Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Iranian opposition articles

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

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

POV pushing by Saff_V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

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

• Peykar: [15], [16], [17], [18]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [19], [20]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [21], [22]

• Maryam Rajavi: [23]

• Massoud Rajavi: [24]

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

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [25]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [26]

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

• Massoud Rajavi: [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

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

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

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

Last words

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Response by Pahlevun

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Adding Mhhossein to this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is what the source says:

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References
References

Closure(?)

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

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

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

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

Too complicated - Arbitration Committee

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

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

Disruptive IP impersonation

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

---

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

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

And they are still attempting to reset my password. – Teratix ₵ 09:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Quartertoten/Brian Desmond Hurst

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

I think that following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol is always a good idea - especially in this instance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Quatertoten for a week for continuing the edit warring today. FWIW, I'm not sure if further dispute resolution is needed here - enough editors seemed to have weighed in and while I've only skimmed over the discussions, there seems a near-unaminious consensus against Quartertoten, so what I'm seeing is a tendentious editor refusing to drop the stick and edit warring. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Djln

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

He is of course entitled to his view ... but he has chosen to express his disagreement in a prolonged series of personalised responses which seem to amount to a determination to prove that he has somehow caught me out on something. If he'd read the guidelines he'd see that he hasn't, but he says[72] Please don't just quote guidelines. Not interested in reading them thanks.

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

Here's some of Djln's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block evasion

I really don't think it's bullying. I really don't think "hauling you off" in the context of a disagreement on wikipedia implies physical assault. It's just an exchange between people who are passionate about the subject. His edits actually look fine to me. Contributions/161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Welp, civil, collegeal discourse seems right out the window on this site. Might as well change the name to Hooligans Den and be done with it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC) @Dlohcierekim Now you're being childish. Maybe we should call it "Dlohcierekim's Nursery School Sulking Corner". 161.73.161.74 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — 161.73.161.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment How about we fix this like it should have been in the first place - User:Djln, if you carry on using demeaning edit-summaries like that you will be blocked. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, and regardless of whether your sense of entitlement leads you to believe you can talk to others here like that, the fact is - you can't, so stop it. Now. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have withdrawn from this conversation. BHG can do what she wants. Not sure why other editors are carrying it on. I have learned that it pointless and a wasted exercise trying to reason with administrators. I have contributed 100s, perhaps over a 1000, quality articles to Wikipedia over the past 15 years. It would just be nice if I was occasionally just treated with a bit more respect instead of totally inappropriate and unhelpful responses accompanied by threats of blocks. Sadly this bullying behaviour is typical of some Wiki editors (and administrators) who are then happy to lecture others on their behaviour. Bringing up a previous block from seven years again is particularly childish. All this does is make me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm sure this comment will now lead to me being blocked. Djln Djln (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Not really seeing a lot to do here. Djln has created many CAT's, so I think we can allow a lapse or two. Perhaps a less escalative approach will allow for further editing? Perhaps an agreement to disagree and then move on? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Spoken articles files

I am not sure what to do ....we have an editor User:Walk Like an Egyptian removing Wikipedia:Spoken articles articles because they are older versions of the pages. I'm gravely concerned we're taking away an accessibility point for people with disabilities. Hearing an older spoken version of an article is not so egregious that they should be removed. I believe access to an older version is better than no access at all. What should be taking places in update not deletion. Was going to simply revert but see this has been done on a few pages and would like to get more input from the community. Should the work of hundreds of editor's be removed because they depict an older version of an article? Should these be reinstated? I agree many are outdated but they should be updated and the project expanded with more support..... just not sure how deletion helps our readers with disabilities in this case.--Moxy (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I did this because other editors have removed outdated recordings from various articles as seen here, here and here. None of these articles have gotten an updated recording since then. Plus, I think some of my removals like this one are justified. Not only did this recording have far less information, it also had quite a bit of unsourced information. If you really want to listen to an article that doesn't have a recording, you could copy and paste the information into a text-to-speech website. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy paste. ...... why would we go out of your way to make it hard for our readers? Text to speech software problems is one of the reasons the projects exists Pls review why we make these....Always think of those with disabilities when editing. Again old version of articles are better then no articles. Files should not orphaned they should be deleted if there's a problem with verifiability.--Moxy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the broader issues about what to do about outdated spoken versions of articles/content will need to be decided by community discussion, probably WP:VPP. I can see some argument on both sides but I doubt very much the solution endorsed by the community will be uniformly "keep them all" or "dump them all after X amount of time"; I suspect the solutions will need to be quite a bit more nuanced than that. In the meantime, until such an inquiry is undertaken, I'd like to request of Walk Like an Egyptian that they temporarily forestall their clean-up activities in this area--I take it as granted that your efforts are entirely good-faith, but Moxy is correct, this is a clear issue of WP:Accessibility, which policy was created specifically to conform our approach to the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which is a priority that cannot be obviated. Given the importance the WMF and this community put on accessibility, I think we have a duty to at least discuss this matter in a central community space before we begin a wholesale removal of content which vision impaired and other users may rely upon, even if there are arguments for removing at least some of it. If you don't want the burden of opening such a discussion, I can spearhead the process, provided you are willing to wait a couple of weeks. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Not all text-to-speech systems have problems. I was able to use a free and very intelligent text-to-speech system to make 35 recordings, but I'll just leave the list of spoken articles as is and let you handle this process. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC); edited 06:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There's something ironic about putting "Spoken Wikipedia Benefits" in a raster image that's illegible for screen readers and hard to read for people who need high-contrast etc. text... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 04:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep old recordings – they are better than nothing. Hopefully, the last update date is part of the recording. The user still has the option of using text-to-speech on the current article if they want. BTW, it would seem useful to make individual section recordings so as to facilitate updating just an edited section or two without having to re-dictate the whole article. Tools to manage the sections into auto-playlists, suggest stale section recordings needing update, etc. would all be good. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It does seem useful to record a specific section instead of everything at once. I uploaded my first recording a couple months ago and the corresponding article has gone through drastic changes already. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Two things. 1) yeah keep the old recordings. Better than nothing. 2) My eyes! Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I had not run across Wikipedia:Spoken articles before but it seems a valuable idea - perhaps the bigger problem is that there are 1,378 spoken articles in English. So its pretty clear this project isn't working. If it is valuable as a project it should get more support and attention, (for example - an idea off the top of my head would be making a spoken version a requirement to pass WP:FAC) - but if it is just going ot be a cul-de-sac of outdated (possibly COI or Copyright problem containing or otherwise violating our pillars) versions for a very few articles then a better solution should be developed to more seriously respect WP:Accessibility.AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say that there's actually less than 1,378 spoken articles in English. A bunch of subcategories, audio files, and a user page were using Category:Spoken articles, so it messed up the spoken article count. I edited these pages, but if there are other pages that still use the category manually, they should also be removed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I seem to recall we nuked a spoken version of one article that was made by a fringe proponent after editing the article, which was subsequently restored to a less fringe version. Was it cold fusion? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Personally, I question the value of spoken versions of articles if they are years out of date. It is a much more obvious option to use Microsoft Narrator or similar text to speech tools. The chances of having up to date spoken versions of millions of Wikipedia articles are practically zero.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It would be really cool to implement an open source speech renderer though, so you could have the live version read out to you. If such a thing existed. It would be useful for much more than just the visually impaired. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There's two issues that are raised there: 1) Not everyone who uses our platform has access to such software, and 2) even for those who do, text-to-speech software is drastically inferior in terms of pronunciation and elocution: with our articles covering a larger number of topics than any other reference work in the world, there are an astronomical number of terms (especially in STEM areas) which no renderer has dictionary references for and thus will attempt its "best guess" solution to, often with highly problematic results; the same is true of parsing the complex variances in our syntax. If you have not had need to make use of this software or have familiarity with the engineering behind it, you can be forgiven for assuming it's probably a generally practical option, but the reality is that in most instances the viable utility between a recorded natural speech version and machine effort is going to be night and day. Again, for those who even have the option, which is nowhere near all of our users.

In any event, its a decision regarding formulating new policy, and this is definitely not the venue for that; the issue needs to be put before the wider community for any kind of legitimate consensus to result. I plan on broaching it at WP:VPP next week when I have more time, but if anyone is feeling industrious and wants to do so themselves, that would be great: drop me note on my talk page if you do, please! Snow ^{let's rap} 20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by Sotuman

Sotuman has violated his AE topic ban ([77]) at [78]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no record of a ban in the log, to which Sotuman was referred by Bishonen, or at Bishonen, other than the notice on Sotuman's talk page, there was nothing. If there is a ban, the notice indicates that it applies to editing the flood geology article. It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page. Sotuman (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AS an uninvolved admin, I hereby advice you that the article content on your user talk is not acceptable and needs to be removed at once. You are skating on very thin ice. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you refering to yourself in the 3rd person. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, please allow me a reasonable amount of time to do so...

To answer your question, Sotuman is a name I made up a long time ago but I don't identify with it to the extent that I only use first person. It also helps me to be professional and objective in my responses. It means I don't take things too personally. Sotuman (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is dif of the notice on Sotuman 's talk page. However, such need to be appropriately logged. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Okay, I cleaned up the talk page, please advise whether further action is required. Sotuman (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• I missed logging Sotuman's topic ban from Flood geology and related pages (now rectified). I apologize. But is this an excuse for him to violate a clearly described ban?[79] No. Please note that my ban notice contains the sentence "Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is". WP:TBAN is a brief, pedagogical explanation of what a topic ban is, which makes it perfectly clear that the ban applies to the article's talk page (if "Flood geology and related pages" didn't do it). Ignoring my information and then claiming that "It is not clear whether such a ban applies to the article's talk page, or to Sotuman's ability to respond to user comments on Sotuman's talk page" is a poor show. The ban applies to discussion of flood geology on all pages on Wikipedia, including talkpages, including Sotuman's own talkpage. Sotuman, go read WP:TBAN now, please. I for my part will excuse any topic violations so far, with only a warning; I usually do, since experience shows that many or even most users start off by violating them. Any further violations will be met with escalating blocks. Bishonen | talk 05:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, please respond to this comment relocated from your talk page:

Recently you placed a notice of a topic ban on Sotuman's talk page, and directed Sotuman (this writer) to the log. However, upon searching, nothing was found about a ban applying to Sotuman there. Even so, Sotuman was careful to not speak on the topic, not only on the article itself, but also on the article talk page, even though the discussion was not entirely concluded. Sotuman did respond to some user input on his user talk page that had accumulated while he was away, including to your notice. In the response to you, Sotuman explained why it seemed to him that there was concensus for the type of improvement he had wanted to make to the article: adding an about template at the top so that people confused by similar terms would be able to quickly and easily go to those pages. But it seems that someone had blanked part of his talk page before he had finished making his responses, and when he finished the edit, the previously written content on the topic was restored from being blanked. This incidental restoration, which was part of a the larger edit, is now being used as grounds for accusing Sotuman of violating the apparently undocumented topic ban. Could you please answer and explain what is going on? Thanks so much. Sotuman (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In brief, no, I can't. I just wrote up a full reply to the above, explaining what was going on, only to be met by an edit conflict when I went to post, because by then you had moved it to ANI. Please stop yanking people around. I'm not inclined to recreate my longish reply, since I have already answered above, but I will say this: don't you think it's a little inconsiderate to expect me to dig out your edits from the history of your talkpage, which you have now archived, in order to deal with them in detail? It's the middle of the night here (I'm not saying that's your fault). Maybe I'll have the time and energy to deal with the finer points buried in your page history tomorrow. BTW, do you realise just how irritating that referring to yourself in the third person is? There's nothing "professional and objective" about the impression it makes. Your way of writing may help you, even if I don't understand how, but it does a disservice to your reader. Please remember the aim of writing is communication. Bishonen | talk 05:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

It's okay, take your time, no worries. Sorry I don't have a lawyer, so I have to represent myself. Sorry for relocating the comment here. Maybe it was a mistake for me to put it on your talk page in the first place. I just want everything to be ordered and in the same place before the proceedings begin. Thanks so much for your patience, and I hope you have a good night. Sotuman (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken in thinking these are proceedings, or that a lawyer would be of use. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (another link in my ban notice which you may or may not have consulted). Sanctions such as these are called discretionary because they are placed at an administrator's discretion. The idea of that is to avoid the full pomp of arbitration cases and/or ANI discussions every time an editor disrupts "our most contentious and strife-torn articles". For the basics, it's really enough to read the "nutshell" at the DS page. I acted within my discretion when placing the topic ban; you, in turn, have the right of appeal. Is that what you're doing now, here — appealing? I don't know if you read the last sentence in my ban notice, or read it with any interest); it says "If you wish to appeal against the ban, please check out the process described here, or ask on my talk page and I will explain how to do it." You didn't ask on my page, and you haven't used any of the recommended venues, which are WP:ARCA, WP:AE, and WP:AN. But you have written a good deal here, on ANI, in a thread started by someone else. If you'd like to consider this thread your appeal, that's fine, we needn't be bureaucratic about it. Or would you rather start over with one of the recommended boards, so that you can shape your appeal from the beginning? I'll leave that to you. Here at ANI, as at WP:AN, the community will review your appeal; at WP:AE, uninvolved admins will; and at WP:ARCA, the arbitrators will. (I don't recommend you start at ARCA; the arbs are glacially slow, for one thing.) Whichever one you choose, you have already made it pretty inconvenient for people to review, since you have removed everything you want to refer to from your page. I'd advise you to put it back, if you expect people to take the time for a review of your appeal. Remember everybody's a volunteer here. Please let me know if this thread or something else is your appeal, and whether or not you intend to take my advice about putting back the relevant stuff on your page, such as my ban notice and whatever else people will need to consult. (Only the relevant stuff, please, as that would be in everybody's best interest.) Then I'll reply to your questions. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

@Sotuman: Please refer to yourself as "I". The third person stuff makes it too hard to follow a conversation. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sotuman's appeal of his topic ban from Flood geology

I, Sotuman, do hereby appeal the AE topic ban.

However, before restoring any material which I archived on what I took to be the advice of Dlohcierekim, I require a guarantee that this action will not be construed as a further violation of the topic ban. I also need to know all of what you consider relevant so that I may respond accordingly. Sincerely, Sotuman (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen, In the interest of expediency, perhaps it will be good to ask the following if the sum total of my interaction with them was to waste their time, Yes or No: @Mikenorton:, @PaleoNeonate:, @Dave souza:, @Theroadislong:, @Sjö:, @McSly:,@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:,@Hob Gadling:, @Johnuniq:, @Doug Weller:, @Tgeorgescu:.

If the concensus is in the affirmative, then I will definitely consider withdrawing my appeal, and if in the negative, then please will you reconsider the topic ban? Sotuman (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither, nor. I generally want to give editors the chance to fully know what they could do in order to avoid blocks or bans. So, yes, if the editors are reasonable, they will mind the advice and avoid sanctions. I do not consider that a wasted effort, though the option to mind my advice is not in my own hands. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you wasted my time, and has no bearing on your topic ban. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Sotuman, dealing with you has been a complete waste of time due to your repeated refusal to comply with policies and insistence on promoting your original research. You'd do best to learn to edit constructively in accordance with policy in a topic area where you don't have these preconceived opinions. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Sotuman. I'm not sure myself what's relevant, because your post here is obscure to me. Please just restore anything that you wish to refer to in your appeal to your talkpage. Or, even better, forget about your talkpage and instead give diffs for any posts you refer to. A diff is a code that uniquely identifies a post, and what worries me is that you may not yet have learned to create them. The process is described in the help page Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Please read that, and let me know if you think you can follow the instructions there and create the diffs you need. (I created that help page myself, and did my best to accommodate new users, so I hope you'll find it helpful.) Let me know if you find diff-creation problematic, and we'll figure out something else. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

• Searching Talk:Flood geology for "Sotuman" shows that the topic ban is needed to avoid repetitive argumentation and inability to accept consensus. In principle, disagreements are fine but WP:FRINGE topics can never satisfy all editors and an enthusiast can easily outlast editors concerned with maintaining articles in accordance with policies. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. The topic ban looks valid to me, and having read the indicated user talk page content and the appeal here (which does not really address the reasons for the ban), I see no justification in ending it or modifying it. (But what I do see is a failure to understand Wikipedia's approach to balance, NPOV, verifiability, etc - eg "there should be equal weight given to different but complementary views regardless of how many people hold to one view or the other, especially since Wikipedia has no way to accurately assess such quantities" is fundamentally misunderstanding how evidence works.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Decline Sotuman may mean well, but as he's asked, I found him a time sink. Boing! has said it well - there's no suggestion in Sotuman's appeal that he understands why he was banned or our policies and guidelines, despite editors trying to explain them to him. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

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

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

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

[80] and [81] as diffs, so people don't need to dig through the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going to chip in here because unfortunately I have detected a wider pattern of poor behavior against other users by the reporter editors. They have the unfortunate habit of resorting to rather aggressive personal attacks whenever they feel things are not going their way in a discussion. Their most common tactics then are to either question the contributors competence/intelligence or simply trying to devaluate the other party's comments by claiming they haven't made enough contributions to the subject. Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users: Klõpps [82], [83]; Me [84], [85]; Fecotank [86], [87]; Pelmeen10 [88]; Unnamelessness [89], [90]; Sabbatino [91]; Pyrope [92], 12; Speedy Question Mark [93], [94]. Note that these diffs strem for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.Tvx1 17:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Your edits look like garbage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close

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

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

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

Volunteer Marek casting aspersions

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

---

I know coming to AN/I usually ends up being a negative incident, so I am going to be as concise as possible. I am going to highlight the comment and diff and request a one way IBAN. I was brought to WP:AE ,and Volunteer Marek in his statement (after going through my talk page archives) (as uninvolved editor, not the one bringing the action) said that " Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself" He then lists 4 diffs:

[95] [96] [97] [98].

Now, even if I were guilty, the latest of those diffs are from 2016 and one is from 2014.

