Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is what the source says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strongly oppose I have never found anyone who has helped to make articles more neutral than him. Adding him is an obvious "mistake". I have seen tons of pushing POV/s by some editors, who are commenting here saying he should added to the list. Mhhossein has done a lot of help for articles related to Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, instead of casting aspersions, how about commenting on the points raised against Mhhossein? In the 2017–18 Iranian protests page, for example, where Mhhossein consistently edit-wars to confirm that the protests were not ongoing, despite the ongoing unrest. Here are the edits with summaries, note particularly numbers 7 to 10:

1) 23 January 2018: "Those cities should be accompanied by RSs 2-The protests are finished and we should decide on the finish date" - removes "ongoing".

2) 4 February 2018: [36] - No edit summary, removes "present".

3) 7 May 2018: "settled down long ago" - Removes "Ongoing protests".

4) 1 June 2018: "unexplained removal of material" - Asserts that protests concluded on January 7th (2018).

5) 23 June 2018: "No..." - Removes "present" adds "7 January 2018".

6) 06:20, 26 June 2018: "certainly not ongoing, don't add it again" - Removes "ongoing" adds "7 January 2018".

7) 09:38, 26 June 2018: "Don't edit war, it's not ongoing" - Removes "ongoing" adds "7 January 2018":.

8) 2 July 2018: "Don't remove the balancing photos." - Removes "present" adds "28 June 2018".

9) 3 August 2018: "no consensus over it" - Removes "present" adds "7 January 2018".

10) 12:20, 30 December 2018: "must be kidding...this happened numerous times" - Removes "present", leaves a single date (28 December 2017):.

Alex-h (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Bad example - for many (or possibly all) of these Mhhossein was acting per talk page consensus - which you should check. Our initial article covered only the late Dec/early Jan large wave of protests. We had separate articles for subsequent notable protests. It was only much later, after RSes started treating 2018 as one continuing set of events - that talk page consensus changed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 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 [37], [38] and [39]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([40], [41], [42]) 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 ([43], [44], [45]), despite my warning ([46], [47]). 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 ([48][49],[50], [51], 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"[52] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[53] 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: [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]) 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 [69] 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 [70]? 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 [71] and [72]). 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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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)

[73] and [74] 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 [75], [76]; Me [77], [78]; Fecotank [79], [80]; Pelmeen10 [81]; Unnamelessness [82], [83]; Sabbatino [84]; Pyrope [85], 12; Speedy Question Mark [86], [87]. Note that these diffs strem for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.Tvx1 17:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Your edits look like garbage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close

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

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

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

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

Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157

I have tried to be patient and assume good faith but I feel this Admin is just hiding in the bushes and waiting to jump out on me if I happen to make a mistake. Around early January after making an edit to the article Bengal famine of 1943, he went onto my talk page and threatened to "block me indefinitely", as he believed that "I don't seem to be getting the message"[[88]]. 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[[89]]. Then when I mentioned that User:Orientls also reverted obvious socks of Abhishek9779, Black Kite's response is, "Yeah. The one that Orientls reverted obviously is a sock. You've been reverting ones that might not be, or in the example I gave above, obviously isn't." In essence this is an example of "I'm right your wrong!" or "It's my way or the highway!" logic that the Admin is using. According to this Admin, all of the socks I report are "not" and if another user does it, it is because the they are "obviously a sock". I know this Admin may try to bring this up so I will mention it. When he blocked me around December 2018, when I was still new, he completely ignored potential edit-warring and even meatpuppetry(suspiciously 2 more editors jumped in to revert me)by other editors on the article Al-Qaeda. This sounds like a second double standard made in which, other editors were allowed to delete a large amount of sourced information that I contributed based on it being "fringe" but all of a sudden I do that once(that too with the concern of sockpuppetry going on) he decides to make a fuss about it. Now I will admit that some mistakes were made early on by me but Black Kite's behavior is definitely not acceptable. So based on all of this I would like for someone to please look into this Admin's abusive behavior.Mountain157 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your fish is here DlohCierekim (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban on Mountain157 from reporting any alleged sockpuppet anywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ain't the river in Egypt DlohCierekim (talk)

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

• @Legacypac:Wouldn't you define this as a genuine case of sockpuppetry?[[90]],[[91]][[92]].Because I think it does. (Mountain157)

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

This sounds like denial, just because you want to illustrate a point. These IP's trace back to the same location as other socks of Hassan Guy[[93]],[[94]],[[95]].Mountain157 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative: Indef block of Mountain157

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

---

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

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

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

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

Post-closing comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I, and several others, advised the user to take a step back, and I think that happened and the initial warning would seem to have been effective. There was also the usual pile-on, just wallpaper on this page, however, the discussion above showed a clear consensus emerging about future restrictions on contribs, which should not interrupt the users will but is the will of those involved in that discussion. I would also prefer it was reopened, rather than a consensual decision be short-sheeted. cygnis insignis 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I've seen now that the closer made a clearer statement on the user's page, and that reflected the emerging consensus. cygnis insignis 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• For the record, here is the warning I issued to User:Mountain157. Abecedare (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, my apologies. {{tq}} does not allow me to link things like that for some reason. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced and/or false information added by Es204L

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

• February 23

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

• February 22

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

• February 14

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

• February 8

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

• January 3

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

• December 27

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

• December 4

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

• November 22

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

• November 16

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

• October 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They've responded. It's a start. Invited them here. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Created the page Tropical cyclones in 2012... this time with references. It still needs more refs, but this is much better than work he has previously done. Noah^Talk 17:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Purgy Purgatorio

At [96]: "Next time I will... use the means provided for libel". Also, as I'm apparently not welcome on the editor's talk page, I'd be grateful if someone else would notify them of this discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Purgy Purgatorio: actually see [97] which directly deals with this. I didn't link to it earlier because rearrangement of the guidelines meant I didn't find it. This is also why I'm making it a permalink to ensure you will be able to find it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Smeagol 17

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

Request concerning Smeagol 17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:GS/ISIL :

1RR

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[98]

Discussion concerning Smeagol 17

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

Statement by Smeagol 17

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Mr rnddude

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

Statement by Fitzcarmalan

Three things:

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

Statement by Darouet

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

Statement by SashiRolls

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

Result concerning Smeagol 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning MrX's request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral damage

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

RBL2000 continues WP:POLEMIC behavior on Venezuelan articles

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

Diffs:

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

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

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

Information about previous warnings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons to Not Block Him

A. He is not vandalizing anything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that SandyGeorgia's pinging of another editor who had filed an ANI report against this editor to be a violation of improper canvassing as is another editor's mention of this case on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro.[99] It is inviting editors to a discussion based on the likelihood they will agree with you.

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

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

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

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

Collapsed Conversation

I struck out my mention of her name. But bear in mind that the more often one is pinged, the more likely one is to respond. By notifying editors who are likely to support a ban, it is more likely that a majority of the editors responding to this thread will favor one. It is much better to post the complaint and see what uninvolved editors have to say. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Yep, here we go again. Muddying a thread when I did none of the original pinging. And interjecting the idea that anyone jumped to discussion of topic banning, when I decidedly opposed that in the first thread. Please try to read before you opine. And then more muddying with the bilingual issue: yes, we utterly prefer English-language sources, but they are often a day behind Spanish-language sources, so one has to take care with what is added. And, we have multiple instances daily of editors inserting text based on Spanish-language sources that a) is outdated or incorrect based on higher quality sources, or b) are not using reliable sources (as was the case that prompted this thread)-- it helps to be able to read those sources. You, TFD, are making the same point that I am, as to these editors using marginal sources in Spanish to cite text that is not sourceable to the citations given. Business as usual, along with misrepresentation of the entire talk page matter, which is that no matter how many times one explains reliable sourcing on the talk page, we get more of same over and over (with the exception of MattLongCT, who has seriously engaged to attempt to get these new editors to understand how to use talk pages, and how to use sources). Thanks, MattLongCT. And then further muddying the waters with the notion that MattLongCT is likely to <whatever>, when MattLongCT has tried to help these editors avoid sanction. Sheesh, TFD, did you try to inform yourself before lobbing charges here that only muddy the picture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I considered what is presented in this discussion thread. No I did not read every talk page discussion on every article about post-1998 South American politics. Certainly you cannot expect editors to do that before replying. It is the responsibility of the editor requesting sanctions to provide evidence in the discussion thread. Incidentally I did look at User talk:RBL2000 and saw that all anyone has posted to it are templates: one welcome, two warnings, and two notices that they had been reported to ANI. I did not see any attempt to engage RBL2000 in discussion about their editing.[100] Incidentally there is no expectation that Wikipedia articles scoop English language media on events in Venezuela. Believe me, if Maduro resigns or the U.S. and its allies invade Venezuela it will probably be picked up on CNN immediately. I assumed you pinged MattLongCT in order to remind them to contribute to this page in support of the ban request. Correct me if I am wrong. TFD (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC) The endless discussions about reliable sources are in talk page archives. As explained in this thread, and the one linked in this thread to the previous discussion. You are still not understanding the English-Spanish sourcing issues, which has nothing to do with a "scoop". We have, daily, editors putting non-policy compliant information into articles using Spanish-language sources. One has to be able to read those sources to know if they are a) reliable, and b) verify the text they are sourcing. I have already explained this. In the last two days, we have had three examples of editors inserting falsified information from Spanish-language sources or sources that have nothing to do with the text being sourced. It helps to speak Spanish to be able to sort that out, and it is very time consuming. You probably aleady know what they say about assuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC) The selective way Americans choose to situate public media from the southern hemisphere while ignoring the explicit lies of private corporate media remains disheartening. And that's why this is a content dispute. Wikipedia should be saying nothing and using no newsmedia sources for discussing ongoing politically fraught crises. To do so is to introduce an implicit bias. To selectively ban newsmedia outlets because the bias disagrees with their own exacerbates the problem. The solution is simple. WP:TNT and wait for the historians to assess the matter academically in hindsight. But it is not to WP:BITE the newbies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC) Reasonable mistakes were made. No need to dwell. Let's just move on. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 01:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to close

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

And I suggest that your pony in the race ("The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet") means you are not the person who should be calling for closure here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just reviewed RBL2000's recent contributions, and as far as I can tell, the behavior has not repeated since this thread started. Is that because RBL2000 now understands that tendentious and repetitive talk page posts and barbs should stop, is it because the content generating most problems was moved to a sub-article and is getting less attention, or is it because of something else-- dunno. Time will tell. I do appreciate that MattLongCT has been willing to help so that others can try to focus on keeping the article, that is on the main page, in shape. In what manner the past behaviors should be dealt with or not is for someone uninvolved to say, and "uninvolved" here does not include either TFD or Simonm223. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck because I missed this, posted here yesterday:[101]

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

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you walk back that failure of WP:AGF all I've done here is support the principle of WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not edited or even followed any Venezuela-related articles since before RBL2000 began editing so have not based my view on any experience of their editing but on what was posted to this discussion thread. However I notice that probably most of the other editors in this discussion thread could also be considered involved in some way. I do not therefore see this discussion as leading anywhere and suggest it be closed.

I have read through RBL2000's postings on the article about recent events in Venezuela and will provide I hope constructive advice on their talk page. In the best case, this will enable them to edit better. If you want to return to ANI at a future date, the fact that another editor has made an attempt to engage with RBL2000 could be taken into account.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000 agreed to hear my advice and I have posted it to their talk page. If you want to add to or correct my posting please do so. I think that their willingness to listen is positive and suggest that you agree to close this discussion thread. If they do not accept our advice then you can bring this up again and mention that they have ignored it. TFD (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a very good attempt. Since @ZiaLater: is the editor who has been most affected by RBL's edits, and the editor who started this thread, I am pinging for feedback (ZiaLater is quite a busy editor). The Four Deuces,I don't want to jump into the middle of your attempts to dialogue with RBL, but this example of how we should use talk pages to develop consensus around reliable sources may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your posting about attendance figures is good. I look forward to hearing from ZiaLater. TFD (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:03wikicreator

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

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

user:Gharaibeh

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

Personal attacks in reported user's recent edits: [102], [103], [104]. Reported user has level two warning on their talk page as of this writing, but nothing more. Most of Gharaibeh's edits have been to Draft:Gharaibeh. OP is mainly correct in User:Gharaibeh has not made many edits since 2009, although they have made more than none. Seems like perhaps a formal warning to Gharaibeh would suffice for now. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

An off-Wiki discussion about a potential but unknown vandal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ImmortalWizard NOTHERE

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

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

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

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

Okay,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your bed is here. DlohCierekim

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

No exactly like this [105] Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You forgot where their contributions to a recent Marne of an ANI thread—which they inserted themselves into, having had no prior interactions with either party—were summarised by Legacypac, when the Wizard had helpfully just proposed a block of TRM: "Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves.
  They've also begun working with Featured Articles, although this is with more mixed results: on the one hand, Iridescent has had to explain precisely what FAR's are for, but, on the other, The Rambling Man has welcomed Wizard's injection's at Alf Ramsay FAC, telling him "your comments here seem to have come out of the blue, but are very much appreciated".
  It might (would?) also be wrong to treat Wizard as the ~five-year-old editor they appear to be; a closer look shows he made a bunch of edits in early 2016, but the vast majority have been since December last year. There may well be an element of assuming experience on their part which they do not (clearly) possess.
  Having said all that; Natureium's very rarely wrong in these matters, I think, and that's a pretty solid wall of diffs up there. ——SerialNumber54129 19:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've given ImmortalWizard multiple warnings and strongly worded pieces of advice in the past couple of days[106][107][108] and I'm certainly not alone in it (see User talk:MelanieN#Invitation to User surevey 1 for instance), but I wouldn't consider him a straightforward WP:NOTHERE case. This appears to be someone who clearly wants to help, but seems intent in blundering into technical areas where they don't have the requisite competence, and becomes angry and defensive when it's pointed out that he doesn't have the required competence. Hopefully, a "stay away from the WP: namespace unless you're sure you know what you're doing, if anyone tells you to stop participating on any given page then stop participating on that page, and don't try to tell other people what to do" warning will be enough. Paging MelanieN and Floquenbeam, both of whom have tried and failed to talk IW off his apparent crash course. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Accused me of gravedancing which was dead wrong (pun intended) [109] Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

(ec)That is not a grudge, it is a promise. That reminds me of [110] where you were lecturing User:Beyond My Ken and threatened with a gravedancing block by User:TonyBallioni. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've IAR reversed the blanking of his talkpage [111] for the convenience of users in this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since this thread started he wants to [112] redeem himself by tagging a random BLP with 274 inline notes/references as Needing More References for Verification. Posted on talk too Talk:Alex_Ferguson#BLP_More_citations_needed. Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support a block of up to at least three months in length. There's definitely some juvenile and potentially WP:CIR-relevant and definitely WP:IDHT behaviour going on here. But there's enough of a question about how disruptive they are intending to be that I'm not keen on jumping straight to an indef. (Nevermind, before I even hit the send button, I found this extra context). However, clearly something needs to be done get their attention. I'd support an indef, but I'd also be willing to see them blocked for a decent little chunk of time significant enough to make the point of how non-constructive their behaviour is found to be, followed by an extension of a last little bit of WP:ROPE. I can't say that I am super confident they are going to come back as a more focused and less problematic contributor, but the case is just close enough that I'm willing to support something short of an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support CIR block, which is unfortunate as I think IW means well. The ideas of banning him from Wikipedia space and/or trying to confine him mostly to mainspace were floated above, but IW has also been disruptive in mainspace. And regarding Natureium's suggestion that IW work on the articles that are completely devoid of sources, I don't have much confidence in IW's ability to find reliable sources and properly integrate them into articles. The community has been patient, as we should be given that IW seems to have good intentions, but we've reached the limit. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per Beyond My Ken, and I'm going to call it per WP:CIR. What it really is is this: Wikipedia is not a game for you to play; we're not here for anyone's entertainment or to be the subjects of a social experiment in how many different ways you can goof off before you're shown the door. Most of the editors here are actually interested in a serious project to construct an encyclopedia, and stupid crap like this is just a pointless distraction and destructive timesink. Block them until they can convince someone they're going to take it seriously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef CIR block. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef until they can convince us otherwise. Nihlus 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef per CIR. It's too bad, but IW has been an annoyance for many editors. I recall him calling for a two-month block of The Rambling Man about a week or so ago- ridiculous. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: meta-discussion topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Close only this TBAN section I've explained the TBAN in plain English and the user has agreed to it on his talkpage. An Admin can log it now. This is a long term wider problem though [113] Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose any sort of TBAN (in favour of an overall block). The problem is that this editor is a time-sink for others, with no evident prospect of improvement, all such efforts having so far failed. This won't be improved by focussing them into one un-TBANned area. Even if that does improve the state of mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Although I was neutral above, I now support this topic ban from WP space. Mainly because he has a mentor he is willing to listen to, and as long as he continues doing that I think he has a chance here. I am not putting down any money on whether he will able to keep that up, but he has agreed to this limitation and this approach, and I think he and Matt should be given a chance to make it work. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I withdraw my support for this proposal. It is based on the hope that with support and mentoring he will learn what to do and what not to do, and become a productive editor. Unfortunately that experiment lasted less than 24 hours; strong kudos to Matt for trying. But I now fear IW will never be a functioning member of the WP community. IMO he is too mercurial, too unpredictable, too easily offended, too resistant to counsel, and too lacking in judgment to be any kind of asset to the project. And I concur with Vanamonde that it would be a mistake to accept his "retirement" at face value and close this discussion as if his retirement has solved the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the Wizard's own good: none shall pass the Slough of Despond. Indeed, it's something that wouldn't do any of us any harm...——SerialNumber54129 12:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't address the issue, just gives the user something else to test the limits of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, oppose block Impose the TB, but I've seen more rage-quits than I can count. They're annoying (and bode ill for the future), but not block-worthy. Miniapolis 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that he should be blocked BECAUSE of the rage-quit. The discussion here about various blocks and bans is based on his activity before his resignation. The only reason people mention his resignation is to urge that we shouldn't drop this discussion and do nothing on the assumption that the issue is moot and he will never come back. After all most "retirements" here turn out to be temporary. So it seems like this discussion should reach some kind of consensus or conclusion based on what has been brought up about his editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban and block It seems that the editor was triggered or trolled and has lost his/her nerve and that's totally understandable. The editor has made a lot of good and positive edits I have been seeing him around and I never found any bad faith edit by him/her. I would support a respectful warning.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please point to the alleged trolling or triggering. If you can't see any bad faith editing by Wizard you either did not look or can't identify a bad faith edit. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support concur with Vanamonde93. User has retired but may decide to come back in the future. Not block worthy, a TBAN seems fair. Wikiemirati (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard has retired

