pass and all the other editors and admins are bending the knee to Floquenbeam even aftet there staunch condemnation of him and his behavior.Editspring (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:ABAN Curly_Turkey

Whereas issues of content, point-of-view, sourcing, and edit-warring have been raised at SNC-Lavalin Affair, and the editors there have not been able to resolve those content issues at the Talk page, which failure is reasonably attributed in large part to disruptive and uncivil behavior by User:Curly_Turkey, and whereas the attempt to address that behavior at this noticeboard has floundered, again due primarily to the tendentious, disruptive, and uncivil behavior of Curly_Turkey, I propose to resolve this disruptive situation as follows: User:Curly_Turkey to be WP:ABANned from SNC-Lavalin Affair and its Talk page for a period of not less than one month, the intent being to give the other editors an undistracted opportunity to resolve the article's issues.

CT's behavior is amply demonstrated through out the discussion here. For those new to this discussion I provide the following summarization.

It has been suggested (by SMcCandlish at 20:35, 4 May) that "What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute." That is not exactly true — the underlying content disputes are a matter for the article's Talk page. This page (the ANI noticeboard) is, as stated at the top, for discussion of "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", such as claimed (with diffs!) by Safrolic in his opening statement of this discussion. The discussion here is properly of why the several discussions at the Talk page have failed to resolve the underlying content disputes.

It has also been suggested (by SMcCandlish at 01:37, 1 May) that "this ANI got opened because some of [CT's] responses were a little brusque." Sorry, no, this is not a matter of "a little brusqueness" (nor a passing instance or two of a little curmudgeonliness), this is a persistent and disruptive behavior that violates the Wikipedia policies of WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:What Wikipedia is not (i.e., WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation."). CT has also violated several WP behavioral guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing ("a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article...."), WP:Assume good faith (particularly WP:AOBF: "accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs.").

In his opening statement Safrolic listed some of CT's questionable comments, including imputations of bad faith here and here. Typical of CT's behavior here is his first comment in this discussion (07:47, 12 April) where he accused another editor of "personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing".

As a single illustration of Curly Turkey's typical behavior is his response to a questionable edit made to the article by new user PavelShk. (See discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#RfC: LavScam in the collapsed section title "Discussion of PavelShk edits ....") CT's response was to accuse PavelShk of being a sock puppet (a violation of WP:AGF). Upon being cautioned about such accusations CT's response was that "Pavel has made controversial edits that didn't hold up to verification, followed by editwarring", and "people started attacking me ... and started treating our policies as if they were optional.", showing a definite lack of WP:IDHT.

But it does stop there. In the section (immediately above), we get into quite a tussle about where CT claims to have retracted his accusations, but, not seeing any evidence of that, I ask him to give us some diffs, where upon he complains that I will just "move the goalposts" (00:33, 6 May), and responds (02:04, 7 May): "Heads games—WP:NOTHERE. Won't be responding to your belligerent horeshit further.". Such behavior is NOT in accord with the expetation of WP:Civility] to "Participate in a respectful and considerate way", and "to be responsive to good-faith questions".

To fully examine Curly Turkey's disruptive and uncivil behavior would take a week. I trust the forgoing is sufficient to show persistent violation of Wikipedia behavioral polices and guidelines that warrant an article ban for user Curley Turkey. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I don't have time to check all the diffs; I'll do that tomorrow. -JJ

• Support, as explained above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear

[32] Editor Kansas Bear deleted my notification to him about DNR in a very rude form. First, such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG. Second, I don't care about this guy, but I will not tolerate such outrageous violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA from anyone. If he or somebody else thinks that I am a sock-puppet, I will glad to hear his concern on the respective noticeboard.

I will wait for the sanctions, that community will find appropriate and I hope this editor's bad conduct and lack of manners will be assessed. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I will drop with a great pleasure, if someone will finally explain me, what the hell is going here, since I am already thinking that there is a sort of anarchy in English Wikipedia. Administrator threatens me with ban just after I asked an innocent question related to the conflict resolution procedury and very vaguely accuses me in nationalism, then he claims that I am a sock-puppet, whereas I am not and it is easy to check — you have special noticeboard, I mean. Then one of the editors delete my very polite notification in a very rude form, makes an accusation without any proof and thus violates the basic Wikipedia rules, and then you threaten me with boomerang. What the hell is going on here? Editor makes an evident violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA and that is just OK, but for some reasons, that only God would know, boomerang should hit me. Okay, I don't mind that, but only if you will find out something contradicting to Wikipedia in my very friendly notification about WP:DRN. I am not fan of conspiracy theories, but it looks like everyone wants me to leave the Wikipedia. Or just the rules don't work and are overshadowed by the influence of well-established users. Sorry, for a little harshness in my words, I just got a little nervous. I don't want to insult someone. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You returned from a two year wikibreak by almost immediately resuming the same dispute from two years ago. Your conduct at the time [33][34] was unproductive, and continuing it now is unlikely to be productive. Rivselis (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soo, how should I understand it? I cannot add peer-reviewed sources, because two years ago my conduct not that well? Or it means that if I have returned to the same discussion, because at that time I couldn't finish it, Kansas Bear have a right to insult me? Just please explain how does it works. Because I don't think that "I think you did somewhere wrong, so he can do wrong with you" logic is OK. Don't think that I try to troll you with such questions, I just try to understand rules of this Wiki, as in Russian Wiki, where I am pretty well-established, the things don't go like this. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I barely see a need to write him something on his talk page, since he deletes my messages. But I thought that he will be notified from the user "template" that I've used (it results in notification in Russian Wikipedia, at least), so there is just a little misunderstanding. I didn't have a wish to leave him unnotified. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment John Francis Templeson has been editing this encyclopedia for about 2,5 years, however, i checked his contribs and, to be honest, it's hard to find out how this editor has been a net positive for the project. Many of his contributions are comments on talk pages and his main space edits include some controversial changes like this, this, this or this. The common point between all the previous edits ? Removal of sourced content (often a Persian ethnicity/language/identity) replaced with some unsourced/poorly sourced pro Turkish POV. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an irredentist/Pan-turk agenda, thus, When he disagrees with an established user like Kansas Bear who is not driven by any bias and a real net positive for this project, he comes here to open such an irrelevant case. I would support WP:BOOMERANG and some strong admin action to put an end to the disruption from this editor.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied already on this. I was new and young and easily got involved into the conflict. What wrong you can find in my contribution of this year? See Talk:Qizilbash and Talk:Iraqi Turkman, discussions of 2019. What is wrong? You will see well-sourced arguments, polite style of conversation. And I repeat: If my conduct two years ago wasn't that well, it means that now anyone can insult me in a very rude form? Two years ago and know, feel the difference. I acknowledge my previous mistakes. Now, as you see I try to be very nice, but some editors just don't understand it. And yes, I have mentioned in my page, that my main field is Russian Wikipedia, and I come to English Wikipedia, when I see disagreement between the latter and former. And I try to discuss it, of course not just because my opinion is such, but because I have plenty of sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"What is wrong" : Coming here to open such an irrelevant report is wrong. "anyone can insult me in a very rude form" : I don't see any insult toward you in a very rude form. On my end, i see an editor, you, trying to WP:GAME the system while playing a straw man here. I repeat what i said above : you have been editing this encyclopedia for 2,5 years and i don't see how you helped this project. In other words, don't feel offended, but you sound like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user. Think we're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know, accusing someone in sock-puppetry without proofs is a personal attack. If it will be proved that I am sock-puppet, ban me. But I am not. I am basing only on the WP rules. If you don't mind I will wait for the opinion of administrator and I hope he will understand me why my report is irrelevant. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't edit for 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I made a list of edits, which I admit to be disruptive to some extent and regret them. Now, month ago, I returned and want to start from a new scratch. I try to be very polite, do everything according to the Wikipedia procedures, but face only accusations in sock-puppetry. But anyway I am tending to improve this encyclopedia. I already showed good conduct in Talk:Iraqi Turkmen. My flowless edit log in Russian Wikipedia, where I am editing for 3 years [35] should assume my good faith and the fact that I never use sock puppets. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Considering he posted this link with the deletion and note to stay off his talk page due to SOMEONE ELSE'S assertion that you were both disruptive and possibly a ban evading sock puppet. I think it may be necessary to break out the Australian throwing stick here. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How should I understand it. Sorry, maybe I am not that acquainted with such terminology. I should wait for boomerang? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Over the past few years, John Francis Templeson has wasted much time of the community through his persistent efforts at gaming the system. Forumshopping and adminshopping have become synonyms for his editorial pattern, in addition to his tiresome efforts at pushing an irredentist pro-Azerbaijani Turkish/pan-Turkic POV. Two years ago, John Francis Templeson left the English Wiki for the Russian Wiki, as he was already hanging by a thin rope.[36] On the Russian Wiki he's pursuing the exact same pattern.[37] Now, he has returned to the English Wikipedia for "Round Two", determined to waste more time of the community. Admin JamesBWatson already left him an elaborate message a few days ago, a summary of his disruptive editorial pattern.[38]-[39] However John Francis Templeson decided to trample JamesBWatson's message right under his foot; he continued with the same disruption as soon as possible, and started to make renewed attempts in order to venue-shop his POV into Wikipedia.[40]-[41]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is unable to edit according Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world, in addition to a 6-month ban on creating sections at WP:ANI, WP:3O and WP:RfC.

