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)
Massimo Introvigne is an Italian attorney and member of a New Religious movement called Alleanza Cattolica. In 1988, Introvigne created an organization called CESNUR to lobby for the legitimacy of New Religious Movements such as Scientology.
Aidayoung (talk·contribs) has inserted and re-inserted Introvigne's material while repeatedly deleting well-sourced material critical of Introvigne. Aidayoung has used misleading edit summaries, has misrepresented a source, and their total editing history suggests an Introvigne-related conflict of interest. Recent examples of problem behavior:
Content removed by User:Drmies: "there is no good reason to take "Introvigne 2018a" seriously" & "FRINGE stuff needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources"
Additionally, User:Aidayoung may have a conflict of interest. Second and third articles edited were Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR. History shows widespread promotion of Introvigne's material across multiple articles. First denial of being Introvigne occurred in 2017. COI concerns again resurfaced in 2019:
"you included, show very strong ties between Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR and Oleg Maltsev, and between certain editors here, you included, and those three. As for you, you created the article about Oleg Maltsev, and have continued to maintain it, including through adding ever more badly sourced promotional material, and reverting attempts to clean it up, and even though you didn't create the articles about CESNUR and Introvigne, you made the first edits on those articles in 2007, and are still active on them (on multiple language versions of Wikipedia), including by removing material you see as criticising the subjects of the articles; the majority of your other edits here also appear to be on articles with a connection to Introvigne and CESNUR, most recently plugging CESNUR's "Bitter Winter" on multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Making it look as if you work for Introvigne/CESNUR."(per Thomas.W)
Feoffer should answer substantive questions raised in the CESNUR talk page eg did CESNUR defend the Solar Temple or New Acropolis, was Mr Lewis ever associated with CESNUR rather than shooting the messenger. I am obviously a scholar of new religions and for all of us CESNUR is an obvious main reference - the rest is innuendo. Aidayoung (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are strong connections between the report above and this previous discussion here on WP:ANI, the long discussion about sources on Talk:Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) (which clearly shows that Aidayoung either doesn't understand sourcing at all, in spite of having edited here since 2007, or is deliberately trying to mislead...) and multiple discussions on User talk:Aidayoung. - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere, something is going on here, but I don't know what. After months of inactivity, Aidayoung started editing Talk:Eric Roux minutes after notability issues were raised. I asked how they found this article, but never got a response. This editor seems to think that being "obviously a scholar", or having edited "hundreds" of articles on new religious movements, is relevant to improving articles... but any questions about this, or attempt to discuss COI or SOCK, are deflected as "innuendo" or "baseless accusations".
It's reasonable for this editor to be concerned with privacy issues here, but they are still accountable for their actions. This behavior cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. This editor is a SPA who has no qualms about calling CESNUR-affiliated academics "luminaries" and similar, or padding-out CESNUR, Bitter Winter, and related with tedious editorializing, promotional minutia, and peacock words. This version of Bitter Winter seems like a good example. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how one can prove a negative: how can I prove I am NOT one of the CESNUR’s directors? But this discussion is welcome as administrators should solve issues like this, and perhaps even convert “enemies” into friends or at least favor a honest dialogue. Let me be a little bit more analytical.
1. Oleg Maltsev. I wouldn’t start a war of religion about this (Oleg Maltsev’s Applied Science Association is just one among dozens of new religious movements I took an interest on, and a minor one) but I would like an administrator to look at the initial article I wrote and the article as it is now and decide which is more understandable. It is not that Maltsev is not controversial. He is. I included a part on the controversies. Now all the discussion on the controversies is in the lead. It reads: “Exponents of the anti-cult movement in Russia and Ukraine have criticized his association as a cult.[3][4][5][6]”. There is a problem here with references 3, 4, 5, and 6. None refers to Maltsev or his organization. They have been copied and pasted from the article on CESNUR and refer to controversies which happened years before Maltsev even founded his movement. These references are simply wrong as they have nothing to do with Maltsev. Also, why Maltsev is accused of being a “cult leader” is now unclear, since all the parts about its idiosyncratic, controversial theories on religion have been eliminated, with the argument that sources were not authoritative enough. This may well be, but as a result I find the article difficult to understand and not explaining to the readers why, exactly, Maltsev is accused of operating a cult. As I mentioned, I do not have strong feelings about this particular article (even if nobody likes having her work simply cancelled) and look forward to the administrators’ assessment with interest.
2. Bitter Winter. If one looks at my editing and entries I created, it appears as obvious that I am interested in religion in Eastern Asia (much more than CESNUR, which deals mostly with Western groups) I would invite the administrators to google ”Bitter Winter” and see how, despite having been founded in 2018 only, it is used as a source by many mainline media. For scholars of religious liberty issues, the most important document published yearly is the annual report of the U.S. State Department. I would respectfully suggest that administrators download the 2019 chapter on China at [1]. They will notice that Bitter Winter is the most quoted publication in the chapter on China of the report. It is mentioned 15 times. A distant second, The New York Times is quoted 7 times. If Bitter Winter is a source authoritative enough for the US State Department, perhaps it deserves entries in Wikipedia, in the different languages in which it is published. I am aware that some regard it as pro-US and anti-China and in fact I had indicated it in my original entry. IMHO the problem is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Bitter Winter, it is whether it is well-known enough to be encyclopedic.
3. Entry on CESNUR.
a. Gallagher. He wrote the introduction to an edited book where Introvigne contributed a chapter. Usually in these introductions the general editor does not only summarize the chapters but adds his or her own opinions. Maybe I should have clarified this but calling my reference to Gallagher fraudulent is grossly exaggerated.
b. The same people who regard a peer-reviewed journal like The Journal of CESNUR [2] (possibile objection: the Journal is not Elsevier-indexed; answer: the lengthy indexing process only starts two year after a Journal has started being published, and The Journal of CESNUR was launched at the end of 2019), under the responsibility of a board including some of the most well-know names in the field of the study of new religions [3] - yes, Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton are “luminaries” in the study of religious movements and Antoine Faivre is a “luminary” in the study of esotericism, which does not mean that everybody agrees with them - as a source to be deleted from Wikipedia, the go on and quote liberally articles published in 1997 and 1998 (more than twenty years ago) by the French Communist newspaper L’Humanité and the Dutch left-wing newspaper De Groene Amsterdamer in the middle of a heated political controversy about cults, as if they were the Gospel. They become key references in the article. In the CESNUR article, the article by L’Humanité is quoted twice, including in the lead. Accusing CESNUR of defending the Order of the Solar Temple, a criminal group, is a very serious accusation. In the current version, we read that CESNUR scholars have “defended... the Order of the Solar Temple (responsible for 74 deaths in mass murder-suicide),[1][2][3][4]“. CESNUR was accused of having “defended” the Order of the Solar Temple is the articles in L’Humanité and De Groene Amsterdammer. The third article, by the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, does not mention CESNUR at all. As far asI know, the fact that an accusation has been published in a newspaper, the more so a marginal one, is not enough to accept its as a source in Wikipedia. Neither L’Humanité nor De Groene Amsterdamer offered anything as evidence for this very serious accusation. The only main article on the Solar Temple I could find published by CESNUR scholars, in a book edited by Cambridge University Press [4], does not “defend” the Solar Temple in any way and indeed deprecates its criminal activities. In the talk page, Feoffer added a quote from “Trouw”, an Evangelical Dutch magazine which intervened in the 1997 Amsterdam conference controversy (see below) to the effect that “After the second wave of suicide by members of the Solar Temple, in Cheiry, Switzerland, in 1995, Introvigne declared that they had acted on their own initiative.” Apart from the factual mistake, as the second wave of suicides occurred in France and not in Switzerland, if one reads the Cambridge UP article by Introvigne and Mayer one understands what “acted on their own initiative” means. Introvigne and Mayer dismissed the conspiracy theories that the suicides were really homicides organized by French or other secret services. Stating that the suicides came from the “own initiative” of those who committed suicide rather than from some obscure conspiracy is not a “defense” of the Solar Temple.
c. The Groene Amsterdamer and Trouw are the only sources arguing that CESNUR “defended” New Acropolis. Indeed, De Groene Amsterdamer published its article before the CESNUR conference on 1997 in Amsterdam and discovered (to its credit) that one communication, on New Acropolis, indicated in the program would have been presented by a lady who, although having a Ph.D., was also a member of New Acropolis. An Evangelical Dutch magazine, Trouw, is also mentioned. New Acropolis is fiercely anti-Christian and Trouw was obviously happy to pick up a fight with New Acropolis and, by implication, CESNUR, When Trouw however wrote (criticizing CESNUR for the incident), it also duly noted that the participation of this lady to the conference has been “cancelled” once her affiliation was revealed. De Groene Amsterdamer also mentioned a study of ex-members of New Acropolis by CESNUR director Massimo Introvigne later published by Nova Religio. For those subscribing to JSTor the article is available at [5]. Apart from having passed the peer review of a very respected journal, the article represented different attitudes of ex-members of New Acropolis through a survey, which is different from “defending” New Acropolis. My frank impression is that dropping in the lead the names of movements accused of serious crimes is simply a way to slander.
It is also the case that, as detailed in its Web site, CESNUR has organized more than thirty yearly conferences with more than 3,000 communications. IMHO, it may be interesting to mention the controversy about one single lecture, which was announced but not presented, but the emphasis on this incident is undue.
d. The Aum Shinrikyo incident. I agree it is embarrassing for the scholars involved. But I wonder whether it belongs to an entry on CESNUR, as CESNUR was not involved and the incident was mentioned in passing in a speech by Introvigne at a CESNUR conference (presented as a speech “on” the report while it just “mentions” the report: [6]. Even in its present version, the CESNUR Wikipedia entry gives the impression that in the speech Introvigne defended the report, and accepted the thesis that Aum was innocent. This is false. Here is what Introvigne said: “ A case in point is the much maligned field trip to Japan in April 1995 by a team of American experts to investigate Aum Shinrikyo after the gas attack of 20 March 1995. Their plane tickets and hotel accommodations were paid for by Aum Shinrikyo, although they received no honoraria. One scholar initially concluded that Aum Shinrikyo was being framed. Most of its leaders, he suggested, had no responsibility in the gas attack and the other crimes of which they were accused[12]. The other scholar soon prepared a paper (read in absentia at the yearly conference of CESNUR held at the University of Rome on 10-12 May 1995), in which he suggested that Aum's top leaders were not only guilty of the gas attack, but probably also part of a much larger criminal scheme, involving dealing in drugs and consorting with local organized crime. Both scholars concurred in denouncing human rights violations against hundreds of members of Aum who, unlike the leaders, were certainly neither guilty nor aware of any criminal activity. Otherwise, however, their analyses were quite different. Often cited by anti-cultists in the European debate as the ultimate evidence that scholars are hired guns for the cults, this Japanese experience proves in fact quite the opposite. The fact that two scholars, both with return tickets to Japan paid for by Aum, reached opposite conclusions on Aum's involvement in terrorist and criminal activities is strong evidence that funding from the movements may influence but does not necessarily control the results of research.”
I believe we finally agree that Professor Lewis was never a member of CESNUR.
In the talk page I was not the only one questioning whether this discussion belongs in an article about CESNUR. The trip was not sponsored by CESNUR. One CESNUR board member, J. Gordon Melton, did participate in the trip but not on behalf of CESNUR. Reader’s critical article quoted does not mention CESNUR at all. These incidents belong to the entries on Melton and Lewis rather than CESNUR.
4. Entry on Massimo Introvigne. I do not want to waste the administrator’s time but here again it is difficult not to see a consistent effort to downplay the positive sources (be they The New York Times) and emphasize obscure sources if they are negative.
5. Eric Roux. I know Eric Roux is a Scientologist but his book on Scientology is reasonably good and has had positive independent reviews. I expressed the opinion that he is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia entry.
6. As some critics of the so-called “pro-cult” attitude of (most) scholars of new religious movements see any positive references to CESNUR, Gordon Melton, Eileen Barker, Massimo Introvigne or even Bitter Winter as propaganda, those with a different opinion may see their systematic use of obscure sources to denigrate the same scholars and organizations as counter-propaganda. Here is precisely where administrators may come in and restore some balance.
7. I have multiple interests in life and do not edit every day nor even every month. I did not know this was a crime. I edit mostly on religion, particularly Asian. The claim that I only edit articles connected with Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR may be easily disproved by reading at my editing history, although in recent weeks I had to spend time in contesting what I see as a malicious campaign to present some serious scholars and organizations as if they were a bunch of criminals.
^Cite error: The named reference kwaad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Can't speak to the Maltsev or Roux issues, but Aidayoung's arguments on CESNUR boil down to the claim that the reliable sources are just plain wrong and shouldn't be saying what they're saying.
I can, however, rebut Aida's final point about having generic interest in Asian religion. Nearly all of Aidayoung's edits are to articles linked to Introvigne or his publications. While a quick glance at their editing history might initially suggest a general interest in Asian religion, if you look closely, you'll find that the attorney-turned-lobbyist Introvigne is almost invariably mentioned in the articles, if not in the text then in the citations.
This pattern of promotion holds over a period of twelve years, and tracks with Introvigne's own relatively-recent focus on Asia beginning in the mid-to-late '10s. Aidayoung's edits to Asian religions similarly only begin in 2017, a full decade after Aida's first edits to Introvigne/CESNUR. This strongly suggests Aidayoung's campaign of promotion is not independent of Introvigne. Feoffer (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on Talk:Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) that I mentioned in my post above was also all about Massimo Introvigne, and a pure promo-piece about his friend Oleg Maltsev, sourced only to Maltsev himself, that was used as source for just about everything in that article, and that Aidayoung stubbornly insisted on re-adding, claiming that it was a reliable source since it was written by a professor and published on what she claimed is "a peer-reviewed encyclopaedia published by a reputable university", but in reality is none of that, since it's a project started by an individual at that university, and not peer-reviewed at all. - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I share several of the WP:COI concerns voiced above. @Aidayoung:Bitter Winteris a CESNUR publication and your edits are clearly all related to that group in one way or another. It's not against the rules to have a narrow topic interest, but this is a niche academic discipline and your edits are overwhelmingly dedicated to promoting it. Even if you have no professional conflict of interest, your behavior is mostly indistinguishable from that of a WP:COI editor and it needs to be addressed.
Some of this may be solved by having a centralized discussion about the reliability of CESNUR at WP:RSN. If editors agree (and I suspect they will) that CESNUR is a poor source for establishing notability and a weak source for facts, then it should be much more straightfoward to address the content issues being discussed here. Nblundtalk23:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aidayoung has asked us to look at their contributions, so I did. Looking at Commons:Special:Contributions/Aidayoung, Aidayoung has has first-hand familiarity with these people and subjects, as they have uploaded several "own work" photos used over the years. As with most of their edits, these photos are used for articles which have disproportionately cited Introvigne.
As just one example, about a third of the footnotes for Victory Altar (which was created in November 2017) cite this article by Introvigne. The photos uploaded by Aidayoung are the exact same photos used by Introvigne in the source, which was posted a few days before the Wikipedia article was created. By uploading these photos, Aidayoung is saying that they own the copyright to photos which had previously been used by Introvigne.
Weixinism shows the same pattern of image use, and Bnei Baruch and Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) were both similarly lopsided in how they cited sources. This behavior strongly suggests that, at minimum, Aidayoung has been working very closely with Introvigne on multiple projects. If not, they should explain this discrepancy, briefly, for WP:COPYVIO reasons, if nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
an undated interview, Introvigne writes (via google translate, original Italian in link):
"The Wikipedia pages in English "Massimo Introvigne" and "CESNUR" have been attacked by autonomous users and pseudonyms that Wikipedia administrators have readily identified and banned. Unfortunately they did the same with the "Massimo Introvigne" page in Russian and there it seems that the administrators are less ready to react. The interventions on Wikipedia leave traces and it is therefore possible to know that at least some of these that in wikipedian jargon are called acts of vandalism started from computers of people and locations linked to the Russian anti-cult movement and in particular to Alexander Dvorkin, who is deputy - President of the European anti-cult coordination organization FECRIS and for about twenty years has been conducting a campaign of insults against CESNUR and myself ... not very effective, since we are still here and indeed we are certainly more active than twenty years ago.
This demonstrates conclusively that Introvigne does have a _very_ active familiarity with very same two articles that Aidayoung has actively edited, beginning 12 years ago. Introvigne's comments above seem to precisely mirror Aidayoung's comments about allegedly-Russian vandalism of Introvigne and CESNUR articles. Based on this last diff, for the first time it is reasonable to believe we actually may be dealing with Introvigne himself, rather than just someone in his sprawling network with a COI.
What's even more conclusive, however, is Grayfell's above observation that Aidayoung uploaded (as OWN WORK) photos previously published by Introvigne. Feoffer (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that most of those who have commented here have also edited in an “anti-cult” sense previous entries. Nothing wrong about it but they have their own agenda. The point is that academic literature on new religious movements in general very often cites Introvigne and CESNUR. it would be very bad editing to write about new religious movements and ignore articles and books written by Introvigne or other CESNUR authors only because some here happens not to like them. On pictures, these are simply pictures provided by new religious movements to those who ask to illustrate sympathetic studies of them. Some of mine have been canceled for copyright issues and I have presented others as my own with the consent of the religious movements concerned to make the copyright approval process simpler. Administrators should simply look at CESNUR Web pages including encyclopedia at CESNUR.com, journal at CESNUR.net and Website at CESNUR.org, plus programs of its conferences to decide whether or not it is a well-known organization and authoritative source in the field of new religious movements, and at the WRSP encyclopedia at https://wrldrels.org/ to decide whether it is a fringe project by a lonely professor or a cooperative enterprise involving hundreds of respected scholars. I note that substantive questions about the editing on the contested entries have not been answered, despite offers to engage in a dialogue considering all aspects of the issues. I believe it is a fair conclusion that the study of new religious movements in the academia sees a conflict between a majority sympathetic to these movements and a minority hostile to them and that in the (pro-NRMs) majority texts by Introvigne, CESNUR, Bromley, Melton, etc. are regarded as authoritative. We are talking of authors published by Brill, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, University of California Press (editor of Nova Religio), not of newspapers published by the French Communist Party or one of the Dutch Green parties, whose anti-CESNUR diatribes of 20 years ago are obsessively referenced by some editors here... Aidayoung (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I just want to make sure that "I have presented others as my own with the consent of the religious movements concerned to make the copyright approval process simpler" is not overlooked, that we move to delete all uploads that this person has falsely branded as their own work in order to evade our licensing requirements. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a deletion discussion at Commons, here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files of user:Aidayoung (2). Looking through those images to start that discussion, I noticed that they are either glossy and professional-looking images which have almost certainly been provided for publicity purposes, or are snapshots taken on an iPhone 6. It's certainly a popular phone choice, but this is also another potential indicator that these were taken by the same person. Additionally, one of the uploads is File:Italian iPhone 2779.jpg, which was taken in Taiwan, not Italy. I don't know why any image of a person would be named that, but regardless, it's another point against this being a coincidence. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't think Aidayoung is Introvigne, for a number of reasons, just someone working for Introvigne/CESNUR, and travelling with Introvigne. - Tom | Thomas.W talk03:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidayoung: Let me start by once again pointing out that I have never edited any "cult articles", and had also never edited any other article even remotely related to CESNUR before the previous report here at WP:ANI (linked to in my first edit in this discussion). As for the rest it's just a repeat of CESNUR's by now utterly boring standard line about every addition of anything that can be seen as negative to any article related to CESNUR, Introvigne, Oleg Maltsev or any of the other cults that Introvigne and CESNUR fraternise with, and every removal of any of the unsourced/badly sourced promotion that is repeatedly added to those articles, being linked to either communists, "green parties" or Russian anti-cultists. And no, being hosted on WSRP doesn't automagically make material a reliable source, since it's of very variable quality, and not peer-reviewed, so everything hosted there has to stand on its own, and be carefully scrutinized and evaluated. - Tom | Thomas.W talk17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each of us may have some valid points here.
I am by inclination a peaceful person and one willing to take opposite points of view into account. The fact that L’Humanitè is the journal of the French Communist Party and De Groene Amsterdamer of a small left-wing ecological Dutch party are facts. I find Wikipedia copyright practice difficult to understand and perhaps have something to learn (if a religion, being it the Catholic Church or an obscure cult, wants to provide sympathetic researchers with pictures and authorize them to use them it seems to me a good thing in a world with too much copyright hassles, but Wikipedia may disagree - other Web sites don’t).
On certain entries, again, I believe that rather than continuing a time-consuming spiral of adding-reverting-counter-reverting we should ask administrators to look at least at CESNUR and solve some issues.
I am both flattered to be identified with Introvigne and find slightly amusing that, having a significant number of staff members and research assistants, as anybody who has attended a CESNUR conference knows, he would edit Wikipedia personally - it seems other matters should keep him quite busy Aidayoung (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aidayoung has changed their story at the Commons discussion, and is now saying that they did take these photos after all. So again, they took photos which were first used by Introvigne for article published, under copyright, by wrldrels.org and then uploaded by Aidayoung to Commons later. As I said at that discussion, either Aidayoung took photos which were personally selected and used by Introvigne in multiple articles about different religions in different countries, without any attribution to anyone else, or Aidayoung did not have the rights to upload these photos and is lying. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not used “by Introvigne” but used “by WRSP.” You seem unaware of how journals and large web sites such as WRSP operate. They deal with copyright issues and select pictures rather than the author of the texts. WRSP included several thousand pictures they receive from people approving of their enterprise for their huge archive. I have a right to put my pictures at free disposal of both WRSP and Wikipedia.
I should also lament here the liberal name-calling. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia in our free time. I may regards eg Scientology in a less negative way than you di but this is no reason to resort to call people “liar” or worse Aidayoung (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "I have presented others as my own ... to make the copyright approval process simpler". What is this if not an admission that you are trying to game the system for your own convenience? You have told us that these photos were provided by someone else, but then later said that you took almost all of them yourself. The two which you have not claimed ownership of both conspicuously indicated a direct connection to Introvigne. The first being taken at Odessa at an event Introvigne was known to have attended, and the second which includes "Italian iPhone" in the name. In other words, it appears you are attempting to use this copyright issue to downplay obvious signs of COI involvement. The only plausible explanation for this behavior is that either you are Introvigne, or you are someone who has traveled with him to multiple countries and worked closely with him for multiple years. It doesn't really matter which, because your behavior shows that you are willing to game the system to inflate the significance of Introvigne and his associates. This is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for admin assistance
I believe we are keep repeating the same stuff and perhaps we should wait for administrators to decide. I maintain that - quite apart from the fight about the CESNUR entry, where administrators should decide on substantial matters of defamation - entries I wrote on other subjects are balanced and informative and used the best available sources, which in some cases happens to be CESNUR publications or articles or books by Introvigne, who is after all a prolific author. But as I said repeating the same arguments is becoming circular and boring. I assume we all have better things to do in life. Let the administrators decide. Aidayoung (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for admins I know this is a lengthy thread, but I hope this doesn't get lost in the shuffle because there are some clear issues here that need to be addressed. The circumstantial and behavioral evidence suggests that this editor has a COI, or at least edits like someone who has a conflict, and they are operating in an obscure corner of the site that is vulnerable to disruptive editing. Nblundtalk20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concur in requesting closure admin assistance. Five diverse editors agree there's an issue, and the sixth person actively requests admin feedback. Absent authoritative feedback, the status quo will likely be an editor-enforced de facto "topic ban" that leads to wikistress all round. Feoffer (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you're concurring with, since you, as far as I can see, are the only one who wants this closed without action. As for me I still hope one or more admins will take a look at it.... - Tom | Thomas.W talk16:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The unmentioned part of all this appears to be the already authorized arbitration sanctions into which Aidayounf has walking into:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for the Scientology topic broadly construed. All warnings and sanctions shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. Any editor who, in the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.
