Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

For a broader overview of this page, see SNAFU.

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

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

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

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : [3] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [4]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [5]), here are some examples : [6], [7], [8], [9]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : [10].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The reported user has battleground mentality and aggressive behavior. He's unable to participate in a proper way. See how he replied to my comment.[11] Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Qahramani44:. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing [12] [13] Not to mention he has a PHD in spamming talk pages with his rants (I can't be bothered to show 8 links for this one, just look at his every edit basically). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm dragged into this now, may as well add another point too that hasn't yet been stated. Besides his ethnicity-baiting posts, falsifying sources/pushing non-RS sources, and edit-warring, he also seems to have blatantly ban-evaded here [14], with this new IP that only posted once, in the same page that he was edit-warring in before, immediately after he was banned for edit-warring. Qahramani44 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Users user:Wikaviani User:Qahramani44, User:Wario-Man User:HistoryofIran

Note: Ted Hamiltun opened this new thread. Since it is the same issue, I am merging it here to centralize consensus building. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear Wiki Adminstration these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team taking advantage of wiki rules to push their Ideas in different articles and boycott any other source of Information which contradict their views

If you have noticed they're all take part in attacking and reporting Individuals that they consider a chalenge to their views, accusing him with all sort of accusation , aggressive, mentally ill, fabricating sources, racist, nationalist, having Agendas and etc....

This all started when I asked them to remove a phrase that Is not in cited source which meant to eliminate the presence of a whole population of a province a phrase which spread hatred, User:Wario-Man with aid of User:HistoryofIran changing role continued reverting my ask for providing a sourc to that phrase or just remove it, I even express my concern about the issue with them In talk page [15] but no one responded, due to this Ignoring and aggresive behaviour my last attempt to solve the problem was to write for other editors to take part in this discussion and put an end to this illegal behaviours [16] which User:HistoryofIran interpret as ranting against "Persian editors", and reported me, I got Blocked 48 hours for  reverting my legal request to remove a racist phrase which is not in the cited source after I wrote for you and other editors "finally" User:Wario-Man removed that phrase, with so much anger you can see they have highly an Anti-Semitism view to the topics that they engage [17]

Now they changing, The other member of the team user:Wikaviani is reporting me  with his team mates, and again they are all came back accusing me with all kind of accusations Just to eliminate me once and for all and make It easy for themselves to apply their Ideas with out any question

I ask you to take a carefull look at these unjust acts and misusing of Wiki environment

Thank you  Ted hamiltun (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ted hamiltun: What ideas do you believe those editors are unfairly pushing? Can you provide more diffs? Bold claims require appropriate evidence. My advice to you: instead of leveling personal attacks on editors like Wario-Man, or reporting those who reported you, you should be examining your own conduct and responding to the valid concerns brought up about you at this noticeboard. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

taking advantage of wiki rules Boy I sure hate it when folks follow the rules around here... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SHOT and abusing report system. This is 2nd time this user shoots himself in the foot. See how he tried to delete and manipulate another editor's report on 3RR noticeboard.12 --Wario-Man (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment "these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team" just another example of Ted hamiltun's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and ranting toward a group of editors.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: He's WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. Look at this diff. He deleted and manipulated this report just like what he did on 3RR noticeboard. Clearly he has no idea what WP is and uses it like a forum. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ted hamiltun just posted this on my talk page. I think the real highlight is this personal attack: It's so simple these guys all are Iranian with racist agenda attack individuals. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a big WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. For instance, reporting the users who reported them, repeatedly using personal attacks about race and ethnicity, and POV pushing. At any rate, I think there is also a serious WP:CIR issue. I don't use CIR lightly, but I think that this is such a case. While I understand that English is not everyone's first language, this is the English Wikipedia. CIR presumes that users have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively as well as the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. Ted's talk page messages are cryptic to the point of unreadable, their edits to Persian Gulf and the subsequent talk page conversations show that they are unable to effectively communicate, are unwilling to follow sources, and can't be bothered by consensus. Combined with their generally uncivil handling of this ANI, I think Ted is WP:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, i forgot to mention his WP:CIR issues (inability to speak and comprehend English properly). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Proposal: As numerous editors pointed out with their above remarks, it appears quite obvious that Ted hamiltun is not here to build an encyclopedia, has some serious WP:CIR issues and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Therefore, i propose an indefinite block for this user as previously suggested by an admin at AN3.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above comments and provided evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per my above comment. I do however see that this user only has 130 edits, so I don't necessarily want to bite a newbie here. Note that I have slightly reformatted the proposal to remove excessive bolding. If anyone believes that to be an inappropriate refactor, please revert me and let me know :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he's only 130 edits, but he has been editing here for about 1 year, so, he's not really a newby IMO. Also, thanks very much for removing excessive bolding of my proposal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reason that he doesn't seem to have learned or changed his behavior in any way over the past month, even after being banned once for edit warring. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support The compelling evidence shows that he's indeed not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Without a doubt WP:NOTHERE INeedSupport ^:3 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

White nationalist terrorism

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

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

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

Seems like the only thing they have been doing for the past year has been adding POV-pushing, mostly inappropriate, categories. Category:Heresy in Christianity to some religious Trump film[18], creation of a now-deleted category called "Perceived judicial activism in the United States" (and adding that category to articles the editor finds to be judicial activist), mass-adding Category:American conspiracy theorists to BLPs that do not contain any sources about them being conspiracy theorists[19][20][21][22][23] Another mass-categorization based on his "Militarization of society" was found to be "completely inappropriate" at CfD. Clearly, if Ck4829 fails to accept that categories need to be supported by the content and sources of the articles (and that this is vital especially in BLPs), he needs to be stopped. --Pudeo (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the user has chosen not to respond here or at there talk page but continued to add the category including clearly erroneous cases [24] (thus so far failing the Turing test), I blocked them for 31h. I encourage users to continue discussing here, since, if the above remarks are correct (which I did not have time to check), the user should not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the examples I put above (and you could find a lot more) about the category "American conspiracy theorists" had no mentions of conspiracy theories at all, yet he categorized them. However, I said "mostly inappropriate" because some articles do mention conspiracy theories like Michael Flynn[25]. But per WP:DEFINING it's probably still not right to categorize Flynn as a one. Given that the majority are completely unsourced, this is a mass BLP violation that requires a lot of cleanup. Back in 2017 Graham87 stated on this user's talk page that you've been making problematic category edits for the last eleven years; please knock it off. and he did not respond. --Pudeo (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpts from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, these sources appear to disagree: [26] [27] [28] - I'm not saying these are good sources, we probably couldn't use them (really, they lie between "probably not acceptable" and "what the fuck were you thinking?"), I'm just making the point that calling Posobiec and/or other promoters of conspiracies and fear news "propagandists" and "terrorists" is not exactly novel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