• Support As nominator. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per my above comments and this edit, reverted shortly after by another editor, showing that John Francis Templeson has not well understood what JamesBWatson told him.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look on this edit. It is well-sourced and does not make pov-pushing (as you see I represented several opinions on the laguage of Nader). So I have a question: why this edit is disruptive. How I can understand this limitation to add well-sourced information? User HistoryofIran doesn't agree with my edit — well, for such cases we have a talk page. I don't understand why you so hesitate to discuss good-faith edits. John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See my edits on Iraqi Turkmen article. I have brought several academic sources, these were deleted, because, according to the Selçuk Denizli they are not academic. Well, I showed the contrary and the 3O supported me. Now, I have proceeded to DRN. What is disruptive in my contribution, can you explain? If you consider this as disruptive as well, then I can say that I have already a topic-ban, as all my good-faith edit are seen as disruptive by some community members. Louis Aragon, in Russian Wikipedia I was never been accused in pov-pushing. I am established user, I have over 3300 edits, several articles created, one of them has good article status and one more is nominated to the selected articles. I collaborate with Russian, Azeri, Armenian colleagues and never face such accusations (I have several blocks two years ago, since then I was not experienced, but now I improved my conduct). John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I previously expressed my concerns on this users pan-Turkist edits, specifically pushing for Azerification on the Iraqi Turkmen article. It is reassuring to see that other users have also taken notice. But, if this user is simply continuing with the same attitude they had two years ago, I question how effective a 6 month ban will be. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to notice that it is place for discussion, not for ill-motivated revenge. You questioned reliability of several sources, including Iranica and Gerhard Doerfer, and even the 3O couln't make you give up such uncompromising conduct. I have to ask other editors, isn't it WP:DIS. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• For administrator: Let me once more clarify my intentions. I will talk about my recent edits, not the ones from 2017. Two years ago I was unexperienced and I acknowledge that my conduct was bad and I regret it. Now, let's talk about my last edits. I am not a warlike one. But I perfectly know that consensus can be described as flowchart: Make an edit — Someone reverted? — If no, then cool; if yes, then discuss and if the discussions fails, appeal for 3O, RfC and so on. And I tried to stick to this formula, extensively discussed the issues on talk page and when they failed I called for the conflict resolution procedure (see for example Iraqi Turkmen talk page). If the latter supports me, I would be happy, if not — well, I will let it go. And this is what I want. Unfortunately, some editors for some reasons don't accept my right to use this procedure and I don't know why. This all would be unnecessary if my colleagues allowed the discussion to go with its normal pace, but my notifications were deleted with some rude comments, clearly violating WP:PA. I hope, this will be taken into account. And I don't know why resist me, because if they did not, the problem would be resolved. Third-party user would express his opinion and that would be over. I hope, I was clear. If there was minor violations in my contribution, I ask to explain me and I won't repeat them. Thanks. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am about 97% certain that "John Francis Templeson" is a sockpuppet account, evading a block on an earlier account. If I were 98% certain I would block. I have seen editors blocked on evidence far less certain than what there is in this case. The more he attracts attention to himself by such means as starting this thread, the more likely it is that eventually he will slip up and provide that extra 1% of certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am not. Call for sock puppet investigation, call for CheckUser, I don't care, because I am not. Just stop accusing me, I don't have any other account in English Wikipedia and already two investigation have proven that. Maybe I don't understand some rules, maybe you can consider my edits as disruptive (though, I do not agree), but I am not a sock puppet. John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The only account I can think of that may be tied into this would be RoslynSKP (talk · contribs), who hasn't editing since December 2014, but had been topic banned for Ottoman/Turkey related disruption following community discussion which was logged here (if you care to look). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was 14 at that time and didn't even know that it is possible to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, you can check. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Definitely not RoslynSKP. I've crossed swords with her before. JFT doesn't have the same combative style as she did. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any chance at all that John Francis Templeson and RoslynSKP are the same person. There are numerous ways in which the two accounts are not even remotely similar, indeed so much so that I am surprised that anyone would even consider it as a possibility. However, there is another account which has numerous similarities to John Francis Templeson, and, contrary to what John Francis Templeson claims, the relevant sockpuppet investigation did not prove that it was not a sockpuppet: it left the question open, and nobody could reasonably read it differently. This is in line with John Francis Templeson's misrepresentation of his editing history on Russian Wikipedia as "flowless" (presumably "flawless"?), carefully ignoring the history of 7 blocks, various warnings, continual conflict with other editors, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, flawless. Sometimes, I misspell the words. About Russian Wikipedia: Last time I was blocked on the 2nd of October, 2017. I don't know, how it is in English Wikipedia, but in Russian Wikipedia the current situation is the one, that is considered, not the one, that was 2.5 years ago. And I ask you. Isn't it possible that someone that way blocked for 10 days 2.5 years ago, makes positive contribution? Or you think that being banned is indelible sin, whenver it was made? We don't conflict, we discuss. I am still waiting someone to start this sockpuppet investigation, because I am tired of this psychological pressure, that surrounds me here. I hope this investigation will be conducted properly. John Francis Templeson (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- although, given the level of disruption, I would also support a Community Ban, as all he is doing is Wikilawyering, and his contributions are not helpful to the project. We could just implement this ban as described above and then escalate it to a CBAN if he doesn't behave Rockstonetalk to me! 18:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - most likely a sock of a blocked editor, with POV pushing etc. A net decrease for the project and as Rockstone35 has said, I would not be opposed to a community ban or a discussion about such a ban. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI case (archive)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Francis Templeson/Archive

If Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs) and Cangevar (talk · contribs) were JFT's sockpuppets, then why his main account is still open?! And if they were not his socks, why nobody has moved that SPI case?! --Wario-Man (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: In both cases John Francis Templeson was accused on being a sockpuppeter; both cases were unfounded, or at least unproven. ——SerialNumber54129 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but it was second sock puppet investigation, that involves me, and both showed that I am not a sock puppet. I think here everyone should stop accusing me — or start another investigation, which will be surely in vain. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, for clarity, you are not a sockpuppet, you are a person, but the account you are using to edit Wikipedia may well be a sockpuppet. Contrary to what you say, neither sockpuppet investigation showed that your current account is not a sock puppet; one of them merely established that there was no technical evidence of connection to one of the other accounts mentioned, which is not at all the same as showing that there is no connection; in the other investigation nobody even suggested any reason for thinking that sockpuppetry was not taking place, and the closing administrator explicitly stated that he was leaving the question open, with an invitation to editors to provide further evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No implication of anyone being a sockpuppet but the way it works is that we will use technical evidence to correct our suspicions. If a link is blatantly obvious, blocks can be made on behaviour alone. Having technical proof on top of that is a sureshot ID. If the behavioural case is weak and technical link is not established, then it acts an impedipent to our behavioural case but it's not a double jeopardy situation, you are certainly innocent for the time being, it does not exonerate you (or anyone else) — since sockpuppetry is a dynamic, in-the-present evasion. There have been many cases of sockpuppetry where the account holder was a reputed editor on enwiki but got caught via surprise checks on suspicions (Ricky, T13, et al.). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: @JamesBWatson: There's also this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qara xan/Archive - LouisAragon (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Yes. When I first saw that message from you I thought you had come up with another one I had forgotten, but then I realised it was one of those I was referring to above. I have also seen other evidence not mentioned in that investigation, which pushes me to virtual certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting archived RSN discussion?