I don't see how Aidayoung can be topic banned under the discretionary sanctions regime at the moment since AFAICT, they only just meet the awareness criteria now that I gave them the alert. Do they meet one of the criteria? I didn't see any when I did a quick check e.g. they weren't part of the original decision Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I didn't read the above that well. I didn't know of the general restriction for the Scientology case. I guess this can be imposed if the requirements are met, without needing to be made aware of the discretionary sanctions regime, I don't really know. This isn't something I have ever dealt with before. In any case, I've made them aware so discretionary sanctions can also be imposed as needed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reverts and WP:TE on the same content by Snooganssnoogans in which Neutrality and Snooganssnoogans repeatedly revert content inserted by Rebecca jones (and later by me) over a couple of days. I noticed on my watchlist. Then Acroterion admonished Rebecca (and me) when I agreed that the edits did look like vandalism. I used the wrong term, instead it looks like WP:TE or WP:CIRCUS. Eventually El C locked the article.
Article subsequently locked 02:35, 12 November 2019 El C
Might be useful if this article had a 1RR, it has worked well for the blockchain space at WP:GS/Crypto. Also admins can review the behavior of the involved editors and give feedback (I welcome it as well).
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of applying 1RR to the article, may still do so once the protection expires. But, Jtbobwaysf, per WP:ONUS, why don't you wait for the RfC to conclude rather than edit war over the contested addition? El_C03:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You and the single-purpose account Rebecca Jones are edit-warring new content into the lead of the article. Content that multiple editors on the talk page have objected to as inappropriate for the lead. After attempting to bully (3 reverts within 24 hrs) content contested by multiple editors into the lead (!) of the article and falsely accusing others of vandalism, you now drag me here? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The OP doesn't have especially clean hands, and I've had to remind them and Rebecca Jones that disagreement isn't vandalism. I remind them again - don't cast aspersions to win an argument. Acroterion(talk)03:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support 1RR being applied to this article and the user Snooganssnoogans receiving a further warning. The track record of this account shows nothing but biased editing in order to further their own personal opinions and biases. Apeholder (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history of this page and their user talk page - when they have the amount of complaints they do - at what point does it go from an "aspersion" to a legitimate concern? Apeholder (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just reported Snoogansnoogans last week for gaming the system on reverts. They routinely do a 3RR and stop before going to 4RR, just as they have done on the article in question today. If, as their last edit summary revert says[13], that there are multiple editors that disagree with this edit, then why are they not letting those editors also do the reverts? I recommended last week Snooganssnoogans be placed on a 1RR for six months and ElC closed that and said I could take it to AN/I, etc. Well, here we are, once again, same story. The best part of this is that just before Snooganssnoogans did their last revert to 3RR, they warned another editor for edit warring on another page[14]. Oh and hey, this isn't some conspiracy theory of fake news...its all in the diffs. Snooganssnoogans may indeed be dealing with, as they claim, SPS's and or bullies (or bully--->to force something into an article, I suspect is the intended acrimonious insult) as they called me last week[15], but well, its okay I suspect if they engage in "aspersions", right?--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just had another editor arrive on my talkpage to complain [17]. So far I've been chiefly concerned with the application of the "vandalism" epithet to disagreement as a means of gaining the upper hand. My review of editor behavior has thus far been confined to Julian Assange, where it's mostly bickering and some WP:RGW activity. Acroterion(talk)04:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators aren't omniscient, and I've spent much of this evening dealing with puerile image vandalism rather than conducting wide-ranging reviews of editor conduct. Until now this thread was concerned only with behavior surrounding Julian Assange, where the scope is pretty narrow. Some of this might be best raised at AE, since some of these topics are under restriction. We have content disputes with folks running right up to three reverts. I'd suggest 1RR be applied to the articles at issue. But I'm signing off for the evening. Acroterion(talk)04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans's edits (like mine) were perfectly proper; new and disputed content certainly cannot go in the lead section of a biography without a consensus for it, which is of course lacking here. That's what WP:ONUS is all about. Neutralitytalk04:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the information that Assange was imprisoned in Belmarsh prison was added to the lead on 2 May, so it's hardly "new". I think it's useful, but it's certainly not worth edit-warring about. I think the major behavioural issue has been created by Rebecca jones who has been constantly edit-warring and labelling other edits as "vandalism". After she repetitively did that, I made a comment on the article's talk page on 22 September and on her talk page on 24 September. Yet she has continued to do it. Jtbobwaysf and others seem to be tacitly supporting or excusing her behaviour. I think this is a case of WP:Boomerang.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt some bad actions are happening all around really and ElC was correct to lock the pages down to prevent further edit warring. Is there proof others are engaging in 3RR games on multiple articles tirelessly week after week though?--MONGO (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When one patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial politics pages, one is bound to do a lot of reverting. Just in the last week, I spent time repeatedly removing content which I discovered was added by a COI PR account[18] and wasting time reverting and talking to what was obviously a yet-to-be-exposed-sockpuppet account[19]. Users such as yourself may have opted to turn a blind eye, hope that someone else will step in, and let these editors abuse the editing process. Others, such as myself, don't let editors bully bad content into articles, and sometimes part of that is doing lots of reverts (while also adhering to BRD). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were absolutely bullying content into that page. You failed to adhere to BRD by repeatedly edit-warring new content into the article. I started the talk page discussion, not you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling my good faith edits "bullying". You routinely wait till you're at 3RR to start discussion. That image was added by another editor in good faith...you just didn't like it. But instead of taking out another image of lesser quality, you just revert warred till you reached 3RR.--MONGO (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And Snoogans continuing to bully on these talk pages. Its these types of WP:OWNERSHIP focused editors that drive away other editors, especially when they are skilled and skirt to avoid violating the 3RR and the admins are too weak/afraid to sanction a clear pattern of violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:OWNERSHIP: The case you bring to us here is a case where you edit-warred new content into the lede of a BLP, despite vociferous objections from many other editors, and reverts from other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: The disputed part of the lede (that Assange's life is at risk) was added in a series of edits by Rebecca Jones on November 1 (which are hidden due to copyright violations).[20] So it is new (and the source cited is from 1 November 2019). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, when you removed the disputed part on 8 November, you also removed the rest of the sentence, which had been there since May. And that was a little heavy-handed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and just for clarification: I only removed that part (the long-standing content) once[21], and that was that time. So entirely consistent with BRD (not that you're accusing me of anything). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not comment about this specific page but Snoogan's overall editing approach works against building consensus. I agree with those who feel their edits are POV pushing. Snoogan is very good at never actually crossing the line but spending a great deal of time way to near it. One problematic example is they are happy to get into long term edit war but too often don't go to the talk page to discuss the disagreements. That applies to the case Acroterion mentioned on their talk page. Some edits are inaccurate to the source and phrased as to make the article subject more distasteful than it might otherwise be. For example this edit where a correlation is referred to as causation [[22]] or this case where the editor ignored the objections of two other editors (one being an IP editor) [[23]]. Despite a back and forth that lasted over a month Snoogan didn't raise the question at the talk page. Snoogan's is very happy to make bad faith accusations against editors who disagree with Snoogan's edits such as here where I was accused of willfully ignoring a RfC that was in the talk page archive and occurred before I edited the page for the first time.[[24]] The long term pattern of behavior was noted by @Awilley: here [[25]]. In summary, I don't think any particular edit or action of Snoogan's crosses the line but there are many cases of poor edits that look like attempts to discredit or place "half truths" (factually correct but lacking in context or mitigating details), frequent edit warring (but great car to not step over the 3RR line), and rather than using the talk page as the first place to civilly solve disagreements, they only reluctantly go to the talk page. Once at the talk page the ideas of those who oppose are dismissed without due consideration and not infrequently with uncivil comments that either assume bad faith or fail to FOC. I have trouble believing Wikipedia as a whole is better for Snoogan's edits. As such I don't think Snoogan's actions here should be viewed as a generally good editor who just was edit warring. Instead this should be a problematic editor who has practiced avoiding the line while walking along it. Springee (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an aggrieved editor who I have clashed with repeatedly and who generally has a POV contrary to mine. In my last encounter with this editor, Springee was removing text agreed upon in a RfC on the Wall Street Journal page (I created the RfC because I do actually build consensus) about the editorial board's promotion of fringe science, including a citation to the most prominent academic book on the climate change denial movement. Despite having never read the book and despite having been pointed to the RfC, this editor repeatedly removed citations to the book, falsely claiming that the book (which he had not read) did not support the text.[26] After pointing this editor to direct quotes from the book that supported the text, the editor moved the goalposts and kept arguing against inclusion of the book. This is a good example of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional and why it's fraught with conflicts: failure to stick with a RfC, dismissal of the best sources, and constant shifting of goalposts. The example also highlights the difference between me and others in terms of building consensus: I started a RfC to settle the content dispute in the first place... Springee violated the consensus reached in the RfC, refused to start a RfC of his own, yet kept edit-warring his preferred changes into the article. Springee, Mongo and these other editors are holding me to a standard that none of these editors adhere themselves to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long line of aggrieved editors with whom Snoog has edit warred.
Edit warring warnings on Snoog's talk page in last two weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4.
WP:ANEW filings in last few months: September: No violation because didn't breach 3RR; October: No violation because didn't breach 3RR; November: Report declined. quote El C: "I'm sorry, but this just isn't the venue to address these sort of potential problems. Such a venue would be AN/I, where, for example, such specialized sanctions as a six month 1RR restriction, and so on, can be proposed and implemented." [emphasis added]
I stand corrected. (Although I still don't understand, when we're talking about multiple DS areas [BLP and AP2], why a report to ANEW can't result in admin action without a 4RR. This 4RR requirement at ANEW seems prone to gaming, as seen here.) – Levivich06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, if I had seen the edits at Great Leap Forward I would have blocked that IP that you claim Snoogans was edit-warring with. Removal of academic publications with a BS edit summary is vandalism (the book was published by Routledge, for crying out loud), so if there was ever a case to call for an exemption to EW, this is it: they were reverting some blatant vandalism. And if you had looked at the IP's other contributions, you would have seen they obviously have a bone to pick with the author of that book, and those edits combined with the BLP violations in the edit summaries (Acroterion, are they worth revdeleting?) are enough cause for a block. So thanks, Snooganssnoogans, for reverting that. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Patrolling controversial topics means one will inevitably be involved in content disputes. The fact that Snooganssnoogans hasn't violated 3RR here is instructive - being repeatedly and tendentiously hauled into 3RRNB and having those reports declined because they expressly were not violating policy is not remotely a reason to impose sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs are not examples of a "content dispute". They are examples of edit warring. There's a big difference. Content disputes happen on talk pages, not with the undo button. – Levivich06:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed example of Snooganssnoogans' wrongdoing, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, is in fact an instructive example of the good work that they are doing. One of the editors they reverted, 88Dragons, was expressly a sockpuppet of a banned user; another, GlassBones, is a single-purpose account who has self-admitted that they are here to push a right-wing POV - they said on Talk:Hunter Biden that It should be obvious that the editors of Wikipedia are overwhelmingly liberal and will do nearly anything to protect the left-wing bias in all articles about political figures. These are problematic users, and reverting problematic edits by problematic users is the opposite of undesirable behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear NorthBySouthBaranof (talk): Contrary to your fallacious statement, I did not self-admit on the Hunter Biden talk page that I edit Wikipedia to push a right wing point of view. What I take issue with is those editors who edit Wikipedia with a bias, in most cases a strong liberal bias, rather than editing from a neutral point of view. There should be no bias, liberal or conservative, in Wikipedia articles about political figures, but sadly that is not the case. The language of the Hunter Biden article, and the statements made on the Talk page by numerous editors, bear this out. GlassBones (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that bullshit thing where you cherry-pick one example out of several dozen and then argue that it's "instructive". I already labelled that as one of the "lesser examples". Don't pretend there isn't a problem here. – Levivich06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I picked literally one article at random to investigate; I could go through each and every one of your examples and probably find many of the same patterns. There isn't a problem here. Well, actually, there is a problem - there is a problem with right-wing POV-pushing on the encyclopedia often involving defamatory claims and unreliable sources. In fact, here's another example: their reverts on Jack Posobiec involve removing clear attempts at whitewashing a fringe far-right conspiracy theorist involved in promoting the Pizzagate nonsense. The edit they reverted instead described Posobiec as a journalist and reduced the reliably-sourced factual descriptions of him to "characterized by critics and political opponents." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wow. So you're upset that in wiki-voice we couldn't outright call this person a "fringe far-right conspiracy theorist" and instead had to attribute it to critics?--MONGO (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that we go with what reliable sources say, right? Reliable sources factually describe him as such — it's not merely what "critics and political opponents" say. Unless you're going to argue that everything cited in the lede from ABC News to the Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Times, and Philadelphia are "critics and political opponents." If that's your argument, you're on the wrong encyclopedia project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the diff you showed...here seems the removal of those very same sources was done by Snooganssnoogans. He restored the link to pizzagate which is fine, but why remove the other reliable sourced things? Is the effort to merely malign the BLP? Please don't tell me I am on the wrong encyclopedia project.--MONGO (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a decent argument that the sources referenced are either passing mentions or cytogenetic. Anyone who supports that sort of sourcing is definitely on the wrong encyclopedia project. - Ryk72talk07:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that is geared towards maligning and being a borderline BLP and NPOV wasteland, a few balancing positives for the sake of human decency are of course unacceptable. Apparently reliable sources are only reliable for the portions of information that support the predetermined biases, right?--MONGO (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's look at Julian Assange - where Snooganssnoogans appropriately removed disputed material from the article lede (which had previously been removed by Neutrality) and directed the user to the talk page. Jtbobwaysf's attempts to force disputed material into the lede by edit-warring, despite multiple objections, in contravention of the BRD cycle, is what's actually objectionable here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I going to bother responding to each when this is the weak sauce you bring? I literally couldn't even remember editing the Great Leap Forward, yet for you this is yet another example of problematic behavior... so what is it? Oh, it's where I am restoring a peer-reviewed book by one of the leading scholars on genocide when two new accounts were ludicrously claiming this scholar was not an expert on the topic just so that they could whitewash the page.[27][28] I should be rewarded for this kind of editing - it says more about you than me that you consider these to be horrible edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It's so telling that one of the examples cited here is me removing text added by a sockuppet account with a neo-nazi-ish account name[29] who added nonsense on the Killing of Mollie Tibbetts. It's almost as if a prolific and highly active editor who patrols controversial politics pages will end up doing a lot of reverts. I'm so sad for you Levivich that this neonazi sockpuppet didn't start a spurious edit-warring noticeboard discussion so that you could lump it in there with the other spurious complaints by aggrieved editors who were not given carte blanche to force BS into Wikipedia articles in contravention to WP:BRD. I have a list of complaints against me listed on my userpage, many from fringe folks on internet forums... seeing as how you're throwing spaghetti on the wall, to see what sticks, feel free to add those to your list of complaints against me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I also have a history with Levivich. Every time someone a brings a complaint against me, no matter how meritless and weak, this editor must enter the fray calling for sanctions on me. Levivich has been on my case ever since he sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[30] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me - because I do build consensus).[31] Ever since, he's been in every discussion where someone raises a complaint about me to argue on behalf of the filer of the meritless complaints (when those filers are inevitably boomeranged) and/or saying I'm a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of edit warring: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring".--MONGO (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification allow me to emphasize the wording "...content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes...". Yet you label such things as "bullying"...--MONGO (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen from the riveting conversation above, Snoog & Friends will inevitably argue that because Snoog was right on the content, therefore his edit warring was justified–laudable, in fact. This will continue so long as the community allows it. Put me down for supporting a 1RR restriction, of course. – Levivich06:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Snoogans has often engaged in edit warring, and whether or not he has engaged in constructive editing, it's at least clear to me that he engages far more in unconstructive, uncivil reverting. He's engaged in personal attacks and he reverts without discussion: as one user said before, there's a history of Snoogans discussing content disputes. While some may beg to differ, the countless reports filed against him, regardless of outcome, combined with this particular incident thread packed with activity, show that there's definitely a problem. I've tried to discuss content disputes with him, but for someone who points out failures to engage in BRD, he sure doesn't like to talk about said disputes like an adult. Snoogans says that these reports are "meritless," but then again, look who likes to edit-war, make meritless reverts, use hypocritical logic and move the goalposts. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For context, this is an editor whose unproductive edits I've reverted on Brian Kemp (a few weeks ago) and Concealed carry in the United States (earlier today). Earlier,[32] this editor falsely accused me of stalking him to those pages (despite the fact that I'm a regular editor on both and precede him on both), and then doubled down on the false claim when I pointed out the error[33]. The editor only knows me from those two disputes (and yet can't even get them right), and is still here talking about my history as if he's intimately familiar with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's laughable. First off, there's your contributions, with an extensive list of all the times you've engaged in edit-warring and content disputes. You're the one who thinks an NAS review is infallible and that all other studies are fallible. Your reverts are typically unconstructive and your lack of logic regarding academic qualification equally so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrThunderbolt1000T (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, right here. Snoogans is out of control and he needs to be held accountable for all of the ridiculous, malicious things he does. There's insurmountable evidence. If nothing is done about this, then I'd seriously have to question Wikipedia, its stated intent and everything else. Snoogans is clearly out of line and nothing has been done, but something has to be done. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Unhinged rant" was in response to the most random unhinged rant accusing me of being in favor of the dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.[35] I was not aware that "shit" as a description of a source was prohibited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few more from the Tucker Carlson article - 1, 2, 3, and then 1, 2, 3, 4. In general this is a big part of Snoogans editing style. I would support a 1RR or a topic ban from AMPOL2, but since that is nearly exclusively where they edit it would be a soft site ban, so would prefer something less drastic. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm another "aggrieved" editor, though I'm not a "right-wing" editor. I also had an experience with Snooganssnoogans repeatedly going right up to the 3RR line, but not crossing it (as far as I recall). For those editors arguing that Snooganssnoogans is being attacked by "right-wing" editors, note that in this case, Snoogans was actually pushing what is generally regarded as a right-wing view: arguing that high Iraqi casualty estimates in the Iraq War had been discredited. Starting in October 2017, Snoogans began aggressively "bullying" (to use Snoogans' phrase) through large-scale changes to Casualties of the Iraq War ([36][37][38]). These changes were controversial, among other things because they implicitly labeled the most widely cited studies on Iraq War Casualties as not "credible." I and a number of other editors objected, reverting some of Snoogans' changes. There were also a couple of editors who broadly supported Snoogans' changes. However, Snoogans did not obey WP:BRD, but instead repeatedly went right up to the 3RR line. Because of the unwillingness of other editors to match Snoogans revert-for-revert, Snoogans' changes remained in the article for nearly two years, without there ever being a consensus on the talk page for the large-scale changes Snoogans had made. To give one example, over the course of 5 days (9-14 July 2018), Snoogans reverted the article 11 times ([39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]), undoing the edits of four different editors (myself included). During this spree of revert-warring, Snoogans also took the time to make further significant changes to the article along largely the same controversial lines ([50]), which Snoogans must have known the other four editors would object to. This is not what WP:BRD looks like.
Finally, after a DRN that went nowhere ([51]), I proposed changes to the lede on the talk page, and pinged all involved editors, including Snoogans. Two other editors, including one who had previously supported Snoogans' edits, agreed to the updated lede. I waited for three days, during which time Snoogans did not comment: [52]. I then updated the lede, as discussed on the talk page: [53]. Exactly 20 minutes later, Snoogans reverted my edit: [54]. Just to recap, Snoogans did not respond for three days to my ping, while the only other editor who had supported Snoogans agreed to the updated lede. The moment I changed the lede, though, Snoogans swooped in to revert. I asked Snoogans to self-revert ([55]), but they ignored that request, instead demanding an RfC - essentially, Snoogans was asserting the right to revert endlessly until an RfC overruled them. Snoogans' excuse for not engaging in the talk page, but instead reverting against the consensus of the other three active editors, was that "I cannot spend the rest of my life dealing with this BS" ([56]). Now, having an RfC is fine, but asserting one's sole right to control an article against all other editors until an RfC is held is not right. We finally had the RfC, and something very close to my proposed lede was accepted.
