Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fireice (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 19 September 2018 (→Asking for 2-way no-fault IBAN with User:Jytdog). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Bad content about health effects of food

    The entire thrust of their editing about food. They do OKish if it is just about food (e.g. this editto Ketchup or but when it comes to health effects they go off the rails, especially if it is about "functional foods" or "superfoods" or any of that crap that the internet is full of.

    If you look at this person's talk page you will see warning after warning for bad editing about alt-health foods. (they just delete stuff, so you have to look at the history).

    I tried to have a discussion with them -- see here -- and they wrote But the short of it is that I am not employed or receiving compensation from any company involved in the space... but as of yet it remains an interest and a hobby of trying exotic foods with purported health claims. I am also potentially seeking to create new products out of so-called beneficial ingredients and so to get to the bottom of any health claims and to understand why marketing is or is not false. I suppose some of my recent edits were a bit of a statement made against any existing conservative bias I see in the article. I feel that it can be explained how things are marketed without selling it on wikipedia. I may have to take my edits elsewhere on the web, but now with your latest revert I feel you lost some critically useful information: that superfoods often pick out omega 3, antioxidants, etc. The "economics" section is a mess and moreover, with the discussion of the marketing of bananas, I see that may be outside the narrow scope of a "superfood" article and more towards the marketing of "health foods". I come to the article to understand why the superfood label is used and what it means and the article is lacking examples.

    I replied: I think it is great that you are trying to understand the market for "superfoods" on a very practical level and want to share your learning in WP as you go. I do this sort of thing all the time, as well. There is just a very fine between describing accepted knowledge about the market and how people have been addressing and growing the market, and replicating the hype within that market..... you are crossing over into the latter a bit much

    They have continued unabated. Some sample diffs:

    There is too much work to do here in WP, to be cleaning up after somebody who is this aggressive and who ignores MEDRS so persistently and willfully, and even when they do pay it some mind, skews the content in a marketing way.

    Please topic ban this person from editing about food and health. (I don't know how to tailor it more narrowly). I thought about doing this more narrowly to just health (so they could still do edits like the potato one) but I don't want to waste people's time further or get into the boundary issues of "nutrients". So let's be done with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User Bodhi Peace seems particularly vulnerable to accepting spam, marketing or personal experience as the basis for changing content on several food and health articles, and has often cited healthline.com as a source (it is a multiauthor, non-expert blog, remote from WP:MEDRS). This talk edit is an example of where a childhood observation led to several reverts and source checks. Each of the user's edits has to be monitored for fact and quality of source, often resulting in reversion or rewrites, and finding a quality source. Rarely does the interaction feel collaborative and productive. I support the topic ban. --Zefr (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban from "Health and nutrition, broadly construed", perhaps? It seems such a thing is needed, since they've proven unable to take polite advice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just passing by this thread, being completely unfamiliar with the situation; however, I do want to interject here on a minor issue, since I have witnessed this become a rather contentious ambiguity in at least one prior topic ban of a user. Namely, it may be important to explicate whether "health and nutrition" here is restricted to human health and nutrition or includes the much broader interpretation of animals (organisms?) more generally. This seems mainly limited to human matters, but it may be best to clarify that now before it serves as a potential problem in the future.
    For the record, I maintain no position on the topic ban or this issue, since I am not involved in this issue and have not evaluated it whatsoever. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC); last edited at 05:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If a topic ban is necessary, and I am not convinced of that yet because parts of the edits seem okay, perhaps constraining it to adding primary sources and information based on primary sources to medical articles would be adequate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's that "parts of the edits seem okay" which makes it such a time-sink for other editors to fix, as teasing out source misrepresentations takes a lot of time. The fact there is no proper engagement on the Talk page makes it worse. Alexbrn (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this ban, with some appropriate time limit, as I too have had to waste time reviewing and fixing this editor's work in this area. They mean well, but have simply not grasped the requirements for writing about health and nutrition related matters in an encyclopedic manner, and certainly not in accord with WP:MEDRS. (The ban should include animal related matters as well, having had to fix some material on dogs and chocolate.) However, I think they are capable of learning, given some time. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for at least some months, this is into WP:CIR territory given the number of warnings. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I see no attempt by the proposer to engage the editor and explain at the talk page of the three articles Sugar substitute, Kombucha and Chocolate why these edits are so problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]
      • Err, of those articles I've looked just at Kombucha and there has been a fairly obvious attempt[1] at engagement. [Response to amended comment by David Tornheim – and what on earth would the identity of the OP have to do with the merits of the proposal to topic-ban Bohdi Peace? That should be decided on the evidence ... Unless this is a way of continuing a long-standing grudge you have against the OP, which would be unhelpful to everybody else here.] Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC); amended 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first edit of the long list:
    edit to Sugar substitute
    This edit adds substantially new content to a high-profile article which has not been removed or even challenged at the article. If it is so problematic that it is the first on the list as justification for topic-banning, then why has the content not been removed and discussed on the talk page of the article before coming here? If the content cannot be contested, this suggests a reason to not topic-ban the editor. I went to Kombucha and Chocolate and saw the OP did not try to raise objections at the article before coming here to raise them. (I had not noticed that other editors have raised objections about the edits at Kombucha and Chocolate. On that I stand corrected.) The lists of warnings on Bodhi Peace's talk page are indeed concerning, particularly the responses here. Ultimately, because of the diff provided at Sugar substitute, my feeling is that we need to work with the editor first in correcting issues. A request that the editor "slow down" before adding new content might be in order as well. But topic-banning seems extreme without first working with the editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As everybody else is saying, they don't engage on Talk. In your haste to disagree with Jytdog you are enabling a problem editor IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "[T]hey don't engage on Talk." That's clearly not true, as you well know, because Bodhi Peace responded directly to concerns you and another editor raised in this discussion at Kombucha. Bodhi Peace even conceded to a requested change with "I don't exactly know what you are getting at so go ahead and make the edit." diff That seems pretty reasonable.
    Additionally, Bodhi Peace responded at the talk page of Chocolate here. After being accused of using blogs, Bodhi Peace replied, "All that information on chocolate poisoning in pets was copy/pasted, cut, summarized, etc. from theobromine poisoning." diff
    --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They respond but they don't "engage" - the edit then continuing on. Alexbrn (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223: Do you mean actual kombucha or black-tea mushroom? (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the plain old undiluted tea-mushroom kind of kombucha is quite delicious, although I'm doubtful of the health claims and don't have it much since it's hard to make... Never had kelp tea; didn't know it was a thing until seeing it here :P —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldenshimmer: The word kombucha (Wikipedia's style guidelines favour the more modern spelling konbucha) literally means "kelp tea" in Japanese; it's a mystery why the unrelated fungal growth in black tea (which the Chinese and Japanese call "red tea") is referred to misleadingly with the Japanese word for kelp tea, but the difference is distinct enough that I suspect I probably could have gotten away with editing the "kombucha" article while subject to a "Japanese culture" TBAN. Anyway, for those of us with a loose familiarity with Japanese tea traditions, who first heard about so-called "kombucha" as a result of Wikipedia disputes (I guess the fad hadn't caught on in Ireland before I left?), the distinction is somewhat amusing. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: Huh! Cool, never knew all that before. I was aware that "kombu" is something seaweedy, and "cha" means tea, but hadn't made the connection (don't think I would even have thought of "kombucha" as being a Japanese-derived word, since I learned it as an English word before I learned its Japanese constituent of "cha"...) ^~^ —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The kind I buy at the farmer's market probably ultimately descends from the black tea mushroom variant. But it's basically a thoroughly modern fermented tea beverage. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have experience with this editor on Ted Kaczynski. Some of their edits are useful but it is time consuming to review and fix the not-so-useful contributions. Edits such as this, changing the parameter "days between" (something I challenged but was reverted) to "time between" in order to give data such as "~1 year" and "~1 1/2 years" alongside data such as "2 years 317 days" and "6 years 123 days", just confuse me. None of their edits individually are that bad but it is a persistent pattern where they will need to be reviewed and retouched. To my knowledge, they have not added any referenced material to the article so it is particularly frustrating when you are having to review copyediting. There also are edits such as this, which was explicitly argued against shortly before on the talk page, with no response on the talk page or rationale for addition. In my opinion, they either edit on a whim without much care to the result or Guy's assessment is accurate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block User was subject to an indef block six months ago, then a few days later accepted a conditional unblock.[2][3] In the subsequent months, they have violated their unblock condition 35 times (Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect"). It's also unfortunate to see David Tornheim still advocating for NOTHERE editors; I would suggest also TBANning David from AN/ANI/AE discussions in which he is not involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC) (Edited 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Can we TBAN someone from administrative pages though? From my understanding TBANing was about articles not Wikipedia processes. Sakura CarteletTalk 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely been done. Banning someone from a prescribed DR process is really a no-go, so my initial wording was problematic (I've now fixed it); DT's involvement in ANI threads over the last eighteen months or so (going back, as far as I know, to his highly questionable actions here, which resulted in this mess -- someone who proposed mandatory mentoring as preferable to an indef block, and volunteered himself as the mentor, should never be allowed get away with saying please continue this discussion elsewhere... thanks... when a third party asks them to rein their mentee in, and I think NeilN would have been within his rights to immediately place the indef-block that had not been imposed previously on the sole condition that DT do the mentoring and EC listen to it) has been to undermine the process as revenge for his having been TBANned from GMOs and almost immediately blocked for ignoring said TBAN. Actually, his suddenly showing back up on ANI now comes across as a bit HOUNDish given his history with Jytdog (which, for the sake of full disclosure, I found out about by Ctrl+Fing Jytdog's name on the DT TBAN entry, and noticed him quasi-GRAVEDANCing on Jytdog for having been TBANned by ArbCom from the same topic area the previous year; I actually didn't know Jtydog was subject to a TBAN when I started typing this, else I probably wouldn't have brought up DT's own TBAN from the same topic area). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A one-way interaction ban might be the way to go with respect to David's hounding problems. I haven't bothered opening a case at AE for David's recent topic ban violations (most other people that did have to deal with his issues in the past can easily ignore him now due to his topic ban), but this seems to be a bit of a loose end from the GMO stuff. I don't think this is the best venue for that avenue though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingofaces43: Continuing to hound the editors who "got him banned" would almost certainly be taken as violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the ban (which was meant to stem, not intensify, disruption). I'm wondering if a community indef block isn't called for at this point, especially given how little of his time seems to go into building the encyclopedia (120 mainspace edits in the last year) compared to the drahma he seems to cause. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As it has been proposed, I also support an indefinite block. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block. I would have been more prone to a health content topic ban, but the problems Hijiri 88 brought up compound the issue. This editor was already on a short rope. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block. The case for a CIR indef is already overwhelming, per the OP and Hrodvarsson, and per the previous issue regarding the endless spamming of dubious redirects, which apparently continues via AFC/R (ironically, according to a user who awarded them a redirect barnstar—"a lot of your requests get declined or don't survive AFD"—not even the competence issue that has already led to an indef has improved). Unbelievably, the user has completely failed to even address this AN/I thread, demonstrating that they're unwilling to understand and to be accountable for their disruption. And, that's not even getting into the fact that, as evidenced by Hijiri, the user has been egregiously violating the editing restriction that allowed them to return from their previous indef. I see absolutely no reason we should continue to invest volunteer resources into this straightforward CIR case. Swarm ♠ 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose or Partial support. I suppose I will come here to oppose the proposed topic ban of the editor in question, which is me and the topic is "food and health". I don't know how these proceedings work for the most part, so I avoided discussion and have not read the comments until this moment. The reason I avoided reading or commenting is that I partly desired the break from editing, but more because I wanted to avoid conflict and was trying to assume that the issue was going to be resolved in a short amount of time (1-2 days). I am suprised at the number of comments from different parties. I do need to slow down with some edits of the food and health topics, so I would support a one to two week ban on those topics, however it is mostly the intersection of those two topics that brings me into conflicts with other editors. I don't know how a topic ban is administered and enforced or how the scope is defined, whether technically or through agreement. I am starting to work hard towards making constructive edits by restraining myself from some idiosyncracies that are not within the style guidelines, and realizing when creativity isn't appropriate.
      • I may as well address the edits in question.
        • Sugar substitute: All I did was sort the types by heading alphabetically and add the type "sugar alcohols".
        • Category:Health drinks: I am not very good at some categories, but I can see this is not encyclopedic, just something that is vague and could encompass many different marketing claims, such that the category would not withstand the scrutiny of other editors. In my desire to quickly categorize drinks with health claims, I should have looked for a different method than the category system.
        • Kombucha: I tried to work towards WP:NPOV because I saw the article didn't bring up minor beneficial attributes, but rather sought to refute the most implausible health claims without even mentioning "probiotic" or given examples of those health claims in the lede. I came into conflict with other editors and have bad experiences occasionally on some articles so we began to resolve the disagreement through edits rather than on the talk page. I went to the talk page, but was not quite sure what one editor was getting at so I left the article for a while. The conflict was mostly about how to phrase a 2003 review they cited as a recommendation against the drink, as well as using certain language in portraying the tone ("some", "implausible", etc.). I added images of bottled kombucha drinks sold commercially because that is commonly how it is consumed at least where I live in the US, and I would appreciate it if someone could point out the policy on that issue because, e.g. the lemonade article shows a commercial brand's label.
        • Chocolate: The conflict arose because I saw the article either didn't mention or adequately address the compounds "caffeine" and "theobromine". I directly stated that they could be stimulating but User:Zefr came to say that it was an issue of dosage and pointed me to WP:MEDRS on this. I was stubborn on the issue of theobromine poisoning because of what I had heard and a quick Internet search provided, but you can see on Talk:Chocolate that I engaged in discussion. I can see that I needed to be more level-headed when starting to write some of edits on those stimulating compounds, because, as Zefr said, it is a matter of dose and portraying facts about those compounds can yield BIAS if not backed by the relative dose and amounts.
        • Most of all the redirects I made through WP:AFCRD, but I made some that I thought were unambiguous e.g. anti-nutritional and Konbucha
    • Support indef block. I can't believe somebody who was unblocked on certain conditions six months ago, and who has been diligently violating those conditions ever since, is still editing here. You say you only made "some" redirects, Bodhi Peace? Compare Hijiri's recommendation to Ctrl+F this for "Tag: New redirect". That doesn't look like "some" to me. Also, the condition for your unblock was that you don't create any new redirects. As for the comments above about David Tornheim, yes, the community can certainly ban a user from one, several, or all noticeboards if that user is persistently unhelpful there. If people believe the cap fits David Tornheim, I suggest they open a separate thread about it. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    @Blackmane: While that is a useful trick, as I told another editor on my talk page, the egregiousness actually comes across more clearly when you search for it the old-fashioned way (yeah, I know tags aren't "old", but if it wasn't for the tags I would have have said Ctrl+F for edit summaries that include "redirect"), since it shows 35 redirects against only four mainspace page creations that aren't redirects. Bodhi doesn't appear to be under a TBAN from writing new articles, and while it would likely not be a valid exception to create useful redirects for variant names of the topics of new articles created, an argument could be made that it should be an exception; the fact that this is not the case is highlighted by the fact that Bodhi hasn't been creating new articles. (Also @Bishonen: While checking this, I noticed that the new redirect tag is automatically placed on the original titles of pages Bodhi moved, which I think probably is a legitimate exception: the actual number is 29, not 35. Still more than "a few", mind you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I accepted the conditions on March 11 2018 and realized that I had a problem with creating redirects and would stop. I did stop. I didn't create any new redirects without WP:AFCRD for over 5 months. On August 12, I created the first actual real redirect (Red Bluff, Montana) and as you searched for some others that I thought were uncontroversial. The vast majority of redirects were done through WP:AFCRD and I was even awarded a "Redirect Barnstar" for having mastered the art of creating helpful redirects. That issue has not been brought up independently of my conflicts with other editors over the intersection of food and health.
    So you decided after five months that you no longer wanted to abide by your TBAN, and in the month thence you have violated it on a daily basis. And The Duke of Nonsense (talk · contribs), a sock of a troll, decided to thank you for doing so. That you would make such an argument in your own defense shows that you are either trying to mislead the community or are simply too dense to be allowed to continue editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have a TBAN, if I understand what that means; I had a redirect ban. I have not violated it daily. It seems you want to play politics and I don't really want to play that game. I realize inherently there will be a political side to wikipedia, but I prefer rather to do stick to editing. I don't know that user (again a political thing) until I saw that they thought they made a mistake on their talk page regarding me. I'm not really even bringing a defense but I have to say something because it was mentioned. It doesn't even have to do with the issue at hand. Bod (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a TBAN from redirects. Yes, that is a "redirect ban" as you put it, but it is still a TBAN. Even so, let's just say it's not. So you don't have a TBAN. You have a redirect ban. And I would argue that this sure looks a whole lot like a redirect, as well as this, this, and this. Yes, "daily" may be a slight exaggeration, but that doesn't mean you have a free pass to ignore editing restrictions. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. Yes, after 6 months, I should have officially appealed to have the TBAN from redirects removed. Bod (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why didn't you? Waiting five months (not six) before beginning to ignore your TBAN is asking to have your block reinstated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Frankly, I would still like to be able to occasionally edit food articles, especially to structure and grammar fix, without introducing a lot of new material. I would accept a time-limited ban on rewriting or adding new information specifically related to the health or nutrition in food-categorized articles. Over that time period I could observe and learn generally how edits are made to those sections. I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict. Finally, I could promise to try to judge and refrain from unorthodox or "confusing" edits as Hrodvarsson brought up on all unrelated articles to the topic-specific ban. But I still would like clarity on the policy of adding images showing commercial products or brand labels to e.g. lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I could also promise to only use the WP:AFCRD mechanism if it is an issue for some editors, which wasn't brought up independently of the current conflict" Facepalm Facepalm. You already did promise to do that, after you were indefinitely blocked for spamming bad redirects. There has been a formal editing restriction, logged in your block log and at WP:ER/UC the whole time, which required you to do what you're offering to do. And, as evidenced in this thread, you've been repeatedly violating it. And now all you have to say is "I'll do it if it's an issue." Did the indef block not make it clear that "it is an issue"? This is exactly the type of disruptive lack of competence that makes me support a formal indef. Swarm ♠ 19:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Again, for many months I learned to use the process of WP:AFCRD, which can slow you down quite a bit if, for example, you notice a whole bunch of related and interconnected terms that need redirects created for an article you are working on. Obviously I should have gone through the appropriate administrative channels to have the ban lifted. And I still would like policy reference on the use of brand labels and pictures of commercial products on articles, which was part of the aforementioned edits and I have not been referred to any official policy, for example lemonade. Bod (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBan but Oppose Site Bansee belowOppose indef block. As an AFCRD regular, I was very surprised an autoconfirmed account was making that many good AFCRD requests. From what I saw, Bod is trying to abide by terms of their TBan, and occasional redirect creations are probably errors. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you very much, I have been trying to use the WP:AFCRD mechanism in order to make new redirects and to only be constructive. For all my efforts, I was quite pleased to receive an award (a barnstar). And to me, at least, it seems like a lot of the people here just enjoy the process of banning people. Bod (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @L293D: Umm ... who proposed a site ban? I proposed enforcement of Bodhi's already-in-place TBAN. Your comments don't make a whole lot of sense. If someone is subject to an indef block, accepts and unblock condition, and then ignores that condition, it's standard procedure to put them back under the original block, and I can't for the life of me figure out why no admin has done that yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you haven't figured it out, then I will tell you: because Bod has made many constructive edits elsewhere. The indef you are always taking about was six months ago. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He was subjected to an indefinite block, and then was unblocked on condition that he accept a binding TBAN indefinitely. He has not successfully appealed that TBAN, and is therefore still subject to it, and on his first infraction (now that it has been noticed) the indef block needs to be restored per the conditions of the unblock. You do not have the authority to "oppose indef block" under these circumstances; you are requesting that the indef block to which he is already subject (and no admin has got around to implementing) be lifted, which is a different procedure. As for whether he is allowed violate his editing restriction with impunity because you think he makes constructive edits elsewhere: NO. That wouldn't be fair to the rest of us who make more constructive edits ("more" here describing both the mass of edits and their level of constructiveness) while still abiding by our TBANs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you made it fairly clear, the issue has become somewhat muddled because now blocking editing privileges would look like it relates to the conflicts over "food and health", rather than a couple infractions of creating redirects against a TBAN, which wasn't what was brought to the noticeboard. Bod (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's perfectly normal to, when an editor is brought to a noticeboard for disruptive edits in one area of the project, examine their record in other areas. In this case, doing so quickly revealed that you shouldn't have been editing in the first place, as you are subject to an indefinite unblock condition which you have been ignoring, making the food edits issue redundant. If a blocking admin chooses to impose a stronger restriction that specifically addresses your food edits, that can be addressed, but that you need to be reblocked is not in dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still a very big problem with Sweetener and Sugar substitute that someone has to fix. Bod (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to close