I would like advice whether/how to re-post or re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at AN,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote of sorts emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard, of the AN discussion consensus about the HuffPo article: "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[42]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an AN sub-thread.)

• Should there be a new discussion on RSN solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed at AN? Arguments for an against are on the RSN archived thread.
• Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
• Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion?

BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your insistent lobbying for your paid editing business is entering WP:NOTHERE territory. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The referenced RSN discussion was started by User: Newslinger and archived before a determination of consensus was made. I don't understand their objection to reaching a determination (or deciding one should not be reached on RSN) on a discussion they began. BC1278 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 I understand why on both a personal and professional level you'd like to have the RSN closed but not every discussion gets a formal close. One has been requested and the lack of anyone willing to do it suggests that perhaps it's not a discussion which will get a formal close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 - as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion. Of those who did cast !votes, it would be NC in general, with a slight tilt against usage for that particular article - but the aforementioned disruption means it wouldn't make a great cited discussion to use on a talk page for example. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You had already posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895346422 and the requests for closure noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895048737, and attempted to add additional arguments to the previously archived discussion in question at Special:Diff/894752296/895053227. This noticeboard, ANI, "is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" and your request doesn't belong here. — Newslinger talk 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It was because I mistakenly added an update to the RSN archived discussion (edit soon reversed) that I sought to figure out the best way to proceed. I discovered the request for closure noticeboard was the wrong place since the discussion had already been archived when I made the request. (I've made a note there pointing to here.) It also became obvious RSN was the wrong place to get advice on what should happen next, since it's a process question, not a content decision. (I pointed that post here right away.) I think with the clarification from Nosebagbear above, explaining why they didn't close, it's clear what happened at RSN. Following the extended discussions resulting from the HuffPo article across three separate admin noticeboards and five articles has been a nightmare that could have been avoided if people limited themselves to the original AN and COIN discussions. IMO, the resulting fallout of multiple overlapping discussions affecting major articles like Facebook and NBC News is what warranted this ANI post. BC1278 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Lita (wrestler)

• Lita (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trish Stratus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hmdwgf (talk · contribs)

This is listed as a good article, but was long ago commandeered by users who've added unsourced trivial content throughout, so it's become a fan-cruft piece. I've brought it here for that reason, and because I don't know how far back to revert. Much of the damage has been done by one registered user who's blown through multiple warnings not to add unsourced content, but several other accounts have intervened, as well. More eyes on this, please, with the short-term suggestion that the good article designation be removed for now. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

After you posted here, Hmdwgf seems to have reverted back to approximately March 18, see [43]. Not sure if there's anything actionable here for admins specifically. Use WP:GAR to request a reassessment. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably nothing actionable, aside from a block if Hmdwgf continues adding unsourced content. If the revert takes care of the problem, there's no need to reassess. I'd just never come across a well-assessed article that had gone that far south without someone taking notice. Thank you, Scott Burley. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What I was afraid of: I've added another article with the same issues, long term addition of unsourced descriptions of who did what to whom in the ring. Reverted some, but there's a lot more still embedded, and it compromises good article status. Wary to look for other such articles edited by this user. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:BZAW31559

• BZAW31559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account’s activity, especially [44], makes me doubt that the user is here for a right purpose. Can any sysop, at very least, revdel this stuff? The very first edit on Meta-wiki created global.css. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: not one revision, but all revisions since 895301588 to 895913570; the current one may be kept. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry...was interrupted by a real life meeting...should be done now. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What is this "real life" of which you speak? EEng 04:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I came across this user today in the course of declining a clearly-inappropriate speedy deletion request (I came across it as a "user request" in another user's userspace, but they'd liberally sprinkled it with everything from G4 to G11). Browsing through their edit history, they appear to be young (one edit suggests they might be 13), clever and potentially quite a capable editor, but in sore need of some guidance. I don't have time to use anything but blunt tools here; I wonder if someone might have some time to help them out? @BZAW31559: If you're interested in doing useful things here, please let us know and we'll try to find someone to help you out. If you're not interested, well, it'd be useful to know that, too. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadore College

This article appears to be a complete and utter dog's breakfast of unsourced content. I came across it today when a bunch of IPs, and two accounts Canadore College Marketing (talk · contribs) and Dan (Canadore College Marketing) (talk · contribs) started removing some of the questionable content and edit warring over it. They were stopped in their tracks by CLCStudent (talk · contribs) and ThePaSch (talk · contribs), who started tag-team edit warring alongside them ([45],[46],[47],[48]) and generally going nuts with templates and false accusations of vandalism. I suggested taking the "College Marketing" accounts to UAA, but somebody affiliated with a college making a good-faith attempt to fix an article of very poor quality shouldn't really have the COI riot act read at them quite so strongly. I full-protected the article for 24 hours, which I believe is standard procedure for a content dispute involving established editors, and dropped a note on the talk page. I've had a quick look around for sources and can't find anything obvious, which makes me think I should just redirect the article somewhere else, or nominate it for deletion. Obviously I can't AfD an article when it's full protected. How should we progress? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no dog in this race, and I suspect CLCStudent (talk · contribs) doesn't either; from my perspective, an unregistered IP removed content from an article without any justification, which I came across during a patrol of RC. I was unaware the IP was affiliated with the college until after the all-caps edit summary from the IP and the subsequent creation of the account Canadore College Marketing (talk · contribs) had been created, at which point I ceased my activities on the article and went to WP:AIV with a notice that should, as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) rightly pointed out, have went to WP:UAA; I apologize for the inconvenience caused. --ThePaSch (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThePaSch: No problem, apology accepted. The trouble is I've found that editors who are fired up on Huggle with a mindset of "get rid of vandalism ASAP" (which is, by and large, the right attitude to have) occasionally fail to see the wood for the trees and inadvertently cause issues like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to treat the two COI accounts any differently to other COI accounts. I see one has been blocked, presumably for an obvious username violation. The other will need to walk very carefully, as presumably they are PAID for these edits. GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever for full protection, Ritchie333; the article needs to be gutted (and possibly built up, but that's another breakfast). Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a reason, everyone was reverting and nobody was discussing. If you mean the article shouldn't be protected now following development, I'd rather leave it for a bit and check we've got a consensus first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverting per policy, it would seem]]. Which is nice. ——SerialNumber54129 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In an attempt to de-escalate, I left a bunch of advice on the user's talk page, and in a response to a message on my own. On the article talk page, I might have found a source that might let it survive WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a stub, at least. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided Dan (Canadore College Marketing) (talk · contribs) with information regarding their (obviously) paid editing and their ownership, and their incivility. I think AFD is the way to go, but perhaps the PAID user can come of with some sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Agree with Goldenring. DlohCierekim 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• That protection scores somewhere around 3 in a scale of 10. Both the sides had gone crazy (one, probably from seeing the COI aspects of the opposing editors) and it asked for some cold-headed editorial intervention; sometimes sysops need to click the edit button rather than (needlessly) prolong the impasse by using their mop. The reverts by CLC/TPS were not bad, but I note that most of the sources are not working and the paragraphs can be rephrased in a better manner. ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• And, don't launch an AfD and waste even more time. ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Per my standard advice, any admin is free to undo the protection if they think this is superfluous. I thought more eyes needed to be put on this issue, hence why I came here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It was the thing to do. It'll give PAID-guy time to absorb and reflect. And as for afd, it's never a waste of time to try to clear out artspam that is poorly sourced. DlohCierekim 16:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur and see no issue with the very short period of protection. There was disruption at the time by multiple parties and you did what you felt was the most appropriate thing. The alternative was blocking the COI editor on their new account (made, mind you further to a username soft block and the new name, whilst still a COI issue, is technically within the username policy assuming they declare themselves as paid) and further possibly warning the others of using the appropriate forum, etc. The disruption has ceased and the employee warned appropriately of the COI issue and policies on disclosure on their talk page. NJA (t/c) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition - though I would not say my notice on COI issues to the IP clearly in use by the editor in question was “Spam”. No worries though. NJA (t/c) 16:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would advise reducing to ECP as that is all that's needed to stop the editwarring/paid editing; full protection when it's only being edited by IPs and new accounts seems unnecessary (though I wouldn't semi it because one of the accounts has enough edits to get autoconfirmed in 4 days). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You miss the point that experienced editors were (also) edit-warring. The problem was not the paid editing. In these cases, where no vandalism is involved, full protection is appropriate and in line with policy. As I write this the protection is due to expire in a few hours. The COI editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page and provided a number of potential references. I suggest focus now switches to getting the article up to date. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