I see ImmortalWizard has retired. Do we need to keep this thread open? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How long do you predict this "retirement" will last? Natureium (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Even his retirement message is troll like. If you want to close this up as an Indef to match the retirement, go for it. 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

I think we need to proceed as though he's still around w.r.t. the sanction. Everything he has done so far suggests his actions are driven by impulse rather than careful thought; he could be back tomorrow, and we'd be back to square one (and the kitten god killed when this thread was opened would have died in vain). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I say the most equitable solution would be to impose the topic ban since there seems to be consensus and issue a temporary one-month block for now citing "self-imposed retirement" or the like. I say that as a !voter against indef. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 18:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He retired, so just to ensure that this isn't a cheeky attempt to close any block/ban discussions, I strongly support an indef. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And the retirement message clearly shows that he cannot handle even minimal heat in discussions, so I don't think he will come back constructively in the future. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 India–Pakistan standoff

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been arguing that for a long time, too many people rush to create articles to get one under their belt. They end up messy battlegrounds that (invariably) end up wholly different in many key aspects form the early day mess.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@NarSakSasLee: WP:RSN would be the right venue to discuss whether this Medium post can be used as a source in the articles. Abecedare (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit war on Scotland at the FIFA World Cup

• Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dolfinz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scotland at the FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These two users are repeatedly reverting each overs edits without much discussion of the problem. Both editors are being very uncivil in this article, but Jmorrison230582 in particular is refusing to cooperate civilly, even telling me to "piss off" when giving a warning about WP:AGF [114]. He repeatedly removed edit warring discussions from his talk page [115]. As for Dolfinz1972, he misued rollback to undo non-vandal edits to continue the edit war. funplussmart (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted those edits to the Scotland at the World Cup article because they appeared to be vandalism (unexplained deletion of sourced content). You accuse me of edit warring and not assuming good faith when I am faced with apparent vandalism - why should I? I also have the right to edit my talk page as I please. The issue is now being discussed at WP:FOOTY and there is a clear consensus against the deletion of the content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not misuse rollback. The lead should be only about the country at the World Cup. The qualifying and the tournament overall have nothing to do about it.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you definitely misused it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I had already full-protected the page and warned the users, and thought they were discussing it, but now I see they're actually following each other around revert-warring on other articles (see Germany at the FIFA World Cup). I'm blocking both 31 hours to knock it off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also pulled Dolfinz1972's WP:ROLLBACK bit, per edit warring on a very large number of articles, though they only seem to have abused rollback on these two. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind that struck bit, they've used rollback for plain content reversions on a huge number of articles today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It was explained (I.E. " not even relevant ") and it is hard to see it as vandalism. I would say that is far too detailed for the lede (especially as it does not seem to reflect anything in the body). I would have deleted it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't really care, to be honest, but if you want to work on it be my guest, I'm going to lift the protection. Dolfinz1972 reverted four times in a matter of minutes, and did so using rollback more than once. That's a bright line WP:3RR violation with abuse of rollback to boot. Jmorrison230582 chased them to a different article to revert after hitting three reverts on this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support IBAN. funplussmart (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Wait until blocks expire While I do believe some kind of ban may be nessesary in the future, we can only know once the blocks expire and the users begin editing again. funplussmart (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think an iban is the right approach, personally. This doesn't seem to be a personality conflict but a content dispute affecting a large number of articles. An iban here would seriously impair both editors' ability to edit. I'm reserving confidence that both editors will behave in a more collaborative fashion when their blocks expire. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just musing, =maybe mooting it (even if we do not act on it) might have a sobering effect.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose for now—while they're blocked they've had one imposed on them, so the better strategy is to wait until the blocks are up and see if they have encouraged a change of approach. If the blocks teach them anything—to cooperate collegially—the Iban would be unnecessary. Indeed, it's probably overkill for what seems to be quite a short-term dispute. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And comments like this [[116]] and this [[117]] tells me it is not going to go away when (and if) they edit again.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Issues arising from Signpost article

Violation of topic ban by Barbara (WVS)

Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed", as a result of this discussion (and clarified and upheld here). Her creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour violates this restriction. Bradv🍁 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. This puts a different perspective on the "humour" article. I note that this is an "official" WVS (WikiEd) sock account, considering that the TBAN applies to the accounts holder, are all the related accounts being used confirmed? --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in topic bans but Sarek's comment here, specifically in response to Barbara's request for clarification makes it fairly obvious to me that this is a blatant violation of the ban. Praxidicae (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely a violation, and I suggest they should be blocked for it. This is just one in what's becoming a long series of "pushing the boundaries" violations of this topic ban, and no matter that this was intended to be humorous (though in my opinion in very poor taste), this ongoing behaviour needs to be corrected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Clearly a violation of her topic ban, and an example very poor judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. The posterchild for “theyism” on Wikipedia, which SMC’s piece clearly borrowed from, is a heterosexual woman whose only departures from boring vanilla center-of-the-bellcurve normality are her career path and a lip piercing. There is absolutely no reason why this has to be read into for imaginary phobias. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I blocked for 72h and will now do the necessary administration. Note that the block in no way expresses my position on the publication of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, whether the essay is funny or not, whether it should be deleted or not, whether it should have been published in the Signpost etc. Please do not use this block as an argument in the discussions related to the essay.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Actions by the editor at a newspaper allowing an article written by another person to be in that newspaper are not the same as "edits by that editor". Else, the Signpost could not have any sections remotely mentioning any issues at all regarding "sex" or "health" whatsoever "broadly construed" including listing "most read articles" or "featured articles" which have any connection whatsoever with that topic. As such would be an incomprehensible limitation on the proper functions of that newspaper, it is clear that stretching this to say that the newspaper itself should be subject to a "topic ban" is absurd. The editor in question did not write the essay, and thus ought not be censured for allowing that essay to be published. As the Signpost has, indeed, listed articles relating to "sex" or "health" broadly construed, then the Signpost per se should be eliminated under such a theory. Such a block as has been given should therefore be infinite in scope for any editor at all. Collect (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Collect: No, I think Bri is acting editor, not BVS? ——SerialNumber54129 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The writer of From the Editors Bri does not appear to assert to hold the title of "supreme editor" and it is clear that Barbara Page was acting as "editor" in presenting the humor essay. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As mud. ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The credit for the 'Pronouns beware' essay is "By Barbara Page and SMcCandlish". You appear to be claiming that that credit was false, or for some reason a lie. On what basis is this claim made. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hasty block. The essay was copied over from another user’s space. It’s not clear what Barbara had to do with it. Barbara had not edited in a day, why not wait for them to respond? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the Signpost item in question is covered by the topic area of the ban, which is health and medical topics (with some examples given). The item is related to gender identity, the personal sense of one's own gender, to quote the corresponding Wikipedia page, but is not about any associated health or medical aspects. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It says including sexuality broadly construed - for me there is no doubt that the essay is covered by the topic ban (this is why I blocked).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a comma before "broadly construed", as the qualifier applies to "health and medical topics". "Sexuality" is one of the example given of applicable topics. I'll agree that gender identity broadly speaking falls under anthropology and psychology, but not every part of it is related to health or medicine. I do not believe the topic of pronoun choice fits under the scope of health and medical topics. isaacl (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: A comma conveys no meaning, at all. Gender identity, is about sex. ~ R.T.G 11:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The two commas surrounding the subclause do convey meaning, which I've explained. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It ought to be clear from the links Bradv provided that the scope of the ban from human health and medical topics includes anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed. An individual's choice of personal pronouns (certainly related to sexuality, may or may not be related to their own anatomy, and also relate to mental health) absolutely falls under that scope. Ivanvector (^Talk/<subEdits) 17:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is obvious nonsense, at least as an overarching generalization. The most usual reason for hiding gender in written communication is to avoid the effects of gender sterotyping, which has nothing to do with sexuality in the narrower particular sense this flap is about. Qwirkle (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, and the suggestion that it is is offensive. This isn't about "hiding gender", it's about a person's own choice of gender expression, inherently related to sexuality in a very specific sense. The idea that a person's expression of their own gender or nongender is not related to sexuality is mind-boggling, and using those sensitive choices as a source of ridicule is disgusting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked pending a consensus forming here. From my unblock rationale: "Block was *far* too hasty; it is definitely not even clear that the essay was covered by this topic ban, either in words or in spirit. Discussion is in progress at ANI, no reason to short circuit that. *If* consensus for a block develops, obviously an admin can impose it without being accused of wheel warring." The problems that led to the topic ban had zero to do with gender identity. Zero. If for some weird reason consensus eventually forms to block, then I won't wheel war, but a unilateral block based on a faulty reading of the topic ban is not cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I think it might've been better for you to express your opinion here rather than move immediately to unblock. Your note in the block log about process is a reasonable bone to pick, but from your expanded statement here it seems like you unblocked because you disagree with the decision not the process of reaching a consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  (directed at everyone, not just AM) Please take the 5 minutes to read thru the previous topic ban discussions Bradv linked to. There was never any problem related to gender identity brought up. There were substantial problems related to editing on anatomy and sexuality topics within the scope of a broader medical topic, mostly due to competence in that area. The topic ban is worded the way it is because we're imperfect humans, and a precise topic ban that is not too broad and not too narrow is hard to craft. It is possible that based on the current wording, this might be a topic ban violation (I strongly disagree, because sexuality and gender are different things, but I can see how some might see it). But it is impossible that the topic ban was intended to cover this situation. In such a circumstance, it is vital that a consensus be reached, rather than a knee jerk block. As I've said many times, people who hang out and comment a lot at ANI are nuts, so it's possible a consensus for a block will develop, and in that case I'll be powerless to prevent it. But I still hold out some hope that people will actually read the original topic ban discussions, rather than try to play "gotcha" to punish someone who published a moronic essay, and realize this was a misinterpretation of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, I read through those discussions before starting this thread, including the long and protracted disputes with other editors which preceded the topic ban. It never occurred to me that someone would argue that gender identity is not covered under the term "sexuality", especially considering the "broadly construed" part. Bradv🍁 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Bradv: Gender identity can indeed be covered by "sexuality", but not in this context in which the topic ban is restricted to health and medical topics. I've explained my thinking below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  For a short block, where there is little risk of continuing editing problems, it's not unusual to unblock the editor while a block is reviewed. Otherwise the editor may experience a significant portion of the block even if ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The links establish that this is a clear topic ban violation. This action, taking an essay which had 33 views in the 89 days prior to Signpost publication, and choosing to publish it in a place that has now spilled across multiple parts of Wikipedia, and indeed the broader Wikimedia project, shows why that ban was appropriate. This was a bad unblock - if a sysop had chosen to block for a topic ban violation, as indeed is in their toolset even absent a community discussion, that too would have been appropriate. Saying that no such action can be taken because the problem was pointed out in a community space is a poor use of sysop discretion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• (multiple ecs) I obviously disagree that it was a faulty reading of a topic ban, and I do not need a community consensus to block, but I am not going to wheel-war either.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not a t-ban vio. The article is about grammar choices not medical and health, or sexuality as it relates to medical & health. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The essay is about personal gender identity, not "grammar choices", and is deeply rooted in sexuality and sexual expression. The language of the ban makes clear that this topic is covered, thus it was a violation, and the subsequent clarifications indicate that this ban covers the entire project, not that there is an exotic exemption because it's the Signpost. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I disagree. Sexuality and gender are definitely two separate things. While the Signpost article is unfunny and stupid, I don't see it as a violation of the topic ban. Nihlus 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Per Atsme ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

How about unblock, and extend the TBAN to include everything on Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block, obvious t-ban violation, and if she does not even understand that (or that the "joke" which, as Cullen so eloquently explained here, is an instance of punching the weak for the lulz) I question whether she is competent to interact constructively at all. This is vile. --bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• TBan violation per Ivanvector but meh about the block. Unless and until there's a pattern of her skirting boundaries; a block was (probably) overreaching. ∯WBG^converse 17:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

See Bradv's links. Each of those long discussions was a result of her testing the edges of her restriction, and here we are again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The TBAN was stated as "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" i.e. the TBAN includes "sexuality broadly construed", not some odd spin alonge "medical sexuality" that somehow (very oddly and in a way unrelated to medical English or plain English usage) might exclude "social sexuality". The "pronouns" essay opens with the author stating their "personal pronoun" and includes towards the end that the discussion is more than, therefore must include "social gender preference". It is not possible to find a definition of "gender preference" that is not built on a person's sexuality. The essay is not some esoteric discussion about pure grammar, it specifically defines itself by these relationships to sexuality.