It seems that I'm not the only person who's had this sort of experience with Snooganssnoogans. Maybe this is all a right-wing conspiracy to get Snoogans, but I'm not right-wing, and in the case I describe above, Snoogans was the one arguing the right-wing position. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "the occasional far-left editor", which you are. Your recollection of the editing on the Casualities of the Iraq War page is a complete mess, and involves multiple editors supporting and opposing various versions of content over the span of a year or more. In your case, you were removing any and all peer-reviewed research from the body which called into question an inflated estimate of the number of casualties in the Iraq War (a left-wing talking point is to exaggerate the casualties of the war). Removing peer-reviewed research is not a uniquely right-wing thing to do. As I said, the occasional far-left editor sometimes does it. Besides scrubbing peer-reviewed research on that page, I primarily know this user as one who scrubs RS content on the Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections... because on the far-left (just like the far-right), Russia apparently did not intervene in the 2016 election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can go check the talk page of Casualties of the Iraq War and see that your claim about me ignoring peer-reviewed research is a bald-faced lie. I actually did a thorough literature review ([57][58]), in response to your cherry-picking of papers by one particular author. The issue is not who was right or wrong on the content question, however (although I'll note that the RfC you demanded as a condition of ending your revert-war found in my favor). The issue is that you repeatedly violated BRD and tried to revert-war your edits through, regardless of how many other editors disagreed with your edits. Ultimately, nobody was willing to revert as much as you (in the example I gave above - and there are others - you carried out 11 reverts against four editors in less than 5 days on that one article). That is not an acceptable way to edit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A pattern of edit warring has been shown as well as a disregard for the views/concerns of other editors. Snoogans feels that they are making good edit and when they go to the talk page they are able to persuade or use RfCs to correct problems with articles. A 1RR limit doesn't prevent their making article changes nor does it prevent consensus building. However, it does prevent the pattern of reverting others without trying to discuss or build consensus. This should result in a minimal impact to good article changes and reduce the number of edit warring complaints. Springee (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Snoogs is the textbook example of being right in the wrong way. I'd like to hope we can find something other than cudgels to fix this. Guy (help!) 13:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think everyone who edits American politics has experienced Snoog's edit-warring or battleground behavior. This is a consistent problem. Just look at the above diffs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that 1RR would have a minimal impact on patrolling is absurd. As someone who patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial American politics pages (which are rife with bad edits), it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes without any effective way of ensuring a stable status quo version of the article... it would make it effectively impossible to patrol pages (many of which do not have other active veteran editors on them), because I cannot start a talk page discussion every time a neonazi sockpuppet adds anti-immigrant propaganda to a page (literally one of the examples of 'problematic behavior' cited against me by Levivich who has spent almost a year gathering data on me due to his vendetta against me, yet these are the examples he brings to the table)... the consequence would be to allow editors (whether they are new acounts, blatant COI accounts or regular editors who edit in a problematic way) to abuse the editing process and let bad content slide into countless articles. Three of the voters above, Springee, Mongo and Levivich have a history of edit-warring new content into articles (in violation of WP:BRD), and with me removing that content (in two cases they edit-warred changes which violated a consensus reached in a RfC[[59]][60][61][62]). Mr Ernie and Red Rock Canyon have a right-wing POV. The goal is purely to prevent one of the most active and prolific patrollers in their topic area from being able to prevent them and like-minded editors from bullying bad new changes into articles. The standards that they hold me to are standards that they themselves do not adhere to in the slightest. You would for instance never in your wildest dreams see me, a supposedly horrific edit-warrior, violate a RfC consensus, yet that is precisely what the proposer has done (and being the good editor I am I had to revert him when he did that[63][64]... 1RR would have stopped me from doing that, which is what this editor wants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're responsible for this. If you didn't engage in edit-warring, battleground behavior, lying and the like, this wouldn't be an issue. Because you act like American politics is your courtroom to preside over, this is why all of us are here. Why don't you become a constructive editor and stop accusing people of right-wing POV for disagreeing with your reverts? You engaged in an edit-war with me and several other users, even engaging in a personal attack because you can't accept a lede representing a body accurately. This is ridiculous. If you want to patrol American political articles, then stop being an edit warrior, a hypocrite, and a liar. Don't complain if your refusal to be civil and reasonable gets you impeded from patrolling. Everybody here has seen your battleground behavior and your edit-warring. I was 100% willing to have a civil conversation on the matter, and gave you ample time to respond, but just like you always do, your first instinct is to revert. It looks like to just about everyone here that you can't take being wrong. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually with you up until you started casting the aspersions. But the problem is that you are the one bullying bad new changes into articles. Take the Bill Barr page for example. Two sections you edit warred to include, the secularists blurb and the Trump hotel party blurb, do not have consensus as encyclopedic topics. That's the problem. You have a different view of what should be in articles, and one that I don't think conforms with NOTNEWS and DUE. You also edit war to include such changes, as is widely demonstrated in the diffs above. The 1RR restriction is an attempt to stop that. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing I want to clarify: I didn't spend a year gathering data on Snoog. That would be weird stalkerish-type behavior on my part. The diffs I posted here I gathered in about 20 minutes yesterday, by going back through Snoog's mainspace contribs to October 30 (two weeks). It's really easy to do: click on his contribs, filter by mainspace namespace only, and look for the repeated "undos" (the +/- bytes changed is a dead giveaway). I have done this before–IIRC in another ANI thread about six months ago, and that one was a deeper dive (I went back more than two weeks). But I have no idea what "the worst" examples of Snoog's editing are; I only can say that there are lots of recent examples of edit warring and, specifically, gaming 3RR. – Levivich16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another editor who sought to bully bad changes into an article with a right-wing POV. On the William Barr page, which is covered by 1RR and consensus-required (to restore challenged edits), this editor edit-warred contested content back into the article, which I reverted[65][66]. I did not file an edit-warring case against the editor (despite the blatant violation of consensus-required) nor did I revert him again. When I informed the editor that he should seek a consensus, the editor threatened to edit-war again, demonstrating the kind of attitude in which he approaches editing with[67]. Again, these editors (most of whom have right-wing POVs) do not in the slightest follow the standards that they apply to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving out a very important fact. These so-called "bad changes" were overwhelmingly supported by uninvolved editors when I opened up an RfC, which closed in favor of the changes that you tried to edit-war out of the article. You have a very hostile attitude and many of the editors here have said the same. Your stalwart refusal to recognize this is a cause for concern. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧19:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC did not conclude in favor of the text that you edit-warred into the article (a misleading snippet)[68][69], but a different NPOV version of the text (a full quote which made it clear what the context was)[70]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I’ve had conflicts with Snog before in the past but his work combatting quackery and politics agenda editing in general is solid. He was one of the major people, along with myself and others, that uncovered a sockpuppet ring on Center for Immigration Studies. He should be more careful but this is excessive. ToaNidhiki0517:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My editing on Center for Immigration Studies is an instructive example of the great lengths I go to to achieve consensus and to engage in discussion even when the opposing editors are obviously not making good edits and are obviously not operating in good faith. I spent upwards to two years (!) combating what was ultimately revealed to be a nest of 5-10 sockpuppets, and wasting dozens (maybe hundreds) of hours meticulously dealing with their concerns, starting RfCs, looking up the sources that they were bringing to the table (and usually always misrepresenting them), and of course also doing a lot of reverting. For most of those two years, it was up to me alone to deal with those editors. If 1RR had been in effect for me, then I would not have been able to deal with that nest of sockpuppets, and those editors would (1) have been able to insert and keep their awful content in the article and (2) would likely not have been exposed as sockpuppets. My user talk page is also full of complaints from these very same sockpuppets, which Levivich might take as evidence of what a horrible editor I am (because adding ten spurious complaints together must somehow equate one legitimate complaint, am I right?). If anyone wants to understand what editing on controversial Am Politics is like (and why reverting is often necessary), please read the Center for Immigration Studies archives, starting perhaps here[74]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the details of Snoogan's accusations against me, especially the false claim that I was reverting against the outcome of a RfC that I was aware of, but I think the above kind of drives home the point. No one is opposed to Snoogan reverting actual socks/vandalism. It's when they POV push and refuse to engage in discussion with experienced editors that things become a problem. It's worth noting that Snoogan's account has a TBAN related to spamming the material into a large number of pages at once.[[75]] In that case it was clear the material Snoog was adding was not just to patrol. The edits were seen as often POV pushing. Snoog is getting a pass on their bad behavior because they also do some good. In that case the remedy was narrow to try to lance the boil while saving the rest of the body. I think this 1RR is similar. If the edits are good, make the case and others will defend them. If they aren't and others disagree we avoid edit wars. Anything that encourages discussion vs reversion is likely a good thing. Springee (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"If the edits are good, make the case and others will defend them. If they aren't and others disagree we avoid edit wars. Anything that encourages discussion vs reversion is likely a good thing." This is coming from an editor who was edit-warring changes to content approved in a RfC literally days ago. I can't get over how brazen it is that the filer in this case is the same person who days ago literally edit-warred out consensus text, only for me and other editors having to revert it back to the consensus version (incredibly, this is also one of the examples that Levivich cites as part of my "problematic behavior": me restoring content approved in a RfC)[76][77][78][79][80]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In those last three reverts in that string of five, you're putting a single cite into the lead. "Should we include this cite in the lead?" is an easy enough question to pose on the talk page. But by your own admission (above), you don't want to take the time to engage in content disputes the right way: As someone who patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial American politics pages (which are rife with bad edits), it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes without any effective way of ensuring a stable status quo version of the article... it would make it effectively impossible to patrol pages (many of which do not have other active veteran editors on them), because I cannot start a talk page discussion every time a neonazi sockpuppet adds anti-immigrant propaganda to a page [...] the consequence would be to allow editors (whether they are new acounts, blatant COI accounts or regular editors who edit in a problematic way) to abuse the editing process and let bad content slide into countless articles. The answer might be in patrolling fewer pages, because you're right: content disputes take time to resolve. You can't "patrol" the entire AP2 topic area. – Levivich20:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's literally a weeks-old fresh RfC about the inclusion of the text and the cite. How many RfCs am I supposed to start about the same content? This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that standards are being applied to me that none of these editors come close to adhering to: I start a RfC to resolve a content dispute, spend hours putting together a solid RfC with appropriate sourcing (academic books and articles), the content gets approved by consensus in the RfC, and then when a "good" veteran editor such as Springee decides to brazenly revert the RfC consensus on multiple occasions[81][82][83][84][85], I am suddenly supposed to start a new RfC? Also, I remind you that this is not some random editor I'm talking about: the editor who is proposing 1RR on me right here right now is the same user who just days ago brazenly violated a RfC consensus on multiple occasions. The shamelessness is absolutely stunning.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) the RfC was almost six months ago, not "weeks-old fresh"; (2) the RfC language was "fringe", not "pseudoscientific"; (3) the RfC wasn't about whether it needed a citation, or that particular citation; and (4) what you're supposed to do is discuss it at the talk page and not revert. Even if–and I want to make this next part absolutely clear–even if you're right about the content. – Levivich22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so reluctant to actually describe Springee's brazen and blatant edit-warring as edit-warring while you at the same time lambast me for restoring the RfC consensus text? I can't emphasize this point enough: the standards that are being applied to me are standards that none of these other editors come close to adhering to themselves. I'm supposed to seek and build consensus (through for example crafting RfCs), yet they have anointed themselves the powers to literally revert RfC consensus text. As for the specifics: (1) The RfC was concluded in June. (2) Pseudoscientific and fringe are the same thing, in particular in this context (and this semantic difference was not cited as a reason behind the reverts). (3) The RfC question included the citation and the discussion shows multiple editors referencing the book in support of the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone you edit war with is also edit warring with you. Obvi. What sets you apart IMO are two things: (1) you edit war way more than anyone else I've yet seen–with 9 editors on 7 articles in the last two weeks, and more if you include the more-justifiable "lesser examples"–and (2) you steadfastly refuse to change, even a little bit. I can't get an "OK, I'll cool it" out of you (so far). Sanctions are a last resort, and "please don't edit war so much with so many other damn editors" is not really a big ask. – Levivich02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly start more talk page discussions and do so earlier (and I certainly intend to do so). If you're wondering why I do not do that more often, the reason is that it's a huge time sink and every creation of a talk page discussion jointly with a revert will inevitably cut down on the amount of patrolling that can be done and the cost is simply more bad edits slipping into the encyclopedia. And it's not as if I don't start talk page discussions: This encyclopedia is littered with talk pages that contain one comment by me where I explain why I reverted content without a response in sight (these lonely comments by me fulfill a bureaucratic check mark but are in all actuality a complete waste of time). 90% of the edits I revert once or twice are just ridiculously bad edits that don't belong on the encyclopedia, and would never stand the scrutiny of a RfC (see the edit that set off this noticeboard discussion, as well as Springee's brazen and repeated removals of RfC consensus text) - having to start a talk page discussion for each one (as opposed to putting that duty on the editor who is edit-warring new content into an article) would in most cases just appear to serve the sole purpose of filling some bureaucratic check mark. Waiting on an another editor to revert the bad edit (which is often not a realistic thing to expect on poorly patrolled pages) again adds a headache, because that means I have to observe a ludicrously bad edit, let it slide for a day or more, register the edit in question with me in some way, and then come back days later to revert it. The sole effects would be to make patrolling a way more time-consuming endeavor, make it easier for bad content to get in, and let bad content sit and fester in an article for days. However, I certainly do intend to start more talk page discussions, let other editors revert bad edits instead of always instantly reverting bad edits when I see them (for example, I'm sure a dozen different editors would have ultimately reverted the edit that set off this noticeboard and reverted Springee's removal of RfC consensus text), and register edits with me which I check up on days later. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snoogans has engaged in recurrent edit-warring, personal attacks and battleground behavior. Snoogans usually refuses to engage in civil conversation regarding content disputes, this being Snoogans's talk page, where my message (Concealed carry in the United States) went unanswered by him for days, and he engages in personal attacks, as cited by Pudeo above, and he engaged in a personal attack against Apeholder on Apeholder's talk page. Many diffs and other evidence have been cited as to his edit-warring, battleground behavior and lying. As Levivich pointed out, Snoogans has been edit-warring and engaging in battleground behavior against some of Wikipedia's more experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable editors, disrupting the goals of Wikipedia. Snoogans is clearly acting contrary to the guidelines and just being a pain to anyone that has a different opinion. No amount of service to Wikipedia, whether true or false in its existence, justifies or excuses this behavior. I'm 100% in favor of 1RR. I would have no issue if Snoogans breached 3RR to combat vandals and trolls as he claims, but the facts show that he breaches 3RR regularly to win content disputes and to assert battleground behavior. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't read any part of this thread; I saw a proposal to implement 1RR and that's a yes from me. 1RR should be our standard everywhere, but here's as good a place as any to start. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck this - thanks to a kind email from Doug Weller I realize that the section header is not reflective of the discussion as I interpreted it. I do support applying 1RR everywhere, but that's not what this proposal is. In retrospect it was a silly thing for me to have commented on it in the first place; consider me neutral. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR for Snooganssnoogans for continued pattern of disruptive behavior, WP:TE, and clear evidence of WP:BATTLE here [86]. Even Snooganssnoogans recent comment on this very ANI page (below) [87] evidence the continuing WP:1AM issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (Utc)
Comment leaning toward oppose but am confused by the. Claim of regular breaches of 3rr. You breach 3rr regularly, you get blocked frequently. I see no blocks for edit warring. What I think I do see is a political conflict being carried out by some although not all editors here. Not surprising I guess given the area. And a subject heading that looks like it's for a restriction for a topic area or at least thought to be one by at least one editor. Doug Wellertalk22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, 3RR is not an entitlement and you know that. Playing the game of revert warring repeatedly to that threshold is a form of gaming the system. My original thought was a site wide 1RR restriction for six months. Seems this mess will likely end up in arbcom court since this is a multifaceted behavioral situation.--MONGO (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after further consideration and examination, especially per Aquillion and Johnuniq. I'm asking User:Snooganssnoogans to be especially careful about edit summaries in the future - taking it down a notch should avoid another long discussion like this one. Doug Wellertalk06:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the behaviour is pretty hostile, but there is always another editor in disputes who should hopefully recognize and stop it with a conversation. I just can’t see how this arbitrary lower limit helps. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR on AP2; (would also support a topic ban on AP2). Per the above diffs; which are a representative sample, not an exhaustive list. - Ryk72talk01:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. While Snooganssnoogans does need to tone it down, this is part of a larger problem in the AP2 topic area; many of his disputes are with the same group of people (who often lack clean hands themselves when it comes to revert-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct), many involve edits that ignore a consensus on the talk page, and so on. Certainly WP:3RR is not an entitlement, but it's a red-line rule because that makes it simple to enforce in complex situations; despite what some people say above, in situations that go beyond that easily-defined red line, the context does matter. Where there is extensive problematic editing on all sides, the appropriate thing to do is to go to WP:RFAR so the conduct of everyone involved can be considered in that context, rather than having everyone he's in dispute with line up to demand one-sided restrictions with no deeper analysis. --Aquillion (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with "reverting problematic edits by problematic users is the opposite of undesirable behavior" by NorthBySouthBaranof above. Simplistic lists of reverts (which don't violate 3RR) are not evidence of anything other than the obvious: AP is a highly contested area where a lot of reverts occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Now, I've read through this, and I originally wanted to comment earlier, but I went away from my keyboard and got distracted. Anyway, Aquillion has phrased his objection far better than I could, and I would like to echo it: Snooganssnoogans does need to take it down a notch or two, but I fail to see this as the proper solution absent a deeper analysis. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)03:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR in AP2 Given their long history of edit warring and battle ground behavior something needs to be done. I do not agree with the bad people on all sides argument given that Snoog is so prolific at running up to 3RR each time. Followed up by lets call it aggressive pursuit of their personal goals. I also fail to see the deeper analysis needed in this situation given the examples above from just recent weeks of a problem that has been on going for years. Short a AP2 topic ban this is the lightest step I can see going forward. Also a side note for the arguments that their reverts were justified because they felt they were right let me quote WP:EWAn editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.PackMecEng (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a 1RR would rein in Snooganssnoogans' battleground approach to some extent. An enforcement of CIVIL would also be of use, per Pudeo's comment. There is no good reason for that uncollegial language. It serves only to discourage non-battleground editors from contributing to these topic areas as they will not see dealing with such behavior as a worthwhile use of their free time; this may be the purpose of the edit warring and incivility. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to Snooganssnoogans constant, long-term battleground approach. Agree that he constantly gets to the 3RR limit in order to dissuade others. Does not show a collaborative approach to building the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because as per usual - and this happens with both "sides" - it smacks of again trying to remove an opponent; the fact that a significant number of the support comments are from people involved in the AP area with a certain POV is telling. 171.33.201.13 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a longer pattern of tendentious "my way or no way" editing, and with the recent hostile and uncivil edit summaries, I think 1RR is justified. I already posted the incivility diffs above but here's them for easy access: [88][89][90][91][92][93][94]. Edit-warring is bad enough itself, but combining that with edit-summaries with expletives is terrible in a topic area that is already controversial enough. --Pudeo (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as the problem? Guy suggested that Snoog's editorial direction was good but the way they went about doing it was not. Let's be generous and for the moment assume that to be true. In that case we still have a clear pattern of edit warring (without crossing the 3RR line), frequent refusals to engage in talk page discussions when their edits are questions (even when pinged [[95]]) and the general civility issues [[96]]. They were tband from mass edits that were clearly not just patrolling [[97]]. They also have been frequently reported to the 3RRN. While those were seen as not a violation of 3RR since they didn't do the 4th revert, how many times do we expect editors to show up at 3RRN? All that is a problem even if we don't assume there is an issue with the content/edits they push. It's very clear that many editors are concerned This also ignores the strong bias by inserting almost exclusively negative material in Republican/conservative articles and removing similar from Democratic/left leaning articles [[98]]. When subject to a 1RR limit civility is more important since you must convince others that you are correct and seek compromise instead of bludgeoning your "preferred" version. Snoog might find that many who they think are "POV pushers" would be happy to compromise with a civil editor. Springee (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as the problem? Attempts to shoehorn an inappropriate detail, written to imply a misleading conclusion, into the lede. And then an army of the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork to silence the editor doing so, hoping they can slap enough sanctions on him to prevent any future resistance to POV-pushing. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to considering most anything. But not that largely empty argument, especially from a relatively new account against a long-standing account that has been at the forefront of resisting POV-pushing. Grandpallama (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse others of bias and POV-pushing but take on faith that snoog doesn't do the same. Also, we need to remember WP:AGF and WP:BITE. If an editor is new, an experienced editor should help them rather than attack them and drive them off. Springee (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whom did I accuse? What do I take on faith? I've been around Wikipedia a while, and I'm relating what I've observed on articles and on the noticeboards. I observed that Snoogans fights against POV-pushing, which is generally acknowledged as a fact by the neutral editors weighing in. As for AGF, it's important, but it's also not a suicide pact when dealing with those who aren't editing in good faith, themselves. Grandpallama (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is one block from 3 years ago general civility issues? How is adding relevant PolitiFact ratings a bad thing? Being "frequently reported to the 3RRN" and yet not violating 3RR shows a willingness to play by the rules even on topics where tempers run high. Having a political lean, or even (gasp) a bias, is neither a crime nor a violation of Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The block was one example of incivility. Others have also offered examples. Running up to the 3RR line repeatedly is not showing willingness to play by the rules. Please read wp:3RR, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Springee (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The civility sanction was from when I was a new editor. I called an editor who was stalking me across Wikipedia (in what an admin called a "strategy to harass" me[99]) a "sociopath". That editor, SashiRolls is actually one of the 'support' votes in this thread, and the editor has a longer list of blocks and sanctions in the last few years than any active editor in American politics. That said, the use of the word "sociopath" was of course unnecessary and unhelpful, and the civility sanction was appropriate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of you to repeat yourself without fear of being disciplined. Don't worry, if you're on 1RR in an article happenstance should bring me to, I will observe reciprocal 1RR with regard to you. I'm not looking for a leg up, just looking to keep you from going all zombie on others. I'm more attached to the "no personal attacks" sanction, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen despite everyone shouting in the middle of the central aisle there that you should "dial it back"