behavior

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts

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

Ahem - [29]. I don't suppose there are any uninvolved admins watching this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Alexandre Bissonnette is a white nationalist terrorist, and his attack, Quebec City mosque shooting is an example of white nationalist terrorism. It says so in our article, and also The Atlantic, NYTimes, WaPo, CBC. White terrorism also seems like an appropriate page for the category? I'm curious because I would have added those same pages to that category myself–that would have been wrong? Is it because he's adding categories to redirects? Leviv ich 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: there are a number of problems. Most importantly is that they're continuing to place the category after this discussion should have been an indication to knock it off. But also: adding the "white nationalist terrorism" category to the "white terrorism" category is backwards, it's putting a parent category inside what should be a subcategory. White terrorism is not a subset of white nationalist terrorism, it should be the other way around. It's like standing on top of an umbrella and expecting to stay dry: it doesn't work. That was one of the complaints raised in this thread, that Ck4829 doesn't understand how categories work and is just tagging things blindly. As for Bissonnette, yes, it's inappropriate to categorize that way, because potentially defamatory information about living persons is required to be referenced where it appears, and besides, there is not universal agreement that Bissonnette should be described as a terrorist. Lots of outlets have repeated it, and it's probably valid, but our article also spells out that he was not charged with a terrorism-related crime, so this is a subjective value-laden label. And besides that, the page that the Bissonnette redirect redirects to is not a member of that category. If the category should be anywhere, it's there. The real issue is that it should be discussed, but Ck4829 is just continuing the same behaviour that they were blocked for just a few days ago. And even though you reached out and did get a response, they obviously haven't actually heard anything, or they don't care. This is indef territory either way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To prevent the topic from being arxived--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef I was trying to avoid "voting", but if we're still waiting for a clearer message, then yes they should be blocked for the BLP violations and the extremely bad-faith reaction "I meant to disrupt" to it. Similar to the WP:CIR concerns mentioned above, they've just added a sub-category as a category for the main topic[30] (Donald Trump isn't a Trump administration controversy). So I don't think they currently have the competence required for mass categorizations, which is bad since that's really the only thing they are doing, and then there's the disruption and attitude part. Obviously they could be unblocked if they demonstrate they can communicate with others, understand cateogorization better and drop the "I meant to disrupt". --Pudeo (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, The user continues adding inappropriate categories without discussion and apparently does not care about this topic. I was considering blocking them indef for some time, and decided not to, since I have blocked them for the first time and posted in this thread defending my actions, so that some users could consider me involved. However, this just can not continue, and also the additions of categories by this user need to be rolled back.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, you reverted the editor's addition of Category:Nationalist terrorism to the article Christopher Paul Hasson with the edit summary "no evidence in the article". But that article already says he is (1) a white nationalist, and (2) a terrorist. It is sourced to some 30-some-odd references that describe him that way. The article is already in the categories Category:American white nationalists, Category:Terrorism in the United States, and Category:White nationalism in the United States. I believe the mistake is that the editor should have added the subcategory Category:White nationalist terrorism ("WNT") instead of the parent category Category:Nationalist terrorism ("NT"), but then that WNT subcategory had been previously added by the editor and was rolled back. So, I re-added the WNT category. If the editor gets indef'd for lack of communication, that happens, but "no evidence in the article" doesn't strike me as accurate, and I don't think this particular categorization is an example of any kind of POV-type issue. (Lack of communication being a separate issue.) Leviv ich 17:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  If a category Category:Nationalist terrorism is added to the article, the article at this point must say that the subject has to do something related to Nationalist terrorism. If our only evidence is a combination of categories, this is original research, an in relation to BLP articles also BLP violations. Strategy "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles" is absolutely unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable if we are talking about BLP articles (the main interest of this user). So far, they had enough chances (were given enough rope) to listen to this to know better.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with what you wrote. What I'm saying is that Christopher Paul Hasson meets the criteria as you describe it, without it being OR. The article already says he is a white nationalist terrorist. There are 30-something references supporting that. Here is one example, The Washington Post headline "... A self-proclaimed white nationalist planned a mass terrorist attack, the government says". I think the editor's addition of the category was OK, not an example of "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles", but an example of a correct application of Category:White nationalist terrorism. Leviv ich 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Before writing what I have written (and in fact before removing the cat) I checked all occurences of "terr" regexp in the article. None of those was coming in a combination "nationalist terrorist" or similar. Whereas the guy can likely be a nationalist terrorist, and whereas it might be possible to justify this point of view by checking the sources which are in the article (as you have done), this information must be present in the article before the category has been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Another reminder to prevent automatic arxivation--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My view is there are multiple potential categories here: (1) White nationalist violence/(2) White nationalist terrorism are subcategories of (3) Racial violence and (4) Racial terrorism. "Racial terrorism" is the term I've seen used the most to describe things like Lynching in the United States (check the article, it's in there, sourced) and Klu Klux Klan. Some examples: The Smithsonian: Inspired by the film Birth of a Nation, they burned a cross and swore their loyalty to the Klan, ushering in a new era of white nationalist terrorism. [31]; The New York Times Editorial Board: "Lynching as Racial Terrorism"; The Washington Post: "‘Lynch him!’: New lynching memorial confronts the nation’s brutal history of racial terrorism"; The Nation, in a piece entitled, "On White Identity Politics and American Terrorism": The Brooklyn Museum mounted an exhibit on white racial terrorism this summer. It draws on research done by the Equal Justice Initiative, documenting 4,425 lynchings of black people by white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Another term used in the literature is simply "white terrorism" (because that's what it is, as opposed to "Islamic terrorism"), but I'm not even gonna try and propose that one cuz people will go apeshit. Leviv ich 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right. I'm not a category person either, but it seems that if there's a discussion to be had about a specific category's scope or inclusion criteria, that discussion would live most appropriately on the category's talk page. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page [32] suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD [33]. There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question [34]. as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When you fail to get supporters for your harassment at ANi, cite the thread at ArbComm as evidence. Comedy gold. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever.[35] and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process [36] Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" [37], calling other users who are interested in portals as biased [38], and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time [39] so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Barb is aimed straight at ya'

EEng

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[40]

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

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

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

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

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

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. [47] This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. [48] I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Pushing outdated or irrelevant sources at "Equinox"