There can be no logical doubt, this "humour" essay was within the scope of the TBAN. --Fæ (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Question is it common practice to block long term, established users before they've had a chance to respond or clarify? Good unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It was apparently a question to me, and it was a loaded question - but, well, 72h is not long-term, this was not the first block (this is why it is 72h and not 24h), and she did react before I blocked her - and she also reacted after the unblock, but she still did not care to either come here or write on her talk page why this was not a topic ban violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara asked for clarification here and instead of providing any, you blocked her. It doesn't matter how long you blocked for, it was a bad block. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I still disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please answer the question. Is it common practice to block long term, established users when they request clarification, instead of clarifying? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not answer loaded questions.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why did you block instead of clarifying, especially when Barbara asked for more details? It’s a simple question. You are responsible for your bad block, so please justify it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still loaded. We need one more iteration.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara asked for clarification. Instead, you blocked her, without offering any clarification. Why? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank you for properly formulating the question. The point is that this was not the first violation. She has been there before, she was topic-banned, she was already been dragged to ANI for topic ban violation (blocked and later unblocked). From established users we expect that they, after being properly warned, understand what is going on. Otherwise one can always prevent a block by asking what is wrong and requesting clarifications. To me it looked like an obvious TB violation, and I applied a block. If it turned out that I clearly misread the situation, for example, as it was suggested here, she did not publish the essay, she could have clarified this before or after the block, and I could have unblocked. In addition, this is not a justification, but she is active but did not address the block at all, which is usually taken as a sign that she does not have a good response.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"she did not publish the essay" and previously it was stated "did not write the essay". Can someone, anyone, explain why the name "Barbara Page" is the first of two names credited as the co-authors? --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I only cited this as a hypothetical reason, I do not think this is the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Signpost article in questions showed some fantastically poor judgement, and should probably have never been written, but I can't see where it actually violates the terms or spirit of this topic ban. I find no reason to sanction further. If this sort of thing becomes a pattern, we can revisit the idea of a different topic ban. But this, as bad as it is, does not substantively violate the existing ban. --Jayron32 17:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• (1) It was a failure of this user to use an account named XXX(WVS) for anything except from Pitt-business i.e. business related to Wikipedia versus University of Pittsburgh. (2) It was a failure of ourselves to allow any editor who is not a scholar to use an account named Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, instead of [Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater]. (3) I am not sure of what is said by Barbara... has been a Visiting Scholar ... since 2015. I would prefer B. is a VS from 2015 or B. has been a VS from 2015 until xxx. (4) the initial ban was related to misreading or misunderstanding sources, to the point of inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. (5) Here, the risk of misreading an empty set of sources seems equal to 0, while identifying gender and sexuality in order to justify a block seems questionable. Pldx1 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also agree with Atsme. This was (an attempt at) humour about grammar. It fell flat, and is hopefully going to be deleted, but that doesn't make it blockworthy. At no point does the unfortunate article refer to anyone's sexuality. This is no more about sexuality than that bacterium she wrote the last article about and was blocked for was about medicine. Yes, this is about pronouns, which are associated with gender, which is associated with sexuality, but at that distance, pretty much everything is associated with sexuality, from clothing (because it can be sexy), to cigars (remember Sigmund Freud!) to food (don't even ask...). If this falls under sexuality broadly construed, then Barbara can not edit any articles about people who are believed to ever have sex (or never have sex), people who have children (or don't have children), etc., or pretty much anything that people do (Chess! No, because that is all about mating...) and might as well give up and go home. Also, it was done days ago, she hasn't been involved in the foofarah since, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It's not just about pronouns, even if that was in the mind of Barbara though. Saying "just about..." something denies the very real, and deliberate, use of language to dehumanize people throughout history. Specifically with transgender people, to use the wrong pronoun to describe them is a deliberate and intentional act to delegitimize the concept of being transgender. This is not merely a grammatical issue, because the use of grammar has been used as a tool specifically by bigoted people to dehumanize and delegitimize the other for a very long time. I have no idea if that was the author's intent here, I can only say that it is the intent of most people who came before them and did similar things. --Jayron32 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, and it is an attempt at humour that was badly misjudged. But that alone does not make it a topic ban violation - my thoughts below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  That other people use it this way is a fine argument for deleting the essay. It's a terrible argument for blocking Barbara. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Which is why I pre-agreed with you before you even said that. --Jayron32 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hang on, "gender preference" as used in the essay, is not directly part of sexuality, despite every reliable source where it is defined, it is? This is dabbling with sophistry a bit too far to be credible. --Fæ (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) If someone starts talking about pronouns, I'm probably going to assume it has something to do with transgenderism, not to mention the "identify as" bit. If someonementions enchiladas, I will not immediately imagine their sexual potential, I'm just going to want enchiladas; that's a false equivalency. This isn't about sexuality as much as Animal Farm isn't about communism. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × many) This is a ridiculous argument. Of course there are many topics that might touch on conversations of a sexual nature (Rule 34 is a thing) but that's way off from a topic which has a specific sexual association. One's gender and choice of expression is directly linked to sexuality, intrinsically and inseparably. Some people get off on Sailor Moon but it's not a sexuality topic by any definition. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Look at the number of people who disagree right in this conversation. You advocate that she should have known it to be perfectly obvious, when so many here don't? --GRuban (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • There are a number of people here whose opinions on gender and sexuality are bewildering and insensitive, yes. The fact that some people for whom it's never been an issue think that it cannot possibly be an issue for anybody is enlightening, though it is not surprising. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
        • ^^^this^^^ --Jayron32 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict × far too many, compounded by a slow connection) The majority of the debate is "does the topic ban actually cover sexuality in all aspects, or rather does it only matter when it is sexuality relating to medicine?" NOT "is this essay about sexuality?" which almost everyone agrees that yes, it is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think there's a topic ban violation here. Having been active over the topic ban itself and knowing the actual editing conflicts that led to it, I read "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" as covering sexuality in any way related to health and medical topics. And this humour page (which, in my opinion widely missed the mark, sorry) does not come close to health and medical topics or to anything remotely close to the actual issues which led to the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  Just to put it in a slightly different way, when it says "health and medical topics, including..." that defines the superset for broadly construed and any of the subordinate included sub-topics are constrained by being part of health and medical topics. It's not health and medical topics AND sexuality, it's sexuality where it forms a subset of health and medical topics. And the humour thing is not a subset of health and medical topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• +1 as per Atsme - I'm not seeing a violation here either. –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it probably violates the topic-ban on a technicality, but Wikipedia doesn't run based on technicalities. Regardless of whether the topic-ban is violated, some action may be needed. I still remember Electrical disruptions caused by squirrels. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't even violate it on a technicality. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It probably doesn't. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Barbara started this article with content about Nominative determinism. She then copied User:SMcCandlish/It to the Signpost. With no further significant contributions (the rest is editorial). I'm not sure that's in the spirit of the topic ban, since she didn't actually write the content. It does seem to be a technical violation though, in my opinion, since she edited a page relating to the topic ban. Without digging into Wikilawyering territory, I therefore think that it was a hasty (but justifiable, just perhaps not justified) block, a good unblock, and worthwhile discussing here. I have no opinion on further action warranted at this time. Anyway, that's just my 2 ¢. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NB. I read the scope of the ban differently to Boing! said Zebedee, as I view the including as an Inclusive or. That's probably just the programmer in me. I can agree with SerialNumber54129 about this being about as clear as mud, and more sticky. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm a programmer too (at least an ex-programmer) and I read it in the context of having been there at the time, having known the actual problems which led to the topic ban, and having understood the entirely medical nature of the problem areas and of the ban extent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: How dare you inject facts, understanding, and topically specific experience into an festival of self-righteous outrage by people making assumptions about what something meant instead of actually reading it? Shame on you!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• What Boing said. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think Boing is right here. Natureium (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Barbara made a bad decision here in putting her name to that article. The best thing she could do, for the good of Wikipedia (I originally wrote "for her own good" here, but that seemed rather patronising), would be voluntarily to do something other than edit Wikipedia over the weekend. If she does that then it doesn't matter if she's blocked or not. There's a whole world out there to explore, so just take a break. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• No ban - I'd be inclined to not think there was a breach, as not the actual writer of the material. Perhaps unwise, but not a substantive breach of the TBAN. I also think that the block was hasty, in the sense that if the "breaches" were going to be in this form (no restarting of mainspace editing), the 72hr block couldn't possible be preventative and certainly didn't need immediate enacting pre ANI, as no Signpost editing would take place within that time slot. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Violation. If her name is on the article (it's the first in the byline), and it mentions "social gender preference" etc., then it's a violation of the TBan, which includes the words "broadly construed". (NB: Yesterday I !voted to "Keep" the essay.) Softlavender (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC); edited 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Let's see. An editor banned from sexuality related topics wrote/posted/something-ed an essay making fun of pronoun choices. Gender identity is definitely a part of human sexuality and therefore this is a violation. That said, the sort of insensitivity shown in the essay is not uncommon so, perhaps, we should just give this whole thing a pass (assuming that the essay itself is deleted or somehow vanished). How much drama do we really need? --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment having read both the previous topic ban discussion and the signpost column, it's clear to me that this isn't a violation of the original topic ban, which was originally imposed strictly as a result of competency issues and which encompassed sexuality in the context of medicine. If a broader topic ban is desired by the majority of people here then that's cool and all, but the cognitive dissonance I'm seeing here is a bit worrying. I should also note that the three-day ban of this user was completely unnecessary. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support action. This was incredibly ill-considered and frankly outright polemic screed that is so mind-bogglingly beyond a legitimate WP:HERE purpose (and so certain to cause a furor) that I can't fathom how two longterm editors could think this was an appropriate thing to publish anywhere on the project. You know, for the last couple of years I have occasionally come across people griping that the signpost was becoming a problem and that no one was awake at the wheel for the editorial process, and I've just dismissed it as hyperbolic griping (I personally think the publication has served as a vital community role) but something like this really raises questions.

For the record, if you look, you can find plenty of examples of me pushing back on problematic efforts on policy talk pages and at VP to liberalize our style guidelines to allow for idiosyncratic pronouns in Wikipedia's voice, so I can try to assume that something like that inspired this pugnacious rant masquerading as "good humour", but even a half second's thought by a veteran editor should have revealed how this was likely to be interpreted as a blanket attack/gripe about certain notions on gender identity broadly and how utterly inappropriate this is under any of half dozen principles of WP:WWIN. Frankly, I'd like to see SMC admonished on this as well; he's a stellar contributor and a workhorse in numerous of our policy areas, but this speaks of incredibly poor forward thought and understanding of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, at a minimum. As for Barbara, yes, this certainly falls squarely within the topic ban, and I support the previous block and would consider supporting further measures necessary to draw a line in the sand regarding the pushing the boundaries of said ban. Utterly un-wikiprofessional; I can't think of any other way to describe this. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You're just making up patently false accusations about the content and intent. This is covered in great detail at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, and at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour, so I won't go over it all again here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh? What have I "made up" exactly? I haven't done anything but provide my feedback on details which don't seem to be in dispute between you and the numerous people above and at the Signpost page who are standing aghast at your polemic rant there, so I don't see where I even had a chance a construct a falsehood? Care to back that up with something more substantive? You know, I wasn't being disingenuous when I said that you are a super productive editor and one valued by myself personally, but your response to this whole situation is not a flattering look for you. I'm not just concerned you're digging a hole for yourself here, I'm worried you're determined to do it with dynamite. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• The editor's topic ban is constrained to health and medical topics (including sexuality within that context). Even if it were not, the essay in question has nothing to do with "...sexuality, broadly construed". It is about and only about abuse of the English language in non-neutral ways to push unencyclopedic wording into our articles, including trademark and logo over-stylization, injection of honorifics for religious reasons, and use of neologistic pronoun replacements (xie, hirs, etc.) in Wikipedia's own voice. That the last of these has something to do with identity politics is entirely incidental (this is about editors defying WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS to make our material hard to understand for their own personal or organizational reasons). Gender identity matters being confused with sexual preferences is a common error but it is an error, as everyone familiar with these topic spaces already knows and understands very well. Also, Barbara was not a co-author of the material (which long pre-dated the Signpost use, as a userspace essay), but simply did a compression pass on it. This thread should be closed without action as utterly wide of its mark, in multiple ways.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Context matters. The topic ban revolves around "health and medicine" and anatomy and sexuality in that context. The satirical essay is concerned with language, titles, and pronouns. There was no violation. The block was hasty, the unblock good, and should stand. Jonathunder (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Having read more closely the nature of the topic ban, and the views of those who instituted it, and the important distinctions re: medicine and health, I now view this as not a violation (especially since she apparently didn't write any of it. We had this same sort of debate when someone under a medical and health TBan edited articles on veterinary medicine. The consensus was that a TBan about health and medicine did not apply to veterinary medicine, and only applied to human health. In the same fashion, I view Barbara's topic ban as regarding health and medicine, not linguistic preferences regarding one's personal pronouns. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Canvassing: People were non-neutrally canvassed [118] by Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to come vote for a block/ban here, on the basis that people are wikilaywering over "lack of common understanding of words like 'gender'" (which is not what this is about, but whether a topic ban about health and medical material can be extended that far). It also and included a claim that a topic-ban violation was determined to have occurred [119], which is simply an outright falsehood, as this discussion is still running and leaning far away from that interpretation. I've open a separate ANI thread about this, as there was a whole lot of other canvassing by the same editor, and this new canvassing was done after calls to stop, and after a prior a very lengthy topic-ban for the same behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Response by Barbara Page

I have read and then read again Scott's essay. I think I made some small edits while preparing the piece. But since I pasted the content to the Signpost's Humour article draft page I can take the blame. I originally put Scott's name first, but someone else went in to change it...so what, the details really don't matter.

I am a little Pollyanna-like because I have also seen situations where people struggle with pronouns. I struggle with words. Words-not people or people groups. I see myself playing right field, making daisy chains while everyone else bustles around doing what people do during a baseball game. The whole Signpost article is about pronouns. As a 'paster' of the essay into the Signpost work space, I saw nothing in the contribution that was anything close to violating my topic ban. My context for finding the struggle with pronouns came from a great friendship with a WP editor who is an actual linguist. We talked about pronouns for two hours once. People groups were never the issue with us. I asked her about some quirks in English and she gave me great insight. Where are you seeing something that smacks of other things? I don't see it. Of course and comments get lengthier and lengthier it is undeniable that I am in the minority. I am also a wife married to a man. I have many in my family who are not like me. I have been married for 39 years. I have six grown children and six grandchildren. They get to choose their pronouns. I am very sorry to have caused so many editors to become agitated. I like the 72 hours break. I might be editing in other wikis if you are looking for me.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that before trying out any other humour in the Signpost, you run it by someone else first. We don't need jokes by committee, but this was reasonably easy to identify as a drama magnet. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of strong opinions, you have a new incoming link to your tiger essay. Regarding this month's humor, I'll say it seemed obvious to this Signpost reader who the main author wasn't. 🍣 — SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't really care about blocks, topic-bans, or any sanctions but just commenting on the merits of the underlying situation: this signpost piece was a poor piece of writing; the fact that it underwent review and still got published exposed some blindspots in the process; and the subsequent missing-the-point defensiveness/justification seen in the authors' replies has been really disappointing (the piece had as much to do with "struggle with pronouns" as Gamergate had to do with "ethics in journalism"). For those wishing to wash off the bad taste: look at this as an (off-wikipedia) example of appropriately thoughful response to another piece of poorly written and insufficiently reviewed content. We can do better. Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Why are Signpost articles being misattributed? If Barbara did not write even one word of the article, why is her name anywhere on it? Honestly, this is the oddest thing of all, to me. One should reasonably expect in an encyclopedia and all of its publications that authorship is correctly and accurately identified. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Beats me. I just assumed it was some kind of "thing that Signpost does. Maybe because Barbara added a picture to it? The title the Signpost used was certainly not my idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed action

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

---

Given that Barbara (WVS), in her comment above, is forceful that though editors are very agitated, she hasn't committed any mistake ("I saw nothing in the contribution that was anything close to violating my topic ban. "). Does it mean that a similar disruption may occur again? I leave it to the community to decide, with the proposed action:

• Barbara (WVS) is indefinitely blocked until they confirm that they will respect the conditions of their TBAN, broadly construed, with no exceptions

• Support as proposer. Lourdes 05:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as, basically, off-topic nonsense, for all the reasons covered above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ehh.. I'm inclined to say that's probably not the way forward here (and anyway, I don't think the above forecasts that result). Obviously you can tell from my comments above that I am concerned here, as are others. But jumping straight to indef without giving Barbara the benefit of the doubt that they would comply with the TBAN if it were made explicit by the community that it covers issues of gender identity? (Should that prove to be consensus as I think is likely to be the outcome, also per above). No, I think that's not the ideal solution. She has a genuinely reasonable argument to make that she shouldn't have been expected to know that. You or I or others may think its so obvious that she should have assumed as much, but I personally think WP:AGFing on her assertion that it was a good-faith mistake is right approach. Clear guidance will give Barbara a chance to prove a willingness to avoid the area sincerely, or it will give the community the evidence needed to see that she won't. That's my preference insofar as the remedy for the issue with Barbara and the TBAN. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Absolutely no need for this draconian measure. There's not even agreement that the TBan was violated. What is in fact needed is more clarity about the parameters of the TBan, from those administrators and other editors who were present in the discussions and events leading up to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Hell no. I personally think that she borderline-violated her TBan but there does not seem to be a consensus among uninvolved editors. ∯WBG^converse 06:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems a matter of opinion, but for me Barbara's actions weren't even a TBan violation, per Atsme & Elspamo4. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This takes broadly construed to "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" - and extends it to outer space. Pronouns are linguistics - and minor copyediting / copy-pasting into a newspaper (as opposed to actual article content) - is also somewhat broadly construed to Wikipedia. Should The Signpost run off-site so that Wiki limitations do not apply? Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously Oppose as there has been no topic ban breach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, while the publication of that piece has offended quite a few people (and I do think it was a mistake), a lot of the responses I'm seeing look very much like attempts to punish everyone involved (and even some who weren't involved) as harshly as possible, using every means and every venue possible. That's not the way we're supposed to do things here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Barbara did nothing wrong. I'm ashamed that Bradv, whom I had defended when he was scapegoated over the Strickland affair, is now stretching Barbara's topic ban beyond reason in order to punish her for political thoughtcrime. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I echo everyone above the TBAN was not in any way, shape or form breached, I would strongly suggest this is speedy closed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the topic ban was not violated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per GBartlett & CTroutman. ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Nobody seemed to notice this yet

• Part of the Signpost article was a diagram of a cut away stellar body.[120] Under it were piped links and text. "Are you (also) a trans-biological explicate manifestation..." (piped link to Quantum suicide and immortality under the word trans, i.e. "Are you trans?" click ->suicide).
• McCandlish makes an edit shortly after, generalising transgender as a character, for the purpose of consolidating a "language activists" identity, as those who would undermine the real transgenders. Defines all who oppose him, without any particular qualifier, as the enemy of transgender. [121].
• Candlish literally appoints and harasses Fae into being his main antagonist at length, beginning around here [122]. If I had to trawl the VPP posts I think I'll bring back 20+ diffs of blatant personal debasement towards Fae.
• I picked Candlish up here in the debate, claiming to be an experienced professional in the field of freedom of expression, evidently a part of three posts in one diff. Now I can see that diff included a paragraph for or about Fae, specifically diagnosing her with a specific psychological problem, the Dunning Krueger Effect ().
• His next post to her (on that page) is specifically to point out to her that he would never claim to be a victim I've never claimed to be a victim; that's your kind of game. Disagreeing with being mischaracterized, and correcting it, is not anywhere near equivalent to claiming to being victimized by it. More to the point, the post you're replying to has nothing to do with any of that, but with your own long-term behavior problems on Wikipedia
• His next post to Fae then attempts to wikilawyer [123] specifically to accuse Fae of gaming WP for achievements.
• To me he said that it was not an argument about transgender issues and... informs me of a little known small band of POV pushers who are trying to take over Wikipedia... [124].
• Now I am going to break there and make my personal point. I've been waiting for SMcCandlish to A) Make a clear statement toward any inadvertent offence, B) Apologise to Fae and stop winding her up about her self, and C) To thank, and take the useless and unfounded slack off User:Barbara who has thoroughly shouldered it up for him.
• Instead he wrote for Barbaras section above, "Beats me. I just assumed it was some kind of "thing that Signpost does. Maybe because Barbara added a picture to it? The title the Signpost used was certainly not my idea.""
• Nobody seemed to mention the first point I made above, and when he dumped his obvious friend I better just..-->(Barbara) I was provoked to point out that nobody seems to notice he didn't state apology for the public and has attacked Fae far beyond protocols, that I am pretty sure he started it on that one unless I check VPP. ~ R.T.G 13:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  "Nobody seemed to have noticed this yet" because there is no "this" here; you've not demonstrated a case for, well, anything. In the order of your diffs:

1) I had nothing to do with the diagram or its caption; in the pre-press copy I saw, there was a dinosaur picture.

