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

Iranian opposition articles

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

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

POV pushing by Saff_V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Levivich's comment show that PoV editing by Saff V. is still ongoing, in spite of this ANI report (which Saff V. mostly used to make accusations against other editors). When we misinterpret sources (seen on Levivich's content dispute list), or advance inclusion of unreliable sources in political delicate articles to support PoV statements, it becomes a danger of turning Wikipedia into fake news site. TBAN, WARN, whatever is needed to stop this. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think they has made a lot of contributions that are really helpful while some of their edits might be pushing POV I don't think they deserves a topic ban, I don't see any/many differences between them and some other editors who are calling for topic ban to him. warning would be enough--SharabSalam (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

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

• Peykar: [15], [16], [17], [18]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [19], [20]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [21], [22]

• Maryam Rajavi: [23]

• Massoud Rajavi: [24]

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

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [25]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [26]

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

• Massoud Rajavi: [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

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

• Ivan Sascha Sheehan (Fall 2013), "Challenging a Terrorist Tag in the Media: Framing the Politics of Resistance and an Iranian Opposition Group", Digest of Middle East Studies, 22 (2), Policy Studies Organization, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.: 229–261, doi:10.1111/dome.12033{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group", Associated Press, 27 June 2014, retrieved 1 June 2018 – via The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Mehdi Semati (2007), Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, Iranian Studies, vol. 5, Routledge, pp. 99–100, ISBN 978-1-135-98156-3
• "Part 4: The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America", Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB), British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service, 1993, p. E-1
• #Iranvotes: Political Discourse on Iranian Twitter During the 2016 Parliamentary Elections, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, June 2016, pp. 27–33 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator", RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
• Arron Merat and Julian Borger (30 June 2018). "Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
• Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, 2009, p. 334, ISBN 978-0-313-38088-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• The Politics and Practice of Religious Diversity: National Contexts, Global Issues, Routledge Advances in Sociology, Routledge, 2016, pp. 162–163, ISBN 978-1-317-64864-2 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.", The New York Times, 26 November 2011, retrieved 1 December 2016 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

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

Last words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Adding Mhhossein to this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMcCandlish Asking for elaboration should not be mistaken for "denialism"...anyway, thanks for the notes, notably for "it's about people, not wording in URLs". Yes I did mistakes, but we all do mistakes (not an excuse for making mistakes). I don't say that I don't need advice from others (not needing advice is a concerning symptom), but I know how to treat others and how to build consensus, hence I could create dozens of GAs (not possible without having competence) and DYKs, though I'm not perfect. That said, the bad thing here is that the user could successfully achieve his point by mentioning those old ANI cases in his 4th (5th?) attempt and in a harassing manner. Another thing, I would be banned or blocked, if I meant to GAME anything here during almost 5 yeas of editing. No, I don't GAME a system I belong to. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Putting this here as well as it seems the appropriate place for it:

• Mhhossein has made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[34] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[35] for my inclusion of a quote from RS.
• Mhhossein asserted in Wiki-voice that Black people in a picture were "Non-Iranian rent-a-crowd black people", with the following edit summary "Certainly non-Iranian, certainly black people, certainly rented".
• WP:IDHT at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go Mhhossein's way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board."

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Come on...!: "If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP" [the most related place to the sources in question] "or at RSN board" [the place broadest views can be seen on sources] "not here" [Wikiproject Iran]. Btw, no, your edits were not backed by the sources.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

...how about when you accused me by saying "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries", or described my argument as "ludicrous", or accused me with "smearing POV into the article..." and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'll reply to your other points in the section below where you've presented them as well. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: About your claim concerning my edits, which according to you were "not backed by the sources", this is what I wrote:

• In 1994, the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad. The bombing killed 25 and wounded at least 70 people. The Iranian regime blamed the MEK. In a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image.

And this is what the source says:

• The Ministry of Intelligence and Security planned and carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashad... After the bombing, which killed at leas 24 and wounded at least 70, the regime announced that the MEK was the culprit. Later on, Abdullah Nouri, the first interior minister under President Khatami, admitted in a trial in November 1999 that the regime carried out the attack in order to confront the Mujahedin and tarnish its image.

Even if you don't agree with the statement/author/publisher, these were not "my words", which you claimed I crammed "into Wikipedia's mouth", but this is what you asserted, then you defended, and keep defending here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you were "asserting" the words of Alireza Jafarzadeh, who is reportedly a MEK member, in Wikipedia's voice. Bombing by Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security seems like a conspiracy theory created by MEK propaganda machine. Wikipedia should not propagate these claims without attribution. If you have more questions in this regard, I will respond to them on the article talk page.--Mhhossein ^talk 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, this looks like continuous WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Besides what SMcCandlish proposed, I'd also request that Mhhossein be warned for making baseless accusations against other editors. For instance, see this TP discussion about Mhhossein omitting a sentence from the article's lede based on a "violation" of "extensive quotation of copyrighted text", even though the sentence had been admitted into the article via RfC consensus. When I offered to fix this by rewording other quotes in the lede instead, Mhhossein reported me here. There have also been other instances, and, apparent in this report alone, I'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of similar behavior. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just drop it! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In my assessment, these are valid concerns with evidence of WP:PA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, WP:NPOV, all of which you have dismissed as "just drop it!" (more WP:IDHT). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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

• Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [36], [37] and [38]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([39], [40], [41]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.

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

• He has made personal attacks against me notably by repeatedly accusing me of "POV pushing" numerous times ([42], [43], [44]), despite my warning ([45], [46]). In another place he commented on me by accusing me of "smearing a political group". It should be added that I had warned him in the past against commenting on the editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([47][48],[49], [50], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?

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

You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[51] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[52] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [68] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [69]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note to the admins: It should be noted that Alex-h and Poya-P, both active in Fa wiki, are editing ANI for the first time (See [70] and [71]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for the advice - when you explain it like that, I get it. My !vote at Mhhossein's RfA at commons derived from (founded) concern towards the project rather than an attempt to troll or harass. I see that I should have brought concerns to relevant noticeboards instead. Best, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Some more instances: He accused me by saying "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries", or described my argument as "ludicrous", or accused me with "smearing POV into the article..." and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: providing context to your points (in order), all of which you had only quoted a small fraction of the conversation:

1) Your edit summary: "The reliable sources explicitly say this, don't censor this well sourced material". My edit summary: "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries. The previous edits were all properly described (moved to its section), and undone here disruptively". My reply to you when you asked me about this on my TP: "Your edit summary was 'false' as I did not 'censor well sourced material', I categorized it in its own section. In any case, if you did not do this knowingly, then I take it back and apologize..."

2) When I asked you for evidence to confirm that Black people in a photograph were "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd", you replied "Where ever they come from, It's pretty clear they're not Iranian. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue." My response to this was "What's pretty clear is that you don't have any evidence to support this statement (comparing it to "the sky is blue" is just ludicrous)". Btw, Ludicrous = "extremely silly."

3) This is already mentioned on the report against you above, but since you've asked, here's the statement I made:

"*Mhhossein: ... Beyond your argument in the discussion below that we should label Black people in an image as "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" based on your own personal assessment and an attack piece by a fringe political opposition site, you've tried to include the following smearing POV into the article:

• "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)

• "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)

• "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."

• "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Closure(?)

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

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

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

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

Too complicated - Arbitration Committee

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

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

Agree. Opinions to the effect that only Arbcom can handle something should come from editors who have been part of attempts to handle it here. EEng 03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17

Over on 2019 Formula One World Championship we are in the midst of a...extremely lengthy and surprisingly heated debate regarding the proper way to sort our tables, in which Mclarenfan17's attitude is becoming extremely disruptive. He can't really seem to discuss anything without lying about what others are saying, especially me, which normally I don't think would merit this post, but when I've made note of this behavior his response has been to:

• accuse me of "lashing out"
• accuse me of being uncivil
• decide by himself that "the rest of us will ignore you"
• gaslight me about his actions and attemptto pin the blame solely on me for getting "worked up"

Now this is obviously a small thing that we've all gotten a little too heated about, but I think his actions clearly cross the line. I can recognize an obvious troll when I see one. Statements like this:

"You need to stop taking things so personally. You should also read WP:AGF. And until such time as you can behave in a civil manner, you should probably stay out of discussions. Lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you because they disagree with you won't achieve anything except a headache. The rest of us will ignore you and get on with the job of improving the article."

And this:

"If you choose to interpret my comments as a personal attack, that's your prerogative. It's also your mistake. So I suggest that you take a minute, stop working yourself up and think about how your attitude might make others feel about working with you. If you value contributing to Wikipedia and if you want your contributions to be valued, you might reconsider how you interact with others. Shouting at people isn't going to make them listen to you."

Are pretty blatant concern trolling. I don't believe we need administrator intervention in the debate itself - it's a silly topic to begin with, and somehow we actually seem to have a compromise on the table - but this user's actions are completely unacceptable, and not the way discourse is supposed to work on Wikipedia. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be most helpful if you supplied the dif's for those edits. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

First edit and Second edit Wicka wicka (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

[72] and [73] as diffs, so people don't need to dig through the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• So just to be clear, Mclarenfan17 went ahead and made an edit without consensus, Wicka wicka reverted it, and a mutual ballyhoo started? Am I missing something? Because all I see is a disagreement. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — quite. I felt that the edits were justified at the time, but admit that I made an error in judgement. I did, however, point out that Wicka wicka had been wrong to revert them without checking what he was reverting as I had also fixed some errors in the markup. He refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and ever since then, I have felt that his behaviour has been uncivilised, particularly given that he advised me to "forget my password" or the way he referred to my post as "shocking, shameful behaviour" when I first pointed out that he was being uncivil. Or when he then declared that he did not want to address me any further. I feel that I have tried to handle the situation appropriately, and have repeatedly advised him that his behaviour is unacceptable. He has chosen to interpret these as personal attacks. If I think his behaviour is uncivil, does it beggar belief that others may, too? How does he expect others to respect him when he refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing and thinks "forget your password" is an appropriate response to a disagreement? Can you really blame other editors if they see his behaviour and decide against working with him?

Truth be told, I do not even know what he wants anymore. This little flare-up seems to have been triggered by Wicka wicka's suggestion that the discussion should be closed and my response that I felt he had not made his case. I think Wicka wicka just wants me to give up and let him have his way in the discussion, which is not how consensus works—and if you ask my opinion I think he is trying to use ANI to get an admin to punish me. He has clearly tried to portray me as a bully, but as I have demonstrated with diffs, he is hardly an innocent victim, if he is indeed a victim. Perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG or a WP:TROUT is in order. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Neither of you come off looking particularly good in this. In my mind, Wicka wicka was justified to revert the entire revision without fixing the markup since no consensus existed for the edit itself, but also displayed more of the "uncivil" behaviour on the whole. That said it doesn't seem to me at least like there's much if anything actionable here. This seems to be a disagreement over content that got a bit out of hand. Since the topic has turned contentious, I would perhaps recommend either starting a formal RfC process over the tables due to the horrible organisation of that entire conversation, or just forgetting the whole thing for now. If an RfC DOES get started, I don't want either of you responding with each other. Just post your !vote and leave it alone. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I give you my word that if you see an ANI involving myself and Wicka wicka in future, it won't be because of anything that I have done wrong. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer Do you see this last comment? Do you not see what he's doing here? This blantant, obvious trolling. I would strongly ask that an administrator look into this. This is not acceptable. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to chip in here because unfortunately I have detected a wider pattern of poor behavior against other users by the reporter editors. They have the unfortunate habit of resorting to rather aggressive personal attacks whenever they feel things are not going their way in a discussion. Their most common tactics then are to either question the contributors competence/intelligence or simply trying to devaluate the other party's comments by claiming they haven't made enough contributions to the subject. Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users: Klõpps [74], [75]; Me [76], [77]; Fecotank [78], [79]; Pelmeen10 [80]; Unnamelessness [81], [82]; Sabbatino [83]; Pyrope [84], 12; Speedy Question Mark [85], [86]. Note that these diffs strem for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.Tvx1 17:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: this is helpful for general context - I didn't look too hard for this once I figured out Mclarenfan17 had posted under two different accounts plus IP address(es). In terms of the context of this case, and others may disagree, but I don't think that context all that helpful. It seems the primary conflict here has to do with Mclarenfan17 not accepting the reversion of their edit, and then the secondary edit came after Wicka wicka proposed to "close the discussion and maintain the table in its current format" in response to another user called them out on being "defensive" and "quite rude" (which had nothing to do with Mclarenfan17) and Mclarenfan17 called Wicka wicka out on that. I'm slightly concerned with Mclarenfan17's "give you my word" statement above because the user implies they have the upper hand in this conflict when their error led to the initial kerfluffle, but I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again and Mclarenfan17 is found out to be wrong. But I maintain neither party comes off well. Still not sure there's anything to recommend here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: — what I meant is that I can't promise that I won't be at ANI again, either as the complainant or as the subject. After all, we all make errors in judgement. But I can try to avoid being the subject of an ANI post by exercising my judgement properly. I cannot speak for Wicka wicka, though. I am sure he will end up here again at some point, not because I think little of him, but because he, too can make errors in judgement. So when I say "if you see an ANI involving myself and Wicka wicka in future, it won't be because of anything that I have done wrong", I am not implying that I have the upper hand. I am simply saying that I can only exercise my own judgement. If Wicka wicka says or does something that sees him before ANI, I won't be responsible for it because of the way I try to exercise my judgement in the situation. I think he takes everything personally, even when I tried to reason with him. My intention was to remind him that aggressive and uncivil behaviour is unlikely to get results in discussion, though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more. The solution is simple: don't engage with him. It's not worth the effort. So if you do see him at ANI again, my name won't come up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mclarenfan17: I appreciate the clarification. I take your statement as stating you will voluntarily not interact with Wicka wicka. I also hope you note the diffs above generally to help guide what not to do in your future interactions. I'd say this doesn't mean you can't comment in the same topic for consensus reasons, since you're clearly both interested in editing in the same space, but I would take any evidence of conflict between the two of you as blockable behaviour going forward. Wondering if anyone else not involved to this point would agree? SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: The reason he is so quick to volunteer to "not engage" with me is because his entire MO is based around subtly instigating conflict with other users. He doesn't even have to directly address them to achieve this goal. This is day one trolling, and he's been doing it for a very long time, as evidenced by the examples provided by Tvx1. I can't even comprehend how you can approach his statements in good faith when he says things like, "though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more." This is explicitly intended to get under my skin, to make himself look better than me, to set the tone that I am angry but he is not. Again - day one stuff. Really, really, ridiculously obvious. It's the internet equivalent of your younger brother who breaks the TV and convinces your parents you did it. Unfortunately this is not uncommon on Wikipedia.

You say above, "I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again." It has happened again. This is not the first time. Far from it. If sanctions aren't applied now, we're just gonna be back here in the future. This is not an issue between myself and Mclarenfan17, and it does not get solved simply by the two of us somehow not engaging with each other. There is a clear pattern of misbehavior and he is the person involved in every example. I would strongly request input from an administrator because I cannot imagine this is behavior they want to tacitly encourage. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I'm quite happy to accept those terms. I would, however, like to see Wicka wicka accept the same or similar terms as a sign of good faith. After all, he has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits. As you said, "I maintain neither party comes off well". If we are equally responsible for the devolving situation, then it stands to reason that we should be held accountable under the same terms. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Wicka wicka: (edit conflict) What exactly are you asking for? Mclarenfan17 agreed not to engage with you above. Their alter ego, Prisonermonkeys, has been blocked several times in the past for several different reasons for up to three months. (I note that Tvx1, the other participant in this discussion, appears to have been involved in some of those.) If they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread (though as a note I expect you could be blocked as well if you've baited them into it.) Which for you is a pretty good outcome considering this seems nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SporringFlyer: — I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to this resolution unless Wicka wicka and I are subject to equal terms. As you yourself said, "[Wicka wicka] also displayed more of the 'uncivil' behaviour on the whole". It is, as you pointed out, "nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript". I think Wicka wicka came here anticipating—and maybe even expecting—that I would be on the receiving end of some kind of punishment. When he did not get it, he immediately started lobbying you to reverse your decision. I believe that he would treat any kind of sanctions against me as a personal victory in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As I pointed out, has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits and so I simply do not with him the power to refer back to this discussion thread for sanctions in future. Now, I am willing to enter into some kind of agreement here, but it must be a two-way street. This dispute might be between myself and Wicka wicka, but his attitude towards others in the past has been poor as well:

"You have to be completely and totally clueless to not realize the inherent advantages of a table over prose ... Stop blindly quoting wiki policy and use your brains"

"Don't just rush in and revert stuff and spam me with meaningless guidelines"

"Your edits look like garbage"

"Is there seriously nothing we can do to fix this stupid split? This is yet another great example of poorly thought out, idiotic Wikipedia bureacracy"

"There used to be so many more people around, and they all left, because you can't do anything unless Tvx1 approves it"