User:Iftequarfohyan has added dozens of unsourced edits (almost exclusively regarding the Mahdavia sect) over the last few years, the most recent being a few hours ago.[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] As per their Talk Page, they have recieved several warnings about their disruptive editing, but none seem to be sticking.

In addition to this, (though it may not be too relevant given how long ago it was), in August 2017 they recieved a warning regarding the use of copyrighted material.[54] A few months later, on 8 January 2018, they apparently ignored this by adding what appears to be copyrighted material on Dollah Darya Khan (sorry, I'm not really sure how to make a direct link to this particular edit).

I've spent a decent amount of time disproving and cleaning up their edits and I'm struggling to find one that was constructive. Alivardi (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:CIR issue here. Their English looks pretty broken and they don't seem to be engaging at all with the warnings they've gotten. Only 63 edits from them total, they don't seem to be a very prolific editor, only 3 edits this year. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Yeah I get you. I'm gonna give it another go with the warnings and I'll make it a bit firmer and clearer this time. Thanks anyways. Alivardi (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be time for a block of Alivardi, if they don't reply to or engage with this and continues their behavior, then an indef block may be in order. The community might support a ban, or an admin might just executively decide to block. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DilletantiAnonymous

This user has been asked many, many times not to put unreferenced articles into the mainspace. Numerous other editors have also contacted DA, who does seem to read the messages, but has only responded once in the 166 messages. Nearly all 166 have been about lack of referencing/copyvios, articles being moved to draftspace because of these issues. They have been getting concerns raised on this exact issue for 2 years, but has continued to behave in exactly the same way, including as recent as yeterday creating this unreferenced articles, swiftly moved to draftspace: Draft:The Cows (painting). Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If @DilletantiAnonymous: would just respond there could be things we could do - I see that a couple have been referenced and patrolled, but this is clearly endemic and required draftifying from multiple editors. If Dilletanti actually is willing to communicate, then there might be things we can do. Otherwise WP:CIR may require an indef. Alternatively - could we revoke autoconfirmed?? I believe it technically can be removed (it's an accidental issue with de-sysops), I've no idea if the community can/has done so, but it would in effect be a forced use of AfC post-ACPERM. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if DA would communicate, this could potentially be easily solved - but it's been 2 years and I've not got anywhere yet. Hopefully they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Slander or violation?

I'm not sure this is the correct noticeboard for this, but would the following be considered slanderous or violations? (the following assertions are not verified in the supporting sources):

• Adding “Saudi government have paid blood money to Khashoggi family” section in Jamal Khashoggi [55] and Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.[56]

• Adding “The Human Rights Watch had been reported in a document, titled ‘No Exit: Human Rights Abuses inside the MKO Camps’ and published in 2005, that The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran did a wide range of sexual harassment against men and women, even children.” To People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Camp Ashraf.[57][58]

• Adding “she said women who promoted to in the Leadership Council after a series of meetings directed 'X saloon'. The X Saloon covered with white color and there was a table which included some traditional marriage tools. In this room all women who was in the Leadership Council got temporary marriage between them and Masud Rajavi. Finally Rajavi said to them to act freely around him.” to Camp Ashraf.[59]

• Adding “It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.” to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon,[60], Syrian Armed Forces,[61] and to Anti-aircraft warfare.[62]

The editor making these edits is User:Forest90. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you, Alex-h, need to be more careful about making such reports because you could ask me all these points on my talk page. It seems you were hasty for reporting me. why? For now: [ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-children-intl/index.html CNN] attributes the "blood money" payments to a "a source familiar with the matter". and [ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43014081 BBC] says " It is the first time Israel has lost an aircraft in combat since 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon by a Hezbollah rocket, the Jerusalem Post reports," so you can consider it the second shutdown. If you need more explanation, come to my talk page or to Articles talk page.Forest90 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 I believe Alex-h meant that the "in the invasion to neighbors countries" part appeared to be slanderous. Correct me if I am wrong Alex-h. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZLEA:, yes, that's correct, thank you. There are also the statements added in Camp Ashraf and People's Mujahedin of Iran, which are not in the refs provided. Also what Objective3000 said below. Alex-h (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the claim that “blood money” was paid that you have added four times[63] [64] [65] [66] is not in that article or any other article that I can find. Blood money normally would only be negotiated after conviction. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Can editors please stop using the words "slander" and "slanderous" in this discussion? It's legally misplaced and not constructive. It's better to focus on the applicable policies and guidelines, namely, WP:V, WP:NPV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. R2 (bleep) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will not comment on this content dispute because it is not a suitable place for this. I'm ready to respond on proper talk pages. @Alex-h and ZLEA: please don't make more personal attacks. Thanks.Forest90 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 I did not make a personal attack, nor did Alex-h. He is only expressing his concerns about your contributions, and I only attempted to clarify a statement you misunderstood. If you read WP:WIAPA, you will probably notice that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is listed as a type of personal attack, however, Alex-h has listed multiple examples of your contributions that they believe to be violations of WP:NPOV. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

Given the history of ANI discussion on this topic, I request intervention to end the following discussion:

After finding a academically peer-reviewed journal paper as a source, in Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RFC about the death tolls in the lead, User:Stefka Bulgaria refuses to end the discussion. He tries to dispute the reliability of the journal paper by questioning its primary sources. Would you please give a warning to him about WP:NOTGETTINGIT? — Taha (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I already fully-protected the article — I don't see the need for any additional administrative intervention at this time. El_C 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The journal paper actually reads Finally, the US. Senate became outwardly cool towards the Mojahedin in passing an official statement attacking the MKO as a “terrorist organization,” criticizing its role in the 1979 hostage crisis and relationship with Iraq, and stating that the Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile. - attributing this to a US Senate stmt (cited to Iran Times), and not making this claim itself. A WP:BOOMERANG may be in order - even if Taha were representing the source properly this would be a premature report. A quote in a journal paper (quoting a US Senate stmt from the early 90s) does not make the quote itself reliable (it does allow us to say that "according to a US Senate resolution from 1994(?) ....").Icewhiz (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:1015:B***

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

---

Hello, there is a guy who made minor edits on the articles about Linux and free software but most of his/her edits were wrong and reverted by other users, please check for example:

Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B005:FA39:5484:E6AD:37FC:27F6 all edits in above link were reverted! due to obvious wrong. Also this guy has uncivil comments:

• personal attack: Special:Diff/896193531
• personal attack: Special:Diff/896201028 ("You are a *perfect example* of the *Dunning–Kruger effect*.")