    Sorry, but it's painfully obvious what needs to be done here, and I have to imagine the only reason it hasn't been implemented yet is because every uninvolved admin who happened across it decided that !voting for a community sanction would be more useful than enforcing the already-existing unblock condition. Whether an uninvolved admin wants to implement a community block or just say there's not a clear enough consensus for that and reinstate the original block doesn't really matter, and the only risk here is that the thread gets archived without a proper (admin) close. BTW, he violated the ban again several days after I brought it up here,[4] and has retargeted six redirects, which while not technically a violation seems like a really stupid stunt to pull with this discussion still live. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:IUC by Pahlevun

    I'm not sure if it's the right venue but Special:Diff/858154842 is obviously againt WP:IUC (the part "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts"). Also, an WP:SPI would be nice here. Pinging User:Pahlevun. Ladsgroupoverleg 10:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a long-standing conflict between several users in People's Mujahedin of Iran, which was featured at noticeboards a couple iof times. Did anybody look at it in some detail?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The other party, Stefka, was steadily removing a well-sourced content from two articles on a false allegation. --Mhhossein talk 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pahlevun and Mhhossein use ganging-up tactics to revert POV-pushing on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. This used to also include Expectant of Light, who was recently blocked for sockpupetry and aggressive POV pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wumbolo