However, only one of those diffs actually show a real 1RR violation and I was blocked for it. The other diffs show discussions. In one case, someone said I violated 1RR and I said the article in question is not a 1RR article, and he's "oh, yeah, you're right." In another diff, the person thought that multiple edits were a violation of 1RR, when we all know that is not the case, we can make multiple edits to an article, as indeed, admin @Bishonen: pointed out to the editor. So VM stated I "routinely" violate 1RR and that I game the system, which is casting aspersion. He provides 4 diffs which don't show that. My only interactions with him have been negative. I hereby request that those comments be stricken and a one-way IBAN be implemented. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I am unsure why one issue should lead to a one-way interaction ban. Interaction bans are for long-term chronic behavioural issues where two (ostensibly) useful contributors are unable to work together due to (usually petty) personal differences. You not being happy about one issue is not going to lead to an IBAN. While I agree that two of the diffs VM provided aren't good examples (the other two are), it is not unreasonable for VM to suggest you have breached 1RR restrictions, here's other examples he could have used - [99],[100],[101]. We are not going to interaction ban people who comment on arbitration enforcement discussions just because you don't like what they are saying. Fish+Karate 09:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with F+K here. I don't see a IBAN happening and suggest Sir Joseph taking a step back from the whole mess because I am pretty sure a WP:BOOMERANG request is next. Regards SoWhy 11:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(Sigh) "negative incident" usually means one failed to realize one was wrong to begin with in one's interpretation of events. Thanks, y'all. I sent 'em here from my talk 'cause I figured as much and I don't have the endurance for this much digging. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don't see dif's from 2016 as overly germane to a current situation. I also didn't/don't see an IBAN. WM can be quite outspoken, so you might want to question his neutrality at AE if you've had prior history. Don't know how that works, though. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

it's not just this one incident, and thanks for showing why this place is negative. Vm stated I routinely violate 1rr AND that I try to GAME the system, and I don't. That's casting aspersions. Why do I need to be worried about boomerang? Ani is where I'm told we are supposed to get report uncivil comments. So I did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I provided the diffs. Folks can check your talk page. It's not "aspersions". It's at WP:AE so I'm sure the admins there can evaluate my claims. Now, the fact that this post of yours is obvious payback for the fact that I had the audacity to point out something obvious at WP:AE (i.e. that you pretty much admit yourself you made a revert, but then try to deny it once brought to admin board) and the fact that you're trying to make an ANI issue out of this (oh no! Someone criticized me!!! How dare they! Ban them!!!) does indeed show you have a habit of trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, this place is not necessarily negative, but you do need to provide a full explanation of the issue(s) if you expect an informed response. If it's "not just this one incident", then please provide link(s) to the other incident(s); how are we to know what these are otherwise? Based on what you have provided thus far, this complaint is reasonable in that 2 of the 4 pieces of evidence provided by VM appear to be specious, but this does not make it an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I do believe Volunteer Marek could have worded his submission to AE more thoughtfully - for example, I would not have used the word "routinely", been more selective with the 1RR-related diffs (noting I managed to find 3 more which were valid, in about 2 minutes of looking), and just stuck to the facts - but that's not anywhere near enough to warrant an interaction ban. Fish+Karate 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

he did not just say that I do 1rr, he said that I also try to GAME the system. Your diffs that you found didn't show that. He also opened an AE against me that was mostly unanimously shut down by editors and admins alike. As for venue, where else am I to go other than ani? Again, he said I routinely violate 1rr AND GAME the system. Your diffs shows that I reverted when asked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Places you could have tried before ANI if you have a concern with evidence provided at AE:

1. The Arbitration Enforcement page itself (you did this and gave VM exactly 57 minutes to respond before posting here).
2. The other user's talk page (you did not do this)

I see you dislike the "gaming" comment VM made. All you need to say is, within your AE section, "I object to the representation of my edits as "gaming 1RR" by Volunteer Marek and note that no evidence provided supports this". That's it. It will be read. You don't need to coming bounding along to other venues - Dlohcierekim's talk page, here, wherever - asking for further action. Of any kind. It fragments the issue. Also, you haven't provided a single diff to support your (ahem) aspersion that it's "not just this one incident" (or why not one to support the claim you made on User_talk:Dlohcierekim that Volunteer Marek "has been gunning for me for a while"). If you expect a certain level of conduct from others, you need to be at least at that level of conduct yourself. Fish+Karate 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is just an impression, but coming to my talk as you did could lead one to feel you might be attempting to game the system by coming to a little-watched user talk page ex parte and requesting sanctions. And it is not at all confidence inspiring to see you requesting an IBAN because you did not like a user's comments at an AE. It would have been far better to simply rebut VM at AE instead of creating all this drama. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dessert anyone? Dlohcierekim (talk)

I came to your talkpage because I noticed you were online, and I wanted someone to address the comments because as you can see from the AE, people just look at someone posting comments and diffs and then go from there. And VM brought me to AE before and has a history with me. Again, I have no interest in prolonging this but if ANI is not the place, and asking an admin is not the place, and AE is not the place because you need an AE sanction to remedy for, then what is to be done? Just close this and be done with this. I've had enough. No wonder WMF comes out with surveys asking how they can improve the ANI process. For the record, here is the AE request he opened against me, [102] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You need to (re}read F+K's post above. AE was the place. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: 57 minutes, eh? And still had time to stop by at my place for lunch. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To his credit, I expected more words from VM. perhaps I misjudged him. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't do AE. Blood pressure, you know. As this is all discussable at AE, that's the place to discuss it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How is AE the place? Under what sanction? It wasn't under an article, so ARBPIA or US Politics wouldn't apply, discretionary sanctions only applies to articles to my recollection. That's why I asked you. In any event, apparently discussing this is considered lawyering, which apparently is the worst crime in Wikipedia. And since VM loves looking up archives, why not look up VM in the AE archives? You'll see how many times he's there. I truly have no idea why he is negative towards me and that is why I asked for the iban, I know it's a long shot but I have no interest in having negativity around me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of a discretionary sanction depends on the specific sanction. See WP:DSTOPICS, where many (the majority?) of the DS topic areas are defined as "pages" and not "articles". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The scope of discretionary sanctions are generally understood to include AE complaints brought under those sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell not one of your diffs includes a posts by VM.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE-- Sir Joseph has been blocked regarding a matter at AE.' Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Would anyone care to close this as being without merit. VM has done nothing actionable. Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Phadendra

• Phadendra (talk · contribs)

This editor came to my attention on February 20 after creating Template:Address and Rosmi Ghimire, which were CSD'd under A7 and A1. I sent them a personal message [103] telling them to slow down. They failed to heed my advice and have now created more than 6 pages all of which are being Speedied. I am coming here since despite my persistent requests for communication they just created 2 new pages right as I am typing ([104], [105]) which are not ready for main space yet and has still yet to respond to any of my messages. I think they are trying to fill in all the redlinks on their userpage but this is not the way to go. This is becoming very disruptive and has taken the valuable time of 7 editors to combat this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4 I can't figure out why, but this pattern seems so familiar... If I think about the SPI case name I will post it to your talk page later. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Deleted the deletable, tagged pages. Left my standard deletion notices and a couple of warnings. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work/response. Hopefully it doesn't start up again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

According to their user page, they are 19 years old with less than 100 edits. Can we treat as the new editor that they are? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz Yes, I saw that they said they were 19 (somehow they were born in 2057 though) which is why I sent them personal messages instead of always templating them. That being said, their edits are still disruptive and they are still creating a lot of work to clean up. If they want to edit on English Wikipedia they need to communicate. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer, I’ve taken suspicion on their recreation of Samata Shiksha Niketan only minutes after the unsourced draft was declined. And yet they continue to create such unsourced Nepal school pages? At this point, WP:COMMUNICATION applies. Unsure about WP:CIR though. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

New editors are not exempt from policies and we had a 'crat who was 15 at the time. I educated them as best I could-- which is what we must do for new editors who are moving too fast. That they did not hear with the non template approach required a stiffer message. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The DOB is comforting as it means man is still alive and woman can survive. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hang on... he comes from 2057.All may be well then, but I can tell you as a refugee from the terror of the 24th century that long before 2525 you'll all be doomed...wiped out forever... Oh the humanity Lemon martini (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2334 (UTC)

Liz, wait... is that young? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Too young? That depends. "For a mountain (it is) not even begun in years. For an apricot, (quite old). For a head of lettuce, even more so. However, for a man (it is) just right. "Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis needing a block

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

---

David Curits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock per redoing edits by recently blocked CU-confirmed socks of Evlekis, reverting recently made edits by me (which is typical for Evlekis), and this edit summary, with a "handcrafted" link to nonexisting User:Epsom Nutcracker, a clear reference to blocked Evlekis-socks User:EPSOMNUTCRACKER and User:Epsom's Nutcracker. 89.240.198.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems to be connected to this. Pinging Bbb23 for a CU-check since Evlekis usually operates multiple accounts simultaneously... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• And here's number two for today: One 2 three 4 5 six 7 8 nine ten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Capman Crunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also Evlekis. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Misuse of Rollback right

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

---

I made this edit on 64th National Film Awards. Vivvt rollbacked my edit two times without explanation. The first time itself I had reminded him his obligation to provide an explanation. But the user rollbacked again, which I undid asking why he is not providing an explanation. Per WP:ROLLBACK: editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.

Vivvt started a discussion only AFTER the second rollback. I was not informed and found it by chance while looking for any previous discussions (as if it was the reason for his rollback) and reversed myself until a consensus is reached. The ideal thing was to begin a discussion first and revert my edit with an edit summary pointing towards the discussion. Rollback is for undoing "obvious vandalism", but Vivvt has misused it. Admin who granted him the right is now indeffed with a global ban, so couldn't inform him.--Let There Be Sunshine 16:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Vivvt: WP:ROLLBACK is for obvious vandalism only. In all other cases you are expected to provide an edit summary. Please keep in mind for future use. I don't think admin intervention is necessary at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I also note this invalid rollback. ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd give that one a pass: it's not an ideal rollback, but it's a sourced figure and number-change vandalism is rampant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, okay, the figure seems to be open to interpretation: the source given beside "ninth" is an Indian government source but not an ordinal list, while our List of Prime Ministers of India lists him sixth seemly due to counting Indira Gandhi's two separate ministries as one, and discounting both of Gulzarilal Nanda's ministries as "acting" PM. It's hard to say that was an inappropriate use of rollback, but there probably should have been some discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector that action isn't necessary at this time. Mistakes happen, and nobody is perfect; I'm not at the stage of being alarmed or overly concerned yet. However, if Vivvt continues to misuse rollback and to revert good faith edits without an appropriate edit summary, the user right will be revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

SWAGnificient

SWAGnificient (talk · contribs)

So I was/am involved in a small content dispute with this user at the Nigel Hasselbaink‎ article. I've reached out to them numerous times on their talk page (ignored) and have also raised the issue at a relevant WikiProject. They continue to edit war and breach MOS.

Upon digging further, I've found a serious history of edit warring on various articles; other users have warned them about this in September 2018, September 2018 (again), September 2018 (a third time), November 2018 and December 2018. Other users have also warned them about unsourced content and original research; their talk page is littered with warnings (and pretty much nothing else), and nothing has changed.

I am concerned that this user lacks competence to edit as part of a community. I welcome other user's review and comments. GiantSnowman 16:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

lol. as if you don't make any mistakes. besides, the source for the fact that he's also surinamer is in the page itself on the international section. dual nationalities exist. SWAGnificient (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the source says he played in an unofficial game for Suriname. I could play in an unofficial game for Suriname (if it wasn't for my dodgy knee) - doesn't make me a Surinamer. As I told you on your talk page, all other sources refer to him as Dutch.

My concern here is that you have a long history of edit warring. GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Borderline. They've never been blocked for edit-warring, so I have to assume they're heeding the warnings when they're given. In this case you're both discussing through reverts with edit summaries, and it's not one particular edit but a series of different content that you seem unable to agree on, so I don't know if I'd call this an edit war per se. But I agree that discussing on a talk page would be better, and so I've protected the page for a couple days, and I'll take a quick look through for BLP issues but otherwise I expect you're on your way to the talk page. If you've agreed on something on the talk page feel free to edit through, or ping me and I'll review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the above prior to edit-conflicting with SWAGnificent's comment, which I find unimpressive. Anyway, to the talk page with you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I posted multiple times on the user's talk page (no response). GiantSnowman 16:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that, but I get the impression they were trying to communicate through their edit summaries, which isn't ideal, but let's say I'm assuming good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And SWAGnificent: please don't do that. When someone approaches you with a concern about content you're trying to add or change, you're expected to reply to their message, not just continue editing. That makes it look like you're ignoring them. Please see Wikipedia:Communication is required. If you keep not communicating you will find yourself blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the weekend now - but I've already made my point here and on the users and the article talk pages, so let's see what others have to say... GiantSnowman 16:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looking over Swag's talk page, I can see GS isn't the only editor to have their politely-raised concerns brushed off. The response to the report here could also be better. Leviv ich 03:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod and The Rambling Man

I recently tried to sort out a report at WP:AN3 from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) against Johnbod (talk · contribs) on Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene and various other articles; essentially TRM likes web citations to use the full {{cite web}} template, while Johnbod prefers bare URLs manually formatted citations. I agree with TRM's point of view on this issue; however it's not an admin's job to take sides in a debate, so I had to close the report as "stale"; although Johnbod did violate 3RR, the last reported edit in the sequence was about 18 hours ago. Not to mention I need very solid policy-backed reasons to block a prolific mainspace contributor out of the blue.

As you might imagine, TRM is upset by my decision to mark the AN3 thread as stale, and both him and Johnbod have been trading mild insults towards each other on the talk page. So, could I request the wider community to have a look at the issue and see if there is a systemic problem with reverting well-formatted citations to bare URLs, whether this is a sanctionable issue (I know parts of the MOS are under discretionary sanctions but I'm too terrified to look at the specifics), and what action, if any, we should take. Thanks.

I really don't want to cause anguish and drama. I've met Johnbod at several London meetups and have had fruitful discussions with him, while TRM has been very helpful in conducting GA reviews when nobody else has stepped up to the plate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any DS or other sanctionable action applies; TRM has a civility-driven editing restriction on them but I don't see this crossing that line. I agree with the close, that as long as a talk page discussion is going and Johnbod is not engaging in 3RR over the same issue elsewhere, its not really actionable, but it should be clear to Johnbod that this idea of revert full-formatting changes to citations is not really acceptable and that if they are continuing to do that repeated after this incident, that could be actionable. --Masem (t) 17:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The incivility was entirely from that user towards me. And please note the matter was closed without anyone even notifying that user that they had, indeed, contravened editing policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That why (to be clear) I don't believe yours (TRM's) editing restriction even comes into play, only noting it is one of those areas of concern raised by Ritchie to just make sure what DSes and other restrictions are identified and if they applied. --Masem (t) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about civility restrictions at all; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation is what I had in mind, though I don't think it's relevant in this case. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(watching, and ec:) Johnbod doesn't prefer bare urls, but untemplated citations which is a big difference. - On the other hand, if someone improves my references (which happens often) I click "thank you", and don't use rollback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Put quite simply, my aim was to improve the look and utility of any article going onto the main page. This was just one. Yet I was confronted with revert after revert, including abuse of rollback, along with accusations of being a vandal and a troll, and plenty of other commentary on my editing preferences. This particular user had come grave-dancing to my talk page last June, so it's clear that there's more to this than simply just reverting and violation of 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking generally, this was a misuse of rollback; this edit-summary was needlessly patronising as well as containing a veiled hint at meat puppetry; and calling someone an idiot is generally unnecessary. FYI'all. ——SerialNumber54129 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And Johnbod's reward for the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks and the brightline 3RR violation? His personally preferred version remains in place, and he continues such behaviour on at least one other article. Excellent result. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with the closure of the AN3 report. If the edit warring seems to have stopped and the reported user is responding and participating in a relevant talk page discussion, blocking the user for edit warring wouldn't be the right action to take at this time. This of course would change once any edit warring continues - but as it stands, it would no longer prevent additional disruption to the project, but would instead prevent Johnbod from continuing to do the correct thing - which is to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, and come to a consensus. While I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth bickering between the two on the article's talk page, that's a different issue typically not handled at AN3. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocking at ANEW is a popularity contest. Some will be blocked for 2RR, some escape blocking for 4RR. We should be consistent on this. No-one is forced to 4RR edit-war, not even established editors with friendly admins. So if they choose to do so, then they should not be surprised (and have no excuse if they are then silenced in any talk: threads) as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, which is why I chose to block neither editor. The only other fair option, as EdJohnston has stated on AN3, is to block both editors for edit warring. It has to be both, or neither. And blocking both would probably result in us coming here anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On what possible grounds could you have blocked me? Did I break 3RR, violate the terms of use of rollback, resort to multiple NPAs etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the general principle, rather than this specific incident. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's not helpful then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear tendentious, unconstructive edit-warring from Johnbod, so let's impose some sort of huge block or ban for The Rambling Man. It's The Wikipedia Way. Now get those wagons circled and close down all debate before anyone starts to look rationally at any of this mess. 8-(

This is a right mess. Johnbod is demonstrating his perennial sense of OWNership on an article and its formatting, against all policy, practice or simply trying to make things better. But TRM is out of political favour. So close the ANEW report as "stale" (which is nonsense - Johnbod repeated the same changes just this morning) and instead find some excuse (for that's all it will be) as to why it's TRM's fault instead.

As an example of organisational failure, this looks about as effective as the Labour Party. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Let's look at why people think that way. Sure, TRM may be right about how this article could be cited, but he could have gone about this in any number of less tendentious, less-drama-inducing ways. And this is hardly the first time where TRM has done something like this. Even though he has a lot of good contributions, he has an inability to get along with other editors, which has been pointed out to him countless times, and he's ignored the criticism almost every time. TRM's style has driven editors away from making good edits, and that's a big problem. pbp 16:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Am I correct in understanding that Johnbod is reverting to an MOS violating version and that TRM is reverting back? That being the case, Johnbod needs to stop doing that. Now. He should then follow all the standard remedies it takes for an editing dispute and achieve a consensus for his changes before adding them back. And maybe Johnbod should avoid TRM interactions in the future. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  And as we are on a Civility kick of late,maybe a final warning to Johnbod on his rude, patronizing, incivil, uncollegeal edit summaries and comments as well. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Gad. I am a slow reader. We need to remove rollback if this is what he uses it for. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Without getting into the rest of this mess, I do think Johnbod needs to address their use of rollback in a content dispute; I have seen rollback flags removed for less. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: Johnbod wasn't using bare URLs but manually written citations, which shouldn't be changed to templates over objections. See WP:CITEVAR. After Johnbod's first revert, the issue should have gone to talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, we all agree on that, but this does not excuse the various violations, including but not limited to 3RR, NPA, rollback abuse etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  What happened here is that Johnbod created an article about an area in which he has some expertise. You then arrived to make several changes, including changing his chosen citation style. When he reverted, you reverted back, and things got heated. The whole point of WP:CITEVAR is to prevent that. Therefore, you should either have checked on talk first and suggested the citation changes there, or you should have done so after the first revert. That applies to the other edits too, per WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds too close to ownership for my taste as noted by others. And what's the excuse for the 4RR after the discussion on the talk page? That's just fine and excusable is it? Along with the personal attacks and rollback abuse? What is also missing from this discussion is the fact that I wasn't simply "changing the style", I was making each and every reference correct and more comprehensive and less susceptible to linkrot. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  It's not about ownership but about respect for someone else's editing choices. I used to dislike citation templates, but then I started using them occasionally to teach myself how to do it, mostly for the benefit of linking short to long cites, but also for the benefit of avoiding linkrot, as you describe. Therefore, I do now sometimes add citation templates to articles with manual cites. But I do it only where it seems clear from the edit history that no one will mind. It would never occur to me to do it on an article recently created with manual cites by an experienced editor in his area of expertise. That would feel very provocative and doubly so to revert over his objections. That's why he got annoyed, and it all went downhill from there. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, by far the best way to improve such references is to add the citation templates and then include information (such as publisher, publication date, access date etc) that wasn't there to start with. Which is what I did. If someone gets so annoyed that they can resort to the various violations because I actively worked to improve the content and presentation of the templates, well that's a thing that seriously needs addressing. Trying to excuse the various violations because I kept trying to improve the references seems most peculiar to me. Seriously peculiar. Are you actually suggesting that to improve the verifiability of a source and reduce linkrot, we are stuck to existing formats, no matter what??? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:CITEVAR states emphatically that "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates" is "To be avoided". TRM was therefore wrong to do so and Johnbod was entitled to revert this action. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • He wasn't entitled to use rollback, call me a troll and violate 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not 4RR he wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the version that Johnbod was reverted back to was a "consistent", given that the books were in an appropriate form, while the named external link "references" lacked the same features that should be common to the book (date of publication, title of work, publication), and most importantly for an online reference, accessdate. TRMs version to make those named piped ELs into templates to match the books is bringing that inline with a consistent format. --Masem (t) 19:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Masem, the very point of CITEVAR, linked above, is that there is no one citation style that is "appropriate" and another that is not. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Why is this even an issue? .... As far as I know filled out cites are better than bare URLs and IMHO are far more helpful to everyone, I don't quite understand why the need to revert and more specifically (like I said above) I don't quite understand why this is even an issue .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having just read CITEVAR apparently I've been violating it for well over 4 years although I've never once had any crap for it.... Maybe this should be updated to say Bare URLs should be filled in .... I don't see how Bare URLs can be better than it all being filled out?.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• • WP:OWN is enough. 8-( Just try disagreeing with Johnbod some time and see the abuse you receive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's rather disappointing tbh, I could understand if this was a ENGVAR thing or DMY vs MDY but Bare URL V filled out ? .... really ? .... I like both editors both do great work here but I feel this really is a silly edit war over something that isn't a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • As an aside this is the state of the article before TRMs edits - there are no bare URLs. There are some plain external links in the notes section, but no bare urls (which is something like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Sebastian_Tended_by_Saint_Irene&oldid=882241816) It helps things if folks use correct terminology. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed, and I'll reiterate, I wasn't changing the refs purely and simply to my preferred format, I was enhancing just about each and every one of them to include either corrected titles (for linkrot) or additional parameters (such as access dates) for the purposes of verifiability. To ensure consistent outputs after such edits, it is much simpler to use templates rather than try to hand-craft text into existing refs. I think it's very convenient to overlook the fact that I'm actively improving these articles for our readers, to mistakenly focus on some claim I'm violating CITEVAR (which isn't even a policy) and thus ignore the various violations committed by Johnbod, many of which were policy violations, even after discussion on the article's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Just wanted to clarify I was saying The Rambling Mans edits were fine and that he shouldn't of been reverted. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

        Ealdgyth, sorry, you're wrong. Why do you feel that your example is the only one that qualifies as a bare URL?