2) Diff doesn't show what you say it does; I hope everyone does actually read it [125], since it shows that Fæ and her canvassed army are blatantly lying about me being a transphobe. Also, what you said makes no sense in the context; their accusation is that I am the enemy of trans, so it cannot be consistent with your narrative in their support that I'm such a trans defender that I'm wrongly accusing "all who oppose [me]" of being anti-trans. Nothing in my post relates to a single thing you said about it or me, anyway.

3) You don't seem to know what the word wikt:literally means, and the diff doesn't show what you say; it's just me responding to Fæ again making up stuff about me out of nothing. Defending against Fæ's 3-day-long firehose of "transphobic" accusations, across multiple WMF sites, is not "personal debasement" of Fæ, it's just exhausting defense against vicious bad-mouthing.

4) This is the same diff. The Dunning–Kruger effect is not a mental diagnosis, it's an effect (a result), namely of assuming you know more than you do, not being aware of the information you are missing, and propounding your "expertise" to people who understand the topic far better than you do. Trust me, I'm extremely wary of making "metal diagnosis" comments on WP and frequently criticize the practice. I did so within the hour (check my user-talk edits).

4) It's correct that I don't claim to be a victim. I've been wrongly and tiresomely maligned, but I'm not into "victimhood". Your diff doesn't prove anything other than than what I just said.

5) You appear not to have actually read WP:WIKILAWYER since nothing in it pertains to that post. And there's nothing wrong with a pertinent citation to WP:NOT#MMORPG policy when someone appears to be treating WP like game to "WP:WIN" with spin-mongering. If you think that policy is wrong, take it to WT:NOT.

6) I did point out that we have an issue with people injecting non-encyclopedic wording into articles for religious, promotional, and sometimes identity-politics reasons. I said nothing about "trying to take over Wikipedia"; you're just making stuff up. Are you and Fæ taking the same "how to write online fiction" class?

7) On your A, B, C points:

A) I'm not 100% sure what that means, but this probably has it covered (2nd paragraph, starting with "At any rate, I have not denied any responsibility for what I wrote ...".

B) Fæ does not identify as "she" (nor am I "Candlish", for that matter). No, I will not apologize for defending myself against days of vicious character-assassination.

C) You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I've gone out of my way to derail this bullshit ANI case, and Barbara and I are in touch in user talk and e-mail; what communication we have is none of your busybody business.

Moving on from that: Yes, it is correct that I don't know why the Signpost piece had her name on it; I'm not privy to internal Signpost decision-making.

Your closing statement doesn't parse as English; to the extent I can make any sense of it, it's already been addressed above.

In short, if this is your first foray into diffing something to prove a case at ANI, you really badly need some practice.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

1, There were three points in that and, without checking, you don't claim to have repaired one of them (checked:I don't consider a world-rant to be that statement). I mean this has gone on at length and you demand demonisation of challenge. You posted a trans->suicide link, and you haven't even apologised for innocent onlookers. Trans people will be among the minority of people offended by that, though nobody seemed to notice.

2, And I quote, generalising the transgender identity, for the purpose of consolidating the enemy, general transgender identity, +specific unnameable small group of shared enemy, "The transgendered and non-binary are not some hive mind. They're individuals with highly variable preferences. We have a serious problem with language reform activists (most of them not TG but self-styled "allies", and often criticized by actual TG people as terrible allies) constantly making one-size-fits-all assumptions and demanding that WP editors write the neologistic way the activistic like. We are finally getting pretty close to acceptance of singular they, and I think that's about as far as it'll go."

3, Literal quote: "something of the Dunning–Kruger effect is at work here, with you presuming expertise in the on-WP editing record that you do not actually possess"

4, yes I apologise, I posted that one twice, I made a mistake. I make mistakes and I apologise, being honest and human at the same time.

4, Your response here quoted, "I don't claim to be a victim. I've been wrongly and tiresomely maligned" Um.

5, You, or Fae, do not get to abuse each other or anyone else about using WP to score points and achieve like a game, if I recall you are in the 50+- and 100+- editors and both you do use WP like an MMORPG game. (A cursory glance does not show any part of WP:NOT mentioning MMORPGs)

6, I quote,"Repeat: This is not about trans people", "it's about people insisting on doing weird stuff to English", "That some editors advocate such things in relation to TG/NB people sometimes is entirely incidental, and it's not about the subjects but about a small subset of editors" [126]

A) That is a rant about the world. It doesn't even come close.

B) Do I need to trawl VPP for diffs to point out that you are totally bitter with Fae? Are you going to say that totally bitter, you don't know what I am talking about? You don't diagnose her personality, motivations for editing WP, Mr McCandlish?

C) IDONTLIKEIT, either the lack of formal response to Barabara or the excuse of, "That's because we conspire". WP is transparent. It was why I wanted to bring up the trans-->suicide pipe link. Don't apologise for that or anything, Candlish, after all, you only posted it and nobody gives a shit, especially you. Now that's great for the Signpost. You feel honoured and cautious by your position there.

Let me "parse" something for you, You express no expectation of your self, at least up until last night. My "closing statement" said nobody mentioned the trans-->suicide pipe-link yet. Nobody mentioned the blank space between your self and Barbara (I am sorry there is such a thing in human experience as an atmosphere. I was provoked by the lack of faith towards the public (you do not apologise or anything that encourages me to put you forward to the public, do you parse that?). You have been bitter, bitter with Fae. It's called personal resentment. ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is another "closing statement". It is going to cover all the points. It, it, it, it... it, it it, it itititititititit... WHAT DO YOU MEAN I DIDNT COVER THE POINTS CAN YOU NOT READ IT ARE YOU MENTALLY SICK HAVE YOU NOT MET THE small group of subversive editors ITS NOT ME ITS... It's you. That's you. Can you parse that? ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"In short", that much will still be you, regardless of how good a lawyer I am. ~ R.T.G 21:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that she is not the pronoun that Fæ has indicated a preference of wanting to be referred to as. That preference should not be marginalized and it's pretty clear, by the sum of this topic's discussion, that not intending offense earns no quarter if the outcome results in offense.--John Cline (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned that, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

[127] ~ R.T.G 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(uncensored, perhaps you didn't notice)Stop repeating right there. Hindsight is easy. Your nutshell was bland, even in appearance, and lacked impact. It said you were going to debate every whacked out sort of pronoun from stylised or something to something else. And then, it went it, it... it, it it, it ititititit... Every alleged pun except one line, near the end is based on the word "it". Look man, I'm not saying I could have done a better trans themed humour article. I'm not saying that. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with it. ~ R.T.G 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fæ's return to canvassing and incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes

Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeffed then later topic-banned by ArbCom from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender-related activism) from 2012 to 2017 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ), for incivility and aspersion-casting, as well as canvassing and forum-shopped in this topic area. Very recently, the editor was back at ANI, again for canvassing about gender (technically off-site meatpuppetry), though ArbCom remanded the matter back to the community for further examination [128]; I'm not sure if any was ever undertaken.

Today, Fæ non-neutrally canvassed [129] editors to come vote for a block/ban at ANI against an editor of something Fæ disagrees with (on a gender identity topic), on the false basis that people are wikilaywering over "lack of common understanding of words like 'gender'" (which is not what that ANI is about, but whether a topic ban about health and medical material can be extended that far). This multi-round canvassing also included a claim that a topic-ban violation by that party was already determined to have occurred [130], which is an outright falsehood, as that discussion (#Violation of topic ban by Barbara (WVS), above) is still running and leaning far away from that interpretation.

Just previously, Fæ also non-neutrally (with various uncivil false accusations, including of transphobia) canvassed people, across multiple WMF projects [131][132][133], to the discussion in which this new canvassing to ANI occurred. The newer canvassing happened after multiple editors called on Fæ to stop canvassing and forum-shopping and being uncivil [134][135][136][137][138]. Both rounds of canvassing also included pointed character assassination attempts and severe distortions of the nature of the material under discussion.

It's thus time for a separate re-examination Fæ's behavior, especially given that the topic ban was provisionally suspended (in Dec. 2016) only on the understanding that these behaviors would not resume. They clearly have continued in exactly the same vein.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The very best possible outcome from any additional discussion about this fiasco would be if SMcCandlish would stop repeating him/her/itself over and over and OVER again. My gosh! How fond you must be of your never ending and incredibly tedious repetitiveness! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, this is the first time I've mentioned this canvassing and incivility at any noticeboard, the actual venue for it. The only other noticeboard mention of it was afterward, as a cross-reference from the other ANI case mentioned herein. This is about Fæ's behavior pattern and its relationship to sanction-lifting conditions, not about the socio-politics of the topic about which Fæ is canvassing and casting aspersions, nor how much discussion the topic generates. Please stay on-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC); revised  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The length and breadth of the evidence and the persistence of the behavior despite warnings seem to indicate that Fæ needs a reinstatement of the TBan. Or perhaps another trip to ArbCom. This seems to be a pattern only remedied by an enforced TBan. Softlavender (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec, some difficulty replying here, I may need to reformat)

Putting a note in small text against the MfD, explaining why the editor named in the nomination has probably been unable to take part and that they were already blocked, does not fit the definition of canvassing, as far as I am aware. It was intended as relevant information, not an invite for anyone to rush to ANI with a particular view.

Writing an untargeted email to Wikimedia-l, not direct emails or notes, summarizing why the Signpost "humour" essay was alarming for the community does not fit the definition of "Stealth canvassing" for sending off wiki emails. This has been discussed very recently in an Arbcom case after a post on Twitter (nothing whatsoever to do with "gender identity" or sexuality as I recall, just a question of whether an open Twitter post could ever be called canvassing), and was rejected with a variety of views including members of Arbcom and ex-Arbcom members stating that writing on Twitter openly, rather than direct messaging of individuals, was act of free speech that Wikipedia should not be attempting to control. Should the Canvassing guidelines change, I will be happy to fully comply with them. If I have misunderstood how the "stealth canvassing" guidelines are to be read, I will be happy to comply with any consensus for their interpretation and apologise. I note that in practice it is highly unlikely that my more general note about the offensive Signpost "humour" essay has had any effect on the MfD, because it was neither targeted towards any particular group (like a gendergap group) and was intended to be a summary of fact only.

With regard to the claim of "false accusations, including of transphobia", I have never stated that SMcCandlish is a transphobe or has transphobia. I have stated that the Signpost "humour" essay on pronouns appeared transphobic, and I am happy to explicitly list and quote the very many very well established Wikipedians that have stated the article is "transphobic", "bigotry", "transphobic rants" etc. I hesitate to do that here as evidence, because no doubt someone will claim pinging anyone else would be is canvassing, but these opinions are openly and fairly expressed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour and SMcCandlish should add them as parties to this claim if there is a problem with me making the precise same statement of fact.

I note that SMcCandish has stated this ANI thread with claims against me at the top of the MfD, next to a statement that my addendum explaining why Barbara (WVS) probably had been unable to take part was for " for politicized reasons". This in untrue. They also stated "You're going to end up there yourself real soon now", which looks like using inappropriate threats of taking people to ANI to create drama.[139]

Despite my multiple invitations to discuss matters on my talk page, a genuine invitation, rather than creating drama and derailing the MfD with tangential claims about me, which are irrelevant to the facts of the nomination, they have refused to do so.

Despite my attempt at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour to get feedback by asking

• It would be useful to have some feedback here on how critics of this "humorous essay" can fairly complain, including the deletion discussion, and which words they are allowed to use or not use in compliance with Wikipedia policies. One of the authors SMcCandlish has repeatedly responded as if what is intended as criticism of the article were a personal attack, so it would benefit everyone to be clear about what is reasonable criticism allowed in comments or the MfD. Many participants in the MfD have already stated that the article appears transphobic and intended to cause offense, some of those contributors have also identified as trans or genderqueer, which you may see as giving them a special perspective on appropriate use of related language or "humour", maybe not.

SMcCandish has refused to say anything there. Instead they have gone to ANI rather than make any attempt to discuss their assertions, even though they stated "despite my distaste for the dramaboards".

It seems relevant to note that the WMF have for the first time refused allow a notification of the publication of Signpost on WikimediaAnnounce-l, due to:

We received multiple reports of concerns related to potentially harmful content in the February 2019 edition of the Signpost

When the Wikimedia Foundation have been forced to act due to SMcCandlish's unnecessary drama, forced to take the extreme step of censoring the release of Signpost due to SMcCandlish's views, and have received multiple complaints off-wiki, I think it is obvious that the issue here is more with SMcCandlish's view of Wikipedia's policies, understanding of civility and what is "transphobic" than mine.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line: SMcCandish posted a very offensive "humor" essay at the Signpost, mocking transgender advocates of innovative pronouns. Entirely predictably, many editors expressed outrage and a smaller but significant number expressed support. SMcCandish proceeded to bludgeon every discussion about the controversy, repeating the same arguments over and over and over again. Fæ emerged as the most incisive critic of SMcCandish's stick-wielding behavior. Now, SMcCandish wants to silence their most effective critic. The funny thing is that I agree with SMcCandish about the pronoun issue, but I completely disagree with every single aspect of their bullying tactics in this bizarre episode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about whether you agree with my essay and its inclusion in the Signpost (someone else's decision), it's about Fæ's disruptive behavior – for which they were previously long-term banned – in an attempt to WP:WIN a content dispute in the same topic area as their recently-ended ban. However, in point of fact, there is no consensus that the essay was offensive (both MfDs are on-going and with diverse input). Fæ has not been an effective critic at all (every argument they've advanced has been rebutted, by many others not just me), and has not addressed "discussion behavior" by me, but simply engaged in "transphobic" aspersion-casting about something I wrote. Basically, you're just making stuff up out of nowhere. Also, it not possible for your claim that I'm over-discussing and for Fæ's claim, "gone to ANI rather than make any attempt to discuss", to both be true. In reality, I'm discussing, and other people are discussing, and many of them were non-neutrally canvassed by Fæ, and Fæ is being ANIed because they ignored numerous warnings about disruption.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck: there have been no warnings of any kind whatsoever on my user talk page. If you or anyone else wishes to warn me about anything, my talk page is the starting point. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY; there is no magical loophole for you to exploit. When multiple editors have raised the same concerns with you, in discussions in which you are the most frequent participant on one side of the discussion (by a wide margin), and you continue the policy-violating behavior, no talk page notice is required. You've received the ANI talk notice, which is required, and that is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When multiple editors point out you (Fæ) are non-neutrally canvassing and being incivil and you continue to do it anyway, then there is no alternative but dramaboards. You were warned repeatedly that this behavior continuing would lead here; such warnings are routine and are not threats. Your claim that I have "refused to say anything there" at WT:Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour is an obvious fabrication, since I even responded directly [140] to the very comment you quote at excessive length above. Finally, your claim to have only said that things seemed transphobic to you is disproved by the diffs already provided; you claimed that the are transphobic and have continued in an incessant WP:IDHT anti-WP:AGF pattern to maintain this position even after being shown otherwise (frequently enough that Cullen328 complained). See WP:SANCTIONGAMING; you can't be as bad-faith assumptive as you want just by tweaking your wording slightly. Statements can't have a phobia since statements don't have brains; a claim that something is transphobic, without evidence, is necessarily WP:ASPERSIONS against the editor. The rest of your text-wall is just more hand-waving. "Do not look at the man behind the curtain."