In this series of edits 81.139.163.204 (talk · contribs) reinstated for at least the 3rd time an old source from the 1930s and concepts from articles that were not about the equinox. I detailed the problems with these sources and concepts at Talk:Equinox#Explanation of the oscillation of the date of the equinox beginning on March 22. The material was reverted both by me and by AstroLynx. Edit histories make it obvious that the editor is the same one who used 81.139.160.225 (talk · contribs). The editor was warnedon March 22 and notices of this discussion will be provided momentarily. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The page protection by MusikAnimal on March 20 for one day has turned out to be for an insufficient length of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to reply on the talk page when the notice of this discussion reached me. On the talk page Jc3s5h confirms that there is nothing wrong with the source I cited. 81.139.163.204 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In view of the editors response at 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC) I formally accuse the editor of being a troll. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some mischiefmaking here. It's very difficult to extract Jc3s5h's argument from his posts but I continued the discussion on the talk page at 13:24. Jc3s5h makes no mention of that, probably because he realises his argument is untenable. 81.139.163.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• A UK-based IP address that edit wars extensively with Jc3s5h over minutiae in time-related articles. Does anyone else hear quacking? Someone please tell me why I'm wrong... --Jayron32 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, I think they are quacking indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  In this series of edits 81.139.163.204 (talk · contribs) trots out the editors misinformation about Greenwich Mean Time]. I consider this prove positive the user is a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. I will suggest an administrator hat the talk page discussion, and suggest administrators take other appropriate action. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Quacked loud enough to draw my attention. All the tells are there, even though the editor seems to have left the big town for the weekend. Blocked for a bit. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Some weird sockpuppetry like stuff is going on around here; red link editors claiming to be the subject

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

---

I created the model Adesuwa Aighewi's page last year, and used the Fashion Model Directory source for her date of birth. It's not the best source, to me at least, but it's something. Fashion Model Directory is reliable for information about a model's career all things considered. So a few weeks ago, all of a sudden the birth year kept changing by IP users without giving a source for it, which is obviously disruptive editing; therefore I had the page protected.

8.30.105.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed it 3 times:

1. 03:38, 19 January 2019
2. 03:39, 19 January 2019
3. 13:56, 10 March 2019

Then just days after after pending changes protection, 66.108.235.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did the same thing:

1. 17:05, 21 March 2019
2. 17:06, 21 March 2019

Now what a interesting coincidence it is that two "different" IP users made the same mistake twice.

Which brings me to... two days ago, a user calling themselves "Adesuwa Real" and claiming to be the model requested we change the birth year to 1992, of course without a source to provide for it. Naturally, I have reason to believe someone just made that up to get around the page protection to get their dubious edit in there by way of an unwitting editor. *deep sigh* Hours later, after someone with the username "Adesuwa Aighewi" did the same. Implicitly, I have strong reason to believe that it's not really her at all and that username should also be salted like "Adesuwa Real" was, until they take the proper protocol to prove their identity. The person claiming to be Adesuwa Aighwei claims that at the BLP noticeboard this age discrepancy is affecting her career. Being that merely 2 days ago she was in a Chanel advert, it just doesn't add up. And from what I've surmised, the real Aighewi doesn't even type like that. Pray tell, what does one do? Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• We cannot change a birth-year based on IP/wikipedia-editor's word alone but if the only available source is iffy, just remove the birth-date altogether. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Abecedare says. A fashion model directory is akin to other database sites such as IMDb and does not meet the stringent sourcing requirements of WP:DOB, especially if the date is disputed. I've removed the date per our policy regarding dates of birth. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The subject should be delighted. Now she's ageless. EEng 19:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The secret to immortality was Wikipedia all along! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine there's a picture aging in an attic somewhere as we speak.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no fan of original research, but I took a look at the Minnesota Birth Index at Familysearch.org and it confirmed the April 22, 1988 date of birth. Until then, one of these days a Vogue, Elle, or Harper's Bazaar will inevitably reveal the truth. *dun dun dun* Trillfendi (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

They're not likely to, since ageism is rampant in the fashion modelling industry. It's not uncommon for models to claim they're younger than they really are because it makes it that much less likely they'll be passed over for a gig in favour of some younger talent. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Article subjects disputing their birthdates is one of the few gray areas in which we actually do have hard precedent, as there was some unpleasantness in the early days of Wikipedia when it was pointed out that a certain J Wales was giving himself a different age to every biography of him. Unless there's a strong reason to include the date of birth, just leave it out if there's any dispute. (Even when the d.o.b. isn't disputed, it's not unusual for subjects to object to our including them, on grounds ranging from concerns about identity theft, to not wanting to be perceived as old. Since it's rarely of particular encyclopedic significance as to exactly when someone was born, if there's an objection the onus is on us to demonstrate that it's significant enough to include.) ‑ Iridescent 20:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruption by T0mpr1c3

On 27 March, T0mpr1c3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started mass-adding postnominals, at bot-like speeds, to scientist articles. In addition, the reported user opened discussions at two talkpages where he was told that this postnominal issue has been discussed before and the decision was not to add postnominals at the lead. When reverted, the user edit-wars and then tags articles for cleanup on the basis that they are missing the postnominals. Please see the recent history of Claude Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an indicative sample of this disruption. Seeing this massive disruption, I warned the user that I will report him at ANI if he continued this disruption. He subsequently removed my message by archiving his talkpage. Soon after, he added a postnominal to another article, thus signaling that he will continue the disruption. I suggest a block if he shows no indication that he will stop this disruption. Thank you. Dr. K. 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• A good discussion showing the silliness of the edits is at Talk:Claude Shannon#Claude Shannon ForMemRS. Four editors explain why ForMemRS does not belong in the lead of that article yet T0mpr1c3 persists, including "Please do not remove the cleanup tag until the discussion is resolved." and adds {{cleanup|reason=postnominals required|date=March 2019}} to the top of the article (diff) to make their point. A block is needed if the behavior continues. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• As already discussed at the old [[WP:PORNBIO], there are awards that created the notoriety of the awardee, and there are awards that only try to use the awardee's notoriety to increase the notoriety of the awarding body. Everything else is editorial discretion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, do porn stars use postnomnals? If so I think we should have an article on that very topic, with examples. EEng 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng#s, is "MILF" a postnominal? Before you answer boldly, be aware that my wife is a grandmother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be a genre, wouldn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks Dr.K. for starting this discussion. From what I can tell, T0mpr1c3 is a generally positive and productive editor. However, his edits here became disruptive and pointy (for example, he added a "Foreign Member of the Royal Society" postnominal to Paul Erdos, where consensus had twice rejected it, and to Albert Einstein, among 100 other bot-like edits) when he couldn't get others to agree with him, and that's a potential problem. If he would agree to recognize the significance of the limitation "with which the subject has been closely associated" in the MOS going forward then I don't see why any administrative action should be necessary. Obviously if he continues the kinds of edits he was making yesterday, a block would be appropriate. --JBL (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with JBL here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your input. What I am concerned with in this case is the signal to disruption ratio in the communication of this user which is abysmally low. The POV-push here manifested by the very fast-paced insertion of the postnominals in a large number of articles, the edit-warring, the subsequent disruptive tagging of the articles for cleanup for the single purpose of pushing the postnominals is one (bad) thing. The other is the complete absence of communication regarding this disruption, other than the WP:IDHT exhibited by this user at the talkpage of two articles. It is normally expected that after this sort of disruption, the user should address these concerns by making some type of statement either here or on their talkpage. I see no communication of this kind. The only indirect response this user has engaged in after my warning on his talkpage, was to add a postnominal at yet another article, clearly indicating that he has learned nothing. I am concerned about that. Dr. K. 21:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading this discussion and the associated talk page discussions, and observing this editor's stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge consensus, I have given an indefinite block to T0mpr1c3. Indefinite does not mean forever. If this editor posts an unblock request promising convincingly to abandon the disruptive behavior, then I will not object to any adminstrator unblocking this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