        The entire concept is devoted to maintaining accessibility in case of future link-rots. And, any URL inserted in whatever manner/form that does not give any minimal bibliographic info qualifies under it.

        Suppose the website mentioned over <ref>[https://www.seattleartmuseum.org/Exhibitions/Details?EventId=16674 Seattle Art Museum]</ref> goes for an entire remake (this's not a hypothetical; many major newspapers et al have undergone these changes) and the location of the contents are radically altered (incl. URLs, obviously). The current URL thus becomes non-useful and a layman can't parse much of any useful info from the URL in the above reference. So, as one proceeds to do a generic Gsearch using the name of the painting and the museum brings, he/she is greeted with this particular webpage as well as this page.

        Tell me; about how I can be certain about which one was actually used by the article creator, without expending undue efforts (might be irrelevant over this part. case, since either suffices)?

        See WP:LINKROT and WP:BAREURLS ∯WBG^converse 16:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Andy Dingley, I think you really need to stop trolling Johnbod. It's pretty bloody obvious that you are trying to hit him below the belt at every possible point, and it's irritating and makes me want to take his side--even though I believe Johnbod was also in the wrong, just like his opponent. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think you really need to stop making excuses for why some editors get a free pass on 4RR (let alone Johnbod's complete disregard of CIVIL too). Also laying off the patronising attitude towards Davey, a 'newbie' of only 110 thousand edits, would be a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ignoring any fallout post the ANEW discussion, looking at the state of the article prior to TRM's edit, I do not think WP:CITEVAR is sufficient to protect Johnbod's edits. Specifically, I would not be able to reproduce those citations to those URLs with the information in the page there should the pages go offline in some way, which is a requirement of the whole rest of the PAG in which CITEVAR is placed. It is sufficient to protect his choice to use manual rather than template citations, but I do not think it is sufficient to stop either a) corrections to add information to the citations or b) anyone from re-formatting the references to use a recognizable manual citation style (e.g. MLA/APA/Chicago, etc.). The more-appropriate action for both TRM and Johnbod to have taken would thus have been to add the information for each URL to the page in some sort of manual citation method and/or start a discussion on the talk page to change the page to use template citations. As a result, I think the decision that it would either be a block of none or both, rather than one or the other, was probably correct. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely, wrong; I have gone into more detail at the article talk page. In particular you are ignoring that the key information to find the page when the museum changes all its addresses was already in the text. Eg "One of the earliest paintings of Sebastian being nursed is by Josse Lieferinxe in about 1497, part of a cycle from an altarpiece in Marseilles (now Philadelphia Museum of Art)" - that is what one would base a search on. In two cases TRM reverted several times to remove the key information (clearly because he did not realize that it was. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, I warned Johnbod he was about to hit 3RR so he just waited a few hours and went past it anyway. And that was after the personal attacks and rollback abuse. That's an overt brightline violation. I did not pass 3RR, nor engage in personal attacks, nor use rollback abusively. I'm not sure what you think I could possibly be blocked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  WP:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. As you'll note, I did not comment on personal attacks, rollback, or other items. "His behavior was worse" does not absolve your behavior, nor the fact that you had alternative paths to adding the information that WP:V/WP:Citing sources requires for the citations in question. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  I was using standard citation templates which enable us to present to our readers a consistent and professional approach, and adding more comprehensive detail to each rather than simply changing the format. It's remarkable to see how many people are here defending the bright line violation of 3RR, amongst other things. And no, I was doing what was in the best interests of our readers (and our project, see WP:LINKROT), not focusing on the needs of an individual user. My "behavior" was simply that, to promote excellence and verifiability on the main page, but apparently the bureaucracy now is such that the main point of Wikipedia appears to have been lost in defending the indefensible. But in summary, thanks for your neither/both conclusion. I'm not sure how it helps now we're much further down the line. As you yourself acknowledge, there are many other issues now, with regard to the brightline 3RR failure, the abuse of rollback, the personal attacks etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a sorry mess. TRM is often seen on this board as a troublemaker, but Johnbod's abuse of rollback (which is for vandals and vandals only) in a content dispute is a big red flag. Support a sanction of Johnbod for rollback abuse and violating WP:OWN. Miniapolis 22:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Johnbod has been a rollbacker since 2008. It would be a pity if he were to lose it because of one use during this dispute; it's normally removed for persistent misuse. Perhaps instead he could be reminded to follow WP:ROLLBACK, and The Rambling Man could be reminded to respect WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Miniapolis and SlimVirgin: I have asked Johnbod above to explain his use of rollback. I think the decision about whether to sanction him is very much contingent on his response; that it was a mis-step is certain, but the real question is whether there's danger of a repeat. Also, if the problem is rollback abuse, I wouldn't support any sanction other than pulling the rollback flag, because that's the most obvious preventative measure. Again, whether that's necessary depends upon his response. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(←) Duly pinged :-). Under the circumstances, I agree that Johnbod shouldn't lose the rollback flag solely on the basis of this. However, I've been around long enough to know that WP is a house of alliances and there's often a rush to judgement in any dispute involving TRM. The sorry mess is when two experienced editors square off over what should be a non-issue. Miniapolis 02:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• We have WP:CITEVAR for a number of good reasons, and changing someone's established citation style (which according to everyone was NOT bare URLs, but a citation style preferred by MANY of us) amounts to just being plain stubborn and intrusive about something not worth being pig-headed about. SlimVirgin is right, Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR and how irritating it is to write an article to a certain standard and then have someone arbitrarily change it, and will we ever see the day when TRM stops behaving like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia "Davey2010 probably needs more editing experience to understand how and why we have CITEVAR" - You make it sound like I'm new here .... I've been here 5-6 years although granted I don't know every policy on the project, I know what CITEVAR is ... I've just never bothered following it. –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything about how long you've been here. I did point out that SlimVirgin has experience with CITEVAR and producing top content, as does Johnbod, and there are a whole lotta people weighing in here who know nothing about either. Ealdgyth, who has weighed in, was one of maybe three of the top people for evaluating sources and citations at FAC a few years ago, and I doubt that anyone has risen to her level of knowledge in my absence from FAC. And it is quite apparent that a bunch of people weighing in here are probably used to citing articles from google using websites, and have never encountered a correctly written short-form citation for a real library source, which is what the link to Ealdgyth's version of Johnbod's article shows. Pure case of capricious CITEVAR breach by TRM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, sorry, but SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin are absolutely correct. It is understandable that you haven't learned about CITEVAR even in 5 or 6 years, but if, like those two editors and myself, you get around in odd places and hang out with editors who are old hands, you will discover a thing or two. CITEVAR was new to me too a couple of years ago, and I didn't like it at the time cause I'm always right (just like you are, just like Johnbod is, just like TRM is), but it is what it is--and its purpose is to prevent edit wars over citation styles. And I also believe TRM was well aware of it--and that Johnbod was wrong to use rollback in that way, and should not have used personal insults in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia & Drmies - fair dos, I've never written an article in my life so maybe I don't know CITEVAR as well as a thought I did .... –Davey2010^Talk 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Drmies, I don't think SandyGeorgia and SlimVirgin are right here. CITEVAR protects referencing styles, that's true, but it doesn't justify removing citation information meant to protect from linkrot. If Johnbod had removed the templates that TRM added but kept the additional citation information then CITEVAR would protect his edits as restoring the original style. If TRM had then tried to re-insert templates, Sandy's description of a "capricious CITEVAR breach" would likely be accurate... but that's not what happened. After Johnbod's first revert, TRM should have re-added the information in a non-templated style, but then Johnbod shouldn't have removed that information. There is certainly blame on both sides here, but Johnbod's actions are not wholly protected by CITEVAR as he removed useful citation information in reverting / ROLLBACKing and edit warring to keep these details out of the referencing. As you said, CITEVAR is meant to "prevent edit wars over citation styles", and in that regard TRM is in the wrong, but Johnbod was also edit warring over citation content, and in that area is not protected at all by CITEVAR. EdChem (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikilawyering. If TRM wants to add something to an existing style, he can discuss on talk how he might do that without altering the style. Unlike Davey2010 (thanks for the acknowledgement, much appreciated), TRM does know about CITEVAR, should know how to use a talk page, and should know by now that he needs to stop these kinds of behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you--I don't think think you're wikilawyering, and you have a point, but what you're suggesting places the onus completely on the person whose style was changed: the other editor added something, possibly something of value, but against our rules of engagement, and then the burden is on the person reverting to the original style to not remove anything that was added... I'm reminded of the occasions when you run into a disruptive editor (I did so yesterday) who makes a bunch of changes, in this case BLP violations, and when you roll them back they point at the one little thing that was helpful. Again, I don't think those considerations are much help here, but nevertheless they are there. If this had been just about undoing anti-CITEVAR changes this could have been relatively simple. BTW I note that this is the second time in recent history that a senior editor is questioned about rollback. Many a time have I warned new editors about it (and Twinkle, etc.); it behooves us all to be more careful. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I appreciate you recognising the issue I was raising and accepting my comment in good faith. I, in turn, recognise that retaining the positive aspects of a change can be difficult, especially when dealing with disruption and vandalism, etc... but I don't think it was difficult for Johnbod to retain the original style while incorporating TRM's additions / improvements. I also recognise that it was not difficult for TRM to make his changes without altering the citation style once Johnbod's objection was clear. The onus was on both of them to behave as adults and colleagues and work together. Neither did so. Had either one acted as I suggest, this would not have ended up where it has. I have taken the initiative and removed all citation templates (per CITEVAR) while retaining the information that was added. It is disappointing that neither did so and both have acted poorly in my view. SandyGeorgia, I do not appreciate your labelling me a wikilawyer as I see it as both inaccurate and perjorative. I have no problem with TRM adding information to citations nor changing the style, but I do 100% agree that once Johnbod had objected to the style change, CITEVAR meant returning to the non-template form was not only justified, but arguably required. TRM was wrong to debate the style... but Johnbod was wrong to object to additional useful information being provided. Either could have solved the dispute by changing to non-template citations with all available information retained. Neither did. Johnbod used rollback and inappropriate language, TRM refused to back down on CITEVAR even though policy was against him, and here we are. Your comments below show a disappointing lack of good faith in the contributions of others, and read to me as partisan. Both Johnbod and TRM make valuable contributions. Both have made mistakes here, and both have escalated what should have been a minor disagreement. I am hoping this can blow over because any other outcome would be excessive, but I'm not going to waste more time on it. May I ask that you reflect on whether this is really worth devoting a lot of time and effort to? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

'I see a way to read your countering point as partisan, I am there therefore impartial in my judgemnt'; 'I'm saying you may lack AGF, therefore you are wasting people's time and being disruptive.'; 'I see a way that a guideline supports TRMs edit, therefore this is a minor content dispute and there is nothing to see here'; 'I will not be commenting further, so neither should you'; 'Faults on both sides, so guy I'm defending cannot be held accountable for their faults'. I read these defences of TRM and can only suppose that users are either completely unaware of the arbitrated resolutions or think they should not exist. Or they are mates. Or tickled by his feisty manner, an avatar for their frustration in being disagreed with, the guy who just states how it must be and the user disengages (or leaves the site, "fuck them anyway, they disagreed on trivial concern Y that I invested a month in drumming about".). Or he is their client, therefore I can say of them … cygnis insignis 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC) modified, should be toned down, but JB is the only party who has shown contrition for their actions, 'the rollback, what about the rollback' (buttery males?) cygnis insignis 05:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, I am disappointed to read what I see as a highly distorted version of my comments, and also that no one else has challenged them. I did not suggest, nor do I believe, that SandyGeorgia was being disruptive or wasting people's time. She made, in my view, valid points about the applicability of CITEVAR and TRM's edits were inconsistent with that, for which he is, of course, accountable. As is Johnbod accountable for his calling TRM a vandal, using ROLLBACK, and posting snarky edit summaries. Neither handled the situation appropriately: Johnbod should not have removed information that was useful and appropriate to avoiding linkrot in references; TRM should not have insisted on template formatting of those references as the way to retain the information. And yes, I do think this should have been resolved on the article talk page with some adult behaviour and discussion. The fact that Johnbod has acknowledged the misuse of rollback is a significant factor in how to resolve this situation, and I would welcome TRM recognising that he should not have kept pushing for his template citation version. I do believe that this dispute is one calling for trouts as I don't see anything that heinous in either case, and I strongly believe that it should have never reached ANI. You can accuse me of failing to recognise that I have opinions and biases, but that is really for others to consider in reflecting on my words. You can see me as a partisan whose only interest is defending TRM, but I believe that my track record shows otherwise. I have no control over what happens next, and am not going to argue for / against sanctions as I don't see it as a productive use of my time – rather, I have posted with thoughts on ending this dispute, which will either be a useful addition to the thread, or not. You, and Sandy, and everyone else are free to argue as you wish. EdChem (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

EdChem there are many things I wanted to contribute to this conversation, typed and not saved. Exasperation at this incident, and not a little astonishment, means contributing anything is likely to fuel something. I was aware that my response above carried all the frustration at the hopelessly partisan support that is facilitating TRMs undesirable activities, you got in the way of that, I will consider my actions and add to my apology later. Have a good one cygnis insignis 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the citations in the pre-dispute version linked by Ealdgyth, this was not an adequate citation “style” to begin with. Shorthand references and abbreviations are not proper citations, and I am astonished that anyone is questioning filling in the complete cites. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  You are completely incorrect. Short form citations most certainly are correct and acceptable when the long-form citation is given elsewhere, as in a separate section. Please take the time to find the page on Wikipedia that explains that, as I am not going to do it for you, or alternately, look at the GOBS of Featured Articles that do exactly that form, rather than repeat ad nauseum every long-form citation in articles densely packed with real citations to real books. Again, the people who are making this claim have probably never used real books to write articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the citations? For many of these the long-form citations were not given. For instance, there were cites reading "LACMA page" with a link; "Image" with a link and nothing else; "MFA, Boston page," etc. These are incomplete and in no way acceptable, per WP:CITE. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I shudder with despair every time I see a heading "X and The Rambling Man". Regardless, the precedent here seems clear: in reference style disputes the status quo ante bellum always prevails. (If there's sufficient appetite otherwise, ask on my talk page about starting an RFC.) Neither of them should be commended for their behavior here, but likewise neither should be sanctioned, and Johnbod's version of content should prevail. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not what CITEVAR (which is being parroted here as policy gospel) says at all. And the fact that I wasn't simply changing the style, but actually improving and adding additional information to aid verifiability means that mandating the preservation of extant style is even more ludicrous. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Johnbod response I'm sure we don't need to prolong this, so I'll just thank many people for the sensible comments above. No my citations (most to single museum website pages on paintings) were not bare URLs, & part of my complaint was that TRM several times removed the key bibliographic info from one citation (& has refused to grasp this). Really TRM's topic ban for DYK should cover things like this also (irf it already doesn't). Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Several users above have questioned your use of rollback, yet you have not addressed that at all. Let me ask you directly, again: why did you use rollback in a content dispute? Can you commit to not doing it again? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