You will note that I was not involved in any of these discussions. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• What makes you think there's a resolution here for you both to agree on? You clearly stated above the "solution is simple: don't engage with him." Whatever they do or do not do shouldn't impact what you've clearly identified as a solution: for you not to interact with them. Considering this conflict started because of your refusal to accept they had the right to revert your edit because no consensus for it existed, considering you've already identified your own best solution, and considering your own block history, you're hardly in a position here to dictate terms. So which is it? Do you want to turn this ANI thread into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or do you want to solve this conflict and move on with the solution you've identified? SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer — I'm not trying to dictate terms, just find a mutually-agreeable solution. Yes, not engaging with Wicka wicka is the obvious solution, but I think the most effective solution is if he agrees not to engage with me. That way, neither of us runs the risk of accidentally setting things off again. I also think my concern about his openly declaring that he won't assume good faith should be addressed—what's to stop him from opening another ANI a week from now over some perceived slight? Wicka wicka's above post makes it clear that he does not think my agreement will have any effect, so how can I have any confidence that he won't try something? As you said, "if they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread". How on earth does it benefit anyone if I'm held accountable to him when he has made it pretty clear he wants me to face a block? Some of his comments suggest he wants a permanent block and I have have every reason to believe that he will try to get me blocked at every opportunity. I'm not looking to turn this into a battleground. I'm looking for a solution where both of us are held equally accountable. If I am to face a block for engaging in conflict with him, then Wicka wicka should face a block for engaging in conflict with me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• From my point of view, if this conflict were limited to the discussion at hand, abiding by your statement would have the impact you need. You're both here to build an encyclopedia, and you both need to assume good faith even though that's gone out the window for the time being. If you don't engage with Wicka wicka, and I clearly mean don't engage to mean anything which could even be considered as perceived engagement, and they drag you back to ANI, what do you have to worry about? That would take a dedicated and continuing lack of good faith. That being said, Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) has said this issue a larger one and has asked for an administrative review of conduct, but has only provided diffs for this current issue, which has in my opinion confused things. A read of Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship and Talk:2018_World_Rally_Championship mentioned by Tvx1 (talk · contribs) are some of the more contentious talk pages I've had the pleasure of reviewing. (The other diffs mentioned were older.) There's also a contentious talk page here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally which ended up in despute resolution. There's definitely an editing problem here beyond the diffs that were reported showing a pattern around edit wars and not accepting consensus, and the initial revert issue fits into that larger pattern. However, Wicka wicka wasn't directly involved in any of those disputes and hasn't had much interaction with either Prisonermonkeys or Mclarenfan17 if the analyser is to be believed (though the dynamic IP used to edit for a bit does leave a gap.) I think a voluntary interaction ban would solve the particular problem Wicka wicka brought to ANI, but I'm not sure it would solve the larger issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer I don't know why you are so insistent upon narrowing your scope to this one incident. As Tvx1 (talk · contribs) has shown, this is only the latest in a series of incidents with this user, and no action that's been taken to date has had any long-term effect on his behavior. I can restate my original report and include Tvx1's diffs, if that helps? Again, you keep saying "come back if he does it again," but that's what we're doing right now. This is us coming back for the nth time. And please don't pretend that the two of us ignoring each other somehow solves anything. It doesn't. He's had conflicts with several other users. This is not about me. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Wicka wicka: Because I'm trying to figure out the problem you want solved. Prisonermonkey/dynamic IP/Mclarenfan17's actions on those talk pages above greatly concern me, mostly as a result of being quick to edit war instead of trying to build consensus around changes to pictures/tables on these pages. I didn't see anyone report it to ANI, though it did go to dispute resolution at one point. But in terms of trying to solve this conflict, Mclarenfan17 wasn't the only user you got into a heated content dispute with on that page, nor do I see anything particularly egregious, apart from the conflict regarding the initial revert continuing a pattern of behaviour. I've searched the ANI records and there have been a few blocks for edit warring and a few odd ANI conversations over the past few years, but I don't see anything which supports "coming back for the nth time" as if this little dispute is somehow the last straw you seem to be making it out to be. If I'm wrong on that, please provide better diffs. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: I'm not going to give you more diffs when 1. we've provided a wealth of evidence as it is, and 2. he's trolling in this very discussion and you're completely oblivious to it. This is precisely why an admin needs to be involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer — I will not stand for these constant accusations of trolling. Everything that I have said and done in this discussion has been said and done in good faith. I value what Wikipedia represents and have made tens of thousands of positive contributions to it. I occasionally have an error in judgement, but we all do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mclarenfan17: The problem from my end is that the contentious editing practices shown on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship, Talk:2019 World Rally Championship, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally, and the page you've been reported for are more than just an "occasional error in judgment" but rather a "continual error in judgment" that started this conflict in the first place. Your argument with Klõps on the World Rally page concerns me the most, because even if this were resolved in a mutual voluntary interaction ban with Wicka wicka as discussed above and you both respected it, some other user would probably drag you back to ANI because of this. I would support some sort of sanction, perhaps a 1RR sanction on motorsport pages and a general behavioural warning to stop making edits without consensus when a discussion continues on the talk page and no consensus has been reached. I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages. I don't think that will be a problem, though - I'm just noting it because it did make sorting through these things confusing. Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) I've assumed good faith at every point in this discussion and as such don't see the "obvious trolling." I don't know why I'm the only one moderating this discussion, or why no admins have posted in this thread since the outset, but I still don't know exactly what outcome you're asking for here, which makes it very difficult to advocate for a particular solution. Whatever happens, though, you should both strive to stay away from each other. SportingFlyer T·C 02:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer — I know that you have assumed good faith throughout this discussion. If I may speak freely, I feel that most of Wicka wicka's comments here have been lobbying for administrator intervention as a form of payback for disagreeing with him. I have not seen him say anything in his comments about me that could not apply equally to him; as you opined, he displayed more of the uncivilised behaviour, and I have demonstrated with some diffs, his attitude towards other editors is questionable. Telling another editor "your edits look like garbage" is completely unacceptable. If I am to be the subject of administrator sanctions, then I feel that they should apply equally to Wicka wicka.

"I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages."

I have no intention of doing that again. It was mostly because I had forgotten my password and was having problems with abuse and harrassment from another editor, GeoJoe1000. Joe went on an extended abusive rampage after I reported him to the admins. After that, he created a series of sockpuppet accounts that were intended solely for the purpose of harrassment on my talk page. When I forgot my password, I didn't create a new account straight away because I would need to declare that I was using a new account and that would just invite another abusive tirade that would spill over into articles. Joe seems to have given up—we've seen neither hide nor hair of him in six months—so I created a new account. I know that sounds like another editor I was in conflict with, but this is the sort of thing Joe was posting. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mclarenfan17: The sanctions do not need to be equal. There are two separate problems here, the first being the editing practices on the pages discussed above, the second being the way in which both of you are interacting with each other. In my mind, the first is the much bigger issue, and while you've taken responsibility for your edit on the Formula 1 World Championships page, which has been appreciated, I would prefer if you take responsibility for the edits on the pages I've identified above as well. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion to close

In order to encourage collaborative and civil consensus-building on talk pages without edit warring, I recommend Mclarenfan17 receive a 1RR sanction on any motorsport page for the next three months, and receive general warnings regarding their recent editing behaviour on the talk pages listed above and a general warning regarding editing as a dynamic IP (which, as noted above, shouldn't be an issue.) I also recommend a two-way interaction ban between Mclarenfan17 and Wicka wicka for at least a decent period of time, as Mclarenfan17 indicated they would do so voluntarily, Wicka wicka has stated this "isn't about me" so avoiding interaction with Mclarenfan17 shouldn't be a problem for them, and the ongoing difficulty with WP:AGF between the two users which could lead to ongoing conflict. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think that it is necessary or appropriate to warn Mclarenfan17 about editing as a dynamic IP. They were editing as an IP for several months because (1) they lost the password to User:Prisonermonkeys and couldn't recover it; (2) had some obsession with avoiding harassment by some banned user and so said that they had to edit as a dynamic IP. That was a problem, and is why the first filing at DRN was dismissed. However, now that they have created a new account, there is no need to warn them about using an IP address. They have already been warned, and, if they do it again, which they won't, they can be blocked. No need to pile on. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: That's fair. As I've mentioned above, I don't think it will be an issue. It just made sorting through this more difficult, and I wanted to note that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - As an outsider to this particular dispute here. I would still like to see an administrator's take on this matter before closing. Based on everything reported above I would at the very least propose a formal warning to Mclaren17 that resorting to commenting on the contributors when a discussion is not going their way will not be tolerated anymore and will attract a block in future. Hopefully that ensures constructive discussions focused on the content in future.Tvx1 14:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Frankly, if an admin hasn't commented on this in a week, it's not going to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, that's lame. If think one should. After all, this is an adminstrators' noticeboard. It's really that big an ask?Tvx1 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157

I have tried to be patient and assume good faith but I feel this Admin is just hiding in the bushes and waiting to jump out on me if I happen to make a mistake. Around early January after making an edit to the article Bengal famine of 1943, he went onto my talk page and threatened to "block me indefinitely", as he believed that "I don't seem to be getting the message"[[87]]. This sounds irrational,rude and intimidating for someone to threaten an "indefinite block" over 1 or 2 edits mistaken edits. And then again yesterday Black Kite went onto my talk page and threatened me again that he will "block me" just because I am reverting likely sockpuppets[[88]]. Then when I mentioned that User:Orientls also reverted obvious socks of Abhishek9779, Black Kite's response is, "Yeah. The one that Orientls reverted obviously is a sock. You've been reverting ones that might not be, or in the example I gave above, obviously isn't." In essence this is an example of "I'm right your wrong!" or "It's my way or the highway!" logic that the Admin is using. According to this Admin, all of the socks I report are "not" and if another user does it, it is because the they are "obviously a sock". I know this Admin may try to bring this up so I will mention it. When he blocked me around December 2018, when I was still new, he completely ignored potential edit-warring and even meatpuppetry(suspiciously 2 more editors jumped in to revert me)by other editors on the article Al-Qaeda. This sounds like a second double standard made in which, other editors were allowed to delete a large amount of sourced information that I contributed based on it being "fringe" but all of a sudden I do that once(that too with the concern of sockpuppetry going on) he decides to make a fuss about it. Now I will admit that some mistakes were made early on by me but Black Kite's behavior is definitely not acceptable. So based on all of this I would like for someone to please look into this Admin's abusive behavior.Mountain157 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that Black Kite has taken some action against your obsession with this sockmaster. Your reports at SPI are a constant mess of speculation. It's like you see socks hiding around every corner. If you continue like this, you're going to end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not denying that I have made mistakes at SPI. However this notice is also about the general behavior that Black Kite has shown specifically towards me, even before I got involved in SPI.Mountain157 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157:, I suggest you withdraw this accusation, no matter how strongly you feel about the situation. I also suggest you work on some other topics, more benign for now, and gain an understanding of adding neutral facts about passionate matters. And withdraw the accusations, I will repeat that bit, and emphasise that it is important you do that! cygnis insignis 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I second Bbb23's assessment. You'll get blocked very soon if you continue edits accusing other editors of being socks, when they obviously aren't. Take a common sense approach and start being doubly cautious about accusing others of being socks. Lourdes 18:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I also agree with Bbb23. Deliberately accusing other editors of being socks without evidence is what I believe to be casting aspersions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• In fact I think it would be a good idea if you were banned from making reports at SPI. We have enough frivolous reporting at SPI from India/Pakistan editors already - if there is actually a good reason to suspect sockpuppetry, there are numerous experienced editors around the topic already who know what to look for. You can relax and do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've had my disagreements with Black Kite, but this complaint is nonsense. It's entirely a good thing that Black Kite has been examining your obsession with reverting suspected socks as quickly as possible, and your general battleground approach to editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well as I said above I have made mistakes on Wikipedia, but let me ask you this. Was it rational about a month back when Black Kite threatened an indef block over an edit?That too in his edit summary for Bengal famine of 1943, he did not even say that the death toll had been discussed extensively in the talk page already.Mountain157 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes admins threaten blocks for egregious edits given egregious histories. That being said, you're starting to stray into WP:IDHT territory: are you genuinely not seeing that sentiment is overwhelmingly against you? Ravenswing 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see two options. We can close this as unfounded and move on, or we can WP:TBAN Mountain157 from SPI. And, Mountain157, you might want to heed the advice given already. Black Kite is not abusing you. I'm sure they feel they are being patient with you as well. And if BBB23 feels uncomfortable with your sock seeing, I'm forced to agree with BlackKite in removing them. DlohCierekim (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  So Mountain157 walks into a highly contentious area in December 2018, has < 500 edits, sees socks all around, edits in a disruptive manner, and complains when warned about the disruption. Is this a Discretioanry Sanctions area? If so, Mountain157 needs to be so advised. DlohCierekim (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• new editors who enter contentious areas and start accusing others of being socks are socks themselves about 99% of the time. If I wasn’t on my phone I’d just block right now. But at the very least a complete topic ban would be warranted. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: How would you have justified your block? And I wonder where you got that stat? Let me make one: 50% of admins at ANI are caught in the super Mario effect. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  If you look at all of Mountain157's talk page, you will see that a final warning was more than justified. Certainly warning a disruptive editor is not admin abuse. And some non admins are very quick to scream "ADMIN ABUSE!" a little too quickly. DlohCierekim (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  The blocking part is justified. Shouldn't we check and prove if the admin abuse shout was indeed too quick in this case? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think this has turned into WP:BOOMERANG by Mountain157. That being said, what does Black Kite has to say here? I haven't (neither did others) checked whether their indefinite block threat was indeed "abuse of power" and too harsh. I suggest further investigations and if this turns out be abusive by the admin, they should warned at the very least. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I have, actually, see above, please. DlohCierekim (talk)

• As Dlohcierekim pointed out, Mountain157 seems to be framing the issue and Black Kite does not seem to be abusing, they are simply giving strong final warnings. I don't agree with Floquenbeam regarding the "99%" stat, the accuser could themselves be the sock puppet (I mean look at the username, how simple and random could it be?). That being said, I am not trying to directly accuse them of sock puppetry (it's just my speculation). I would suggest Mountain157 to withdraw, like others suggested and just focus on other stuff in this community. I am sorry but you are indeed caught into WP:BOOMERANG. However, I still would like Black Kite to have their say. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • • Stop pinging me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Immortal Wizard,I actually did want to withdraw the complaint until Vanamonde undid my edit.Mountain157 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157: I am assuming you didn't know this, but you are not suppose to withdraw by removing the whole thing. If you want to indeed do that, state that here in the comments and a non-involved editor will close this thread. I hope you have learned something. I would suggest you to leave a withdrawal note and state whether your actions were a mistake and why shouldn't an admin block you in the future. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Your fish is here DlohCierekim (talk)

• Personally I would support an indef tban from SPI and this should extend to "reporting people to editors talkpages" because we know it's gonna happen, Their SPIs are poor and as such they should be prevented from creating these reports - SPI is already backlogged on a daily basis as it is and these silly/useless reports certainly don't help,

Sitenote: Given they only started editing here in December 2018 I'm rather surprised they know the SPI easily..... smells fishy tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, meh. Levivich has been editing since mid-November and is already closing threads in AN/I. Nothing wrong with being new in particular. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT - Meh true but thread closing isn't that hard and doesn't require much knowledge atleast compared to SPI. –Davey2010^Talk 23:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, maybe a better example is I filed this (Note: I registered account in Sept. 2016, but I had only a total of 29 edits until November 2017). Either way, I wouldn't say my comment was meant to imply the user is not suspect. Their behavoir probably should be examined here. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi - I am away this weekend and am on my mobile phone. I would suggest to Immortal Wizard to read the conversation between myself and M157 on their talk page which they conveniently deleted before they filed this ANI. Reverting other editors claiming they are socks without any evidence is never acceptable, especially when it's obvious that some of them aren't the sock that M157 claims them to be. It's simple disruption, which is why I threatened to block them. I'll be back online tomorrow. Thanks - Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Not sure I would support closing at this point. The boomerang is now in flight. Will await further developments. Sometimes we close threads a little too soon. DlohCierekim (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• comment I totally agree with Black Kite. I too, have been a victim by this user's stonewalling, ANI page, and AN3 notices back in December when he first started, both notices which were taken down once this user knew he was going to get boomeranged. I have argued, extensively, with him. At first, I thought he was a new user and did not know this project's rules which is why I invested time and tried to educate him. He simply deletes all my edits on his talkpage. However, it seems this is no longer the case. I have just glanced through his edits and there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing. He must be someone's sock. I've been in wikipedia for 5 years and Im not sure I know how to open a sock report yet he knew that since his first month. His actions should be scrutinized and no longer ignored. The community has decided his actions against me should be overlooked and passed since he was considered a new user, however opening this ANI against Black Kite shows that he did not learn his lesson and, in my opinion, forthrightly deserves to be sanctioned. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Mountain157: Informally, you need to read the linked notice, going forward.-- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. DlohCierekim (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • More formally, Dlohcierekim they can read it on their talk page  :) ——SerialNumber54129 22:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban on Mountain157 from reporting any alleged sockpuppet anywhere