The user has been removing declined unblocked request. Under the user talk page guideline such requests should not be removed while the block is still in place. May be time to remove their talk page access. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSBREAKING and WP:EDITORIAL by User:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan

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

---

User:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan has a long history of of adding unverified breaking news to basketball related players, teams, and season articles. The user has received multitudes of warnings about WP:OR and WP:NOTCRYSTAL when it comes to player transactions and other team related scenarios (especially in relation to the Phoenix Suns, where the user has a tendency to treat the team season page as a fan blog noting every NOTNEWS speculative report). The earliest warnings appear to go back as far as 2012, and has continued to their recent block in in December 2018 for more unverified content editing.

They have also been warned multiple times about adding WP:EDITORIAL phrases to all of the above pages as well as just generally non-neutral tone in their edits. A long discussion took place about their contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 35#Phoenix Suns and WP:EDITORIAL. They were invited to discuss, but chose not to and were then blocked in November 2018 for further NPOV violations.

They also have a very bad habit of editing from multiple IPs.

Their edits are definitely on the disruptive side as it takes several editors to fix what ever additions the user makes, even when they are correct due to the un-encyclopedic style used. Despite all warnings and editing style constructive criticism, they have not changed their editing habits and at least appears to not be listening. Not sure the best path forward with this editor, so looking for suggestions. Yosemiter (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 blocked AGreatPhoenixSunsFan before I could. I'm pretty sure this is A Great Catholic Person (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I blocked AGPSF because of egregious abusive editing while logged out, but they are not AGCP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was the name that got me. A "Great" person who edits abusively while logged out and likes sports articles? Oh well, I'm allowed to be wrong once per year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(smiling) Be careful. It's early in the year to say something like that. AGCP does edit sports articles, but they also edit lots of other kinds of articles. And they don't only use IPs; particularly in the beginning, they used other accounts. Finally, their editing as IPs is blatantly nasty. AGPSF is comletely new to me, no doubt because of my lack of interest in sports. I've dealt with AGCP for soooo long.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Without casting any aspersions, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of a link based on the similarity of the username and some of the statements on the user pages of blocked sockpuppets of AGCP. SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In their current unblock request, they go into length that they are not AGCP. I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. The user name for AGPSF has actually been around longer and AGCP knew how to use citation templates with better grammar. The mannerisms and writing seem very different from a brief look over. Yosemiter (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not impossible they're different since a lot of the hits were for very notable basketball players, but the Editor Interaction Analyser brings up some curious results - PhoenixSunsFan says AGCP wouldn't edit XXXtentacion, but they did edit on that article once, and the edits on Michael Sweetney within six days of each other (it was the only two edits either user made to that article, long after Sweetney had done anything of note) are really odd in my opinion. Also, the only edits to Dillon Brooks either editor made all-time were within seven hours of each other. Bronson Koenig also strikes me as curious. None of these players ever played for the Suns. I'm distrustful. SportingFlyer T·C 05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Common pages aside, Phoenix has a specific editing style with which I am familiar, but have not seen yet in a few random spot checks of Catholic.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, POV-pushing, refspamming and attempts to unilaterally override AfD consensus by 91.169.1.118 and probable socks

A cluster of IP anons, potentially socks of a single individual (going by their indistinguishable editing habits and geolocation) has been trying to WP:OWN the article bimetric gravity in order to promote a fringe cosmological theory. Back in January, an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. The consensus was to revert to an earlier version, since the topic was notable; I'm the one who carried that reversion out, but I wasn't even the first to propose doing so. A couple days ago, an IP editor announced their intent to unilaterally override the AfD consensus. I replied, trying to strike a firm note without being confrontational, though my impatience doubtless showed through. The anon IP came back with a demand, which I tried in good faith to meet, despite being pretty confident it would be pointless. And indeed, despite my evaluating a whole heap of spurious sources, they claimed in an edit summary that I don't want to discuss on Talk page. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. They edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; they went on to revert again. That is, in a nutshell, what WP:BRD says not to do.

I should note that they actually titled a Talk-page section "Special for XOR'easter", signaling that they have a problem with me personally, that they "quote" me while changing the words I typed, that they've been weirdly condescending (Repear after me : C-R-I-S-I-S, as though I were a child), and that they have cast aspersions upon my mental state, or tried to (The only crisis lays in the head of XOR'Easter). The only participant who isn't an anonymous IP editor has been @Headbomb, who said the proposed 'expansion' is a not an improvement and that The AFD was right here.

IPs that I strongly suspect resolve to the same individual:

• 145.242.20.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.214.73.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.215.96.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bagneux, Hauts-de-Seine
• 80.215.97.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.215.224.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 194.206.71.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fresnes, Val-de-Marne
• 91.169.1.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris (warned, not by me, about edit warring, and replied to a template that I left with IDC. Thank you. Have a nice dayyy).