With respect Vanamonde, your questions reeks of uniformed jumping in; given the established sequence of TRM following JB about here. Its important not to confuse run of the mill instances of justified and correct uses of roll back with encounters where the antagonist is clearly hounding. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ceoil: I can perhaps see why you think that, but you're quite wrong. I'm not ignoringblind to TRM's infractions: I'm leaving those to people who are uninvolved, and to whom TRM has a less allergic reaction. Explore the last couple of ARCA requests related to TRM if you wish to understand why. Regardless, the fact is that editors with the rollback flag are required to keep their cool and not use that button even in heated content disputes. An one-off slip-up is not something to lose the flag over, but Johnbod needs to convince us that it was, indeed, one-off. Ignoring requests for explanation from neutral administrators, and generally avoiding the issue altogether, isn't helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Point taken Vanamonde. My POV is that Johnbod is a highly productive editor of some odd 14 years experience, who is a content expert on the article subject TRM is now foraging upon with MOS niceties. Johnbod has never been particularly litigious, as opposed to TRM, who lets be honest, is a loose cannon and so pumped up on hubris he is like a man in a late night carpark looking for a fight. Poke the bear often enough and you will get a response, seeminglythe basis for which you now (it seems) are grasping at to strip JB of editor rights. To put it another way, "the last couple of ARCA requests", which you brough up, are TRM'S baggage, and nobody else's. Some projection and false equivalency might be at play here. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What a ridiculous comment. His misuse of rollback should be evaluated, and he should answer the questions about how he will use it it in the future and explain that he actually understands what it should be used for. If he doesn't respond, then he should lose the bit until he does. Nihlus 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, this is clearly getting off-topic and going nowhere fast. Please stop, and keep the discussion focused on the matters at-hand. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nihlus, you comment here is almost, in fact the very, classic use case of why ANI is broken - uniformed, drive by comments urging the harshest penalties as the easiest option. For shame. ps, I await you detailed rebuttal, detailing why you think a highly regarded and storied writer of some 14 experience should be stripped of rights for reasons you didn't bother to mention the first time. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC) I've actually been following this all day, so do not try to tell me that my comments are uninformed when you clearly have issues with one user and are trying to protect the other. I never said it should be removed for this one incident, but users are required to answer for their actions and how they use the tools. Ignoring these calls is obvious grounds for removal until the concerns are addressed. Nihlus 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC) If you honestly think that, having as you say, considering the circumstances, then in my opinion you should be blocked as more interested in policing, and NOT HERE. Ceoil (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC) So anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and should be blocked for violating WP:NOTHERE? You should have just told me I shouldn't have taken your comments seriously and saved me some time from even bothering. Nihlus 04:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC) And Ceoil has jumped on the bandwagon now claiming that the reuse of identical references should be reverted per DENY. This has now gone beyond absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) (Oh, FFS, dial it back a little, folks) @Ceoil: I'm not analyzing TRM's behavior for the reasons described above. I'm not seeking to strip Johnbod of his rights: if I wanted to, I'd be justified in doing so right away. I'm asking Johnbod to reassure us that rollback removal is unnecessary, something which he is refusing to do, for reasons best known to himself, though it's as simple as saying "I screwed up, won't happen next time". Again, everyone makes mistakes in the heat of the moment, and they're often quite excusable. What's not excusable is doubling down on the mistake even after things have cooled off (or, as in this case, behaving like the child who, when chastised, goes around with their fingers in their ears saying "la la la I can't hear you"). I'm counting at least three different admins here (Dlohcierekim, Miniapolis, and myself), none of whom are exactly TRM's best friends, who are asking Johnbod about his use of rollback, and he has pointedly ignored at least three pings from us. Why? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I think this should be closed. People are sniping at each other and things are escalating. My guess is that Johnbod is trying to keep his responses to a minimum; perhaps he feels baited because TRM has gone to another article Johnbod created and tried to change the citation style there too. Something to bear in mind: you implied above that you're involved in relation to TRM. If I understood that correctly, it means you're involved in relation to Johnbod too, for this dispute. Otherwise it would mean you could sanction one but not the other, which would be very unfair. Does anyone object to this being closed? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree: TRM and I have been in conflict before, but my ability to judge Johnbod's behavior isn't impaired in the least. Were I the only admin contemplating action here, that may be unfair, but I'm not. As for this conversation degenerating: Ceoil and I have made our peace. Hatting the back-and-forth between Ceoil and Nihlus wouldn't hurt, I suppose: but Johnbod needs to address his use of rollback somewhere, and I don't think he's going to find a more sympathetic audience. I'm willing to follow that up on his talk page if necessary, but I despise parallel conversations, so for that reason, too, I think this needs to remain open. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Having had my own disagreements with TRM on CITEVAR (specifically over whether it is ok to change one allowed date format to another) I can see why Johnbod might have been annoyed. I think no action is required here, perhaps beyond reminding TRM that CITEVAR is there for a reason (to head off this kind of stupid dispute). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that TRM is far more interested in Johnbod than Johnbod is in TRM, and the pursuit is one sided. Tonight I got into this nonsense on an article Johnbod wrote, without realising the broader harassment campaign had reached an an/i complaint. In context, this is textbook following and baiting behavior on behalf of TRM. For the first time in my 14 odd years here, I see a need for a block of an established user acting prob in good faith but who is intent is misguided; enough blind hubris already, if allowed to continue unabated the potential to damage productive editors is great. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• There is a lot here that is unimpressive. Johnbod might object to the stylistic (template v. no template) aspect of TRM's changes on CITEVAR grounds, but would have a lot more basis had he undone TRM's changes but retained the extra information that TRM had provided to address linkrot concerns. Instead, he did complete reverts, and worse, did them with rollback and thereby classified TRM's work as vandalism. The information about Caxton, which Johnbod insisted must remain, could easily have been incorporated with TRM's work (I know as I've made the changes now). That this could not be sorted out on the article talk page is poor, that it degenerated into insults from Johnbod is worse, and that time is being lost now here is wasteful. Johnbod, you should immediately explain what you were thinking by ROLLBACKing in violation of policy, and undertake to follow policy in future... because the only one at risk of a sanction here is you. You should also recognise that CITEVAR may protect a style but it does not justify removing information that helps address linkrot. The Rambling Man, you need to accept that CITEVAR does protect referencing styles, as much as that might irritate you (and me and others) but does not prevent you from adding appropriate additional information. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There was only one rollback, at the 2nd reversion by me, with my first reversion, TRM's reversion of that & my re-reversion by rollback all occuring within 10 minutes. Obviously I appreciate this wasn't in accordance with the rules, & is not how I normally act, but my previous edit summary still applied, & TRM was clearly well aware what was going on, which the main reason rollback is so restricted. Clearly it was a mistake, which I regret, not least because it has given him an excuse to turn the self-righteousness up to 11. really can't see that access dates, the only extra information TRM added, are at all useful in addressing linkrot in reaching stuff that will always be on the web somewhere, but where the address may change over time. What you need is the details that will enable you to find a new page, some of which TRM removed, as he has never admitted. Frankly the extra details you added aren't really much help for that, I'd imagine. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a quick look at your edit history sees various misuses of rollback in the last month alone. This is not a one-off. And as for the use of personal attacks, perhaps we can deal with that too? And imagine what you will, the addition of correctly titled references with access dates is helpful indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
      • • Details please. Johnbod (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
          • You'll have to do that research yourself, but there's a good reason we have all the parameters in reference templates and a good reason why we even have tools which add them. Inappropriate rollback use? Here's, a few. But that's just from last week or so. I'm catching my flight to Australia now, but I'm happy to find more as and when I can (it's easy enough to do, just search "Tag: Rollback" and check that the edit was appropriate use of the tool). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
            • When in Australia, swim between the flags, there is a serious hazard in straying beyond them. In a similar vein, don't speak to strangers in the way you do online. Have a safe journey. cygnis insignis 09:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
            • The "there's a good reason we have all the parameters in reference templates" is that some techies who rarely write articles at all want them, for reasons not always logical or helpful, and that's why many FA writers don't use these templates at all. Hence, CITEVAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
              • No, it's nothing to do with "techies" and your continued suggestion that this is content vs. technical is unhelpful and disingenuous, I'd ask you to stop. I have crafted multiple featured articles and hundreds of good articles, so attempting to assert that the improvement of content of citations is related to some techies who rarely write articles at all want them, for reasons not always logical or helpful is actually deeply insulting, completely inaccurate and needs addressing. A retraction would be a good start, but further, an acknowledgement that some editors can create featured articles and be aware and implement technically good content would be a great addition. If CITEVAR is just here to protect those who aren't able to fill in relevant and helpful and linkrot-proof details, we need to re-examine it. CITEVAR should not be about "I had it first" (that's exactly what my five-year-old says), it should be about "preserve yet improve". And if improvement comes with additional markup, tough luck. If that's too difficult to handle, just ask for help, many of us are more than happy to help with technical issues such as {{cite web}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So as I said above, CITEVAR notes that references can be improved, and additional information added, which is what I did. In order to do that in an orderly fashion, it's just appropriate to use templates, so all references have a common look-and-feel. CITEVAR is not there to just protect the "I got here first" mentality, especially not when all the modifications being made actively improved the article for our readers. Nothing that Johnbod claims "went missing" couldn't be simply added to those improved refs. Instead, we get 3RR violation, NPAs and rollback abuse. And then a pile-on from his mates, who now claim that even reusing references is covered by CITEVAR. What a terrible state of affairs. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "... it's just appropriate to use templates, so all references have a common look-and-feel" is no different from ... it's just appropriate to use infoboxes, so all articles have a common look-and-feel. You are as wrong as that was. So perhaps we need an infobox wars style restriction on your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Johnbod is indeed a creator of quality content, and I for one know I can learn much from him; to such an extent that I booked myself into a Wikimedia UK event he was speaking at on the very topic last year.
  However, the rollback tool is probably the most powerful tool non-admins possess, as there is surely no surer a guarantee of driving off a noob with potential that undoing their edit without so much a by-you-leave. It’s something I tend to notice and point out for that reason. But, tbh, although Johnbod asked TRM for details as to previous examples of misusing the tool—which I see were provided—Johnbod doesn’t ‘’really’’ need to ask, as he has two messages from a couple of days ago still sitting on his talk page regarding the very issue.
  The context for these was that I had reverted an LTA trolling User:Legacypac’s talk. This was rolled back by JB, who left me what could be read as a slightly snarky message. To which I gave my reasons. It’s probably worth noting that another editor also asked JB about his restoring the LTA; I don’t think, to date, that he has had the courtesy of a reply.
  TL;DR—rollback is a powerful tool which, when misused and combined with less than optimal communication is guaranteed to lead to a rapid deterioration in the editing atmosphere. As I said, I have the greatest respect as JB as a content creator, and I equally agree that TRM needs, sometimes, to tone the fuck down. But, considering that only recently an admin came unusually close to losing their bit over the misuse of rollback, I’m mildly surprised that this is not being addressed slightly more—vigorously, perhaps. ——SerialNumber54129 12:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Has the user misused the tool in many other situations, or generally put it to good use as others have suggested above. I strongly agree that misuse of rollback, especially the thousands who are permanently discouraged from contributing, but I am inclined to overlook its use in this incident. Being on the receiving end is a repeated concern by TRM, an apology is appropriate to any user, and the user should be unsurprised that fuelled a fractious conversation. That aside, I wanted to clarify I am not aware of JBs history beyond the content I notice they created, I'm guessing because they are not usually engaging with other creators in the midst of creating content or looking with satisfaction in that they have wrought. I am aware of TRMs other activities because that was how I became aware of his forthright opinion of me. This is largely a product of a cultural structures in our community, unfortunately resembling the boyish domineering so prevalent in our respective societies, and it is annoying AF. cygnis insignis 15:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Something needs to be done to stop TRM from following engaging Johnbod articles.( Updated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)) Johnbod has and has always had very clear areas of editing interests and his knowledge in those areas is valuable. Stop bickering about the little stuff when the bigger problem is TRM needs to leave Johnbod alone. Please figure out a way to make that happen. I have been watching TRM harass other editors (usually writers who contribute top content) for more than a decade now. Rather than dorking around about citations and styles (where most people weighing in here are filling space with specious opinions), this board should be addressing the broader problem, which has been in evidence for years. Either TRM needs to be reminded of something like the infobox wars (don't change what was established there) or he needs to stay away from Johnbod period or his long-standing behaviors need to be dealt with in whatever way that can be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Further to what I just said above, agree with the sentiments expressed above wholeheartedly. cygnis insignis 15:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Clarify that I went a few rounds with the TRM recently, and should probably be admonished meself for my reaction to what I perceive as thuggery, I have a COI here. cygnis insignis 15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Also, this carries a lot of my general grievance with edit warring. cygnis insignis 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this edit is genuinely brilliant. I'm really tired of all this, but I had to laugh. You just created an exemplar, so thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing what I have long known about the very clear areas of editing interest of the two of them, and it appears still correct to say that TRM largely edits in the areas of sports, sports figures and lists, while Johnbod edits arts and medical areas. There is no reason for TRM to be showing up in Johnbod's areas of interest when TRM focuses on sports. The information I put together in my sandbox for a separate matter related to all medical articles is a year old, but still relevant to show Johnbod's clear editing area, and TRM doesn't belong there. Stop the stalking and baiting.

Aside: those who are weighing in about citation styles without having written top content may appreciate the conclusion section in my sandbox summary about where medical editors stood on the topic we were discussing them.

I would also say that, given that TRM's generalization above about citation style is so reminiscent of the same faulty logic and entrenched attitude applied during the infobox wars, a general restriction might be placed on TRM about whether he should ever alter any article citations. I am not familiar with the exact wording, but I know some editors who couldn't help themselves when it came to infoboxes needed to have that help imposed upon them with specific wording.

My suggestion then is two-fold: restriction on TRM relating to Johnbod's editing area and infobox wars style restriction on TRM changing citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to retract the false accusation of stalking, it's been proven that I do not stalk Johnbod. To make such an assertion is a personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. In your case "harass" is more apt than "stalk". Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. As noted already, Johnbod's article is just one of 15,000+ that I've edited before it went to the main page. No-one is being harassed here, except for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"except for me". Boo hoo. You have a significant blind spot as to the effects of you behavior. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. Very unpleasant indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, not my best moment. I'm a bit upset about that whole thing. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are aware that another of TRM’s editing interests is reviewing content that is about to be linked to the Main Page? TRM didn’t follow Johnbod to this article; it came up as part of his review of the DYK noms at WP:ERRORS2. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So I need to be more clear on how exactly to apply a restriction. Given the clear long-standing problems with TRM's editing behaviors, and how entrenched his views are, akin to the Infobox wars, broaden the restriction already in place for TRM. He should not be changing anyone else's work for DYK, ITN, GA, FAC, FAR or anything anywhere. His stances are too entrenched, and he seems unable to help himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I checked and one of my interactions with TRM was an article I wrote and someone put in the DYK queue, and that is why he enforced the compulsory display of the reflist (rightly or wrongly, but it's bloody wrong). This is one of the reasons I avoid promoting articles about something more broadly interesting, flora and fauna, toward the front page, or other venues where trivial options are promoted from 'can be done' to 'must be done' or I'm going to be dragged here (AN/I I don't mind, I kinda like this page). Even a courteous "nice content, that must have taken a while" before telling me that an option is compulsory, and the impoliteness of those enforcing preferences is proportional to the relative importance of the same. This is especially true if all you do here is manufacture 'consensus' for some gee-whiz bit of superfluous code, and there is no time for politeness when life on the planet depends on it (I feel the same way, about different things). cygnis insignis 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Infoxbox war? Glad I missed that one, what were the restrictions and can they be linked? cygnis insignis 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not certain where to find wording for individual restrictions, but you can search the ArbCom archives for the never-ending Infobox wars, sanctions, requests for enforcement and so on. You are likely to find that some of the very same editors who support TRM in this discussion had similar views during the Infobox wars, which is basically a division along the lines of top content contributors versus more technical editors. If I knew how to word this restriction, I would have proposed it, but I am happily a content contributor, and do not know how to word these things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to begin with how incorrect your assumptions and assertions are, but suffice to say, all of my edits to every page I edit every single day is to improve the experience of our readers. It's really sad that you think otherwise, and really depressing that you think we have "topics" that we know about and can edit on. This is the beginnings of a misguided "experts only" schism that might as well send Wikipedia to the dogs. I didn't change the facts, I improved the citations. For the love of God, that's all I did. You're talking like I vandalised every art page on the encyclopedia. Perspective would be appreciated, as would my ongoing efforts to ensure the main page of Wikipedia features well-produced articles. And if you're making some kind of allusion that I don't contribute content, I'd like you to retract that. The statistics speak for themselves. Unbelievable fake news. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• probable support I expect I will support the formulation if it corresponds with the proposal above. cygnis insignis 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Infobox Wars? Sounds like a title for a Charles Stross story. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  They were similar to this-- protracted and surreal edit warring over something on the one hand trivial, but on the other hand, of great significance to content creators, who know their sources and their topics well, who take pride in their work, and who dislike having nuanced and marginally correct to blatantly incorrect information forced into an infobox format. This is the same deal. When you have spent months developing an article, it is exceedingly disruptive and time-consuming for someone to come along and alter citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, this is something I should know when expressing a similar view, that would seem to be perpetuating a discussion people were avoiding. They were always a bad idea, not encyclopedic, and create an invitation for contentious contributions by those passing by [for whatever reason]; I know that discussion hasn't stopped the numerous edit wars where they appear. cygnis insignis 17:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I won't comment on this for now, but TRM's current personal Arbcom DYK-related editing restrictions can be found here. As of an amendment in December, he is apparently now not restricted from insulting and belittling other editors! Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  I know it's out of fashion, but I hold myself to 1RR for the most part. It might be better to, instead of reverting, discuss the matter and offer to help with any perceived problems, and to simply stop trying to force a change or revert someone else is not happy with. A polite note and sincere offer of help, I might add. Oh, great, we're back to that pesky cracked pillar again. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don’t follow any user anywhere. In case you lot didn’t realise, I edit and improve all articles in the DYK queues and OTD stack every day. I don’t care whose articles they are. What I do is clearly within the sanction as defined by Arbcom. I improved the two articles in question, and there’s not one single one of you who could claim otherwise. Thanks to Ritchie for the inevitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

oh and just for interest, I’ve done this to about 15000 articles in the past couple of years, and how many problems like this? ONE. When I’m improving articles, yet another user can call me a troll, a vandal, infringe 3RR yet I’m the one looking down the barrel, it’s clear this is a broken system. You people are unreal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, plenty more than that - I pointed out two other (trivial) ones earlier that day, which no doubt unleashed all this. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