• Support Seems appropriate here. It took me years to figure out what an SPI was, but then I'm getting old. Seems fishy. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. At least 140 of his less than 500 edits are about sockpuppets. This user needs to demonstrate that he is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per Legacypac's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Surely the problem here isn't the SPI issue - though that is an issue - but the fact that they're reverting people "because I think they're socks whether they are or not"? Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the wording can be changed to a complete TBAN on mentioning or implying sockpuppetry. I think the only alternative at this point is an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Black Kite. Some of his edits involve adding Pakistan or other countries as allies to terrorist groups in infobox and when someone disagrees, he reverts them alleging them to be sockpuppets. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• SupportTBAN on reporting anyone anywhere for socking and reverting anyone, ever if they think/say/believe/find it's useful to say it's a sock. TBAN on calling anyone a sock in any form, anywhere, anytime. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bans from utilizing the tools necessary to edit here are always problematic, and rarely change behavior. If the editor is making malicious false reports at SPI, let's lay out the evidence and then block the user until the behavior changes. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SPI is not really a tool. The vast majority of editors never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not even know what a sock was until someone falsely accused me of being a sock from Japan. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Please reread the entire thread. Mountain has been filing disruptive SPI cases (often only because they were reverted in editing) and not being able to do so will in no way impair their editing. Hell, I didn't now anything about SPI until I'd made 1,000's of edits. Never impaired me in the least. DlohCierekim (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I've reread the discussion, but I don't know why you asked me to. Is this about my saying we should lay out the evidence? I'm not saying it doesn't exist. (Obviously that's why I proposed the indef block below.) I'm just saying no one has yet linked to any specific SPIs here in this discussion, and usually that's what we do here. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean a tool in the broad, dictionary sense, not in the technical sense like AWB or a javascript. I put it that way because it's no longer enough to say that things like SPI are not "topics". Topic bans work best when they restrict a user in editing a certain subject matter because of the disruption caused. From what I have observed, so-called "topic" bans from using things like noticeboards, types of templates, discussion prcesses, etc., do not work. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support If the editor suspects someone is really a sock, they are free to email me; I'll check on facts and report if required. Lourdes 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support for a period of one year or until they gain 3000 edits, whichever comes later. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Legacypac and Softlavender. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support this seems the best course of action for now. User did demonstrate previously that he can stop some actions deemed disruptive such as edit warring. I would also advise the ban to include reverting anyone for 'thinking they're socks'. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not really more to add then to all the abovee.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Calling someone a sock in a revert seems like a "report anywhere" in my original proposal. If they want to revert they should explain the revert on the merits of the action not because they see a sock. Hopefully this will cure them of seeing socks all around. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac Not sure if you're replying to me but if so then I agree, I've amended my !vote seeing as it focused more on SPI/talkpages then everywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a more general comment on various proposed amendment or clarifications of the intemt of this proposal, but yes we are on the same page. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Laundering socks is an honorable secondary mission in Wikipedia that must be secondary to improving the encyclopedia, and is being dishonored by being pursued to the exclusion of common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It is entirely possible to be a productive editor and never file a sock report. Mountain should give it a go. Ravenswing 04:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Making accusations of serious malfeasance without evidence is a personal attack; either Mountain157 will stop making bad reports or will be blocked for NPA. Should he end up being able to identify them properly in the future, no need to make him jump through hoops or ignore the situation totally. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Since there have been issues raised over the SPI's that I filed a while back, I will most likely stay away from the SPI,however I do not think it is appropriate to "ban"someone from there because in some cases it may be serious.Mountain157 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

ain't the river in Egypt DlohCierekim (talk)

::The only thing serious is your seeing a sock around every corner and throwing out sock as an excuse to revert. You are not taking on board the advice of a number of experienced editors confirming this is necessary. This restriction will make your editing more enjoyable. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac:Wouldn't you define this as a genuine case of sockpuppetry?[[89]],[[90]][[91]].Because I think it does. (Mountain157)

Absolutely NOT that is simply IP editing. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like denial, just because you want to illustrate a point. These IP's trace back to the same location as other socks of Hassan Guy[[92]],[[93]],[[94]].Mountain157 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the feedback from the folks at WP:SPI is that you have been over reporting and that it has become disruptive. I this here discussion emphasizes the need to stop it. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dlohcierekim: Which I already stopped, a while back. So explain what you are trying to say.Mountain157 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not stop - you accused three IPs of socking right in the middle of a bunch of posts telling you not to call other editors socks. That this needs to be explained is amazing to me. Had hyou done that after the TBAN was imposed you would be blocked now. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I never ACCUSED anyone.All I was saying was it sounds suspicious to me. This is not at all appropriate behavior to be this suppressive of one editor. Mountain157 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support This editor can develop skills in other areas of the project without using this as the "go to" item in the toolbox. Edison (talk)
• Snow pile support <insert witty haiku here> A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Narrowly tailored. "Anywhere" to include reverting ordinary edits with allegation of socking. Leave all laundry work to others. Glrx (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

TBAN on Mountain157 from adding assertion that countries are allies of terrorist groups

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

---

• support per Wikieimrati concern above. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• support This user is heavily involved in India-Pakistan articles and certainly abuses Infoboxes by adding Pakistan as allied to terrorist organizations in controversial pages such as Taliban, Haqqani network etc.. among others. Sockpuppet accusations come forward when others revert him. Some of the links I remember can be found in my talk page User_talk:Wikiemirati#Mountain157, but certainly his contribution log can provide the bigger picture. -- Wikiemirati (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the strangest TBANs I've ever seen suggested. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Legacypac - this is too bizarre to be effective. Make it about geo-politics in general and I might consider it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Tbans work, but certainly his contributions in India, Pakistan, Balchostan, Afganistan etc.. topics should be broadly examined by someone familiar with these kinds of sanctions. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Legacypac. Too bizarre to enforce. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Legacypac - Bizarre just about sums this suggestion up. Not enforceable anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• This is quite unenforceable. Upon closer examination of his contributions, an ARBIPA topic-ban may prove necessary, but something this woolly is a bad idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Alternative: Indef block of Mountain157

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

---

• Support. It is a waste of time to try to manage this any other way. Not a forever block, but a block until the user shows an understanding of the problem. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: If the user is demonstrably causing much more disruption than they are making constructive contributions, and if their purpose on this site seems to revolve around negative POV-pushing and accusing others of sockpuppetry and other malfeasance, then they should definitely be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also, a CU should probably be run on them. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I imagine they have by now. Certainly it would seem reasonable. They don't tell us everything. DlohCierekim (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Allow the block decision to be the individual decision of any admin. This is too trivial a matter to be decided by the AN corps. Lourdes 01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a new user, probably trying to help. To the extent that their behavior has been disruptive a topic ban should resolve the matter. However I do agree that if the disruption persists then any admin is free to block on CIR grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per ad orientem They've been DS warned on ARBIPA. They've been told to less contentious in their approach and to not run to SPI to settle editing disputes. They may learn by doing. If we block them they will have no opportunity to teach them. If they avoid problematic behavior and learn to collaborate, we will have gained. DlohCierekim (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We jump to indef blocks much too quickly for editors in this topic, much too often without giving them any chance to improve. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Dlohcierekim - If they continue after this thread then they should be blocked for an X amount of time without a new ANI thread but for now like Dlohcierekim says they'll hopefully learn and not repeat, –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose For now. This was an attempt to withdraw the original complaint. I think they're getting the message. If, when they start editing again, they continue to show problematic behavior, then a block would be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose this editor should be given one final chance. I hope they have learned something. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the no sock hunting ban should do the trick. They can edit away happily but if they continue being a problem an Admin or this board will deal with it. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Post-closing comment

@Abecedare: - I don't quite see why you closed a proposal for a very straightforward and non-onerous TB in which there were 16 supports and 2 opposes as a simple warning to the editor. No offense, but I do not believe that your close properly summed up the consensus of the editors participating. Would you please re-open it and allow someone else to close it? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A narrowly tailored ban from SPI reports would be insufficient in that it would not prevent the user from improperly reverting edits that they imagined to be by sock-accounts (which is a significant part of the problem), or otherwise alleging/hinting at sock-puppetry outside of SPI space. The warning I issued for the user to stop with the "improper sockpuppetry allegations (in the form of reverts, edit-summaries, talkpage comments or SPI reports), or disregarding of feedback" covered the gamut of concerns and was IMO consistent with the views expressed above (it does not stop the user from filing a proper SPI report as a ban would but is that really an action we want to guard against?). That said, if any admin wants to replace my close with an SPI topic-ban, or any other remedy they consider an improvement, they have my ok to do so. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's only your opinion that the ban proposed by the community wouldn't work, and you really have no remit to override the community's opinion that it would be useful to try it. You reject that community's choice because you see it as flawed and ineffective at stopping specific actions, but your warning stops nothing at all.

Please don't put the onus on another admin, the right thing to do here is to re-open the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He should not be filing any SPI which is why the TBAN restriction was crafted as it was. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: please revert your closure — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I, and several others, advised the user to take a step back, and I think that happened and the initial warning would seem to have been effective. There was also the usual pile-on, just wallpaper on this page, however, the discussion above showed a clear consensus emerging about future restrictions on contribs, which should not interrupt the users will but is the will of those involved in that discussion. I would also prefer it was reopened, rather than a consensual decision be short-sheeted. cygnis insignis 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have WP:boldly reverted this closing with no fault assigned to previous closer Abecedare. Previous closing statement was: User:Mountain157 warned that continuing down the current path will lead them to being blocked.. This is now reopened. (Non-administrator comment) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 13:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He accused three IPs of being socks in the middle of the discussion, and when I said they were not he argued. That is not stopping. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced and/or false information added by Es204L

Hello all, I am opening a report regarding incidents taking place from October of 2018 to present day involving Es204L. This user has repeatedly added unsourced and/or false information to articles despite having been warned by other users on numerous occasions. The user also has a tendency to create new pages without references and leave them for others to complete (the topics are notable). The user has not commented on any of the numerous notices left on his talkpage, so I am opening this as a last resort. All instances in which this has occurred will be listed below with the newest appearing first. There may be more instances, but these are all the ones I personally am aware of.

• February 23

  In these edits, the user created the page Typhoon Wutip (2019) (is currently a redirect) by simply copying text over from the seasonal article. The new page had minimal information and no references on it (a section for references wasn't even on the page).

• February 22

  In this edit, the user created Tropical cyclones in 2002 without any references (is now a draft).

• February 14

  In this edit, the user changed ITC Gelena's dissipation date to February 14 despite the fact that the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center continued to issue advisories on it until 18:00 UTC on that day (eighteen hours after his edit)

• February 8

  In this edit, the user changed the season total for damages and HU Michael's damage without providing a source to back up the new total.

• January 3

  In this edit, the user added "Alvin" as the strongest storm for the season in speculation that an area of convection would develop, despite the fact that nothing had formed (no advisories from the National Hurricane Center). No references were there to back up the claim and nothing ended up developing.

• December 27

  In these edits (minus the one from the page reviewer), the user created the page Tropical cyclones in 2014 without any references and used an incorrect timeline that violates the agreement made when it was discussed on the project talk page.

• December 4

  In this edit, the user added in unwarranted and false text warnings. Nobody had adjusted the storm's intensity beyond what the Central Pacific Hurricane Center had listed. His warning had completely random values (an incorrect value for C5).

• November 22

  In this edit, the user said that hurricane season had ended when it was still ongoing.

• November 16

  In these edits, the user created Tropical cyclones in 2015 without any references and a timeline that violated the agreement that was reached on the project's talkpage.

• October 27

  In this edit, the user added in wind gusts for Hurricane Willa. The gust speeds were both unreferenced and in violation of the consensus to round to 5 knot increments.

As I said earlier, there may be more instances out there, but those are all the ones I personally know of. Noah^Talk 03:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User should be temporarily blocked for ignoring warnings and making the same edits. This is disruptive. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 03:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• It's tempting. I asked them to edit no further and I protected the Typhoon Wutip page. If I block them, they cannot respond here. If they ignore my request to edit no further, than we'll need to block them. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dlohcierekim: Well... appears he has edited yesterday and today without paying any attention to the discussion here. Noah^Talk 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My feeling here is that its more a case of we need to educate the person on how to use Wikipedia, more than block him or critcize his actions.Jason Rees (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    Jason Rees I agree as long as they listen. However, I see a lot of experienced editors disapprove the most basic of policies and show incivility. On that case, they should be handled tightly. Personally, I would give this user one final warning before indef block. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    ImmortalWizard I spoke to some of the more expierenced tropical cyclone editors about your remarks and its resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Project_re-engagement this positive first step].Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

    Jason Rees I didn't quite get how this has something to do with my remarks. Regardless, I am glad about this and these are exactly the type of reforms I aim to achieve. Again, proud to be part of this somehow. If you need recruits, I am down to join you guys. Even if I don't have any special knowledge about cyclones, I can help with maintenance. Cheers. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As communication is required, I gave them one last warning. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Es204L&type=revision&diff=885425532&oldid=885425463&diffmode=source They've responded.] It's a start. Invited them here. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by IP hopper

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

---

• 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.133.209.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.52.50.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Calling other editors "Nazis"

• [95]

Calling other editors "Persians"

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"[96]
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"[97]

Accusing others of bringing "Persian BS" into "Indian articles"

• "Falooda is an indian article, dont bring your BS persian nationalism in the indian article."[98]

Accusing others of "Eurocentrism" and "bigotry"

• [99]-[100]-[101]

Saying that non-Europeans should stay away from Indian articles

• "(...) like the rest of all indian historic english article this article only reflects the agenda and the views of anglophone european editors (...) all non european readers are requested to avoid this article (...)"[102]

Making copy-vios

• [103]

IP socking

• See IP's linked above

Edit-warring

• [104]-[105]-[106]

These IP's are all operated by the same person. Same geo-location,[107]-[108]-[109] same concerns (pro-Indian stance, trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by whatever means), same target articles, etc. One of his IPs, "175.137.72.188", was blocked for edit-warring on 13 February by Bishonen, unfortunately to no avail, for he continued with the exact same disruptive editorial pattern as soon as the block ended.[110] Whoever "operates" these IP's ran out of WP:ROPE long ago. Looking at the compelling evidence, whoever operates these IP's is clearly not here to build this encyclopedia. Pinging Doug Weller and Ian.thomson as they are aware of this disruption. A range block might be needed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• 60.52.50.71 is in quite a big range, 60.52.0.0/18, but there's nothing but vandalism (presumably the same user) from this range during this month. I have blocked the range for a month.
• 115.133.209.70 is in 175.133.0.0/16, and there's some other traffic here. This might be more tricky, so I have just blocked the IP.
• 175.137.72.188 is the only IP to have edited from its range, so this can be blocked simply again, and I have done so.
  • Please let me know, or post here, about future issues. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thanks, will do. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The reported IPs and their behavior are very similar to blocked user Rameezraja001 (talk · contribs). They all could be same person. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah, that's what I thought as well.[111] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Could I borrow a few eyeballs on The Old Man & the Gun?

I think a glance through the recent edits there, and on my talk page, would be more useful than cherry-picked links. Qwirkle (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the recent opposing edits [112] [113], the root of the issue seems to be a lack of reliable sourcing for the proposed content. This could easily be resolved by adding sources to support your viewpoint instead of bringing it to ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, perhaps better served by posting at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or giving WP:DR a read through. Doesn't appear to be urgent, chronic, nor intractable (at least not yet unless I've really misread the situation); thus ill-suited for ANI. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you did not look at both pages mentioned. Qwirkle (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, you made an edit to TOM&TG using the words "loosely based" [114]. In response Thewolfchild reverted per WP:WEASEL and that it was un-sourced. While discussion has proved...contentious perhaps, I guess I'm still not seeing the problem, as you folks seem to be currently talking it out. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I took a look at your talk page too, where the only things of note appeared to be a 3RR warning, and a section where you broke down, in exacting detail, every part of a comment by wolf. What am I missing here? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A sense of chronology, and an appreciation for WP:HUSH would be my guess. Qwirkle (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Purgy Purgatorio

At [115]: "Next time I will... use the means provided for libel". Also, as I'm apparently not welcome on the editor's talk page, I'd be grateful if someone else would notify them of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've notified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio, it is very important that you clarify your intention. Please carefully read the policy no legal threats, and then respond here. If your intention was to make a legal threat, as it appears, then you must be blocked indefinitely until you withdraw the legal threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Purgy Purgatorio about ten hours later, because they had resumed normal editing without responding here. They instantly responded on their talk page one minute before I posted my block notice, then followed up with an unblock request. I would appreciate it if another adminstrator would evaluate their unblock request. I have had a very long day and need to go to bed. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they have said they never meant that as a legal threat. I'll let someone less sleep deprived look at it. On a new matter, could someone look at the user page? Also, in my addled state, it seems to me from the talk page that the are maintaining some sort of list of users, and not a good one. DlohCierekim (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're clear that no legal threat was intended, so I have unblocked. I have not examined the user page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I had the following text in the edit window here at WP:ANI, could preview it, but was blocked to publish it:

It is true that Pigsonthewing was and is, now even stronger, not welcome on my TP, so thanks to Boing! said Zebedee for notifying me that my not absolutely unmistakeable formulation (cited in the charge) is considered as "legal threat". To be as clear as it is possible to my non-native capabilities of using the English language, I herewith state that I never ever even considered uttering any legal threat here on WP. As an Austrian citizen with no whatsoever residence abroad I consider uttering any such threat on my behalf as rendering myself as ridiculous. My cited wording is and was always intended as announcing, for my future use, the means provided by WP with the WP-RPA template. I will avoid, just striking my name from an imho defamatory list and correcting to the new entry count. I will amend my comment on my TP accordingly to save anyone from feeling as a legally threatend victim.

I am disinterested in additionally wasting anyone's time on this, but please, let me know if further information I could provide is necessary or useful to someone in charge. Everybody can research this incident by starting at the link given in the indictment. I cannot recall any further encounters with Pigsonthewing. Purgy (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears strange to me that I was not granted a reasonable deadline to contemplate the serious accusation, just got my privileges cut while preparing the above after doing some clerical clean up.