    I kindly asked Wumbolo to take a break from nominating articles to AfD, earlier today, but it's just ridicules now that he continues to nominate articles without consulting talk pages or projects. I don't think he is doing correct research, WP:BEFORE etc. First example I will give is Xterm AfD and now AFree86. Both have gone to snow keep. There are other examples today and yesterday in the log of nominating multiple articles regarding older software and OS systems/ programs. This to me just seems an attack on these old articles without due and not to mention adding AfDs to an already expanding log pile. Would like some admins to review the situation please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. First, it was I who snow-closed Xterm. But, let's take a closer look at the other one. Looking over the references in XFree86, it's really a pretty poor collection of sources. Lots of references, but blogs, interviews, mailing list posts, source code repositories, etc. I can't find a single WP:RS in the lot. The fact that this is heading to another snow keep just says that people aren't paying attention to our sourcing requirements. Or, maybe they're all just doing the WP:IAR thing. In either case, I really can't blame anybody for bringing this to AfD. And, yes, I've used both Xterm and Xfree86. And I know how important they are. But, we're looking for sources, and I'm not seeing them. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't really use Linux anymore, I've kinda migrated to apple macs and Windows 7, X, long ago, but there were a number of books published for Xfree86, Emil Georgescu published a few, there are published notes which can be classed as a cite in notes on the article. But these are old topics, I hate to say it, but this is kind of an archive of old stuff on wikipedia and to just get rid of these articles without correct due diligence doesn't seem right. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of cURL is similar; those of semi-DABs of equipment and journal are not similar but may outrage inclusionists. There are also a good number of AfDs that look like they will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair Wumbulo has only made about one AfD since asked to stop. Importantly however we have a problem not just related to AfD's but also to PRODs (and perhaps a redirect and a speedy) dating from about 12 September 2018 10:25 (and some You tube articles before that), starting with this redirect, though may have been issues before that. The PRODs and redirects are perhaps more serious as they may slip scrutiny if not properly on Wikiproject. Following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Proposed deletion of Xterm notification and deprod I've done a lot of deprods from Wumbulo's activity with a low threshold, not ideal practice but somewhat swamped, mainly because a number are at least possible merge candidates. Very concerned about Wumbolo's views at User_talk:Wumbolo#AfDs with regard to AfDs etc. This is disruptive because its all focused on destruction and defence rather than trying to improve, not good for genuine volunteers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly encourage Wumbolo to enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: if you want to see my PROD log, or more specifically my PRODs that didn't go through, use User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py (perhaps change it a bit). I don't want to have a Twinkle PROD log so that people can look at blue links that are article re-creations in the future, after new sources will have been published. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you expect a lot of your PRODs to stay blue (or turn blue again), you may want to reconsider your current PRODding. The log is not just a tool for transparancy, it's also useful to keep track of and evaluate your own actions. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't blame him, to be honest. PROD is a waste of time, you can PROD the most obvious piece of crap article in the history of crap articles, and someone will tootle along and remove it again. PROD is pointless. Just AFD them. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have said PROD is actually usually working quite well when combined when monitored at project level such as at Wikiproject Computing where they can be lightweight triaged into let pass, deprod and fix and deprod with a tendency to deprod if in doubt. Wumbolo's use of PROD on articles was technically well correct apart seemingly in my opinion from failure to look for best practice alternatives and use in potentially controversial prods, and especially a mid importance article likely will always be controversial. The question here is perhaps has Wumbulo in a sophisticated manner performed a course of actions and take a stance that was not in good faith and deliberately to make a WP:POINT. There may be questions of failure to follow WP:BEFORE, failure to consider WP:BUNDLE and perhaps failure to contact the project first to see if they had any solutions prior to bulk AfD's. There may be questions of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. I would notice Wumbulo is a WP:NPP and seems to have been targeted just before this period.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasting who's time? You edit wikipedia because you have time on your hands! Also, Guitar Pro is point indication that in my opinion Wumbolo is nominating articles for deletion without analysing what the page is. If he knew the industry and how used some of this software programs are, then he might not bother nominating these articles. This is more about this abundant delete culture simple because you don't know and all you are going by is GNG rules? This is poor process procedure, wikipedia is about the collective team effort and no one person should go about nominating a string of articles without a bit of input from one of the projects. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: Now, you're wasting my time. It is not incumbent upon Wumbolo or anyone else to know the industry. Either the subject passes notability criteria or it goes. Inveterate fans like you expect the subjects you like to be written about without presenting any sources to make a claim of notability. That WikiProject members show up en masse at a given AfD to !vote keep doesn't make Wumbolo wrong. What's going on here is that cabals of editors expect special treatment and they become irate when they don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the commenters to the AfDs have included possible sources, so I disagree with your assertion "without presenting any sources" as that is not what is happening. Yes several of the articles definitely could have better sourcing and a few of the articles probably should get deleted or merged wmii for example but the commenters for the most point have pointed that out. I know on several of the AfDs I've spent time checking and evaluating sources. AfD is not for article cleanup, there is a reason that WP:BEFORE suggests "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree with the logic, just not the targets. Something that is a core operating system component on the majority of Unix-like systems today is obviously notable. However, there is a problem with too much UGC being used as sources on articles related to open source software, and I do agree that while something like X.org is clearly notable, Obscure Window Manager #291 isn't. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is mass nomination (including some major articles like xterm, X.Org Server, some obscure, but the scale is shown by a large percentage of Template:Desktop environments and window managers for X11 and Wayland including one of the categories X window manager referred to as "spam" [5]) combined with a lack of WP:BEFORE. Both are at best pointy, at worst just disruption, and picking up much comments from editors at the AfDs all saying the same. I don't see any sign this is acknowledged, so it's reasonable to bring here. Almost all of the AfDs I've seen are unanimous (or near) Keeps. Widefox; talk 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This is absolutely an exaggeration. A lot of Wumbolo's AFDs attract shitty keep votes from editors who use this software and therefore think it's inherently notable. It's a reflection of Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias. In one of the more blatant examples of systemic bias, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination)#Xmonad has a keep vote from an editor who literally just has a "gut feeling" that the software is notable. Meanwhile, the other keep votes don't cite policy or show any sources. Just because a bunch of keep votes land on an AFD doesn't mean the AFD is bad or made in bad faith. It could also mean that Wumbolo nominates AFDs that certain groups of editors are unhappy with because they have a bias for these articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That reply doesn't address the validity of failing to do basic BEFORE as required, or the mass nomination, which is the big problem. A scattergun hits the target sometimes, huh? That one is borderline out the 40-50 is an exception that proves the rule. (AGF ignored) . To extrapolate from one AfD to 50 is, an exaggeration, yes. Widefox; talk 18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No Wumbolo, I wasn't canvassed to come here. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since your shenanigans at White genocide conspiracy theory. Bradv 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: I find that rather unbelievable. You were pinged about an hour before you commented here at ANI. But the ANI thread itself was a couple of days old. wumbolo ^^^ 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't pinged to come here. I was already watching this page, along with your talk page. Even if I were, does that mean that my comment here is invalid? This is the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that needs to be brought to an end. Bradv 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's WP:BATTLEGROUND of me to just point out that you were canvassed (which you were by Widefox as a matter of fact, regardless of whether you came here because of it or not), and it's not battleground behavior to canvass someone?! And why do you think that canvassing to ANI is not a problem? Are not enough neutral people watching ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (no notification has been made to me of such an accusations at ANI, so I'll ignore) Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: People seem to disagree about the merits of Wumbolo's AfDs, but there does seem to be general concern about the increasing number of them to the exclusion of doing WP:BEFORE. He went from 10 AfDs in July to 11 AfDs in August to 15 in one day alone (September 12) and 16 the following day (September 13) [6]. I propose that either (1) Wumbolo be warned to restrict his AfD noms to 2 per week; (2) Wumbolo be officially restricted to 2 AfDs per week; or (3) an alternative proposal that will solve/reduce his ever-increasing number of AfD noms. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both quality and quantity are a problem. Quality it's more than BEFORE, it's misrepresentation [7] [8], wikilaywering [9] [10] [11] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination), WP:POINTY, and WP:BLUDGEON (on most/all of them), and a relist less than a year after the last Keep AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination) . Not bold, but reckless. Does anyone in their right mind think xterm, X window manager (a category of articles), and X.Org Server should be deleted? The AfDs are like a newbie with a pointy stick bludgeoning all that turn up in disbelief.
    Considering it's behaviour in the AfDs as well, any restriction should address that too. 1) plus some limit on comments seems a start. Widefox; talk 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you come up with a restriction or sanction (or warning/suggestion) that would cover and prevent all of that? Or just brainstorm some possibilities? Maybe just a topic ban on computer/tech-related AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's not just computer, it's disruption in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thinsulate [12], and it's ongoing #1 #2. Suggest general deletion restriction (PROD/AfD). Widefox; talk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic bans from deletion per se are a hard sell (and require lots and lots of diffs). It's easier to start with provable problems, provable disruption. I think it's clear that Wumbolo does not do WP:BEFORE, that he is targeting tech and computer articles, that he is fairly clueless about notability even beyond his lack of WP:BEFORE, and that he is over-AfDing. Therefore, a good start would be a topic ban from computer/tech-related AfDs. I would also like his PROD log to be easily visible (he shouldn't be deliberately hiding it as he admits to doing), so we could also propose that he enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle, as power~enwiki recommended. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to just be tech deletion, and PROD log. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does seem to be some of the AFDs here that are in the right ballpark (in terms of the articles not really showing how the GNG is met, or issues with the sourcing), these are not flat out bad nominations or nominations made in bad faith, and some of the logic to keep these is questionable too (feeling more like pile-on !voting to keep them). Wumbolo's AFD noms are asking proper questions as to why we are keeping these articles (particularly on these small commercial or free-software packages, which do fall into the realm of WP:NCORP's stronger sourcing aspects). The only issue that really can be begged is the frequency/rate of nomination, which belies a proper BEFORE step, suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first. --Masem (t) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    " ... suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first." That was my initial proposal; I would support that. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note quite - WP:BEFORE is clear that sources don't have to be in the article not a proper basis for a nomination, so they aren't proper noms. Yes to the rest. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint is utterly ridiculous. Wumbolo's AFD nominations are clearly in good faith. Wumobolo's always pulled up articles that are extremely problematic or lacking in references. Problem is, other editors who are Linux people or whatever immediately get offended that their favorite little piece of free software or whatever is getting nominated for deletion, and then vote Speedy Keep with a shitty rationale. This discussion is a reflection of WP:Systemic bias that is all too common on WP:AFD, which is why we see tons of crappy software articles get kept with the justification "oh I use it so...there must be sources...?". This is a REALLY terrible mindset, and shame on the person who brought this to ANI. Just because we're not all worshippers of free software doesn't mean you need to bring people to ANI. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My favorite piece of free software is GIMP, not anything ever nommed by Wumbolo, and I don't see this complaint as anything near meritless. WP:BEFORE states that an editor should "...take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." which is the problem, as I see it. Wumbolo is not searching to see if reliable sources exist, he's simply glancing at the reflist to see if any are used. Nomming these for deletion isn't improving the project (when the obvious "quick" solution would be to hatnote the article), it's simply creating a disruptive atmosphere. No-one has, to my knowledge, suggested that Wumbolo is not nomming these in good faith. They're simply suggesting that Wumbolo is making the same mistake over and over and not correcting themself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? People are just assuming that Wumbolo hasn't done their homework, because they're biased in favor of these free software articles. "Xmonad? Oh yeah, I use that, that's totally notable, Wumbolo clearly hasn't made reasonable attempts to look for sources" -- the line of thinking for this accusation of not following WP:BEFORE. This is a very serious accusation based on shoddy evidence. As someone who uses free software a bunch too, I'm also a little surprised whenever I see some of these nominations. But I don't take personal offense at free software being nominated for deletion, and realize someone who may not be a free software user might not immediately realize that certain software is widely known among free software users. And in fact, editors who aren't involved with free software may end up being the best judges for whether free software articles are truly notable. I try to objectively evaluate free software articles instead of rely on gut feelings or my personal biases in favor of them. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of a negative isn't a reasonable burden per se. But..the evidence of many AfDs together (rather than just Xmonad which you've selected out of ~40) how do you explain trying to delete xterm (and those other major articles) if BEFORE was done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager nom is just Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable that's fairly random and incorrect, then there's trying to delete the opposite - the list rather than the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments "...seems like an advertisement of one company's products which is in no way notable" which is about open source software, it appears they haven't even read the article let alone searched for sources! On balance, sources were found for all, some very quickly so its either not done or it's competence. Either way, it shouldn't happen on mass, should it? Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? How about the fact that a google search for "X.Org Server" returns 222 million results including multiple RSes on the first page? Now please try to explain to me how any reasonable person who did that search (which would constitute the bare minimum an editor could do to look for sources) could think that X.Org Server was not notable.
    Look, Wumbolo's not a major computer geek. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, hence there's nothing wrong with him not being aware of some of these things. There's also no rule saying that an editor must add sources if they find them. Finally, there's no-one suggesting Wumbolo is doing any of this maliciously. I'm certainly not. But these noms are obviously not flying, and so Wumbolo needs to either get serious about WP:BEFORE or stop nomming stuff, because it's a waste of time for multiple people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see multiple RSes on the first page. TechRepublic has some routine coverage. The rest are garbage (primary, forums, help desks, obviously not about x.org, etc.) on the first page for me. TheRegister has some more routine coverage. So, no, I would reject the WP:GOOGLE numbers argument as well as your failure to cite specific sources which indicate notability under the general notability guideline. But perhaps this is an argument for AFD? :) --Izno (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you run a completely different search, you should expect completely different results. I linked my search, and there I see Techrepublic, Ars Technica and PC Magazine, all on the first page. And on the second page? More Ars Technica, Tech Radar, The Register (escaping the walled garden of tech sites, even!) and more Techrepublic. Although, to be fair, I actually work in IT and read more X.Org news than X.org specs, and google's probably figured that out by now. But that doesn't change the fact that a google search is the bare minimum one can do to find sources. And question: How many sites do "routine coverage" of non-notable software?
    But if that's our standard (delete anything obscure, whether it's notable or not), then we should probably delete pages like Yukawa interaction because I doubt many non-physicists have heard of that, either. Or maybe, we should rely on coverage in RSes ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, permit me to comment some more on those sources:
    1. TechRepublic 1 is somewhere in the realm between routine and maybe enough detail to stub an article. It's basically a HOWTO. (I would be concerned about basically copying the entire article.)
    2. PCMag is a passing mention and is a bit NOTVERSIONHISTORY. "Ubuntu's default (GNOME and X) somewhat supports touchscreens, though Wayland is supposedly the preferred windowing system going forward for such implementations."
    3. Ars 1. "Ubuntu made Wayland the default display manager for 17.10, but it has reverted to X.org for the LTS release. It's a sensible change upon reflection given Wayland's long list of incomplete features like, for example, the lack of support for screen sharing in chat/VoIP apps and spotty support for VNC tools." This also is passing. It gives an immediate reason for the above item but is really about Ubuntu.
    4. Ars 2. "Ubuntu had settled on the Wayland display server for 17.10 as a default because Canonical wanted to boost 3D graphics capabilities, but it has switched back to X.org graphics server as the default for 18.04, mostly because Wayland's support for screen sharing in applications such as Google Hangouts and Skype isn't quite there." Basically reports the exact same thing as Ars 1.
    5. TechRadar "X.Org, for example, is a bit long in the tooth now. It was never really designed with secure computing in mind. So it’s fairly easy— well, not necessarily X.Org actually, but the whole OS; if something is running as a root, or it’s running as your user, then it has the permissions of that user that’s running it." doesn't tell me anything that #1 didn't already.
    6. The Register. #1 repeat.
    So, maybe it's notable, maybe it's not. But coverage like that I would definitely put in the, "a reasonable BEFORE search could have caused someone to come to the conclusion that X.org isn't notable, even if we were looking at the same Google search" (which clearly has tuned to your interests). It's not about being obscure without evidence of being obscure. It's about what the GNG asks us for: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis original). Computing and software articles are problematic in this regard, because while they document the software great in many cases via WP:PRIMARY sources, they often do a garbage job at telling us what independent sources have said about them. I won't get into physics articles, but I agree some of those more-obscure topics can tend toward "is this really a reasonable article or should it be summarized elsewhere"? However, that's offtopic to this case (WP:OSE) and I wouldn't want to judge those without access to those sources anyway.
    I might suggest that users here might want to take a look at AFD stats and AFD stats noms-only. I'll be taking a look at these later I suppose. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're arguing in favor of deletion, which is accomplishing very little except convincing me that you don't work in IT. If that's your goal here, congrats. If your goal is to prove you're capable of wikilawyering, then congrats because you've done that, too. But if your goal is to show that Wumbolo actually did follow WP:BEFORE then I'm afraid you've failed quite thoroughly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguing in favor of deletion and you're capable of wikilawyerin. No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting (or one of the other conclusions). I have no strong opinion on the article topic and clearly have no intention to go !vote--I'm leaving my comment here instead so that we don't all decide that Wumbolo has done some grievous thing without actually backing up and saying "is he right?". you don't work in IT I work in the aerospace and defense industry; one of my company's products makes use of X11. Thanks for playing. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting Ummm.... Have you considered the fact that you literally just contradicted yourself? In one sentence? Probably not. Nothing in the rest of your comment is worth responding to (it's worth a laugh, though) so have a nice life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) I have not argued for deletion. I have not argued for keeping. I have not argued for any other x, y, or z outcome that would be typical of an AFD. So when you claim that I am "arguing in favor of deletion", you are wrong. It is your extrapolation that what I have said favors deletion, that I am arguing for such. (Please, do try to find where I said "the article should be kept/deleted/x/y/zd".) But I chose deliberately not to argue over whether the article should be deleted because the point of this section is "did Wumbolo get it right?". (Else, you might have found me at WP:Articles for deletion/X.org instead, where perhaps you should provide those sources to aid the closing admin in determining whether the article should be deleted.) To which I gave an opinion, separate to those AFDs, that in this case, he made a reasonable nomination of the article topic, where I questioned some of the sourcing that were "found" to support the belief he did not perform a WP:BEFORE search. The reason I included the AFD stats link a few replies above is that people who comment here in this section should also come to their own conclusions on whether he has acted reasonably, by doing some of the research for those AFDs he has either nominated (or commented in). I plan to do so, separate to this little engagement with you, because that's what's fair. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should go to some of the AfDs and see what is being said. Comments like this that immediately present 5 impeccable sources along with pointing out the lack of WP:BEFORE only to be responded to by Wumbolo with the eye-poppingly false claim that the Fedora/Red Hat bible and the CentOS bible are "identical" paint a very different picture of what's going on than you do. So instead of arguing in favor of deletion here (which you absolutely are doing, whether that fact suits you or not) while ignoring the fact that a rather large number of editors are saying the same exact thing about these noms, maybe you should be off browsing the AfDs and learning that they don't, in any way, need me to come drop off a couple of good google hits to end in a WP:SNOW close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Systemic bias correction