And for the final time, I didn’t just alter citations, I added value to them, gave them proper titles, accessdates etc. Please stop asserting all I do is change citation styles. That’s complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, you also removed important information. But of course you still refuse to recognise this, just as you do for other articles. Because your "improvements" are never, ever, wrong, and anybody who so much as hints otherwise knows what treatment to expect. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose seems a little too much in a number of ways. It would though be better for TRM to suggest and offer to help rather than just revert warring. If one's offer of assistance is spurned, there are still millions of articles in need. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  What might be missed here is that, when you are trying to develop new content (as is usually the case at the DYK level), and someone comes along with a non-policy-based personal preference and attempts to force that into the article as you are working, it stops work towards developing the article. To continue adding content, when you have to go back and deal with the citations, is one of the most exasperating things. This is what infobox warriors did, and now we see it with citation style. Those who cannot resist insisting on their personal preferences should not be in positions where they are reviewing the work of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  hypothetically if TRM did something that was banned by the unanimous decision of arbitrators, would you be converting to support? cygnis insignis 18:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support at very least and clearly an interaction ban is needed given TRM is patently targeting JB, per evidence above, some of which is ongoing. There is a larger issue which the community has to face wrt TRM, as this solution is a short term band aid. Yes I know, DYK is broken and all, but his behavior is increasingly making the whole main page less attractive and something of a poisoned well; Fram and Nikki do the same job with considerably more tact and grace. I know we have been over this many times before, and its is a car rash, but my opinion, considering the TRMs utility over his grossly off putting behavior: Indef block. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as effectively a content dispute for which WP:DR /3O was designed for. If a pattern had been established that TRM regularly and consistently stalked JB's contributions to extent constituting harassment, then that would be very much the kind of behaviour this board was intended for. But, since it has been established that he came across it as a recently promoted DYK hook, and the interaction analyser shows no such pattern of stalking—indeed, in many cases JB posts after TRM, but I wouldn't call that stalking either!—there's clearly no case to answer. Frankly, if TRM agrees to lessen the belligerency, JB to think before rollbacking, and everyone readies themselves to go the talk page as a first recourse rather than a last, we could probably all go and do something more productive. ——SerialNumber54129 18:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually there are few articles where I edited after TRM, & I think analyse would show we edited completely different bits. I certainly haven't edited any articles he has mainly written for years. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• The whole reason I started this thread in the first place is that I refused to take any admin action against Johnbod and TRM would not take "no" for an answer. So at least an interaction ban would reduce the opportunity for TRM to sound like a broken record. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, to be clear, you took no action whatsoever, despite the personal attacks and 3RR violation. Claiming "stale" in a case with such violations involving someone you know personally is not appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I can see Ritchie's point of view, but I think this doesn't get at the meat of the matter: in the last month alone TRM has edit-warred with two other editors over citation formatting: see this, and this nonsense (which took me a few seconds to find by searching his contributions for "mw-undo"; there's probably others further back). I think we should be warning TRM to take his concerns to the talk page a little earlier. If that seems too lenient to some folks, a 1RR restriction would still make more sense than an IBAN, I think, though I'm not convinced yet that it's necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Your first example wasn't related to citations at all, it was a general issue with the misuse of semi-autonated tools to make generic edits against consensus. The second example relates to a user who insisted on a single column format despite consensus that allowing references to span across the page is just fine. It's not clear what the problem here is in either case. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  The problem, in both cases, is that you were reverting rather than discussing, which is exactly what happened here with Johnbod. You seem to believe that being correct makes it unnecessary for you to initiate a discussion, which simply isn't true. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  And yet, even after I'd managed to initiate discussion, the reverting continued, and worse, was sanctioned and allowed to stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support the general idea. In order to understand what is happening at Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene, a good idea is to look at [this] and [that]. One editor has done quite all the editorial work. And then comes someone else with a series of 23 cosmetic edits in two days.
  (1) One source says Marseilles. The article says Marseilles. But TRM says Marseille. He knows better, and when reverted and directed to ENGVAR, he reiterates again and again, since he knows better.
  (2) Then comes {{Cite web| url=https://www.mfa.org/collections/object/saint-sebastian-tended-by-saint-irene-and-her-maid-34145|title=Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene and Her Maid|date=14 July 2018|publisher=[[Museum of Fine Arts, Boston]]| accessdate = 21 February 2019}}. When reverted and directed to CITEVAR, TRM reiterates again and again, because he knows better. When speaking of Boston's Museum of Fine Art, expanding mfa into Museum of Fine Art is a vital information, isn't it ? And adding this 14 Juillet 2018 from nowhere, another vital information ?
  (3) Then we have {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2019}}. When reverted TRM reiterates again and again, because he knows better, with "plat de résistance" as edit summary.
  And now comes the worst. After such a flooding, User:The Rambling Man tries to burden User:Johnbod with the task of sorting all this mess and selecting what could, marginally, be useful. This is not the way to proceed. The burden is on TRM to sort what he is doing, with honest edit summaries. Using repetitively further improvement as edit summary is only gaming the system. Pldx1 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, honest edit summaries like "various" on the 4RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:CITEVAR? From the very end of the guideline: If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. What was TRM was doing to those citations? Um... adding a title, a website, a publisher, an access date, and occasionally a publication date. And what about prior to that? Hmm... They had nothing other than a url and a name flanked by ref tags. These changes are explicitly excluded from CITEVAR because The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it. Which is not possible to do when all I have to go on is "LACMA page", whatever that means, but easy enough to do when I'm told that it's the "Los Angeles County Museum of Art". How about "Golden Legend text, in the Caxton translation"? Well sounds fancy, but can't really tell its providence and who is "Caxton"? "Medieval Sourcebook: The Golden Legend: Volume II". Fordham University." Ah, yes I see, it's a primary source that has been republished by a presumably reputable institution. Unfortunately "Caxton" is lost here, and I assume Caxton is the translator's name (indeed I know it is: William Caxton). That should be re-added. The same goes for some of the other citations. "Seattle Art Museum" for example, is barely enough for me to evaluate it. In other words, nothing needs to be done here. Some poor incomplete citations turned into adequate citations is not a problem. The aggression from Johnbod in retaliation for these improvements, for me, is a problem. No idea on what actions to take with regard to that though. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr Dude, though it has been pointed out several times already, you are overlooking that all or most of the relevant information is contained in the text being referenced. This is like the people who complain when something is just referenced to ""Foo: 1", OED". The article had a link to LACMA, though there should really have been another where the ref was. Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod - I am familiar with those sorts of citations, and they appear in most of the works that I refer to when writing articles in the ancient Egypt topic area. For example, I know what SAK and BIFAO are on sight, but they are illegible to the average reader. This is also why books have a bibliography which you can search to find the cited source... well unless they do something like put a footnote that reads "BIFAO, 1977" and you're left wondering "which article from BIFAO 1977? why are you less verifiable than Wikipedia!?" TRM's changes might be unnecessary to you, but they are more accessible to the reader and, to my reading of the guideline, are within the bounds of the explicit exception written into CITEVAR. Oh, btw, if you're still willing to edit Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene, citation 7 (Slive p. 22) isn't following your other book format citations. I don't know if that was intentional, or if someone else added it in later. I'd rather not set-off a new dispute, so won't touch it myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose in accord with Mr rnddude above, who explains in greater detail what I was arguing above. A citation that does not provide the basic information required by WP:CITE is not subject to CITEVAR and improving that cite should not be subject to sanction. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been following this for a while and it's admittedly difficult to get a bearing on the situation given the drastically different versions of events that have been presented. One thing that is clear to me is that both Johnbod and TRM have needlessly escalated this situation. This should have been handled on the talk page in a calm, cool, and collected manner, but that became all but impossible once Johnbod began insulting TRM via edit summary. And TRM is refusing to drop the stick, as he often does when another editor is mean to him. As for the actual content dispute, I'm admittedly not a star content creator like some of the above editors, so I won't claim expertise on citation formatting, but I really don't see how TRM's citation format changes were unhelpful. I certainly don't see how they warrant a topic ban. It is also unfortunate that this proposal alleges that TRM was following Johnbod around when it is fairly common knowledge that TRM frequently seeks to improve content that is about to hit the main page, as was the case here. This proposal is a severe overreach based on a very one-sided interpretation of this editing dispute. Lepricavark (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. This has escalated quite unnecessarily. As has already been pointed out it is not s violation of CITEVAR if additional information is being added, and I’m more concerned about the ownership being displayed by Johnbod. Both were wrong to edit war but at least they are now using the talk page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment so now we have a concept of "Johnbod articles" being proposed? Really? If anyone can prove that the edits I made weren't in the best interests of our readers and the longevity of the verifiability of our articles, I'm all ears. As I noted, I've edited at least 15,000 articles over the past two years (whose "owners" I know not, nor do I know how find, nor do I care) and this is the one that's blown up through me improving citations and making multiple other improvements for our readers. I've never followed Johnbod, in fact he's the one who gravedanced when I took some time out. He's the one who came to my personal errors record and started complaining. Not the other way around. So get the facts straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am surprised how many time TRM gets away with this type of stuff. They would have been indefinitely blocked long before, hadn't they been "close friends" with admins. Repetitive disruptive editing is disruptive editing nonetheless, regardless of how much of an "asset" they are and arejust "keep making mistakes" and "probably learn", even though being highly experienced and already been reported several times. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: A welcome opportunity for: WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER. Any chance you could provide a diff to back every single one of those claims? ——SerialNumber54129 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Look at his track record here. I am not quoting directly, those were just in general. TRM has failed multiple times to keep promises of not being disruptive and being civil. If it were any other editor, they would have indefinitely blocked long before. Wonder why TRM isn't blocked permanently considering his bans are regular? We need to be vocal about this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per SN, This has escalated unnecessarily and is now becoming a pointless timesink. –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – needless escalation for the reasons already well-stated by multiple editors above. Leviv ich 19:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the core premise of this proposal is wrong. TRM is not followimg anyone around they are working on front page errors, which they are well known for. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose editor was simply following what we recommend at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights linkrot;.--Moxy (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. To reiterate, I am (a) not stalking anyone (b) not harassing anyone (who came to gravedance?) (c) not violating CITEVAR (even though it's nothing more than a suggestion in any case) (d) not prepared to accept continued personal attacks (e) not prepared to accept 3RR violations (e) not satisfied that an involved admin closed the report (f) not satisfied that the closing admin didn't even offer a suggestion to Johnbod to avoid violating 3RR, NPA, rollback abuse (g) disappointed but not surprised that so many people have jumped on this bandwagon of "all TRM does is change citation styles" - bollocks, I have improved every article I touch for the benefit of our readers. There are many personal attacks even here on this very page levelled at me, none of which have any substance, but of course no-one will do anything about any of it. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal-- use of rollback by Johnbod

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

---

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

---

I hope this wasn't addressed earlier. Both Johnbod and TheRamblingMan are valued contributors who are immiscible. I would ask Johnbod to reserve rollback for reverting vandals and to refrain from using it in a conflict with other immiscible contributors. Instead, it would be best to stop and fully address the other editors concerns and if needed, use the dispute resolution process. DlohCierekim (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, I normally do this; in fact I don't use rollback all that often. I've commented above on my regrettable use of it here. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think this quite beside the point of the overall discussion at this stage. I mean - what was the root cause? Sandy's proposal is more on target. ps Dloh, its "Johnbod", rather than "Johblod". Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Given his acknowledgement above, I suggest a warning to Johnbod, along the lines of "if you ever do that again ... ", will suffice. On the other hand, TRM's behaviors are long-term, entrenched, have been addressed in the past by ArbCom, and need to be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• I meant to post something like this following my previous conversations with SlimVirgin and Ceoil. Johnbod has acknowledged his error. I don't think we need to do more than warn him not to use rollback for things not explicitly covered by WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Indeed such a warning doesn't really require lengthy discussion, because nobody (least of all Johnbod himself) has really argued that the rollback use was justified. If someone thinks a stronger sanction is necessary, they're welcome to propose it, but I for one am no longer willing to yank Johnbod's rollback access. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with that, Vanamonde. ——SerialNumber54129 18:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

How merciful of you. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• We should all attempt to be more miscible, if that needs to said I felt it did, and now have used that word at least once in a sentence. I was somewhat saddened that my spell-checker knows a word that I did not, but cheered to have learned a term from medieval alchemy. cygnis insignis 19:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

• @Ceoil: Since you wish to continue your feud with me—what happened to avoiding me, I wonder—then I suggest you take your snide elsewhere, particularly as Vanamonde93 has already closed this discussion. Although I'm glad to see your language has improved. As to why I made the above remark: since my previous post focussed solely on JB's use of Rollback, I considered it only proper to point out that my position was neither unequivocal nor unchangeable. It's quite well known. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 20:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial, what you dont seem to realise is that (1) nobody actually cares what you think, and (2) you called me a troll yesterday, so AGF?? My patience for want to be admins is low these days. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Ceoil (3) at some point you'll realise that nobody cares what we think, whatever you think, and (4) you suggested I was insane yesterday, so AGF??

Since you're unable to keep away from me, how able a WP:Iban? ——SerialNumber54129 00:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: quiet word in the ear

Now this should have happened when the clear 3RR violation occurred. The admin closing the EW noticeboard should have left a message with both me and Johnbod saying that we could do better, and that Johnbod should not have resorted to violation of 3RR and personal attacks (as far as I know, calling people "vandal" and "troll" when it's apparent that they are doing their best to improve articles is a personal attack). Instead, the closing admin (who knows Johnbod personally) closed the situation as "stale" (after the fourth reversion) and did nothing more, not even a quiet word in the ear to suggest that calling someone a troll or a vandal was inappropriate. While that's "an approach", it's hardly satisfactory. However, if we could just move on with the "guys, let's just agree to disagree but please don't overstep fundamental pillars of Wikipedia" approach, such as avoiding personal attacks, then I imagine things would have been brought to a close much sooner. I accept that per BRD (not policy) I should have discussed this after the first revert, but at least I tried before the fourth revert. I still find it hard to understand why improving references for our readers has resulted in this shitstorm. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with The Rambling Man. Closing admin should have resolved much better. That being said, the issue shouldn't be ignored here and a warning should be given to both of them at the very least, let alone a topic ban of maybe referencing. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that the closing admin didn't actually close anything; they merely moved the problem elsewhere and in doing so made it far worse. A "topic ban of maybe referencing" isn't possible (or desirable) though—WP:V (which is policy) demands some kind of referencing, and so such a TB would effectively be a ban on article creation! Not exactly, in sure we'd all agree, the perfect outcome for WP:TEACE ——SerialNumber54129 13:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My use of reference ban was unfortunate. But any other specific topic ban will work. Also, both of their past reports should also be taken into account. I think both of them should feel the consequences by now. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I used "vandal" at all. As various people have pointed out many times above, it is entirely TRM who insisted on pursuing it. Reading the above will probably give newcomers an idea of how far attempting to discuss anything contentious with TRM gets anybody. Personally, I'd be happy to let TRM enjoy the rest of his holiday in the homeland of WP:BOOMERANG, though I expect issues like this will continue to recur between him & other editors. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It's not my homeland. I strongly suspect the issues raised above about your ownership of "your" articles, backed up by many editors, will continue to be a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Both of you continuing to still arguing and attacking each other here is itself disruptive. Please calm down. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we're both calm, and don't need you to tell us to calm down, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a trout for TRM and Johnbod was the right closure at AN3 this seems clearly to be the right closure of this thread here at ANI. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

General citation query

So we have "Refill (2)" on our toolbox now, and it does things like this. Is this prohibited by WP:CITEVAR? If so, should the tool come with a grave warning that trips to ANI and proposals for topic bans etc are inevitable? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

To quote CITEVAR:--If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data.......then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that answered the question about a tool which does what I demonstrated. The tool did exactly the same thing which I did to "Johnbod's articles", only not quite as well. I assume given this furore, we need to now remove the tool from the "tools" section because it does exactly what I did: improved the content, made the content consistent in appearance, and gave the readers more bibliographic data. Since there seems to be some support for removing all of the information I added (manually), should we therefore remove the tool? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and Johnbod I neither support nor oppose using the tool or editing manually. However, it could have been easily solved had there been proper discussion with consensus and more third party opinions as dispute solutions, rather then reverting back and forth and exchanging comments. It is wrong to blame and say that Refill (2) "does things", since it still is dependent on the user using it. In most cases, the default format should be decided by the original author, if they are heavily active. If others have issues, the most fundamental procedure is to reach for consensus with civility and proper arguments. If it doesn't go well, there outside editors would be asked to get involved and apply formal closure. I hope this helps both of you. I am also assuming you were not familiar with this? (Non-administrator comment) THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

My reply was intended to reply Is this (edit) prohibited by WP:CITEVAR?

As to the general tool; I guess that it ought to come with a warning that the users must read CITEVAR i.e. be careful that they are not just replacing citation-styles; which (at a glance) may look like adding more but actually redundant citation-info. At the same time, to fight linkrot, bare URLs are actively discouraged and moreover, bare URLs (with no accompanying data) are never a part of any citation style. So, I've not much clue about the above folks who claims that you violated CITEVAR. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I did open a discussion at CITEVAR, and it does appear that what TRM was doing, changing the simple "url + page name" to ones with complete biographical information is allowed under CITEVAR. --Masem (t) 17:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that’s interesting! Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But it isn't correct. WP:CITEVAR: "To be avoided ... adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates". If there was information missing, you could have added it manually, or gone to talk and proposed the changes there. The whole point of CITEVAR is to avoid this kind of dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think, by now, it's pretty obvious to all that CITEVAR (not even a policy, incidentally) means different things to different editors, and as such, any claims that CITEVAR has been categorically violated are false. That I improved these references in a consistent way and to the benefit of our readers is all that's really important. And you failed to address the point of this section, namely that our toolkit provides scripts which do exactly what I did. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

After the first few edits by the original editor, Storye book (talk · contribs), there is no consistent citation style that I can discern. Thus, changing to a consistent style is allowed, although, since the article is new and the original editor is likely to still be active, it would have been better to discuss it on the talk page and ping the original editor. But the fact that the edit could have been within the guideline indicates the tool serves a legitimate purpose, and should continue to be mentioned in the guideline. Virtually all useful tools can be misused (as demonstrated by the guy who put air in my tires when I last went in for an oil change). Jc3s5h (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, CITEVAR specifically states that citations that "fail to provide needed bibliographic data" do "not count as a 'consistent citation style' and can be changed freely to insert such data." Citations such as "LACMA page" and "Image" do not constitute a citation style. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Image" is to a convenience Commons image. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How would you judge that in relation to Frog Service? Repeated duplicate, and unlinked, citations of no more than 'GT', 'BM' etc.? These could easily be much clearer, as per our usual standard for most articles, but apparently this article is already beyond reproach and it's a blocking offence to edit any such. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

btw, "BM" is a link to a page titled "Plate" in the BM's usual down-to-earth style, as the ref says. As a special treat, Andy, now I've finished writing the article, if you (or anyone else) want to do named refs to combine all the single BMs & GTs I won't object. But please use sensible names for the refs & leave bundled ones alone. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, when I applied named references, I was reverted ("per DENY" according to Ceoil). How odd. Perhaps only certain editors are allowed to use named references. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• "As a special treat" – and there we have the crux of the problem here. No Johnbod, it is not "a special treat" for other editors to be allowed to edit your articles. This is a collegial project, remember WP:5P3? "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited"?

Our default position is that TRM is allowed to edit 'your articles'. Even if you hate what they're doing with them. It's your burden to make some case as to why they shouldn't, or why particular changes ought to be reverted. We have a few regular issues where we've agreed a default answer (MOS:DATE, WP:MOS) and we don't vary from that without that then being the default position and the editor looking to change from it being the one who makes the case for it. In other cases (WP:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR) we accept both options as equally valid and we avoid change to them, just because we want to avoid circular or reciprocating cycles of changes. But what we do not do is to start WP:OWNing articles. You, even if you're the creator and sole author of an article do not get to act as gatekeeper to it. This is an absolute here. Yes, we have a lot of behaviours (documented or not) to avoid stepping on the toes of other editors, and even to avoid WP:RANDY. But still, you can't start claiming OWNership, even if you call it stewardship against an imagined barbarian horde.