As an example, may I suggest dropping "brazen" from your quiver unless you're talking about something which can be independently verified is made of brass? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm willing to extend a fair bit of goodwill to an editor who has the endurance to deal with the constant deluge of far-right POV pushers in the AP2 area. Heavens knows I found it taxing my interest in participating in Wikipedia at all because there's always an AN/I thread, a troll always gets indeffed and then tomorrow there's a new crop of trolls. Attempts to remove a check on this troll-farm because they were a bit forceful on the revert button are not going to improve Wikipedia. They will just make it more like Conservapedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the reasonable, centralist editors who have to deal with a far left POV pushing editor who is unwilling to engage in talk page discussions? The fact that so many think a 1RR is a good idea says that something is wrong. Springee (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a whataboutist straw man is going to do much beyond get all the usual suspects who want free reign to smear anybody left of Reagan on Wikipedia riled up about how they're all "classical liberals" or some such nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Snoogans has been gaming the system for years with the 3RR rule. What he is calling patrolling pages is actually just ensuring his preferred version of the page stays intact.If there is any actual vandalism on a page, I am confident that one of the thousands of other editors on wikipedia not named SnoogansSnoogans will catch it. Snoogans is probably one of the most biased editors on wikipedia and makes no secret about it. In fact he is proud of it, don't take my word for it, just look at his user page. From the point of view of anyone outside wikipedia, Snoogans appears to be on a mission to add negative information to BLP articles of persons with a certain point to view (presumably one that conflicts with his own personal views). Enforcing the 1RR will take away one of the tools that Snoogans uses to push his own POV into articles. Although I am supporting this restriction, I don't think it goes far enough. I would actually be in favor of a topic ban.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rusf10, just above. Snoogans’ user page alone should be enough for any editor here to support not only a 1RR but a topic ban in AP2. This is a proud repeat violator of WP:BATTLEGROUND and should be dealt with as such per established policy. Jusdafax (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the home page I think that is a violation of WP:POLIMIC. A number of those quotes are to Wikipedia talk pages. Previous, similar lists have been removed. Springee (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is my userpage[100]. It shows clearly what it entails to edit and patrol on the topics of conspiracy theories, extremism and fringe rhetoric in American politics. It also sheds light on why the overwhelming majority of 'support' votes here are right-wing POV editors (and the occasional far-left editor - because I also fix bad editing from the left) whom I have butted heads with in the past. That you want to impose a ban on me from editing in American politics because far-left and far-right conspiracy theorists hate what I'm doing and because they seek to doxx and harass me says a lot about you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your home page list is a violation of WP:POLEMIC, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Springee (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Snoog's statement just above, "... the overwhelming majority of 'support' votes here are right-wing POV editors ...", is an example of that battleground behavior and mentality that everyone's talking about. – Levivich17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I voted in favor of 1RR, but Snoogans has a right to defend themselves when the community is proposing some restriction on their editing. -Darouet (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that: I see a number of editors who've endorsed above, myself included, who have tended to edit on the "left" side of the American left-right political divide. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there are a number of voters here that rarely edit political articles (like me). This statement and some others shows Snoo's WP:1AM attitude that there is no place for. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: - I am an editor in the AP2 topic are. While not everyone supporting is right-wing, in my view, pretty much all of the prominent right-wing AP2 editors are here supporting this. starship.paint (talk)07:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know what AP2 was today until I googled it and realized this was American Politics. Not my cup of tea to edit with really pushy editors, I mostly stayed in the in other eclectic areas of the wikispace. But I recognize the laws of physics and if Snoos has pushed on people across a wide range of articles eventually he will feel push back. Wikipedia has a big problem with editors driving out weekend editors, and it is editors like Snoos that do that. Certainly he can find a way to edit cooperatively in any area. I was also surprised by the way that the admins showed up on the Assange page and started threatening a POV editor (who had opposite POV as Snoos). It just struck me as a overreaction, and thus it drew my attention. Wikipedia is about shining light on things until the truth is revealed, and in this case this editor and the behavior around him certainly attracted a lot of attention and therefore, there must be an issue that needs examination (rather it is this particular editor, policy, or both). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about shining light on things until the truth is revealed This is absolutely not what Wikipedia is about, and is a prime example of the attempted railroading of Snoogans that is occurring here; the conclusions you're reaching also show you're not very familiar with the players or environment of AP2. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Railroading is not what is happening. The proposal isn't tban from 2AP. A 1RR limit shouldn't be a problem if the changes Snoog is pushing are neutral and reasonable. The repeated problem is that Snoog frequently refuses to engaged in discussions with those who object to snoog's reversions or even snoog's content pushes. There is no reason why so many of snoog's content disputes go to 3RR before they come to the talk page. A constant refrain here is that isn't just those on one side of the divide trying to silence the other side. That is effectively saying that those editors are all acting in bad faith and ignores that they might have legitimate grievances. I don't agree when Guy says snoog is "being right" but Guy is correct with the "in the wrong way part" The fact that snoog is working "in the wrong way" is the problem. Why would more conservative editors likely object more, well look where snoog is directing their efforts, the recipients of snoog's battleground behaviors and aspersions are more likely to be on the other side. After looking at snoog's decided to follow their lead and do a web search. This link was interesting [[101]]. So of ~500 BLP snoog was involved with, they added information effectively saying the BLP subject made a false or true claim to a bit over 200 articles. For Republican articles it was 208 "false" 0 true. For Democrats it was 3 for each. With that sort of bias of interest it's not surprising that more right leaning editors would have issues with snoog's behavior vs those on the left. Again, "in the wrong way" is still "wrong". A 1RR restriction doesn't block snoog, it just forces them to spend more time discussing and reaching consensus vs driving other editors away. Springee (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Citing" a thread from a forum made up of a small coterie of banned and otherwise disgruntled users is not particularly persuasive of anything. I mean, I suppose it's better than citing a thread from the "WikiInAction" subreddit that's literally run by Nazis and anti-Semites, but only just. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an evasive reply. There are two possibilities here, 1: the material presented in the thread is wrong and thus we can dismiss it. 2: the material presented is correct. If the material is correct it certainly indicates why one side vs the other is more likely to have been the subject of Snoog's civility issues. Springee (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This link was interesting [[102]]. So of ~500 BLP snoog was involved with, they added information effectively saying the BLP subject made a false or true claim to a bit over 200 articles. For Republican articles it was 208 "false" 0 true. For Democrats it was 3 for each. A goofily fallacious argument to make, and an example of the railroading I'm talking about. Snoogans inserted properly-sourced material into articles about right-wing BLPs, and that means that he should have 1RR, because he isn't doing the same on left-wing figures? We don't put restrictions on people just because we don't like their edits, unless their edits violate policy. Really, this entire effort is tiresome and wholly transparent. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. It's not an air tight argument but is it really reasonable to assume that snoog is unbiased and Republican BLP subjects are actually making false claims at a ratio of 70:1. You also jumped to the conclusion that the material was RS or more specifically DUE and added in compliance with NPOV. Snoog's chosen addition to Mark Levin appears to fail that bar. We don't put restrictions on people just because we don't like their edits, unless their edits violate policy. Well you are correct but your statement doesn't match the facts on the ground. Snoog does violate policy (CIVIL, NPOV and edit warring). They are smart enough to make sure no single edit/revert war crosses the line but that doesn't mean the cumulative impact isn't problematic. Sorry, there are too many editors complaining and citing examples to just say this is a few editors who had their POV-pushing content reversed. Springee (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly not an airtight argument, because it's not even a good argument. Snoogans can be incredibly biased. Editors aren't required to be NPOV--their edits are. You also didn't provide a diff (to me, at least) regarding Mark Levin, but a diff to an off-wiki site where the usual suspects are bemoaning the fact that they can't POV-push to their heart's content. Snoogans may occasionally have violated CIVIL, but 1RR doesn't make any sense in response to that. An argument is being made, poorly, for NPOV, but that argument "doesn't match the facts on the ground." You may be able to make a case for edit warring, but more neutral editors need to weigh in and agree with that, and from my read, there is far from consensus that 1RR is appropriate or is going to be enacted. The number of newer editors popping out of the ether to declare their support for such a sanction is just one of a few red flags at play here. Grandpallama (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
snoog is biased. That isn't against the rules. However, it's clear that many of their edits are not viewed by the wider community as improvements and often they are simply an effort to add negative content to articles regardless of whether the content is DUE. That isn't good editing. Neither is biting those who disagree. Look at snoog's 13:22, 6 November 2019 comment and the replies here [[103]]. The RfC is clearly against snoog's preferred content. Notice snoog's 30 Oct edit [[104]]. snoog is very certain that their preferred edit is correct yet the later RfC shows their judgement is clearly off. It's possible @Mr Ernie: is a right-wing POV pusher. Or perhaps they are concerned with things like BLP and impartial tone. Springee (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snoogans made an edit, properly sourced. It was reverted. Snoogans took it to the talkpage, where its inclusion was rejected by consensus; Snoogans didn't attempt to reinsert it. I don't know what you think you're proving, other than that Snoogans follows policy. We don't penalize people for following policy, and we don't put 1RR restrictions on people just because we don't like their edits, which is what I said at the very beginning of my comments. Continuing to bludgeon those who are disagreeing with the lack of soundness of this proposal, when you are the proposer, is increasingly problematic. Grandpallama (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page where their judgement has been shown to be clearly wrong. Look, you are really missing the big picture here. The issue isn't that snoog has a POV though that does have a part in the issue. The issue is that snoog edit wars, doesn't follow CIVIL rules and has lots of problematic editing behavior. Limiting them to 1RR is a clean way to avoid many of the complaints here (and I'm sure there are many more examples) while still allowing them to contribute. Just because you haven't been subject to their battleground behavior doesn't mean others are making it up. Perhaps it's just a deep state, Ukrainian ploy to get all these editors to complain about snoog. Springee (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per diffs above and Red Rock Canyon's comment: "everyone who edits American politics has experienced Snoog's edit-warring or battleground behavior. This is a consistent problem". This edit by Springee warning Snooganssnoogans to stop "wp:bludgeon those who don't support your POV" is further evedince. UberVegan🌾19:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. please don't accuse me of being a right-wing POV editor, neither am I an occasional far-left editor. User Snooganssnoogans is an edit warrior that needs restrictions.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snoogans's statement that "the overwhelming majority of 'support' votes here are right-wing POV editors (and the occasional far-left editor - because I also fix bad editing from the left)" is an admission of his own ideological bias. Were he authentically a neutral editor then he would receive equal opposition from both sides. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read that page? Because your odd interpretation of it suggests you need to revisit it. Having a bias doesn't preclude one from editing certain pages unless their bias results in POV-pushing. Snoogans is disliked by a number of editors commenting here largely because he pushes against the POV-pushing that occurs on AP2 articles. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a case of false balance. The simple fact is that when I add content that may reflect poorly on left-leaning figures and causes, there isn't a slew of editors who come out and claim that high-quality RS are unreliable (multiple editors voting 'support' in this thread do so), that peer-reviewed science is bunk, and promote whatever conspiracy theories that are popular on the left. I can add research showing that voter ID laws don't appear to have any negative impact (contrary to what Democrats say)[105] and that immigration can have adverse impacts (which goes against Democratic talking points)[106][107] without any pushback, but if I add peer-reviewed research on the positive effects of immigration and research that suggests adverse impacts of voter ID laws, then you have to deal with a cavalcade of right-wing editors who dispute the content. I mean, the editor who started the call for 1RR, Springee, literally removed RfC consensus content on multiple occasions which was based on multiple peer-reviewed studies and expert content about how a major publication engaged in climate change denial.[108][109][110][111][112]. One of the editors voting 'support' in this thread, MrThunderbolt1000T, just yesterday fought to remove text sourced to a state-of-the-art literature review by the National Academy of Sciences on Concealed carry in the United States, because apparently he personally knows the literature better.[113] Those are illustrative examples from just the last few days. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again with "state of the art," as usual. Narcissistic charm and childish hostility. You're not the judge of credibility court, bud. You're just proving the accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND. You accuse me of "brazen falsehoods," yet you act like saying "state of the art" makes your favored paper the right paper. Your conduct is ridiculous and narcissistic. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you making false accusations against me? You have repeatedly, falsely claimed that I removed RfC material on multiple occasions but it was removed only once and that was before I was aware that it was added after a RfC. Rather than discussing the issue civilly you went right into actuations. I've explained why your claim is false here [[
Comment At least half a dozen of the "Supports" are from new-ish editors, at least one of which is a very obvious sock, and a couple more are from editors with long block logs in this area. I don't think this is something that ANI should be looking at. Black Kite (talk)21:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^This. I suggest editors weigh this comment before casting a vote, and before closing. One account also appears to be an SPA with a strong POV in the topic area, but then again, they’re relatively new, like several others. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is just their way of hand waving BS. Yes everyone supporting this must be an evil so and so. You notice their only opposition to it boils down to "I like what they do". So luckily that kind of argument holds no water policy wise and is easily ignored. What matters is the clear and demonstrated pattern of edit warring, disruption, and battle ground behavior that needs to be corrected. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what you’re talking about PacMecEng. I certainly never said anyone was “evil”, nor implied it. Or was this a comment on something else? If you aren’t speaking to me, I’m not sure I’ve been given you any cause for anything but good faith. I try to be fair and evaluate edits based on merit and adherence to policy. As far as i know, the only interaction I’ve been ever had with you, as I recall, was thanking you for an edit. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I’m not sure if you weren’t addressing me, but I assume from the context you were. I certainly didn’t mean you. That should be obvious. I meant MrThunderbolt1000T. You’re obviously not a new user, so I don’t get why you’d lump yourself in that statement, nor do I get the aggression. You’re an editor in good standing, and you know I’ve appreciate your work here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I run an SPA with a strong POV? That couldn't be farther from the truth. If you bothered to take a look at my contributions before making such a baseless claim, you'd see that most of my edits are focused on articles outside of AP2. The majority are grammatical fixes, not even ‘’’remotely’’’ political or capable of exhibiting POV. The two times I've had content disputes with Snoogans, I was pushing a completely neutral and fair representation of the facts. If you're going to accuse me of having a “strong POV” and having an SPA, then Snoogans should be much more of a concern to you. Me listing my political opinions isn't exhibiting a POV-pushing attitude, or being an SPA: it's literally *just stating my beliefs.* Oh, and no, I'm not “new.” I've had a Wikipedia account for four years. If I remember correctly, my first edit was to a hurricane-related article, and I don't just edit articles about hurricanes. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Symmachus Auxiliarus, that wasn't really directed at you and I didn't mean to come off as aggressive. Going back to BK's point (and other comments similar to it), even if there are half a dozen editors who are new or whose !votes should otherwise be discounted, that still leaves over a dozen editors in support. It's frustrating to see editors dismiss, for example, my concerns, because of how they feel about other editors who share my concerns. That doesn't make much sense, you know? – Levivich05:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, there's an oppose !vote from an IP address with no edits besides vandalism, using the phrase "as per usual" and claiming knowledge of the AP area. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looking at what started this, no, this should not result in a sanction. Snoog is the type of editor who is usually right but can be rash in the course of being right. We need editors familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to be active on challenging articles like this, even when it makes them a target for, say SPAs, like is happening here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't help but suspect that the amount of voting here has more to do with Snooganssnoogans' prolific editing rather than their actual level of disruption. They occasionally revert too readily (which is true of a lot of us) but they've been responsive to criticism and have shown improvements since I first interacted with them, and they've remain pretty restrained in the face of a fair bit of undeserved provocation. I don't see anything here that can't be handled with a gentle caution to dial it back a bit on the reverts and try to write for the enemy a bit more. Nblundtalk23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor just followed me here from the talk page of a right-wing pundit where this editor is advocating that we whitewash RS content about an anti-transgender speech that the far-right pundit held.[114]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR if not outright topic ban for Snooganssnoogans. This is not his first proverbial rodeo in this contentious area. Normally this should warrant AE topic ban of proportionate duration rather than drama boards but here we are. Their disruption exceeds contribution to this topic. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the inaccurate aspersion as the sources weren't written when I edited that article. Also an interesting definition of edit-warring considering your behaviour being discussed here. But continue ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This hodgepodge of context-free diffs seems very weak. As for calling bullshit "bullshit", yes, that's appropriate. Sometimes bullshit should be identified as bullshit. Treating this as automatically "battleground" is completely unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nblund and Aquillion. In addition, obviously not everyone supporting is right-wing, just that it seems that pretty much every (prominent) right-wing AP2 editor is here supporting (yes, some left-wing AP2 editors are here opposing, but fewer, it seems - and I might as well say I lean left on some areas). starship.paint (talk)07:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A unilateral sanction against Snoogans isn't the solution here - maybe 1RR needs to be implemented for all editors in AP2.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An insufficient justification for this unilateral sanction. Also, she/he is a very reasonable contributor - based on my experience of interaction with them. 1RR for the page is sufficent. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1RR limit on Snooganssnoogans, based on my experience with this editor at Casualties of the Iraq War. I have described these experiences in detail above. Snoogans makes far too much use of the "Undo" button, often ignoring BRD. A 1RR limit would allow Snoogans to continue editing, but curtail this particular behavioral problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of whether you think Snoogan is justified in his battleground tactics, bear in mind that Snoogan's own position is: "As someone who patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial American politics pages (which are rife with bad edits), it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes without any effective way of ensuring a stable status quo version of the article" [[115]] Edit warring is not a substitute for spending time on talk pages. 3RR is not an entitlement or a license to edit war. This is true for anyone of any political bent, and this behavior is not OK. It's not excusable even if you agree with Snoogan's viewpoint. The imposition of a 1RR rule is enforcement of Wikipedia's most basic policies, and would encourage Snoogan to talk with other editors to reach consensus, rather than just revert them all the time. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧20:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^This editor has already voted and commented in this thread. I can't get over the nerve that this editor has in lecturing me about edit-warring when the same editor violated 1RR and consensus-required on the William Barr page to add misleading content[116][117]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And then I opened an RfC, and all outside editors agreed with my proposed edit, and you were the only Oppose. Again, further demonstrating that you edit war in order to keep your WP:OWN version of the article in place even when others disagree with it. "But I'm right" is not a justification for edit warring. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧14:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As was already pointed out, the version that was approved in the RfC is different than the version which you tried to edit-war into the article. That you feel the need to be dishonest about this is illustrative about why editing in American Politics is so dysfunctional. Here are the diffs.[118][119][120]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hardly "edit warring" but my point is that you were literally the only person who was against my edit in the RfC. So please don't claim that you were doing anything other than trying to WP:OWN the article. But I suppose this is all a moot point as an admin has justifiably placed a 1RR restriction upon you. Perhaps now you'll discuss on talk pages instead of edit warring. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧14:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) the page was covered by 1RR and consensus-required, which you blatantly violated. Of course, when you edit war it can't be "edit-warring"... (2) You're intentionally conflating the text in the RfC with a different text that you were edit-warring into the article. The misleading text that you were edit-warring into the article was opposed by three editors on the talk page[121], whereas the different text that was ultimately approved[122] in a RfC was approved near-unanimously. The need to tell fibs about this does not reflect well on you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^I have a history with this editor on the Illegal immigration to the United States page where this user edit-warred debunked anti-immigrant propaganda and poorly sourced text into the article[123][124][125], as well as removed the best possible academic research on the subject (a recently published 642-page state-of-the-art literature review by the National Academy of Sciences[126]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[127] If 1RR had been in place for me at the time, this editor might have succeeded in edit-warring the debunked anti-immigration propaganda into the article, and would have been able to remove a National Academy of Sciences report (which are often considered the gold standard lit reviews) from Wikipedia. That's relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question begins with A report released by the United States Department of Justice and United States Department of Homeland Security]]. He decided that the official government reports on the situation were not to be trusted, nor any reliable sources that mentioned them or anything else he disagreed with, and edit warred and argued nonstop until I and others just gave up trying to deal with him. I still believe that mentioning what the American government says on the matter is important. I'd like more people to just look at this [128] and tell me if there is a problem with Snooganssnoogans editing and how he represents what's going on. DreamFocus13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple fact-checkers had debunked the anti-immigrant propaganda that you added to the article, as I explained to you in detail on the talk page[129]. However, even after you were notified that you misused a primary source, and fact-checkers and RS such as PolitiFact,[130][131] NY Times[132], and FactCheck.Org[133][134] had debunked it, you still insisted that it belonged in the article. In short, you repeatedly edit-warred debunked anti-immigrant propaganda into the article, and then removed the gold standard literature review on the subject. If 1RR had been in place for me, you would have gotten away with it, and the encyclopedia would have been worse off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although I have to say I'm torn. On the one hand, Snoog is a dedicated and productive patroller in a difficult area, and I really think his tendency to revert isn't an expression of battleground mentality, but of a desire to see articles reflect consensus as he understands it. The fact he doesn't violate 3RR shows he knows how to color inside the lines, and when the consensus is against him, he knows how to let it go and move on. On the other hand, it'd be extremely funny to see a bunch of the people who engaged in edit wars with him successfully get him sanctioned for edit warring. The lack of self-awareness is just... *chef's kiss* peak AN/I. In all seriousness, I endorse Aquillion's rationale. If there's a problem in AP2, this is not the solution. —Rutebega (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC
Pudeo, but he's not haranguing the talk page (at least from what I've seen), so you could call that an effective coping strategy. If you think litigating userpage guidelines is a good use of your time, be my guest, but it doesn't interest me in the slightest. —Rutebega (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note about DS restriction, First, apologies: I did not intend to interfere with this still-ongoing community process. I crafted the unilateral sanction against Snoogans when I believed this thread had been closed with no consensus. Second: I have now revoked the sanctions based on the (nonbinding/informal) commitment Snoogans made here. While I obviously think that's good enough to merit a second chance, I don't want to interfere any more with this process other than to state what I did. (translated: @Closer, don't count this as a vote.) ~Awilley (talk)16:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's essentially the same rationale Snoogans gave for edit-warring at Casualties of the Iraq War: "Because I cannot spend the rest of my life dealing with this BS" ([135]). "Dealing with this BS" would have consisted of replying to three veteran editors who had agreed on a compromise text. Snoogans argues above that they need the power to frequently revert in order to deal with vandals, SPAs and POV-pushers, but in the example I'm giving here, Snoogans was undoing a compromise agreed on by three longstanding editors. Snoogans couldn't be bothered to argue against the other editors, but chose simply to hit the revert button. This is the behavior that needs to be reined in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(1) when I add new content (or alter existing content) and it gets reverted by a regular editor, I will start a talk page discussion and wait a few days before making the first restoration. If it gets reverted again after I restore it, I will not restore it again, unless it gets support in a RfC or through external dispute resolution. (2) when a regular editor removes or alters long-standing text, I revert this user once. If the user restores the content again, I start a talk page discussion (even if the other editor is violating BRD) and will wait a few days before restoring the status quo version. If the other editor re-adds the content into the article at that point, I start a RfC about the content, but I'm allowed to make sure that the status quo version is maintained until the new content gets approved in the RfC. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that Snooganssnoogans has a long list of enemies, and I'm sure they will be monitoring whether Snooganssnoogans violates their commitments above, and WP:AE can deal with it accordingly. Snooganssnoogans can hardly complain for being sanctioned if they were found to have strayed from their own self-proposed commitments. starship.paint (talk)15:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The arrogance of an editor and the sad state of policy at wikipedia such that an editor makes a special commitment to follow wikipedia policy (that we are all bound to follow). If we dont follow the posted rules, we get penalized. Consequences are the bedrock of rules enforcement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^Accusations of arrogance coming from an editor who edit-warred contested content into the lead of a BLP on multiple occasions despite reverts from two editors and vociferous objections from multiple editors on the talk page (and now there's a RfC that is overwhelmingly against the content that this editor was edit-warring into the lede). If we dont follow the posted rules, we get penalized. What do you propose should be your punishment for edit-warring? I can't get over just shameless and hypocritical some of these comments are. Where is your sense of awareness? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, as Jtbobwaysf notes, instead of promising to adhere to existing policies, Snoogans in his special pleading carves out his own personal policy. XavierItzm (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans has made two voluntary commitments
Oppose - this is way over the top and there's no basis for it. Controversial area basically over run with sock puppets and WP:TEND and you got a problem with a couple frustrated edit summaries? There's literally at least two dozen editors who are in front of Snoogans^2 in the "should be sanctioned" que. Some of them commenting here. Volunteer Marek 02:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above comments and diffs and for example Hillary Clinton said without real evidences that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset,[137] yet Snooganssnoogans removed the word "without evidence" saying it violates BLP (Hillary Clinton's biography) and also he said "Only without evidence if your head is in the sand: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard.html" totally violating BLP by making an original research and a provocative comment in the edit summary, "if your head is in the sand". There is also this [138].
Also saying that those who vote support are right-wing editors, well, I am probably what you call a left-wing yet I am voting support so what you said is just rubbish.