A diligent page patroller duly cautioned me that I went over the 3RR line in trying to handle this, while also warning 91.169.1.118. I think that holding back disruptive edits from somebody who has announced their intention to bypass consensus (and who ignored the D step of WP:BRD) is a decent reason to revert quickly, but I regret crossing that line. I'd really rather someone else get involved in handling this. The page bimetric gravity is currently semi-protected, but that will expire soon, and I'm quite confident that the person or persons behind this IP swarm will be back at it as soon as they can. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to remark that the article has been protected two days ago by Dlohcierekim (the protection expires tonight), and the talk page discussion is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth an WP:SPI here. But yes, those are all effectively the same people, or collection of people, and are all likely to be Petit, or people affiliated with Petit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought about asking for am WP:SPI, but their behavior was wide-ranging enough that I wasn't sure that specific board was suitable. I don't really mind the amateur-hour insults, but they do serve to convince me that the talk-page discussion won't go anywhere useful. On the plus side, it did remind me of the "protons are really black holes" guy, and that's always good for a chuckle. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if you want something to chuckle at, my favourite piece of vandalism on Wikipedia was this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a minor point, the notion that editing under different IP addresses is "sockpuppetry" gets more and more outdated with each passing day. This isn't 2008 anymore, and most people access the internet through a variety of IP addresses over the course of a day. I would not be surprised if, looking at the underlying IP addresses to my username, if a dozen or more unique IP addresses showed up every day. That's just the modern world we live in, people don't usually access the internet through a single desk-top computer via a single ethernet cable with a stable IP address. When a person's IP address changes, it is not happening because the person in question is trying to mask their identity or avoid scrutiny or anything like that. The use of different IP addresses by the same person in a short time period is essentially meaningless with regards to our understanding of "sockpuppetry", which requires intent to deceive. The mere fact that someone's IP address changes means essentially nothing in this context. --Jayron32 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• In principle, I agree. However, in this particular case, one IP is addressing the other as if they are a separate person, e.g., 194.206.71.161 saying, I think 91.169.1.118 has correctly asserted [49]. To me, this looks like one person trying to create the illusion of multiplicity. In other words, I think there is intent to deceive. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb closed one discussion, and 91.169.1.118 just opened another, pretty clearly Googling "cosmology" and "crisis" and taking whatever sensationalist headline or flap copy they can find as evidence to support their position. I don't think anything productive will come out of this. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since 91.169.1.118 rolled right past @Headbomb's closure of the discussion, maybe the page protection should be extended? I'm not hopeful that the Gish gallop of using pop-science dust jackets as evidence will burn itself out, but they did leave the page alone for a few months before, so who knows? XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Lectonar has extended the protection of the page until 8 April. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• While @Jayon32:'s point is spot on generally (and we need to be more careful about applying it), in this particular case I think @XOR'easter: is onto something. The referral to other IPs definitely looks like an attempt to make use of multiple IPs/addresses. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Massive amount of users with promotional names in Chinese being created

I've noticed that there have been a ton of users being created with names that are promotional, but in Chinese. With the speed at which they are being created, I'm pretty sure they're bots. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that we need a Chinese speaking admin?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links: 高仿菲拉格慕 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 广州高仿奢侈品货源在哪里 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just the most recent two; if you look at user creation log you'll easily see many more. This is clearly a bot, so we might need a checkuser to shut down the underlying IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking, but there's a lot of them. You can see from this list of new users how fast it's growing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I blocked a few random ones but new ones are still being created at the same pace, so autoblocks seem not to catch them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this doing some patrolling and I flagged down @MusikAnimal: on IRC. I believe they are working on this issue along with Amorymeltzer --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

fix ping --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

[2,3} This search link] may also be helpful for cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

could we get the IP via checkuser and ban the ip that creates them? Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 17:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be under control now with Special:AbuseFilter/978. CheckUser didn't seem to help, from the limited research I did. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of ranges involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have slowed down or stopped. Feel free to ping me if you see more accounts rapidly being created (many per minute). If you know what you're doing feel free to update Special:AbuseFilter/978, too. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a CAPTCHA for new account creation? If this is clearly a bot, how is it rapidly creating accounts? Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) "高仿" = fake but look very similar to the genuine product. Except as a humour, it should not exist in the username (just like other offensive word) . Did we have an edit filter in the process of account creation? Despite tracking material those accounts inserted would be the next problem if they choose other combination of username. Matthew hk (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, another related keyword: Chinese: 精仿. All of them so far in the new user list seem blocked already. Matthew hk (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another, Chinese: 一比一. It just so humorous to call fake product as 1:1 [luxury good model]. And another potential keyword would be Chinese: 奢侈品; lit. 'luxury good', despite it can be legit username in a humorous way. Matthew hk (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (NAC) All of these usernames are written in simplified Chinese and contain phrases for various counterfeit luxury goods. "微信"(WeChat), "淘宝"(Taobao) and "广州"(Guangzhou) are also high-hit keywords. My guess is that these are intended for spam links. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some other keywords: "海淀" (Haidian District), "奢侈品" (luxury goods), "包"/"包包" (handbag), "代理" (proxy), "哪" (what, where), "品牌" (brand), "价格" (price). Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, as far as I can tell none of them have touched the Chinese-language Wikipedia, so something tells me they may be making them here because they can't do so on their native Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of socks with usernames starting with something like "fdsfdsd" in Chinese

发的萨法的311的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的312的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的31撒2的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的3撒2的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的3撒的的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的撒的 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的撒的的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Discovered from here. "发的萨法的" is what you get when inputting "fdsfd" in a pinyin input method. All registered a few hours ago with no other edit than their own page. Likely block evasion or sleeper socks. Related to above? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

All blocked by FPS. Lourdes 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first two just have the nonsense phrase FD范德萨脚后跟范德萨很高打开睡觉啊后付款哈市的机会市的机会; 'FD van der Sar's heel Van der Sar is very open to sleep', 'then pay the chance of the city of Harbin' repeated on their userpage.--Auric talk 20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Auric:That name is the pinyin equivalent of FDSJHGFDSHGDKSJAHFFHSDJHSDJH. Obvious mashing of the second row of keys on the keyboard. --Blackmane (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a solicitation to me.--Auric talk 12:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr.Mani Raj Paul

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

---

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but a good faith editor User:Mr.Mani Raj Paul has been making problematic edits across Wikipedia for a while now. It appears their English is pretty bad due to which other editors need to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up after their mess. Here are some of their edits:

• "On behalf of Rishabh Pant played a magnificent innings of 78 runs."

• "Chennai had an easy target and Chennai did without any Held this goal of interruption and won by 7 wickets in the first match of the IPL."

• "Initially the Bengaluru team comes to bat. But the Bangalore team could not do much more." "In response, Chennai won this target very easily and defeated to Bangalore by 7 Wickets."