I am not aware of the meaning of me "maintaining a no good list" of names on my TP, where I document some interactions here on WP. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

I do not expect that any admin valuates the potential of threat that was covered in my reply to templating me on my TP on a closed matter. Purgy (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, legal threats are a definite no no here. Sometimes if the message is very unclear, admins make seek clarification beforehand, but it depends on a lot of factors. It looks like people did give you time to respond but you didn't respond as soon as you started editing again. As someone who often ignores notifications (OBOD etc), I can understand how this would happen but ultimately if I miss an important notification and fail to respond to something I needed to respond to, it's my own fault really. If you want to avoid problems, stay well away from any message that could be construed as a legal threat. Definitely words like libel should be avoided, especially when referring to yourself as the one libeled. Remember that our various policies like WP:BLP and WP:NPA go beyond the standards of libel in the US, and quite a number of other countries (at least in some areas), and the WMF lawyers are the only one who can deal with actual legal issues. (I mean concerning wikipedia. Concerning editors it's of course on them and any lawyers representing them.) So issues like libel are an odd thing for community discussions anyway. If you are blocked because what you said is misconstrued, an unblock should be simple. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the other stuff, see WP:UP#NOT. Maintaining a list where you document your negative interactions with other editors, especially named editors and when you comment on said editors, is often seen as violating WP:FIGHTINGWORDS and WP:POLEMIC. As with everything on wikipedia, I don't think we are entirely consistent with how we deal with such stuff. Notably you're probably going to get away with more if you're an established editor than a fairly new one. But regardless of the fairness of how we deal with such things, your best bet again is to simply avoid it. Remembering we are not a webhost or a cloud storage provide, if you do wish to keep such things, you can keep them somewhere else preferably private. Note I offer no comment on the appropriateness of what you've written on your userpage. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: actually see [116] which directly deals with this. I didn't link to it earlier because rearrangement of the guidelines meant I didn't find it. This is also why I'm making it a permalink to ensure you will be able to find it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've left a note at Purgy Purgatorio's TP asking them to rethink the material on their userpage. I think the intent is not to keep a laundry list of wrongs but rather a diary of their activities at WP; in particular, the earlier entries are neither negative nor directed at other editors. As they've started to have run-ins with other editors, it's turned more into a record of wrongs. GoldenRing (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I documented my cooperativeness at my TP. Purgy (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Smeagol 17

Note: This request was copied from WP:AE where I mistakenly filed it. The structure was copied for convenience only, but otherwise does not apply to this request.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Request concerning Smeagol 17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Smeagol 17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GS/ISIL :

1RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. Revert 1: 09:40, 21 February 2019, Revert 2: 11:03, 21 February 2019 - 1RR Violation after recent warning
2. Revert 1: 15:31, 19 February 2019, Revert 2: 07:36, 20 February 2019 - 1RR Violation after recent warning
3. Revert 1: 08:44, February 18, 2019, Revert 2: 09:29, February 18, 2019 - 1RR Violation. Warning

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 27, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Smeagol 17's deceptive response is not comforting.- MrX 🖋 14:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Sandstein: I will copy this request to ANI. For future reference, where is the enforcement process for community authorized sanctions documented? I would have thought here or here, but for some reason, it is not.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• The request was copied to WP:ANI#Smeagol 17. This AE request can be closed .- MrX 🖋 19:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[117]

Discussion concerning Smeagol 17

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Smeagol 17

I corrected wrong tense and accepted phrasing in the article, this was reverted without explanation. I used my once per day revert with explanation. What is a problem?Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If my correction was formally uacceptable, then I am sorry. When given warning abot similar (more serious) matter in this article, I complied. If someone told me that this minor correction was also unacceptable, despite ambiguosnes about what constitutes a revert? I would have complied also. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

About temporary self revert. Is it gaming the rules? I though they were working as intended. (I did it after reciving a warning, so I self-reverted for a day) Or what then is the point of allowing one revert a day?Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I was taking this issue too casually. But if you look for example here (end of tread) you will see that some are taking to editing even small wording issues on this topic with openly less then encyclopedic motives. Given that, I used formal rights to improve (in my view) the article. Honestly? I throught my explanation in the edit comment would be enough for such a minor (and close to consensus (in my view)) issue, without creating a talk topic (at least for third-party onlookers). I was wrong in this, as it often happened with such issues. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So, this situation has taken an a bit unexpected (to me) turn (re: User:Dan the Plumber). So what happens now? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

The first two "revert 1"'s are ... in what world is copy-editing (first one) and expanding the sentence (second one) considered to be "reverting"? As to the third "revert 1" diff, yes I think that actually constitutes a "first revert". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fitzcarmalan

Three things:

• As it turns out, the edits that are being "reverted" were those of a sockpuppet of Sayerslle.
• Even if Dan wasn't a sock, replacing "regime" with "government" is without doubt an improvement to the article. I don't even know who Smeagol is, but blocking them for doing so is a pretty fucked up thing to do (so is censoring reporting them for that "violating 1RR").
• @Sandstein: I distinctly recall you disregarding an AE request once because community sanctions (and I quote) "are not a matter for enforcement through the AE process". If that is the case, then will you kindly inform your colleagues (Fish and karate and RegentsPark) that they are in the wrong here? Because they sure as hell are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

I would be uneasy about blocking an editor who's been editing since 2008 without a single previous block, based on reverts primarily with a sock (User:Dan the Plumber) of a notorious indeff'd POV-pusher in this area (User:Sayerslle). -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SashiRolls

Having experienced the tendentious prose of the blocked user, who was also working the same issue with MrX etal. on Tulsi Gabbard, I'm very surprised to see MrX continue to try to have this editor punished for reasonable edits with the full knowledge the blocked account was an LTA. Looks like a boomerang is necessary. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning Smeagol 17

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• While I agree "Syrian government" is more neutral than "Assad regime", this is what talk pages are for. I note one of these breaches was followed by a "temporary self-revert" which was re-reverted a day later, which smacks of gaming the 1RR rule. The other two seem to be clear 1RR breaches and as a warning was previously issued, a short block is probably necessary. A look at the editing history of that article shows some tag team reverting by various editors which may warrant looking into. Fish+Karate 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps gaming was too strong a term, but making the second revert, undoing yourself, and then after a bunch of intervening edits by other editors, remaking the same edit just outside the 24 hour window for 1RR is not really conducive to collaborative editing. The one-revert-a-day rule, as with the three-reverts-a-day rule on standard articles, is not an entitlement. You don't have to make sure you get your one revert in a day. The revert rules are an arbitrary mechanism to stop edit warring, with the intent to nudge people into editing collaboratively; ideally you should be discussing, challenging, asking questions, making your case, reviewing sources, compromising, and so on - all the things that mean being a good, collaborative editor - on the article talk page. You should not be clock-watching to see when you can make another revert. I hope the short block you're likely to get gives you a chance to go read a few talk pages and learn a that there is a better, less stressful, more enjoyable way to do things. Fish+Karate 11:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like this Smeagol 17 has been working this particular revert (Assad ==> Syrian) for several days so any "I've been above board about my motives" arguments is disingenuous at best. A short block is in order. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Fitzcarmalan is correct that this is not an AE matter, because the sanction that is to be enforced is a community sanction. This request should have been made (and can still be moved to) WP:ANI. Sandstein 19:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: This request was copied from WP:AE where I mistakenly filed it. The structure was copied for convenience only, but otherwise does not apply to this request.- MrX 🖋 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  MrX, Do you know how confused I was? I thought there was a whole new procedure for AN/I that I didn't know about! We should probably display that note more prominently if you ask me. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MattLongCT: Good point. I'll copy it to the top.- MrX 🖋 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Concerning MrX's request

I didn't see your name in a header in this request, and since you've decided to soldier on rather than just dropping the case, I wondered if you could answer three questions:

1. Do you have some special reason to keep Mr 17 in the lights? (Why repost to AN/I?)
   
   
2. Have you read WP:DENY (everything)?
   
   
3. How did you come to know Dan  ? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MrX. I think this could be reported at WP:3RRNB at the moment of the violation. Copying this from WP:AE was not a good idea (you could just provide a link to the old version of WP:AE). What you need to show is a repeated 1RR violation, after discounting any edits by the banned user. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  My very best wishes, I'm not aware of any requirement to show a repeated 1RR violation after discounting any edits by a banned user. Yes, I probably should have simply taken it to ANEW, but at this point I'm simply losing interest. The bureaucracy exhausts me. I think sneaky edit warring in a contentious topic area is a problem, but if other's don't, we can just move on. I've taken Douma chemical attack off my watchlist and I'm going to enjoying some gardening today. - MrX 🖋 11:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The succor of socks has been used to profit at various times in wiki-history. Here's you, MrX, back in 2016:

I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion Interestingly, I just was looking back into a case where you & Sagecandor/Cirt were lobbying for someone being ineffed off one of your topics. (source) I was doing so because it's the source of the only active sanction against me, which is that I musn't ever say anything at AE unless named (I assume) or unless prosecuting someone. That's kind of a weird topic ban, but hey, them's the breaks. 750+ days, so far. ^^

I do believe that it's not too risky to say that the topic area is made contentious by those who have historically fought battles in those areas, some while bending rules more forcefully than others, some with the tacit approval of certain players. folks like Cirt... this Dan guy (two rather long sockplays, I'd think you'd agree). EEML. I think I even saw your name on an ArbCom case once in the area, no? This section was opened to give you the opportunity to answer some questions, which would help the common reader understand how the issue raised here is a coincidence and not a pattern, or even a perceivable pattern. I am sure that you would want to distance yourself from the sources and methods of the "shunned"? The thing I least expect right now is a short essay response, though. Is there a point to asking you questions, X? (or in a less personalized manner: is there a point to asking MrX questions in the big scheme of things?) Maybe we could ask MsX (no relation)? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Looking back into this matter a few days later I see that it (or events surrounding it) seems to have had the effect of causing the retirement of one of the people who made a statement (Fitzcarmalan). This does not seem to me a positive outcome looking at some of the articles they once authored, but have since nominated for speedy deletion (including an FA). Is this just tigers churning in the night, or is it another sign of what the BHG has identified as a wiki-wildebeest syndrome? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle yet again

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

---

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't seem to do much other than dick about with page names. There has been endless drama about this, for example with repeat WP:IDHT move requests on Sarah Jane Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The latest one was to move MMR vaccine and autism to MMR-autism myth then rapidly to MMR–autism myth (with an n-dash) in response to an RM to move it to, and I shit you not here, "?", whose only input notes that there is no consensus as to what "?" should be.

At some point we are going to need to ban Born2cycle from all discussions and actions relating to page moves, because the evidence to date shows that he considers himself to be the sole arbiter and authority of what article names should be. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to provide any specific diffs or links to this evidence? Or is this just an unfocused rant? I'm particularly interested in any diffs showing where he claims to be "sole arbiter and authority". -- Netoholic @ 10:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The RM should be re-opened so an actual consensus can be formed instead of taking this back to the dramaboards. If you can't do that, then maybe an IBAN is needed between the 2 of you. Iffy★Chat -- 10:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• How about we ban you first Guy? You ignored the long rename discussion on that article, which had specifically rejected the MMR vaccine and autism name as too likely to promote Wakefield's believers, then you renamed it to that ("per talk", when it was anything but), all on your own.

This is a good rename. And even if it isn't, if consensus wants to choose something better, then it's certainly a GF one, and IMHO a large improvement too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• As to the other article (and if you're going to harangue another editor at ANI, bring diffs), then the nearest comment I can find is a year-old talk: comment: 7 March 2018. But then I don't follow Dr Who stuff, so maybe there's some project talk or other article I've missed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think you're confusing Sarah Brown with Sarah Jane Smith. This confusion would never have happened if Sarah Brown's article title wasn't such a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME, by the way. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe Guy could ask Born2cycle to move it and sort it out? They seem good at picking sensible article names. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Born2cycle could butt out because this is a large discussion over multiple pages with numerous editors who, unliek Born2cycle, are clueful about the content area and Born2cycle's "good at picking sensible article names" translates into years-long disruption and WP:BLUDGEONing in any case where anybody dares to disagree with him. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: If you spent 15 seconds reading the debates on the talk page, you'd have seen that I am working diligently with others to ensure we choose the correct name, and the temporary change I did make was to reflect an overwhelming consensus that the previous name was wrong in a way that gave undue weight to fringe views. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly is your issue with B2C's moves here? Is it that he interpreted the consensus incorrectly, or that he was the one who did the page moves? Iffy★Chat -- 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem was the usual one: Born2cycle deciding to be the arbiter and enforcer of what constitutes the "correct" title, in a complex case where there is ongoing discussion and nontrivial dissent, and especially given that he has previous with me over other articles where he obsesses over the title. Check the archives of this page for his username: obsessive page naming drama is his thing. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

deciding to be the arbiter and enforcer of what constitutes the "correct" title, in a complex case where there is ongoing discussion and nontrivial dissent is precisely the job that RM closers do when they're determing consensus at RM discussions. There had been plenty of discussion before the RM opened and no comments for 5 days, suggesting that the RM was ripe for closure after it was open for 7 days (he was a bit early with the close but that isn't a big issue). Once again, is your problem here that B2C got the consensus wrong, or is it that that you have a personal problem with B2C? Iffy★Chat -- 13:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• You picked a name, "Andrew Wakefield discovered The Truth between MMR vaccine and autism" that was a shoo-in for giving weight to fringe views, and that the only evident consensus on that talk: page had been to reject it on that basis. But of course, you did your own thing instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the original title was MMR autism controversy. That's the one people have resoundingly rejected. Your characterisation of MMR vaccine and autism as "Andrew Wakefield discovered The Truth between MMR vaccine and autism" is sufficiently insane that it doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack: there may be one or two editors less likely to use the words you ascribe to me there, but no more than that. None of the others has unambiguous support, though I have floated several suggestions and attempted to weigh support and opposition for each. See Talk:MMR vaccine and autism § Name. The MR was raised with no actual target title, so should not have been actioned, especially by an editor with a long history of tendentious move discussions and an equally long history of disputes with me, given that I am the one currently leading the effort to achieve a correct consensus for the final name of the article. But, you know, you could always read the talk page, where all this is laid out and where the lack of consensus for a specific title is also identified. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"The other Guy" has been paying careful attention to consensus and so far has done the right thing. Andy Dingley's accusations are without merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Questions for the filer: There are some relevant items that seem to be missing from the report. I think it would be elucidating if these questions were answered:

1. Who proposed changing the title of this page in the first place and on what date?
2. In response to that discussion, what new title(s) was/were most commonly !supported?
3. Who closed the "Move to ?" request and how soon after it was opened?
4. When was the page move(s) in question made? What were the actual, exact moved-to titles?
5. Who moved the page back to the original? Why isn't that a sufficient resolution to this problem?
6. What efforts were made to discuss this move on the page mover's talk page or the article talk page before filing this report?

For my part, I'd recommend B2C not spend any time discussing this matter here unless someone asks him to join. The rest of the community can sort this one out. Leviv ich 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I see some of the answers at a glance, there was a general discussion on how to reach consensus, and there was a 'procedural' open and close. B2C was reported as moving the page, I didn't check, but the user appears here a lot and needs little introduction; it does sound like the regular reports on that users approach to page titles. cygnis insignis 14:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is only the second time he's been reported to ANI since he was unblocked last summer. Not a frequent flier anymore. Leviv ich 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is good of you to note that. cygnis insignis 14:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me also note that last time the report was about excessive commenting in move discussions, not disruptively moving pages, and there wasn't consensus for anything beyond a warning. If someone wants to say that an editor is disruptively moving pages, then diffs, please. Leviv ich 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The page log is here and seems to accord with what Guy has already described. cygnis insignis 14:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the close was good or bad, this was a long, complex and possibly controversial naming discussion and really needed an admin, or at least an experienced editor familiar with the issues involved, to close it. B2C was not that person. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  As an admin, Guy can undo any NAC, such as B2C's, there's certainly no problem with that. But I disagree about "regardless of whether the close was good or bad"... if it was a good close, there's really no reason to post to ANI, is there? If it was a bad close, there's still no reason to post to ANI–we have move review for that, don't we? If it's a chronic, intractable problem with moves, well, let's see the diffs of problematic moves? ("Where's the diffs?" is the same exact argument I made last time; the result was no sanction. It seems we're here again.)

  How many moves overall in February, and how many were "bad" moves? What's the error rate? Because we don't take editors to ANI for making one bad move. Or even two.

  By the way, as a technical matter, I don't see B2C closing anything, just making a bold move. And as I understand it, the proper response to a bold move is to revert it (which happened) and which should settle the matter as long as there isn't a move-war happening (which there isn't). Hence my question #5 and #6 above. Leviv ich 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  B2C closed the RM in this diff Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that; stricken. Leviv ich 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• As WP:INVOLVED, Guy should stay well away from it. Especially now. He opened the rename discussion (from MMR vaccine controversy). MMR vaccine and autism was presented as one of his options at that time and it did not garner support from others. There was no clear favourite, but there was broad support for negative terms like "conspiracy", "hoax" and "myth". He took part in that discussion. He renamed other articles to remove "controversies" from their names, whilst this discussion was still running. Guy did not follow this when he closed that discussion and moved it to a name which conspicuously avoided any such critical term. That's pretty close to INVOLVED already and (IMHO) a very poor judgement of the consensus. As UnequivocalAmbivalence put it, " It would be like if we re-named "9/11 conspiracy theories" to "Alternate 9/11 theories". It's a neutral title, but it gives false parity. "

To continue past that point, and in their attitude and behaviour towards B2C here in particular, that's well past INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• By your interpretation of INVOLVED, he is and is not to permitted be involved any more? cygnis insignis 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• He's welcome to discuss and advocate or to make the final appraisal and judgement of others' comments. But not both.