I want also to note that ever since the Democrats lost the elections to Trump, they have been accusing Russia for their lost. This behavior of the democrats led to increase of Russophobia among Americans which effectively made the English wikipedia much more Russophobic because most editors are Americans. This type of hate should not be allowed in Wikipedia and Wikipedia should remain neutral.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely post here, but I feel like this comment is really inappropriate. I know things can get heated but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Comments on the state of russophobia in the wake of the election are unrelated to the discussion at hand, and at least I feel, kind of disruptive. Darthkayak (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing about this above post by Sharab (while maybe WP:NOTFORUM applies) is that it demonstrates how Snoog has stepped on the toes of a wide ranging group of editors, from those on the right wing, those on the left wing (as the editor above self identifies) and those on no-wing like myself who rarely edit AP. I have seen some editors frame this as a left/right issues, and since I don't know the AP2 editors well enough to even understand who might be left/right, it is clear from above that Snoog has done his WP:TE on just about everyone. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue is not the political direction of the editing, but rather the complete disregard for WP:BRD. I gave diffs above of how this played out at Casualties of the Iraq War. It would have been one thing if Snooganssnoogans and I had simply disagreed about the sources, but the real problem was Snoogans' insistence on making large-scale changes to the article and then repeated reverts against multiple editors to keep those changes in the article. That's the sort of behavior that has to change. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: - but Snooganssnoogans will change his behaviour. Scenario 1 is that he abides by his voluntary restrictions, behavioural change occurs. Scenario 2 is that he does not abide by his voluntary restriction, he'll be dragged here to be sanctioned for it. Surely the consensus will not favour Snooganssnoogans if he flouts his own rules. It's already around 50/50 already. starship.paint (talk)14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A pattern of edit warring has not been shown[139] and the vast majority of Snooganssnoogans' reversions are grounded in policies like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. 1RR is not justified based on my observations of Snooganssnoogans' editing in this topic area and the diffs provided in this complaint. - MrX 🖋 18:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is despite the fact that policy requires that relevant but controversial material in the lead of a WP:BLP not be suppressed, and it is not uncommon that poor health or alleged torture under detainment be noted in biographies. Again, more eyes at the article and participation in the RfC would be helpful there. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I strongly support more eyes at more pages (no one has started more RfCs in Am Politics editing than me in the last few years). I have no doubt at all that the community will agree with me (and the majority on the article talk page) that one opinion suggesting that the British authorities are harming or trying to kill Assange is not ledeworthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, most of those sources don't even mention the part of his statements that is disputed in the lead (that his life is at risk), and even the ones that do do so in a context that has different implications than the disputed lead wording, ie. the lead wording makes it sound like he should be killed, whereas the emphasis of those sources is on psychological trauma and the fact that he is sick. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, when an expert on torture says "his life is at risk", we don't suppose he's talking about the dangers of high cholesterol. If a cardiologist says "his life is at risk", we don't suppose he's talking about being tortured to death. – Levivich05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I applied twice, they wouldn't let me in. They also threw me out a few times–of the Yard. So I spent a lot of time in The Pit. That's gone, though, so now I spend my time on Wikipedia. – Levivich16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just jumping to conclusions. I now understand why there was such a ruckus about the text, but I think that just proves that many editors jump to conclusions. I think your examples prove the opposite to what you intend. A cardiologist is fully entitled to express opinions on any number of issues; it doesn't have to be confined to affairs of the heart. This is batshit crazy!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if he says someone is in danger of death it is reasonable to assume he is talking about his area of expertise. Thus wording has to be chosen to ensure no such conclusion can be drawn.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is even trickier because The UN special rapporteur and "expert" on torture has, in the very same OHCHR press release, reported that Assange shows signs of psychological torture [140]:
The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” and demanded immediate measures for the protection of his health and dignity.
Despite what they would like to think, holders of Harvard graduate and professional degrees might be called "Harvard-trained", but they're not "Harvard-educated". That's for Harvard College graduates only. Sorry, John Yoo. (That still leaves Jared Kushner, but every school has its embarrassments – you can lead a horticulture but you can't make him think.) EEng21:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly why is the article on Julian Assange considered part of American politics? Yes, he's been charged in the USA, but that's it. Is it just the whim of an admin???--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find your questions refreshing. Yes, Julian Assange is charged with espionage for leaking classified military and diplomatic documents, but thats not it: he also leaked Hillary Clinton's emails, which he got from the Russians, who hacked a US political candidate's computer to get them, and then leaked them through Assange in order to influence a presidential election. Allegedly. – Levivich01:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is like Six Degrees of Kevin Spacey! Any article can be linked with American politics. The Assange page can also be linked to Eastern Europe!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even prior to the Podesta leaks, most of Wikileaks most prominent document dumps were related to US politics. The problems that plague AP2 are obviously present on that page, so the DS seems pretty obviousNblundtalk02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So Assange is an Australian who founded an Iceland-based organisation and went into the Ecuadorian embassy to escape charges in Sweden. But, yeah, it's all about the USA!!! That's not obvious; it's batshit crazy!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Put all those elements in a circle around Assange and you can draw a direct link from him to any of them. That's how it works. He was an important link in the Trump/Russian interference in the American elections. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I was right. It is Six Degrees of Kevin Spacey. Admins are highly intelligent and could make a link between American politics and almost any article. So it is just the whim of the admin.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it common sense - it's hard to argue that Assange doesn't fall into the category of "closely related people". The US is mentioned in all 4 lead paragraphs of his article, starting with "After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. Doug Wellertalk09:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it's obvious that Assange is related to US politics, I do think that this illustrates why it's infeasible to just apply an automatic 1RR to the entire AP2 topic area - there's inevitably going to be some confusion about what articles fall under AP2, especially given that many people don't follow all the details of American politics; even a non-AP2-related article could suddenly have a section or paragraph that clearly relates to AP2 without warning. 1RR restrictions do absolutely require the template on the page to let people know it applies there, otherwise it's going to be a total mess. --Aquillion (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this discussion is about whether to establish a noticeboard, and is nothing to do with Julian Assange or 1RR restrictions (or, for that matter, any particular editor). Let's put comments in the relevant discussion, not sidetrack discussions about other issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snoogansnoogan "Some_of_my_endorsements" list
Since this was mentioned by another editor I think it would be worth asking. Is Snoogansnoogan's "Some_of_my_endorsements" list [[142]] a violation of WP:POLEMIC?
The list contains a large number of quotes with links to their sources. A number of those sources are Wikipedia talk page discussions and thus quotes from other editors presented without their original context. Per POLEMIC, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.". The full list including the external quotes probably violates "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" since the material is about reactions to Snoog's edits, not a list of things to do or helpful links. In particular keeping a list of people you have ticked off comes across as petty rather than CIVIL. Some of this is especially troubling where Snoog is involved with a BLP. For example Mark Levin's page where Snoog takes pride in the BLP's subject's response to their edits[[143]]. Even if Snoog's edits are good for Wikipedia on the whole, this list seems petty, doesn't benefit Wikipedia on the whole and further endorses the view that Snoog looks at issues with a BATTLEGROUND POV. Springee (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, no. Off-wiki reactions to Snoog's edits are indeed related to encyclopedia editing and are not negative information related to others. Records of on-wiki disputes can, in principle, be useful references, particularly for an editor who works on tumultuous topics. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're links. They point to the context from which they were taken. And so they provide a record of arguments past which might potentially be relevant for arguments in the future. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Because they're links" has not been a sufficient explanation in the past. You are really stretching to say these are "arguments" that might be useful in the future. Springee (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a stretch to say that it's in principle not a bad idea to record when people have been upset with you? Perhaps throwing on-wiki disputes in the same bucket with angry Reddit threads is in dubious taste, but that intensity of line-by-line policing of somebody's user page is itself a kind of battleground mentality that I would rather avoid. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key point in WP:POLEMIC would be "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." A list of off-wiki criticisms directed against the user themselves isn't generally "related to others" in the sense meant there, I think - the list doesn't, for the most part, place much emphasis on the source of the criticisms unless they're a major news outlet or public figure; the focus is primarily on Snoog in the sense of "this is what I deal with" rather than being a WP:POLEMIC about others. And, beyond that, it does serve an important editorial purpose in establishing that Snooganssnoogans has been the target of sustained off-wiki campaigning, which matters when discussing controversies related to them - eg. if a bunch of editors (especially new editors or ones with few prior interactions with them) start repeating criticisms covered in those links without prompting, it establishes that that may not be organic. I feel it is reasonable for Snooganssnoogans to want to have those highlighted so people know they may be a factor - and I say this as someone who has been targeted by some of those outlets myself (in fact, I think I'm named in one or two of the links there; the stuff I'm describing briefly happened to me.) For me it mostly evaporated quickly because I am comparatively boring, but I can definitely see how, if it continued in a sustained manner like Snooganssnoogans seems to have had to deal with, it would be useful to have a list that I can direct people to in order to give them context. Obviously, again, most of the people commenting here aren't like that - almost everyone here has interacted with the user extensively, aside from maybe the "poop poop poop" IP. But in general that random weirdness is the sort of thing that targeted off-wiki criticism causes, and when it does happen it's useful to be able to have a list you can point to to say "oh, yeah, they may be here because of that." And making it visible reduces the need to constantly explain. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might be more sympathetic with that view if Snoog didn't take such a battleground approach to disagreements. I'm curious how many times they insulted or violated CIVIL in reply to me over the years. Even if we disagree that isn't acceptable. Also, you talk about what Snoog has dealt with, what about what they are delivering? Consider the Mark Levin example. Snoog's RfC clearly is not supporting what they want to do with the article. Why should we believe that Levin's criticism isn't valid? Can we assume Snoog would respect NPOV after being mentioned by Levin? More to the point, since this is a list, how does it not violate, "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."? Springee (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's plainly hilarious and humor is good for everyone here. On a more serious note we need to give people latitude on their user pages. Add: lastly, it's a list of clear personal attacks that Snoogans has experienced... I can't see how listing those harms others. -Darouet (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first I wasn't sure if the list itself was the problem. The problem is what the list represents. The fact that Snoogans maintains such a list tells you the purpose of his editing. It is done in a way to attract as much negative attention as possible. Snoogans would have you believe that everyone who criticizes him is just a "right-wing extremist", but many of the criticisms documented on the user page are completely legitimate. Like when Snoogans nominated the Peter Strzok article for deletion [144]. Strzok clearly met notability requirements, but Snoogans nominated the article anyway. Everyone should take a closer look at the list though because its not only off-wiki criticism, some of it is on-wiki. Even more problematic is that it includes quotes that admins have since redacted (which you can see on the user page, I'm not repeating any of this here, just providing links). For example, [145] & [146]. After a closer look at the extensive divisive and inappropriate content in the list, I have come to the conclusion that it needs to be removed, but even its removal will not change the underlying behavior.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because it is just more evidence that Snoogans revels in incivility, battleground behavior, and bullying. Clearly, many editors have an issue with this editor. If there is an editor who deserves sanctions, it is Snoogans. GlassBones (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: Snoogans makes note of vitriol and attacks directed at him/her by other people, and to you that means that he/she is the one who "revels in incivility, battleground behavior, and bullying"? Doesn't pass the laugh test. And please immediately disclose whether you have edited under another account or IP. I see that you have something like 30 edits under this account, of which the vast majority are following around Snoogans, trying to get him/her sanctioned, or promoting Biden-related fringe notions. We weren't born yesterday, and this project does not allow hounding. Neutralitytalk17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"please immediately disclose whether you have edited under another account or IP" is not a proper question to ask anyone. People are allowed to edit as an IP and then create an account, to abandon one account for another, even to have a WP:CLEANSTART. They don't have to answer demands to self-identify. However, in this case, GlassBones has already made a voluntary disclosure, a couple of threads below. At the very least, read the whole thread before making accusatory demands of people. – Levivich18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLEANSTART states that it is "not a "license to resume editing in areas under heightened scrutiny" but "is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct." Under GlassBones' disclosed prior account (BattleshipGray), he/she repeatedly clashed with Snoogs and multiple others in this topic area. All of this is just about the polar opposite to a clean start. Neutralitytalk20:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen far more polemic user pages kept on the grounds that they weren't really hurting anyone. This honestly just seems petty at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No policy violation here, and wrong forum anyway. First of all, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion is the proper forum. Second of all, some of the statements here are incomprehensible. Snoogans has made note of the vitriol directed at him/her by other people. Not vice versa. Somehow, we are supposed to think that this is a strike against Snoogans? The clear fact of the matter is that Snoogans has been targeted and disparaged by others, on- and off-wiki (including many sockpuppets, fringe figures, conspiracy-mongers, and the like) and he/she choose to keep track of all this. There's absolutely no policy against this, and I believe others keep similar lists in their user-space. This is not a project that I, personally, would choose to undertake (seems like a waste of time), but Snoogs is totally entitled to do it, perhaps to show that he/she won't be intimidated, or just finds it amusing. In either case, he's entitled to do so. Neutralitytalk17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than your opinion you have made no case why my view was incorrect. It certainly is reasonable to see a list such as this as an "enemies list". However, since there doesn't seem to be consensus for removal that's that. However, if you want to step up and make your case for BOOMERANG, go for it. Springee (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine - We have numerous admins and other editors who have had similar content in their user space for years without other editors springing into action. - MrX 🖋 16:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose AP2 Topic Ban for Snooganssnoogans
WP:SNOW. There's no chance that a consensus will develop to enact this proposal. Ending this in the usual interest of stopping the ongoing bickering. --Jayron3213:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Altough I support the 1RR restriction above, I do not believe it goes far enough to stop Snooganssnoogans persistent gaming of the system and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Snooganssnoogans own user page (which is being debated above) makes the case that he has damaged Wikipedia's reputation and his contributions in the area of American Politics is a net negative. In my opinion a topic ban would be the only effective solution.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence to support this (the fact that Snoogs is attacked by fringe elements online does not mean that "he has damaged Wikipedia's reputation"—that assertion is mind-boggling), and frankly there is a strong unclean hands aspect to this proposal. Neutralitytalk20:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10 has an 11 year edit history with no blocks. Have they been involved with any issues with Snoog that would suggest they are proposing this out of revenge etc? Springee (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the two have repeatedly clashed, with Rusf10 often using personal terms against Snoogs. See here and here, to name a few. Snoogs' conduct toward Rusf10, in comparison, looks fairly measured. Moreover, within the last eight months or so Rusf10 has been cautioned by admins for proxying for a banned editor (by restoring or un-hatting "belligerent, unconstructive hyper-partisan" talk-page edits from the banned editor on an article talk page in the AP2 area) and has had an AP2 discretionary sanction (specifically, an "auto-boomerang" sanction) imposed "for continuing to engage in WP:Battleground behavior and WP:ABF" despite warnings, including for "the hounding nature of, and battleground behavior exhibited" in his "third AE enforcement request in a year against User:BullRangifer." In light of this history, Rusf10 is possibly the last person on the project that should be bringing these kinds of cases to the noticeboards. Neutralitytalk21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality:First, of all this thread isn't about me, so stop trying to deflect because you want to get your buddy Snoogans off the hot seat. Why don't we also post Snoog's edit summaries that preceded mine? (Would that be the NEUTRAL way to present it???) On the Justin Amash article Snoog's accuses me of feeding a "disinformation campaign" and on the Nancy Pelosi article he falsely accused me of "disputing that the BBC is a RS" (I didn't even remove it as a source). Stop taking things out of context and casting aspersions by bringing up other unrelated issues. And I have one suggestion: change your username, it is very misleading, you do not even have the slightest semblance of neutrality.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of hostile, battlegrounding response that others have warned you about. And yes, when you (or another other editor) seeks to remove another editor from a topic area, of course the editor's own conduct in the topic area will be examined. Neutralitytalk21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even remotely consistent with your vote on the 1RR proposal. You discredited Rusf10 as someone with a history of battlegrounding, hostility and personal attacks, yet all the evidence presented in the 1RR proposal confirms that Snoogans has done what you accuse Rusf10 of doing. You are the last person who should be picking sides and being hypocritical. The evidence proves the majority of the allegations against Snoogans. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a "battlegrounding response". I am just defending myself against your personal attack in which you took my statements out of context. Please do not pretend that you are not completely biased in this area. No matter what behavior Snoogans exhibits, you always have his back. Besides taking my edit summaries out of context, you have brought up unrelated (and months old) issues. That's battleground behavior and an Ad hominem personal attack. Maybe your behavior needs to be examined (especially since you are an admin), but this is not an appropriate place to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, of all this thread isn't about me - actually, it became (potentially) about you as soon as you started it. See WP:BOOMERANG and WP:CLEANHANDS. If the reporter has "unclean hands" (ie. they may have contributed to the dispute, disruption, or problem they're reporting, at least to some extent) it's considered appropriate to bring it up here; having your own conduct examined is always part of the risk of requesting action from WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:RFAR, and other conduct-resolution venues. This is especially true when dealing with revert-warring, incivility, or battleground conduct, because those are situations that often come from sub-optimal conduct by both sides. The purpose of this discussion is to identify the root problem and resolve it, not just to discuss one editor. --Aquillion (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sympathetic with the intent but even if that is the correct solution in the end, and I'm not certain it is, I don't see it as the obvious next step. We should be using the smallest restriction needed to address the problem. I think 1RR will address the issue without an unduly preventing Snoog from dealing with clearly bad edits as well as calling for community attention/consensus when needed. Yes, as someone who has been on the receiving end of Snoog's incivility I can see wanting to effectively tell them to go away but on principle that isn't how things should be handled. Springee (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think XOR’easter and Neutrality have already hit the nail on the head and put it better than I could, respectively. I’m still waiting to see what other editors say before weighing in on any possible sanctions, but this is a nuclear option that isn’t needed. I’ll likewise join in the chorus saying that the notion suggested by Rusf10 that Snooganssnoogans has “hurt the reputation” of the encyclopedia is beyond ridiculous on the face of it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the diffs well above, not the wording of this proposal so the Tban should have a six month term. The edit warring, insulting edit summaries and commentary, battleground mentality and his already noticed inability to edit these controversial articles with a NPOV makes them a net negative in this arena.--MONGO (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior continues after 1RR. It's no secret that many of us here have an issue with Snoogans. The sheer volume of support for the proposed 1RR, posted diffs and other evidence are more than enough to warrant a 1RR for Snoogans. If his hostile, retaliatory behavior went any farther, I would support a full and permanent topic ban from AP2. However, I believe in giving people a chance to change their ways and become constructive Wikipedia editors if possible. Snoogans has claimed that he patrols AP2 and that he makes it a routine to revert vandalism, trolling and whitewashing, the latter two being things which he himself does. It's a known fact that Snoogans is a prominent edit-warrior and a violator of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Snoogans's behavior is troubling for a patroller: it is downright disruptive and malicious. Snoogans's claim that everyone who reverts his reverts has a right-wing POV, is enough evidence to confirm POV/bias. I will admit that I am a libertarian, thus I am right-wing, and my userpage reflects this. However, I will also admit that I apply neutrality to all my edits, and my contributions confirm this. While I'm not exactly a senior/veteran editor, and much of my edits are grammar-based, my edits regarding political articles should, to any rational person, look neutral and in good-faith. So, please believe me when I say this: I don't care if Snoogans has a political leaning or has political beliefs. If he wants to support someone in the 2020 election, that's his business. His behavior is all that I'm concerned about. His behavior is rude, uncivil, unconstructive and malicious. He's confirmed his own bias and thus provided motive for his battleground behavior and edit-warring. I'm not here to enforce a POV. I'm not here to whitewash. I'm here to help make Wikipedia better and Snoogans has interfered with the goals of Wikipedia. I'm not in favor of giving Snoogans a complete topic ban, permanent or temporary, right now. His behavior is egregious, yes, but a chance should be given for him to correct his behavior and become a constructive Wikipedia editor. 1RR should be applied, the evidence is clear on that. However, a topic ban would be, as of now, excessive as mentioned above. Instead, I propose, apply 1RR for an extended period of time to Snoogans. Afterwards, if his behavior improves, then all is well. If he commits a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPOV, or any of the other violations mentioned in this incident report, at any point, then I propose that he be topic-banned from AP2 for an extended period of time, and if the former should prove fruitless, that he be topic-banned from AP2 permanently, should he engage in this behavior yet again. This kind of behavior is uncalled for, and I'm sure that many of us here just want to make Wikipedia better. When you interfere with the mission of Wikipedia, there must be consequences. Regardless of my disagreements with Snoogans, I believe that he deserves both punishment and a subsequent chance to improve. Wikipedia should expect the best of behavior from a patroller and a senior editor (let alone any editor), and if he can't exhibit that behavior, then make sure he can't antagonize others again over politics. That's all I have to say. Note: when I say "extended period of time," I'm specifically referring to six-month bans or more. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Snoogans's claim that everyone who reverts his reverts has a right-wing POV". I've never claimed this. Strike it or provide evidence for this absurd accusation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I was meaning to refer to your claim that every person endorsing a 1RR towards you has a right-wing POV. It's rich of you to call my accusation "absurd" when you make absurd accusations yourself.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Clarification: I was meaning to refer to your claim that every person endorsing a 1RR towards you has a right-wing POV." That's a brazen falsehood. Two brazen falsehoods in a row. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "brazen"... you said the overwhelming majority of 'support' votes here are right-wing POV editors. Did you want to strike or provide evidence for that absurd accusation? – Levivich01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously not know that there is a difference between "every" and a "majority"? Or do you just feel compelled to side with every single person who rubs up against me regardless of the reason? Well, we already know the answer to that given that one of your examples of my 'problematic behavior' is when I stopped a neonazi sockpuppet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Awilley has unilaterally given Snooganssnoogans a 1RR restriction
With no comment on the merits of any particular argument, this is simply not a valid proposal. There is no consensus to overturn the sanction, but even if there were, it would not be actionable. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications, AE appeals may only be made by the sanctioned user themselves, and may only be made in a designated venue, of which AN/I is not included. Please see the link for details. Snooganssnoogans can appeal at their leisure. Optics and constructive criticism aside, Discretionary Sanctions require no consensus, are unilateral, are customizable, and are directly authorized by Arbcom in the relevant subject areas. You may not like it, but that's literally all discretionary sanctions are. ~Swarm~{sting}02:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With admittedly no consensus, Awilley has unilaterally restricted Snooganssnoogans with a custom restriction of their own design that includes both AP1 and BLPs, which weren't event discussed here. This is a ridiculous decision that subverts the will of the community and should be reversed immediately. ToaNidhiki0500:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse action - not that an admin needs my endorsement..the admins do not need to get consent from the community in order to protect the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally at a minimum you need to notify the admin that you started a thread here.