• "On 24 March Mumbai lost by 70 runs, Mumbai first won the toss and decided to bowl first, before batting, the Delhi team played a massive innings of 213 runs. It was a huge target for Mumbai to win this Match."

• "when Kolkata team came to bat, he had a big goal in front of them and he needed a good start but Chris Lynn was out early at 7 runs."

• "Kallis will couch the team"

• "2019 Indian Premiere League will play next year"

• "Semi protection is required,because some IP user the modified the data & Statics section, I not want IP user gives fall information"

• If you think,the problem in season summary,you will wright yourself.now I will revert back season summery.please don't remove Anything otherwise you will block from editing, thanks

It appears broken English is not the only issue with their edits. They have been copy-pasting sentences from news sources on various articles:

• 2018 Indian Premier League Final: this edit is copy-pasted from various sources such as [50] [51]
• 2018 Asia Cup Final: this edit is lifted from [52]
• Chennai Super Kings in 2019: this edit is copy-pasted from [53] [54]
• Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2019: this edit is copied from [55] [56] among others

The user has also been creating several unnecessary templates which are either unused or used in a single article:

• Template:INDvsAUS-21Nov18 - unused
• Template:2018 IPL-SRH-Batting - used in a single article - unnecessarily created
• Template:RCB Highest Totals - unused

You will find many more issues if you look through their contributions. 2402:3A80:CE3:55B9:DB75:C867:ECB9:37BE (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Helpful note; The subject is cricket. The insane madness surrounding cricket is the Indian equivalent of Wrestling in Merkia. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that a Wicket is not in fact gibberish, as I thought it might be (sports, where crickets play with wickets and everyone wants tickets). But yes, there does appear to an English language problem here, per WP:CIR. On that note however, this user has made some 8,000 edits and made numerous pages, so clearly they have some grasp of English and the Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is the copyvio stuff. But judging by this post on their talkpage, they are now aware of it, and have stopped doing it. I assume they weren't aware it was an issue before hand. Maybe the IP who started this thread would want to coach them on better prose? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

afd renewed a 3rd time by Randykitty on Jean Mill article without explanation after clear WP:CONSENSUS

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

---

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

---

Wikipedia guidelines regarding WP:CONSENSUS are being ignored for some reason. "Editors who choose to re-list an article's deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear". Per WP:RELIST: "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, 'in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{Relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." There was a clear consensus: Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Lubbad85 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as asking the other parent. A week more of discussion isn't going to kill anything, and I think the rationale for relisting is sufficiently self-evident from the discussion itself that an explanation would be unnecessary verbiage. Also, since there isn't a link above, the AfD in question is here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• I am a bit put off by all the snarky comments from administrators. Wikipedia states: "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." Indeed I am not asking the other parent. I am asking that administrators to follow wikipedia policy and explain why WP:CONSENSUS is ignored and why WP:RELIST is ignored. So far I have experienced, hyperbole, and snarkiness from administrators. It is very discouraging as an editor. The afd was relisted without posting a reason why consensus is ignored in favor of continued debate. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Mooning the jury isn't helping your own cause. I have no stake in this discussion, but getting an answer you don't like isn't the same as getting no answer at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are not being mooned. The answer above was to accuse me of things I have not done, and to lock the discussion. I do not want to "moon the jury". If I am off base in my request or on the facts about Wikipedia policy it is easy to state that: no need to use hyperbole and then lock the category on this page. "Assume good fath" and I will do the same. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I provided a more detailed rationale upon request. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Randykitty "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{Relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." Perhaps my mistake is in thinking the explanation was to be posted in this manner. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• So looking at the time stamps, Lubbad85 had an explanation before they filed this report and made no attempt to further engage Randykitty. This action joins their behavior at that AfD as outside general community expectations. I would suggest Lubbad to heed BBB's warning as it does appear that a BOOMERANG is a real possibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk) Please assume WP:AGF. Procedural errors out born of ignorance should not be cause to assume bad intentions on my part. I thought there was a genuine Wikipedia policy question, and I see that keeping quiet is the best course. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 Keeping quiet isn't necessary. Discussion is. Taking someone to ANI is one of the strongest actions we have and so if you didn't understand or disagreed with Randykitty, after posing the question further discussion with him would have been the right next step. If you felt you needed fresh eyes, asking questions of a respected editor who could explain things would have been another option. Your passion for Mill is clear but there are ways that are in keeping with community norms and ways the community does not generally find OK to express that passion. If you don't know which is which, again finding a respected long time editor who you trust to explain would likely be helpful for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 The explanation seemed to go against policy (not posted with the third afd), and the procedure seemed against policy. I was unaware that there would be such a swarm of administrators to chastise me and threaten sanctions. It also appears that the Jean Mill afd will now go in another direction because of this swarm. I will move on. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85, I did not watchlist the debate, but your remark above made me curious, so I had a look. I'm sorry, but I really don't care for the aspersions that you cast on my motives to relist. For somebody who asks for AGF for their own actions, you're pretty fast to forget AGF when it concerns others. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Randykitty I understand. You removed the item from your talk page... An administrator locked my posted discussion here after accusing me of things I did not do, and the following comments accused me of all manner of things. It is likely outside the norm to go against Wikipedia policy and so I had concerns. I came to you with the question and found your answer dismissive and against Wikipedia procedure. I think that we have gone round and round enough on this page, and I have been sufficiently warned against questioning the admins or the procedure, so I am moving on. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from my talk page when this item here was closed, thinking the matter was closed but not foreseeing that you'd continue here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As an outsider who simply hasn't de-watchlisted this page yet, if I may give my two cents here? Lubbad, if I came across this article at BLP/N or somewhere, I would strongly suggest it be put up for deletion. The sourcing is poor and self-aggrandizing. The style is narrative instead of expository, meaning it reads like a story about a character rather than an article about a subject. And within that, its tone is clearly that of someone truly enamored with this subject. (It's very difficult to hide your emotions when writing. Rather, they come off to the readers as exaggerated.) I'm sorry to say, but you should really take what everyone is telling you as advice and constructive criticism rather than snarkiness, because that's really a defense mechanism to deflect the real issues. And AGF doesn't mean continue to AGF once bad faith is demonstrated, so it's important to remember that others who are trying to help also deserve AGF. I see no evidence of anyone trying to be rude, snarky or mean to you. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth Thank you for the response. It is hard to take when my topic posted here is immediately closed and locked above (The admin who locked it refuses to explain why and warns me to not post on his talk page in my "misguided crusade")...and I am accused of "forum shopping?" (I never did) Some other user put the article on a forum because they considered it worthy of saving. I was accused of arguing with every voter? (I did not) Please see the afd page for my posts. I was accused of Mooning the jury? I posted the article here in response to a fourth week in afd because an admin seemed to go against wikipedia procedure. ... and now as we go into a fourth week in afd, the article is swarmed with deletes and redirects. It is a shame that an editor must be accused of things, and threatened with sanctions, ...and have their topic immediately locked. If the article is poorly written or sources are poor that is a call to improve the article. It is quite discouraging as an editor. this appears to me to be constant relisting until one gets a different result. It is best if I post no more here. I am out of my depth for sure. Lubbad85 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read through that stuff, or I wouldn't have bothered commenting. I think you're taking these expressions a wee bit too literally. When someone says you are "mooning the jury", they mean you are not going to get any positive results from calling people snarky or similar things. Good advice. Sometimes discussions are closed by admins around here without any warning. One of the benefits of being an admin I guess, but when an argument spirals into circulus in probando or other logical fallacies sometimes that's reason enough. Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth Indeed: "One of the benefits of being an admin I guess" No argument happened, there was no discussion. It seems that there was immediate outrage (locked topic) and then admins turned to me WP:BOOMERANG. I have received the message. Lubbad85 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• See also this AN thread following the first relist, which is how I came to know of the article/AFD. Lubbad85's enthusiasm and investment in the article, coupled with their inexperience with the AFD process, is IMO driving them to assume bad-faith bordering on conspiratorial-thinking towards others involved with the AFD (fwiw, they have been polite in their interactions with me even though I voted for redirection). I'd again advice them to step back from the AFD-related discussions; focus, if they wish, to improve the sourcing/writing of the article; and let the process take its course. Meantime, everyone will be better off if this thread is closed without creating more bad blood. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Abecedare Thank you for your comments. I did take your advice and deleted that AN right away. My inexperience caused me to assume the second relist found consensus. You have been very helpful and professional and i thank you for that. Lubbad85 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Defamatory edits at Katie Lee (chef)