PS: I got edit-conflicted while you added the WMF statement. Whether WMF wants to put up a CYA notice (and you're badly mischaracterizing what they said, which is nothing but acknowledgement of receipt of allegations) is completely irrelevant to the question here, which is whether your repeated canvassing and incivility – after multi-editor opposition to your canvassing and incivility – is grounds for re-instatement of your topic ban, which was for the same behavior in the same topic. Let's pretend you're right, and that I'm really a transphobic monster in disguise; what you're been doing is still wrong and still grounds for re-instatement of your ban.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you have not once taken up any of my multiple invitations to have a civil discussion on my user talk page. Instead you have preferred to derail the MfD with a series of bullying allegations about me, which I have refused to discuss in the MfD. My talk page, not an MfD would be your starting point.

You ignored my open invite to discuss what language was appropriate and civil for the MfD in the Signpost comments. That was highly specific, after your multiple false claims that anyone was calling you a transphobe, as opposed to your article where at least ten, maybe twenty by now, highly experienced Wikipedians have stated in black and white that it was transphobic.

Feel free to close down this ANI request and start a discussion on my user talk page for the first time. I have zero problems with civil discussion, or for than matter reasonable civil free speech. The same free speech that you appear keen to ensure I have no access to. --Fæ (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

When multiple editors try to address your incivility and canvassing and you continue both, and have a previously sanctioned long-term-abuse history – for the same things in the same topic area – it's too late for that, and ANI is where we go. Also, it's hypocritical to bring up user talk; there is no message from you on my talk page, and you've firehosed so many nasty accusations on so many pages that any request for user-talk discussion you may have buried in any of them isn't likely to be seen, nor should anyone take it seriously. I've looked and I see no such requests, other than posts made after this ANI was opened. Also, the fact that some other editors (i.e., the ones you canvassed) were also incivil in the same way is no excuse. And they did not recently get off a topic-ban for the same behavior in the same topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Factcheck: there have been no warnings or complaints from anyone on my user talk page. On SMcCandlish's user talk page there is a standard neutral MfD notification created by me, which is both necessary and sufficient to comply with guidelines. I have made no other action or complaint about SMcCandlish where any other notification would have been advisory or best practice. --Fæ (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We've been over this already, twice [141][142]. Sticking "Factcheck:" in front of your posts does not make them more convincing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Prediction: SMcCandlish will continue beating the dead horse, on and on and on and on and ON, ad nauseum, as if normal people are incapable of understanding their points unless they are repeated at least 37 times. Their goal is to defend themself at all costs from the obvious fact that they published an insulting and obnoxious essay on the Signpost. So sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Translation: "I will continue saying nasty things about you, and predict that you'll defend yourself, hoping everyone's stupid enough to think my 'prediction' coming true also means that my grossly bad-faith-assuming accusations will also be mistaken for proved true." Very silly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Be careful about allegations about character assassinations, because people can read the whole MfD, and with all these allegations from you they may think you are self-assassinating your own character, and going after the most prominent critic can be read counterproductive to you. I once did an ANI request for reinstating a TBan on an editor, and that horribly backfired on me, because that was in revenge. The same as in here, it's very easy to read as a revenge and a very poor handling of events. The best course of events, frankly, would have been happened if the MfD just ran its course without bullying Delete voters. But it's unsalvageable now. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not angry at Fæ for disagreeing, or holding a strong socio-political viewpoint (it's one I mostly share). I'm not appreciative of being maligned, of course, but oh well; I have tough hide. This isn't about my feelings. It's about Fæ's return to canvassing and incivility/aspersions in gender-related disputes – something which does and will continue to affect other editors. I really don't expect that this ANI will close with a re-instated topic ban, but it provides diffs that will be useful if this happens again. The majority of ANIs about longer-term editors result in no action; it generally takes several in the same vein within a fairly tight time-span before the community will act.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose re-examination at this time. While good intentioned & IMO very funny, the humour piece was clearly extremely offensive, distressing, and even repellent to quite a few. Sometimes wikipedia needs someone to go on a mission to prevent this sort of nonsense being allowed to stand. Up to a point, Fæ's actions are to be applauded. That said, it would be better if in future they focussed more on playing the ball not the man. Wikipedia is not the place for launching witch-hunts, even in a good cause. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) I apologise if anything I have written about the unfunny Signpost essay has come over as a witch hunt. My single concern in this matter has been to ensure neither Wikipedia, nor the Signpost is ever misused for what has been received by a very large number of our contributors as an attack against transgender and nonbinary people. I have no idea what is in SMcCandlish's mind, nor have I ever made any assertions about motivation and my concern is not about the person but the words being published. Considering my role in establishing the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group, I do feel I have a responsibility to take up legitimate complaints in other channels where people feel abusive or defamatory material is being promoted, and this has been one of those cases where there are many LGBT+ people who remain unwilling or frightened to make their concerns publicly on-wiki for themselves. If my own genuine worry and upset has distorted my rhetoric, rather than remaining in Vulcan-like calm, I can only apologise, I know this never helps any case of this type and I will back away from the keyboard for a while apart from where a logical fact check might be needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Linking a discussion from a neutral venue with very diverse readership is not inappropriate canvassing. Wikimedia-l, the Signpost and this very ANI page are seen by thousands and do not sway consensus. Otherwise, the opening of this very section would need to be considered inappropriate canvassing of the other discussion, which I may otherwise have overlooked. Nemo 09:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Notifying WT:LGBT and zero other wikiprojects was canvassing, especially given the non-neutral language. Drawing attention to the MfD at Wikimedia-L and Meta using very non-neutral language was canvassing. There is no way around this, sorry. Providing diffs to discussions is required at ANI and other noticeboards; doing so does not constitute canvassing. In short, you don't seem to have read WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Factcheck: Wikimedia LGBT studies is likely to be single most relevant wikiproject to notify about the MfD. Not long afterwards there was a notification on the Village Pump. The LGBT studies notification was shorter than the MfD nomination statement, but was not written with any intention to introduce any different type of statement. To ensure there can be no possible complaint of bias, the wording has been changed to be the full text of the MfD nomination. Nobody, including SMcCandlish, has objected to the wording of the MfD nomination or claimed it was biased. If a complaint is made, I will consider revising the nomination statement based on feedback so it is civil and expressed as fairly as possible. --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Just more wikilawyering and WP:SANCTIONGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I was specifically referencing "A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline" (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification). Thank you for specifying that your concern is with WT:LGBT, but 1) that qualifies as central because it has nearly a thousand watchers and 2) it's clearly the single most relevant wikiproject for a matter of perceived heteronormative discrimination (or can be seen so in good faith). On a practical note, a talk page perceived to be followed by "pro-A" people will immediately be a magnet for every "anti-A" user out there, so that if you advertise a pro-A proposal in it you usually end up mobilising anti-A people who automatically intervene to "compensate" any "prejudice" from the other side. Nemo 10:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I just want to say: yes, what Nemo describes is how I've seen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies work. -sche (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

        It may be, but it's not how WP operates in relation to the wikiproject. Its watchlisters are overwhelmingly of a particular mindset, and strongly predisposed to react in a particular way to something anyone claims could be offensive to the subject-group of the wikiproject. If it were actually true that watchlisters and thus canvassing respondents at topical pages evened out, we would not need or have rules against canvassing, obviously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

        {{citation needed}} for the claim about mindset, given mine and Nemo's experiences. And notifying wikiprojects is not only routine but explicitly given as the first example of appropriate notification in the rules on canvassing. -sche (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

      • Nemo, canvassing is not somehow permissible in cases where we think, post hoc, that it might not have been effective. In this case it provably was, because the results at the canvassed MfD (against the Signpost copy) are pretty much exactly the opposite of the ratio of support/delete at the MfD on the userspace copy (likely to be kept), despite various strong arguments that Signpost, as a publication, should not have pages torn out of it after the fact, and that it should enjoy a measure of editorial freedom. The result of the canvassing was overwhelming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Emotions are clearly running high, and I think the accusations (on all sides) go further than can be justified. I do think including that essay in the latest Signpost was a misjudgment, but I do not think there was any malicious intent. And I'm saddened once again to see good people fighting each other. On these grounds, I don't think there's justification for any sanctions against anyone. Spend the weekend doing fun things, and come back refreshed and with clearer thoughts - that's something that usually works for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A now-moot demurrer ...

That's false equivalence. Non-neutral notice to attract focused, single-viewpoint mass attention to a discussion is canvassing, and is a policy violation. Falsely accusing someone of being transphobic and, now, of abusing WP for self-promotion [143][144], are CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS violations. Pointing out these behaviors with proof of them at the noticeboard for that is not canvassing and is not a civility problem (despite Fæ's false claims to be personally attacked [145] – without any evidence of course, making it yet another uncivil aspersion). It's simply irrelevant whether "emotions are clearly running high"; one set of actions are against policy, the other are not. One set of actions violates the terms of someone's topic-ban being lifted, the other does not. There is nothing more to it. Canvassing and verbal attacks are not permissible, and we're not forgiving of them when they are a long-term pattern of abuse, and continue (actually, worsen) even after people (and not just their target) object to them on the very same day.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've struck that after seeing the two links posted below by Guy Macon, which I agree are over the line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Note: Guy Macon's diffs were the original ones I provided when opening the discussion. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but people pay more attention to what I write because of my sweet personality and rugged good looks. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hah! See my user page; I've been compared to Robert Downey Jr and Edward Norton, and more importantly Steven Tyler and John Buscemi. Va-va-voom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ach, I've been caught out not properly reading all the links!!! ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion this [146],[147] went over the line. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I have responded to the meta page discussion about the appropriateness of whether the self elected volunteer role of "WMF Tech Ambassador", which presumes compliance with the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, is appropriate. It is in no way a "witch hunt" or harassment, however I have made an honest apology there because it clearly is being interpreted as a witch hunt. This was never my intention, which is instead one of simple transparent governance of WMF safe spaces.

  Should anyone wish to raise questions about the WMF Tech Ambassador role or the relationship to the Code of Conduct, it would be best to do it there, rather than on this project. Guy Macon has already done this.

  I shall shortly be changing the discussion so that it is instead raised as an email to the Code of Conduct committee. This will have the benefit of removing any possible appearance of being any sort of witch hunt and we can leave reviewing the evidence to the respected members of the committee. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Trying to get SMcCandlish removed as a WMF Tech Ambassador by private email instead of in a public discussion does not "remove any possible appearance of being any sort of witch hunt". As for your explanation of what your actual intention is, I can't help thinking about your response to SMcCandlish telling you what his actual intention was. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry, but in the light of your comment minutes ago on my talk page about being scared and intimidated, I do not feel safe myself responding to you in a public forum as this may result in allegations of harassment. I suggest you email the Code of Conduct committee if you have any further comments to make about the case as far is it relates to the CoC requirements for "a respectful and harassment-free experience for everyone". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note. Given this, I am interpreting the non-sysop action as an effective gag to remove my free speech until one or more administrators or an Arbcom clerk confirms what it means, or whether as I suspect, is it a misuse of process for someone to bully their view on others and shut up someone they have chosen to dislike. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Fæ That is just a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It is not a sanction in any way, and does not prevent you from commenting here or anywhere else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, thanks for that note. I fail to understand how the Arbcom ruling could possibly apply to my user talk page. If DS applies to the MfD for the disruptive "Pronouns" essay, then the DS notice should be placed there, for everyone to comply with, not on my user talk page.

This move by SMcCandlish feels like a crafty strategy to gag me. Along with the comments on my user talk page by Guy Macon that they feel 'scared and intimidated' by me, this just looks like a coordinately tactic to game the system by people who know precisely how to go about it.

I no longer feel safe myself commenting here on this case, or discussing SMcCandlish's actions anywhere on Wikipedia. I feel I am being blatantly harassed by people who know exactly how to distort policies and process to personally attack me.

This writes off ANI as a venue for legitimate discussion. Apart from corresponding with the WMF and the Code of Conduct Committee in confidence, this makes honestly discussing this very unpleasant case of using Signpost to publish what many other Wikipedians have called "transphobic", impossible for me and based on the above pointy and biased comments about the LGBT Wikiproject, inadvisable for anyone with a track record of LGBT+ related contributions.

Congratulations to those who seem to think that scaring me off Wikipedia and open and transparent dialogue was a smart idea. I hope you might at some point sit back and reflect on whether this type of behaviour is good for the project. --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(...Gives the question serious thought...) It's certainly not what is best for the project. What would be best for the project would be for you to voluntarily cease the behavior that so many editors are complaining about. As an alternative to the disruption continuing, I have to say that yes, some sort of restriction on you is good for the project. If that "scares you off Wikipedia" that would be undesirable, but still better for the project than allowing your disruptive behavior to continue. It's not as if there were no other editors who are willing to do good work in this area without being disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, re: "I fail to understand how the Arbcom ruling could possibly apply to my user talk page" that's where DS notices are supposed to be posted. The person posting it was just following Arbcom's specific requirement. Given how long you have been on Wikipedia, how many interactions you have had with admins over your behavior, and your ability to correctly cite and interpret policy when it suits you, I am beginning to suspect that this whole "misunderstand pretty much everything about this case" song and dance is an act that you are putting on. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how these templates work, they are the sort of thing I investigate when I need them and then forget about them. I have not been an admin for a very long time. --Fæ (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of disrupting Wikipedia, this was the whole point of the MfD, the essay was and remains disruptive. As said, I have no intention of returning to the MfD or commenting about the authors. I would also like to avoid yourself, for reasons that are clear on my user talk page.

By the way, in the last few years my main contribution to Wikipedia has been biographies, you can see 144 linked on my user page. Most of these are of women and LGBT+ related minorities, see the related reports on my user talk page. A sexuality topic ban would make almost all of these contributions or discussion of the article subjects, impossible. Effectively I would probably cease contributing in any way that improves content.