Just noting this was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but a follow-through on previous warnings. I would have taken similar action on my own if I had seen the diffs provided by Levivich above outside of an AN/I thread. I waited until this closed so as to not interfere with the community process. Also note that although the scope of the sanction is wider than AP2, the sanction itself is milder than what was proposed above with special accommodations for Snoogans's work in pushing back against drive-by fringe POV pushing by socks and IPs. I'm also willing to make it more nuanced if Snoogans needs that, which is something that community-imposed sanctions don't handle very well. ~Awilley (talk)00:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this looks like you saw what the community decided and then decided to not only ignore it, but to expand the sanction beyond what was even considered here. I don't think it's a good look. I don't want to personally impugn your motives at all or suggest misuse of powers - this is just what it looks like to me. It doesn't seem like a good action, especially given the lengthy discussion. ToaNidhiki0500:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this looks like you saw what evidence was presented of Snoogans' guilt and then decided to not only ignore it, but to write something so inconsiderate of the very foundations of Wikipedia. The rules are the rules. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This couldn't be a more absurd accusation. I have probably clashed with Toa Nidhiki05 on more pages than I have fingers and toes, yet both of us have in common a principled stance to stop undisclosed COI accounts and sockpuppets, and both of us have experienced on-wiki and off-wiki harassment for past work in service of that goal. Maybe Toa is able to understand what it entails to patrol controversial pages, even if his politics radically differs from mine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse action When faced with an editor who does things like that, an administrator should be able to put restrictions on them to avoid future problems. DreamFocus00:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a history with this editor on the Illegal immigration to the United States page where this user edit-warred debunked anti-immigrant propaganda and poorly sourced text into the article[147][148][149], as well as removed the best possible academic research on the subject (a recently published 642-page state-of-the-art literature review by the National Academy of Sciences[150]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[151] If 1RR had been in place for me at the time, this editor might have succeeded in edit-warring the debunked anti-immigration propaganda into the article, and would have been able to remove a National Academy of Sciences report (which are often considered the gold standard lit reviews) from Wikipedia. That's relevant context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse action that falls within personal admin discretion (the "D" in WP:ACDS), after much discussion has occurred between the admin and the editor involved. — JFGtalk00:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
??? I'm generally supportive of people using a firmer hand in AP2, but I'm not sure why I bothered trudging through that clusterf*** thread to consider the options and offer input if the conversation was going to be completely disregarded. Couldn't someone at least pretend it mattered and close the discussion with a rationale? Nblundtalk01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nblund: The discussion had been closed with no consensus. diff I see now that close has been reverted. Based on numbers alone (26 Support to 22 Oppose as of now) "no consensus" isn't out of the question, though I'd have appreciated a more thoughtful rationale from the closer myself. Anyway I'm sorry for the invalidating feelings this caused for people participating in the discussion. ~Awilley (talk)02:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I appreciate that. I think that non-admin close was seriously ill advised. I'm not sure what the norms are around this stuff, but it seems like the community consensus (or lack of one) should supercede admin discretion here - given that we're all looking at the same diffs. At the very least that conversation needs a proper closure so that editors don't continue to waste time commenting on a moot point. I think other participating admins also questioned whether this sanction was warranted, so it seems arbitrary even under the standards of administrative discretion. Nblundtalk02:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Optics are not great. For an AE sanction in this still-ongoing AN/I case, this ought to have gone to WP:AE so that a consensus (or lack thereof) of uninvolved admins could be established with regards to any sanction proposals. El_C01:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unilaterally subverting an ongoing community discussion seems like an invitation for more drama rather than a consensus-driven outcome which the community can live with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1RR proposal had been closed as no consensus [152], which Awilley referred to in the sanctions notice [153], and I'm guessing he hadn't noticed that the discussion had been re-opened [154] prior to posting the notice. – Levivich01:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. First - full disclosure - I am the editor previously known as BattleshipGray. I recently tried to log on under that name, like I have repeatedly in the past, but was unable to do so. I changed my Username to GlassBones and was able to get back in. As forSnooganssnoogans (talk, I know that I am relatively new at this, and I don't have the time to edit Wikipedia for hours nearly every day like Snoogans, but I doubt that there is any editor more deserving of sanctions than this editor. Snoogans routinely engages in edit warring, even delighting in doing so, and operates with impunity. Further, Snoogans consistently bullies other editors to make sure their point of view prevails in articles that Snoogans chooses to edit, which are many. Snoogans routinely accuses other editors of violating rules, while at the same time violating those and other rules. Snoogans also often simple hits "undo" with little if any explanation let alone justification or consensus, then bullies any editor who tries to re-insert language Snoogans removes. This editor makes it very unpleasant for any new editor, as well as many seasoned editors, which is no doubt his motivation and means of getting what he wants. GlassBones (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^I have a history with this editor. If you check BattleshipGray's contributions[155], you'll see an editor singularly obsessed with following me around and reverting me (I'm not exaggerating - see for yourself). This editor's obsession with reverting me includes trying to mislead readers into thinking that the Bush administration was right in saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction[156] and pushing conspiracy theories about the DNC email hack.[157]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Snooganssnoogans (talk, you have a history with me. Clearly, as evidenced by your talk page, your edits, and this Administrators page, you have issues with many other editors. If so many people have an issue with you, maybe you should ask yourself - is the problem with everyone else, or is the problem with the person you see in the mirror? GlassBones (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, GlassBones. I see you did your best to insert some conservative talking points in various articles ([158]) and tried to claim that Columbia Journalism Review is not a reliable source. I hope that with your new name you also shed that foolishness, since your lack of knowledge of what RS means can lead to a topic ban from an area where this might be very relevant. I see that Doug Weller alerted you to discretionary sanctions within days after starting editing under that Battleship account, and I also see that Bishonen dropped a serious warning on the talk page of your new account. Ajwilley, you warned this editor about hounding; I'm wondering if you shouldn't consider topic-banning this editor from editing in the AP area. I don't see anything positive in their edits in that area. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: It seems obvious to me that BattleshipGray isn't that person's first editing experience. Not sure whether that should be followed up on first. (SPI block, if necessary, is cleaner than a topic ban, I think.) ~Awilley (talk)22:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what to do about that right now, Awilley, but I do know this: Snoogans wouldn't be the first editor who is essentially baited into topic bans or blocks. Just look at how many times Volunteer Marek has been brought up on various charges, very often by trolls or inspired by trolls--he's fighting one off right now, an LTA--and so one thing leads to another. Our former colleague Malik Shabazz was harassed and then baited by a racist into overreacting. You take any editor in a contested topic area (I know it won't be you, but it might be me), you harass them some, tag-team them, pounce on a mistake--voila. I mean, the diffs that were proposed above to prove Snoogans was an inveterated edit warrior--they were lousy, and on closer inspection proved that Snoogan's was doing their NPOV job. The only way in which he was a disruptive POV edit warrior in the diffs I look at is if you believe all points of view are equal--which they aren't. "Both sides are equal"--yeah, no.
All this to say that the operations of socks, SPAs, and trolls can have serious repercussions. In this case, though, I do not believe we are dealing with a longtime troll or a sock--merely with someone whose agenda is obvious, who isn't here really to improve the project (look at their edits on Project Veritas) and who enjoys throwing a wrench into a process. I do not believe there is an orchestrated campaign against Snoogans, but I do believe he serves as a useful lighting rod for a whole bunch of editors who are simply not here for the right reasons, and I think Battleship/GlassBones is one of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
I agree GlassBones surely wasn't new when they created BattleshipGray either, Awilley. But I don't know who the master might be. The first suspect that comes to mind, User:Hidden Tempo, is stale, and it's hardly a duck case, so I'm not sure what use an SPI could be. But if they go on as before, a WP:NOTHERE block will surely not be far behind, without any need for an SPI. Currently, they seem slightly intimidated by the warnings, which is a good thing. Bishonen | talk00:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Awilley now negotiating side deal with Snooganssnoogans to rescind 1RR restriction that he just imposed
Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention the discussion going on at User talk:Snooganssnoogans where Awilley is now agreeing to let Snoogans off the hook in exchange for voluntary restrictions. These restrictions of course will NOT be enforcable and lets Snoogans arbitrarily decide when the 1RR applies based on whether he considers someone to be a "regular editor". This will not solve the problem. What Awilley fails to understand is that wikipedia does not need Snooganssnoogans to be able to revert multiple times to fight vandalism. If there is legit vandalism on a page, let him report it and someone else will revert it for him. I don't see why he needs to be accomodated because he sometimes reverts legit vandalism. The unacceptable behavior will not end with voluntary restrictions.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't on one hand cheer the unilateral imposition of sanctions by an admin when it suits you, and then on the other cry about unilateral changes to those sanctions by that admin when it doesn't suit you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1RR was proposed not as a punishment but as a way to address a problem. If the negotiations in question address that problem then those who favored the 1RR restriction, myself included, should be content. I think Awilley is going to be sensitive to the issues raised by all sides and we should assume that snoog will make a good faith effort to adhere to their agreement. Springee (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Awilley is trying to negotiate a deal that I find completely unacceptable. Giving Snoogans the discretion to determine who is a "regular editor" is a joke. Snoogans routinely labels editors as "fringe" and "far-right" just because he disagrees with them (and I'm not talking just about drive-by vandals, I mean established editors). He is not capable of making that judgement. And what ever restriction we ultimately end up with needs to be enforceable or otherwise we'll just end up back here at ANI.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntary restrictions are still enforcable: if you have enough evidence that Snoogans has violated the terms, you can present the evidence back to Awilley or to ANI, pointing back to the terms Snoogans agreed to, and request they turn the voluntary restrictions into enforced ones. It is a reminder that we don't pass blocks or bans to punish but as to reduce disruption, and if Snoogans is agreeing to reduce the disruption they cause by exceeding 1RR where they (and all others) shouldn't, then this is fine. They should know they are on a short leash, and can't continue past behavior. --Masem (t) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Administrators are here to protect the project and the content creators. Awilley will measure 1RR restrictions based on that criteria. If you feel that Awilley needs to be sanctioned, Swarm told you how to approach that. in addition I believe Swarm said an editor has to have "Standing" to appeal these restrictions or lack of. In other words Snooganssnoogans has standing, the rest of the editors do not. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not looking for AWilley to be sanctioned. I just want everyone to be aware of what he is doing and how it is not going to work.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks,Rusf10, for letting us know. If there is anyone who deserves to be sanctioned for battleground behavior, incivility, and bullying it is Snooganssnoogans. And it is clear from Snoog's behavior that voluntary restrictions are ineffective and not enough. I am not surprised that there are backroom deals being negotiated between Awilley and this editor; many others have been sanctioned by administrators for less, but somehow Snoog is able to operate with impunity, and given plenty of rope. For whatever reason, it seems a different standard applies to Snoog than to other editors.GlassBones (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using AE while an AN/I discussion is ongoing (and seems like it's headed toward being closed as no consensus) is that it is a technicality that effectively serves as a suprevote. El_C17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This exactly seems like a supervote considering the circumstances. Nobody is denying that admins can enforce AE actions in circumstances like this. It's more dubious whether they should. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out the not-apparently-obvious: the community is free to impose (by consensus) its own restrictions and sanctions, which are not reversible by admins acting under individual authority. I don't think I want to start making suggestions about how community sanctions interact with discretionary sanctions, but it would be especially bad optics for an administrator to impose a DS that directly contradicts a preexisting community consensus. I think that is not what happened here, but I also have not been following very closely at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that when AWilley invoked the sanctions, the discussion had been (briefly) non-admin closured as no-consensus; they couldn't have anticipated that it would be re-opened. That said, yeah, if nothing else, this shows why it may not be advisable to invoke AE in circumstances like this, even though admins definitely have the freedom to do so. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectations_of_administrators states that Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. I would think that an WP:ANI discussion closed as a close, controversial no-consensus would be the iconic example of a situation where "the case is not clear-cut." Probably taking it to WP:AE would have been a better call. (Although I think that at some point WP:RFAR is the only reasonable endpoint, since there are underlying complex back-and-forth accusations that need to be untangled, and lots of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct on all sides that needs to be examined. Not that I can imagine that ArbCom is particularly eager to get into AP3.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this in a couple of places already, but let me say it again here that the sanctions I imposed were not meant as a supervote or to derail a community process. It was a follow-through on previous warnings that I personally had given, and I waited until the discussion here was closed with "no consensus" before doing anything. If there had been a consensus I definitely would not have gone against that. I would also push back a bit on the implication that Arbcom would tell admins "here are some extra tools, please don't use them." The way I see it AP2 happened because the community wasn't able to resolve messy problems plaguing the topic area. Arbcom responded by delegating some of its authority, giving individual admins the explicit power to cut through gridlock. I think everybody can agree that ArbCom cases are unpleasant for everyone involved and a huge time sink. Why then would we start AP3 without first exhausting the options we currently have? One of my long-term underlying goals is to prevent AP3 by making it unnecessary. Does DS have problems? Of course. Is it too much power for individual admins? I think so. Which is why I support this (that discretionary sanctions like topic bans and edit restrictions should be able to be treated and appealed like regular blocks, able to be reversed by other individual admins). But this is probably not the best forum for discussing that kind of reform. ~Awilley (talk)19:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton of diffs in this extended thread that point to other editors acting more or less as badly as the accusations against Snoogs. It's hard to understand why an Admin who's voluntarily patrolling American Politics would have given Snoogs "previous warnings" and not some of the others who appear in the diffs here. It's just going to seem more plausible to many observers that the now-aborted Awilley sanction was somehow connected with Snoogs having been the subject of this no-consensus ANI. Hence the understandable concern about a supervote.
Awilley, your comments seem to be focused on justifying your own actions, whereas the comments of others are focused on good process, transparency, and what's good for the community. SPECIFICOtalk22:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear (since I was the one who cited the quote implying that this might have been a case where more caution was called for), I think ArbCom absolutely wanted admins to use these tools, and definitely cutting through all the debate was something they empowered admins to do - I don't think it was that bad of a call on your part (the discussion with Snoog afterwards seemed productive; it was mostly the re-opening of the ANI thread, which you couldn't have anticipated, that caused things to collide.) But they also encouraged admins to discuss first in close or controversial situations, and if that doesn't apply here - at the bottom of a massive, heavily-disputed ANI thread - then it's hard to envision a situation where it ever would. At the very least such discussions might have avoided some of the rancorous back-and-forth after the fact (we now have two fairly large discussion sections going at you from opposite directions), and probably taking enough time to talk it over would have avoided the collision with the WP:ANI thread being re-opened. I mean, I know it's silly to suggest that you could have made everyone happy - part of the reason AE is unilateral is because sometimes that isn't possible and you just need to cut through the red tape to resolve a problem - but there was at least enough time to gauge the opinions of other admins, which would have lessened the blowback when you could point to that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion:, I hesitate to consume too much space here analyzing things in the past that cannot be changed, but I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions and would reply with a couple thoughts of my own. First, there are two things that I regret: 1. I should have let the dust settle on the AN/I close before doing anything. That would have avoided a lot of this. 2. I should not have expanded the scope of the 1RR, even though I reduced the severity of the sanction. If I had to do it again I would have limited my modified 1RR sanction to top-level BLPs only and left American Politics out of it. (That also would have been more consistent with the previous warnings I had given Snoogans.) On the whether I should have opened a thread at WP:AE, let me see if I can save 1000 words with a flowchart showing when I think individual admin discretion is allowed: Proposed interplay between community consensus processes and individual admin discretionary actions In a nutshell, I think the discussion above fell into the center "no consensus" area, opening it up to multiple possible paths forward. Escalating to WP:AE was (and I suppose still is) a viable option. As I said here I chose the path of unilateral action because after 3 days of contentions divisive discussion ending in stalemate, I didn't think it would be a good use of the community's time to open the same contentious divisive discussion in another forum. A fairly foundational principle in Wikipedia is that if you see a problem and can do something to resolve it, you are allowed to do so without going through a committee. Of course there are many other considerations and exceptions and a need for caution and there's a lot of room for disagreement and equally-valid alternate approaches. El_C's approach is not wrong. I apologize for the optics here being bad, and for not being more deliberate. And I'm sorry it resulted in these two extra threads. I'm not sorry that I took administrative action, though, and aside from the too-broad scope, I don't regret the specific admin actions I took, even though they annoyed people on both sides. ~Awilley (talk)22:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but I feel like you left the most important part out from your flowchart (at least as far as what I was saying goes). Under what circumstances do you feel that an admin should be "encouraged before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement"? Obviously discretion applies - that's the point of the sanctions being discretionary - but it reads to me like you're saying that you would never want to seek outside input before using your discretion to impose a sanction after a no-consensus ANI outcome, because doing so will always involve taking things to another forum and protracting discussions. I can understand the desire to try for that kind of neat and tidy outcome, but because things were not clear-cut, and because you didn't seek any discussion beforehand, your efforts to not open the same contentious divisive discussion in another forum has now opened at least two separate contentious divisive discussions and had a very high chance of going to WP:AE anyway if and when discussions broke down and Snoog appealed. I feel that it was for this precise reason that ArbCom encouraged discussion before acting in unclear situations like these - I simply cannot see any reasonably-likely outcome where your unilateral actions would have resulted in less rancorous discussion than if you consulted with other administrators and got a few of them to back you first. Such discussion would probably have also addressed the problems you mentioned beforehand. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: I understand what you're saying as well, and I've re-read the paragraph you're quoting several times over the past few days. I can't quote you a hard-and-fast rule because, like everything on Wikipedia, it's complicated with multiple overlapping priorities with different weights. My personal guideline is to never unilaterally do anything I suspect a consensus of admins might overturn if it were put to a vote. If I'm not reasonably sure of that, I ask for advice or, more likely, simply don't do the thing. In this case I could see pretty clearly that admins had mixed feelings about the 1RR (part of why I didn't impose a straight-up 1RR). One was a solid "Meh". Another went from Neutral-ish to Oppose. Another went from Support to Neutral. A few more commented in the discussion but declined to vote. I think a lot of them recognized that the edit warring and incivility were a problem, but were also swayed by the fact that the edit warring was often against socks and trolls, and the fact that there was bad behavior "on both sides". So in this case, the priority to resolve issues cleanly at a lower level outweighed the priority of getting an explicit go-ahead from other admins. If you want to discuss further perhaps we can do it on one of our talk pages. But at this point I'm not sure that it is a good use of time to further explore what-if scenarios and speculating whether an AE thread would have been more disruptive than these two subsections. ~Awilley (talk)
Among the acceptable ways to prevent AP3 is not individual admins attempting to solve problems on their own by disrupting the formation of consensus at the dispute resolution noticeboards. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll echo that this looks pretty bad. There was no consensus emerging, and it looks like Awilley unilaterally attempted to enforce a sanction that wasn’t forthcoming, against community consensus. I’ll state preemptively that I actually generally agree with most of Awilley’s admin actions, but this was a monumental error in judgement that I didn’t expect. This should’ve been taken to an admin board where other administrators could weigh in, especially as it was an ANI item under discussion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There was no consensus emerging, and it looks like Awilley unilaterally attempted to enforce a sanction that wasn’t forthcoming, against community consensus." I think the two underlined portions of that sentence are contradictory. ~Awilley (talk)22:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there was no consensus for any sanction, but it's also true that there was no consensus against a sanction, either. See helpful flowchart above. – Levivich03:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Shouldn't even have got to this point. There was clearly no consensus to sanction Snoogans with a 1RR, and Awilley should just withdraw the sanction because it's clearly wrong. "I waited until the discussion here was closed with "no consensus" before doing anything" - which was then to ignore the result completely? Ridiculous. Black Kite (talk)20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the result of a no consensus discussion about user sanctions is no sanction, I'm unconvinced that this means discretionary sanctions cannot be applied. I assume we all agree that part of the point of the regime is to allow admins to sanction an editor without community discussion to simplify things. And that the inability to challenge such a sanction via community discussion is part of this. So what happens when there is community discussion? IMO in the case where there is no consensus it's not unreasonable for an admin to take action if they feel it is justified since in that case they aren't even overriding the community, just applying a decision the community could not decide on. (I mean after all that's also when such cases may end up in arbcom.) Further, if we put aside this happened so fast, while the community will generally reject discussing sanctions against an editor within say 2 weeks of a previous discussion without something extremely substantial, it seems far more reasonable for an admin to warn an editor perhaps after the community could not come to consensus then take action if they don't heed that warning. This is one of the other advantages of discretionary sanctions. While this isn't quite what happened here, the latter stuff wasn't so far off IMO. So really even before the sanctions were reversed it was meh. If the community had come to a consensus for no sanction, perhaps the anger would be more justified. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's information, an editor has opened a related request here.
With respect to the ultimate priority of constructive editing at American Politics articles, I think the most troubling unresolved issue here is why an Admin who's actively volunteering to patrol the area, having presumably read all the diffs and considered the issues and interactions they portray, would single out Snoogansnoogans for a sanction. It's hard to separate this from the other issues regarding Arbcom's expectations of Admins in DS and regarding the apparent disregard for community process, even one as unruly as ANI. SPECIFICOtalk00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of content, allowing sole discretion and unilateral actions by a single admin appears to go against community expectations, regulations and what we elected ArbCom to do; i.e., specifically, to act as a committee which provides an extra layer of assurance that no single POV takes precedence. At what point is an admin considered involved in a topic area that is riddled with controversy and DS? I'm of the mind that when they start directing the narrative, hatting comments in an RfC, interfering in the consensus building process, taking action against an editor because they have determined at their sole discretion that it is a preventative measure to avoid a potential violation of a customized DS or based on that admins preconceived notions or biased POV. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that an admin action was to stop disruption, not avoid it based on preconceived notions or the use of conceptualized DS specifically designed to fit an editor's perceived personality. I'm also not finding where a single admin has ArbCom's permission to WP:HOUND or WP:HARASS editors by stalking them or taking action against them based on such customized DS, or by adding their names to a list that threatens potential action. We are talking about serious POV creep and absolute authoritarianism based on a single POV. That is not what WP is about. We don't even allow such POV creep when reviewing WP:FAC, yet we're allowing it for the enforcement of DS in highly controversial topic areas? It simply doesn't make any sense. AtsmeTalk📧16:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do about this. Malmmf is doing great work updating NCES attendance data, and is now also adding the NCES faculty and ratio data, but is still not updating the ref access date. In fact, the refs are now worse. He or she is now removing the access date completely, along with the title field and the publisher field, and formatting the ref as a bare URL See [159] for example. This is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be appreciated if Malmmf would start adding edit summaries again. About 38,000 edits so far this year, but only 420 edit summaries..... Meters (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I was told to update the access date, it didn't register to me that they were talking about the references I had been putting in whenever I made the updates; I thought the bare URL was fine (clearly my mistake), and I thought they were talking about when I was updating a school page that already had an NCES reference that I could use instead of the bare URL I was using. That's clearly my fault for not understanding correctly; I had seen a bare URL ref on some other pages and thought it was fine. I've begun updating again and adding access date and other info, so let me know if I'm now doing it correctly. Malmmf (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, I'm finding it difficult to believe that "it didn't register to me that they were talking about the references I had been putting in", because when you were first told about this in January 2019 (see above), the editor said: "However, the access date to the source cited has not been changed. Could you clarify?" to which you responded with "Yes, I just sometimes forget at times to change the access date. The school enrollment numbers & years are correct, it just sometimes slips my mind to change the access date. Will work on that."