Mostly though, I see his first close as wrong in its conclusion more than the way it was arrived at: other editors favoured the use of a negative term to describe something that they (myself included) saw as false pseudoscience. The 'neutral' [sic] presentation of 'MMR vaccine and autism' (and its easy incorporation into a presentation as if there's a link) is quite opposite to this.

He called for a discussion, he presented some options, and when other editors ignored his 'right' answer, he imposed it anyway. That's textbook INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me being blunt and stating what we all well know: That is the about the discussion itself, not this incident, which is about B2Cs bold close and move. If there is a grievance about the poster own actions, their 'involvement', shouldn't that a be separate discussion? This discussion follows every other discussion about B2C contributions on page titles, clearly the last one was not the end of it. cygnis insignis 16:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• If Guy wants to see this ANI thread as being solely about B2C, then that's fine. But: if he's already INVOLVED, he's still INVOLVED. So that restricts his advocacy of particular names. This thread has to stay narrowly on B2C's behavioural issues, and whether they breach anything that ANI should concern itself about. Now I'm not seeing that. Not for their choice of name, not for the trivia of some typos or at most a topic-neutral MOS issue, certainly not for some unspecified high crimes and misdemeanours on unrelated pages, for which we're still waiting on diffs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• To be clear here, B2C moved MMR vaccine and autism -> MMR-autism myth. -> MMR-autism myth -> MMR–autism myth, after I left them a talk page message pointing out their careless move (without any kind of consensus as to what the title should be) to a title with an inappropriate hyphen and a period at the end. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Natureium: The second move (removing the period) and the third move (hyphen to dash) appeared to have been in direct response to your talk page post here: [118]. When I saw your post, I thought you wanted him to move it again to remove the period and change the hyphen to a dash. I imagine he thought so too. I see the second and third move as attempts to comply with community feedback (from you), not ignoring or thwarting it. The first move and close may have been out of order, I grant you, but I note you did not say "move it back". Admittedly, nor did you say "move it again". But speaking as one reader of what you posted, I interpreted your post as telling him he was being a bit too bold but that he should clean up his mess, i.e., move it again. Leviv ich 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, What I wanted was for B2C to not move pages without consensus. I wasn't going to move-war, so I figured the least he could do was fix his mess, but that could have been done in one move rather than two. If someone doesn't understand title conventions (period, hyphen), they shouldn't be moving pages. Natureium (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Natureium, you're not wrong–don't move without consensus, be careful when making moves. Here's what I see happened, and this is putting everything in the worst possible light against B2C:

  1. He jumped the gun and made a close and move where there was no clear consensus yet
  2. In making that move, he used a hyphen instead of a dash, and had an extraneous period
  3. He fixed #2 with two moves instead of one

  Let's see how this ANI report characterized it:

  • [B2C] doesn't seem to do much other than dick about with page names. – That's terrible; nobody should be characterizing anybody else's editing as "dicking about".
  • There has been endless drama about this, for example with repeat WP:IDHT move requests on Sarah Jane Brown. – Bringing up shit from long ago, as we always do with B2C.
  • The latest one... – When was the last problematic move?
  • ...was to move MMR vaccine and autism to MMR-autism myth... – in response to a move discussion that the filer started, but we left that part out..
  • ...then rapidly to MMR–autism myth (with an n-dash) – in response to a request to do so on his talk page, which means rapid is good, but we left that part out...
  • in response to an RM to move it to, and I shit you not here, "?", whose only input notes that there is no consensus as to what "?" should be. – following a long discussion about titles, but we left that part out...
  • At some point we are going to need to ban Born2cycle from all discussions and actions relating to page moves, because the evidence to date shows that he considers himself to be the sole arbiter and authority of what article names should be. – Really, that's what the evidence shows? Here's a post from B2C on the article talk page: Whatever the community wants; my role here is at your service. But we left that part out.

  The ANI report makes it out as if B2C is just like "fuck y'all, I'm moving it where I want to!" when in fact, it's obvious he's trying to effectuate consensus, not thwart it, and he's trying to respond to complaints, not ignore them. If he fucked up one move, that's out of how many other moves? What's his "completion rating"? We don't take people to ANI for one mistake. Damnit. And we just had this discussion a few weeks ago. It's very frustrating to see another jump-the-gun unfounded ANI report against B2C. And that's all I have to say about that. Leviv ich 16:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dude, check the archives. This is someone who takes pride in pursuing move requests for years until he finally gets the answer he wants. Check the talk page archives at Sarah Jane Brown. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I see that Samsara has just fully move-protected the page. When the issue is with a single editor, shouldn't the solution to be to block that editor, rather than to protect the page from everyone? Natureium (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I judge the vaccine debate to be an area of conflict sensu arbitration committee. Samsara 15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They've only move-protected it. It is still semi-protected from normal editing, as it was before, so registered editors can still edit. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was just trying to help. In case anyone missed it, here was my closing statement:

The result of the move request was: Moved to MMR-autism myth. As far as I can tell there strong consensus for a change, no clear consensus on any particular title, but this is the best choice at least for right now based on the discussion above. If anyone gives me good reason on my talk page to revert this close and reopen, I'd be happy to do so. But I'm hoping everyone agrees this is the most reasonable choice. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) [119]

Unfortunately, I also fat-fingered the move by grabbing the period after the title in (the rendered version of) the closing statement, and I used an dash instead of an en-dash, so had to fix those two errors. I do a lot of closes and this is the first time I've made this kind of error. I was ready to revert but nobody had complained before I left. If JzG had just left a request to revert, I would have done so. I'll stay out of it now. --В²C ☎ 18:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that no clear consensus on any particular title, but this is the best choice at least for right now is not how things work. You don't move a page just to move it. The best choice "for right now" is for a page to stay at the title that it's at until there is a consensus to move it to another title. There's no rush to move pages (barring clearly inappropriate titles). Natureium (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:THREEOUTCOMES:

There are rare circumstances where multiple names have been proposed and no consensus arises out of any, except that it is determined that the current title should not host the article. In these difficult circumstances, the closer should pick the best title of the options available, and then be clear that while consensus has rejected the former title (and no request to bring it back should be made lightly), there is no consensus for the title actually chosen. If anyone objects to the closer's choice, they may make another move request immediately, hopefully to its final resting place.

Again, I was just trying to help in a difficult situation. Was it better to leave it at the current title? Maybe. But I think good arguments can be made on both sides. I thought consensus against the current title was clear, and this was at worst a step in a better direction. --В²C ☎ 18:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to help...

So was Cecilia Gimenez.

...this was at worst a step in a better direction

See previous comment. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have generally shared JzG's exasperation with B2C's general approach, but in this case I don't really see anything really problematic. Sure, it was a NAC close on a controversial topic, but that was certainly easily undone. We all view other editors' actions thru a filter of our prior experiences with them, but we have to be careful the filter isn't too strong. This was not ANI-worthy, Guy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• This is very exasperating. Just a few weeks after another ANI against B2C which found no actual wrongdoing, and yet here we are again. There was no attempt was made by JzG to discuss the close itself with B2C, or request it be reversed, which would likely have been granted. And admins aren't automatically permitted to reverse non-admin closures with no other process, particularly when WP:INVOLVED as the nominator of the RM. I have no opinion on the validity of B2C's close itself, perhaps there was no consensus, but there is no way this should have come to ANI when none of the usual options mentioned at WP:MRV, including discussion with the closer, had been pursued first. A WP:TROUT is due for JzG, and please try to get along with your fellow editors in future rather than being confrontational like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Which is not a little confrontational in itself. The idea that the last discussion found 'no actual wrong-doing' is not accurate, as I recall it there was no middle ground between blocking the user or not. This was an earnest and protracted discussion that was interjected by someone who does not recognise the disruption they cause, have caused here, for was "at worst a step in a better direction" according them. B2C does not care that this is a hot-button topic, this is about his cloistered view on page titles: a constant recycling of some move discussion a lifetime ago that did not go his way. What the people involved in the article think is irrelevant to the move mongers' mindsets, those are uninvolved bystanders made hopelessly bias by sources rather than their sure and certain opinion, there to witness their ongoing debates, petulant power struggles, and bloody-minded game-playing. cygnis insignis 20:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Amakuru is correct, the situation is exasperating. It's completely and totally exasperating that Born2Cycle has been doing the same damn stuff for over 10 years and continues to get away with doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Best to just close this. JzG should have asked B2C to reopen the close before bringing it here and using past ANI reports as a bludgeon is not a good idea. Someone has to close RMs and, in my experience, B2C is very willing to reopen a discussion if there are objections (cf. [120]) and that's already 90% of what we should ask from any discussion closer.--regentspark (comment) 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Warn JzG to comply with WP:INVOLVED

Despite being very involved in the discussion at Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism, JzG engaged in the following actions contrary to WP:INVOLVED (editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved.):

1. Reverted the close and move instead of following process. Step 1 at Wikipedia:Move_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_review_request: make the request on closer's talk page. [121]
2. Used admin rights to revert a move (because of errors, the previous title, now a redirect, had multiple edits and required admin rights to overwrite for a revert of the move) [122]
3. Closed the discussion in violation of WP:RMCLOSE#Conflicts_of_interest as well as WP:INVOLVED. [123]

I think the whole point of WP:INVOLVED is an involved admin might not be as objective as they would normally be in a given situation, and they should seek out another uninvolved admin to actually act as admins for whatever it is they feel needs to be done. What happened here is a great example of what happens when this is ignored. I don't doubt that Guy was acting in good faith, but he crossed a line that I believe is important to the health of the project for admins to not cross. I feel a warning from the community would be beneficial because as long as INVOLVED admins keep crossing the line without consequences, they are going to keep doing it, which is harmful to the project in many ways. --В²C ☎ 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? You made a series of bad judgments and now you want to warn the admin who cleaned up the mess? I suggest you drop it. Bradv🍁 22:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I fixed the mess you made. You're welcome. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I had already cleaned the "mess". You didn't clean up any mess. All you did was revert the close and move that I would have gladly reverted myself had you asked on my talk page per normal processes, as I even stated I would in my closing statement there. You were INVOLVED, and used a hammer when only a pencil was needed. --В²C ☎ 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have gladly reverted myself had you asked on my talk page per normal processes

Given your track record of obstinate WP:IDHT behavior, no, I don't believe that. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Calton, are you not aware of the other closes I’ve reverted upon request? That this was an unusual situation and so I explicitly stated I would revert upon request in the closing statement? This could have been easily resolved with such a request, but instead INVOLVED Guy went with heavy-handed reverts and this ANI, but I’m the one creating the drama? —В²C ☎ 17:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no sense in escalating this any further in either direction. I suggest this whole thread be closed per regentspark comment above and we can move on with our lives.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this thread should be closed once the RM is re-opened. If these 2 users keep antagonising each other, then an IBAN may be needed in the future, but I'm willing to assume good faith right now, and so should everyone else. Iffy★Chat -- 22:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Born2Cycle has consistently shown very poor judgement, and should never close a RM discussion under any circumstances, ever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Would someone please ping me when an indef of B2C is proposed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, would you go for 'no close or move' or just the simple option? cygnis insignis 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  What an offer! It seems mean to indef a well-meaning person who probably has done some useful things mixed in with all the disruption but the real problem is the difficulty of demonstrating a problem when it simply involves bad judgment and wasting time. I'm afraid we will have to wait for a new problem to arise and for someone with the patience to prepare a case. However, the possibility of a bold indef is always there, and it might stick. My comment was really intended to let B2C know that they have to learn how to avoid trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• You-have-got-to-be-fucking-kidding oppose. It's not an WP:INVOLVED, he was fixing B2C's uninformed parachuting-in. This is just further evidence that B2C shouldn't be involved in moves and ABSOLUTELY should not be making them. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not going to put a bolded support beside this, but JzG, you should have known better than to escalate in this situation. You were clearly involved, and B2C's series of bad moves was not quite an "any admin would do the same" situation. You didn't try to discuss it with him at all despite his explicit note that he was open to discussion, you didn't try move review, you just came straight here to rattle the sabres. I'm not saying B2C was right, he wasn't (someone should have linked to WP:SUPERVOTE by now), but in my view your actions made a bad situation worse. That's kind of what WP:INVOLVED is all about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The point remains: B2C is primarily associated with page move drama. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, you are primarily associated with fringe science drama. Guess what - if there is drama to be had, its most often within the scope of the areas we all choose most often to work. -- Netoholic @ 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The point remains: B2C is primarily associated with creating page move drama. cygnis insignis 16:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedily close as a diversion. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this giant nothing-burger. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose JzG acted appropriately, and suggest that B2C duck, because his boomerang is coming back around... --Jayron32 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

RBL2000 continues WP:POLEMIC behavior on Venezuelan articles

Summary: RBL2000 has continued disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages.

Diffs:

• Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1

• Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ("media") and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3

• Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as "trolls" 1

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#RBL2000's_WP:POLEMIC_Behavior_at_Talk:2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis - Previous incident report by MattLongCT

Background: Venezuelan articles have always been controversial and that definitely has not changed with this new presidential crisis. RBL2000 has not been making constructive edits and it appears that previous warnings have not been sufficient. The user has continued to only be active on talk pages and harasses users working diligently at maintaining accurate information of a complicated conflict. On the talk pages, the user will continue with WP:MYWAY that does not help with genuine discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not yet caught up with today's developments, but I can say that, since the report from a week ago by MattLongCT, nothing has changed. We spend large amounts of time responding to spurious and tendentious talk page posts from RBL and this seriously detracts from being able to add content. The real problem is that RBL just keeps coming back, over and over, with more non-reliable sources, or more sources that don't say what this editor believes they say. I do not support topic bans for first offenses. This is ongoing, and unabated; this user abuses the talk page and appears unable to understand reliable sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See 20 February ANI report by MattLongCT SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears SandyGeorgia is unable to understand the difference between posting sources/links in Talk Page versus the Article itself, also I am not forcing SandyGeorgia nor any other editor to respond to my comments, criticism and suggestions nor I have implemented any "unrealible sources" since February 20th as SandyGeorgia implies in the narrative, but SandyGeorgia can say that isn't the case then SandyGeorgia should admit it was wrong about "unreliable sources" claim as it involves Talk Page and not the Article, the former where there is discussion and suggestions. SandyGeorgia as is any other editor can participate in Talk Page to have a discussion as that is purpose of the talk page involving the subject of the article and what is related to it. SandyGeorgia as is ZiaLater should refrain from making false claims about me, specially later when claiming WP:SPA while ignoring, yes ignoring my edits on other topics/articles. RBL2000 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and ZiaLater: I appreciate the pings. Dlohcierekim was the responding admin. I encourage us to get additional feedback from them before proceeding. As for my thoughts on this user, I would like to contrast them with Fenetrejones who has certainly improved immensely in working with others at the talk pages (I just gave them a barnstar for this_). I encourage RBL2000 to rethink their behavior before posting additional comments that might be considered bad conduct. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 16:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Fenetrejones does seem to be trying, but they also struggle to understand the correct use of sources. There are only about six bilingual editors struggling to keep a complex and fast-moving situation updated, and we are unfortunately spending a disproportionate amount of time on trying to deal with faulty use of sources from just a few editors. I would rather be writing content, and there just isn't time to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, next time it comes up- just ping me. I'll explain it. :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, at your request, you explained (thank you), and the only response so far is an invitation for me to leave the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is hard to sort the responses below, but I can't address anything about SPA tags, as I don't place them, and no idea what the complaint about a French source is. It is constantly dealing with this sort of thing that has bogged down the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I mention you and Zia, then said "the latter" which means Zia. RBL2000 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing This looks like an attempt to remove an inconvenient dissenting voice from talk via the drama boards. I didn't see much indication of disruption at talk when I looked just now. The Venezuela articles are a mess. Considering Wikipedia's bias in favour of capitalist owned media and against publicly owned media from the southern hemisphere it never will be anything other than a WP:NPOV mess. Let's just close down this bit of unnecessary drama and leave it alone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  This response concerns me. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  This spurious and deeply bitey AN/I thread deeply concerns me. Has Wikipedia got to the point where political article content disputes lead to immediate calls for t-bans from whichever group has larger numbers? Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia has been dealing with this, but I believe RBL2000 needs to be blocked until they address these issues. They really need to respond here and in a responsive manner. The last discussion petered out on its own, and I guess the only suggestion was admonishment. Apparently admonishment has failed. Wikipedia is not a haven for "dissent." It is a collaborative effort, and disrupting Wikipedia rather than seeking consensus as a form of "dissent" is really disruption. Does anyone see an alternative? DlohCierekim (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Dlohcierekim See below response to Fenetrejones ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• ZiaLater claim I am pushing for controversial by doing WP:OR is inaccurate as I did not make claim and potraying my commentary on article from the UN that Fenetrejones posted the source while also mentioning at that time what is the count on Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and continues as of time of writing this at number 52 while the UN article mentions 60. I did not claim that is the number for countries that support Maduro if that is you're implying. After all I wrote "if all sign document jointly and declare". Is it negative sentiment to point out for example with SandyGeorgia expressed having trouble with understanding what Fenetrejones requested numerous times, which was to move Ukraine and Morocco from supporting Guaido to supporting National Assembly as stated in sources, Fenetrejones repeated this several times yet SandyGeorgia asked him again for which Fenetrejones again made same request. I have explained what his request is to SandyGeorgia as it was frustrating to me read their conversation as it was frustraing to SandyGeorgia explaing to me which I acknowledge, yet depends if SandyGeorgia acknowledges that I acknowledged. What is the purpose of the SPA tag? Please tell me ZiaLater because to me it seems its there to be used as label that implies my comments/opinion should be ignored, not to mention that I made edits in other topics not related to Venezuela yet it is "single purpose" as according to ZiaLater who also asserts my actions as WP:OR in Talk page of all as if I made edits in the very article. This is my stance. RBL2000 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• @RBL2000: You have only move to other articles after you are warned or tagged as a WP:SPA, but then here we are again. I have not seen an improvement.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, lie about me as usual, unsurprising and expected. RBL2000 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Do nothing RBL200,Looking at his posts, he really does not deserve a block.