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

---

Requesting rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All taken care of. Just a friendly reminder if you see an edit in need of a revdel you can also reach out to an admin directly to do so too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--I'd never seen that before. Not that I'll remember.... 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Abi25gail05 - Lack of understanding of policy; threats on user page

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

---

This user has been making numerous unsourced edits, based on rationales such as "Added highly vital information DO NOT REMOVE!!!!!!!" and "Received by a reliable source you can trust". I tried to explain the verifiability policy but got nowhere. The user has since edited their user page, addressing people who revert these edits, with the message "I WILL COME FOR YOU!!!!!!" and a list of friends, with the claim that "they WILL come for you too!!" Anyone willing to step in and try to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:THREATEN? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The threats in and of themselves should be reason enough to indef. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The purported "threats" are obviously a joke, and they don't appear to have made a single edit since your warning other than what appears to be a good-faith attempt to engage with you on your talkpage. (Her assertion that her claim that Bastion Booger withdrew in 1994 owing to food poisoning is a direct copy from an existing Wikipedia article is entirely correct, incidentally.) We shouldn't even be considering blocking here, and this certainly doesn't constitute an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indef based on the threats - we cannot give the impression that we don't take threats seriously.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Ish, have you actually read the 'threat'? It reads, in full, (Redacted)I joined wikipedia on 3rd November 2016 I live with my mom and dad and my beautiful 1 year old Boston Terrier, Poppy. She is my baby. I make a lot of important and highly useful edits which always get removed so if you are one of them I WILL COME FOR YOU!!!!!! (Redacted). No sane person could consider that a credible threat. ‑ Iridescent 21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As the former possession of a small terrier, I’m not sure that is as..toothless?...as it might seem at first glance. Qwirkle (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

racist admins

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

---

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui

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

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

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

References

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

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

bad faith closure of topic

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been accused of improper conduct.[57] by Diligens and I place my actions before the community for review. The immediate issue stems from warnings I gave to Diligens for violation of WP:NPA here. This was in response to this edit on the article The Singing Nun which in turn was the most recent edit in an edit war between Diligens and Contaldo80. Subsequently I issued warnings to both editors regarding their edit warring and locked the article for 48 hrs. There followed a discussion on User talk:Diligens which eventually migrated to User Talk:Ad Orientem that I think may be worth reviewing in its entirety.

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

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

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

A review of the discussion will show that there was some heated back and forth including accusations of bad faith editing and so on. At the end of my involvement I advised Diligens that I believed they should step away from the article.[58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

• Dodo elmoghazy (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

ISOCS Wiki issue with editor

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

---

I would like to report a concern with an editor who´s user name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 claiming to be an "Anti Vandalic Agent" from Canada. I am trying to update verified information about a school in Switzerland (International School of Central Switzerland)in Wiki and he keeps re-editing the information. I would require him to stop acting without solid reasons and under absolutely no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickhamoxford (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone misplace a sock? Three editors have already been blocked for adding promotional content like this. Users are ISOCS MANAGER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SCHOOL MANAGER CHAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cham Educator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: those were soft blocks for username violations. It's not sock puppetry, which means 3RR applies – unless there's something else that I missed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry I mistook the blocks but removing promotional content and disruptive edits like this which just removed categories....clearly this user is WP:NOTHERE. I also want to point out this is the first time any of these users have tried to communicate with me at all despite be leaving messages on almost all of their pages. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see any discussion on Talk:International School of Central Switzerland. I don't understand what's so promotional about the last edit; it just says the school almost closed but didn't. Maybe you could explain your reasoning on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, he removed it. Yeah, that's kind of promotional. But that should still be resolved without edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's just a little hard when someone makes 4 accounts in rapid succession. I'm not doing this tonight, it's 5:30am now, but if they really want a constructive discussion about how to improve the school article I am more than happy to engage in that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Wait, they didn't just remove it. Do you not see what they replaced it with? ".....led by José Antonio Parra, who has proven track record and extensive experience in running premium International Schools mainly in Spain. As a member of the Almira International Schools Group, ISOCS will enter a new phase of its development and growth. Almira Group have a strong commitment towards academic excellence and the holistic development of each child." That is super promotional in my book. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, absolutely; but unfortunately it's also not covered by WP:3RRNO  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No I know but NRP said "Oh, he removed it. Yeah, that's kind of promotional." I am just pointing out he didn't just remove it and it's more than kind of promotional. Sorry, I'm just tired of dealing with UPE.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they're clearly only here to push their preferred institution and should be hard blocked on that account; even if they shouldn't have been previously, they certainly shold be by now. ——SerialNumber54129 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Which, by the way, shouldn't be taken as criticism of NinjaRobotPirate's comments or approach, merely that the UncoolScoolman has by now demonstrated their true colours. On a more meta issue, I would certainly agree that, on principle, since UPE is a breach of the terms of use it should certainly be a 3RR exemption. It would be easier to rebutt and demnstrate that we actually have faith in our own terms of use—like every other organsiation in the world! But I imagine that's WP:PERENNIAL, so... ——SerialNumber54129 10:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said above. I absolutely see where NRP is coming from and I know how beneficial communication is on Wikipedia (I want to make that clear) and I also agree with your comments about UPEs. The user is now blocked but I will take NPRs comments into consideration when working on improving my conflict resolution skills. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I missed the blatant promotion. I think I misread this edit as adding the disputed content and got confused about who was doing what. I indefinitely blocked Wickhamoxford for promotion. We can unblock the editor if Wickhamoxford agrees to stop adding promotional content and blanking sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless you think further action needs to be taken, can this thread be closed now as OP is blocked? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Odd IP edits