None of these biographies or related contributions have been problematic for anyone. --Fæ (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: "A sexuality topic ban would make almost all of these contributions or discussion of the article subjects, impossible", there is a simple solution to that. All you have to do is to read the many words that other editors have written explaining exactly why they think you need a topic ban, then stop doing those things rather than arguing that you were right to do them. Actions have consequences, and there is a good chance that your present course of action will result in a topic ban -- either this time or the next time you behave this way. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban Fæ's behavior must stop. That there was already a topic ban in place shows me that nothing was learned. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: this suggestion is in bad faith and not based on any actual violations of policy. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The policies here are specific to Fae and Fae's previous behavior. Check the links SMC posted in their statement. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban Fae dodged an arbcom case a few short weeks ago for exactly this type of behavior (especially the mailing list post). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The case request was rejected by Arbcom. Many of the views expressed were that there was no canvassing, and a detailed discussion resulting from the case request is available that basically supports that view is on the talk page of the Canvassing policy. There was no "dodging". --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The request was rejected by ArbCom on the procedural grounds that prior resolution attempts (eg at AN/ANI) had not been made (and that feared outing reasons for going to ArbCom first were unfounded). It wasn't a "Fae did nothing wrong" result, it was simply "not within ArbCom scope yet". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Tban Fae may well have acted according to the project's best interests—in their own lights—but it is, unfortunately, not uncommon for editors to believe that doing what's right for the 'pedia excuses behaviour which has previously led to a topic ban. It does not. ——SerialNumber54129 15:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is horribly bad-faith retaliation for the act of bringing to the community's attention a bigoted, unacceptable Signpost "article" attacking trans and non-binary people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that when one has been indeffed then later topic-banned by ArbCom from "sexuality, broadly construed" (including gender-related activism) from 2012 to 2017 (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ), for incivility and aspersion-casting, as well as canvassing and forum-shopp[ing], it is unwise to be seen to continue such behaviours, regardless of the cause. In other words, Fae did not have to be the one to make the case; there will always be someone else. And in this particular case, it indicates a—lapse?—in judgement not to have foreseen that one's recent Tban, etc., might be brought up. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Person reports clearly-unacceptable transphobic bullshittery to Wikipedia community; person who co-wrote said transphobic bullshittery demands that they be banned for having the temerity to report it." You realize what this looks like, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I realise that WP:BANEXEMPT is still a redlink; WP:SOFIXIT. ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I was well aware that those that Fæ canvassed for backup in that discussion would say this was a "vengeance" ANI, but that doesn't obviate the need to diff the behavior. If it's not dealt with this time, then it will be if it happens again, which is likely since it's a years-long pattern. I openly agree with the blanking of the Signpost page, and the userspace page appears to be in little danger, so nothing provides your imaginary ulterior motive for me. It's simply not okay to spend days attacking someone as a transphobe on half a dozen pages and to canvass to get your way in a content dispute. It doesn't matter what the topic is, or who is involved, or how popular you are with a particular subset of editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. I can't improve on the way NorthBySouthBaranof put it just above. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose ban. The Signpost humor article is essentially meaningless drivel. Sorry, SMcCandlish, but you should rein it in. It isn't quite ready for prime time. The Signpost humor article is not offensive in the service of the making of a wider point about language impositions by smaller segments of our society on larger segments of our society. The Signpost humor article lacks an intellectual dimension. Good humor, aside from the ice cream, generally has an intellectual dimension. I could be mistaken, but don't see the intellectual dimension in the Signpost humor article. I find the Signpost humor article saddening and not at all entertaining or thought-provoking. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. per everyone above (mainly NorthBySouthBaranof), Maybe Fae shouldn't of gone to Meta/Mailing list but either way this section is nothing more than retaliatory behaviour, There's only one person in this section that deserves TBANning and it's certainly not Fae. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Seems to be an attempt to have a chilling effect on Fae's good faith effort to point out the unacceptable Signpost article. Please close this and let's focus on the real issue here – which is not Fae! Lourdes 16:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose - someone has to call out the bigoted bullshit masquerading as "humour" on Wikipedia, and frankly I told several editors offline about the offensive essay too, and about all the editors I had previously held in very high regard lining up to defend it, because it's embarassing to advocate for this project when these things happen and in my opinion people should know about it. Last week we blocked an editor for calling out blatant racists, this week we're seriously discussing banning an editor for calling out blatant transphobia. What are we saying about what we really want Wikipedia to be, anyway? Which marginalized group shall we alienate next week? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What you've said is so inaccurate that it's hard to take seriously. The editor last week was initially blocked for gross incivility (using violent sexual imagery), followed by something that required oversight. This week we're talking about banning an editor who was previously banned for the exact type of behavior they're exhibiting now. All of this sky is falling hyperbole is not helpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK there was no clear evidence that the editor they used it against was racist. They were weirdly familiar with policy and certain areas and norms of wikipedia for someone so new, so were probably a sock of some sort, but the stuff that caught the communities attention seemed to be some dumb suggestions on Dinesh D'Souza, and while their suggestions were dumb, I don't see how they could in any way be called racist. I had a quick look at their contrib just to see if there was anything I missed, but I'm seeing no signs of racist behaviour Special:Contributions/Luciusfoxx unless you're saying all MAGA Trump supporters are racist [148], but as much as I despise Trump and the MAGA movement, much of which is racist, I find it a step too far to say that any supporters of such are racist. I mean even if you want to get into semantics of whether supporting something clearly racist is racist, at the very least, this isn't the sort of unconscionable behaviour that would make such violent commentary understandable. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, even if Luciousfoxx was a blatant racist, many of us never saw the evidence. (Frankly I didn't even see the Trump/MAGA stuff until now.) AFAIK the reason they were blocked was for socking suspicions, not blatant racism. I didn't pay much attention to the discussion afterwards, e.g. I only discovered a day or two ago that MJP ended up indef blocked for other stuff, and never bothered to understand what the second block was about except, and checking now I'm fairly sure I'm right, it seems to fit even less into the description so I assume it's the first block we're talking about. But in the parts of the discussion I did see, I never saw any of racism evidence presented. Instead people seemed to be saying there was baiting, except much of the baiting seem to involve the ANI and discussions and editors that only got involved after the disgusting violent commentary was made so as I said, in the absence of backwards time travel were not justification. (Frankly the other editor people were accusing of baiting did have some very questionable behaviour racism related in their history from the little that I saw, but again it seems a real stretch to say Luciousfoxx was a blatant racist for involving themselves with that other editor especially since we have no way of knowing how much Luciousfoxx actually knew about the other editor. I would actually have a more sympathy to MJP's position if they had used that violent commentary against this other editor, but that wasn't what happened. Ironically of course this other editor is AFAIK still in good standing, but Luciousfoxx obviously isn't. And to be clear, I'm not saying Luciousfoxx shouldn't have been blocked.) Note as I said before, ultimately, whatever other editors MJP has to deal with, and whatever else is going wrong in wikipedia, for plenty of us this doesn't excuse saying what was said for that particular editor. I have seen the sanitised version of what lead to the indef, and I have no idea if there is some more proven back story as to who Luciousfoxx is a proven sock of only known to certain editors, but if there is then remember that because us plebs don't know about it, and were never even told it existed, we could only go by what we actually saw. (And what I saw was we didn't even know who Luciousfoxx was a sock of. One common theory was someone who has been hounding MJP for ages, and if true then that's absolutely disgusting and frankly I don't really care about that language any more. Except that what I read was people were fairly unsure of this theory, and it wasn't even clear to me that it even occurred to MJP when they used that language, so again, if there was any of this going on us plebs weren't considering something we weren't properly aware of.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. This may seem fairly off-topic, but as someone who still strongly supports the block based on what I saw, while I fully respect people disagree on whether the language used (or anything else) especially since it was directed at an apparent sock, was justification for the block, I do find the comment on the block fairly "alienating" and dismissive of all that went on around the block for those of us who did or do support it. Even more so since I absolutely abhor racism or for that matter transphobia. So I do feel it's justified as a response. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Luciusfoxx was ostensibly a Trump supporter, therefore must be a racist. Isn't that how it works? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you can't see revdeleted edits on MjolnirPants' talk page, and some other material is oversighted so most of the rest of us can't see it (and I am not an oversighter), but suffice it to say that comments were left after-the-fact which leave no doubt that MPants was the victim of a targeted harassment campaign with a racist agenda. Luciusfoxx admitted that was the whole point of them being on Wikipedia in the first place. In retrospect it was plainly obvious and MPants (and others) tried to get that across, but we were all too busy clutching our pearls because - my stars! he done did a curse! - that we sat around picking our asses while a productive editor was driven off the site by one part racist assholes and one part complicit admins (myself included, again in retrospect). And other valued editors have essentially retired in the wake of that incident, because of ignorant (and by that I mean genuinely unaware) editors defending the series of blocks against MPants, in the name of civility. Everyone can be forgiven, seriously, for not being aware of the whole story behind that incident (and there is more behind oversight which I am no party to), but if you think that Wikipedia is not constantly under attack from editors with a racist agenda, you should get your head out of your ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Fæ's opinion about an essay has nothing to do with Fæ's canvassing and incivility in furtherance of that opinion. The several comments above simply are not responsive to the ANI report but are WP:ILIKEIT about Fæ's personality and socio-politics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So be it. Your essay is bad and you should feel bad. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban While NBNS is absolutely correct in that Fae should have the ability to alert the community to an essay in a WP voice that can be read to be very bigoted (and which I fully agree is one likely reading), they have no right to accuse anyone that supported the essay to be bigoted, per Guy/SmC's diffs. Whether the essay was meant to be insulting or humorous is a separate question, but one cannot go throwing accusations like those of Fae on other editors; given past blocks and warnings, this is crossing the line. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

At no point have I called anyone a bigot or a transphobe. I have attempted to be extremely careful to keep on pointing out the difference between the essay and the author at each stage for our readers, and I do not think I have made a mistake on this. I am happy to apologise if at some point I typed something out that appeared ambiguous, if something reads that way it was a mistake, and would clearly be a serious mistake. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Every other post of yours about this has had a "transphobic" accusation in it. It is not possible for an article/essay to have a phobia, because it has no brain. It's just unadulterated ad hominem against the author. You cannot system-game your way out of sanctions by tweaking sanctionable personal attacks to seem to be about content when they are and only can be about the person. This has already been explained to you, so you are just playing WP:IDHT games again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this is incorrect and I certainly Do Hear You. The essay has been objected to by many, many Wikipedians as being "transphobic", they are objecting to the way the essay reads and the words and language put it it. Clearly an author can write humour pieces which poke fun at minority groups, this does not make the author a racist, or whatever minority group they are writing about, even if what they have written will be read that way.

It is impossible to object to say, racist jokes, without explaining what the problem is and actually saying the problem is that the jokes are racist or use racist language but that does not presume that the author is a racist.

As I have written several times now, at no point have I called you a transphobe or any equivalent term. The essay was problematic for the reason already stated and the MfD discussion with opinions from highly respected Wikipedia contributors, including at least one Arbcom member, spells this out to both of us extremely clearly. --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The diffs given by Guy, while not explicitly accusations of bigotry against SMC, are basically saying "SMC supports this essay I believe is very bigoted, therefore SMC must be bigoted and should be stripped of WMF privileges". If it was 100% clear the essay in question was bigoted by all, and SMC still supported it, you probably would have a case. But while I agree with the stance the essay was inappropriate, I also can read the humor it implied, and thus taking someone supporting the essay which has different viewpoints as to try to get them stripped of WMF privileges is nowhere close to appropriate. --Masem (t) 18:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is getting beyond ridiculous. Someone publishes an essay that is viewed as offensive by many editors and are we surprised when that boils over into allegations and counter allegations? Ideally, like I said on the MfD, the original essay posters would have been wise to just ask for its deletion when they saw the objections (you do know that you can still do that) but wisdom is in short supply these days, unfortunately not just on Wikipedia. If you do something boldly offensive and then double down on it, you should also learn to live with the flak that you get and not go crying for help. --regentspark &lt;small&gt;(comment)&lt;/small&gt; 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've already openly stated I support the blanking of the Signpost page. I have no more pull than that; the Signpost editors are not posting here, so the "you" in "you can still do that" are not present. This ANI is, and only is, about canvassing and uncivil personal aspersions by Fæ. Even if we pretend the latter are okay in this context, a) it is not okay for Fæ in particular to do it in this topic area, as a breach of the conditions of their topic ban being lifted; and b) the canvassing is not excusable (doubly for Fæ for exactly the same reason). WP simply does not permit T'ban-related breaches no matter how right the editor feels they are or how many friends agree with their viewpoint. Same goes for canvassing even in the absence of ArbCom having editor-specific conditions about it. Cf. numerous people T'banned from FRINGE and MEDRS topics not for being wrong but for aggressively violating policies, after warnings and second chances, in furtherance of being right.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussions examine the actions of all involved editors. It's not limited to Fæ's. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban This has gotten incredibly ridiculous. In my opinion, Fae is right about the essay published in the signpost, but that does not justify the extremes they have taken this too. There are now several threads about this, including here on enwiki, on meta, and on the wikimedia listserv. Fae's mission here is not to ensure that people be respectful to transgender people, but to stir up as much drama as possible. There is no justification for the lengths they have gone to and the amount of drama they have caused across multiple projects. Natureium (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I regret sending the email to Wikimedia-l, that was stupid, lesson learned. It was a single email intended as a notification, there have been no replies to it. Were I to do this again, I would suggest that someone else send out a summary, possibly once the MfD was closed or well underway. It has been called canvassing here, but according to the lengthy discussion we had as a community about off-wiki emails on WT:Canvassing, this would not be a breach of guidelines.

The discussion on meta is a single discussion about the Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, which does not apply to Wikipedia, so should not be discussed here. Based on feedback I have moved that to an email procedure. Again I regret not following the confidential email procedure in the first instance, though this would not have given the author an opportunity to discuss the matter with me directly.

Other discussions on Wikipedia are the MfD and the comments page. I created the MfD but nothing else. The notice at the LGBT Wikiproject was a notice, there is no discussion there. There is a thread on a more general Signpost talk page, not specifically about the problematic essay under deletion, but it is short and is defunct.

I am unaware, I think, of any other discussions besides those two understandably active ones on Wikipedia, and of course this one on ANI, which I would very much prefer to never have been created. I have not gone out of my way to create multiple discussion threats, clearly if I did that would be deliberate disruption. Until this ANI thread, nobody had written about the case on my user talk page. --Fæ (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to Oppose any topic ban here. While I do think there are some reactions from Fae that went over the top, I think there are very definitely mitigating circumstances which should be taken into account. A topic ban (or sanctions on anyone involved) would only make a bad situation worse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  ArbCom will disagree; being right isn't grounds for violating T-ban related restrictions, nor canvassing (especially when doing the latter is also a violation of the specific terms of the T-ban being lifted).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Whether ArbCom might agree or disagree is entirely up to them, and it's not for you or I to decide. But until it's brought before them and still remains in the community domain, that's of no relevance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban This is retaliatory and an unnecessary escalation of an already unfortunate situation. Enacting this ban would be damaging to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban. The following two calls for firing: As part of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, Barbara (WVS) has been granted special status at the University of Pittsburgh, and in this capacity is seen to represent Wikimedia and Wikipedia, even if not in a paid capacity. Given their coauthorship of the defamatory essay, I do not see how it would be ethical for Barbara (WVS) to retain any recognition or relationship, and ask that a representative of Wiki Education provide an official response together with SMcCandlish is named as a WMF Tech Ambassador, and I have requested on Meta that this formal recognition is immediately removed by the WMF, as their views are directly antithetical to the WMF supported Technical Spaces Code of Conduct, as published by Fae, are nothing but calls to a witch hunt. This is a clear attempt to defame two persons, clearly directed against them as human beings and not about what was or was not intended to be read in the criticized article. Such a bigoted attempt to belittle people is disgusting, and protective measures are to be taken to be sure that such an horrifying pattern of behavior will no more occur again. Never ever. Pldx1 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already stated I regret sending the email. It was stupid. I apologize. However writing a notification email to Wikimedia-l is not of itself canvassing, though the email should have been acceptable if limited to a very strictly neutral notification, or not sent at all. By stating that the authors have views directly antithetical to the WMF CoC, this is correct and a matter of fact, as the publication of the "humour" pronouns essay, was disruptive and has been read by many, probably the majority of Wikipedians, as offensive and defamatory for genderqueer people. To publish and promote an essay which does this, regardless of it an aim to be humorous, or putting humour in the title, it is directly against the explicit requirements of the Code of Conduct with regard to treating gender minorities with respect. As also stated above, this is a matter for that committee to review. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can demonstrate that the essay was deliberately offensive and defamatory for genderqueer people, you can not validly assert as a matter of fact that the authors have views directly antithetical to the WMF CoC. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this is wooly thinking on my part about what exactly the words mean. That was a stupid thing to say. If I could retract it I would. I should have been expressed purely on the essay and its impact with zero possible implications about the authors at all, as if it were a statement to go to court. Frankly, from this point on, this is such a bloody minefield, I have no intention of sending a notification about Wikipedia to Wikimedia-l again, even if the policy is made clearer. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: For starters, this conduct does not even violate the policy in question, see WP:CANVAS: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at...[t]he talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." Each of the diffs McCandlish supplies is at such a discussion space where a notice on this particular MfD would be appropriate and permitted. Now, do I think Fae's approach here was particularly well advised or helpful to the situation? No, I do not. In particular, the Meta posting is rather immflamatory and ill-advised. But there's been no explicit violation of the cited policy. Now clearly there's a history here of combativeness in this area significantly enough that the community had to intervene. Knowing nothing of that history, I can't rule out the question that action will be warranted here eventually. But insofar as there has been no brightline violation of policy, this is not the time or place for that. Fae was bringing a legitimate complaint about polemic/WP:NOT content to the wider community's attention, within the rules permitted, so proposing a sanction here is only muddying the waters of an already tense and complicated situation. I'd suggest this section be closed sooner rather than later under a WP:SNOW rationale and in the sake of preventing further sprawl in this discussion. We have enough to puzzle out here as is. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. This isn't going to make a bad situation any better. GAB^gab 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment/weak oppose-I am inclined to say per Nat but the mitigating circumstances are indeed a factor. But, I do agree that as much as the piece was poorly written and ill-thought; Fae is dragging this to the extremes and needlessly. @Fæ:, now that there are multiple longstanding editors looking at the Signpost case and the entire locus, can you just stay out of this? ∯WBG^converse 17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that the discussion by now has enough eyes on it that it would probably benefit from both SMcCandlish and Fæ practising abstinence from it from now on, lest it give rise tio suggestions of WP:BLUDGEONING; yes, I am referring to the habit of replying to every single opposition comment, whatever "side" you're on! ——SerialNumber54129 18:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Yes please and thank you. The MfD would benefit I think, genuinely. Note that I have already stated this above, but it's clearly a very long thread now. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Amen. -sche (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The ban reinstatement already has more support than I expected, given the mood, so its actual intent – to provide a diff pile for a later, calmer case if one is needed, or (much better) to cause cessation of the problem because Fæ will see the writing on the wall – is likely to work out fine, one way or the other. Those !voting to essentially pretend policy doesn't exist for anyone they agree with already know they're in the wrong and are doing it anyway, so pointing it out again won't change that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I like GeneralizationsAreBad's generalization. :-) Hard though it may be for many of us to appreciate, trans* and many gay people have a well-founded fear of persecution and are easily hurt by "jokes" like this, and WMF policy is rightly explicit about safe spaces. No sanction for a whistle-blower who did what he believed he must do. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. These aren't WP:CANVASS; raising topics of potential concern and attracting attention to disputes so they can be resolved by a broad audience are what most of these discussion boards and projects are for. The post to the LGBT project could have been more cautiously-worded but is (comparatively) neutral and brief; the complaints over the WMF Tech Ambassador position are not, but those seem like the correct venues to raise such issues, and it would be silly to say that no such complaints can be raised while an MFD is in progress. (The Tech Ambassador role itself, of course, is not something determined by consensus and therefore cannot be canvassed.) The MFD discussion perhaps shouldn't have been linked in the complaint sent to Wikimedia-l, but that seems comparatively minor given that it's just a footnote in a message sent to a broad, neutral venue, with nothing that would really drive people to it. These don't remotely rise to the level that would require a topic ban. Regarding the question of whether going after the WMF Tech Ambassador position was going too far - maybe, but I definitely don't think it's sanctionable to send in such a complaint. Regarding the WP:CIVIL concerns, I don't think it's uncivil to indicate that you believe someone's statements or actions are transphobic as long as that position is at least not completely unreasonable, since transphobic language is itself is a civility and conduct concern. Banning people from saying so would essentially be saying "no, it's uncivil for you to call me uncivil." This doesn't mean Fæ's actions or language are ideal, but I don't think they're sanctionable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and support some form of WP:BOOMERANG against SMcCandlish. Nihlus 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• The continued WP:BLUDGEONING should, frankly, stop. The second point in that is SMcCandlish accuses Fæ in that they call SMcCandlish transphobic. However, it has yet to be shown, even when maybe a lot of people are on the edge of shifting from calling the essay transphobic to calling the author a transphobe. However, that was yet to happen. A lapse in judgment about that should be fixed, and either there should be diffs, or the accusations in "calling a transphobe" should be retracted. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban this is particularly appalling. Fæ made an accusation against SMC and called for sanctions, but after SMC attempted to rebut the charges, Fæ attempted to silence SMC by claiming that it was not a debate. Fæ, it is not okay to try to shut down an editor who is responding to charges that you made against them. Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ground hog day, every day. The things one sees when one checks in here. The first time the person behind the account "Fae" claimed he was intimidated/harassed off this website (in response to criticism of the exact type of behavior he's exhibiting here - particularly weaponized and fact-free allegations of homophobia) was in 2010. [149]Dan Murphy (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  User:Ash/Passive aggressive is especially interesting... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, From what I've seen, the incivility and the canvassing by Fae is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Speaking as someone who has made it a point to stay away from drama boards, what is happening here is far too Orwelian to overlook. I commend SMC Cavendlish for remaining civil despite the unfounded accusations of writing "transphobic polemic" and the provocations that have been directed towards him. While incivility doesn't surprise me from the general public, it does surprise me coming from some (or, at least one) of the admins in this case who have proven little else other than that they are emotionally underdeveloped and overly sensitive, both characteristics highly unfitting for an admin. Points are better made when they are level-headed, logical and free of ad-hominems, but a lot of what of what I've seen from Fae and their supporters are appeals to emotion. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Ivanvector and Nihlus.Praxidicae (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and Boomerang SMcCandlish - NorthBySouthBaranof puts it best. Fæ's work to bring this to the attention of the community and WMF is entirely appropriate. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to notify WMF of the conduct of their "ambassador". I see no sign of incivility or aspersion-casting; all of their comments seem to be well-supported by the facts. If their topic ban has been rescinded, there is no reason to expect them to avoid this topic. On the other hand, I see nothing but bullying from SMcCandlish on the various related talk pages. If Fæ is on a mission, it is a mission that I fully support. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solution to this dumpster fire