I'm sure you know this, but I do not believe that you accept it. I have seen many examples of you clearly refusing to. If the other editor is easily cowed, then they disappear, perhaps permanently. If they have a high profile, like TRM, it ends up here. But in both cases you are in the wrong. CITEVAR is a minor guideline (and like ENGVAR, it's behavioural rather than based on absolute benefits to librarianship or linguistics) but OWN is policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but both he and you have to respect the rules, especially (here) CITEVAR. Many editors still don't, and of course can often get away with this on neglected articles, building up a sense of entitlement. Then they get upset when challenged. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Named references? (that is <ref name="bm">ref defined here</ref> <ref name="bm"/> Thre's also a valid use of "ibid" if you are 100% certain the citation order won't change. --Masem (t) 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no "ibid" there - I never use that. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, here's my approach to CITEVAR, which I haven't re-read in a long time. It's goal of preventing revert wars between citation styles is desirable, but it can also be an impediment to improving the encyclopaedia. I have changed citation styles from a mix of templated and untemplated to all templated in the past, adding missing information, and feel justified in so doing. If an article has only non-templated citations but with significant information missing, I have added information in templated format. IF another editor then objects, I would respect CITEVAR and either encourage him / her to convert my citations to non-templated form or offer to do it myself. I would not find a simple revert of my additions acceptable if the additional information were not re-added. In the disputed case, I don't have a problem with TRM's additions or change of citation, but I do think not accepting Johnbod's right to non-templated styles as originating author was unwise per CITEVAR. I recognise that Johnbod's references were inadequate in places, such as when a simple url was linked to a description that was not the page's title and that did it clearly identify the source. This creates an arguable case under CITEVAR for retaining the templated forms, but at the cost of upsetting the editor who wrote the article over a matter that was trivial. Note, it is the form of the citation that I say is trivial, not its content. TRM and Johnbod failed to communicate as adults and find a reference form that was acceptable to Johnbod and which contained the relevant information added by TRM. Things degenerated from there, with unacceptable behaviour from Johnbod ("vandalism", ROLLBACK-misuse, etc) and stubborn refusal to compromise from TRM, made worse by the escalating conflict. We then end up with an ANI that was guaranteed to be hostile over a matter that should never have left the article talk page. TRM, you may not like CITEVAR, but I strongly advise you to respect it when your change of citation style prompts objections. That's what I would advise on the Abby Franquemont case – if someone objects, let them change back to untemplated refs or make the change yourself, and move on (so long as the extra information is retained). If no one objects, great. I have changed the citations on the article that started all this conflict to remove templates and tried to keep the resulting referencing style consistent. I hope Johnbod has noticed this and recognises it as a change made in the hope of ending the article part of the conflict, consistent with CITEVAR and the work he has put into the page. Compromise can be a great way to reduce conflict, and so long as it does not harm the information provided to our readers, need not cost anything but a little time. Johnbod, I'm glad that you recognised the problematic use of ROLLBACK. Perhaps you could both also offer some reflection on your words and actions and this thread can be ended? Ritchie333, perhaps you might comment on whether you still see starting this ANI as the best choice when TRM was clearly aggrieved and when there were behavioural questions still open? EdChem (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, I certainly think the matter needed to come here. I just had a quick look at what's been going on, and the first thing I find is TRM getting close to edit warring with Atlantic306 on Hurricane (2018 film). So there's definitely a deeper problem here than what a simple AN3 report can handle. Also, since TRM is obviously upset with how I handled the report, it makes sense to come here even if it's just to discuss my admin conduct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, lack of admin conduct I suppose. But frankly, if you honestly didn't foresee this Marne of a thread, then it's not your conduct so much as your judgement that's arguably called into question. ——SerialNumber54129 11:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I was more concerned with TRM's removal of important referencing information, and I'll admit, especially annoyed by the change to Marseilles, which the edit summary "I presume this means Marseille" showed to be clearly ignorance-driven. The immediate context of all this has not been mentioned much - this all happened a few hours before the article went on the main page as a DYK. TRM always waits until the last minute before he hits a prospective main page article, although this one had been nominated for DYK over 2 months previously. This fuels a fake sense of La patrie en danger urgency, and means that those putting stuff on the main page have to watch carefully a number of different pages in the hours leading up to the main page change for upcoming "improvements" that often aren't, and which they won't be notified about. TRM wears his heart on his sleeve, and the psychology of all this is very well known to anyone who has kept any sort of eye on his edits - which before the topic ban was anyone follwing DYK talk at all. As is the way he reacts to any disagreement about his "improvements" (which I don't deny, often are). I never reverted all his changes this for example is my first reversion, only those creating problems. For the moment, with the article off the main page & several editors piling in, I've given up following changes to in detail. I'll come back in a few days & pick up the beer cans. Only one of these editors has wanted to changed the actual text, which is WP-typical these days. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You could have replaced the few bytes of information that you deemed so important. What I added was considerably more and made the references usable for our readers and linkrot-proof to a degree. I was chased away from ERRORS and DYK, so I have nothing left to give other than a review 24 hours in advance of things going to the main page. I do that in good faith because I want our readers to believe in Wikipedia, to see it as a professional resource, to actually use it as an encyclopedia. Picking up crappy referencing, or easy-to-fix MOS violations is just part of what I do, I'm also trying to validate the hooks, the blurbs etc, so we don't get embarrassed. It's fascinating to me that OTD has had around the same number of issues over the past nine months as DYK, yet Howcheng is miraculously calm and considerate, and gives a fair crack at each report. On the other hand, once I dare touch one of "Johnbod's articles", the universe collapses, people accuse me of stalking, harassment, want an indef block etc. And on another article, Johnbod's friend Ceoil reverts me for editing to reuse citations, claiming "WP:DENY", yet Johnbod himself says that's just fine. This place is fucking nuts. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please! Most of your edits to my DYK noms are fine, & I think I may have thanked you for them in the past. Your editing restrictions (obviously) don't affect DYK articles, which you could pick up in good time from the approved page, but don't. You are the one who pursued this strongly. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please note that any claim of "CITEVAR violation" is utterly incorrect, and under considerable debate. Ed, your post is great, but reading it twice (or three times) really seems to back up the idea of ownership of articles. And that's not what this project is about. I improved citations, I don't need to ask permission from anyone to do that, and to remove the improvements should be considered disruptive, not to add them. But to the point: Ritchie, you didn't do anything, and that was a serious failure of your responsibilities. Forget the 3RR, forget the CITEVAR (which is very much open to debate), forget even the overt abuse of rollback, but you allowed another user to use personal attacks against me a number of times. And whether that was part of the initial report or not is irrelevant. You failed in your duty. I don't know why you got engaged when you later said that you'd met Johnbod in person a few times, that's highly inappropriate, some might say biased, even if it just looks that way. Incidentally, your claim of "edit warring with Atlantic306" is utter bullshit. I stated clearly that I didn't need to add a "reactions" section to a draft article, and my edit was undone by Atlantic. I simply restored my edit and suggested that things should move on when it was abundantly clear that the article was of sufficient quality for the main page. To claim that as as some kind of "close to edit warring" is utterly disingenuous and needs to stop. It appears that my trust in you has absolutely and completely evaporated, and that's a real shame, because I thought you were one of the decent ones. I think you should continue to be an admin but for me, this is terminal. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want to fall out with you over this; as I said at the top of the thread you have been very helpful with GA reviews and WP:ERRORS2, by and large, does a lot of good work for the encyclopedia. I'm unsure as to what you exactly wanted me to do with Johnbod; perhaps a more trigger-happy admin would have blocked him and that would have been alright? It would have probably resulted in a heated discussion anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already told you, several times, that allowing Johnbod to call me a vandal, a troll, to violate 3RR after I (eventually) initiated discussion, to violate the use of rollback, did not equate to a "closed:stale" result. That's complete bullshit. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked, but play the fucking game. Johnbod is now aware that CITEVAR was not violated in any sense, that I was improving the citation style for our readers, that abusive use of rollback is unacceptable. But your biased intransigence is too much, and I'm really really gutted about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I could sit here and pick apart the various points over what I did and why I disagree with them, but everyone else would be bored to tears over it, so may I suggest a) Can we just agree to disagree over this? b) Blind Faith needs a GA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[ec] The Rambling Man, "but play the fucking game". He may not be not interested in your boyish game, is that also compulsory? Take OWNership of the 5 seconds you took to insert yourself into a page that someone else has invested their OWN time in creating and well know they do not OWN, that is more deeply insulting and wrong-headed than what you seek to suffer. cygnis insignis 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure Ritchie, it's "boring". Good response. You did nothing, and it was tragically disappointing. Good luck, and goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

[106] ...if a bunch of us get together, disagree on stuff, make alternative suggestions, and then (and this is the important bit) constructively work out a compromise, we can do brilliant work. It certainly beats sulking round ANI. How's that looking now? ——SerialNumber54129 13:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal:Two months block for The Rambling Man

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

---

I am sure most of the admins are familiar with the number of warnings and blocksagainst TRM. He has been reported at ArbCom several times. If it were a newcomer or less known editor, they would have been indefinitely blocked long before for this continuous disruptive editing over the years. He promises to change but still makes the same Wikipedia's fundamental mistakes. I propose a two month block at minimum. We should be open about this and have proper justice. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose TRM was following what CITEVAR says (which is open to some debate but there's definitely a honest way to read it to support TRM's actions), and only the back and forth editing between him and Johnbod caused the problem. TRM is under a specific civility restriction, but nothing they have said in this discussion approaches that restriction). --Masem (t) 17:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, but, hey, how about: propose TBan from AN/I for User:ImmortalWizard, who seems to think that this is the OK Corral and that they are Wyatt Earp ("hav[ing] proper justice"?!). You do not go around just randomly propsing blocks for productive editors in the middle of a discussion which has has pretty clearly established faults on noth sides. Further, block logs are actually slightly more nuanced things than they seem to realise: a list of blocks and warnings on it's own means nothing without context, and IWiz was not, IIRC, involved in any of TRM's cases (indeed, their paths have almost never crossed before). In anycase, the specific claims I asked them to support with diffs, above, have not been; and I would also ask them how this proposal fits in with WP:NOTPUNITIVE? I suggest that IWiz—with 56 edits to WP:ANI in their career, and about half of them over the lastcouple of days—might want to slow down a little with the commentary and proposals, much as they clearly mean well. ——SerialNumber54129 17:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (edit conflict) - Don't be daft. How about we close this and allow both editors to discuss this on the talkpage accordingly ? .... Now that sounds like a much better proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking TRM. Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this ludicrous proposal. TRM’s civility restriction and block log are irrelevant to this discussion which is essentially a content dispute. I agree that Immortal Wizard needs to take a break from ANI and go work on some articles - someone with so little experience telling two veteran content creators with over 400,000 edits between them to “calm down” is not helping anyone. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: 3-month interaction ban Johnbod and The Rambling Man

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

---

Can somebody give any evidence that interaction between the two is likely to be productive in that time? As for discussing the current matter, I don't believe additional discussion between the two of them is necessary, as both have gone far beyond laying out their positions. pbp 20:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose not productive or warrented. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per LP; not sure what issue this is intended to address as they seem to interact infrequently. ——SerialNumber54129 21:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Concerns of editing NHL Canadian Teams

I have concerns of how Yowashi and I edit hockey teams. We are frequently making incorrect information because of where we are getting the stats from and how I put the numbers in. There are times where I misplace the numbers because of the numbers I add in from the team stats. Yowashi's source of the stats information comes from the regular season stats on website and sometimes, its not immediately up to date. Yowashi keeps complaining to me of how I add incorrect information when this user helps me with my editing with player stats. But Yowashi has to realize that he too has added incorrect information since the stats from hockey.com can be misleading. Also, I had corrected a handful of times of incorrect stats before if I am really suspicious of Yowashi's edits. There is one more thing that does not seem to be necessary for Yowashi to say is reordering stats to most points to least should always happen after I add in the team stats from the recap game. Their is no such difference if I did not reorganize the stats to most points to least. It can be done anytime. NicholasHui (talk) 11:04am, 22 February 2019 (PT)

These are the teams I edit with Yowashi are the 2018-19 season pages for Vancouver Canucks, Calgary Flames, Edmonton Oilers, Winnipeg Jets, Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens.

NicholasHui Its not quite clear what the problem is. Can you provide diffs of the specific problem? If this is a problem involving Yowashi, you must notify them on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ Edit: I have notified Yowashi, but in the future you MUST notify users. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators has been clearly overlooked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Are they a NHL team yet? Who knew? Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

As posted on my talk page by Yowashi Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC) : "Hello CaptainEek. This is just a response to the message that you had left me on my talk page. I am a regular contributor to the National Hockey League's teams season pages. Since October, NicholasHui has been persistently adding inaccurate information in regards to a player's point total located in the player statistics section. I will refer to this page 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, as one of the examples. I had informed NicholasHui about them not adding accurate information in regards to the player statistics. I find that their information is often incorrect, which leads to me having to correct the information that they have provided. I have told them to stop adding incorrect information on their talk page and also within the page's history log. However, they continue to add information from either no source, or poor sources. I told them to use this website, (Statistics), as it includes all of the player statistics from every National Hockey League team, and is also the most reliable source. This is only the first issue. A second issue that this user is also involved in, is that they are unable to reorganize the player statistics section, which is supposed to be organized from a player's point total (most points to least points, or in other words, top to bottom) system. This user occasionally refuses to reorganize the statistics section based on most points to least. For example, in the player statistics section, under "Pts", one player will have a total of ten points, while another would have eleven points. The player with eleven points would be positioned underneath the player with ten points. This is supposed to be vice versa. The editor refuses to reposition the players based on which player has more points. I had also discussed this situation to the editor, but they still occasionally refuse to do as I have told them. Another user like Sabbatino also discussed this issue with NicholasHui when he was using his former account Portmannfire. I honestly don't know why he is complaining about me when I am the one that is trying to fix his persistent errors. Please visit the Edmonton Oilers page that I had provided you with earlier in this message, so that you will have an understanding of what I am talking about. If any clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me. Just a reminder, I do correct the errors that NicholasHui makes. So if you don't see any physical evidence, just know that I correct the errors. Yowashi (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)"

As a reminder, I am not an admin, and my role on this board is merely to help with uncontroversial and routine tasks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

We may have a WP:Competent problem, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not very often someone reports themselves. Why the rush? Wait until complete info is published in RS. Legacypac (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

So, is there anything that can be done about this situation? I'm only trying to update these pages because they barely get updated by others. In addition to that, I also want these pages to have accurate information from reliable sources, so that when these pages are visited, people are not mislead from the incorrect information that has been continuously added on these pages. Yowashi (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The individual should be blocked, if that's the only way to get through to him/her. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me but which editor are you claiming needs to be blocked? Being blocked is usually reserved for vandals or editors making disruptive edits, not good faith disagreement. If we can resolve problems by talking them out, that is preferred to blocking editors. I may not sense the nuances of this dispute but it seems like this is an issue that needs discussion to be resolved, not a problem that is resolved by blocking editors from making productive edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Been around the 'pedia for going on 14 years & I'm quite keen on spotting intentional and (in this case) non-intentional troublesome editors, such as NicholasHui. But, by all means, try it your suggested way. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The point here is that there is an editor making disruptive and unproductive edits, and such editors are blocked all the time if they refuse to stop doing so, the purity of their motives notwithstanding. (May I also humbly ask upon which basis you believe that the dispute is resolvable, if you don't understand it?) Ravenswing 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

More than one user wrote to NicholasHui (aka Portmannfire) making suggestions. I am not particularly involved with him, because I just started ignoring him as I have better things to edit. However, I am some times watching the conflict between these two users. The problem is that NicholasHui updates the statistics by making the calculations himself when he was advised to wait for the NHL to update them in their website. In addition, statistics are usually updated once a week so that just creates unneeded conflicts (this applies to both users involved). – Sabbatino (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This is another example of why Wikipedia should stop trying to have sports statistics in articles. For every sport, there are one or more websites that have the "official" or best statistics. We could just link to those websites in our articles. But no, we insist on copying this ever-changing information, by hand, resulting in endless battles, for no good reason at all. We ought to be writing an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. In an article about an athelete, we don't need to know how many points they scored last week. Leviv ich 17:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• While I'm sure this advice is lost on those editors who insist on doing things their way, the rest of the world be damned, we are not in a race here. The Cabal does not hand out gold stars for your forehead for being the first to make an edit, nor are parades organized for those who scoop the world. If, as it appears, NicholasHui is editing these articles in near-to-real time based on personal observations, that's just as illegitimate as if he were editing election articles based on CNN's coverage. Reliable sources exist and should be used, in all cases. If they're not "immediately up to date," who cares? Ravenswing 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, can NicholasHui be dealt with please? Their latest contributions on the 2018–19 Edmonton Oilers season, and 2018–19 Vancouver Canucks season articles are clear indications that they are not capable of editing these types of articles. The information that they have added do not match up with any information from an official source. As Sabbatino mentioned, they update the information by making their own calculations instead of obtaining it from an actual source. Also, the positioning of the players in the players statistics section on the Edmonton Oilers article are also not in order once again. As I have said before, I have informed NicholasHui, along with other people, the protocols of updating that section of these articles, and they still have not gotten the memo. This situation needs to be looked into because it has gotten ridiculous in my opinion. Yowashi (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

(Non-administrator comment) It appears that filer User:NicholasHui may be the larger part of the problem here, and that this issue needs to be wrapped up. Propose that this boomerang on filer, with either:
1. Warning to use only reliable sources, not update sports articles in real time, and follow all relevant MOS guidelines, or risk being blocked.
2. Topic ban on sports articles
3. Block

• Neutral as proposer. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am unclear of what this is asking. Is it asking me to choose one of these three options to go in effect? Option one definitely will not work, as NicholasHui has been warned numerous times about these protocols, and they still refuse to follow the procedure given to them. Option two may work, as the statistics section of these articles are claimed to be updated only once a week. Therefore, there is no use for it even being in the articles. Option three may be the best solution for this situation. Yowashi (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd go with a Topic ban, to see if it'll have any positive effect. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What does that mean exactly? Does that mean removing the players statistics section entirely from an article? I have never been involved in a situation like this before, so I am pretty much new to all this. Yowashi (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It means that NicholasHui would no longer be allowed to edit sports articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Now, how would the topic ban go into effect? Would they no longer be allowed to edit sports articles if they continue to their disruptive editing? Or, would it go into effect immediately due to all the complaints, if approved by an admin? Yowashi (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the topic ban is adopted, but NH continues edited sports articles, then he's taken back here to face likely a blocking. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban: especially given that NicholasHui is still editing these articles outside of reliable sources even given this ANI complaint. Ravenswing 04:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, as of the late stages of February 24th, NicholasHui continues to provide information outside of any reliable source. Their latest contribution being on the 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season article. Another user has since corrected the information that NicholasHui had provided, but I don't think that should hide the fact that NicholasHui believes that they can still do whatever they want on these articles. I don't think that NicholasHui is following this discussion, hence why they are continuing to make disruptive edits. I think now is the right time to take action and put an end to this conflict, rather than later. It just depends on what others involved in this discussion believe what the right choice is. Yowashi (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that if they think I manually calculate the player statistics for Canadian teams, the information I assumed other users that edit wikipedia statistics immediately after the game ends comes from the recap game they played. I noticed that after updating the players statistics, Yowashi has fixed some of the information I put. So I don't know why they think I am the bigger problem. Their were times that I fixed some errors on the Player Statistics if I get suspicious of what Yowashi puts on the stats. Sometimes, I may use the official team stats if I am sure I had made some mistakes.

The examples of the mistakes I found are listed below

December 16, 2018: Forgetting to add assists on Jacob Markstrom's stats on Vancouver Canucks 2018-19 season. (That was my mistake)

December 31, 2018: James Neal's 3 goals plus 6 assists equals 7 points instead should have been 4 assists which was my own mistake that time

February 2, 2019: Oliver Kylington should have plus/minus rating as 1 when its was instead 2. I corrected by having a combination of separate windows having the wikipedia stats, player nhl.com stats and the recap team stats to correct the mistake.

February 12, 2019, (Maple Leafs) Patrick Marleau's assists were not updated when they beated Colorado Avalanche

February 14, 2019: Connor Mcdavid's assist stats should have been 51 assists when it was 50 instead.