Reasons to Not Block Him

A. He is not vandalizing anything

B. He actually puts something on the discussion before editing it

C. As frustrating as SandyGeorgia is probably to him, I have seen no rude responses as of yet. (I am not attacking SandyGeorgia, I am evaluating that from his responses)

D. With regards to Morocco, a French source would not unreliable. Yes, it is French, but take into context that sources for certain country positions have the possibility of being in different languages. Morocco's official languages are Berber, Arabic, and FRENCH. So, it is not crazy that Morocco's position on something would be French

However some better things to do is suggesting improvements and at worst he deserves a warning

If who ever does not want to discuss country positions, than just stay away from articles like that if it is that big of a problem.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Seems like this is the kind of dispute that happens when we rely on primary sources, like a statement issued by a country, or a newspaper article reporting that a country issued a statement: we end up arguing about what this primary source or that primary source means. Instead of trying to compile a list from primary sources, it seems a list of countries supporting Maduro or Guaido would be better off sourced to secondary sources, such as other lists of countries supporting X or Y, published by reliable sources, like: CNBC "Guaido vs Maduro: Who backs Venezuela's two presidents?" (already cited in the list); Reuters "Guaido vs. Maduro - Who is backing Venezuela's two presidents"; and Bloomberg "All the Countries Recognizing Guaido as Venezuela’s New President". Also, seems like there are only a handful of editors on that article's talk page, and that may be increasing frustrations all around (the "trapped in an elevator" effect). If only we had a centralized noticeboard where this sort of thing could be discussed... Leviv ich 21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich the article was split from the main article less than two days ago because 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis had gotten huge-- to see the number of people actually contributing on talk, and the extent of the behaviors discussed in this section, you would need to access the talk page archives back at the original article. There is a note at the top of Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis explaining this. And while I generally agree with the way you (or I) might have created or not this list, that is a separate matter from the recurring behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, if you think that talk page is bad, I encourage you to look at Talk:Albania–Greece relations. Same editors with the same disagreements for months. Luckily, since the RfC was closed, nothing major has occurred. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Fenetrejones, this user has been warned many times (see "Information about previous warnings"). Separately, as much as you might appreciate RBL2000 as an editor, I really recommend avoiding commenting at ANI if that is ever possible ^{(I probably should not have pinged you here tbh)}. Regardless, my suggestion is a temporary 1-3 month topic ban imposed by an uninvolved administrator. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to llover sobre mojado, but I'd like to late the noticeboard know that RBL2000 just edited in Jair Bolsonaro's talk page, an article they haven't edited until know, with a similar pattern as the one as in the Venezuelan articles. If a block is decided, I'd like to propose to broaden the topic to post-1998 South American politics.--Jamez42 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is, suggesting with the 1998 date, a chavismo-era split, I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am somewhat aghast that posting a source to talk, particularly one that would probably be considered reliable is being treated as WP:POLEMIC and sanctionable. Like much of the material at Venezuela-related talk pages, this smarts of civil POV pushing. Also of WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 Jamez42 has posted elsewhere today that he is editing from a phone and unable to seriously edit today. I suggest we view the post above in that context. I am reading it as if sanctions are imposed, they may need to be broader because of the chavismo element. I could be wrong, but until Jamez42 can speak better for themselves, based on limited editing expressed elsewhere ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

RL2000 should have mentioned that he wanted to add the information that Bolsonaro praised a notorious dictator, which was reported in American mainstream media. Otherwise I do not see any problem with this. What you should do is tell the editor that they should have mentioned they wanted this information added. Whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT, it meets reliable sources and hence is worthy of discussion if not inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems more like a content dispute to me, hence no action is required. I note that RBL2000 is a new editor who has edited for less than one month. Instead of discussing the complexities of Wikipedia rules with this editor, other editors have gone straight to warnings and ANI reports. I suggest that editors read "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" for guidance in dealing with new editors.

I believe that SandyGeorgia's pinging of another editor who had filed an ANI report against this editor to be a violation of improper canvassing as is another editor's mention of this case on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro.[124] It is inviting editors to a discussion based on the likelihood they will agree with you.

I also question SandyGeorgia's concern about there being only six bilingual editors active on these articles. Current events in Venezuela are being covered extensively in English language media and any events or opinions they fail to cover lack weight or are questionable. Furthermore, English language sources are preferable, since many readers go to external links for further information and other editors use them for determining whether or not they are accurately reflected in articles.

TFD (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't edit the Venezuela articles not because I can't read Spanish, nor because I can't find English sources but because I've rarely seen more POV fraught areas outside of the Falun Gong pages. That's why I'm looking so askance at requests for an editor who has expressed a pro-Maduro POV to be t-banned from such a ridiculously broad swath as "all Latin America articles post 1998" on such farcically weak grounds. I am sorry if my WP:AGF is weak here, but the truth is that if this were any less controversial article set, the presented evidence of disruption wouldn't even rise to the level of lv. 1 template warnings, let alone calls for broad-ranging topic bans. And I don't care to extend an olive branch to a user who provides such weak evidence of WP:POLEMIC just because they're editing mobile. If they had one good diff they should have provided it. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

TFD, would you say that is an example of canvassing? I had already been pinged by ZiaLater who had been the original one to ping SandyGeorgia. I don't see why SandyGeorgia should get the blame on that one. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, I don't believe we have crossed paths in editing, but it appears we are in a similar boat. I stopped editing Venezuela articles for years because of recurring issues about reliability of sources.

Editing Venezuela articles is difficult when we have state-owned and state-run sources like Telesur (TV channel) and Venezuelanalysis and multiple documented cases of outright falsehoods. Text from those sources is often undue and conspiracy theory, which are daily issues in the Venezuelan suite of articles.

On the other hand, we have editors on record (such as yourself) saying that "The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet", and rejecting Wikipedia's definitions of reliability. I encountered the same situation years ago (decade maybe?) with TFD when that editor faulted me for citing "biased" sources like The New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Economist, etc.

So, yes, it is hard to maintain neutrality on Venezuelan topics, when the discussion often comes down to giving due weight to a multitude of mainstream high-quality English-language reliable sources versus known documented falsehoods generated by state-owned sources. Just this week, we had an editor wanting to insert this conspriracy theory, when the photojournalist who took the picture is on record as saying it was plagiarized by Telesur and falsely used. To TFD's misunderstanding of the need for bilingual input on these articles, if you don't access the photojournalist charges in Spanish, you don't know that we have another documented Telesur falsification.

I personally spend a lot of time on talk trying to explain sourcing to new users. The complaint from TFD here seems to be that is not on editor talk pages instead of article talk pages, which makes not a lot of sense to me, since there are at least four editors on those articles who similarly misunderstand reliability of sources.

And finally, would I have brought RBL2000 to ANI for this, in either instance? Not yet, and I did not bring either of these threads. The situation in this suite of articles now is not nearly as bad as years ago, when the charges were that I was using "biased" sources like the New York Times; progress has been made, and giving due weight to high-quality, English-language sources is now respected. I learned back then that ANI was unlikely to deal with editors who don't respect reliable sourcing. I also learned that I'd end up accused here, just for weighing in, even though I didn't do the pinging, and I didn't start the threads. ANI muddy waters always assures that no action is taken to address the actual problem. This is not a content dispute; this is repeatedly having to explain the same things on talk about WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and getting back IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IDONTLIKEIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Please assume good faith and do not accuse anyone of canvassing when only the links to users were used as identifiers. I have assumed good faith on numerous occasions for RBL2000; if you did not notice, I waited an entire week to see if they had made any progress. But their behavior has not improved as they have continued to treat the talk page like a forum and a soapbox. I am thrilled to accept newcomers who can help with Venezuela articles, for example Kingsif (not pinging) has helped tremendously. But more often the users that have arrived recently only edit with poor intentions. We have dealt with continuous sockpuppets for months. I have assumed good faith and waited for improvements, but something needs to change with RBL2000.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Canvassing" says, "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Whether or not that was the intention, editors who support a ban of RBL2000 were invited to the discussion, which could unfairly influence the outcome of this discussion. But to return to the subject of this discussion thread, editors frequently disagree on what content should be included in controversial subjects. It is often difficult to determine whether the resulting disputes are based on genuine differences of opinion or violation of editing policy and guidelines by one or more editors. I am not seeing in the evidence presented in this thread that RBL2000 falls into the latter category. That does not mean they don't but the evidence presented is not persuasive to me. And I don't see any attempt on RBL2000's talk page to engage them in discussion. TFD (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed Problematic Conversation

I struck out my mention of her name. But bear in mind that the more often one is pinged, the more likely one is to respond. By notifying editors who are likely to support a ban, it is more likely that a majority of the editors responding to this thread will favor one. It is much better to post the complaint and see what uninvolved editors have to say. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Yep, here we go again. Muddying a thread when I did none of the original pinging. And interjecting the idea that anyone jumped to discussion of topic banning, when I decidedly opposed that in the first thread. Please try to read before you opine. And then more muddying with the bilingual issue: yes, we utterly prefer English-language sources, but they are often a day behind Spanish-language sources, so one has to take care with what is added. And, we have multiple instances daily of editors inserting text based on Spanish-language sources that a) is outdated or incorrect based on higher quality sources, or b) are not using reliable sources (as was the case that prompted this thread)-- it helps to be able to read those sources. You, TFD, are making the same point that I am, as to these editors using marginal sources in Spanish to cite text that is not sourceable to the citations given. Business as usual, along with misrepresentation of the entire talk page matter, which is that no matter how many times one explains reliable sourcing on the talk page, we get more of same over and over (with the exception of MattLongCT, who has seriously engaged to attempt to get these new editors to understand how to use talk pages, and how to use sources). Thanks, MattLongCT. And then further muddying the waters with the notion that MattLongCT is likely to <whatever>, when MattLongCT has tried to help these editors avoid sanction. Sheesh, TFD, did you try to inform yourself before lobbing charges here that only muddy the picture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I considered what is presented in this discussion thread. No I did not read every talk page discussion on every article about post-1998 South American politics. Certainly you cannot expect editors to do that before replying. It is the responsibility of the editor requesting sanctions to provide evidence in the discussion thread. Incidentally I did look at User talk:RBL2000 and saw that all anyone has posted to it are templates: one welcome, two warnings, and two notices that they had been reported to ANI. I did not see any attempt to engage RBL2000 in discussion about their editing.[125] Incidentally there is no expectation that Wikipedia articles scoop English language media on events in Venezuela. Believe me, if Maduro resigns or the U.S. and its allies invade Venezuela it will probably be picked up on CNN immediately. I assumed you pinged MattLongCT in order to remind them to contribute to this page in support of the ban request. Correct me if I am wrong. TFD (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC) The endless discussions about reliable sources are in talk page archives. As explained in this thread, and the one linked in this thread to the previous discussion. You are still not understanding the English-Spanish sourcing issues, which has nothing to do with a "scoop". We have, daily, editors putting non-policy compliant information into articles using Spanish-language sources. One has to be able to read those sources to know if they are a) reliable, and b) verify the text they are sourcing. I have already explained this. In the last two days, we have had three examples of editors inserting falsified information from Spanish-language sources or sources that have nothing to do with the text being sourced. It helps to speak Spanish to be able to sort that out, and it is very time consuming. You probably aleady know what they say about assuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Reasonable mistakes were made. No need to dwell. Let's just move on. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 01:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

No evidence of wrongdoing is presented but I also don't think we should be throwing boomerangs at the people who over-zealously tried to get rid of a new editor who was annoying them. This is pointless drama and I'd recommend some Admin kindly put this thread out of its misery before it stinks up the place. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Interaction and topic ban appeal

I was banned from editing a topic and banned from interacting with an editor almost four months ago. Further details about the ban including the related topic and the editor can be seen here. The ban was issued due to my wiki hounding that editor, demanding sources for unsourced content and removing any unsourced content for which sources did not exist inside the articles. I repeatedly regretted the behavior but was still issued these bans.

In last four months, I have refrained from any of these behaviors i.e. I did not hound any editor and tried not to remove unsourced content from any articles which I am allowed to edit and if needed placed “citation needed” tags for any content which was not sourced or poorly sourced.

The incident of wikihounding was only the first incident in my five years of editing life thus I request this topic ban and interaction ban to be lifted as it imposes unnecessary restrictions on my editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging @AGK: and @Debresser:, the admin who imposed the bans and the editor on the other side of the i-ban. I'll notify both on ther talk pages just to be safe. People should keep in mind that Debresser is not i-banned from SIIT, so they can safely comment here. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how SIIT should respond if Debresser raises questions; I know what I think should happen, but not what the letter of the policy says. So SIIT should get guidance from an admin they trust before responding to any points raised by Debresser. Alternately, a smarter admin than me could lay out the ground rules here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not smarter than anybody, but I think any comment reply by SIIT addressed to to a direct question from Debresser within an interaction ban appeal falls within the scope of WP:BANEX ("appealing the ban" is a specific bullet point). But, you know, stay on topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) clarified in blue -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The point of a ban is to prevent disruption rather than to punish, and BANEX includes "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution"; there's no ban-breaking if the two have a conversation here, as long as it's related to the ban itself and not disruptive. Obviously any aggressive editing is not legitimate or necessary, but words that would be appropriate between uninvolved editors are appropriate between these two users in this situation. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown,

• On what articles you have worked during the topic ban?And what was your major contributions?
• What Judaism topics you intend to work on if the topic ban would be lifted?

Thanks --Shrike (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike:,

• I did not restrict my editing to any specific topic during this specific ban except restricting myself from editing the topics on which I had a ban. So, I worked on multitude of topics but If I have to just pick a few, I would say that my major contributions were creating and improving the articles on United States and Pakistani politicians. The other major contribution sphere was fixing the bare references in articles and that was not restricted to any specific topic either.
• I do not specifically intend to contribute to Judaism topic in near future possibly occasionally but I have nothing specific in mind at this time. I am not too much familiar with Judaism topic hence the risk that I accidentally edit an article unrelated to Judaism topic but having some material which was related to Judaism making me violate my ban and ending up getting a harsher restriction. I have been already banned for four months and the bans are not supposed to be permanent especially when concerned editor is willing to display good behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Support lifting the topic ban, let's say per WP:ROPE, and let's also say I didn't really like it from the start but a certain set of editors were lining you up for an unwarranted site ban. In the four months since the previous discussion I really don't see any evidence of conflict in SIIT's editing history at all. I advise you to tread very carefully if you're intending to wade into ARBPIA-covered topics, though. You know how I keep saying that India-Pakistan is one of the most contentious topics on Wikipedia, well when I say that it's one I mean that Israel-Palestine is the other. I know that's not exactly the scope of your topic ban but there's a huge amount of overlap. Go gently, or there are plenty of editors who'll have your ass. As for the interaction ban I'll reserve my opinion until we hear from Debresser. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Support lifting the interaction ban as well, per follow-up from Debresser below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The problem was with editing articles about Jewish religious topics, almost none of which had anything to do with ARBPIA. I believe that SIIT had great difficulty determining between poorly referenced but legitimate article content and original research. If there is an unreferenced assertion in an article, the first step should be to see if references already present elsewhere in the article support that assertion and then add a footnote using the REFNAME function. Another option is a Google search for a new reference to a reliable source. To systematically go through a group of articles in a sensitive topic area and then remove content willy-nilly is disruptive behavior, especially if it is part of a hounding campaign, as it was in this case. This editor clearly does not have the knowledge and good judgment to determine between poorly referenced but probably legitimate content, and obvious original research, at least in the Judaism topic area. I do not know why they want to return to editing articles about Judaism, and would like a much better explanation. And of course I want to hear what Debresser has to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with your points on sourcing and I also accept that my behavior was not exemplary, the behavior which resulted in these bans. This attempt is not to return to Judaism topic area but to establish myself as an editor with full editing privileges. I do not intend to immediately start editing Judaism related articles but restriction prohibits me from occasional editing as well and is broadly construed thus containing a risk of me editing an article containing content about Judaism without me knowing that these terms or that specific content might be related to Judaism. The examples of these edits could be, let's say fixing the references or fixing spelling in an area which discussed something related to Judaism. These are unnecessary shackles which I would like to take off. I have been banned for four months, please let me know what do I need to do to get this ban off as bans are not supposed to stay permanent, they are supposed to be for limited time and if the behavior which got the initial ban issued is not repeated then it should be lifted. If there is a fear that I might repeat that behavior again in future then no one has seen the future and if admins can impose the ban once, they can impose it again. I can only assure you that it will not be repeated again. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say it should be safe to remove the restriction at this point, SIIT seems contrite and self-critical. The main problem was WP:CIR in the specific topic area. Perhaps a probation period might help to alleviate people's worries? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• I just reviewed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#SheriffIsInTown and SIIT's edits since then, and my conclusion is that I support lifting of all restrictions. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, lift both bans. Nice to see a self-critical topic ban appeal. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC).
• Support the proposed lifting of both bans, per User:Ivanvector. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support lifting both bans. Sherriff can be very productive when they're not getting into controversies so let's get some of that productivity back.--regentspark (comment) 02:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support As per answers to my questions and Debresser response --Shrike (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per comments above, and especially because of Debresser's support. (Restoring comment that somehow got removed.) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Russian Primary Chronicle

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

---

Hello, I tried to revert the title of this article: The Russian Primary Chronicle. Its previous title was The Primary Chronicle, and this article has existed for almost twenty years. It was changed by an editor who has only been working for three months. When I tried to revert the title to its original, it indicated that I need an administrator to revert the title. Can you help with this? Here was my reason for reverting: The "Russian" Primary Chronicle implies that the article is about the translations of the Chronicle, which were done in the 20th century when the translators to be politically correct called it "Russian", and thus limits the scope of this article. The Chronicle was recorded in Kievan Rus' at a time when Russia did not exist. Nicola Mitchell (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't follow a word you're saying. Who is the editor (don't call people "it")? Also, provide diffs in support of your assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If the move was clearly improper then an administrator (or page mover) could help you out. However, the page was moved nearly three months ago, so in my opinion it's too late to revert it for that reason, and I don't see how it could be considered clearly wrong in any case. Your best bet at this point is to start a new move discussion and make your case. Please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that Nicola Mitchell ever referred to people as it.