This guy is using a VPN or Proxy which has a range of different IPs starting with 2600:1015:B****:

2600:1015:B02B:D2DE:8531:8EA3:2B2C:20CD

2600:1015:B005:FA39:5484:E6AD:37FC:27F6

2600:1015:B056:DA5:F87E:3539:ED7A:2076

2600:1015:B043:23F4:61B2:DB94:B4F0:7D34

2600:1015:B00E:37E8:F99C:8FD1:789:7F3D

Please block this IP. ** Also I beg you delete his post and completely his thread in my talk page (Special:Diff/896201028). ** I don't have time and interest to argue with him.

Thank you very much. Editor-1 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite has removed and revdel'ed a racist reply here by 2600:1015:B02A:A64F:C531:4CC1:A6BF:17A5, and I have given them a 24 hour block for it. Fram (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• @Black Kite: sorry for opening this thread, but he is still active after your blocking:

• Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B060:A597:7469:7938:E9BE:A47
• Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B061:75D9:6CC6:3CC:A10E:D181

THNX--Editor-1 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Maybe do a rangeblock of 2600:1015:B0** (like the title says)? He probably isn't editing by proxy but just using his phone. Every time he connects back to his phone's ISP, his IP changes. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Black Kite blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B000::/42. You're suggesting a rangeblock of Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B000::/40. There's a little bit more collateral, but not much. I'll extend the anon-only block to the /40. However, this is a Verizon Wireless range, probably one of many, and I have no idea how they allocate their IPv6 ranges. So it may be pretty easy for them to bypass the block. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you, that is much appreciated. Looks like it stopped them for now. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• @ST47: Thanks, User:Rockstone35 has deleted his thread (Special:Diff/896389176) while my mean was hiding/deletion the revisions. Please hide his 2 revisions or restore them to answer him. He don't know that I was the one who added whole paragraph! please see the first two editions from 2016-01:

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Editor-1/0/Xfce

Editor-1 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

False edit summaries by User:Froid

User:Froid likes to edit disambiguation pages with edit summaries about changing "category/ies", when these edits have nothing to do with categories as that term is used on Wikipedia. (Some diffs: [67], [68], [69]; there are dozens more in the User's contributions.) These inaccurate summaries have the effect of reducing the attention drawn to Froid's often extensive reorganizations of dab pages.

Froid has been asked (and warned) to stop using these inaccurate summaries, first by me in September 2018, then by User:Uanfala in November 2018, and again by me on May 3 and May 7. Froid has almost entirely refused to respond to these requests/warnings, and apparently believes they may be ignored, having repeated the behavior just in the last day, after the most recent warning. (EDIT: And yet again, after being alerted to this ANI discussion. I now believe a block is in order. 14:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

I would like Froid to be informed by the admins here that false edit summaries constitute disruptive editing, and as such may lead to sanctions if repeated. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• If they have already been warned I think a short block may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've encountered Froid on numerous pages over the past few years, usually after they've "copyedited". Many of their edits improve articles, but they also exhibit a frequent carelessness, or unfamiliarity with actual grammar, such that the edits can result in the introduction of errors, which Froid has no qualims about edit warring to maintain. They also occasionally engage in what can only be considered disruptive editing. Their talkpage is littered with warnings about edit warring, deceptive edit summaries, and enforcing idiosyncratic organizational rules on disambiguation pages that don't seem to be rooted in anything other than Froid's preference. Froid is a valuable contributor and a net positive, but they really could stand to be more collaborative. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  Froid has continued to make the same edits that prompted the filing of this report, but hasn't bothered to participate here. That's not a great sign. Grandpallama (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have requested that Froid cease editing until they are prepared to address the concerns raised here. If their intent is simply to let this thread die out and continue on as they have done, I will likely block the account until they agree to communicate, as is required to edit here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is Froid's apparent determination not to take feedback on board. I've encountered them on dab pages, where they sometimes do good work, but sometimes introduce unhelpfully complicated structure. I mentioned this on their talk page some time last year, then had to bring it up again in February, then raised the general question on a project talk page in March (a couple of people participated and there was agreement that the edits weren't helpful), then again this month I asked Froid a little bit more firmly to please either gain consensus or to refrain from making such edits. All the while, they haven't responded to any of the messages or participated in the discussion, and they've carried on making such edits again and again. – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have restored Bizarro (disambiguation) and Barbarella, since the ordering by Froid made no sense. Any edit with a deceptive edit summary should be reverted at will as far as I'm concerned. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of Undo on revisions User:Itchyjunk

Itchyjunk decided to go through a page I watch, List of Murder, She Wrote Episodes and undo all the short plot summaries I had created, which involved watching the TV show for hours upon hours, for no good reason. Then I see on their talk page they have been doing it to other people as well. So I am also making a complaint here about undoing edits recklessly to play some game called The Wikipedia Adventure. --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What were the results of the prior conversation you had with ItchyJunk? --Jayron32 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I must say that I'm not seeing these complaints about them misusing Undo on other pages, am I missing something? They seem to have just done one, ill advised, revert to an earlier version to undo some vandlaism and your edits were in there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, there will probably be a complaint when someone watching Scooby-Doo notices 16 edits by experienced editors reverted to a 12 Apr 19 version with the claim of vandalism. (edit to add) I think ItchyJunk is just eager and inexperienced, maybe a bit too zealous about calling things "vandalism". Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Zoinks! I restored the previous version of the article and incorporated the most recent edit. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

On their talk page at the bottom there is a complaint from another user. I am not sure if I am reading the talk page correctly but it looks like they have already been banned from editing? I apologize if this is not the forum for this but I just followed the link from the other complaint lodged against them. I spent 11 hours watching Murder, She Wrote and writing original short summaries for the episodes to have them deleted for supposed vandalism. There was no merit for the deletion and no reason given. It leads me to believe that the user was simply making edits to complete quests in The Wikipedia Adventure game they seemed to be a part of. --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at many of this user's recent reverts, they do seem to be using a rather loose definition of vandalism. However, the previous ANI notice on their talk page seems to be unrelated. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#Repeated_misuse_of_undo_accusations_by_an_IP. I do see that the user has been active recently on IRC, hopefully they will be able to explain how these confusing reverts happened. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Deusexmechanicus: You shouldn't believe anything until you talk to them. ANI is NOT The first thing you do when you have a dispute, it should be the last. You've short circuited about 5 steps in the dispute resolution process before coming straight here. Step 1 is always "Start a cordial conversation with the other person to try to understand their point of view, and to get them to understand your point of view, and to hopefully reach some sort of compromise or consensus on how to proceed". You haven't even done that! --Jayron32 14:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I left a message for Itchyjunk detailing what vandalism is and isn't and encouraged them to respond here. They haven't edit since yesterday, and I don't want them pilloried for good-faith attempts to edit. We don't want to bite, but inform. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Username