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

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

Three questions:

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

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

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

Bad faith editing at Howrah

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

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]
• [65]

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

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

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

Conduct dispute - Thefreeencyclopediauser

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

---

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place to do this, but it seems to be to me. There is a Wikipedia user, Thefreeencyclopediamember, who has consistently acted obnoxiously and unproductively on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries toward me, David O. Johnson, MrX, BrendonTheWizard, and others. You can see their bolded comments on that talk page, especially in the sections Mike Gravel and Candidates' portraits. Despite several users urging them to change their behavior, they have remained steadfast. Is there any way we can prevent this? Thanks SCC California (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support a WP:NOTHERE block based off their contribution log. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Could you shut down RonBot for a while

This bot RonBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding broken image tag to a lot of articles that doesn't need it. Could you shut it down until this problem be fixed. thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked - pinging @Ronhjones: to address issue raised. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Something has filled Category:Articles with missing files - here's 1400 entries at present. I'll think I'll add a cat count before run and hold fast if suddenly very high. Any additions will be removed when run again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Category appears to be de-populating. I'll run when there is a correct stable situation Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing these pages have in common is a {{Portal bar}} - for some pages this is the only images on the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, the issue was caused by the deletion of File:Samsung Galaxy S5 Vector.svg that affected a portal used on thousands of pages (~3.5K I think) - I got the issue fixed (see Template_talk:Portal#Template-protected_edit_request_on_31_March_2019). I assume the bot gets a list up front but does not check a page is still in Category:Articles with missing files before adding the template, so it continued to wrongly add {{broken image}} after the portal had been fixed. I've been running a null edit sweep on the list to re-clear Category:Articles with missing files. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

update the null-edit sweep has completed so it should be safe to re-enable the bot. Maybe it would be sensible to set a max number of additions in can make in a pass to stop this type of issue in the future. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: Ah, it had to be something like that. Category de-population is not quick - about 800 pages were removed in 1 hour, so checking each page would not work, it would still add too many - I'll go for a check cat increase function at start. File:Blank.png got deleted the other week by accident on commons, also caused issues - we now have a local copy as well - this might be also an answer for these highly used files. Category is stable now, so I'll clean up. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent false information/changes to religion demographics by dynamic IP editor

2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and many previous dynamic IPs, see this range for example: Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E/44

Only makes a few edits on any given IP number. Numerous warnings have been given to previous IPs in the same range, for the same types of edits.

Arbitrary small changes to demographics figures in many articles related to religion, that contradict the existing sources. Often obviously falsified by changing an existing number. Hard to tell what the motivation is, whether vandalism, POV of some sort, competence issue, or what. I haven't really found examples of correct/helpful edits. The majority of their edits have already been reverted at the time, but many are still current, I'm trying to clean them up.

Examples:

Current IP 2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E:

• [66] - I confirmed that the source says "28.7 percent Sunni, 28.4 percent Shia [...] 36.2 percent of the population is Christian." These were changed to 27.7, 24.4, and 38.2 respectively. Obviously-fabricated numbers, since they were changed by full integers without changing the decimal parts.
• [67] - Changes in contradiction to the sources. Reduces Evangelical Protestants and inflates the number of Orthodox.
• [68] - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by adding/subtracting 50%, contradicts the source.
• [69] - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by exactly 100,000.

Previous IPs:

• [70] - Changes to percentages without changing the absolute figures, contradicts the source ([71]).
• [72] - Obviously-falsified changes to numbers.
• [73] - Unexplained changes in demographics that contradict the source.
• [74] - changes percentage of Muslims from 50% to 48%, contradicting the source.
• [75] - inflates the number of Orthodox from 1 to 3 million, contradicts the source.
• [76] - reduces the number of Evangelical Protestants, contradicts the source.

There are dozens of more examples... --IamNotU (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me somewhat of a now-blocked editor. I don't know if it's OK to say who though, since it would be hypothetically connecting an account to an IP, if they're the same. Would that be allowed, and if so, would it be helpful? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

So long as you have some public evidence for the connection (that is, visible Wikipedia edits, and no data from off Wikipedia) and you are not a checkuser there shouldn't be a problem in you stating your conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, what I noticed is that it seems somewhat similar to the behavior of User:Kitutia / Special:Contributions/Kitutia: mobile edits changing relative amounts of Islamic/Christian adherents. That said, the account used the visual editor rather than the mobile Web editor, and was only focused on Tanzania rather than these IPs' geographically dispersed changes. Anyway, it just struck me as similar, so thought I'd mention it. Hope this helps! (Should I put the ANI-discussion-notice template on that user's talk?) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Just went ahead and added the notification, since it seems like it's required even though since they're blocked they can't really write back I guess...?? Anyway, seems right to let them know even so. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It does seem like the examples given above are increasing Christianity, though, while it seems like Kitutia generally increased Islam. Maybe just a coincidence... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lionfound

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

---

Lionfound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked for repeatedly changing sourced statistics in articles without changing the source. They're now at it again, with the addition of a misleading edit summary too. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm indeffing now. Never responded, and the edit summary is clearly an attempt at deception. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated

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

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

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

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

I took a look at his overall editing history of late, not just this high school article. Turns out, he doesn't play well in the sandbox ([77][78][79]). There is a distinct vibe of "above the law" with him because... hold my drink... ah yes, he's in the top 1,000 of Wikipedians by edits made (golf clap).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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