Noooo bare URL's are not good; see WP:BAREURLS. Yeah it's better to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines instead of using other articles as a basis in that some of them will have issues, in this case the bare URL's you encountered. Also, many school articles are in a problematic state. Looking at your contribution history, I can see that you are updating NCES stats at a rapid pace which leads me to think that, by not updating the access date or removing this including the other reference fields (forgot to mention this here, thanks Meters), it could be a way of "speeding things up" or maybe just being lazy? Anyway, I can see that you are now updating the access date which is good but there are two more problems I can see now:
1. You're adding the ref name as <ref name=NCES></ref> (example diff) which is slightly incorrect. The correct format is <ref name="NCES" /> — see WP:REFNAME
2. An editor posted on your talk that you added two different values for ratio. I had a look at the infobox before your edit and there was no ratio parameter, so you added two ratio with different values which I'm not sure how you managed to do that, also please ensure that a parameter is not used more than once
There is nothing wrong with using <ref name=NCES>. The quotes are only required if there is a space or other special character in the ref name.Now that the refs are no longer being stripped down to bare URL I'm more concerned with the continued lack of edit summaries. Meters (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the January 2019 response I gave recognizing that I was forgetting the access dates and would work on it, I DID know that it was for the references I had added in; however, that was almost a year ago and I took a super long break in which I did not update NCES stats, and I just now recently started up again, and I just hadn't thought of it. Also, when I used to update NCES stats, I was just updating enrollment and using the source once, so I didn't have to worry about adding <ref name="NCES" /> that allows me to use one source for multiple things; now that I was told to also update ratio and staff, I had to figure out how to correctly format a source that will be used multiple times, which I clearly was doing wrong as I was turning them all into bare URLs. Thanks for the correct ref name; I will start using that. I will work on the edit summaries as well. Malmmf (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. Access dates, no bare URLs, and about half of the edits have summaries now. I'll just point out that it would be better if you were consistent with your ref names though. It works when you define a ref name without quotes (<ref name=NCES>) and reuse it with quotes (<ref name="NCES"/>) in the same article, but only because you are using a ref name with no spaces or special characters. If you try that with a more complicated ref name it will fail. Meters (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, much better and please take your time when updating so you can ensure everything is done correctly, there is no need to rush. Will post a note on your talk about the dedicated parameter and accompanying templates. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A new-ish editor has been recently adding excessive links in articles. Some of the links are probably just fine, but they go on to link every occurrence in an article, sometimes making two blue wikilinks to the same article in a single sentence. This is a typical example. I left a message on their talk page referring them to MOS:DUPLINK. There was no response and this editing pattern has continued. MB03:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This does look to be becoming a bit of an issue, especially considering they're adding multiple links to the same article in a section, which is against WP:REPEATLINK. I don't know why they think it's necessary to link to Federalist Party and Democratic Party multiple times in consecutive sentences. Ss11205:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A block for you: I hereby award you the "Friendly block for non-communication" in recognition of all your contributions to the mainspace even to the neglect of your own user talk page. UsedtobecoolTALK✨07:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The overlinking is indeed excessive, and some of it needs to be removed; on the other hand, some of their links look useful. This is a new editor, we should not be talking about blocking just yet, let's give them a chance to take on board what people are telling them. I'll drop them a note. GirthSummit (blether)11:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, they haven't responded directly, but looking at their contribs shows a big improvement. They're still adding links, and I think are still going a bit too far, but they have reined it in a fair way. GirthSummit (blether)09:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, as far as I'm concerned, there's no administrative action required here. I've dropped them another note with a link to SOB (an abbreviation that always concerns me slightly!), but this seems like someone who is capable of responding to suggestions, even if they're not very communicative. GirthSummit (blether)15:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user has just been blocked again for disruptive editing, and has still never engaged on Talk. Over 6,500 edits, of which exactly 5 are on talk pages despite a block for failure to WP:ENGAGE - and all of those are page moves not comments. I am wondering if this block should be upped to indef until the user starts communicating? Guy (help!) 10:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Guest2625 and BDP
Guest2625(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) is very keen to have material sourced to the Sunday edition of the Daily Mail used in our article on Jeffrey Epstein, who died in August. The user seems to be having difficulty with the idea that pending a really strong consensus otherwise, we don't use the Daily Mail as a source, and we also don't use tabloid journalism on articles about living or recently dead people. The consensus at talk isn't going their way but they have now made four reverts to restore the material. Their last edit summary sad "If you could please stop edit warring and use the talk page that would be great; this content has been in the article for months; other editors would like to participate in this discussion; what you are trying to say with your one word comments are not clear to other editors or readers", but I have used the talk page, as have they, and there are no one-word comments there that I can see. I'd be very grateful if someone could have a word with them and explain our policies to them. Pinging @Drmies: who I know watches the article. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys for your interest in the Jeffrey Epstein article. The more editors available to work on it the better the article will be. If you guys could provide me a link to the board where I should go to discuss whether the Mail on Sunday is included in the ban of the Daily Mail that would be useful. Also, I would like to find out, if there is a ban on the Mail on Sunday, what the full details and extent of the ban is and whether such a ban is wise policy.
Secondly, I would appreciate it if the editor The Huhsz interacted with me in a more friendly and non-disparaging fashion. This is in specific regards to the following comment on the Jefferey Epstein talk page which the editor added:
"As this source breaches both, it would need an extraordinarily powerful reason to be used. A mention on Reddit isn't a reason, and neither is it being the first biographical sketch about the subject."
Nowhere on the talk page do I mention anything about Reddit. This reference to Reddit is meant to associate my comments to a non-serious website and thus to disparage my argument. As a sign of could faith I would appreciate it if the editor struck this non sequitur comment to Reddit.
For clarity I have included the two deleted references and content which are currently in dispute below. The first reference is a very important reference since it is the first detailed biographical sketch of Jeffrey Epstein (1992) in the printed press. Here is an electronic copy of that article, which I am providing as a courtesy to other editors, who might not have access to the article at the moment.
First reference:
[ref name=":21"]Robotham, Michael (November 15, 1992). "The Mystery of Ghislaine Maxwell's Secret Love". Mail on Sunday. One outrageous story links him to the CIA and Mossad. Another that Epstein was a concert pianist. Yet another that he was a maths teacher at an exclusive girls school...'He told me he was a spy hired by corporations to find major amounts of money which had been embezzled,' she says. 'He made it sound very exciting and glamorous...'[/ref]
Second reference and content:
[ref name=":18"]Clarke, Jon (April 9, 2000). "The Strange Friendship Between Andrew and Maxwell's Girl which has so upset Fergie – As the Prince squires a new love, Emma Gibb, has he fallen under the spell of the disgraced tycoon's matchmaking daughter-in-law ?". Mail on Sunday. London (UK).[/ref]
A porter who worked next door to Epstein's house on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in 2000 stated to The Mail on Sunday in reference to people coming and going from Epstein's house that "I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night. It's amazing he's got so many ladies, as Mr Epstein, and always has a new one on his arm, it seems."[ref name=":18" /]
No. I'm not joking in discussing the merits of those two sources. Do you believe that either of the writers of those articles is lying about the content of their articles? Do you believe that Michael Robotham in the first article made up the fact that he had sources that said what he quoted? Do you believe that Jon Clarke made up the fact that he spoke to a porter and that the porter stated what the journalist attributed to him? These are the questions that need to be discussed when discussing the reliability of a source, not bureaucratic blanket bans which I don't even know is the case for the Mail on Sunday. So if someone could provide me a link to a board where I can discuss the policy position concerning the Mail on Sunday that would be appreciated. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware the Mail on Sunday was not included in WP:DAILYMAIL. They have the same owners, but IIRC have different editors and staff. Personally I would have included it as well, despite it not being as appalling as the DM, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't - unless anyone knows different? Black Kite (talk)11:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't a policy or guideline that explicitly prohibits this source, then isn't this essentially a content dispute that should be hashed out by the involved editors on the talk page of the related article and/or dispute resolution processes like WP:RFC? The general rule of WP:BRD should apply here, and if one person disagrees with the other editors at that page, they should look into WP:Dispute resolution rather than edit warring to include the material or relitigating the ban on Daily Mail Omanlured (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, Omanlured. The WP:DAILYMAIL language specifies (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk); as the content of https://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ appears to be a mirror of dailymail.co.uk, I think that puts it into the frame. I also agree with EEng that these are canonically awful sources to use in an encyclopedia article, whether we had this ban or not. Luckily we do. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are both terrible sources, but I believe that mailonsunday.co.uk redirects to the content (but not the banner) of dailymail.co.uk during the weekdays. The print versions are different. Regardless, if the only source we have for something contentious is the Mail on Sunday ... then it's fairly obvious we shouldn't be using it. Black Kite (talk)19:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent position of the above editors is that the Mail on Sunday is not the same publication as the Daily Mail and that it has its own editorial board. Therefore, the ban of the Daily Mail does not apply. If someone wishes to have a discussion of the policy concerning the Daily Mail, I'm willing to go to a board where editors who have dealt with topic can discuss the extent and wisdom of this ban. As I have stated before there is a content dispute as concerns the article of Jeffrey Epstein.
Editor The Huhz's good faith content removal stating wp:dailymail does not apply and was done in error. The content that was removed had been in the article for nearly half a year and had consensus. Standard policy is that if an individual wants to change an article they should first gain consensus on the talk page. The stable version per standard policy should be restored, while there is a discussion of the modification that the editor The Huhz's wishes to make.
Similarly, a subsequent editor who also removed the content with the one word wp:dailymail made a good faith edit modification in error which does not stand.
As an aside: The reason I am interested in retaining the supposedly shocking references is that the first reference, as I stated, is a foundational source. It is the first detailed biographical sketch of Jeffrey Epstein (1992) in the printed press. The next seminal biographies are Ward, Vicky (June 27, 2011). "The Talented Mr. Epstein". Vanity Fair. and Thomas Jr., Landon (October 28, 2002). "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery". {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) These subsequent biographies nicely dovetail with this early 1992 biography. There is a relative information void from 1981–1986 in Jeffrey Epstein's life. It does not benefit anybody, reader or writer, by excluding journalistic material which helps to detail this period and other early periods. I look forward to having a discussion on this topic on the Jeffrey Epstein talk page which is fair and follows standard procedure. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the question of whether the blanket ban of WP:Dailymail applies to the Mail on Sundayhere on the reliable source board. I think that is the right place, but I'm not sure. An editor on the Jeffery Epstein talk page told me being on this board was the wrong place for my policy question. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail doesn't have a "Sunday edition". The Mail on Sunday is a different paper. They share a lot, but they (significantly) don't share editorship. They also regularly take quite different political standpoints, and on major topics. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy. I've been editing for a while, however, have never worked on an article that has this editing restriction. It appears to be WP:BRD, which appears to mean be bold, revert if justified, and then discuss. This is the general informal rule that most of us editors follow. If I make a procedural error, just let me know and I'll correct the error or you can correct it if you wish. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I read somewhere. But I'm sure Guy will be able to guide me through these intricate procedures. He seems like a capable and fair editor. --Guest2625 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This IP, self-identified as "Lutz Fehling", came to the Teahouse to complain that they were blocked on dewiki. It's been repeatedly explained to them that they're barking up the wrong branch of the wrong tree, and they've even acknowledged understanding of that, but they continue to post inappropriately about censorship, conspiracy, "bad wikipedia people", etc. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and disruptive. They have used at least two IPs in the last few days, and there may be some collateral in a /24. A couple weeks' timeout should be enough to get them to find something else to do. —[AlanM1(talk)]—03:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some issues with Mriganka Reading around not using sources[160], editing episode counts for future dates[161] and general lack of communication[162]. I've left short nice messages, longer nice messages with details and why and there are multiple templated warnings for various issues from other editors as well. At this point, I would really appreciate an admin reviewing this and blocking to force them to communicate. There's a feeling of COI / Undeclared paid editing with their focus on certain topics (Rengoni and related shows). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent unsourced changes / vandalism to genetics data by Florence IPs
A series of IPs that geolocate to Florence, Italy, have been making many unsourced and seemingly-random changes to genetics data in various articles, over the past half a year or so. They haven't responded to warnings and requests to communicate. I've reverted many of their changes after checking the cited sources to confirm. I got temporary page protection on one article where they've been particularly disruptive lately (see Talk:Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)#Unsourced and unexplained changes to data). I'm not sure if anything can be done in terms of blocking. Mainly I wanted to point it out, and see if I'm correct in continuing to revert them, as I don't want to be seen as edit-warring.
The edits appear to be vandalism, i.e., the numbers are just randomly made-up changes rather than actual data found in another study that is not cited. For example in this edit: [166], many of the integer parts of the numbers are changed, while the decimal parts are left the same, which seems unlikely. Also, the number of participants in the study is left the same, while only the outcomes are changed. When their changes are reverted, they edit war and repeatedly change the numbers, though sometimes with different numbers than they used the last time. Again this suggests that it's random vandalism rather than legitimate numbers from other unnamed sources.
IPs include:
62.19.169.105 (talk) (I left a "final warning" for vandalism today on their talk page)
- the above are from the range Special:Contributions/62.19.128.0/18, and are all short-term, only lasting one day. I think they're all the same person, though a couple have only one edit so it's hard to say. I guess it's not possible to block the range, since there are a fair number of other anonymous editors there too.
IamNotU, I have soft-blocked the range and some of the more persistent IP addresses with a note that they should create an account. This will at least prevent the IP hopping, intentional or not, and allow for a single point of communication unless they sock. — Berean Hunter(talk)04:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Need to revert but page contains blacklisted link
talk:Father was blanked by a vandal. I would like to revert the page but because it contained a blacklisted link it is being blocked. Can this be done by an administrator or is there another way to do this? Thanks! Paisarepa (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paisarepa and AddWittyNameHere: Next time you encounter this problem, try to save the page contents to a sandbox. It will fail but it will list the blacklisted link so that you may find and remove it. You want to remove them because the talk page will not archive if it contains a blacklisted link. — Berean Hunter(talk)03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, Berean Hunter. Figured restoring it to the status quo, even if that meant including the blacklisted link, was preferable over leaving it blanked, but you're absolutely right that going that extra step to actually hunt down and remove said link would have been even better. AddWittyNameHere03:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2604:2000:1280:A126:78A5:E4A9:CC09:2263
Administrator note I have abbreviated the very long title. The concern appears to be alleged stalking of edits and disruptive behavior by the above IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of this is apparently due to a dispute I am having with him/her in regard to another article. Sometimes, entire sections that predate my edits have been removed from an article. The article in which the dispute has originated appears to involve at least two users, however, only one user appears to be going through my edit history and sabotaging other articles. I am not sure how to proceed with handling this situation, and would like to talk to an administrator. All other relevant information is as follows:
User who I believe to be going through my edit history and sabotaging articles: 2604:2000:1280:A126:78A5:E4A9:CC09:2263
Hi B719603. First you need to sign your posts, especially here. Second, you need to notify all concerned parties on their talk pages which as of this comment you have not done. Third, you need to provide diffs if at all possible. I advise you to correct these issues and consider lesser measures before coming here. See WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I am new to using these noticeboards. I do not know how to access the users talk page; the user is using his IP address as far as i'm aware. If you could tell me how to do this, I will notify the user as soon as possible. Also, I will continue to seek a solution outside of this noticeboard. B719603 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recently nominated a category for deletion, and instinctively checked out the creator. I was only peripherally aware of this user beforehand, but looking through their talk page and taking a quick glance at their edit history, this does look like a potential WP:CIR concern. I think administrators know the type I am referring to:
Redlink account
Never replies or interacts with anyone.
Talk page is a massive flood of deletion notices that they never address or take into consideration.
Continues to create similar categories or images undeterred, despite the track record of them being constantly deleted.
In my experience, these are genuine red flags. Cwf97 seems to have been at it for a while and has racked up an impressive collection of notices. It's worth an administrator taking a look at. DarkKnight214906:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that back in September 2018, Cwf97 was informed that communication is required in the midst of so many notices and that they should address their actions. Cwf97 responded to this message and one other, before they once again stopped replying and the notices continued to pile on. DarkKnight214907:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cjhard: I placed a notice there to avoid the post from being prematurely archived. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? I don't see how anything I typed was unclear. DarkKnight214908:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very poor form to edit a comment after it's been responded to, as it renders other user's comments incomprehensible. Cjhard is presumably pointing to the lack of diffs or any other evidence of disruption that would lead an administrator to feel that there is action required here. --JBL (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joel B. Lewis: What exactly are you missing a diff to? The report is very clear as it is and can be proven simply by going through the user's talk page (which is almost nothing but a sea of deletion / disruption notices that they fail to address) and taking a quick look at their edit history. This has already been linked to as well. Unless you didn't actually read the report, I fail to see an issue. DarkKnight214914:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This and this remain the only time that Cwf97 has ever interacted with anyone, after which they went right back to ignoring all communication and refusing to adjust their behaviour in light of so many notices (as more and more notices continued to build up on their talkpage as if nothing ever happened). What is not disruptive about this? DarkKnight214914:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor is spamming links to pornographic websites into Deepfake. These websites use sophisticated digital graphics to create faked celebrity porn. This editor is trying to include staged pornographic images in Masturbation. In my opinion, this editor needs a block but I would like input from uninvolved administrators. This is a new account that made a quick series of uncontroversial edits to get autoconfirmed and then set out to add porn to the encylopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it08:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not added spamming links to deepfakes. In the pornography section I listed current websites hosting that content, which is basic encyclopedic content, and then cited each one, as one should do to WP:VERIFY. That is not WP:SPAM. Second, I didn't realize there would be disagreement about the masturbation images. I'm currently discussing them on the talk page right now trying to build consensus per WP:BRD.
Considering how this user continually emphasizes that these are citations to porn (and even gave an off-topic explaination of what deepfake porn was in an incident request), they just seem to be against pornographic material and want me blocked because I'm contributing to porn-related articles in a way they disagree with. As for personal attack against me abusing autoconfirmed privilages, Deepfakes doesn't even have autoconfirmed protection. I could edit that as an IP. I didn't wait to become autoconfirmed just so I could add content some people may disagree with. Please assume good faith here. VF9 (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, content you don't like is not categorically spam. I'm not removing warnings to delay action. I just don't like looking at them, especially when they're incorrect. And potential good faith copyright violations really shouldn't be discussed here, especially when the commons admins have already told you they were not copyright violations. VF9 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This editor seems to be on a bit of a mission to add unnecessary images into Wikipedia articles that some might deem staged and pornographic, whilst justifying their actions on the grounds that Wikipedia is not censored, and therefore it's ok to add them against the views of other editors, when both text and images (usually less graphic) already exist in the article that explain the topic perfectly well. I have just undone their addition of a moving gif image to Fingering (sexual act) on the grounds that such an image adds nothing of encyclopaedia-enhancing value to the article that isn't already fairly obvious from the current Commons artwork on the page. They immediately reinstated it, citing my own edit summary as justification to reinsert it -no pun intended (diff). Notwithtanding the edit warring they've been warned about on their talk page, this matter seems akin to any other editor being told that material they are repeatedly adding is not enhancing the encyclopaedia, yet continues to do so. This and further edit warring to get their way against the views of other editors is disruptive, and should lead to a block if it continues. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i m French (Sorry for my english) and i watch Scout MLG User page Is getting blocked on french Wikipedia because he made massive personal attacks and massive Neo-nazi activity :[169]
And i checked his userpage on English wikipedia he is already blocked for socking. Since several months, I noticed on my watchlist and global account infomation that User:Scout_MLG is adding a lot of strange edits on other language Wikipedia project, and mostly in Neo-Nazi activity:
- in Chinese Wikipedia (His Userpage): [170] and his talk page: [171]
There is currently a glock request at meta. Also, I've re-blocked your VPN. It's bad manners to request admin action from behind a VPN. -- zzuuzz(talk)10:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is come to my knowledge that a person User:Störm is flooding AFD since long and few Administrators/Editors have warned him few times such as this User:FOARP. User is nominating almost all good articles which are notable. I can point few articles now and i can provide more information and articles. Few on his nomination no one has respond yet since 12 November because they are notable but his tags are still visible. He don't know urdu language and others then how come he is nominating AFD ? Wikipedia says articles must be notable so i can point you this article , you are almost welcome to Google it or read it in urdu language.
he has put AFD tag without even googling that there are enough references available and not even this , it has Dawnnews , bbc and voice of america reference too in urdu language but the thing is why he didn't googled before ? the english references are available so you can check.
I have added all the reference now
Now this page Kamal Mustafa (filmmaker) this page has 5 news references + 1 international newspaper of London. and 5 to 8 urdu newspapers references such as Daily nai baat , humsub , hamari web and urdu point one of the largest urdu blogs / newspapers.
this are only two wikipedia pages i have shared but there are many who he has nominated for AFD but they are all notable and even BBC is covering that. Kindly tell him not to flood the good and old wikipedia pages such as ustad ghulam mohammed khan and always Google first before nominating AFD any page because some references are in other languages except english.
Ustad Ghulam Mohammed Khan may have been a very famous musician, but currently in the article all five references are articles about other people with passing references to him which only prove he existed - we definitely need more than that. Also, this is the English Wikipedia - there is nothing wrong with Urdu sources, but equally you can't complain if someone sends an article to AfD, if they can't follow WP:BEFORE because the articles that prove notability are in a language they can't read. Black Kite (talk)12:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response , Dear Kite that five references is added by me to tell that there are reference available such as this which i will add now it is mentioning him and i am adding more references but the thing is there should be a rule that anybody who is nominating AFD must check news in all the languages such as English , hindi and urdu. i can pass 5 to 10 references mentioning him in hindi newspaper but the thing is it will be understandable by hindi editors. Thanks Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely fine to add non-English sources to an article, but if you're nominating an article for AFD it is not reasonable to ask people to search for sources in any language - that's clearly not possible. Black Kite (talk)12:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but i am saying that anybody who is nominating AFD must google the reference first i have added more than six references and before there were no referenced added.
Can you provide evidence of the claim of “flooding”? I looked through a lot of their recent edits and they weren’t even AFD edits. Is he really “flooding AFD” or did he just nominate a couple articles you disagreed with and you decided to take him here? Sergecross73msg me13:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agreed or disagreed but i have seen few which were nominated AFD please read here
I have seen few more of his nomination which were actually not eligible for deletion but he has put the AFD. I want to mention that i am not against of anyone or him but i want to know why he has nominated those two articles for deletion ? Ustad Ghulam Mohammed Khan has references available instead of AFD he would have make the article better as Ustad Ghulam was one of the famous musician in pakistan and almost all urdu newspapers have articles on him.
Fatima Sohail I have seen many references in Google of Miss Fatima as she was working in Dunya News can someone check ? the article was created in 17 september 2019. @User:ReykUser:Sergecross73
User talk:Störm for this page Kamal Mustafa (filmmaker)i created many pages and including this because i see enough references and anybody can urdu understand it , but i agree you guys can speedy delete that page , but for Ustad Ghulam Mohammed Khani have added enough references there including Tribune , VOA (pashto) and other newspaper. almost 10 to 20 newspapers have mentioned ustad ghulam mohammed khan but you will not understand because of urdu language so i have added those who are mentioning them and atleast have him.
If you can understand Urdu i can pass out 5 to 10 newspaper references. Not every artist/musician or public figures comes in BBC , CNN and if they don't come in those it doesn't means they are not notable there are many other news outlet who are notables.