"Its previous title was The Primary Chronicle ..... It was changed by an editor ..... When I tried to revert the title to its original" - these seem to clearly refer to the article or its title. or maybe our guidelines.

it indicated that I need an administrator - this seems to refer to the Wikipedia's Mediawiki UI or maybe our guidelines.

translators to be politically correct called it "Russian" - this seems to refer to the subject of the article which clearly isn't a person.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)04:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I'm 99% sure the OP can actually revert this move. The current title is Russian Primary Chronicle and the original title Primary Chronicle. Both the talk page and article are not move protected, and the original titles are single edit redirects. As I understand it, an ordinary editor can therefore before the move back to Primary Chronicle. I'm not about to try since as Ivanvector said, I'm not sure whether reverting a nearly 3 month old move as undiscussed is justified. (Although I do wonder whether making a new move and seeing if it sticks may be okay provided you don't try a second time if reverted.) Also no idea about the subpage although I guess that's a secondary concern. I strongly suspect reason why the OP is having problems is I think because they tried to move to The Primary Chronicle which has been edited so can't be moved over without admin (well or page mover) involvement so they would 'can't perform this move' message (which admittedly doesn't directly say admin required). But the article was never titled with the "The" at least recently and I'm not sure if there's a good reason for having "The" in the title. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

user:Fgnievinski

Hopefully I am wrong but I have detected suspicious editting from user:Fgnievinski. it could have been an accident, straight up vandalism or potentially guerilla marketting and vandalism. They created a redirect page sneakily enough for Procedia that any link to it would refer to the category page, effectively concealing it since 2015. I didnt notice what was happenning at first and i find it very odd that there is no full article for this journal. there are also few unanswered notifications on their talk page of deletion of articles they created. but I would suggest as a precaution that the account be investigated for sock puppetting as they may have used multiple accounts to conceal such edits if it is a result of an attempt to obstruct the primary purpose of the wiki project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to note User:Verify references is a brand new account, created just today, which immediately jumped into editing at full throttle, and (obviously) knew where to find AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And it's probably just a coincidence, but the account User:VerifiedFixes was just indef blocked 3 days ago. Just saying.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski Not having pages in favor of creating re-directs is actually pretty standard fare around here. A lot of times, a page just doesn't have any content, and is waiting for an editor like you to come around and fill it out. While not an ideal situation, it can tide over pages that could redirect to a parent page, or pages that may themselves not yet be notable enough for their own article. I note that user:Fgnievinski created this page 4 years ago, and has been editing without much issue since. It seems pretty unlikely that they are a sock of anyone, nor are they socking. Don't just accuse folks of socking without solid evidence, such as providing diffs. This issue appears to be neither "urgent, chronic, nor intractable" (as issues for this noticeboard ought be), unless I'm missing something? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

General note to any passing admin: Just as a lot of folks see socks behind every tree, maybe I'm seeing fish behind every tree; but with that said, OP user:Verify references may be the fishier user here. Although I usually lurk around ANI (in a battle for ever-better poetry), I actually found this report when I reported this user to UAA [126] and was checking their contribs. For an editor who only registered a day ago, they sure seem to know a lot about policy. I WP:AGF about that, and assume that based on these edit, one as an IP [127], and another as a recently minted editor [128] on the same page, that they have been IP editing for a while, and are thus somewhat familiar with the place. But based on what BeyondMyKen says... I question if something fishy IS going on here. (Non-administrator comment) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

yes I have been editing for quite a few years with an IP now because i hate the toxic politics of this place. Australian ISPs only have dynamic IPs unless you pay a bunch more for your internet because you absolutely need a static IP for a business fyi. creating redirects for super-class articles before their subclasses is not common here. it's especially uncommon for top level articles. the reason for this is because articles evolve organically and fork when they get too big forming little baby articles. I registered because i kept getting spammed with SIGN UP NOW messages. now i have a username, i get derogation for being an IP poster. and you will notice, with the exception of re-adding problem tags which were removed repeatedly-- in contravention of guidelines --and then posting the OR page I disengaged from all the other disputes.(btw i am right in that finch dispute. the disruptive user persists in reposting TERTIARY sources which they believe are SECONDARY sources and believes a secondary source is primary. I even very elaborately explained the secondary sources reasoning before i created this account, going through it in steps to which i got a 'nuh-uhhhh' reply from the other editor. that's why i referred it to the community because it was still a problem but there wasnt anymore i could do.)

The suggested permaban for my username is absurd."Usernames which could be easily misunderstood to refer to a "bot" (which is used to identify bot accounts) or a "script" (which alludes to automated editing processes), unless the account is of that type." The meaning is very clear here. the name must include "bot" or "script" to misleadingly imply it is a bot. dont try to enforce rules that dont exist. Or do, pick the kind of place you want to admin. well gee, I thought captain Eek was a bot you should ban him because my feelings are hurt? what nonsense.User:VerifiedFixes yeah, so? i share like 5 letters with that username and you are sysops so you can check my activity from before i created this account and see it doesnt match.

picking through your nonsense, this is all you had to say,

"This issue appears to be neither "urgent, chronic, nor intractable" (as issues for this noticeboard ought be), unless I'm missing something?" it is not very clear regarding how to contact an available admin for advice regarding such a topic. please just send me a link and close this thread. Verify references (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

also, just before i get banned for telling it to you straight, check out how toxic this place is even to your fellow admins.User:JamesBWatson sorry about any distress i caused you over this incident. you posted an older version of the page while i read the current version. you posted "Before listing a review request, please: Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first." the current version is 'Before listing a review request please consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly.' 'please consider' implies it is optional. so there was no need for you to participate or apologise. people make mistakes and there's only so much time you can really expect people to spend on each review, especially considering how bad the first half of the article was. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_February_26 Verify references (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: I have no idea why you have brought this up here, as it is about a totally unrelated matter. However, since you have brought it up, you may like to go back to the page in question, and search for the quote that I gave. It does appear on the current version of the page, word for word, as I copied and pasted it. Also, it has been there since at least as far back a 2006. (I haven't checked further back than that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I probably created the redirect just to increase the population in Category:Conference proceedings. There you'll see lots of similar redirects, many created by other people. fgnievinski (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

Reporting Verify Referneces for UAA was an error on my part, in hindsight it was not a clear violation. However, the purpose of this thread on this board remains unclear. OP came here to report a user for socking and making redirects improperly, but said actions were made in what appears to be good faith more than 3 years ago. I move to close this thread as stale (heck, at 3 years this is closer to moldy or "will give you botulism"). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:03wikicreator

• 03wikicreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Gaming the system process. Added {{Uncategorized}} to different articles to achieve 10 edits and created an article Berlin United. Paid editing declared on his userpage. His/Her username is clear that he wants to create articles.--94rain ^Talk 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I found 01wikicreator、02wikicreator、04wikicreator. They all registered on 2018-10-18, but have not made any edits yet.--94rain ^Talk 12:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

    94rain, I found Special:CentralAuth/Wikicreator00, Wikiname10, Wikiaccount324, WikiCorrector1928, Wikiuser31, MyWiki110, and WikiUser775 as well. Same exact day of registration. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Of those obviously Wikicreator00 is the most clear. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Gharaibeh

Hi. Gharaibeh (talk · contribs) come to my talk page after around 9 years of inactivity to describe me with offensive words here like accusing me as having "Islamic extremism,..etc. He returned after all those years to concern about article about his tribe that was nominated for deletion by me and was deleted according to deletion discussion. this behavior support the possibility of bias in his writings. regards--مصعب (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks in reported user's recent edits: [129], [130], [131]. Reported user has level two warning on their talk page as of this writing, but nothing more. Most of Gharaibeh's edits have been to Draft:Gharaibeh. OP is mainly correct in User:Gharaibeh has not made many edits since 2009, although they have made more than none. Seems like perhaps a formal warning to Gharaibeh would suffice for now. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

An off-Wiki discussion about a potential but unknown vandal

I saw this discussion and thought you might be interested. https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/avq1c6/lecturer_behaviour_amounting_to_vandalism/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Without any knowledge of who the editor is or which articles are "at risk" there's not much we can do. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well given the action should not be possible to find out (assuming this is real, of course), just look for the user who inserts incorrect links in legal pages.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We're potentially looking at thousands of pages. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

...and in any case, this is hearsay. With a little more information we might be able to look into it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, assuming this is true. Its just as likely this is someone trying to make a similar point by getting us to hunt down non existent vandals. But it might be worth just keeping a wry eye out for any odd activity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:ImmortalWizard NOTHERE

ImmortalWizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has really been pushing the limits of how annoying someone can be before they are blocked.

• I first remember interacting him when he added "I am not a homophobic as others say." to Jimbo's userpage and reverted my reversion.
• Last month, his actions were so aberrant that his account was locked because of suspected compromise. After getting his account unblocked, he did not learn his lesson and made a strange edit that he then reverted with the summary "Absolute false claim done by my sister in law"
• Other unhelpful edits include sniping at arbs trying to give advice on how to avoid being blocked
• Spamming a survey on other users talk pages, which brought admins telling him that this is the last straw
• And just today, trolling established editors
• And adding 700,000 bytes of nonsense characters to his talk page (not going to link to that diff; you're welcome), and making an announcement for administrators.

This editor has had 30 final chances. It's time for a NOTHERE block. Natureium (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note. I just want to point out that they sign talk pages as "THE NEW ImmortalWizard." I think that is rather funny (always figured that they had been blocked before).―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay,

• I apologized for my actions and also for the "joke", after my block, didn't take edit summary seriously.
• If you consider those unhelpful advice, then so many people did the same to me and I was singled out.
• Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning.
• Today, I did not absolutely get how that was a troll.
• 700,000 bytes was my own thing in my personal userspace.
• I had to give attention to admins because they kept on wikihounding me and telling me not to GA review, even though I know how to. And they don't take into account my several useful edits. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: THE NEW is funny but I don't think that's offensive. I took inspiration from Daniel Bryan. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning. That's misleading. Your subsequent argument over that survey takes up more than one screen on my 24" monitor. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I will state the case for ImmortalWizard, that though they may have a WP:CIR problem, I find no action should be required at this time. I find their contributions to be of value to the project and suggest we drop the matter here. There has been no discussion on User talk:ImmortalWizard concerning this specific matter. Also, Wizard, what was the block for in your view? (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Their entire talk page is about the problems they are causing. Natureium (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• The block was initially because of account compromised because they detected me doing some unusual vandals (after the unblock, my made that, one edit summary compromise joke, which I regret). It was quicky proven wrong. However, in my unblock request, I clearly explained why I did those vandals (which I was because I "snapped" after some talk page dispute), but apparently the admin declined immaturely and I got really upset and though it was unfair (since I was blocked because of compromised-behavior vandal after dispute, but still not unblocked even though I was never warned prior). Luckily, the unblock was reduced to two weeks by UTRS. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support but I have to hand it to them for being creative enough to find a new way to be disruptive and annoying each day. This exchange supports that they are intent on couching Admins and the most established users User_talk:SoWhy#Traditions_and_progression Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Your bed is here. DlohCierekim

Is couching admins similar to bedding them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You forgot where their contributions to a recent Marne of an ANI thread—which they inserted themselves into, having had no prior interactions with either party—were summarised by Legacypac, when the Wizard had helpfully just proposed a block of TRM: "Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves.
  They've also begun working with Featured Articles, although this is with more mixed results: on the one hand, Iridescent has had to explain precisely what FAR's are for, but, on the other, The Rambling Man has welcomed Wizard's injection's at Alf Ramsay FAC, telling him "your comments here seem to have come out of the blue, but are very much appreciated".
  It might (would?) also be wrong to treat Wizard as the ~five-year-old editor they appear to be; a closer look shows he made a bunch of edits in early 2016, but the vast majority have been since December last year. There may well be an element of assuming experience on their part which they do not (clearly) possess.
  Having said all that; Natureium's very rarely wrong in these matters, I think, and that's a pretty solid wall of diffs up there. ——SerialNumber54129 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've given ImmortalWizard multiple warnings and strongly worded pieces of advice in the past couple of days[132][133][134] and I'm certainly not alone in it (see User talk:MelanieN#Invitation to User surevey 1 for instance), but I wouldn't consider him a straightforward WP:NOTHERE case. This appears to be someone who clearly wants to help, but seems intent in blundering into technical areas where they don't have the requisite competence, and becomes angry and defensive when it's pointed out that he doesn't have the required competence. Hopefully, a "stay away from the WP: namespace unless you're sure you know what you're doing, if anyone tells you to stop participating on any given page then stop participating on that page, and don't try to tell other people what to do" warning will be enough. Paging MelanieN and Floquenbeam, both of whom have tried and failed to talk IW off his apparent crash course. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also Premeditated Chaos, same subject heading. ——SerialNumber54129 20:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I never understood why I you asked me to not review FA and you didn't explain me properly. I should of course be unwelcomed when you reply to other user's page and bringing other matter about ANI and not reviewing FA. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Accused me of gravedancing which was dead wrong (pun intended) [135] Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I should remind that you have grudge of me like here for supporting another editor. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec)That is not a grudge, it is a promise. That reminds me of [136] where you were lecturing User:Beyond My Ken and threatened with a gravedancing block by User:TonyBallioni. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IW, you're sniping and bitching on the discussion about whether you're disruptive. Do you actually grasp that this is an academic project, not a chatroom, that we could all be doing something more useful with our time than playing whatever game you're playing, and that the ability to communicate civilly with other editors even when one disagrees with them and to comply with consensus are all non-negotiable prerequisites to editing Wikipedia? ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban or block. The most I would support is an admonishment. Maybe AN/I has a hostile view of them, but that is not the only place they have edited. For example, they have made constructive nominations here and provided decent insight here. I can get that a newer user can be frustrating to deal with, but this seems like a bit Bite-y to me. (Non-administrator comment) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Advice given here. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it would certainly be a shame for an established editor to bite a new editor who was just learning the ropes of Wikipedia's culture. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. Iri. I'd echo a lot of what Iridescent says. I don't think NOTHERE applies, but I do think he is soaking up a lot of other editors' time, to the point where I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the cost. I've seen this with several different editors before: an inexperienced editor jumps into one area after another headfirst, and for some reason refuses to listen to advice from more experienced editors until they realize they might get blocked. Then they find a new area to "explore". The main pattern here seems to be a lack of consideration for other editors' time and effort. My main concern was when he started participating at ANI unproductively, making things worse, but he seems to have agreed to stop doing that. But it is just one thing after another, though. My own plan was to keep an eye on him and block if he did something else really outrageous. I don't necessarily support or oppose doing something before then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Most of this stuff is pretty concerning. This was not okay to do at all, after a lot of admins have been trying to mentor and help this user get along with the community. They seem to refuse to listen to any concerns or suggestions anyone has. My main concern is this user doing WP: GAR and WP: FAR, when as others have said this user is fairly new. As can be seen on their talk page multiple users have taken concern over them doing GAR or FAR. I request, that at the least the three GAR and one FAR in my Wikiproject, that were started by IW are closed. This is because WP: GAR and WP: FAR say that individual assessment can not be done if considered controversial. Obviously it is here. StaticVapor message me! 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• And they don't take into account my several useful edits. Can you specify which several of your edits are useful and not related to drama? Natureium (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Another Comment. Given this, can we please stop pinging every single admin under the sun? They are willing to drop the stick. Users are welcome to suggest further action on my talk page, but I really believe that this doesn't require action by AN/I beyond an admonishment. This user is not beyond saving as many have suggested. I will take the blame if they mess up again. (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that an offer to take the same block Wizard gets when he gets the next one? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• IW may well be about to become a shining exemplar, but I'm just going to put Special:PermaLink/885561291#How to battle at ANI, which he appears to have been posting whilst you were writing the above, here. ‑ Iridescent 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Special:Diff/885564726#How_to_battle_at_ANI, They just struck it, I believe. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've IAR reversed the blanking of his talkpage [137] for the convenience of users in this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac that really wasn't necessary. They kept it all in the archive. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving breaks links from this thread and makes discussion more difficult. It is just another form of disruption. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So they are no longer allowed to archive their page? That doesn't seem fair. Users could have easily perma-linked to the threads in reference. (edit conflict) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Burying the evidence during a discussion. Not all of us know how to permalink Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Not as NOTHERE (I don't believe that) but under WP:COMPETENCE. They repeatedly demonstrate an inability to behave acceptably towards others; whether by deliberate act or incapacity is getting to be moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support NOTHERE indef: I'm finding a pattern here. The user makes disruptive edits and tries to waste users' time, but when he is confronted in the slightest, suddenly the edit was made for humor or its purpose wasn't what you think. No biting is going on, the user has been here since 2014 and you would expect at least a slightly better understanding of Wikipedia good edit/bad edit rules. Giving the user yet another final warning would be a waste of time and reversions. (Non-administrator comment) GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  GN-z11, they have edited in 2014, but they really have only been consistently editing since December 2018. Also, they do actually edit outside of project space. I just wanted to put that in there. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MattLongCT: That's correct, however, I can't see a WP:HERE editor causing all the issues that different users reported above. Actually, the more I look into it, the more I see it as a WP:CIR, but I'm just not sold. I would supremely like to give them a chance, but it's way too late IMO. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 21:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't particularly want IW to end up blocked, I just want him to stop saying odd shit and maybe focus on basic content work for awhile. I could charitably believe that it's more of a language competence issue compounded by a strong desire to be helpful than an intentional effort at trolling/being condescending, but unfortunately, it has the same frustrating effect on others overall. The attitude problem is compounded by his absolute refusal to consider that other users might have something of value to say, no matter how polite they are. It's nice that he's agreed on his talk page not to comment on this thread again, but given his history, I don't think it'll last. I dunno. I don't support a block at this stage, but I would support a TBAN from at least ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest a topic ban from Wikipedia space, but he seems to keep finding more creative ways to act in a ridiculous manner. Topic banning him from Jimbo's userpage, Jimbo's talk page, everyone else's talk page, ... actually banning him from posting on anyone else's talk page or commenting on other people on his own talk page could work, but also make collaboration difficult. Natureium (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• If people are pinging every administrator under the sun, that’s because every administrator under the sun seems to have become involved with him - because of his many adventures in many different areas. For myself, I thought at first he had promise, and volunteered to mentor him. However, he made it clear he wasn’t willing to take advice so I bowed out. He then doubled down on his declaration of unwillingness to learn or be guided. I see that MattLongCT seems to be stepping up now as his defender and mentor, and I wish him luck. Personally I feel certain that some point IW will become so disruptive that he will get indeffed. I don’t know if he’s quite there yet, but as I am INVOLVED with him I will leave that decision to others. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MattLong seems willing to take responsibility for him but how exactly? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You might be right, MelanieN. However, I am the monarch of lost causes. 8) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 02:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE CIR block - Given they were mentored by Melanie I really did hope this would make a difference ... instead it appears to have done nothing and without any disrepect to Mel she's simply wasted her time as has everyone else on this editor, This seals the deal for me, The editor clearly doesn't have the competence to edit here and I don't think further mentoring will help in the end,