    User:FenixFeather is on a mission to reduce systemic bias "Explain to me how trying to reduce systemic bias is a violation of AGF. I believe that it's a serious issue that's limiting the quality of the project. Are you denying the reality and importance of systemic bias?" (in fairness they pull back "I'm not even using systemic bias as a justification for deletion here"), "The point of this thread was to call you out for not following AGF and perpetuating Systemic bias". The drama "dick move", "shame on both of you", accusation of "stalking" would be better brought here, rather than at these AfDs. How many articles have been deleted? How long has this been going on? AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Youtube-dl were 14 days ago, where Wumbolo nommed, and only FenixFeather and one other editor !voted. Youtube-dl was included in Comparison of YouTube downloaders, there's two more AfDs of articles there - one nom each for the two editors. Clearly they aren't the same editor. Widefox; talk 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the point of this? I was addressing the fact that someone had accused another editor of bad faith without considering that maybe that editor had just made a mistake due to lack of knowledge on the topic. Are you saying I'm User:Wumbolo or? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On second reading, it does seem like you're accusing me of being the same editor. You should bring this to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place for this. And no, there's no conspiracy to delete articles. There were literally no sources for youtube-dl; I looked. I don't know why you think we're on some weird crusade to delete articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me address the stalking claim as well. You went into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and voted to keep, way after the AFD was created. I thought this was really weird because this was right after we were getting into discussion here and other articles. And apparently you think Wumbolo and I are in on some conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles and free software articles. I personally do believe that youtube downloader articles must have a very high standard of inclusion to belong on Wikipedia, being WP:MILL stuff, and after Wumbolo nominated youtube-dl someone else suggested that the other youtube downloader articles were "just as notable", so I looked through the other youtube downloader articles and nominated the one I thought had the worst sourcing. Being new to AFD, I didn't want to nominate all of the youtube downloader articles at once, so I wanted to take it one at a time. Anyways, I hope this satisfies your theory about the conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is: you and Wumbolo should immediately stop new AfDs, stop BLUDGEONING AfD participants and stop creating disruption just because other editors are !voting to keep stuff that goes against your mission. Your example is good Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy (software) is your nom, 1 !voter (Keep), (relisted), Wumbolo (Delete), and I (Keep). The other AfDs are generally you and Wumbolo delete, everyone else keep. That seems dangerous when there's only one other !voter as per Youtube-dl. You're evidence for stalking is that I !voted at AfD? or you don't like my !vote? Looks like more participation is needed to me. Isn't a lack of scrutiny combined with mass and sometimes reckless PROD and AfD from Wumbolo (combined with your deletions) something that we need to scrutinise? Widefox; talk 00:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't deny that I'm new to AFD, and that I'm still learning. What I don't appreciate is this intense hostility from you throughout AFD, and that random vote today really meshes with your story of how you're trying to fight the FenixFeather-Wumbolo conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. I'm not bludgeoning anyone; the comments you link to above are an attempt to get you and Bradv to recognize that it's not a good idea to immediately accuse someone in bad faith for having stated something wrong in the AFD justification. As I stated on that thread, I wasn't arguing about the !vote itself, but about the unnecessary and unfounded accusation of bad faith. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you really want me to stop making AFD noms? I've only made two recently, because like I said, I'm still learning so I'm proceeding cautiously. Go ahead and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_Left-wing_insurgency_in_Greece and see how it fits into your conspiracy theory. You really want to make me stop nominating AFDs just because I'm concerned about systemic bias? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "As far as I know, I'm the only one who's been actively pointing out systemic bias in tech articles." It's about stopping the disruption or others here may have to intervene. Widefox; talk 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand your point. You were asking me whether Wumbolo also was discussing systemic bias. I said no, I don't believe Wumbolo has. What are you trying to prove here? That Wumbolo and I are the same editor? If so, take it to WP:SPI. If you're trying to prove that I'm against systemic bias, then yes, I am. Systemic bias is a widely recognized problem on Wikipedia because most editors are Western, male, and in some sort of STEM field. Can you clarify what I'm supposed to defend myself against here? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POVFIGHTER / WP:ADVOCACY#I only want to help Wikipedia! If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral There's a significant number editors at the AfDs who are complaining about Wumbolo's AfDs, backed by you, battleground disruption, and not convincing others per WP:REHASH, I'm asking you to refrain to prevent ongoing disruption on mass AfDs. Can you? Widefox; talk 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You're really stretching that definition. I've pointed out systemic bias on... two AFD articles I think? Once where someone voted on "gut feeling" and another time where someone accused the nominator of bad faith upon getting something technically wrong, both of which I thought were legitimate instances of perpetuating systemic bias. That makes me an advocate that a significant number of editors find annoying? This is actually absurd. I have no idea why you want administrative action against me because I guess I kinda pissed you off in an AFD? Can you let your feelings go for a moment and realize how unnecessarily stressful you're making this experience? I literally had a nightmare about this because you dragged me to ANI and are trying your hardest to drive me away by taking things I say out of context. People like you is why I quit Wikipedia the first time I tried editing. It's a hostile environment that immediately tries to shut down any identification of systemic issues. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The civility "dick move" and AfD disruption (mass nom, and BLUDGEONING in the AfDs from both of you) - diffs are above. Have you seen how many editors are complaining about these AfDs? Widefox; talk 19:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only nominated 2 AFDs recently, and 3 AFDs in my entire Wikipedia career, two of which have been uncontroversial deletes. That's massive disruption? Look at what you're doing. You're taking a novice editor, with only about 3k edits, to ANI simply for having voted for a few AFDs that you dislike and for suggesting that systemic bias might be the cause of perspective issues. What kind of atmosphere are you creating here? And what about that WP:SPI accusation? Are you going to report me as a sockpuppet or was that just a character attack designed to further alienate me from the project? If your intent is to protect the project, instead of simply retaliating against me for I don't know how I hurt you, then you should be taking actions to report me as a sockpuppet instead of just sitting here and engaging in mudslinging. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you two just going to continue this back-and-forth thing indefinitely? If so, maybe you should do it on someone's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I feel obligated to defend myself here since I think an admin will be evaluating this at some point? I apologize if I'm not supposed to do that here. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm just going to leave a closing argument to summarize here, since further back and forth may not be productive. I've only recently begun browsing AFDs a few days ago. Because a few of my votes happened to match with Wumbolo's, I've been dragged into here and accused of sockpuppeting and violating AGF, despite the fact that I was only trying to point out that sometimes, perspective issues can cloud our judgement. I've not accused anyone of acting in bad faith. Using the phrase "dick move" has been labeled as "uncivil" here but my intent was not to personally attack anyone, but instead describe how accusing someone of acting in bad faith for having gotten something wrong can be mean and unwelcoming. In response, Widefox has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, as shown by their going through all my AFD votes relating to software and voting on them. Widefox even dredged up youtube-dl which goes back several weeks. For evidence of this Wikihounding, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DownThemAll!_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and note the timestamps on those comments. Widefox also attempted to canvas Bradv to this ANI on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments after seeing that most editors on this ANI discussion agree that Wumbolo, while mistaken sometimes, was most likely acting in good faith and not being disruptive. As demonstrated by this ANI thread, Widefox believes that Wumbolo and I are on some sort of crusade to "mass delete" software articles, and this belief has driven their labeling of me as disruptive and their Wikihounding in an attempt to protect Wikipedia from this deletion campaign. While this may be in good faith, it's unfounded and has caused me considerable stress and made me feel unwelcome, and is a form of harassment I would like to stop. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He is not here to build an encyclopedia

    Stefka Bulgaria does not seem to be here for building an encyclopedia. I provide some diffs and leave the judgment to you admins:

    1- He removes the contents on the ground that he can't find them in the cited sources, this is while they are indeed supported by the source:

    A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.
    B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.
    C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

    2- He writes a misleading edit summary for his edits and dishonestly removes other contents in between (some sort of Gaming):

    A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.
    B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.
    C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.
    D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

    3- Miscellaneous:

    A) In this edit, he removes a whole section he does not like to see in the article, only because the title of the section is not matching with its content. He could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material.

    The above diffs are only a brief overview of his recent edits in MEK and this editing pattern is just repeated in his previous edits. I've already discussed some of the points on the article talk page, although I think this is a behavioral issue and should be addressed by the admins. --Mhhossein talk 12:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [13] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note to viewers: Icewhiz appears up (needless to say it's sort of hounding) almost when ever I file things against users. @IW: Sketchy sketchy sketchy sketchy...Be realistic. Don't defend others at any price, editors will certainly judge your words and won't be mislead by your comments. You had the same behavior at AE and the other guy you always used to defend, got blocked for the third time. This is not good for you. --Mhhossein talk 05:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not intended to comment on this thread until I saw Mhhossein's above comment. I do not believe a user who defended a neo-nazi sock puppet (Expectant of Light) has much room to comment on who or what other users should defend, and I'd further recommend that MH keep WP:NPA in mind. While I do not feel Mhhossein has done much that is actionable, I have found them notably obtuse and overzealous at ANI. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icarosaurvus: Be careful about what you say. You can take it as warning against making personal attacks. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you didn't actualy defend Expectant of Light the above statement is nowhere near a personal attack. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a point we can rest on...Cheers! --Mhhossein talk 18:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the user did indeed defend Expectant of Light, I'd say it's most certainly not a personal attack. While I do not believe the two are connected in any meaningful way, other than sharing an interest in Iran, one has to be careful about defending another user simply because they share one's POV; something which Mhhossein has been less than stellar about in the past. Thus, I do not believe the user in question is particularly well qualified to comment on what one should or should not defend. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icarosaurvus, with your 43 edits to mainspace in 4 years, I really think you should tone it down some lest someone think you're not here. Now, it is true that those who file reports an ANI should expect to come under scrutiny, but what you're doing here is not scrutinizing--it's simply casting aspersions. And whether someone defended a neo-Nazi or not has, as it happens, very little to do with this particular case, unless you can make a connection that somehow involves Stefka Bulgaria's edits. If you can't, stay away. Yes, please consider this a warning for a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I primarily edit portals; specifically, Portal:Current events. The idea that only mainspace edits should or do count is ludicrous; mainspace is only part of what keeps our encyclopedia functional. A large part, granted, but if we neglected the other components of this great work, it would not be the respectable site which it is today. While I disagree with your assessment of the above as a personal attack, I will leave this thread alone, unless pinged. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As requested, here's my review of Mhhossein's comments above:

    1. A) Content I removed was concerning Masoud Keshmiri’s alleged affiliation with the MEK: The first source I removed does not mention the MEK, and second source says "The office of the revolutionary prosecutor identified one Masud Kashmiri, a Mojahed, as the secretary of the Prime Minister's office...", which is not the same as confirming that Keshmiri was a MEK member (I have not found a source that confirms the MEK took responsibility for Keshmiri). The IRI blamed numerous incidents on the MEK, many of which turned out to be false allegations. As discussed on WikiProject Iran’s Talk page (and as user Mhhossein is well aware of), IRI sources are not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition groups.
    B) The Nation source is being used to support the MEK’s “Alleged involvement in Syrian Civil War”, but source does not mention Syria at all.
    C) The section in question was titled “Anti-American campaign”, and the text in the article said: “In 1973 ten major American-owned buildings were bombed including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, and Radio City Cinema.” What the source actually says is “The Mojahedin intensified their armed operations in the years between 1973 and 1975. In 1973 they fought two street battles with the Tehran police, and bombed ten major buildings including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, Radio City Cinema, and an export company owned by a prominent Bha'i businessman.” Nothing in the sources here suggest that there was an anti-American campaign by the MEK (rather, it comes across as deliberate misrepresantation of the source), and I ended up including this information without the misleading insinuation.
    2. A) A graduate student (Aaron Schwartz ) thesis was used to confirm that the MEK is currently a militant organization. The following text: “advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.” is also misleading (and not encyclopedic). This, on the other hand, would be more a accurate/encyclopedic description: “It was ‘based on Islamic and Socialist ideology’ and advocated ‘overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership’” (Katzman 2001; Country of Origin Research Information 2009, p.2).
    B) This is user Snooganssnoogans’s assessment about using infoplease.com (and the springer book that uses 'infoplease.com') to cite that 16,000 have been killed by the MEK: “The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure.”
    C) This report on the MEK reads like it was heavily influenced by the IRI (and there are reasons to believe that this may be the case). Big claims such as that the MEK "conducted attacks and assassinations on Western targets" should be backed up by more than a single report (that has since been taken down).
    D) I don’t understand what the complaint is in the first instance (there is a typo error by me, but for the rest I simply updated the text from the Abrahamian source). In the second instance, I used better sources to clarify the sequence of events: The MEK accused the IRI of monopolizing power, which led to a protest where MEK sympathizers were killed, which led to the MEK retaliating against the IRI, which let to the IRI retaliating against the MEK, etc.)
    3. A) There isn’t any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict, yet Mhhossein continues to make this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments in response to the above allegations. (@Drimes: can you please see my explanation on his misinterpretations?):
    1.
    A) Besides the point that 'WikiProject Iran’s Talk page' is not the right venue for making global decisions regarding sources, I can say that there's absolutely no consensus over IRI sources being "not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition." Even you can't find any mentions of 'fact checking' in this semi private discussion he refers to. However, the dispute is not over the reliability of the Iranian sources. Above, he alleged that he had removed ([14], [15] and [16]) the first source since it had "not mention[ed] the MEK". This is while, in P:27 it reads"...subsequent investigations revealed that Kashmiri was an agent of the leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and blamed for 17,000 Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988," and in P:28 it repeats the same thing: " Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished."
    B) This source clearly supports "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces.”" Although the source is commenting on MEK's reaction to ISIL's activities in Iraq, not Syria, it's not a suitable reason to remove such a sourced content.
    C) He removed materials regarding MEK's armed acts against U.S. personnel and civil bodies only since the section title. i.e. Anti-American campaign, was not suitable. I've already changed the title, but Stefka gradually removed the whole section based on his self-made allegations. I've now simply restored the section with a new title.
    2.
    A) Stefka already revealed that his edit summary was not in accordance with his edit.
    'B) I think Stefka is digging himself deeper regarding the '10,000 deaths' issue, since we're not even talking about whether or not figure 16,000 is reliable. He has removed the well-sourced figure of 10,000. @Stefka: So, don't say infoplease is reliable or not, since that has nothing to do with our dispute. Stefka is GAMING us by removing the well-sourced 10,000 on an irrelevant basis. Yes, there were no consensus over 16,000 being supported by a reliable source, but we're not talking about that.
    C) Again Stefka admits having used a misleading edit summary. In this edit stefka removed, among others, materials cited to a U.S. state report and now he revealed that the removal was only because he though the US report was heavily influenced by Iran!!! So we need to know Stefka's definition of reliable sources. In that edit, the edit summary tell us he's only removed the the materials cited to 'Strategic Culture', which is not correct.
    D) Stefka's edit summary ([17] and [18]) reads "Quote from the source[s]". Are the edits only inserting quotes from a source into the article?
    3.
    I don't say there's "any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict", rather I say Stefka "could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material" instead of removing them.
    The case is really getting time wasting but I think it's worth trying to let the others know what I mean by Stefka's "dishonest" edits.--Mhhossein talk 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A majority vote at WikiProjet Iran contended that IRI-controlled sources should be used for IRI positions. The majority vote argued that IRI-controlled sources are subject to censorship, particularly concerning political topics (where covering certain political topics can lead to imprisonment or execution).
    Based on the fact that the IRI executes MEK sympathizers, I’ve tried to bring some neutrality to the article by making a distinction between IRI and non-IRI sources; as well as replacing weak sources / fringe statements with quotes from more established scholarly works. Many of these have been objected/reverted by Mhhossein, who comes across as having POV issue here. Mhhossein’s POV-pushing edits include:
    • Trying to establish the MEK is referred to with the derogatory term “Hypocrites” in Iran 1, 2, 3
    • Removing well-sourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • POV summaries from sources:
    Source: The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down a Kurdish rebellion in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran.
    Mhhossein: MEK assisted Saddam Hussein in "brutally" suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[1]
    Source: In the wake of the revolution, Khomeini grew suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant and widespread popularity.
    Mhhossein: After the fall of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when Khomeini got "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant.”
    About Mhhossein’s points above, here’s my reply:
    1A. “Keshmiri” is spelled “Kashmiri” in the source, which may be the reason why my word search initially gave no returns when I searched for it. Nevertheless, it was the IRI who identified Keshmiri as a MEK agent. Considering that the IRI was pinning whatever it could on the MEK at the time, these need to be presented as allegations rather than facts.
    B. @Mhhossein, how is the statement "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as ‘revolutionary forces’” a valid attribute to the “MeK’s alleged involved in Syria”?
    C. @Mhhossein, again, the section was titled “Anti-American campaign” (a title that you you included). Here, I already made a point concerning Mhhossein’s misrepresantation of sources.
    2A. As pointed out, there is a POV issue there.
    B. First, the source says “Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict, which is not the same as “As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979”. Second, Ploughshares report is not RS, particularly on account of its links to the IRI.
    3. Finding titles to random remarks is not my objective at the MEK page.
    Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    A WP:BOOMERANG is in order, due to repeated unactionable complaints filed here and in particular due to this diff Mhhossein brought himself - [19] that was blanket reverted by Mhhossein - beyond the sketchy source this is a blatant misrepresention of the source and a serious POV problem - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous complaint here by blocked sock - [20] supported by Mhhossein. Another one by the blocked sock - [21] supported by Mhhossein (the sock got blocked for the nature of their comments prior to being discovered as a sock). Filing baseless ANI complaints every month or so against Stefka Bulgaria over a content dispite (in this case - without even engaging in the talk page of the article) - is not reasonable. @CaroleHenson: has been attempting to mediate in the content dispite(s) and might have input.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional recent complaint against another user at ANI over content - [22].Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The very providing of this diff clealry demonstrates your bad faith approach towards me. In that ANI, the reported user was to be sanctioned but survived after he changed his behavior. Read ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) and Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC). --Mhhossein talk 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Article issues could have been dwelt on the article's Talk page. Mhhossein has resorted to making unactionable complaints against editors that disagree with him much too often. His POV pushing and inability to work constructively with others that do not share his perspective is disruptive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pending some evidence. @Icewhiz: Do you have any diffs or archive links of these "repeated unactionable complaints"? The two links above are to threads started by a different editor, and smearing the present OP by attempting to associate them with "a blocked sock" is clearly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, it's not the first time folks have attempted to link Mhh with the David Duke fan in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that thread was opened neither by Mhhossein nor about Stefka Bulgaria, and from what I can establish (by looking at who edit-warred with whom, which is as far as I'm willing to delve into this content dispute) Pahlevun's "side" is ... not Stefka Bulgaria's, whatever either one is, so the existence of that thread doesn't back up Icewhiz's claim. And I should point out that while I was on Icewhiz's "side" during the EoL mess, that was purely because EoL was a DavidDuke-citing, antisemiticcanard-spouting Holocaust-denier; from what I can see, nothing about this mess that isn't ... that ... is black-and-white. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just one note to show the guy is wrong. On the killings issue, this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of morethan 10,000Iranians” since its exile. Or you can read here: "...and its leader even boasted about killing thousands of Iranians while this cult served ex-Iraqi dictator's expansionist ambition," here: "...the group returned the favor and killed by its own claim more than two thousand regime leaders," here: "..."Since 1981 the [MEK] have claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime," the report said." Also, this source suggests that this archive Washington Times article supports the figure in question. Where are those "repeated unactionable complaints" or those "baseless ANI complaints every month or so [filed] against Stefka Bulgaria" by me? --Mhhossein talk 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Responding to Mhhossein's points above:

    1. According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).[2][3][4][5]

    References

    1. ^ Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time. Archived from the original on April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    2. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=2AVR16hSwAwC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=mojahedin+misinformation&source=bl&ots=Xpt25UT1sH&sig=lmIkUo2zwo83_0O9aINdD1i2MhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjt-PdsNHcAhUo0FkKHeB8Ckk4FBDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=mojahedin%20misinformation&f=false
    3. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tehrans-futile-attempts-at-discrediting-the-cause-for-regime-change-in-iran/
    4. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=_ac30INKAu4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=mek+mois&source=bl&ots=dihePewqzH&sig=PHcZHRt_n7J0SPz4vBcMFAuDUUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOlK-Doc_cAhWkyoMKHa9dC2EQ6AEwDXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=mek%20mois&f=false
    5. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-iran-expanding-its-spying-and-lobbying-efforts

    2. Mhhossein's second source is an Opinion Piece on USA today written by Hamid Babaei, who appears to have links the Islamic Republic of Iran (the article is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign noted above).
    3. Mhhossein's third source is far from being RS.
    4. Mhhossein's fourth source quotes a State Department report that does not mention a particular figure of how many died. Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing.
    5. Here's a list of Mhhossein's unactionable complaints against different editors: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, here are a couple of previous reports against user Mhhossein for POV-pushing: [33], [34] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh...sorry. Both are some years old cases. The first was opened by a sock and the second was nearly ending into a Boomerang for the user commencing the report. Claearly shows you're doing your best to find something against me.--Mhhossein talk 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are to show that Drmies had already warned you that your POV pushing was disruptive. Some of your unactionable complaints against different editors, however, are more recent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria, said Drmies has a pretty good track record when it comes to POV warnings, but one wonders how that is relevant here. Now, in the section above you said you'd reply to the charges on the article talk page. I suggest you answer them here. You really don't want me and a bunch of other admins to turn off the Alabama game, make a pot of coffee, and wake up to investigate these charges and draw our conclusions without your input. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria is not sad with the marginal discussions distracting the admin's eyes from the the diffs I provided. Thanks to the Icewhiz's defenses, Stefka's failure at replying to them is losing its importance. Anyway, I'd like to add one point in response to Stefka; His in vain 'censorship' accusations aside, Piazza's article makes use of an Iran Times article dealing with a U.S. Senate statement. The simple point is that The Iran Times, in contrast to what Stefka alleged, was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government. Had Stefka bothered to check the sources and contents of the articles before making edits, there would not be such a discussion. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Iran Times is a fringe publication with a sole editor, does not qualiy as RS. I have responded to Dmries request above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At first it was unreliable since it had some relations with Iran and now that otherwise is proved, it's a fringe source! Maybe John Wiley & Sons and editors of 'Digest of Middle East Studies' need to get aware of it. Btw, your link does not say the mentioned guy is the sole editor of the source. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Javad Khakbaz, the sole owner and editor of the Iran Times". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He might be the sole owner but not certainly the sole editor. Anyway, it's a time wasting discussion. The John Wiley & Sons source refers to a Senate report. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Mhhossein talk 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nabil Gabol 2

    I've just blocked both of these users for perpetuating an edit war on this article, after the page had been protected due to their previous edit warring and one of them had already been blocked for it. Saqib clued me in to this discussion where it seems this issue has already been brought up, and on investigation it appears I've erred, but I'd like some more opinions on what is the best course of action here.

    Saqib has been trying to add some allegations of criminal activity on this Pakistani politician's article, which appear on the surface to be reliably sourced (I'm not very familiar with sources from this part of the world so I have not investigated in great depth). This, approximately, is Saqib's proposed edit. Balochworld objects to negative information being added to the BLP, but has been advised by at least one admin besides myself that this material does not qualify for the WP:BLPREMOVE exemption from 3RR.