This taking up more and more space on multiple pages, and is unlikely to arrive at a solution that doesn't piss off a bunch of people. Therefore I propose:

• Refer this to Arbcom, with the message that the consensus on ANI is that this case would benefit greatly by the structure of an Arbcom case.
• An experienced and uninvolved administrator who is especially cool headed and who has a thick skin should write up the Arbcom request.
• As far as possible, the Arbcom request should be neutrally worded as opposed to advocating for or against sanctions. There will be plenty of that in the evidence phase.
• If Arbcom accepts the case, I propose that all; discussions on all English Wikipedia pages be closed and collapsed, and that we advise the other places where this is being discussed about this, noting that they may (or may not) want to do the same.

If needed, I can make this into an RfC, but I personally think we can get the consensus of the community on this proposal with a more informal discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think it’s inevitable. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while I personally support a tban on Fæ, it seems apparent that the community-at-large does not support such an outcome. Nor have there been clear indications of clear community support for sanctions against SMC or Barbara. You are correct that we are unlikely to find an ideal solution here, but I don't expect that ArbCom will be able to find such a solution either. I suspect we've all seen ArbCom decisions that left everyone involved unhappy, and given the explosive nature of this situation, I don't think an ArbCom case is worth the risk. At this point, it is probably best to let this blow over. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - zero confidence that Arbcom is any more capable of realizing this situation for what it is, because of vague hand-waves to civility. Support in spirit, but it's only going to lead to something bad for the project and which nobody is going to like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  My thinking is not that Arbcom has any special abilities that ANI lacks, but what Arbcom does have is structure. Each person gets their own evidence section, with strict word limits, and clerks to enforce those limits. It is my hope that this structure will get us away from what we hace now, which is a discussion that keeps growing without any limit, and which keeps spilling into more and more pages and even to other projects. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose based on general opposition to the idea of RFCs to send things to ArbCom. I have no opposition to someone actually trying to start an Arbcom case over this (it is, in fact, the sort of thing we keep them around for), but no consensus is necessary for that. I disagree with the rest of this proposal because even with a neutrally-worded request, the nature of this step pressures ArbCom to accept and do some vaguely-defined 'something'. If someone send does send them a case, they should decide whether to accept and what to do themselves based on the merits rather than because the community !voted for it. --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, this isn't an WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I mean, we have people weighing in on a formal-ish proposal, and it's asking the community for consensus, so the effect is the same. My point is, no consensus is needed to present something to ArbCom, and I think it's a mistake to ask ANI for that since it inevitably prejudges the resulting case request, no matter how neutrally-worded it is. --Aquillion (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd settle for a warning that additional such behavior in the future likely will lead to either a reinstatement of the TBan via ANI, and if that fails a likely ArbCom case, because the evidence over multiple venues and multiple cases is adding up over time. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Have previous warnings caused the behavior to stop? Did removing the previous topic ban and replacing it with a warning have the desired effect? Why would this time be any different? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Note, Arbcom does not settle content disputes. It makes rulings on editor behavior. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The same is true of ANI. Your point being? Both the current ANI case and my proposed Arbcom case are about Fæ's behavior, not about any content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This may go on for months. ArbCom cases take too long, but the flip side to that is that ArbCom is the right venue for things that will take too long. Guy Macon is right that ArbCom cases have structure, which ANI does not. There are multiple conduct issues: whether Barbara violated a topic-ban; whether Fae violated a warning; et cetera. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon makes a very good point. Arbcom pretty much always looks at everyone involved. For example, nowhere in this ANI case has anyone called for sanctions against me, but if Arbcom takes the case anyone is free to present evidence of any wrongdoing by me, and if the evidence is compelling, I will, after 12 years of editing, receive my very first sanction. Another possible result is a finding that Fæ did nothing wrong, which means that I and everyone else would have to stop saying that they did. That's the real advantage of Arbcom; it settles the user conduct issue and allowes everyone to move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Content Dispute on Magic Kingdom Parade

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

---

Good evening everyone,

Since late last year, a user by the name of User:The Banner was removing information relevant to the subject of the article, besides reverting hoax edits made by a multi-IP vandal from Canada. These parades, despite being unsourced, are relevant information to WDW history. He also claims that an "independent source" is required, though in WP:CITE I can find nothing noting this. In addition, I have filed a content dispute resolution request, and was turned down, and judging by this user's past block log it looks like he has a long history of getting himself into trouble. If someone could look into this matter and resolve it, that would be great! --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So far, there are zero (nil, 0) independent sources. There was no serious attempt for discussion from the side of IanDBeacon, as can be seen here. In the present state it is - in my opinion - again plain advertising. The Banner talk 23:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner: I doubt that this was advertising. Besides, those parades were listed without sources before. --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Miniapolis 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good evening. First, ANI doesn't adjudicate content disputes; second, all WP content must be verifiable—not necessarily verified, but verifiable. I see no problem with TB's edits, and don't give a rat's ass about "WDW history". This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. All the best, Miniapolis 00:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Concur that ANI doesn't resolve content disputes. @IanDBeacon:, you should already be aware that your Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard request was turned down because you had not engaged in discussion about this subject on the talk page.[150] To date, you've made one comment on the talk page of the article, and it wasn't about removing parades. An alternative would have been to engage The Banner on his talk page. That hasn't happened either. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party is an early step in the dispute resolution process, one that hasn't been taken. Please take it. You're still at the same place you were when your DRN request was denied nearly 2 months ago. With regards to The Banner's block log, I think it's bad form to be bringing up a block log to try to tilt the conversation in your favor, especially when the last block was 3.5 years ago. Whatever The Banner's faults were, they are not faults now judging by the last 3.5 years. For what its worth in regards to the content, I too would remove it. It's trivial information that remains uncited to any reliable source. The source used appears to be a fan site. If you can find independent, reliable, secondary sources to support any of these parades, then discuss them on the talk page of the article and move forward. I know you have your heart in this, so let's try to find those sources, ok? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Got it, thanks. IanDBeacon (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Unexplained edit. Can someone please CU this?

This edit [151] was brought to my attention. The problem is that I didn't make it. Nor was I monitoring any discussion on ANI. I have changed my password. There is a chance that somehow I accidentally pushed the revert button but I don't see how that's possible. I'd appreciate it if a CU could ascertain if the IP for that edit is different than the rest from me today. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC) I checked my browser history. It shows that at the exact time of that edit I was editing the Green Book article using Visual Editor. I think this is a Visual Editor glitch, folks. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC) (Not exactly. See chronology below.) Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Coretheapple: There are no edits from any IP address that indicate you have lost control of your account. Katie^talk 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Katie. I agree. As noted above, my browser history shows that at 2338 I was beginning an edit of the Green Book article using Visual Editor! This appears to be a weird Visual Editor issue. I was absolutely not even reading ANI at any time today, and my browser history reflects that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC) See chronolgy below. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It may be more mysterious than I indicate above. I had flubbed the timeline a bit in my description above. Here is what my browser history shows:

6:35 pm EST I thanked an editor for an edit on Vic Morrow.

6:37 pm EST (23:37 GMT) I access Salon,com

6:38 pm EST that dang rollback!

6:40 pm EST I access Green Book (film)

At that point I entered Visual Editor, though that doesn't specifically say so on my edit history

6:48 pm EST I enter my extensive edit to Green Book via Visual Editor.

The edit to ANI was at 6:38 pm EST and my browser history shows no activity at that specific time. I haven't even been reading this page today. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just putting the above here for the record, in case this problem recurs with myself or someone else. I am not sure if it is specifically a Visual Editor problem but I do know it was definitely not something I did myself, not an accidental revert. Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Coretheapple, might you have checked your watchlist around that time, and accidentally hit rollback at an entry you weren't looking at? I've done that myself. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It's possible to do that even without making a mistake. On several occasions I have updated my watchlist screen and attempted to click things on my watchlist, only to find that my screen has not yet refreshed and I have actually accidentally clicked on what shows on the screen after the refresh finishes. I have a very large watchlist, which likely contributes to the problem. Meters (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Even worse, it's not a one or the other situation. Refreshing the page and immediately clicking on a link gives the desired result, but wait too long and the disconnect between the page that is displayed and the page that is active shows up. Meters (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: But if you accidentally clicked or activated rollback you would get an "Action Complete" message. Try it. That didn't happen for me, which is why I find this so disconcerting. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I don't think it was an accidental rollback from the watchlist. I just experimented by clicking the rollback button for my own talk page, and I got an immediate "Action Complete" screen. That didn't happen yesterday, which was why I was so shocked when I got the note on my talk page advising me of the rollback at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: You may not necessarily see the "action complete" screen for many reasons: you may have exited the window/tab or refreshed the page immediately after clicking the rollback link. In both cases, the rollback action would still be completed but "action complete" not served since you cancelled the token instance. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. But I still have trouble finding a scenario in which I could have accidentally hit rollback. Anyway, I am glad that CU showed no compromising of my account, and then was my main worry at the outset. I appreciate the input from people on possible scenarios. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Coretheapple, the last time I recall doing this, I realized that the page on which I had inadvertently used rollback was next on my watchlist to a page I was interested in. If someone leaves a long edit summary, or has edited a section with a long heading, that can cause the rollback link to be placed directly above the link to the page below (depending on the width of the browser window). It's easy in that situation to click on rollback instead of the page you want to see. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

True, but then you get the "Action Completed" screen. Now I did thank somebody for a Vic Morrow edit at about that time, but I did so not from the watchlist but from the diff. Note too that the rollback took place while I was reading a Salon article for use as a reference. (I added the time of the rollback to the chronology above). Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA on the loose who keeps evading blocks and creating usernames similar to Gay Nishikori

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

---

I've noticed this username, The fairy Nishikori, which reminded me about a noted LTA (here're the last known socks, Nishikori a fairy and Nishikori the fairy) who's been vandalising short time ago the page about Kei Nishikori, a Japanese tennis player, and disrupting phonetic transcriptions about tennis players and sportsmen in general; here's a partial list of the large number of blocked socks he's been creating:

1. Nishikori Gay
2. Gay Nishikori
3. GAY Nishikori GAY
4. The GAY Nishikori
5. Nishikori the GAY
6. Nishikori a GAY
7. Nishikori pure GAY
8. Nishikori th' GAY
9. Nishikori, a real GAY

Because of the nature of the edits and of his behaviour, I'm quite sure he's realted other socks, such as Trivial Wikipedian and Miaowmiaowmew which have already been blocked but there may be others sleeping, and to Chinese IP ranges, such as 14.220.0.0/16 and 113.77.0.0/16 which have been used for the same kind of vandalisms and disruptions, so in my humble opinion it's manifest that this is the umpteenth case of block evasion by this Long-Term Abuser, it's worth investigating his probable last sock and eventually block it, revert its edits and check whether there're others hidden or not Boris Guitars (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• File a report at WP:SPI. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• I edit conflicted with Bbb23 closing this, but  No sleepers immediately visible. No comment on the IP addresses. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Onetwothreeip's constant personal insults and lack of civility and bad faith accusations have to stop. Please.

I have had as much of Onetwothreeip's constant insults, lack of civility, accusations of being a liar, discussion away from content, purposely not responding to direct questions regarding content, bad faith accusations and so forth and I just want it to stop please. I this is a fair request. Onetwothreeip is carrying on old grudges and won't drop the stick. However it is the constant focus on me personally with their demeaning and derogatory comments that I ask to stop. I realise I've bitten back in the past, months ago, but this editor just won't stop their incivility. I don't have any other choice but to ask for help here to try and stop their lack of civility toward me. Thank you. The most recent has been a Talk:The Australian under the heading Infobox political alignment. [152] [153] Merphee (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox disputes are under discretionary sanctions. I notified several people who were active in the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle and RM closures

I'd like to ask for some help in resolving a disagreement with User:Born2cycle. It's something I've tried to work through one-on-one on their talk page, but unsuccessfully. (Others have seemingly done the same recently with a similar result.) Put simply, I'm concerned about B2C performing non-admin closures (NACs) of requested moves for the reasons below, and have asked that he please refrain from them in the interests of avoiding disputes.

Per our instructions, it's important to avoid even the appearance of partiality in closures, and to err on the side of caution in who performs them — and I think history and evidence suggests that Born2cycle is not suited to this task. The reasons can be found in previous threads here at ANI (e.g.) and elsewhere, but in brief: Born2cycle has a lengthy history of disruptive behavior overwhelmingly related to RMs and title policy, which has led to a number of disputes and sanctions. From March to June of last year he was blocked for tendentiousness, refusal to drop the stick, and failure to consider views contrary to his own in a dispute over an RM and related title policies. Per the ANI originator: "He has consistent[ly] shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him." For any editor with this kind of history regarding RMs and title policy to then start ruling on RMs is I think a cause for concern.

My attempt to resolve this with B2C led only to claims that I was harassing him for personal reasons, that his sanctioned behavior was unrelated to RMs, and that he would not agree to refrain from more NACs. To be clear, I believe that B2C operates for what he believes to be the betterment of the project, and regardless of whether I disagree with his interpretations (I often do), I see nothing wrong with him voicing his opinions or advocating for his views so long as he does so without disruption. My concern is just that it's problematic and disruptive for any editor with this history to be undertaking RM NACs, and problematic that he refuses to consider editors' concerns about it. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, so thanks for any thoughts/input/guidance. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify that this request is not about questioning or arguing the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs; it's simply about whether Born2cycle should be closing any move requests. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this about an inciting incident significantly different than the above thread on this page? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The timing is certainly—interesting. ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What 'inciting incident', I think it is said at the outset it concerns no particular issue. I can go into the follow up to the above thread, how the user continued to champion their own behaviour and attempt to repeat the action that saw the above thread opened. Not interesting, five-four-one-two-nine-uh, this thread is as inevitable as the last. cygnis insignis 14:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: out of curiosity, wot does the -uh mean? ——SerialNumber54129 14:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

that you are listening-uh, to the band that other bands must be judged by …uh? I truly don't know, or what the connection actually, I like mysteries, SN54129 cygnis insignis 15:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely correct, cygnis insignis :) always different, always the same! ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

wow, exactly … "very clev-uh" I was paraphrasing John Peel. Please don't explain what the name means tho', the song is perfect without context. cygnis insignis 15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Recent diffs or boomerang. Let's see recent diffs of bad closures or other disruptive activity. If recent diffs of wrongdoing cannot be provided, then the filer should withdraw or a boomerang sanction should be applied to discourage editors from casting aspersions or making ANI filings without evidence. Leviv ich 14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#Born2cycle_yet_again cygnis insignis 15:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [fix link after that prompted manual archiving] cygnis insignis 18:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  The consensus at the last two ANIs was that moving on to other topics would be more productive.