While we are here, can we consider whether there is a vehicle for reopening the discussion of “Itchyjunk” as a username? Despite the outcome of the prior discussion (reprinted on Itchyjunk’s talk page), it is obviously not appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be "obviously not appropriate" when a discussion between experienced editors already has decided that it is acceptable? Isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? That discussion closed less than one month ago, so while CCC, it rarely does this rapidly. Fram (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In other aspects of the project, there are forums (such as DRV or MR, or a renewed nomination) to revisit a discussion that has reached a patently ridiculous result. I think that albeit in a different context, this is such an instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Then start a new RfC for it. That's what we do with other RfCs when they don't give the expected result. An AN discussion about a username which has just been decided in an RfC is not warranted, this is not a serious enough problem and not something specifically for admins to decide. You give the example of DRV, but DRV is for when a closer has judged the consensus incorrectly, not for when you simply disagree with the result. Are you claiming that the RfC was closed incorrectly, and have you raised this with the closer? Fram (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to raise it here given that we are discussing the editor already, and there is a limit to how much process for its own sake we need to engage in to maintain some degree of decorum. And I don't actually know whether WP:UAA allows for reopening of an RfC or a second RfC on the same name, hence my question. You are right, though, that I should alert @Primefac: to this discussion, which I've now done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not legitimate to raise an unrelated issue which had been resolved contrary to your liking, in a section about the same editor but about completely unrelated issues. Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I too, as a relatively new wikipedian, see the name as offensive and it certainly doesn't help carve perception of someone here to help. If the first thing that comes to mind when you see the name is something offensive, then it is an offensive name. The name is vulgar when presented without context. The fact he has already refused to change it indicates a NOTHERE viewpoint. The reckless editing also tips the scales of NOTHERE. There is correlation with someone with a vulgar name and their actions --Deusexmechanicus (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Some people probably find your username offensive as it's implying there's more than one god which is contrary to some people's strongly held beliefs of the universe and is taking the name of god in vain. Would you be willing to change it because of that? I personally don't see anything offensive in ItchyJunk's username as junk is an incredibly mild schoolyard term that I personally can't see is in anyway offensive. I guess we could ask them to change it to ItchyScrotum since that would then be more accurate and less colloquial. Finding it offensive isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I read it, I find it humourous actually. Just because you think something is offensive doesn't mean it's offensive. You have a right to choose to be offended, but being offended doesn't give you rights. Canterbury Tail talk 12:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Meh. --Jayron32 14:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. Usernames that connote poor genital hygiene or genital affliction (whether venereal, dermatological, or otherwise) should not be permitted. Leviv ich 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced claims

Static IP 172.254.216.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues to add unsourced claims of origin for Middle Eastern food items, and similar edits, after the fourth warning on their talk page. Today for example: [70], [71]. Also, the IP address may be a proxy: [72]. --IamNotU (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of requests for sources and warnings provided and ignored. Blocked for 72 hours in order to provide them with free time to review the policies and guidelines others have noted and linked on their talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS's removal of categories

MagicatthemovieS has been removing categories from pages. [73], [74], [75], [76] See their contribs for more. Guywan (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

All the removals are correct as far as I can see, as they remove duplicate categories which are already on the pages (e.g. removing Category:Far-right politics in the United States from Bull Connor was correct, as he's already listed in Category:American white supremacists which is a subcategory of Category:Far-right politics in the United States). Do you see the enormous Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories. banner at the top of Category:Far-right politics in the United States? It's there for a reason. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The unnecessarily inflammatory edit summaries are a bit worrying and suggest ulterior motives. There may not be any such motives, but the edit summaries present that appearance. If the goal here is category maintenance, a standard "removing duplicate categories" summary for all edits would be more helpful. --Chris (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: @Crazycomputers:. If MagicatthemovieS is doing good work, I apologize. I was unsure as to their intentions (and quite worried [77]), and their misquote of a policy didn't help the case, so I thought I ought to come here. Guywan (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the misquoted policy is? So far here, we have them removing a parent category that sounds like it is a diffusing cat, so mentioning (or not mentioning) how to handle non-diffusing cats is not relevant. DMacks (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: (it was during a correspondence on their talk page.) Guywan (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, and I saw (and still see) no evidence that you were talking about non-diffusing categories. And here on ANI, the only evidence is for yes-diffusing categories. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Guywan: I was also worried due to the edit summaries. However, the summaries appear to be the only potential issue here. They've since switched to a more neutral-sounding edit summary so I think everything is fine. --Chris (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Saintouse WP:NOTHERE

Saintouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made several edits in the past few months that show a pattern of being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. See his talk page and contribs. He has also said he would remove all content by people he thinks are "liberals", because they are a "cancer". Disclosure: I self-identify as liberal; however, I would open this thread if he showed the same hostility to conservatives. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Account created in June 2016; first (non-deleted) edit in March 2019. Also, compare [78] with [79] from a different (albeit new) account. From my chair, this looks like a classic throw-away sleeper account. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole

I am raising a concern of WP:HOUNDING against User:Slugger O'Toole. On 9 May they directly reverted two edits I had made to the article on Brian Sims despite not previously being active on this article - (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Sims&type=revision&diff=896291899&oldid=896291690) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Sims&type=revision&diff=896290264&oldid=896277211) to change protest to prayer, and reciting to prayer. Only a few weeks earlier on 18 April I had raised concerns with them about hounding when they followed me to the article on the Lavender Hill Mob (gay activist group) to revert and change my edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_Hill_Mob_%28gay_activist_group%29&type=revision&diff=892968980&oldid=892966698 is just one of these). I have previously raised these concerns with administrators to flag how in October 2018 this editor (when called BrianCUA) reverted my edits to Reinhard Marx and admitted that they had never visited that page before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slugger_O%27Toole/Archive_5#Reinhard_Marx - admission on their talk page). It is my belief that this editor is passionately supportive of issues pertaining to the Roman Catholic church, and that they do not like edits which are critical of the Catholic church, its members of organisations - even if the material supports this reading. They are particularly defensive when the matter of homosexuality or gay rights conflicts with official Church teaching or actions. I feel I am constantly being inhibited from editing - I am trying to improve articles in good faith and accept instances of where things can be improved or errors corrected. But I am being chased around and being made to feel like I have to justify every edit I make until this editor is content with the outcome from their point of view. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is almost silly. If you read the conversation we had in August 2018 about Reinhard Marx, I clearly explained why I was there, and Contaldo responded: "That's great. No offence taken." Now, eight months later, he is using it as evidence that I am hounding him? As for the Lavender Hill Mob article, he linked to it in an article in which we are both very active. That's how I came across it. I wasn't monitoring his edit history and then chasing him around, trying to inhibit his editing. If you look at his edit history, in fact, you will see many, many articles in which he is active and I am not. When Contaldo adds relevant content that is reliably sourced, he gets no push back from me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No bots sandbox

Earlier today an user placed the no bots template in sandbox at which is supposed to block bots and the sandbox wouldn’t be automatically cleared. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/896312712 Sonicfan200530 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonicfan200530, We'd have to ask Cyberpower678 to be sure, but it doesn't look like Cyberbot I's sandbot task supports nobots. It certainly looks like other sandbox bots don't. SQL^{Query me!} 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dozens of unsourced and junk edits

• WelcomeToTheWikihouse (talk · contribs)

Disregards multiple warnings. Cartoon plots are not intended to be a refuge for incompetent editors. Nor meaningless pages like Wikipedia:Unusual place names, which I'd love to see deleted, since it doesn't even function as humor. See, among others, [80]; [81]; [82]; [83]; [84]; [85]; [86]; [87]; [88]; [89]; [90]. Some examples in article space: [91]; [92]; [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Indef blocked for NOTHERE bordering on VOA. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Aerostar3 and User:SounderBruce

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

---

Aerostar3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been engaged in a content dispute with Aerostar3 for the past two weeks at Talk:Paine Field, regarding project guidelines conformity, but this new editor has since taken to hounding me while trying to raise trouble. Going down the list in chronological order:

• Talk:Paine Field: Calling editors "stooges" and accusing them of being undisclosed paid editors. [98] [99]
• Leaving a note on my talk page that indicates prior knowledge of my activity, which leaves me to suspect sock-puppetry may be involved.
• First instance of hounding at Talk:Seattle crane collapse.
• Left another note on my talk page and appropriately warned about hounding.
• De-PRODing Boundary Road (Vancouver) and making combative comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/41st Avenue (Vancouver) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boundary Road (Vancouver)
• Contacting a random admin and presenting his case, while ignoring the advice of other admins: User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4#personal attack
• And, finally, the straw that broke the camel's back: creating a frivolous AFD of a long-standing GA that has been proven notable by countless AFDs setting precedent for such highways. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Route 432)

As a courtesy, I'd like to ping those who have also been part of some of the events described above: General Ization, John from Idegon, and Rschen7754. SounderBruce 05:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TYPICAL CANVASSING, BRUCE

• Now that they have AFDed a US road I have to recuse but I would indef otherwise. --Rschen7754 05:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce is extremely aggressive and does not seek discussion or consensus. He edit wars and doesn't use the talk page. See Paine Field as an example. He insists on his own way. I don't want to bother with a huge fight here. Just have a 1 month no contact ban. He must not edit anything I edit and vice versa. The Vancouver roads that he edited warred should be included in articles he must not touch. I won't touch anything he touches.