    Unlike last time there has been discussion on the talk page, but I'm concerned that it amounts to Saqib and SheriffIsInTown talking past Balochworld and implementing contested edits before consensus has really been established. However it could also be that Balochworld is filibustering to ensure no negative material is added at all, and the previous discussion does seem to have concluded that they were at fault. I'm leaning towards proposing topic-banning Balochworld from the article, and reducing Saqib's block to time-served, but I don't want to issue a one-sided sanction without some more uninvolved opinions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like a content dispute and the blocks are warranted. I don't see ANI as the correct venue for the content dispute itself and suggest reverting back to Black Kite's stable version and holding on to that till the dispute is sorted out. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of Balochworld's mainspace edits since 2012 have been to three articles: Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol. I think it's about time they were encouraged to contribute elsewhere, possibly with a t-ban. Unfortunately, they haven't been warned about ARBIPA DS that I can see, so that may have to wait. I also see that they may have been using sockpuppets. That said; their behavior was not so egregious that Saqib should have been warring with them, and even if it had been, as an experienced editor he should have known to ask for admin attention rather that to continue edit-warring. As such I think both blocks were warranted. Saqib has, at least, admitted error, so I wouldn't be against lifting the block for a persuasive unblock request. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure if this fell under ARBIPA since it doesn't seem to concern India, but I alerted both to the ARBBLP discretionary sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the description of the 2013 murder allegations as a BLP violation, since he has not been arrested, tried or convicted. Major Pakistani press coverage of him in recent years does not even mention these five year old unproven allegations of involvement in a murder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: I do not think there was any thing wrong in Saqib's edit. It was balanced and NPOV'd and covered all aspects of the allegation, from allegation to investigation to exoneration to rejection of investigation findings by the other party. As long as the content is sticking to the sources, there is nothing wrong in its inclusion and I do not think it is a BLPVIO in anyway. We cannot appease folks by removing information which they do not like. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I must disagree with you about this matter, SheriffIsInTown. Coverage of a completely unproven allegation of involvement in murder, made five years ago by the father of the victim, without any evidence, and without a trial, let alone a conviction, is a serious BLP violation in my judgment. Removing such content does not "appease" anyone. It is required by policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: He was accused of murder, a joint investigation team was formed to investigate the allegations. This was all reported in reliable sources. I thought it was fair to tell the whole story in the article as per the sources instead of just completely removing the mention at all. This was not the only allegation against this individual so I think it is fair to mention the murder allegation in addition to other allegations and let the reader decide for themselves. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SheriffIsInTown, I removed a single sentence which read ""In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee," and two supporting references. There was nothing there about an investigation or an exoneration. This sentence by itself is most definitely a BLP violation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A fundamental problem that everyone should have with the section that Saqib added is the section header "Criminal activities". Activities ... meaning Gabol did something ... but everything in the section is accusation and investigations that apparently led to absolutely nothing. That's a falt out BLP violation that should be removed on the spot. Unless you want an article that doubles as a hit piece. Ravensfire (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ivanvector and Cullen328: The only problem I see with Saqib's version is the section heading as pointed out by Ravensfire otherwise I see everything fine. Some of the content was agreed upon by me beforehand and with everything else I am agreeing now. If you disagree then let us discuss every bit and piece of that edit so we can come to a conclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ravensfire: I acknowledge the section header was not appropriate. I'll be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Balochworld is an SPA and they had made very less contributions outside that page. Nabil Gabol was created by them which was filled with POV and puffery languages. Saqib attempted to improve that page which involved removal of praise and introduction of negative information about the individual which was well sourced. Balochworld did not like it and wanted to censor it and was met with resistance by Saqib. Balochworld attacked Saqib personally and Saqib reported them at ANI. Balochworld accused Saqib of having ill-will towards Nabil Gabol and requested involvement of another editor to vet out Saqib's edits. Me being involved in another ANI thread at the time saw Balochworld's request decided to fulfill Balochworld's request and play a role of mediator. My involvement resulted in content going in favor of Balochworld in some aspects and in favor of Saqib in other aspects. Saqib accepted the decision which went against him but Balochworld did not which went against him. The edit referenced above by Ivanvector has parts which were agreed upon by me. I stopped following that page thinking the issue between these two editors was already addressed. They just had to follow the consensus achieved at talk. Considering all this, I would not blame the admin for his actions but I personally think that Saqib's block is a bit harsh as he tried whatever he could to resolve this issue but sometimes tenaciousness of POV pushers can get best of us and we tend to go overboard. Wikipedia is a way better off without editors like Balochworld. They are not here to build encyclopedia but that is not the case with Saqib. Saqib has displayed time and again how valuable he is for the project. Blocking Saqib is the loss of the project not his! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Balochworld offered this comment via their talk page: "I have read the discussion so far and completely agree with Observance22 Cullen328 and Ravensfire. Saqib is clearly making the article about the BLP a hit piece by including accusations that are over 5 years old. In Pakistani politics accusations come on a daily basis and are purely politically motivated. I clearly requested on several occasions that it should be removed because these accusations did not result in an investigation let alone any conviction. I thank SheriffsinTown for his effort but he will agree that the only thing all three of us reached consensus on was removal of 1990 and 1997 election results because clearly it was a common case of a candidate simply submitting nomination papers as his party's covering candidate (someone who has gotten several thousands votes in the same election cannot possibly get 24 votes at the same time). Hence after consensus a protected edit request was made successfully. Once the protection on the page expired Saqib went ahead with his own agenda and added information that was never even discussed let alone agreed upon. I did not expect this from an experienced editor like Saqib. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but Saqib seemed bent upon sticking to his version and that is when I warned him on his talk page and involved other editors. Balochworld (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)" added by Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For my part, I was not intending for this post to substitute for discussion that should be occurring on the article's talk page, and I encourage everyone who's commented on the subject matter to continue discussion at Talk:Nabil Gabol. My question is about the blocks. I think it's reasonably clear that both of the blocked editors have reasonable points worth discussing, since others are now discussing them, so this was clear edit-warring-in-place-of-discussion, and since protection didn't work then removing the two edit warriors is a reasonable next step. Of course this comment is me reviewing my own action, so I'd still like to hear from others on the matter of the sanctions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: As suggested by User:Vanamonde93, I too recommend that Balochworld (talk · contribs) be topic banned for sake of WP:N because he has a clear conflict of interest with this particular BLP. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NG2 proposal: topic ban

    If I'm not wrong @Vanamonde93: above suggested a topic ban for Balochworld so here I propose a t/ban for Balochworld (talk · contribs) because of ownership and COI issues. Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol are the only topic he ever edits since joining WP a decade ago. I'm not the only who think the user has COI on this BLP. (see [35] and this). Balochworld said here that xe's the original author of this BLP and that I should not edit it - a clear example of ownership behaviour. As one can here, xe claims to be an expert on the subject but I guess we don't need his expertise on this particular BLP and xe better contribute elsewhere to avoid further disruption.

    @Black Kite: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworlds Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Due to their previous socking and recent socking during their current block, I do not think they should be allowed to even edit anytime soon but if somehow admins consider them useful for the project and decide to unblock them then I will support the topic ban otherwise Wikipedia is better off without them and their block should continue indefinitely! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was mistaken about their block period. They are only blocked for one week after all this. After their block is over, they should only be able to edit with a topic ban on Nabil Gabol, his family members, and the Gabol tribe overall! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworld has been closed with no finding of fault against Balochworld. No evidence has been presented here that justifies a topic ban, in particular, zero convincing evidence of a conflict of interest. It seems instead that a few other editors are engaged in a content dispute with Balochworld. This looks to me like an attempt to prevail in a content dispute by removing one party to the dispute. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cullen328: Did you check their editing history? Their third edit, 10 years ago on 23 April 2008 was on Nabil Gabol and since then they almost exclusively edited that page. They had access to almost every picture ever taken of Gabol. Doesn't that signal an SPA and would not it be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while? Your assessment about few editors attempting to prevail in content dispute is wrong, there is a genuine concern about this editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      SheriffIsInTown, please read WP:SPA and tell me where it says that an editor should be topic banned just for being an SPA. No, it would not be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while, unless there is solid evidence that their edits violate policies and guidelines. Yes, the editor seems to have a pro-Gabol point of view, just as you and several others seem to have an anti-Gabol point of view. Concerns are "genuine" only when convincing evidence of misconduct is furnished. Where is the evidence? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cullen328: You again accused me of having anti-Gabol view but if I must describe my views in this matter then I will brand them as anti-censorship. I saw an attempt to censor by an SPA on Nabil Gabol and I tried to prevent that because I believe that censorship is not good for the health of encyclopedia. You can see this discussion where you will see me opposing Saqib and supporting Balochworld which resulted in removal of negative information about Gabol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      SheriffIsInTown, it is not censorship to place a high priority on BLP policy. It is not censorship to exercise good editorial judgment. It is not censorship to remove completely unproven allegations of murder from five years ago that resulted in no arrest, no trial and no conviction. But my main point, which you have not addressed, is that no evidence has been furnished here that justifies a topic ban for Balochworld. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cullen328: This is the picture of Allah Bakhsh Gabol with Fatima Jinnah. Allah Bakhsh Gabol who died in 1972 was the grandfather of Nabil Gabol. The uploader User:Balochworld claims, it is "my own picture". Such claim can only come from a close family member and that family member could possibly be the grandson himself, we cannot say for sure. A user with COI issues would never say that they are the subject themselves or related to the subject. We can only use the evidence at hand to come to a conclusion whether user has COI issues or not. And, in this user's case, we have multiple indications that the user has COI issues which includes user's edit history which tells us that they mostly only edited Allah Bakhsh Gabol and Nabil Gabol, access to such pictures to which only a family member can have access to, and claim that Nabil Gabol's grandfather's picture is their own picture. What other proof we need? If we allow a user with COI issues to edit their own or their family member's article then they ought to try to censor everything negative! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      SheriffIsInTown, please take a look at the photo of the bearded man at Jules Eichorn#Environmental leader, which is my own photo. I took it 40 years ago in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. Do you think that is evidence that Eichorn is a relative of mine, and that I have a conflict of interest regarding Eichorn? If you think that, you would be wrong. I met him only once on that mountaineering trip. Take a look at the infobox photo at Arlene Blum. Is she my relative? I took that photo 41 years ago at a mountaineering equipment shop in Berkeley, California, where she was giving a fundraising pitch, and that was the only time I ever met her. Do I have a conflict of interest about Blum? No. Bottom line: The photos are not evidence of a conflict of interest requiring a topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: For the record, I'm not anti-Gabol. Other than making a bunch of edits in January 2015, I never edited this BLP until recently as you can see the history. I significantly contribute to BLPs on Pakistani politicians and that's how I found this article. Nadirgabol (talk · contribs) was renamed Balochworlds (talk · contribs) in 2008 as per this request. Nadlr Gabol is son of Nabil Gabol as per this news story. This indeed establish COI. I'm posting this information after checking with Black Kite to avoid outing concerns. --Saqib (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is concerning, and makes sense (it also explains the oddly incongruous username "Balochworld" as a sort of disguise). I'm going to strike my !vote, but I'm not going to !vote support because the edits Saqib has made on the article are serious policy violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I acknowledge the header was not appropriate. Will be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just the header. Most of that text was problematical in some way. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I don't have any problem with your proposal but xe is likely to engage in filibustering. --Saqib (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if it's properly worded. He could be allowed one request for any given edit he wanted to see made, and an administrator would review it and either make the change or not. It would be like an edit request to a full-protected page. If an admin decided to make the change, it could only be reverted by another admin. No bludgeoning or filibustering allowed. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Softlavender: I am okay with the proposal as long as we recognize that there are COI issues. Allowing them to make edits through edit requests will ensure that there are no edit-wars in future on this article involving this user. On the side note, I will like to understand why you think that WP:BLPCRIME applies for Nabil Gabol and not WP:WELLKNOWN as WP:BLPCRIME states This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.. Myself and Saqib thought and I think we are still of the same opinion that this individual is not a relatively unknown individual, he is a public figure and WP:WELLKNOWN applies in his case which states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article-even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from Balochworld - the user asked me to post a comment here that they made on their talk page; I've copied two that seemed directed at this conversation.
    • [37] - Saqib is proposing that I be topic banned because I have conflict of interest. I strictly deny this accusation. I never claimed ownership of the article either. I am however well read on the subject and have been cotributing to the article for over 10 years. If anyone should be banned from the topic it should be saqib as he made a decade old article unstable and controversial. Further, one of the comments above by "Faithfullguy" appears to be sock-puppetry by Saqib. I request that SPA investigation be initiated against Saqib as Faithfullguy has been blocked already and was used while Saqibs account was blocked. Thank you Balochworld (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • [38] - While I'm not being allowed to contribute Saqib continues to hurl false allegations now against me. He is now claiming that I am Nadir Gabol son of Nabil Gabol. This is insane. First of all I am not going to disclose my real name as that is a privacy issue but even if my name was Nadir Gabol do you all seriously think there is only one person with that name in the whole world? Balochworld (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was genuine when I said someone is trying to impersonate me via Faithfullguy (talk · contribs) to give an impression that I'm socking while blocked. --Saqib (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppet investigation is just confusing things here. It would be best to consider it closed (because it is) and focus on the matter at hand here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban - after a few rounds of admin-moderated discussion it's become apparent that Balochworld has valid concerns about the article, and this only led to edit warring and blocks because the editors proposing this ban declined to discuss the matter in good faith. Balochworld was not the [only] guilty party in that dispute. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Balochworld is by no means the only guilty party. However he does have a very noticeable COI no matter how you look at it (deny it though he may): the old username; in possession of all kinds of family photos. So that tips the balance. I don't know what the best solution is. We can't let the article(s) be a hit piece, but we must also be cautious with COIs. Maybe if we full-protect the article(s) longterm. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to handle COI is through edit requests and discussion as you suggested further up. If we feel that the conflicted editor's direct contributions are serially problematic then it wouldn't be unusual to restrict them to edit requests, which I would prefer to topic banning them outright. I don't think that we're that far with Balochworld on this article, though, this was a matter where the editors should have discussed but didn't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban as draconian measure to silence disagreement. Support possible editing restriction(s) – such as using talkpage edit requests – if needed due to COI. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Yes, I know I suggested this, but since BW has now been cleared of socking, this would be overkill. BalochWorld, might I suggest that you broaden your participation a little? Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I have been reading this sorry mess. User:Cullen328's forensic arguments lead me to believe this is just a way of silencing an 'opponent'. Would support measures indicated by User:Softlavender above. Simon Adler (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (alternatively also support Softlavender's talkpage-only solution). There's far more going on here. The images uploaded by Balochworld/Balochworlds on the subject (File:Gabolandpm.jpg and File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg), are currently both up for deletion. Balochworld is still claiming, even now, that they took both of the photographs. Unfortunately, the first is from a video of the Pakistani PM and Gabol that can be found on the Internet Tineye and the second would have had to be taken in 1967 or before as Fatima Jinnah is in the photo (possible, but very unlikely). Of the latter, this one has been previously uploaded a couple of times by Balochworld(s) with the claim "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol" - i.e. they didn't take it themselves, even if they are close to the family. That's just straight-up lying (either then or now). Then there's the insertion of massive amounts of OR into Gabol articles ... and the fact that the SPI still came up  Likely, if not conclusive. Balochworld(s) has been here for 11 years and hasn't edited on any other subject. They clearly can't keep a NPOV on the subject and therefore they should be steered away from it. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Balochworld has been indefinitely blocked by User:Huon for persistent copyright violations - see their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NG2 proposal: talk page restriction

    See what Black Kite wrote above; it seems at this point somewhat unlikely that the user will be back, but in the event they successfully navigate their copyright issue, it's pretty apparent that they have a conflict of interest on this topic leading to some disruptive editing. As an alternative to an outright topic ban from all of the topics they've ever edited (effectively a site ban) I suggest adopting Softlavender's solution of restricting Balochworld to suggesting edits via the articles' talk pages, so that they can participate but their edits are vetted. Let's say this is for "all pages related to the Gabol tribe, broadly construed". Several others have implicitly or explicitly endorsed this outcome already, let's make it formal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading everything on this page (under NG2 proposal: topic ban) I am under the impression that editors think I was not acting in good faith. I'm still unsure whether a BLP violation was committed on my part but I acknowledge the information was indeed controversial and wider community consensus was required. But my intention was not to malign Nabil Gabol, as some of the comments here would suggest. I relied on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and added the negative information because WP:PROUD states The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about you will be told, and that whitewashing is not allowed. As the principle other guilty party, I am voluntarily placing myself under editing restriction which means I will stay away from making additions to this BLP (but I may revert controversial or OR edits such as this) and will recommend the changes on talk page when and if needed. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Grayfell

    This editor has displayed repeated incivility that he's refused to address over the course of the discussion on Julius Evola:Talk page.