NicholasHui (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2019 (PT)

Incipient Move-War: Draft:Bhakharwadi and Bhakharwadi (TV series)

There is an incipient move-war between Draft:Bhakharwadi and Bhakharwadi (TV series). The draft was recently submitted to Articles for Creation, where I declined it procedurally. There had previously been an article on the show, but it was then stubbed down to a redirect to SAB TV. In such a case, the preferred procedure is for the proponent of an article to discuss on the talk page of the parent article, Talk: SAB TV. User: Bhanwar singh vaish posted the following to Talk: SAB TV https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SAB_TV&type=revision&diff=884370985&oldid=843910765&diffmode=source, which is a request to accept back into mainspace, but not discussion. They then moved it to mainspace via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bhakharwadi&type=revision&diff=884652201&oldid=884648970&diffmode=source . User:Sid95Q then moved it back via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Bhakharwadi&type=revision&diff=884660840&oldid=884653183&diffmode=source . There are various possible answers as to whether and how to decide whether to open the redirect back into an article, but move-warring is not one of them. I don’t care whether it is decided by a RFC on the talk page, by an AFD against the child article, or by an RFD against the redirect. All of those are consensus procedures. I know that move-warring is not the answer. Can an admin move-protect the page and allow pens (or keyboards) in place of swords (or whatever) to prevail? There may be a second-language issue, in that the proponent may need someone to explain what is meant by discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I think my last edit to move the article was not a proper and right decision I am sorry if I caused any disruption. Regarding the matter The user is constantly trying to create the article here here and here, He created articles 3 times which were redirected because of the notability issues. Matter was explained to the user User talk:Bhanwar singh vaish#Your edits and The article was moved to draft where the user can work on it before moving it to main space User talk:Bhanwar singh vaish#Bhakharwadi (TV series) moved to draftspace but the user moved it back to main space even though the submission was declined. I tried to move it back to draft space I think I should have discussed the matter before doing it. Regards. Sid95Q (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've applied extended-confirmed move protection for three months on the draft page so that additional moves aren't performed until an established or experienced editor performs the move. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is fairly typical of Bhanwar singh vaish. He is given advice,[107] says he will follow the advice[108] and then ignores it. He originally created this article at Bhakharwadi (no disambiguation is required) and it was redirected by another editor. He later recreated it at Bhakharwadi (Tv series) for some reason. There was subsequently a war over the article because he kept recreating it with poor and/or inappropriate referencing and other issues. I had initially moved it to Bhakharwadi (TV series) because Bhakharwadi wasn't available but eventually stepped in and moved it to Draft:Bhakharwadi and reminded him that "if" the article was created it should be done at Bhakharwadi. Then comes today's issues as outlined by Robert McClenon. Several versionsof the article have existed, none of which has really been mainspace material but it doesn't seem what Bhanwar singh vaish is told, he decides that whatever he thinks is right. Applying protection is all well and good but I fully expect to see the article recreated in mainspace, even if he has to do a cut and paste move. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

AussieLegend - If that happens, then I'd surely be stepping in and taking administrative action against the user (and if it does, let me know). Moving for one reason or another is one thing, but circumventing process and actually cutting and pasting the content to "move it over" is another... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I suspect that's what will happen. From their edits, I believe this is a fairly young editor. They are great at paying lip service to advice and suggestions, but terrible and following through. Copy-pasting text, uploading copyright violation, poor understanding of reliable sources and terrible at notability - it's all there and been going on for a while. Bluntly, they aren't competent enough to edit here except in a very, very limited capacity that I don't think is worth the time or effort to implement. Ravensfire (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire - That's really too bad to hear... I think that the user could become a valuable contributor and a positive asset to the encyclopedia if effort was given in order to improve from these hurdles and disruptive edits and the user followed through with their apologies and responses. But, as pointed out by others here, repeated apologies and promises can only go so far until they become meaningless if you're not holding yourself to them... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

i think everyone is right on its own way.if i done any error good to inform me but it is responsibility of all of us to fix it,rather to move pages or giving complaint to administrator.if Bhakharwadi's draft page have any problem,just fix it and move it to mainspace,is responsibility of all too,not only mine.i hope all you can understand.if understand please fix problem and make it to mainspace,please give your view on my talk page now.thank you.Bhanwar singh vaish (talk)

TBAN violation by Cristina neagu

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

---

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

I think that [109] is a violation of her TBAN from Romania and Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just that I put back my work (the Antiquity section) which was written before a TBAN. Moxy is somehow connected to you? Because first he provoked the scandal on Romania where I was banned, from that discussion you reported me. Now Moxy went to Arad, Romania to remove also my work not just to add back two words. Since when it's ok to remove my work? My work was not banned at all. That's the history of the town and must stay. I even informed the administrator who banned me that I did that. I had no intention to do anything than adding back my work (which was wrongly deleted). Regards, Christina Christina (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That's an admission of guilt, and Moxy is somehow connected to you? is an useless attack. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of TBAN: [110]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I just hope it's your sock, because then you would manipulate things badly against me. I asked you kindly. And why are you so provocative? So much hatred? I am not editing anything against my harsh TBAN (1 admin found me no guilt, 1 user found me no guilt, 2 admins decided not in my favour; I received a TBAN based on weak evidences, now I am not going to violate anything but I had to put back my work), I had to put back a previous information on Arad. I hope you not writing again here romans... Christina (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Sandstein you were topic-banned for what looked like nationalist ranting. [111]. So you are the only one who is guilty for your TBAN. As I told you, I don't hate people. But I am not a moron, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks as arbitration enforcement--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cristina neagu: Wow. Please do read WP:NPA, WP:casting aspersions and WP:AGF. DlohCierekim (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This editor simply does not have the competency to edit English Wikipedia. --Moxy (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, she comes across as totally immature: she sees her bans and blocks as always being the fault of others, who use "psychological techniques of manipulation" against her ([112]). She comes across as totally immature. Maybe she's underage. If she is above 21 years old, there is nothing more to do about it: she just does not have the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. Although, I might add, accusations of manipulation from a minor are fairly unlikely. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now DS blocked for 2 weeks w/ TPA removed. I concur with the extension given the sheer ma, er, inappropriateness of the disruption on her talk. DlohCierekim (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

History of inappropriate behavior towards users, misuse of tools and power.

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

---

I first came across SummerPhDv2.0 via an article while editing, user disrupted my edit by modifying it and decided to created a new discussion on the article's talk page at which I felt they were taking ownership of my sourced material and reference "at the time". The only concern I had was the reasoning behind the modification, there was no citation left, and no type of communication between user and I to resolve the issue. Instead user decided to create a new discussion in the talk page without notifying me there was an issue with what I provided that warranted the modifications. I ended up finding this discussion "on my own" and decided to interact while trying to handle the disruptive edit to my own edits at the same time. It wasn't until "after" the discussion got heated, I was told the reasoning behind the edits.

User and I have had lengthy discussions on their personal talk page and also on the new talk page discussion they created on the article. Our talks have been about the issue at hand, past issues that have occurred with other users involving them, numerous flags on their account, and the misuse of tools and power. Instead of actually trying to iron out the issues and address them via communication, user wishes to make threats of banning my account, lie about certain situations while modifying talk pages trying to delete parts of the conversation to make themselves look better. The issue is toxic and has cost (from what they've told me) a lot of accounts banned maybe even innocent ones.

Before you rule, I would strongly suggest doing a thorough investigation on our situation and situations "we've" both had with other users in the past, whether it takes days or weeks before another innocent account gets falsely banned. In my honest opinion it seems as though high editing points, current account status, and time spent on the platform has gone over user's head to the point where there's no real human interaction with them. It seems as though the only thing they can do is ignore what you're telling them, reference this or reference that with their tools, instead of actually practicing what they're referencing.

Lastly I want to make it clear, "my issue" was never about my edit being questioned, that's every users' right to do so as they choose. My only issue is, how it went about and how the user has chosen "for years" to deal with certain situations they may not like. For an example, when this all got started user DID NOT delete sourced material I provided (clearly it was acceptable enough for them to slightly modify it and keep it), they also asked for me to provide a birthday month and day source (which I did), afterwards they accepted that as well while reapplying my original edit (I even hit the thanks button). I don't know what happened afterwards, but all I've received (since then to now) is constant lying, switch ups on what they've deemed earlier "reliable" then the next it's not "reliable" anymore after a heated debate. I've even tried to resolve the issue between us "myself" in the third to last message in our discussion, but the user didn't want to resolve things and continued with the behavior.

References: Their talk page, my talk page, and talk pages we've interacted with outside of this situation (past or present). Note: User does edit/hide certain things so check all pages history. VerifiedFixes (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VerifiedFixes, please don't waste the time of ANI by typing out rubbish (aka The issue is toxic and has cost (from what they've told me) a lot of accounts banned maybe even innocent ones.). Who is "they"? If you have specific diffs, please list each and every one of those diffs to build your case. Don't give broad and hollow statements (e.g. "whether it takes days or weeks before another innocent account gets falsely banned.") SummerPhDv2.0 is absolutely right in demanding sparklingly reliable sources and not silly Twitter claims of celebrities trying to peddle in their own lower age claims. Binksternet is an established editor who can smell silliness from far away; and his comment on the talk page article is as insightful as it can get. Also, leaving a note on the article's talk page (like Summperphd did) is the appropriate way to follow the WP:BRD cycle. It's not his job to leave a talk page comment for you on your personal talk page or to start a special conversation with you. Thanks, Lourdes 11:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I read through the first sentence of your complaint and then checked out the article talk page and stopped reading your complaint. Concerning the age/birthdate, I see one discussion on the talk page page in 2013 with some additional comments in 2015 and 2018 under a separate sub header and one additional comment in a completely separate header in 2017. These are old enough discussions that starting a new one is completely reasonable. There are no other discussions other than the one you complained about in the first line. If you didn't initiate a discussion and someone else does because they feel it is merited, this is not "taking ownership" of anything. This is doing what we are suppose to do namely using the article talk page to discuss issues over article content. If you don't want people to discuss article content on the article talk page (whoever added that content), then wikipedia is not the place for you. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia and discussing article content on the article talk page when necessary, such as when there is dispute or uncertainty, is precisely what we are supposed to do. Probably 75% of the complaints on ANI if not more arise because people fail to properly discuss content issues on the article talk page. If you don't want someone else initiating the discussion, then you could always start the discussion on the article talk page first. Depending on the change, it's often not necessary, but other times it's a good idea. In any case if you're going to get annoyed because someone else started a discussion, it's you're only solution other than simply leaving wikipedia. As I said, I didn't read the rest of what you said. If you want to me (and probably others) to take your complaint seriously, don't raise an issue which is fundamentally against how things are supposed to work on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• The OP wrote over SPhD's t/p:-Since you've insulted my English, I'm going to "indirectly" insult your upbringing by showcasing what a "proper" upbringing gets you. Can we just issue a boomerang NPA indef block? ∯WBG^converse 12:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I read a bit more of your complaint and looked at your history and guess you're probably new. (Well okay I partly did before finishing my first message hence why I emphasised article talk page.) I think you're very confused about how things are supposed to work on wikipedia. While I don't want to WP:BITE, you did leave a very strongly worded complaint on ANI about another editor so should expect a response. Lest a WP:boomerang I strongly suggest you drop this now and instead seek help somewhere like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk concentrating on understanding any part of the wikipedia editing process that confuse you and not what you feel what others have done wrong. For example, there is generally no requirement or expectation to notify people when you start a discussion on the article talk page or when you revert them. (Although if someone uses the undo, it will automatically notify if you have it enabled.) Sometimes it's useful for a variety of reasons, but other times not. And while sometimes discussing content issues on editor talk pages is okay, most of the time is far better to do so on the article talk page so that others can more easily participate and it can be found in the future. If you make an edit and it's reverted, your first port of call should normally be to the article talk page, whether it's to participate in the discussion initiated by whoever reverted you or to start one yourself. Actually as I said above, sometimes it's better to begin discussion before you make any edit. As we say all over the place e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content: "Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed". Also since you mentioned ownership, I feel it's worth pointing out that it's actually your behaviour which comes across much more as exhibiting WP:OWNnership, since you seem very annoyed that someone dared to make a change to your edits. Anyway as I said before, I'm sure there are others much better at explaining these things to you, they'll likely be able to help if you make a good faith attempt to seek it somewhere appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes The main reason I stated to thoroughly investigate "aka" review (as you put it) the situation before making a judgement because I knew this would exactly happen. It's always going to be a bigger account's word vs a smaller one. You've misread everything I've submitted, while trying to clown me at the same time for rules I followed when it comes to submitting issues.

Twitter tweets was only for the acknowledgement of artist's birthday month and day which is exactly what SummerPhDv2.0 asked for. So the "silly" comment was not needed when you didn't fully look at the situation. Twitter has nothing to do with it, never was mentioned at all when it comes to the year the artist was born. The dispute even after I referenced it was accepted first by SummerPhDv2.0 until things got out of hand. What I referenced was a magazine interview that stated her age at the time was 27 5 months after her alleged birthday which is March 4th. Wherever you got Twitter from after all the discussions that I linked that SummerPhDv2.0 and I've had (including the diffs you asked for about banned accounts is mentioned multiple times in that whole entire conversation combined) how you missed all of that is beyond me!

Addressing the Binksternet situation, I don't know where her or he fits in, other then them bumping the information I provided. I don't know this person, never had a conversation with them, and haven't spoke bad about them. So I don't understand why Binksternet being tagged when it comes to a situation SummerPhDv2.0 and myself are having. If memory serves me correct the only thing Binksternet spoke about was a yearbook and it wasn't directed towards me, they didn't mention my name, and I didn't create the discussion in the talk page SummerPhDv2.0 did so that's who Binksternet was talking to not me!

If this is how it's going to go down ("me" as the bad person), then I don't want any parts of it. No need to temporarily or indefinitely ban me. I will gladly delete my own account and contribute elsewhere on my days off. Thanks for your time.VerifiedFixes (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@VerifiedFixes: The problem is that you've just made a bunch of accusations without providing evidence. You use WP:DIFFs to provide evidence, which you already know how to do (as you linked to a diff of one of your edits). You can go to Special:Contributions/SummerPhDv2.0 and find diffs of SummerPhDv2.0 violating cite policies, bring them here, and then we can do something. We are not going to do your work for you. Otherwise, this opens the door to someone accusing you of reverting 87 times in a 24 hour period to claim that a famous celebrity raped a puppy -- not saying you did that, just demonstrating why we expect evidence for accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @VerifiedFixes:(edit conflict) I for one am very impressed with an editor who has less than 400 edits lecturing more experienced editors so vociferously. I also fail to see how this merits an ANI post. And of course, the navigational skills in finding ANI are very good. However, it would probably be better to follow other forms of WP:dispute resolution prior to posting a complaint to ANI. I left you a welcome on your talk page. While you catch up on your reading, please read the parts on no personal attacks as well as casting aspersions. As to, "before another innocent account gets falsely banned," do you have anyone in mind particularly? Why are you so set on casting anyone as a villain in an editorial dispute? Hmmm?Thanks, DlohCierekim (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• @VerifiedFixes: Why are you so desperate to see someone banned or blocked? We are nowhere near needing to ban or block anyone. And if your response to push back is to say, "i'm leaving," then you may not enjoy editing on a collaborative project like this one. Now who has WP:OWN issues? DlohCierekim (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• @VerifiedFixes: again you seem to be showing that you don't really understand how things work here. We don't rule on content disputes at ANI, so we're never likely to spend much time investigating what source says what. And as I've said already, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to give us some reason to. When your complaint starts off with silliness i.e. basically complaining about someone opening a simple article talk page discussion, and with no reason why that discussion was inappropriate (such as because the editor is topic banned, or because the editor is hounding you or perhaps because that editor agrees with the edit and there was no reason to revert), expect short shrift. And frankly, if an editor with 100k edits who's been here for 15 years was the one doing this, I would be much less tolerant than I am with you. However I think you'll likely to find even some tolerance for new user mistakes wears thins when you refuse to listen to anyone and keep attacking other editors for silly reasons or without evidence. Also let me repeat one more time that collaborating with other editors, which includes participating in discussion in article talk pages, is a cornerstone part of what makes wikipedia. You can't ignore comments on article talk pages like those from Binksternet just because you think they're uninvolved or whatever. You should take onboard any good faith comments left by other editors in good standing in considering how to make the best article. (This doesn't mean you have to agree with them.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@VerifiedFixes:: re-ping. ——SerialNumber54129 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot. VerifiedFixes came to the article to make some changes including adding a birthdate to the infobox despite a hidden comment advising everyone to "See Talk" because the issue is more complex than usual. The next edit changed the birth year from 1982 to 1986 based on one source.[113] (There are multiple conflicting sources for year.) After that, VerifiedFixes and SummerPhDv2.0 went back and forth a few times about the way the age would be displayed in the infobox, which is a trivial matter. The big problem is the age itself! K. Michelle graduated high school in 2000 (multiple sources) and she was reported by the college yearbook to be 18 in late 2000 as a freshman, which is not a surprising or unusual age, as the great majority of American high school graduates are 18. So in 2013 she would have been 31, but she said she was 27, probably for professional reasons – she's a performer, and likely feels the need to seem younger. Her claimed age is surprising and unusual, putting her at age 14 at her gradution from high school, which nobody claims. Nobody has described her as particularly brilliant, a child prodigy, a whiz at her studies. So the dispute between the above editors is unimportant, blown out of proportion by VerifiedFixes who arrived at the article with an I'm-never-wrong attitude, then turned around and accused another editor of ownership issues. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Meh. To people of my generation, it's a woman's prerogative to lie about her age. And since when is a tweet or series of tweets from a subject ever regarded as trustworthy? The tweets can support part of the age controversy section, but this feels awful tabloidesque. DlohCierekim (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Except that this is an encyclopedia ostensibly giving facts, not fabrications. In a perfect world, nobody would care about seeming younger, as maturing performers would continue to be marketable as long as they're relevant. I don't like kowtowing to ageism's norms, as they don't seem normal to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Boomerang - 72 hour block - This appears to be a time sink by an editor who is unhappy with SummerPhD2.0 and thought coming here would somehow get the result they wanted. Rather, I see a bunch of aspersions with no diffs, failure to understand basic Wikipedia policy like NPA/TPO, and a lot of rants on a talk page. Also obnoxious bolding. If there is any merit to this post, OP needs to provide diffs or retract this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(user:AHastings53 nee) User:Andrewnheckman reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

General disruptive editing; stating that KNHL had switched to NBC when it hasn't yet. I even fell for his lies. [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Whether or not User:Andrewnheckman is right about this edit, they've attempted to discuss this issue (at User talk:Csworldwide1) and you haven't bothered. Edit summaries are never an appropriate place to carry on a discussion because once there's a dispute, everyone is supposed to stop editing and head for a talk page. Why haven't you done that? And if you think this user is perpetrating "disruptive editing" (maybe) and telling "lies" (unlikely), why are you reporting them to this messageboard? Why aren't you at WP:AIV? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewnheckman: Hey. Saw you seemed to be making edits based on what you saw on TV or whatever. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking, and I've seen nothing like that, though I could be wrong. Please respond here or on your talk page before adding the challenged content again. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I'm glad you read my message because you just entered that discussion. You're casting the sort of nasty aspersions that should get you blocked for a bit but I still view this as a tiny bit of progress. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:3D4A:D759:FBED:105D: AIV will either block or decline based on inadequate warnings. We can discuss the sourcing issue as long as we are all here. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note. If anyone feels lost, TonyBallioni renamed the user "Andrewnheckman" to "AHastings53 (talk · contribs)" DlohCierekim (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and am still trying to figure out how everything works, I was unaware you had to cite all your edits from a reliable source. Could someone please post instructions on how to cite an edit correctly so I dont have more issues when editing in the future. I did not mean harm when editing, I am trying to help but am not really sure how everything on wikipedia works yet. --AHastings53 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone knows a citation tool or script, that would be helpful. DlohCierekim (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@AHastings53: See this guide I wrote for how to identify and cite sources, as well as a variety of other issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the guide, I will read through it and make sure in the future i make edits correcly cited and accurate.

Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157

I have tried to be patient and assume good faith but I feel this Admin is just hiding in the bushes and waiting to jump out on me if I happen to make a mistake. Around early January after making an edit to the article Bengal famine of 1943, he went onto my talk page and threatened to "block me indefinitely", as he believed that "I don't seem to be getting the message"[[120]]. This sounds irrational,rude and intimidating for someone to threaten an "indefinite block" over 1 or 2 edits mistaken edits. And then again yesterday Black Kite went onto my talk page and threatened me again that he will "block me" just because I am reverting likely sockpuppets[[121]]. Then when I mentioned that User:Orientls also reverted obvious socks of Abhishek9779, Black Kite's response is, "Yeah. The one that Orientls reverted obviously is a sock. You've been reverting ones that might not be, or in the example I gave above, obviously isn't." In essence this is an example of "I'm right your wrong!" or "It's my way or the highway!" logic that the Admin is using. According to this Admin, all of the socks I report are "not" and if another user does it, it is because the they are "obviously a sock". I know this Admin may try to bring this up so I will mention it. When he blocked me around December 2018, when I was still new, he completely ignored potential edit-warring and even meatpuppetry(suspiciously 2 more editors jumped in to revert me)by other editors on the article Al-Qaeda. This sounds like a second double standard made in which, other editors were allowed to delete a large amount of sourced information that I contributed based on it being "fringe" but all of a sudden I do that once(that too with the concern of sockpuppetry going on) he decides to make a fuss about it. Now I will admit that some mistakes were made early on by me but Black Kite's behavior is definitely not acceptable. So based on all of this I would like for someone to please look into this Admin's abusive behavior.Mountain157 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your fish is here DlohCierekim (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban on Mountain157 from reporting any alleged sockpuppet anywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - Laundering socks is an honorable secondary mission in Wikipedia that must be secondary to improving the encyclopedia, and is being dishonored by being pursued to the exclusion of common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It is entirely possible to be a productive editor and never file a sock report. Mountain should give it a go. Ravenswing 04:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative: Indef block of Mountain157

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

---

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

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

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

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

Unsourced and/or false information added by Es204L

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

• February 23

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

• February 22

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

• February 14

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

• February 8

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

• January 3

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

• December 27

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

• December 4

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

• November 22

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

• November 16

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

• October 27

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

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

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

• It's tempting. I asked them to edit no further and I protected the Typhoon Wutip page. If I block them, they cannot respond here. If they ignore my request to edit no further, than we'll need to block them. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My feeling here is that its more a case of we need to educate the person on how to use Wikipedia, more than block him or critcize his actions.Jason Rees (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

More Evlekis-socks in need of a block

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

---

Today's socks (and yes, I'm sure they're Evlekis, based on edits and general behaviour, a perfect match for countless previous socks...), so far, are:

• Parsmaster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Benson Hedgecutter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

But there will no doubt be more of them within the coming hours. And, as always with Evlekis, TPA should always be revoked when they're blocked, or they'll start posting tonnes of crap on their talk pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by IP hopper

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

Calling other editors "Nazis"

• [122]

Calling other editors "Persians"

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"[123]
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"[124]

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

• "Falooda is an indian article, dont bring your BS persian nationalism in the indian article."[125]

Accusing others of "Eurocentrism" and "bigotry"

• [126]-[127]-[128]

Saying that non-Europeans should stay away from Indian articles

• "(...) like the rest of all indian historic english article this article only reflects the agenda and the views of anglophone european editors (...) all non european readers are requested to avoid this article (...)"[129]

Making copy-vios

• [130]

IP socking

• See IP's linked above

Edit-warring

• [131]-[132]-[133]

These IP's are all operated by the same person. Same geo-location,[134]-[135]-[136] same concerns (pro-Indian stance, trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by whatever means), same target articles, etc. One of his IPs, "175.137.72.188", was blocked for edit-warring on 13 February by Bishonen, unfortunately to no avail, for he continued with the exact same disruptive editorial pattern as soon as the block ended.[137] Whoever "operates" these IP's ran out of WP:ROPE long ago. Looking at the compelling evidence, whoever operates these IP's is clearly not here to build this encyclopedia. Pinging Doug Weller and Ian.thomson as they are aware of this disruption. A range block might be needed. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Wario-Man: Yeah, that's what I thought as well.[138] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Looking over the recent opposing edits [139] [140], the root of the issue seems to be a lack of reliable sourcing for the proposed content. This could easily be resolved by adding sources to support your viewpoint instead of bringing it to ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Purgy Purgatorio

At [141]: "Next time I will... use the means provided for libel". Also, as I'm apparently not welcome on the editor's talk page, I'd be grateful if someone else would notify them of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link added to suspicious website

In this edit 153.101.246.136 (talk · contribs) added a link to hXXps://scholarshipfellow.com/letter-of-intent-loi-letter-of-intent-for-job-letter-of-intent-for-scholarship-letter-of-intent-sample/ which behaved strangely when I followed it. It made mention of redirecting me to a different website, but just waited rather than actually doing so.

I have deliberately misspelled "https" as "hXXps" so no one will follow the link without careful consideration of the risks involved.

I find it inherently suspicious that an editor would create a link to a page that redirects the reader elsewhere. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing suspicious here. This is just Cloudflare's DDoS protection; one's just redirected to the url above and the website works fine (and doesn't appear to be malicious, though it clearly it isn't an WP:RS). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Smeagol 17

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

Request concerning Smeagol 17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GS/ISIL :

1RR

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[142]

Discussion concerning Smeagol 17

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

Statement by Smeagol 17

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr rnddude

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

Statement by Fitzcarmalan

Three things:

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

Statement by Darouet

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

Statement by SashiRolls

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

Result concerning Smeagol 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning MrX's request

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

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

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

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

IP hopping vandal pasting rambling screed

Somebody using 107.77 IPs keeps jumping around to various articles to post paragraphs of obnoxious text, a rambling jumble of political issues. The person often puts four tildes in the edit summary. A list of involved IPs is below. Earlier today Edgar181 set a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/107.77.195.0/24, and last September Ivanvector blocked one of the IPs for year,[143] but the disruption continues. Can more be done to stop this character? It seems that a larger rangeblock would have collateral damage, but perhaps it's warranted. Or multiple rangeblocks tailored to fit the pattern. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Feb 24, US. 107.77.194.231 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 24, Michigan. 107.77.195.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 23, Kentucky. 107.77.194.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Michigan. 107.77.195.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Ohio. 107.77.195.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 22, Michigan. 107.77.195.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 21, Ohio. 107.77.195.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 21, US. 107.77.193.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 20, Missouri. 107.77.192.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, Michigan. 107.77.195.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, US. 107.77.193.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 19, Pennsylvania. 107.77.192.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 18, Pennsylvania. 107.77.192.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, US. 107.77.193.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, Tennessee. 107.77.194.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Feb 17, US. 107.77.194.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 24, 2018, Maryland. 107.77.203.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Prolog already blocked 107.77.192.0/22. That might be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It won't be enough. The person has been doing the same thing for years. The week long rangeblock will help for a week, then it will resume. Perhaps an edit filter would help? -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a filter here, but the vandal tends to learn quick. There's also a third active rangeblock on 166.216.159.0/24. Prolog (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Personal Attacks with disgracing insults by Future Perfect at Sunrise

In a discussion in Talk:North_Macedonia I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed Prespa agreement between North Macedonia and Greece in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia". Admin User User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as:

you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282

And: you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841

Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206

I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635

I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. .

His response had no regret or apology: You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558 - Stevepeterson (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Stevepeterson, you need to notify the person of this ANI thread. You can copy and use the red notice at the top of this page and paste it on their talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Future Perfect at Sunrise, I recommend striking your personal attacks (the ones noted by the OP), and making your points going forward without personal attacks (indeed, without referring to editors, only to edits/content), and this can all be put to bed unless it is part of a broader pattern. Softlavender (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Having read the full thread at Talk:North Macedonia#Prespa agreement, I find FPAS' comments to you unsurprising, but a bit overboard nonetheless. Your English is perfectly adequate to write, but it is absolutely inadequate to lecture any native speaker as to how English is supposed to work. You simply do not have that competence. This fact was iterated to you nearly a dozen times by everyone explaining, thoroughly, the problems with your sentence constructions. I am afraid you and some editors here ... have chosen war over peace and the right of self determination of the Macedonian people <- This is a jerk comment, while I'm here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Mr rnddude! Now, I am a jerk too.. so, you are just trying to justify that because I have made such a comment, I am a jerk who deserves to be bullied and labelled as incompetent to contribute to a discussion - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you clearly don't know as much about English sentence construction as you think you do, nor indeed about Wikilink syntax. If you don't use this as a learning moment, you're going to dig yourself into a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion below, Stevepeterson edited their reply after the above reply by BMK [144] Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Stevepeterson - 1) I'm not saying you are a jerk, I said that that was a "jerk comment". Good people can say jerk-ish things. I don't know you personally, and thus have no opinion as to your general character. 2) I am not using it to justify your being bullied, in fact, I do not think you have been bullied in the first place. I maintain that FPAS went overboard, but that's not the same as bullying. 3) I also have not "labelled [you] as incompetent to contribute to a discussion", I have identified that you are "inadequate[ly competent] to lecture" someone on English. For one, you are still continuing to assert (refer below) that possessive nouns are actually possessive adjectives. "North Macedonia" is a name (noun), not a description (adjective). So it's possessive form is a noun as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Stevepeterson: I checked each of the diffs given above. They start with a comment at 23 February 2019 and a couple after. The comment is less than ideal but look at all the blather on that talk page (and an RfC). I do not see an issue of long-term incivility. Wikipedia is pretty tolerant of the fact that most editors are human and will get a bit worked up from time to time. I do not know why you consider the comment to be so intolerable that you need redress here. After all, the issue was a claim that "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime ministers" should be used in an article. No it shouldn't—it's just bad English. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you [[User:Mr rnddude|Johnuniq]], the discussion was about Prespa agreement and the related "MEDIA GUIDELINES by North Macedonia's MFA" which indicate that correct adjectives for the State of North Macedonia ( official organs and other public entities etc) are "President of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia’s Defense Minister", while adjectives such as North Macedonian, Macedonian should not be used. Hence my jerk comment about respecting peace agreements and the will of Macedonian people - Stevepeterson (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This response was actually meant for Mr rnddude above not for Johnuniq.

That source you link to says: "•Official language: “Macedonian language”? The "advice" given in adjectival forms seems to depend wholly on the context. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the Prespa agreement makes some rather subtle distinctions, allowing the adjective "Macedonian" in some contexts but not in others. That much is uncontroversial in principle. The discussion was how to deal with those contexts where the official prescriptive rule allows only the possessive construction. My point was that there are certain situations where it would be unnatural or cumbersome for English not to use adjectives, and Stevepeterson's contention was that that isn't a problem because the possessive (and in particular, the -s genitive) can simply be inserted anywhere an adjective could otherwise be used too (he actually insists that it is in fact an adjective), leading to that absurd example of "the Greek and North Macedonia's prime minister". Which, last time he posted on the article talk page, he was still defending as perfectly grammatical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is perfectly clear. That example is indeed quite absurd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that it was the guidelines that suggested that correct adjectives for the State are "of North Macedonia" "North Macedonia's". Based on this, they are also called possessive adjectives. So why suddenly I am the most incompetent editor even for a discussion page? I suspect that it is plainly because my proposal implied that Macedonian would not be used as an adjective for the state of North Macedonia, as user future.perfect has voted for in the RFC. - Stevepeterson (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

1) No, the guideline does not say that "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia's" are adjectives, it mentions them as adjectival reference, which is not quite the same.

2) No, the Possessive determiner article does not say that constructions like "of North Macedonia" and "North Macedonia's" are called adjectives. It says that possessive determiners (like "my", "your", "her") also can be called possessive adjectives, and it says that the term "possessive determiner" also may be used to include possessive forms made from nouns, but doing both at the same time is your synthesis. --T*U (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My point was that WP should adhere to Prespa and to the adjective that North Macedonia's MFA recommends. It was Future.perf (not a native speaker) who brought the example of "the Greek and North Macedonia's Prime Ministers) to prove how this adjective would lead to poor grammar. I responded that although it is indeed not common or elegant, it is not incorrect to use two adjectives of different types (one possessive one not). But despite what the adjective to the State would be, the sentence Greek and Macedonian PMs would also be acceptable because they are adjectives to citizenship not to the States. I am surprised that you believe Future.perf behaviour should be tolerated. - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You see, that comment was almost entirely incomprehensible. You simply don't know enough to be editing articles in English Wikipedia if it involves any kind of extensive writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that per the discussion below, Stevepeterson edited their reply after the above reply by BMK [145] Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just as an aside, "Macedonian" is permitted by the agreement as a valid adjective for the people and nation of North Macedonia, but even if it wasn't, Wikipedia linguistic usage is governed by WP:COMMONNAME, not by the agencies and ministries of either Greece or North Macedonia. FPAS's advocacy of the term is not remotely a casus belli worthy of mention at ANI. Ravenswing 05:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, in the thread, I also agreed that Macedonian should be used as an adjective to the PM of North Macedonia. Our discussion was about finding an adjective to the state of North Macedonia and, following UN and MFA's recommendations I suggested North Macedonia's - Stevepeterson (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reminder: ANI, and this ANI thread, is not the place to discuss or re-litigate content issues; the place for that is the talkpage of the article. This ANI thread is for discussing personal attacks and WP:ADMINCOND, and other behavioral issues of anyone involved. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• FPAS may have expressed it too strongly, but it's perfectly true that the OP's command of English is not as good as he appears to believe it is. I'd recommend that they drop this, take onboard that evaluation of their English skills, and refrain from lecturing other editors about English grammar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent, but unfortunately it's sometimes necessary to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect. Stevepeterson's command of English is so poor he can't even begin to realize how poor it is, and he is convinced that just because he himself can't feel anything wrong with an ungrammatical construction, it must in fact be perfectly acceptable. Of course, that in itself wouldn't justify discussion in normal circumstances, but Stevepeterson is participating in a large, complex RfC about just these matters of English usage. He has been filling it with huge amounts of text over the last days, trying his hardest to push it into a direction that would not only encourage but even require the use of grossly ungrammatical constructions across potentially hundreds of articles. This is disruptive and it has to stop. So yes, Stevepeterson needs to shut up about that grammar issue, and since he lacks the self-awareness, he needs to be told. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reading through this discussion, I did not quite understand BMK's comment here until I saw this edit made two hours after the comment from BMK. As late as yesterday I advised Stevepeterson about changes old posting. In that situation it was rather innocent, but in the present thread the refactoring, without marking what they have changed, is either in CIR territory or plain disruptive. --T*U (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you T*U, I have only improved a bit the word styling to make my text more readable and mentioned the change. the content is exactly identical and there was certainly no other intention but to help new readers understand better Stevepeterson (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When you "improved abit the word styling", you made BMKs comment look very pedantic to people who just read the discussion and not the edit summaries. That is exactly why WP:REDACT demands that you mark your changes clearly. You either have not read it as I asked you to do, or you have chosen to ignore it. --T*U (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC didn't notice so submitting late) I wasn't intending to comment in this thread until I read this latest reply. Whatever you intended to do, or thought you were doing, it's quite concerning you don't seem to understand even after it was pointed out to you, that it was highly problematic for you to change your comment without making it clear you had changed it and after it had been replied to with that reply founded in part on what you were changing. For this reason, I'm very close to supporting a WP:CIR block. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• So if I skimmed this thread correctly, FPS has not really done anything actionable? I cannot think of a really polite way to tell someone their knowledge of English isn't quite what it could/should be. I can't quite get a rip on it myself-- I would never even try to edit in any language but English. @Stevepeterson: Sometimes less is more. Perhaps write less and pay closer attention to the sense it makes? Avoid complex structures? Oh. The worder of the above 1st sentence I get because of my (limited) German. Not sure how well it parses to non German speakers. DlohCierekim (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well as someone who is a native speaker (but a bad writer) of English I have to say I would have found some of the above comments hardly polite (and yes you can say "your standard of English is not very good" without being unnecessarily rude). But by the same token it's clear this user does not have the standard of English that even I have, and I can see why frustration would set in if they (as they seem to have done) refused to accept that their English is not as good as they clearly think it is. I would close this, with maybe a mild boomerang in the sense of mentoring and an agreement to not make any changes to articles without first running them past people whose standard of English is of a higher order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to closing this until Stevepeterson has indicated some understanding of the problem highlighted above. I.E. that they need to make it clear in the thread that they've modified their comments, when said modification comes after the comments were replied to and where their changes are likely to significantly affect at least one reply. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I maybe should clarify. If Stevepeterson really doesn't understand why it's a problem when someone comments on their English, and they modify the English that was commented on (even without a meaning change) and don't tell anyone, that's concerning. But not something that I feel needs a block. The editor can handle this simply by making sure they follow WP:REDACT or at least make some effort to indicate modification in the thread itself, even in cases where they think it doesn't matter. If they don't indicate that they will do so and still don't understand why they were wrong to think their modifications made no different to the reply, I'm willing to support a block. (Or whatever other remedy e.g. a topic ban on modifying comments after reply.) Editors are entitled to have their comments seen in proper context. Also I don't think it matters whether BMK's comment had merit before the modification, or they still had merit after. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nil Einne, I came here because I felt disrespected and insulted and I ended up receiving even more personal attacks and threats. This is shocking and I doubt that it is in line with wikipedia's guidelines. The comments about my English and my intellectual capacity here were so harsh, that I felt the need to make some minor linguistic improvements. I understand that it was a bad decision because someone had already responded at least once. My only intention was to help people understand better my comments and as you can see I made sure that the original meaning remained intact. If you feel that I deserve a block, a boomerang etc then please go ahead. - Stevepeterson (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia follows its own manual of style on written English and not that of the Pespra agreement, I don't see why it's even an issue or in question. And since the OP now seems to agree that this can be closed (nearly 12 hours ago), shall we do so? Unless anyone's suggesting a TBan from all things North Macedonian, broadly construed? ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Discussing about grammar before discussing about meaning is more than often a method used to discard the peasants who dare to discuss the opinion of some 'we happy few' player. If you want to convey the meaning of "Downing Street and Macedonian PM", you have to use "North Macedonia's PM" unless you want to discuss the nationality or ethnicity of both ministers. And then you have to adapt how you describe the Downing Street part to obtain a politically correct and well-balanced sentence. If you perceive that clearly, it shouldn't be to difficult to explain that clearly, and politely. Exercise: write down the contrapositive, the inverse and the converse of the former assertion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that " you have to use "North Macedonia's PM" unless you want to discuss the nationality or ethnicity of both ministers" is incorrect as "North Macedonian PM" is quite simply the PM of the country known as North Macedonia, regardless of the ethnicity of the holder of that office. --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes

I was going to post this under a new subheader in the above Smeagol 17 thread, but I believe this warrants special attention.

Quick context

My very best wishes (talk · contribs) restored a series of edits on Douma chemical attack that were made by the sockpuppet of a banned user who was also notorious for POV pushing. A pointless discussion involving Mvbw and myself ensued in the talk page, from which it has become clear that Mvbw has no intention to self-revert. Per WP:PROXYING, an editor is allowed to reinstate a banned user's edits if said editor agrees to take full responsibility for those edits. In his edit summary, Mvbw did say "under my responsibility" and made the same declaration later on on the talk page.

Sock edits in question

They involved replacing a perfectly fine, neutral and well-established term ("Syrian government") with a loaded and POV one ("Assad regime"). Another thing the sock did was replacing "funded by the German Foreign Office" with "supported by", which (while not really an issue) is not how the source (in German) describes it. WP:PROXYING states the following:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

While there is no technical evidence suggesting that Mvbw edited at the direction of this banned user (whom he happened to be friendly with back in the day), any reasonable editor would have realized by now that, in the spirit of WP:DENY, taking sides with a banned user (who happens to also be an occasional troll) against established editors is not only uncollegial, but also highly disrespectful. Mvbw's excuses for retaining "regime" in the article included "Syrian government redirects to a misleading page", "precise" and "frequently used in RS" but made no attempt to explain why it should be used instead of government. If this alone is not WP:TENDENTIOUS I don't know what is.

This should not go unpunished without a sanction IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I believe I comply fully with the policy. First of all, I did not do any edits at the direction of any banned user. Period. Secondly, according to the policy, "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Yes, that is exactly what I did. I believe that was an improvement of content and explained this on article talk page [146]. Now, if I misunderstood something, please explain, and I am very much willing to abide all policies and rules. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Firstly, Fitzcarmalan, we don't do punishment, so you need to drop that line right away. Secondly, as My very best wishes has taken personal responsibility for those edits in line with policy, I see nothing more here than a content dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Call it whatever you like (now stricken). The fact that he "took personal responsibility" for such crap edits (and I already explained why they were crap) and repeatedly refused to back down is exactly why I'm reporting this here. The tendentious and POINTy editing alone is enough to get him blocked. This "content dispute" will certainly not go through an RfC on whether "government" or "regime" should be used, if that's what you're suggesting. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)