  In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you.
  — WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

  Leviv ich 16:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich: Please see my addendum above. ╠╣uw [talk] 15:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Huwmanbeing: You're saying there is a chronic problem but you don't want to talk about any individual instance of the problem? That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to argue the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs, then please provide recent diffs of the "disruption" of which you accuse this editor. You're basically proposing a TBAN from RMs. This was proposed at ANI last month and rejected by community. I don't think it's proper for you to take up the community's time by raising the subject again unless you have diffs showing that there is a problem since the last time this suggestion was rejected. If you want to TBAN someone from something, you should provide evidence of a problem. BTW I heard WP used to have this thing called WP:RfC/U but did away with it years ago. Leviv ich 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  A very censorious attitude, you are fickle on who gets to say what. cygnis insignis 17:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  How is asking for evidence censorious? Nobody is stopping you or anyone else doing that, so the second half of your comment doesn't make sense either. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  New user is crying boomerang! and placing demands for particular incidents, to pick apart in a faux wikilawyering analysis and announce 'they are done here!', yet preaches "defending to the death" the imagined right of 'anyone' to say and do as please—in this case for over a decade—and all others must plead their case to undo their actions. I am, unashamedly and openly, censorious, Levivich is using noisy means to disrupt, distract, turn tables, and muddy discussion that is in effect censorious. As far they are concerned the matter was resolved by them, and seem annoyed that was not the end of it, me too. B2C continues to harp on and reopen the very discussion that saw many users try and fail to find a middle ground: between doing nothing until the next time or blocking. I asked B2C to own it, stop moving and closing, rather than being made to walk around in a hair shirt for things he simply cannot see. cygnis insignis 18:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Will no one rid me of this turbulent newbie? My work here is done. Leviv ich 18:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  … and it "hasn't been particularly time consuming or difficult"? cygnis insignis 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why not, instead of providing us with such evidence-free ranting, just link to a couple of move discussions that this editor has closed incorrectly? Then we could all base our opinions on the facts. I have no idea who is "right", if anyone, in this matter because nobody has provided any evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Because I have already done that. Pointing out disruption is not a rant, and I am not the one playing sides or opening posts here or voting on solutions or interjecting with nitpicks and demands for an personal executive summary of information that is readily available and linked on an exceptionally well known contributor. cygnis insignis 20:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich: Again, unlike others I'm not addressing any specific RMs; the concern I'm sharing is about NACs being performed by an editor with perennial problems directly related to RMs and title policy discussions — which per the evidence is not AFAIK in question. As I said, I'm just looking for guidance on how to proceed, given that I tried to resolve my concerns directly with B2C and was unsuccessful. If the consensus is simply to close, I'll certainly abide by that. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• The way I see this, you went to b2c's talk page with some rather patronizing suggestions that are patently not your remit and didn't get much traction. What exactly did you expect? That b2c would say "Wow, you're right. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks a lot!"? Clearly, you've been reading Bishonen's Optimist's guide to Wikipedia. I suggest that someone close this before boomerangs begin to fly. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

There may be some misunderstanding about what I'm asking for guidance on here — that's my fault and I'll try to clarify. I wasn't involved in the previous ANI regarding B2C but had understood that it concerned the rightness/wrongness of moves to certain articles such as MMR vaccine and autism. To be clear: my concern is not about that and does not relate to whether any particular move he's made is technically correct or incorrect. This is why I felt it would be acceptable to raise my own question here in order to get input on if/how to proceed (since direct talks failed). If the consensus is that this is materially the same question as before, then closure is fine and I'm happy to abide by that.

What I'm seeking input on is this:
Does an editor who's demonstrated repeated difficulty accepting the validity of others' views specifically in RMs and title policy discussions create a problem when he then begins NAC'ing RMs? Evidence cited in the block discussion as linked, and many of the previous ANIs as also cited, put B2C in this category, so put simply: are NACs under such circumstances problematic? Is B2C doing so problematic?

I'm not calling for a specific action to be taken either over the NACs or B2C's unwillingness to consider refraining despite requests from editors to do so. I'm just uncertain if/how to proceed. (And again, if consensus is that there's no need to proceed at all, that's fine.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in February. I don't see a problem in January. Are we going to do this again in a month? Leviv ich 20:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, probably more like six months based on multi-year averages.[154]

Once again: the fact that B2C is performing closures is not in question. The question is whether it's appropriate for him to perform them given his lengthy history of sanctioned and disputed behavior in RMs and title discussions. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The newest ANI report on that list is from 2017. Leviv ich 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The compiler stopped after three pages but you can peruse further or read other B2C ANIs in archives here, here, etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry at Carlos Marighella article

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

---

There seems to be an edit war brewing at the Carlos Marighella article, inserting the contentious label WP:TERRORIST into the intro. The editors seem to be single purpose accounts. Two accounts were banned for being a sock:

• [155]
• [156]
• [157]

Not sure if these are related:

• [158]
• [159]

--60.242.159.224 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SacredGeometry333. GAB^gab 16:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Agenda-driven IP hopper

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

---

Don't know what can be done about this, but I suspect more are shortly down the pike. We have an IP hopper in Bosnia and Herzegovina who has a grievance against David J. Wineland and Southern California Earthquake Center. The filter logs are as relevant as the edits that got through. Possibly there will be more, as an edit summary on the earthqueke center talk page had a heading "Want war? You have it!" The ones on the Wineland article are BLP issues.

• IP 31.185.125.144 is currently short-term blocked for their activity.
• IP 77.238.221.246 is not blocked, but I'm sure is the same individual.
• IP 217.197.142.12 is the same individual with the same issues.

— Maile (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

All blocked and the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

 Great! — Maile (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• I rev-del'ed a bunch of it. DMacks (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• This looks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. DMacks (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Block range request for 181.161.0.0/16 - used by sock

• 181.161.78.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 181.161.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MattLongCT recommended I try ANI as no one is responding at SPI. Below is an SPI I filed for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod. I've been following this user's edits/vandalism for a while (see User:EvergreenFir/socks#Camilod). I'm asking for some sort of recognition that this range is being used by Camilod, primarily so that if I report to AIV I can point somewhere and say "sock". Otherwise, admins decline the AIV reports.

Below is what I reported it SPI:

I dream of horses suggested at WP:AIV that I bring block requests here for this IP. This is rather frustrating given that I was told a rangeblock and SPI couldn't help. However, I'm hoping I can show that a rangeblock is warranted.

I'd like to request a rangeblock for Special:Contributions/181.161.0.0/16. I requested the same back in July but it was declined because the range is /16. Evidence that Camilod is the user of this range is presented in the July filing and back in March.

Special:Contributions/181.161.0.0/16 appears to be used almost exclusively by Camilod. Of the past 100 edits (3 months worth), I see only 9 that are not animation-related. A 91% usage rate suggests minimal collateral damage.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, thank gosh. A normal AN/I request for once! I appreciate you taking my advice! :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 20:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Indef block request

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

---

For this rant which includes ["REDACTED]" (emphasis added).

− Also this: [160] EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thank you for reporting this incident. The user has been blocked. I'm blanking prior discussion because we don't vote on blocks; it's unseemly. Additionally, when somebody is a troll, it is best not to amplify their remarks by re-posting them. A report of the form "User is editing disruptively (diffs). Administrator assistance is needed..." Is the best way to handle something like this. I am sorry you had to see those remarks. They were hideous. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked even though the user self-reverted, given the nature of the edit, previous warnings on their talkpage, and prior history of gnoming edits mixed with apparent trolling. Wouldn't obect to another admin shortening the block if they feel the user is redeemable. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

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

I don't think so. The comments are so far out of bounds that they should be oversighted. I feel sorry for whatever trauma this person must have endured to twist their soul so badly. If they want to come back with a new account and edit properly, nobody is going to bother tracking them down. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're commenting on a closed thread but Jehochman I find it highly problematic that you, as an admin, are endorsing and encouraging WP:Block evasion for an account that has had a repeated and habitual problem of violating WP:NPA, including a previous block in which their talk page access was revoked, and has blatantly been trolling with few meaningful edits. I'm also confused as to your G5 deletion of the userpage. Could you elaborate? Praxidicae (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the edit; will email the OSers.

And after reviewing their past history in greater detail, its clear that the latest post/revert was just a continuation of longterm (and sometimes subtle) trolling. So I too don't see them being unblocked anytime.

@Praxidicae: J may choose to answer but really WP:BEANS applys. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory

E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Relevant discussions:

• Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Listing_every_crime_committed_by_illegal_immigrants 2019-01-24
• Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#POV_issues 2019-01-24
• Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#More_"illegal_immigrant_crime_porn"-style_content 2019-01-24
• Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#WP:OWN_issues 2019-01-24
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States_and_crime 2019-02-17
• Talk:Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States_and_crime#RFC_on_including_an_embedded_list_of_crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants_in_the_U.S. 2019-02-19
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_crimes_committed_in_the_United_States_by_illegal_aliens 2019-02-26 ← We are here

Egregious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case. Back in late January, User:E.M.Gregory tried to insert a list of crimes committed by U.S. illegal immigrants onto the page Illegal immigration to the United States, despite the academic consensus that such crime rates is lower than that of U.S. citizens. When regulars to that page reverted their addition citing POV and SYNTH issues, they won't hesitate to go against 3RR and trollishly declared the scholarly consensus as POV. A few weeks later in Feburary, EMG created the page Illegal immigration to the United States and crime with virtually the same content, although their POV list was quickly removed by other editors and the article thus survived an AfD as a notabe independent topic. This hasn't stopped them, who churned out an RfC to propose that the same list be added back. When the consensus on the RfC didn't appear to go their way, here we are, List of crimes committed in the United_States by illegal aliens was created by EMG with the same contested material. The editor has demonstrated that they're highly opinionated against both the subject and the scholarly consensus, and pages of other editors' input hasn't convinced them to cease such evasive POV-pushing behavior. On another note, this is not the first time I've seen this editor introducing POV editorializing with clear factual inaccuracies. Actions may be required for such egregious waste of other editors' time. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Note this pinging to this discussion by OP.Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies as I didn't intend to be tendentious. I have retracted striked my pings. I've added a notice to the RfC as well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this filing; I don’t think the notice was out of line. O3000 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can technically undo pings, or talk user talk posts (you can undo, but the user still gets a ping+email - twice), or reverts (got reverted today, revertedr self reverted a few moments later - still got a bell). Anyways - best to be upfront here who was alerted, which is why I noted it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant strike. At least as a mere formality. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree this is looking like a crusade to ram a list into the encyclopedia that has been judged inappropriate repeatedly and by many people. This "circling back and try it under a new name" stuff is a time sink and should stop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been concerned about this, as well (as I expressed in the list AfD). E.M.Gregory has

(a) created a string of articles about crimes committed by illegal immigrants to the US and/or alleged perpetrators, with language that seems to emphasize that connection (a POV-push we see frequently, creating a narrative that runs contrary to research);

(b) secondary, but supporting that (a) is a trend, leaving a beer for someone for creating this (an article with a lead starting "[person] is a Mexican illegal immigrant to the United States who is suspected of murdering five men in Kansas and Missouri in March 2016.");

(c) added a list of notable crimes to Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. When it was removed and consensus formed against it (or, at very least, not in support of it), he created a WP:POVFORK at List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens. The list is problematic for a number of reasons that I won't duplicate here, as they're articulated by multiple people in the AfD of that list (which I started, for disclosure, I guess). It's noteworthy that EMG is the primary contributor to half of the entries on the list (at least at the time I checked).

(d) added to that list the names of alleged perpetrators who had not yet been convicted, even after the obvious BLP issues were pointed out.

All in all, it's a disturbing trend. EMG is not the only one doing so, it should be noted, and I know that EMG does some good work in other areas, but it seems he is among the more prolific of the editors whose actions indicate interest in creating the false impression of a trend between illegal immigration and crime. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I was going to start List of crimes committed in the United States by citizens but I realized that List of crimes committed in the United States by Donald Trump and his relatives, cronies, appointees and associates alone would be longer than List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens so I'll just do that instead. EEng 00:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Woah, 2016 Kansas-Missouri murder spree has serious WP:BLPCRIME issues. We're supposed to think hard before using the name of an otherwise low-profile suspect in a case when a conviction has not been secured; yet that article is entirely about him (it's basically a bio under another title.) I don't see any indication that the suspect in that case is a public figure, so that page needs serious redactions, at least until / unless he's convicted. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe we should be watchful of tendentious editing. I'd like to give E.M.Gregory the benefit of the doubt, but this follows a pattern we see and hear everyday on the news. Politicians and their cronies using social media to flood the internet with false or misleading information. Does E.M.Gregory plan to create an article about crimes committed AGAINST undocumented immigrants by employees of the United States government? Anything and everything, real or invented, for their POV. That's exactly what this looks like to me. E.M.Gregory is pushing a point of view. We should not let Wikipedia become a tool in the hands of any country's politics. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• EMG is a solid contributor. But, should probably take a vacation from AP2 articles. Also, these articles haven’t been marked with AP2 DS warnings and should be in IMNSO (in my not so humble opinion). O3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to WP:AP2? Until you just mentioned it, I was not even aware of it. I wasn't that involved on the admin end in 2015. Agree that E.M.Gregory should step back from the subject matter. As noted above by EEng there is enough on the other side of the scale, that maybe we should nip this in the bud (if possible). — Maile (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please also look at their insertions earlier this week within the Adrienne Shelly article; they introduced bluelinks of these articles into that actress's BLP with zero consensus and any good sense about what her death involved, and why those links are wholly inappropriate to place within a deceased subject's BLP as a heading bluelink or 'see also' topic of interest. Also, the word 'spree' is beyond inappropriate for any article title unless it's prefixed by the word 'shopping'; how they're able to do this is very troubling. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Didn't even see that one before. ^^^ Yeesh (and double yeesh) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wait, do you mean we don't link every article about a murder by a native born U.S. citizen to birthright citizenship in the United States and crime, and every article about a crime committed by a person belonging to a race to the race and crime article? This is some hardcore COATRACKing. Guettarda (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

EMG's contribs seem a well of POV-pushing. Even when not an obvious BLP issue, articles like Murder of Casey Chadwick make it clear what a priority is, starting "On June 15, 2015 Casey Chadwick was stabbed to death in her Norwich, Connecticut home by an illegal immigrant" .. and only then giving the name of that person. Under the section "perpetrator" the first full paragraph is "Jacques is an illegal alien." Over at Murder of the Zhuo family, which by the way like some others is a BLPCRIME issue with a different title, even having the perpetrator's name as the sole bold text in the lead, there's "[person] is an illegal immigrant to the United States who murdered his cousin's wife and four children in their Brooklyn" (again, illegal immigrant is made to be the most important part). And of course when adding his articles to List of murdered American children, "illegal immigrant" is again a central point of information. Almost all of his recent edits seem focused on connecting crime and illegal immigration. More: removing criticism of an anti-immigration group, adding immigration material to yet another crime-related article, etc. Then of course there's the category he was adding these articles to, Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Once it was deleted at MfD, he began adding simply Category:Illegal immigration to the United States in its place. (e.g.).... and it only took looking through part of the first page of user contribs to find this stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• To put this in perspective a bit on whether E.M.Gregory's current activity is encyclopedic (as opposed to, say, "True Crime"). I keep wondering how the community would react if we had an editor who was doing a series of articles, categories, etc., on crimes committed by black men. How about a series of articles on crimes committed by Jews, or Muslims, or pick your category. Perhaps a series of articles on individual menopausal women who have committed crimes, and then a separate list for the links to these gone-nuts women? — Maile (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add, but I've noticed this behavior from E.M. Gregory as well. It's especially concerning that they've continued to add BLP claims about individuals who have been accused, but not convicted, of crimes. Murder of the Zhuo family is one of several articles that this editor has moved from the name of the suspect to the name of the crime in an attempt to avoid BLP issues. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• At this point, it’s looking like a TBan from WP:BLP articles broadly construed is advisable, and possibly WP:AP2. O3000 (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would've suggested illegal immigration in particular. I don't think we have much evidence here of BLP violations outside of that area. On the other hand we do have a bunch of edits trying to connect illegal immigration and crime even when there isn't a clear BLP violation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Whoa, this is inconceivably disruptive. The part about removing criticism to a hate group is pure malice. And I don't think any past merit can alleviate all those thinly veiled BLP violations. A long term or indef TBAN from BLP and American Politics may be in order, as illegal immigration isn't the only part of AP where they attempted POV editing. At this point it might be appropriate to cite WP:NORACISTS as well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)