    Examples -

    • Implying editors who are not academics and have read Julius Evola are 'confused new-agers and a still larger number of emotionally constipated edgelords.'
    • Implying editors who offer opposing views to his are 'nazi apologists' on his talkpage- 'I do not have any patience for Evola apologists, and Evola apologists are Nazi apologists. Grayfell (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)'
    • A veiled personal attack on a new editor holding a dissenting view - 'your personal opinions about the definition of rape have some disturbing implications' which was entirely unwarranted.

    I have commented on his behaviour several times and templated him on his talkpage for his most recent personal attack, but he dismissed this as 'nonsense' and invited me to bring it to your intention. I understand that inevitably emotions become raised during the course of a debate, but this is becoming increasingly frequent and disruptive. I'm also concerned by the potential this behaviour has to drive away new editors from contributing, particularly in the last attack on Bananaman2018 which I strongly object to as an obvious ad hominem when discussing a delicate subject. VeritasVox (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No case to answer. Keep up the good work Greyfell. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Julius Evola collaborated with the SS during the war, admired Himmler, met with Mussolini multiple times and worked with him over several years (including at Hitler's Wolf's Lair), was friends with Codreanu, and so on. I still feel pretty safe in saying that an Evola apologist is a Nazi apologist. There's also this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 71#Julius Evola, which I had forgotten about until now. The article would benefit from attention and sources, but I can't blame editors (or academic sources) for not wanting to deal with this crap. Grayfell (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that doesn't mean you should call other editors Nazi apologists anyway. There are other options to deal with POV-pushers than namecalling. And VeritasVox is right about one thing: Julius Evola only became a talking point for the culture warriors after Steve Bannon mentioned him in a speech, and a lot of American newspapers made articles about it. It's a common pattern really, Trump also mentioned the South africa farmer murders and suddenly a lot of people are edit-warring the obscure topic. --Pudeo (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar impugnations can be made about Martin Heidegger and his relationship to Nazism, as can be done with various other philosophers. Plato's own political philosophy was explicitly totalitarian and antidemocratic, and Aristotle was a slavery apologist and unashamed misogynist sexist; none of those was an uncontroversial position in their times either, at least not in ancient Greece outside of Laconia and especially not in places like Athens.
    My point is that a distinction can be made between a philosopher and their philosophy. Julius Evola and his philosophy were important to the development of fascist theory and provided a philosophic ground for it, but that doesn't mean those taking him seriously—whose theories are not amateurish regardless of his politics—are therefore sympathizers apologists of fascism, Nazism, or other such perspectives anymore than a Heideggerian or Platonist or Aristotlean might. To therefore refer to those whose interest in Evola extends beyond spitting in his direction as "Nazi sympathizers apologists" is inaccurate guilt by association beyond the fact that it is a civility violation when used to describe other editors.
    I am not involved in this discussion and I have not read enough about it all to come to any conclusion about it, but if part of it is the fact that you find it acceptable to describe those whose overt hostility to Evola is not effluent as "Nazi sympathizers apologists", then I am not seeing how that is tenable. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC); last edited (major changes shown above) at 20:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP came along changed the article to remove a use of the word "extremism", and to replace "nationalism" with "advocacy of a European Imperium". This is much less informative, and is contradicted by the comparatively large number of sources which link him to extremism and nationalism. The IP then edit warred over this, as well as a bunch of CN tags, this was fallowed by posts to editor's talk pages demanding we "justify" included material which was already supported by sources. This is apologism, not "guilt by association".
    Comparisons to established philosophers gives Evola far, far, far more credit than any reliable source seems to. We do not treat all ideas as equally deserving of our time or respect, because that would be very disrespectful to ourselves and to the project. There's also the paradox of tolerance, because siding with a Nazi must fundamentally mean opposing a functional society which could support things like Wikipedia. As I said elsewhere, he's not Ezra Pound or Erich Schumann, or any of the other countless people who were associated with extremism but also did significant work. Evola is only encyclopedically noteworthy for his WP:FRINGE ideas on "magic", and his equally extreme opposition to equality. If you think his contributions to fascist theory laid any groundwork, you're not alone but you're also implying that fascism has a coherent, well-developed groundwork. That's is, itself, pretty controversial. Still, perhaps that's true, but Evola himself stubbornly refused to allow himself to be labeled a fascist even as he supported fascists personally, worked with fascist leaders, befriended fascists, and consistently sided with fascists against their many opponents.
    Evola played word games to avoid making any factual claims which could be refuted, interpreted sources to be most convenient to his prior assumptions, shifted goal posts, and threw a bunch of weird nonsense against the wall to see what stuck. This is also precisely what VeritasVox has been doing on the article's talk page (included an RFC which went nowhere), this noticeboard, and the NPOV noticeboard, for the past few months. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Grayfell, and I apologize for the initial errors I have since corrected above. I should have been more careful in my original post; the fact that I had not yet been caffeinated is no excuse. I was not aware of the context of the Evola apologism comment, since it was not clear to me, so providing that is especially appreciated. In that context, the IP user was engaging in behavior that can understandably be interpreted as apologetic (and as not), though editing the article on Greg Johnson to insert an external link to his RationalWiki entry as their first edit is odd for someone who might be. Perhaps they just wanted to be more specific and imply a sort of pan-European position that conflicts with the nationalism claim, which the article now better reflects, but even then they should have explained that when challenged. Anyway, I still think such descriptions and comparisons are at best unhelpful and can be argued without much difficulty as uncivil, as Pudeo did at the time. Perhaps you disagree and still think it's fair game, but even if so, that does not seem to have been received as such.
    Just to clarify my positions on the other, tangential matters: Evola is definitely a fringe philosopher and his spookiness (in the Stirnerian sense, who surprisingly was familiar to Evola and—not as surprisingly—very "fringe" as well) vaguely reminds me of Crowley's sorcery. I did not mean to suggest otherwise; evoking Plato and Aristotle was just about naming known names, not his peers. I also agree that fascism's own theory and philosophic foundations are in no way clear or coherent; nonetheless, Evola was a significant source for providing some semblance of both for fascists and neo-fascists which followed him, despite rejecting fascism himself. In that sense, he was a bit like Sorel and De Ambris, neither of whom were fascists and both of whom vocally criticized such ideas. Lastly, for the record, I agree with exactly zero of Evola's ideas and have yet to find one that has earned any sympathy from me (even his criticisms of fascism are bad), though I find him and his philosophy to be very interesting and consider both to be a serious influence among the reactionary intelligentsia and their newer ilk.
    Lastly, on whether any action should be taken with anyone involved, I have no comment because I am still trying to understand the full context and I tend to avoid opining on such matters anyway. Regardless, your commentary has been informative; thank you for providing it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, lack of caffeine excuses a lot, in my book. As I've said many times, I would be thrilled to have more diverse sources in the article, because there is a lot to be said. I would really enjoy seeing a well-sourced addition on how Stirner influenced Evola, or what Sterner thought of Evola.
    The 'apologist' comment, back in May, was brusque, sure, but "civility" needs to be seen in context. That specific paragraph of the article has, for several years, been the target of edits by SPAs and random IP addresses. Almost all of them have been trying to downplay his extremism and misogyny, but none of them were willing to tackle the sourcing problems. Many were pure SPAs, but some have edited other articles, and that overlap isn't about philosophy or occultism, it's about the alt-right. I could start listing examples, but I don't think it's worth the hassle to notify a dozen editors who've since disappeared. There is also some very strange disruptive sock puppetry in the article's past (would I have to notify a blocked user if I linked to their SPI? Also probably not important here). Does this excuse rudeness? Perhaps not, but I don't think it should be ignored. Saying that an Evola apologist is a Nazi apologist is accurate, and if we cannot speak accurately about actual political extremism, we have a censorship problem. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, thanks for the reply and further contextualization. My initial reply may have been needlessly aggressive, but you responded to it with grace. To avoid this tangent becoming definitely off-topic, I'll drop it and have posted the rest I omitted here (with elaboration) at your talk page—it seems to have largely concluded, anyway. I still think that the Venn diagram of Evola apologists and Nazi apologists is further apart than you do, but that's also beside the point at this point.
    I doubt I will comment any further about this matter, but I am glad that my posts at least served as an opportunity for you to provide context for statements that have been recurrently cited throughout this whole affair. Regardless of who did what, context is important and so is its provision. Apologies for the length of this digression. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal (TBAN)

    The full quote is:

    Nuance? What nuance? Using many words to describe simplistic ideas is not the same as nuance. His works are mostly seen as the self-indulgent ramblings of a failed dilettante. He is historically noteworthy for having served a politically expedient purpose in fascism. This elevated him from total obscurity to become a name to be often mentioned, but seldom read, by a tiny number of scholars, a slightly larger number of confused new-agers and a still larger number of emotionally constipated edgelords. If you don't agree with me, find a reliable source which actually takes his opinions seriously. Provide reliable sources discussing his "nuance". Provide any reliable source at all. You've been at this for months and have completely failed to produce any usable sources. If Evola's opinions on sexuality are relevant to anything written in this article, let's see the sources.

    That is a masterful summary of the facts and not in any way a personal attack. The problem here is the WP:SPA Bananaman2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (obviously) VeritasVox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is not quite a WP:SPA but doesn't rise far above it. A WP:TBAN for both of these editors would do no harm and would give poor Grayfell some peace. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    'confused new-agers' and 'emotionally constipated edgelords' is 'masterful' and not a personal attack against Bananaman2018 who was explicitly saying he's read Evola in the comments before this? VeritasVox (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, no, actually. Having made 229 edits in 4 months isn't particularly "not bad", especially when only 20 are to articles, and 69 to article talk. The rest of them -- 140 edits -- are to User talk, Wikipedia, User and Wikipedia talk. I don't know why you would characterize one edit each to Eanna and Ur-Nammu as "substantial", and the 8 edits to Code of Ur-Nammu are hardly much better. I think you're much too laudatory for what is basically a pretty minimal number of contributions to the encyclopedia. [39] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic bans on OP and the new account I'm not seeing the problem in the links presented, but I definitely see some pushing to whitewash the article at the talk page. Note that sanctions are not punitive; a topic ban is not "biting" the newcomer, but simply saying "Hey, you should stay away from this topic until you're more experienced". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, especially for VeritasVox. Bananaman2018 is a very new account and appears to be genuinely not aware of WP:OR etc; nor has he attempted to edit the article. VeritasVox, on the other hand, appears to have spent much of his time on wiki just on this article. For example, his first 50 edits were editing the Evola article, its Talk page, noticeboards and user Talk pages, all in re: the Evola page. The editing itself has been problematic advancing the theory of the page / source used were about a "political attack by proxy" on Steve Bannon. An enforced break from the article is called for at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to log in

    I got an e-mail from a user I'd rather not name, who complained that he wasn't able to log in with his usual username and password from abroad. It had worked OK from his home, and as I understood it, he used his phone in both places. Can anybody explain or help? Bishonen | talk 18:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Without knowing details of the ISP used abroad, I don't think anyone could offer any useful insight specific to this issue. But a few tips: If they're getting an error stating that they're unable to log in for an unknown or non-credentials-based reason, then they should try using going through a proxy that isn't blocked on WP. I know NordVPN has a few that are set up for editing WP (they don't show up as open proxies). If they're getting the "wrong username/password" error, then they're probably being hit by a MITM of some sort (the "middle" might be the machine they're logging on, a malicious or hacked ISP, a local proxy, etc, etc), and their account should be blocked until you can confirm that they're back in the states and able to change their password. If they're just not able to connect to WP, then try the proxy tactic again, as WP might be blocked by the ISP or even the government wherever they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One last tip: US and UK keyboards have different layouts for some of the Shift keys. Have them double check that any sybols they're getting by holding down shift and pressing a key are being typed correctly by checking it in a text editor, or anywhere that they can type and see the results. I'm pretty sure there are other Roman Alphabet keyboard layouts, as well. This can generally be changed in the input settings on the computer pretty easily. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Thank you, MjolnirPants. Would the executive summary be that it's not surprising, and he had better pursue some other hobby until he gets back home? (Which won't be that many days, but we all know the wikipediholism can bite.) Anyway, I'll just point him to your reply. People don't need to log in in order to read ANI, surely. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    That's what I would do, yes. And I'd change my password when I got home. And if I were you, I'd keep an eye on that account's contribs, just in case it did get compromised. It's not particularly likely, but there's no downside to keeping eyes on. Note that, at least in my not-so-humble-yet-occasionally-self-deprecating opinion, editing Wikipedia should be a hobby. As in, it's something you do for the fun, sense of accomplishment and entertainment value. If you find yourself lacking in those things while on vacation (or with sufficient free time to notice the lack on a business trip), I'd say you're getting traveling wrong. I've been to quite a few exotic and mundane locales, and I assure you that there is always something worthwhile to do, even if it's as simple as watching the local kids playing soccer and rewarding the winning team with candy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add to the keyboard layout point. I remember many years ago traveling in France. I went to an internet cafe and found to my horror that they change the position of a couple of their keys. See AZERTY. It was a nightmare because I can largely touch type on a QWERTY. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bishonen: AFAIK no block should effect a user's ability to log in (that's "locking", as you probably know). So, if the account's not locked, it's not an innocuous error with a different keyboard layout, and their account is not compromised with a changed password, the user can consult mw:Help:Logging in#Log in problems to see if they're experiencing what is described there. If that still doesn't help, we actually have great tech support available at mw:Project:Support desk. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 07:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swarm: Ah, cool. No, it's not a keyboard layout issue, people. As I said, but I guess not emphatically enough, he's using his own phone. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: I only just discovered the Support desk as a result of a software issue I stumbled upon during {{Adminhelp}} patrol. 10/10 would recommend. 𝔰𝔴𝔞𝔯𝔪 𝔛 08:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would repeat the OP at WP:VPT but add a brief explanation of exactly what happens. Are they using the phone's browser or the Wikipedia app? Did they log out before leaving home? When abroad, they use "log in" and enter name/password. What exactly happens then and what is the exact text of any message? Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wakari07