Time, effort and patience inverested in this editor could be better spent on articles,

Ofcourse indef doesn't mean forever and they can come back in 5-10 years when hopefully they've gained the sufficient competence. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of every administrator having become involved with him, I had this dispiriting exchange a short while ago. I don't think this is a NOTHERE situation. I examined some of his content-related edits: they suggest that he needs to be a little less zealous in sending things to GAR and FAR (and possibly AfD: he's active there, though I haven't checked his nominations), and that he needs to spend more time reading the policy pages he cites, but I think there's also a genuine desire to help. I think his biggest problem is that he's unable or unwilling to listen when people advise him not to blunder about somewhere where he doesn't have experience; Ritchie333, MelanieN, and I (and probably several other admins) all told him to stay off of ANI, and he reacted poorly. Really the only solution to this is for him to "get it", and beyond a point we can't help with that; but, to minimize the timesink, I wonder if a "meta discussion" topic ban would be useful. I'll try and formulate something shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IW's behaviour is reminiscent of Barts1a/Twitbookspacetube who had this obsessive need to police the admins. That's not an accusation of sockpuppetry but an observation of editors who deviate from editing and begin to spend more and more of their time on the noticeboards, without the experience or thick skin, where it usually ends badly. Blackmane (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread started he wants to [138] redeem himself by tagging a random BLP with 274 inline notes/references as Needing More References for Verification. Posted on talk too Talk:Alex_Ferguson#BLP_More_citations_needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And that was the last straw for me. I was unsure what to do about IW. Sometimes he seems reasonable and polite and productive, and other times he's a pain. There comes a time when incompetence cannot be told apart from trolling. Whichever this is, we don't need it here. I believe an indefinite community block is needed until IW can convincingly explain to the community that they're sufficiently mature and stable enough to edit here. At this point, I don;t think that's the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I removed his cleanup tag from the article Legacypac described above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

…and he immediately added another version of the tag. Interestingly, he had asked for advice at my talk page about this tag. But while I was was reviewing his edits so I could give him a detailed answer, he went ahead and replaced the tag BMK had removed with another, slightly gentler version of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Demonstrates a lack of understanding of certain Wikipedia basics, tagging this article is CLEARLY wrong, yet argues that his "mistake" was the wrong tag, nothing more. A tendency to talk around all issues brought up in a constructive manner is a clear "I didn't hear that" mentality. It's not just user space. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, If you want to "redeem yourself" and show the community that you can contribute productively without causing problems, there are 183,000 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources. Finding sources for unsourced articles is very helpful, and doesn't require posting on anyone's talk page or in wikipedia space. Natureium (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block of up to at least three months in length. There's definitely some juvenile and potentially WP:CIR-relevant and definitely WP:IDHT behaviour going on here. But there's enough of a question about how disruptive they are intending to be that I'm not keen on jumping straight to an indef. (Nevermind, before I even hit the send button, I found this extra context). However, clearly something needs to be done get their attention. I'd support an indef, but I'd also be willing to see them blocked for a decent little chunk of time significant enough to make the point of how non-constructive their behaviour is found to be, followed by an extension of a last little bit of WP:ROPE. I can't say that I am super confident they are going to come back as a more focused and less problematic contributor, but the case is just close enough that I'm willing to support something short of an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support CIR block, which is unfortunate as I think IW means well. The ideas of banning him from Wikipedia space and/or trying to confine him mostly to mainspace were floated above, but IW has also been disruptive in mainspace. And regarding Natureium's suggestion that IW work on the articles that are completely devoid of sources, I don't have much confidence in IW's ability to find reliable sources and properly integrate them into articles. The community has been patient, as we should be given that IW seems to have good intentions, but we've reached the limit. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: meta-discussion topic ban

Proposal: User:ImmortalWizard is topic-banned from participating in discussions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, unless they are the subject of the discussion, or the discussion is related to a specific content issue.

• Support as proposer. I think what we have here is a genuinely well-intentioned user who needs to stop making such an effort to make an impression, and instead knuckle down and learn the ropes of building an encyclopedia. Consider this a last chance before a community-imposed site-ban, because I do think there's potential here. His approach here has been needlessly slapdash, but some of the issues has identified are quite genuine, and do require attention. If he can learn to critique articles in a slightly more constructive manner, he could be a genuine asset. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support concur with Vanamonde93 DlohCierekim 22:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I think this could nip the issue in the bud. If not... GAB^gab 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose - One can only be given so much rope before they end up hanging themselves, IMHO discussions are a small part of the problem, He seems to be a problem whereever he goes, I'm opposing this in lieu of an indef block. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I completely understand where you're coming from, but my reading of the situation is that there doesn't seem to be enough support for an indef block, at least not yet, and I'd rather try something than have us do nothing at all. Perhaps you might reconsider and change to "support" under that reasoning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I completely agree something is better than nothing, Given there's more of a consensus for TBANning than there is for blocking I guess I've have to support this, Not happy about it but as you and I have said something's better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This doesn't really address the problem. He isn't just a problem in WP-space. (And BTW you should make clear that this is what you are talking about; "the project namespace" is jargon that may not be clear to him.) He is also a problem at article talk pages and user talk pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: I agree about jargon, I've tweaked the proposal, feel free to clarify it further. As to the rest; I agree that he has been disruptive elsewhere, but I think a lot of that has stemmed from his cluelessness about project-space discussions. He's definitely not the worst we have with respect to GAR/FARs, and I think some of the disruption stemmed from an inability to see that we would actually sanction him for causing trouble. I'm struggling to see any other alternative short of an indefinite block, which I don't think is quite justified yet. A somewhat unorthodox alternative might be to authorize community general sanctions that are user-specific rather than topic-specific; that is, authorize any admin to impose any sanction on him they feel to be necessary to contain disruption. That also seems like the community wouldn't be behind it, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 What is the intent behind "specific content issue"? Would that allow him to continue to do GAR, for instance? Would suggest maybe a tweak to or the discussion is related is replying to a specific content issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: (and also @Snow Rise:, because this is relevant to your objections, even if it doesn't satisfy you); the intent is simply that he not be locked out of evaluating content, because a lot of content is evaluated in the project namespace, including at FAC/FAR, PR, and AfD. This is as close as I can come to formalizing what I would informally summarize as "mind your own business and work on content". It removes him from all the drama boards, as well as from maintenance-space discussions about broader issues that necessarily require more experience to participate in constructively. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

They should be locked out of GAR and FAR, someone "new", that we are trying to teach how to be a good Wikipedian, should not be given the confidence to reassess major articles on their content. When as has been stated, this user needs to focus on building content in the encyclopedia. StaticVapor message me! 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as solving part of the problem but it does nothing about his stupid comments on usertalk pages or his latest article tagging game. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as a way station on the way to an (I fear) CIR/NOTHERE indef block. I've been concerned about their recent, non-productive posts on the dramahboards; I'll help a newbie until the cows come home, but life is too short for a timesink like this. Miniapolis 23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I don’t want him to be indeffed just yet, although that may be inevitable if he doesn’t slow down and listen to those who are trying to help him. I advised him here to avoid drama and just write some content but it seems a formal restriction is needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Minapolis and Legacypac. I really don't think that this will turn out to be sufficient, but maybe it'll be enough of a kick in the behind to get IW thinking straight and on the right track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• If this proposal passes, I think it would be a good idea if the closer pointed out to IW that there was significant support for an indef block, and that a number of editors !voted for this with reservations that it would be sufficient. In other words, that his sanction (if this is it for now) wasn't a clean bill of health in editing other areas of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Like Pawnkingthree I don't think I'm at the stage of hitting the block button just yet because of the constructive work he did on the Alf Ramsey FAC today. However, he needs to give the maintenance areas of the project (including AfD, reassessments, tagging, discussions) a wide berth and stick solely to mainspace and improving content. I'm sceptical he'll be able to see March out with getting blocked by somebody, but we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt. Update : Having read through the discussion on Alex Ferguson, I've given him a serious shot across the bows - he needs to stop now before he gets blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The suggested sanction is too broad, to vaguely framed to avoid gaming, and too unworkable even if construed and enforced strictly. We really can't have editors who are allowed to have a half a foot on the project but are unable to contribute to basic community processes. That kind of situation does not prevent drama, it magnifies it several times over. It was clearly a good-faith suggestion, but honestly, it's a worst-of-all-worlds scenario that requires too much community supervision and mediation when problem editors are put into that situation. We should either come to the conclusion that the editor is prepared to contribute in a mature and productive fashion and comport themselves properly in community processes, or we should bite the bullet and place a sanction, temporary or otherwise. Going for a half measure only increases the amount of community time that will be consumed in shepherding their conduct and resolving disputes they may become involved in. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• IW commented on this proposal here. I think he feels unable to comment here because it is ANI and he was told to stay away from ANI. Sounds like he would actually be OK with it but he needs a little clarification what we are talking about. He may also need to have "topic ban" explained to him. Anybody? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• This could work, but a lot of the disruption is also to user talk and article talk pages. I can't think of a suitable way to prevent him from causing nonsense in these areas without preventing him from working collaboratively with others, because he is constantly coming up with new ways to cause nonsense and his creativity far outshines mines. Natureium (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Close only this TBAN section I've explained the TBAN in plain English and the user has agreed to it on his talkpage. An Admin can log it now. This is a long term wider problem though [139] Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose any sort of TBAN (in favour of an overall block). The problem is that this editor is a time-sink for others, with no evident prospect of improvement, all such efforts having so far failed. This won't be improved by focussing them into one un-TBANned area. Even if that does improve the state of mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Although I was neutral above, I now support this topic ban from WP space. Mainly because he has a mentor he is willing to listen to, and as long as he continues doing that I think he has a chance here. I am not putting down any money on whether he will able to keep that up, but he has agreed to this limitation and this approach, and I think he and Matt should be given a chance to make it work. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the Wizard's own good: none shall pass the Slough of Despond. Indeed, it's something that wouldn't do any of us any harm...——SerialNumber54129 12:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 India–Pakistan standoff

2019 India–Pakistan standoff, which is on the front page, is becoming a battleground of inexperienced users fighting for the inclusion of their respective country's positions and points of view. The article (and its talk page too) could use some more eyes. Abductive (reasoning) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I ECP'd it earlier today, which should help a bit. GAB^gab 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: We haven't tried autoconfirmed yet? ECP might cause a big delay in updating breaking stories since the article is about a current event. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GS/IPAK and WP:ARBIPA. MER-C 21:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear example of why Wikipedia should not attempt to be a site for breaking news, but we should wait at least a week or two for proper secondary sources to appear before having an article. There's no way that this event can possibly be covered in a neutral way yet before the facts are clearly established. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, first, the events relevant to any such article go back at least a few weeks. More to the point, I guarantee you that two weeks (or for that matter, two years) from now, that topic will still be subject to edit warring and disruption from opinionated SPAs with strong nationalist sentiments locked in a contest of wills. There's a reason the WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions exist and if we waited to develop encyclopedic coverage in that area until after the fervor had passed, we might as well be waiting on the heat death of the universe. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course it will be subject to edit warring and disruption, but if there are good secondary sources it will be possible to counter that effectively. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Or we could delete and wait until it is all over and then write a proper article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was getting at - wait until there are some good-quality secondary sources, rather than breaking news reports, exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur and add that, as a general principle, Wikipedia shouldn't be discussing crises until they're historical events. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Users from both India and Pakistan are repeatedly inserting their own POV into the following articles, disallowing neutral sources to be written in, which is making updating the article difficult. User's who have even been autoconfirmed or long-time editors are also frequently engaging in this pointless tug of war. Can the administrators please protect the articles which contain information from neutral sources? The affected article sections are shown below:

• 2019 Indian-Pakistan Stand-off (Satellite Imagery)
• 2019 Balakot Airstrike (Satellite Imagery)
• Jaish-e-Mohammed (Satellite Imagery)

NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a better source for analysis of these images than Medium (website)? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Medium is one of those sites that you really need to see who wrote the article. The Atlantic Council seems to have the required credentials to talk about this subject. spryde | talk 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. But it does reinforce my view, nuke it from orbit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am deeply suspicious of established newsmedia sources, let alone iffy ones like Medium - which is effectively a blogging platform. I don't have a horse in this race beyond hoping that India and Pakistan will resolve their conflict peacefully; and I agree with Slatersteven that this is a content dispute and not a matter for AN/I. But the guidance I'd give about why this seems inappropriate for this venue is because there's a legitimate case to be made that the source isn't reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• All of the articles mentioned here are already ECP protected under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions or the newer WP:GS/IPAK general sanctions. Administrators can't protect a particular version of an article deemed to be neutral, that's not how Wikipedia works (see WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:ANYONECANEDIT (with caveats), or WP:WRONGVERSION). I have been watching 2019 Balakot airstrike and in my opinion the talk page discussions are working well to keep unreliable content out of the articles, to the extent that any information on this incident can be considered reliable. If extended-confirmed editors are editing disruptively on these articles they should be blocked; I haven't seen anything that rises to that level as of yet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ivanvector sums it up nicely. The page is getting high volume of edits as the subject is in the news and is also on Wikipedia's Main page, so it is expected. There is absolutely nothing for admins to do here. Whatever was necessary has already been done, thanks to  GAB. ANI does not handle content disputes. No one is misbehaving right now. If someone misbehaved, they will be reported to the usual channels. :IMHO Someone should close this redundant thread now. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've put Jaish-e-Mohammed under an indefinite 1RR restriction per the discretionary sanctions, due to ECP editors edit warring over sources. I don't think there's any more to do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)