Another alternative is something I do not prefer, blocking BOTH of us for 1 week so SounderBruce, who is very impulsive and combative, can calm down and, not to make him mad, I'll accept the same punishment. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact, SounderBruce is such a bad Wikipedian (by creating a hostile environment) that I am quitting with the possible exception of seeing the two Vancouver road articles to a close and maybe that RFC that I started. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say there is enough right here in this thread fb or an indef, and I see no reason to wait. Rschen7754 is absolutely correct. This is a slam dunk. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Good riddance! You are clearly being purposefully antagonistic and WP:POINTy. An admin should speedy keep the AFD you made. SB's actions are fully consistent with policy and in seeking consensus while you make baseless accusations and a patently absurd block proposal. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Terrible idea. SounderBruce is definitely aggressive and combative. Indef me and that will cause him to be more disruptive. Anyway, see my user page as I have retired. Aggressive and drama queen Bruce wins. Instead, there should be time outs and warnings to all not to be so combative. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

For a while now I have been concerned about poor, undiscussed page moves made by Ortizesp (talk · contribs), and I am not the only editor. These moves go beyond BOLD; some of them are just bad. Some examples/a quick history:

• On 1 March 2019, @Matthew hk: raised concerns about bad page moves and asked Ortizesp to use RM;
• On 5 March I repeated those concerns (related to this page move which introduced unnecessary disambiguation to an article);
• On 6 March 2019 Ortizesp said they would start using RM (plot twist: they haven't);
• On 6 March 2019 I noted a slight improvement in page moves, but repeated that RM should be used;
• On 6 March 2019 @Struway2: raised concerns about bad page moves;
• On 6 March 2019 Ortizesp undid their moves;
• On 26 March 2019 Matthew hk asked about removing the 'Page Mover' user right given the concerns;
• On 26 March 2019 Ortizesp said they were "still learning" and acknowledged mistakes had been made ("in doing mass movements there are bound to be a couple here and there that slip through the cracks. I think the moves I'm making almost always are justified");
• On 26 March 2019 @Primefac: removed the Page Mover right, based on the concerns previously raised;
• On 31 March 2019 I raised concerns about bad page moves again;
• On 28 April 2019 @Randykitty: reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp;
• On 9 May 2019 @R96Skinner: reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp, which Ortizesp acknowledged;
• On 10 May 2019 (today) I reverted bad page moves by Ortizesp.

Concerns have also been raised at WT:FOOTBALL here.

Some poor/ill thought/hasty moves earlier today include, in the space of 8 minutes, moving José Díaz (footballer) to José Díaz (Argentine footballer) and then to José Díaz (footballer, born 1938), and in the space of 4 minutes moving Antonio Díaz Jurado to Antonio Díaz (footballer, born 1969) and then to Antonio Díaz (footballer).

I simply do not think they understand naming conventions, and I therefore propose an indefinite topic ban from making any page moves by any way other than starting a proposal on the talk page using the WP:RM process. GiantSnowman 07:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, most of my edits follow WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore I don't see a need for WP:RM in those cases. I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) has different definitions of what is uncontroversial than I do. And I think it's easy to highlight the errors I have made, because I don't delete them from my page. I think generally my moves are informed, justified, and follow the rules; I am running through Category:Spanish footballers, and previously Category:Portuguese footballers because a lot of the page titles don't follow convention. For example, GiantSnowman reverted made undid this move reverted, on an uncontroversial page move (all sources and external links use my recommended page name, as opposed to the one GS reverted them to). I'd also like to highlight that I don't accept those moves as "bad". José Díaz (footballer) to José Díaz (Argentine footballer) was done because i realized he wasn't the only footballer with the name (see José Díaz (Spanish footballer)). Then, when i edited Jose Diaz to add José Díaz (Spanish footballer), I realized there were two Argentine footballers by the name of José Díaz, and moved them to José Díaz (footballer, born 1938) and José Luis (footballer, born 1974) as per naming conventions. The same process happened with Antonio Díaz (footballer)] - originally I thought he was one of many footballers with the name until I moved moved Antonio Díaz Gil (which GiantSnowman unjustifiably redirected). I think GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) is overstepping his boundaries, and urging me to use WP:RM in cases that it isn't necessarily required. I accept that I have made the rare error, but am also quick to learn and undo those errors. Let me know what you think.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

But numerous editors have raised numerous concerns about your page moves, clearly showing that you are not following COMMONNAME, as you don't understand it! GiantSnowman 13:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

In the list above, March 5threpeated those concerns is your error - I tried disambiguating Joel Silva (footballer) because he's not the only footballer with the name, that you reverted. And the other one's are not the same kinds of mistakes, and part of a normal learning curve when moving pages - for overtly disambiguating, creating a disambig page when not required reverted, and yes, admittedly some errors that I myself reverted. I understand your concerns, but I think it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

If there are multiple footballers called 'Joel Silva', which did Joel Silva (footballer) remain a redirect to Joel Silva (footballer, born 1989) and not a redirect to redirect to a disambiguation page (ie rendering the move pointless, hence my revert)? Why didn't you then use RM to move the page? GiantSnowman 14:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, given the large number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted your page moves, have you never thought to stop and start using RM? GiantSnowman 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words

I am not asking for intervention – unless, of course, the pattern of behaviour I am about to describe sets someone's alarm bells ringing. I am asking more if anyone else has seen this sort of thing.

The problem is restricted to articles related to anime, and only involves IP editors who may only edit during a single day. A particularly bad example can be seen in this diff, before my reversion. ([[Giants (Greek mythology)|Spar]][[Wrestling|tan]], [[Fatsia japonica|Yatsu]][[Telephony|den]][[Crocodilia|wani]] and [[Bellows|Kanad]][[Loudspeaker|egami]] – really?) I have seen this sort of nonsense perpetrated by at least 3 IP editors, over several months. As a DABfixer, I see the phenomenon only when one of the links is to a DAB page and User:DPL bot picks it up. (There are no links to DAB pages in my example diff; I spotted the IP editor in another article, and checked to see what else they'd been up to.)