    Somewhat Pro-Russian activism and Misinformation campaign. As well as several instances of edit warring. I have noticed the user removing some important facts from the Portal:Current_events regarding the illness suspected of Novichok poisoning today. user:Wakari07 seems to be reverting any and all words mentioning the connections of this incident to past instances or poisonings citing not enough evidence in source. And somewhat misinforming people on the recent case. Marjdabi (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1) content dispute, 2) the mention you keep adding isn't what the source says. The source says tensions are heightened due to the recent Novichok poisoning, not that they sealed off due to Novichok poisoning. The removal is correct based on the source. You're adding Original research into it. And you're also extremely clear on the edit warring rules, you've been informed of them enough and even said that the next time you get involved like this with someone removing your content you'd take it to the talk page. However you have not. Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The area is sealed off due to the concern of Novichok poisoning, that is a no brainer. Yet the user keeps citing not mentioned by the source. Do we deny 2+2=4 if its not mentioned by a source? Also I have taken it to the talk page, had no success there however. Admins should notice pro-russian activists if they wanna keep Wikipedia legit. Marjdabi (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For now I think the restaurant event is non-notable. This is more relevant for the people who are interested in what really happens in Salisbury. As to the "pro-Russian" accusation, I replied on my talk page. And just to be clear, it was I who warned User:Marjdabi first on their talk page (about adding unsourced content). Wakari07 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That external link looks like a non sequitur to me, Wakari07. Please explain its relevance to this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It, and the rest of the sentence, is meant as the illustration of a notability test. If Wikipedia was a political propaganda tool (which it is not, of course, it's an encyclopedia), then it might more adequately carry a useful (I consider a fentanyl warning more useful than scaremongering) message on a global (the planet is bigger than Wiltshire) level. Thus, respectfully, you may see this link as a "non sequitur ad absurdum". Wakari07 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Well no one knows it is related or not." Then we can't publishe any reliable information on the subject. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Dimadick (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rollback edits by Backendgaming

    Moved from WP:AN

    Sorry for posting this here because I don't know where else to post this, but could I please request for someone to perhaps go through some of the edits by Backendgaming and roll them back. For instance, in the Chinese people in Myanmar article, he made multiple edits that have now given the article an anti-Chinese slant, and this I believe this violates NPOV. And besides, I don't think we should be allowing bigotry to take root here, and the way the section in question is written stinks of anti-Chinese bigotry in my opinion. If someone can roll back all those edits, then I think we can remove the POV section banner that I inserted. The dog2 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unlikely to be appropriate to use the WP:rollback tool to do this since these edits aren't bad faith. I mean it could come under number 5, but these edits are only in one article and long ago enough with enough new edits plus edits interspersed within the edits that roll back doesn't make sense anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More generally this looks to be a case where I'm not sure if we can do much at ANI. As always, we don't deal with WP:Content disputes. If an editor is using wikipedia to spread bigotry, this is a concern but our main concern at ANI would be any sanctions for the editor except that they have already been indeffed for copyvios followed up with sockpuppetry so it doesn't seem that useful to consider a cban. Also it's been a long time, over a year since they first started editing that article with a number of intervening edits although I admit I'm not sure if many of the edits really added much other than cleaning up the added content. I would add I'm not entirely convinced the content Backendgaming is so bad there is justification to remove it all. Compare the current version with when they started editing [40] [41]. In other words, someone, be it you or someone else is going to have to go through and remove the problematic content which isn't properly supported by any sources provided. (Looking at their talk page, it looks like this may have been another problem with Backendgaming.) It's likely also worth looking at it from a copyright POV. But ultimately this is something which isn't going to be dealt with at ANI. Try WP:NPOV/N or WP:CCI perhaps. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kingdamian1 clearly NOTHERE

    Involved and (non-admin closure), but OP agrees to close. We'll see what we'll see.O3000 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kingdamian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been edit warring on the article Racial views of Donald Trump[42], which resulted in the page being fully protected. Afterward, he went to the talk page, ranting about all of the problems the article had and not assuming good faith, such as saying "Big brother" and stuff like that. He also removed important messages from his talk page, including a message from me, an editor with somewhat similar viewpoints [43]. From what I can see, he is refusing to behave in a civil and collaborative manner. funplussmart (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He stopped edit warring when warned, and is allowed to remove most messages from his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think he’s NOTHERE. But, I think this is premature and would suggest withdrawing this for now unless he starts up again. Although, I think he’ll eventually be blocked. I just believe in a bit more rope. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is premature. The message you left on their talk page was excellent and well-written, and I hope they take the message to heart. Bradv 00:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure hope he does. And yes I do agree to a close. We can start this up again if problems continue. I do realize this is premature. funplussmart (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that I've indefinitely blocked Kingdamian since, after this was closed started edit warring on Joe Biden. This is especially concerning given the final warning from ArbCom when unblocked and that the content being added was questionable (BLP). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes, they didn't listen to funplussmart at all. Bradv 13:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that was quick, and inevitable. O3000 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised. This user had all of the signs of a battleground mentality. funplussmart (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP at University of London

    Edit-warring over the inclusion of a sentence about an article from the THE website which has been inappropriately shoehorned into the lead. The content is written in broken English, misrepresents the article as a THE ranking, and shouldn't appear in the lead of the article in any case. The IP editor has been warned on their talk page, but they show no sign of stopping. The IP is also using edit summaries to abuse other editors [44][45]. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was just the edit warring I would suggest asking for temporary semi-protection at the article, but the abusive edit summaries are the real problem here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued a final warning for the personal attacks. GABgab 14:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) agree, if the IP fails to WP:HEAR to tone down the vicious edit summaries, an IDHT block for WP:NPA is well deserved for the "next time" this IP reverts. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is block evasion. Just block any other IP socks who show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Genre warring

    IP blocked. (non-admin closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    184.163.13.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @FlightTime:, I recommend you withdraw from arguing with the anon, since it clearly is having no effect. Whether he's right or wrong, he is out of order calling you a "retard", and I have given him a final warning. Deb (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: Well, I wasn't arguing with them, just reverting their unsourced, un-discussed changes, but thanx for the support :) - FlightTime (open channel) 18:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edgy. Imagine being offended at the word retarded. Also, you do know that you'll never win this right? I can just circumvent your bans with VPN's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.13.139 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP spreading questionable information about dormant professional basketball players

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

    This IP is adding unsourced info about the status of professional basketball players. The editor behind this IP is editing pages, mainly of basketball players in their 30s and presently without a team, under the assumption that they are all retired. Examples include Jason Terry, Rashad McCants, Larry Sanders (basketball), Samuel Dalembert, etc. (S)he edits that they are retired, despite a lack of official announcement saying such, and also having no reliable source. This has been a long-term occurrence, and the IP made an edit after being given a final warning not to do so. Also, here would be a typical edit from this IP. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)..[reply]

    This is a noob, the IP address is a static IP from the Philippines. I wouldn't call leaving him a third and final warning as a great way to start up communication with him. Just a suggestion try writing him a friendly note offering to help him figure out the problem is? If there is edit warring, take him to ANEW. Outside of that, this is a content dispute. Did you notice that his contributions consist of just simple phrases? It's quite possible that there is a language barrier. Basically, the only actionable thing in your report is BITE, and that doesn't point to the IP. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @John from Idegon: Fair point. Thank you for your input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than assuming bad faith here, I think it may be a good-faith difference in terminology. Many players never officially hold a press conference or have a press release and declare themselves retired; they just sort of can't find teams to hire them and quit playing. There's no magic threshold where a player goes from "could still play and is maybe still looking for a team" and "too old and probably not actively trying to play sports anymore". To take the reductio ad absurdum argument: What if those players aren't on a team for 5 years? 10 years? 40 years? If they never announce anything, when do we call them retired? I see nothing really disruptive with what they are doing. If there is a disagreement over what is already a very fuzzy definition. If we have a Wikipedia-specific consensus as to what that threshold is, link to it. If not, then you can't tell him he's wrong. Instead, start a discussion somewhere to establish a consensus on how to proceed before telling someone they are wrong, when you have no evidence they are. --Jayron32 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Come to think of it, some of the folks have not been on a team since 2015 or 2016 (or only played four games in the last four years). I'll keep your input in mind for the future. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE edits

    Prolific SPA account that replaces references to the United States with references to China in articles about the foreign policies of countries in South East Asia and the wider region. Often grossly misrepresents the sources used. Here is one of the more outrageous examples: none of the references provided claim that Thailand "remains a major ally of China"—they're simply articles about Thai-Chinese foreign policy.

    Some more examples:

    Although some of the content added is of value, it usually comes with a heavy editorial bias, and I have had to check the references to find whether the claims are actually supported. Here, for instance, they've claimed that China is "the linchpin in the foreign policy of Australia and New Zealand", which is neither true nor supported by any of the references provided. I doubt anyone has sufficient time to police their edits (I certainly don't). Endymion.12 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody block a conspiracy theorist for a while to show what they're doing is not welcome here

    I have collapsed the section per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP. Black Kite (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In Talk:The Heartland Institute#"due to the leak of their climate change strategy" NCdave (talk · contribs) keeps sticking facts together to imply a conclusion with "The U.S. Attorney, an appointee of President Obama, refused to prosecute" which I believe insinuates improper action by the attorney. They keep pushing this as part of some conspiracy theory and seem to think this sort of thing is acceptable with 'I "insinuated" nothing. I merely stated facts'. Could an administrator please explain things better to them thanks. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but until it shows up in the article text, it's still just a talk page discussion. I am disinclined to block someone for being bullheaded on a talk page, if that is all they are doing. Unless and until they start disrupting the article text against consensus, you could just ignore them, and then nothing happens. If there is consensus against his proposed edits, and he's still not editing the article, then there is no blockable offense. Being wrong is not disallowed at Wikipedia. Being wrong and edit warring over an article is. He doesn't appear to have done that yet. --Jayron32 15:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmcq (talk · contribs) keeps accusing me of "insinuations" which I never made, and, in fact, have explicitly denied. I take responsibility for what I have written, but not for what someone wrongly imagines I've insinuated between the lines -- especially after I've already explained my meaning to him (or her).
    I've twice reminded Dmcq that his insults and accusations are in violation of WP:CIVIL, but as his name-calling here ("conspiracy theorist") demonstrates, he obviously doesn't care. To be perfectly clear: I am not a conspiracy theorist!
    He has now thrice falsely accused me promoting a "conspiracy theory," even though I explained to him that, "I don't know of any evidence of a conspiracy."
    Likewise, he has repeatedly accused me of "insinuat[ing] improper action by the [U.S.] attorney," even though I explained to him that, "I have not expressed an opinion about it. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what constitutes what the legal profession considers "proper" or "improper" exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a U.S. Attorney."
    Would someone please explain WP:CIVIL to Dmcq, and, in particular, explain that insults, name-calling, and ill-considered accusations of impropriety are all explicitly forbidden? NCdave (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Asking for 2-way no-fault IBAN with User:Jytdog

    First of all, as a person that edits WP once a year or so, let me express one feeling

    • I have been told off for being WP:BOLD [51]
    • When politely asking to elucidate the issue I have been told to "RTFM" [52]

    Things have changed around here.

    The rationale for the 2-way no-fault IBAN is that I don't fell I am (or ever will be) able to reach consensus with Jytdog. This exchange serves as an excellent case in point [53]. And to be frank I don't feel like tiptoeing around a person that I feel is hyper-aggressive.

    I'm not totally without fault, this particular comment seems to have upset Jytdog in particular [54]. He has linked it in all relevant discussions.

    I would like to also address two related issues that are likely to crop up.

    Edit warring

    When I became aware that Jytdog has a different stylistic preference for the article (integrating controversial use-cases vs separating them into another section), I asked him to edit the article [55]. Next day I left a message on his talk page asking him if he still intends to do that [56]. After another day and no reply, I reinstated the parts that he didn't object to [57] [58]. Both were reverted by Jytdog.

    Right now Jytdog has reverted the article to a factually incorrect version. I folded. I will let other editors pick it up for at least a week or two.

    COI

    I helped to develop about a dozen crypto-currencies. I have a profit-making software related to Monero. I also have money invested in it. I try to keep neutral POV in my edits. In fact I seemed to erred on the side of caution too much as Jytdog has pointed out that the edits are actually overly negative [59]. Before, in part due to receiving no feedback from RSN WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Monero_(cryptocurrency) I added sources that were a bit too positive and potentially WP:NOR. I accept that I was wrong on both counts.

    Ending

    I am aware that Jytdog is a force of nature around here, and I don't want to poke that particular anthill. All I ask that I am allowed to reach consensus with other editors without his personality dominating the discussion and taking it in unproductive directions.

    Talk:Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Reformatting_of_"implementations"_to_"illicit_uses"

    User_talk:Fireice#Editing_with_a_conflict_of_interest

    User_talk:Jytdog#Monero_(cryptocurrency)

    Fireice (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=860326021"