Reversion of such nonsense once found is easy enough; the problem is finding it. The IP editor in my diff made fourteen edits, of which I think only one included an ambiguous link. Narky Blert (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not something we see so much of now as the Allwiki approach is dying out across the broader Wikiverse (Wikipedia is so big, our standards now tend to be those adopted by other wikis), but it's still not that unusual for someone in good faith to think "anything that has an article should be linked" and try to be helpful. All you can really do is point them towards WP:OVERLINKING and revert their edits until they either understand what they're doing wrong, or get bored. ‑ Iridescent 08:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, it is not a case of good faith overlinking when someone changes "Yatsudenwani" to Fatsia japonicaTelephonyCrocodilia (changing the piped links to the actual links they hide). No one would in good faith make that mistake. Fram (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fram, although it looks like vandalism in this case I don't think it is—Yatsudenwani genuinely was a fictional Fatsia japonica–telephone–crocodile hybrid. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. Still a terrible way to present this, but not vandalism. Fram (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up dozens of these edits in the past. They focus specifically on tokusatsu rather than anime, and I presume it's only one person doing it. Besides reverting I'm not sure what else you can do, pretty much every article for Japanese actors who appear in tokusatsu shows are a potential target. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat and doxing threat

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

---

Please see this edit from Cappa13 (talk · contribs). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely without talk page access. I don't see any reason to give this person a platform to follow through with the doxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I Love how they claim the UK Privy Council reinstated an Australian political party. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Taiwan regarding English variety

There has been contention on the variety of English in the article Taiwan. An Rfc decided there was consensus to prefer no particular style of English and where there is dispute, the principles of MOS:RETAIN should be followed. According to MOS:RETAIN, "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." This was found to be British English with Oxford spelling and discussed. However User:Fyunck(click) disregards discussion results and continues to convert words to American spellings, which constitutes disruptive editing. Ythlev (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

As the response below shows, the user has constantly brought up irrelevant points such as "American English taught in Taiwanese schools" and "Taiwan will make English an official language" instead of following established guidelines on Wikipedia. Ythlev (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, that other Rfc was for the Taiwan Project as a whole. The Taiwan article does have consensus as shown back in July 2018 when this editor was using two other aliases. It is at Talk:Taiwan/Archive_28#Spelling. The article was overwhelmingly done in American English before his changing 100s of Taiwan articles. We had to have an administrator step in to stop his disruptions, and it took us months to revert all his changes. He was the one sole against the consensus. This particular article was overwhelmingly done in American English through the years. You can see the chart breakdown under the archive. With that consensus (which did not include American style dates by the way), based on article usage, American English taught in Taiwanese schools, and now in 2019 Taiwan will make English one of its two official languages, I'm at a loss why Ythlev alias Szqecs, alias Szqecs1 is here. He was disruptive then but I was hoping that was in the past. Any advice on how to proceed would be much welcomed by me. I don't know where a compromise lies but if one can be found I'm all ears. Editor BushelCandle appears reasonable on the issue, but I've been following the 2018 consensus on this particular article. This consensus does not apply to other Taiwan related articles as a later general RfC said. Off now but I'll check back in 12 hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  Consensus is not permanent and can change (WP:CCC). The February 2019 RfC, which you participated, is more recent and the results were added to the article guidelines. where a compromise lies. Oxford spelling is a compromise by using non-British -ize, which neither I nor BushelCandle prefer. Yet you do not accept the compromise. Ythlev (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  If everyone were to just stop reverting, this would resolve itself. What does it matter what variety of English that the article uses? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  If only it were that easy. I don't much care which way the spelling goes (I use some fairly idiosyncratic spelling rules, myself :-)). It is sort of annoying when users who haven't learned our arcane rules "correct" the spelling or date formats in articles, but arguing over which variety of English applies in an article is low priority for me. - Donald Albury 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

User:67.188.179.66

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

---

This user violated 3RR in page Expeditionary Force (page history). Some of the latest diffs of user's reverts...

• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105], etc. PATH SLOPU 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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

ISIS edits and socking

• Louismuyalde0012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Louismuyalde12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a 3 hour block, the user has continued to add the same material with a different account. The edits like this one are unsourced, because although Khalid Masood was undoubtedly an Islamist wack job, there is no reliable evidence that he was working for ISIS or that the attack was planned by them. I explained this at User talk:Louismuyalde0012. The policy in these articles is to say that ISIS did it only when it is confirmed by the official investigators. Claims made by the propaganda machine of ISIS don't count, they do this all the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Louismuyalde12 was created slightly after Louismuyalde0012's short block expired, so block evasion isn't a factor, but since they're using both accounts to edit the same articles, I've blocked Louismuyalde12. I'll leave it to another admin to decide what to do with the other account. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

IamAFish45612

I reported user:IamAFish45612 for vandalism this morning because all of the edits they have been seem suggestive of vandalism. NJA disagreed with it, but I still feel kind of strong that this user should be blocked. We have been having a conversation on my talk page, and I admitted some of my responses such as admin shopping by going to an admin's personal talk pages was inappropriate. I wanted to get a third opinion on this issue. Also feel free to check out the declined report to AIV. I think that combined with my talkpage discussion should lay out all the facts that need to be considered. CLCStudent (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Please see this section on the reporting user’s talk page. NJA | talk 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note I am admitting fault for the initial re-addition (but not the second one) and going to the admin's talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I also feel that not all the elements listed at AIV need to be followed word for word. CLCStudent (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• While we’re here I would like the reporting user to demonstrate they understand the steps to check before making a report at AIV. E.g. this report today made at 11:14am where he reported 207.63.63.205 saying “vandalism after final warning”. Going to the IP’s talk page the last warning was on 7 May at 2:51pm. Today's AIV report therefore was made after only one edit by the IP done today and no fresh warning was given. That’s insufficient. Also on 7 May the user asked on my talk page (section here), which was in response to my comment on his report at ANI here (spoiler: declined for insufficient warnings). I am unsure if the user is fully comprehending the purpose of AIV and ultimately ensuring sufficient warnings are given prior to reporting. I am always happy to give guidance, but only if it will be received and considered. NJA | talk 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought warnings are only stale if they are a week old. CLCStudent (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I will try to only report people to AIV for clear and undeniable vandalism in hopes of avoiding another outcome like this. I'll report the non-obvious ones here at ANI from now on. CLCStudent (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the reason I am failing to comprehend the entire situation is because based on my 3.5 years of experience here, most other admins will accept reports at AIV even if they do not fully meet the criteria. The way I reported that user in question is the same way I have been doing it for the entire time I have been an RC patroller, which again, is 3.5 year. CLCStudent (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I accept that is likely true and it is truly unfortunate. Admins can and should be held accountable for bad blocks. I appreciate it is likely frustrating when your experience is another admin would have blocked and I have not. Admin work isn’t about clearing a board when that may result in bad blocks with the indirect effect of setting a practice that RC patrollers interpret as policy. It would have been easier for me to ignore your reports and hope someone else deals with it. I hope by having this discussion it helps to better enjoy your experience here. NJA | talk 16:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, there is far more criteria to AIV than I thought, so until I am fully educated, I will just report users wither directly to an admin or ANI. I apologize to anybody I offended today. I sincerely thought I was doing the right thing. CLCStudent (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The reported users' first two edits (out of three) were vandalism. However, the latest was not. It may be unconstructive, but without access to the source, it's hard to tell. The user was duly warned for the first two transgressions, but the report to AIV was premature because it did not meet the criteria written on the page. So NJA was correct in declining the report. The reported user's contributions are worth watching for, but a block would be premature at this point. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A promise I will make is that from now on, if one admin denies a block request, I will not go to another admin's talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I’d hope if you picked up anything from today it’s about using and making AIV reports (which you've indicated you have already above). Seeking another admin’s opinion wasn’t the issue. As I said on your talk page doing so and not informing them of the complete picture was misrepresenting the situation (albeit I accept it wasn’t likely meant to be as such). I think we can move on perhaps? All the best. NJA | talk 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Compromised Account - User:Primefac

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

---

The account of User:Primefac may have been compromised. See the recent contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Primefac

They include contributions that would normally be considered test edits or vandalism, and a hijacking of a userpage to submit a declined draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve emailed ArbCom. NJA | talk 16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Err isn't this related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Confirm a bug? Helper script not working only for one article? GiantSnowman 17:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, yeah...it looks like he was trying to work out a bug in a script. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

At this time, based on the edits, this looks like just bug testing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I pointed them to this post and they should be able to resolve it. Also checked and Robert had noted his post here on Primefac’s talk page. NJA | talk 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice one NJA. ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Since I'm certain that the test page was never meant to be submitted to AFC, I moved it back to Primefac's userspace after disabling the AFC templates. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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