I take no position in whether these nominations were all good or bad, but the fact is that this person has been rapidfire creating AFD nominations without having anywhere near the amount of detail needed to back them up, and in several cases was creating second AFDs very quickly after a previous one failed. Michepman (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These seem reasonable nominations of borderline notable firms in the same field. (I !voted weak keep on some, delete or redirect on others, but none of the nomination was absurd or disruptive). DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On November 1st I deleted the above mentioned article on CSD-A7 grounds, however Oakshade (talk·contribs) felt that the article should be reinstated and took it to deletion review, where the consensus was that the article would likely end up deleted either in csd or at an afd. It was closed with the article still red linked, then for some reason revisited several days later by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk·contribs). When an afd was filed no one bothered to notify any of the deletion review participatns, which in my opinion was a clear and blatant attempt at disruptive editing by intentionally attempting to game the system when so many others had clearly and unmistakably voiced the article's likelyhood of deletion at AFD. I ask the admin community to look into this on two grounds:
Was the apparent deliberate attempt by Oakshade to omit a notification constitutes a clear and obvious attempt to game the system, and if so,
(refined the above question to preserve its essence) Did the failure to notify the previous participants of the sudden change in the deletion review closure results from "remain deleted" to "relist at afd" prevent consensus building from the previous editors who expressed an interest in the case, and if so
Nope, I'm still lost. Why would Oakshade be responsible for notifying people of an AfD initiated by SportingFlyer, based on an undeletion by Jo-Jo Eumerus? WilyD14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because Jo-Jo Eumerus waited 5 days after the deletion review was closed as "no consensus and therefore should be kept deleted" to "no consensus therefore it would be listed at afd". If that had happened right after the closure of the deletion review then the participants would have known to go over the afd because that was the consensus at DR. Why wait 5 days to decide that you made a mistake and then tell no one about it? That sounds awfully convenient, All the more so since people like me walked away from the deletion review under the (apparently mistaken) impression that the issue was resolved as "remain deleted". My summation here is that after Jo-Jo Eumerus realized his mistake and corrected it he failed to assume good faith by not notifying the deletion review participants of his error, and that knowing the article would have otherwise been deleted Oakshade made a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that afd was ongoing to artificially inflate the support camp by preventing the oppose camp from participating in the review. Thats why we are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus undeleted it based on a conversation with Cunard. So, again, how does Oakshade have any responsibilities here? WilyD14:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because he was the one who stood against the csd originally, which in turn set this whole thing into motion. He saw who initiated the deletion review, and he Ivoted in the afd. He knew that the deletion review people had opined for relist and deleted and made no effort to inform them between his post at the afd on November 20 and the closure on November 24. WP:CONSENSUS requires that everyone have a chance to weigh in, and those at the deletion review weighed in, so why then intentionally fail to mention the afd when so many believed the original deletion was correct or that an afd would result in deletion? TomStar81 (Talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81, but the DRV did notopine for relist and deleted; there was no consensus in the DRV, and some (such as I) opined for "restore and do not list at AfD". Everyone in the DRV should have realized that by DRV procedures a "no consensus" on a speedy deletion defaults to OVERTURN, because a speedy is supposed to be an uncontroversial deletion, and if there was no consensus to endorse the speedy, then it was not uncontroversial, and so should be overturned. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: yes it is, and I have no excuse. I'm tired, and cranky, and pissed off over this whole affair. That being said, two wrongs don't make a right. I aplogize to the community and to Oakshade for my angry comments. We have enough drama, as an admin I should know that, and it is conduct unbecoming to add to it in this manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Multiple EC) This is why you should never WP:ABF. As they've already explained, Jo-Jo Eumerus did not "wait" for anything. They made an acknowledge mistake. When they were informed of that mistake, they promptly corrected it [178][179]. Yes this was about 5 days after the mistake happened, but it wasn't because they or anyone else was waiting to that no one would notice, it was just because that's how long it took for someone to notice. After this happened, SportingFlyer who participated in the deletion review and clearly wanted the article deleted opened an AFD. User:Levivich who also participated in the deletion review and also initially wanted the article deleted then joined. Later, Cunard and ScopeCreep also joined in. Cunard was obviously aware of the deletion review, maybe not ScopeCreep. Eventually Oakshade about 4 days after the AFD was opened also joined in. Somehow according to you Oakshade had responsibility to inform people of the AFD, and no one else. In reality anyone could have informed the participants and nearly all of them knew about the deletion review, really the only one who had more expectation would be SportingFlyer who opened the AFD but frankly that's very minor. But I say expectation for a reason, IMO it would have been better if they had do so, but there is no requirement and I don't fault them for not doing so since it takes times especially with so many participants. And it's not like the deletion was that lacking in notifications or participants. I mean I could ABF that you were aware of the AFD and chose to ignore it because you wanted to make some dumb procedural point but I see no reason to make such a weird assumption so I don't know why you are doing that about multiple editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because some one out there should have considered the rest of the participants and whether or not they would like a chance to weigh in on the matter. I maintain - and long have maintained - that failure to notify interested parties about such matters constitutes a breach of good faith because if someone cared enough to weigh in the first time around then they are likely to participate later if give a fair chance to do so. Why then cut out the rest of us? In this case I could understand why the nominator wouldn't alert us if he didn't know about the deletion review, but others like Oakshade did and that information concerning the decision to open the afd should have been passed to the rest of us so that we could have a fair chance to participate in it if we so desired. Now I've been intentionally cut out the process, along with maybe half a dozen others, and the results are closed and certified as "fair" when they clearly aren't because we were never given the chance to participate. I feel that this general situation of failure to notify almost always taints an afd by destroying the spirit of consensus since its obvious without the previous participants an outcome tilts in favor of one side or another. Where then is the consensus when those who would help build it are not invite to be a part of it? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See User_talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Archive_52#Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_4#Lera_Loeb for why it was undeleted and sent to AfD. I was not aware of the AfD, or I would have participated. I argued at DRV that this was NOT a valid A7 speedy. I haven't reveiwed the soruces enough to have a view on notability. To the best of my understanding, when an article previously at DRV is restored and sent to AfD, there is no obligation, not even a best practice, of notifying the DRV participaants, and it surely does not invalidate the AfD result. DRV merely speculated on a possible AfD result, and did not do the kind of source analysis that ought to be done at an AfD. Nor was the article available for cleanup during the DRV as it would be at an AfD. I agree that Process is Important but I see no process violation here. My advice: wait six months. If you still think this article does not belong, nominate it fgor a new AfD then. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Considering the person who opened the AFD, which is SportingFlyer not Oakshade, clearly wanted it deleted as their opening statement says, as you would expect when someone opens an AFD, I find it quite troubling you're suggesting they're attempting to game the system. Are you seriously suggesting they didn't actually want it deleted but just opened an AFD in the hope it would fail since no one noticed it? If not, I urge you to clarify your comment. I do agree it probably would have been better to notify the deletion review participants. As others have said, anyone could have done so although if you weren't aware of this AFD then I don't fault you for not doing so. Whatever the case, I don't see a reason to "void" the results. IMO, it would be acceptable to reopen the AFD if there is compelling reason to think there may be a different outcome if people were notified. Or maybe even open a new AFD despite the reason AFD. But considering this closed as keep and not no consensus, and while participation was small it wasn't that small and included at least one deletion review participant who changed their mind, and that people probably don't apply the same level of scrutiny before commenting on deletion views since they tend to be procedural issues as much as anything, I'm not convinced a delete was likely. At most a no consensus so really I see no point. So while I wouldn't oppose re-opening the AFD or opening a new one, I wouldn't support it either. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that TomStar81 has acknowledged their mistakes but considering how this issue seems to have clouded their judgement, I would oppose re-opening the AFD or opening a new one in the short term based solely on their belief that a different outcome is likely. My comments on not opposing or supporting stand for other editors who feel the same. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade here. For the record, I had absolutely nothing to do with the DRV review results that officially ended as "No Consensus" nor the nomination of the AfD. The AfD was created by a different editor and I was simply a participant. In the DRV, administrator JoJo Eumerus initially deleted the article, but it was explained to them by Cunard (talk·contribs) that no consensus overturns speedy deletions per the official Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews[180] and then quickly reinstated it.[181] Again, I had nothing to do with that reinstating of the article. I had absolutely nothing to do with the AfDing of this article so it's extremely odd that I'm being accused of not notifying anyone as there is no obligation for I or anyone to notify anyone of an AfD except for the article creator (me). Again I was simply a participant in the AfD.
More disturbingly this is appearing that TomStar81 is angry that their initial A7 criteria deletion was considered invalid and hence it was overturned. When they first deleted it I politely asked that it be re-instated [182] (I first thought he was the the tagging editor and I apologized to him for that confusion). Initially TomStar81 left an very un-administrator and threatening comment on my talk page threatening that if I take their initial deletion of the article on the grounds of A7 to DRV, I will end in "defeat."[183] It was pointed out to TomStar81 by multiple administrators and editors that the arguable notability and significance-satisfying verbiage and independent coverage already linked in the article negated A7 as A7 is a much lower standard than notability.
This ANI is sadly looking like a sour grapes situation. When we don't get our way, TomStart81 should practice the maturity we expect in all administrators and editors; accept it and move on.Oakshade (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not what happened at all. The article was kept deleted, then posted at afd. You had see in the deletion review so many that leaned toward deletion -either certifying the csd or moving it to afd - and yet for four days you sat on the afd intentionally cutting these people out. If we are invited to participate, and it ends up being a keep, then I will be the first to congratulate you, but when you are so afraid of involving the delete-minded editors that you hide the presence of the afd from us to artificially inflate the keep votes so that the article remains here then I object - loudly. Its not that hard to get on your keyboard and compose a message and leave it with the DR participants or use the ping system to draw our attention to the article's afd. If I can do, then surely you can do it too. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no need to congratulate me. I don't see dispute outcomes as "victory" or "defeat" for parties. Again, this wasn't my AfD. The AfD nominator, who wasn't me, actually participated in the DRV, as did others in the AfD. You can start an ANI against them, but that would also be a nonsensical one. Please listen to the other adminstrators and editors. Oakshade (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is not a requirement that participants be notified per WP:AFD in addition it is not even required to notify the creator of the article. While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. I am unsure how I would have !voted, however I !voted at DRV to overturn the speedy and relist. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you would have had the opportunity to participate, and thats why I'm here: we should have been notified. In this case, under these circumstances, we should have been notified. We should have. And for us to have been cut out like this does, I feel, constitute an act of bad faith. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding a good faith effort to notify. I am an editor who looks for WP:ATD. I look through AfDs every day and I did see this one, however I did not have the time to investigate. One thing that is maddening is that an article can be nominated over and over, so if you feel that it is not fit for WP, you can nominate it again. Lightburst (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness I did think about doing exactly that, however after filing the afd and previewing it I sat and thought for a moment and realized that I was editing under the influence of my emotions, and that it would likely not be seen and a good faith effort to relist and gather the whole body but an attempt by one disgruntled editor to disrupt to make a point. I thought about telling Oaksheild to piss off in foul language, and was editing to that effect, then decided that that course of action would more likely be seen as a personal attack. I thought about deletion review, but why would you review an article that was saved? That seemed a dick move by any standard, so weighing the options I decided here would be best. In the court of opinions we can debate the matter in a civilized fashion under the watchful eyes of the admin corps and they can arbitrate the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TomStar81 Current procedures do not require -- do not even recommend as good practice -- that participants in previous discussions about an article's possible deletion be notified of a new deletion discussion. If you really feel that this should be mandatory -- and so essential that failure to notify should void the AfD, then i suggest starting an RfC at WP:DEL or soem other appropriate page to make that the procedure. Perhaps a bot could be created to automatically make such notifications. But the community has not adopted thsat as a written guideline or policy, and it is common practice not to ping the participants in a previous AfD when a new one is filed.
I also don't see any grounds for repeating that you and others were intentionally denied a chance to participate. I doubt very much that anyone was attempting to exclude you. There was an error in procedure in the initial close being followed by a delete, but I do not see that as intentional, and it is simply not routine for participants in prior discussions to be notified (unlike article creators) so the fialure to do so does not amount to a surprising lapse. Normal procedure was followed. I think you should drop this stick. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus here emerges to that effect I will do so. I'm aware that I lean inclusionist, so I tend to be very pissy when no one drops me a line since once something gets deleted it generally doesn't come back. I believe I've put forward mandatory notifications before, but given the presence of the LTA page (and cases of this nature) its not gotten a lot of traction. I made a issue out of this because of the failure in the procedure which I'm sure would have impacted the outcome of the afd in this specific case if only we had been told about it, but no cared enough to come get us. Its sad, but its not the first time its happened and I'm sure it won't be the last. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a conduct issue to review here. We've got ourselves tied in a knot but the procedures have been followed as written and nobody has behaved in bad faith. Arguably there may be an issue for DRV but I wouldn't personally bring it there. The old article was poor and used atrocious sources and needed to be deleted, but it's been thoroughly overwritten and the sources have been fully replaced with better ones. I think we're looking at a WP:HEY improvement.—S MarshallT/C16:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, I certainly can't see what it was, and TomStar81 seems to be conflating different editors in a way that makes their accusations impossible for me to follow. If, somehow, the DRV undeletion was incorrect, and deletion was proper ... well, we have a new version that was kept at AfD, so now everything's where it's supposed to be. WilyD16:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
::Since I was pinged, I will say that I think that the system was gamed by not notifying the DRV participants. The turnout at the AFD was far less than at the DRV. I don't know what if anything should be done. This may be a case of the system being gamed in a way that cannot be set right. There is so little harm done in having a useless stub that it isn't worth righting, but the article is a useless stub. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Striking only because of edit conflict when the thread was closed while I was posting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I ran into Toa at the Sharyl Attkisson page around 24 June 2019, and have been on the opposite side of him 100% (and would add here that admin Guy is also of an opposing view, in a dispute that has roughly equal numbers, as can be seen by this RfC). This is the only article we've worked on together. He has come after me at unrelated venues since then to weigh in against me, and is ramping up his WP:HOUNDING lately.
He showed up 15 minutes after me at the COI/N, 23 November, mischaracterizes my statement there, and mentions my topic ban as a reason I should be ignored.
He did the same at RS/N at another unrelated thread 16 October, where I was trying to address a serious BLP violation (the community unanimously agreed with me at this RfC), and tried to discredit me.
Per WP:HOUNDING "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
I'm not sure how this is defensible behaviour. Please place a one-way I-ban on this user. I haven't got the time to dig up all of the interactions between us, this is a sampling, but I believe this meets any rationale definition of disruptive. I'm hoping non-involved admins will take a look at this. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก21:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This request is so frivolous it is barely worth responding to. I have the COI noticeboard on my watchlist. I responded there because I noticed it on my watchlist. I noticed their contribution at conspiracy theories after she posted on my talk page and reverted it for clearly stated reasons (she removed a reliable source and replaced it with an op-Ed from a food critic for a men’s magazine).
Petrarchan seems to think any interaction with her is hounding, which is unfortunate but well within her pattern of casting aspersions on other editors. I would suggest this be disregarded and Petrarchan cautioned against both frivolous reports and aspersion casting. Also, while I appreciate the ping, a direct notification at my talk page is mandatory if I remember right. It’s been 20 minutes or so with no notification. ToaNidhiki0522:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I forgot to ping, but please don't follow me around and try to discredit me at unrelated noticeboards, or overturn RS and re-add blogs, mischaracterizing it as you as are doing here. Bringing up my unrelated topic ban is disallowed. You have done it twice now (another time at Attkisson Talk). A one-way I-ban would stop this behviour, otherwise known as trolling, which is disallowed. I am not following you to any other pages. I am not out to disrupt your editing experience. I expect the same. petrarchan47คุก22:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but I believe this meets any rationale definition of disruptive A better example of "disruptive" might be frivolous attempts to block people who oppose your continual and failed attempts to get your way at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson, like you already tried
at the COI board.
WP:Hounding is not ok - per policy; it includes ...to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. The heart of the dispute is a BLP which is governed by strict policies. There was a prior discussion at BLPN that addresses a very similar issue that has plagued the Attkisson BLP. In a nutshell, a BLP is not the place to debate or refute the science or theories - those debates belong in the respective articles about the science or theories. ”For a biography, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views...” It appears to me that Tao’s disagreement with Attkisson’s views are the crux of the problem, and what gave rise to his tendentious editing and hounding. AtsmeTalk📧13:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”Tendentious editing” lol. No coincidence that two of the editors most supportive of scrubbing the Attkisson page of criticism of her anti-vaccine reporting are wanting me forced out. You have to be joking, and you certainly aren’t in any position to lecture given your history. ToaNidhiki0514:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Hounding is not ok. Sure. Nor is littering, tax fraud, advanced mopery, and taking the last slice of cake, and those as equally relevant here. Also irrelevant is the invention out of whole cloth of some sort of personal right of reply on Wikipedia and claiming this non-existent right is required by BLP policy.
I also have difficulty finding any sign of hounding. @Petrarchan47: you are such an experienced editor that I would have expected you to ping User:JzG when you refer to his opinion here on ANI (in the first line of your OP), especially since you don't make it very clear who he is of an opposing view to: you or Toa? Guy had better have an opportunity to clarify, if he cares to. There, I've pinged him for you. Bishonen | talk20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
This editor has repeatedly adding production codes with The Futon Critic links on Episode tables (specifically on yet to air episodes), claiming that the The Futon Critic links provide the production codes when they do not provide them for certain TV series at all, despite several warnings. This is considered to be improperly source of content and WP:OR as the production codes are not on the reliable sources which make them unsourced. Assuming the production codes based on the numbers next to the episode titles on The Futon Critic links is also WP:OR. — YoungForever(talk)00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator) I would advise copyediting this comment. The grammar is off and makes it difficult to discern what the problem is. In general, The Futon Critic is a reliable source and one that is used quite often. If the user is deliberately using them to "cite" something that they don't actually say, that's definitely disruptive. The operative word being deliberately, which would need to be evidenced. Copyedited. DarkKnight214902:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No judgment on the grammar, by the way. As someone who often uses a mobile phone and is frequently busy, I regularly go back and edit my own talk page comments for clarity. DarkKnight214902:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alainlambert (talk·contribs) was blocked for 24 hours by El C for edit-warring, primarily at John Brennan (CIA officer), where he was warned about BLP by multiple editors. I was among the editors who reverted and warned. Upon release of the block he made one edit, and created Spurjump (talk·contribs), who continued to edit-war, and acknowledged that they were evading their block [190], apparently in retaliation for being reported by Muboshgu at AN3. Because of this acknowledgement, I've blocked Alainlambert for a week for abusing multiple accounts and for continuing to edit-war via socks. Since I've reverted (on the basis of BLP), I bring this up here for transparency. Given their lack of constructive engagement [191][192] I suggest an indefinite NOTHERE block. Acroterion(talk)01:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Spurjump is an Architect 134 joe job, Unrelated to Alainlambert. You were right to be suspicious, but Alainlambert should be unblocked - they were simply being framed by an LTA. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adithya Shankaran is doing disruptive editing like removal of maintenance templates from Tejasvi Surya without explaining. I visited their talk page and found lots of warnings about their behaviour of blanking and addition of unsourced content in multiple pages. Definitely WP:NOTHERE Deserves strong warning or temporary block from the Administrator. --Harshil want to talk?06:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the talk page. There is one warning for blanking, about nine months ago. There is one for adding unsourced content, about 4 months ago, and two more for adding unsourced content, about a month ago. No further warnings in over a month until yours. I also checked the last few edits by Adithya Shankaran. All seemed productive except for the template removal. This doesn't seem like an editor who is NOTHERE to me, which is why I asked if you knew of further continuing disruption, Harshil169. By that I mean within the past few days, or at most since the previous warning a month ago. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs12:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I am slightly confused about is that the copyvio template which the user removed referred to material that was actually added by Harshil169. So either it is a copyvio (in which case Harshil169 could just remove the offending text and the template), or it isn't, in which case the template should be removed anyway. Black Kite (talk)14:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:copyvio material should be WP:revdeleted per policy so it's correct to the keep the template there until this was carried out. I'm surprised it took so long [193][194] but I guess this is reflective of the fact copyvio is a complicated area and only a few admins are involved in it. And while the copyvio template should never be removed without the concerns being properly addressed, it does seem a little rich to complain so much about a template which was only there because of your mistake. As for the other templates, well I don't think they should have been removed without comment especially since there was discussion about them on the talk page. So it's not like it's a dispute where neither side provided a rationale. But I agree with DES that the history here seems way to limited to bring to ANI. Just trying talking to them a bit more. (I don't mean templates.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the RevDel and removed the template, by the way. Copyright RevDel requests are often significantly more complex than speedy deletion requests for Copyvios, and those in turn are sometimes rather more complex than A7 or G11 speedies. But only an admin can do a revdel, so only an admin should remove the template, unless another editor has checked and is convinced with good reason that there is no copyvio content in the history, in which case that should be stated clearly in the summary. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks for that. I meant to but forgot to mention this, but feel it's worth pointing out so others don't feel this is just pointless compliance. Policy aside, remember that one reason we revdeleted copyvios is so that well meaning editors don't accidentally reintroduce the material. There are also other reasons obviously Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I have been on an extended wiki-break, and got back to serious editing this past September.
I need some administrator intervention for NetJets. I have done some significant work to the article, updating citations and adding new info. Some of the new info that was added paints the organization in a negative light.
Yesterday, two anon-IP addresses deleted a large chunk of this info (see Special:Diff/927933910). A quick WHOIS and Geolocate report that both IP addresses are assigned to NetJets, which leads me to believe there is WP:COI and WP:PAID issues here. One of their comments was that a current discrimination case (which has two citations in the article) was pending investigation, so they removed it.
I have reverted all the changes from the IP addresses, however, I intend to disengage from editing this article until this matter is resolved (to avoid WP:3RR). KD5TVI (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sanford Capital
Sanford Capital is a controversial property management company. An anonymous editor removed the name of one of the founders of the company (dif). I checked sources and reinstated the name with a citation to the Washington Post (dif). The editor posted to my talk page and then deleted the founder's name again dif. Seems like a clear cut WP:COI issue. I don't want to get into an edit war here. Any suggestions? Maybe we should protect the page to keep anons from editing? Andrew32720:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) The IP address' only edits are to that article and to Andrewman327's talk page. The IP address claims to be Pat Strauss (the co-founder) and that he is only editing the article to reflect that he left the company.
This doesn't make much sense, given that the text says that Strauss founded the company, not that he currently has a position with the company. The Washington Post citation also indeed verifies that he is a co-founder.
Whether or not the IP address is truly Pat Strauss, I concur with Andrewman327 that this is a clear case of WP:COI. The citation backs up the information presented in the article, the reason for removal is personal and WP:IDONTLIKETHATy, and the IPs concern ultimately has nothing to do with inaccuracy, alleged libel, or WP:BLP.
That being said, I'm not familiar enough with the article to have an opinion on whether or not this request from the user is reasonable - "i would like the wikipedia to reflect that i left the company in 2011, if possible". In all fairness, they only made two edits so far. So despite the blatant WP:COI, this might not be actionable as it's likely just a case of someone not understanding how Wikipedia works yet.
TL;DR: Definitely COI, probably not actionable due to their limited edit count. Their rationale for their edits also suggests that they might be willing to comply with our policies if told about them. DarkKnight214923:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No action to protect the page is needed (we don't preemptively protect pages, and there's no evidence of multiple new or IP editors changing the page inappropriately.) @Andrewman327: you said the right thing on the IP's talk page in asking to keep discussion on that article's talk page. Just monitor the page and come back again if there's evidence of continual attempts to remove content without any explanation that you can't handle. If they are Strauss, and they claim to have left the company, then they'd need to supply a reliable source to prove that assertion. They can add a url to a chat on the article talk page and you can then add it. But keeping Strauss' names as a cofounder is wholly justified, based on the sources I've seen, and wouldn't be altered even if they've now left the company and have emigrated to Mars. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michepman: Thanks. It's now extremely late here, but in my addle-headed state I'm not seeing activity that warrants such draconian warnings as you appear to have given them. That said, I've left a note about leaving edit summaries, as their absence makes understanding their editing motives much more difficult to determine. G'night. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Darkknight2149: for letting me know. To clarify since I think there has been a misunderstanding, I did not intend to remove content from the article. As you can see from the edits referenced by Michepman here I was actually adding (not removing) content from the article Sanford Capital and Karl Racine. (Indeed, it was actually another user, Nick Moyes, who removed cited content from the latter article here -- removing an edit in which I include information about Mr. Racine's successful 2018 reelection campaign. I take full responsibility for and apologize for my failure to use clear edit summaries but I do not think that it is reasonable to characterize my addition of a paragraph as being a "conflict of interest" or a "sockpuppet" and to repeatedly threaten me with hostile messages about being 'blocked' for edit warring. As noted, I did not revert the contributions of other users. Omanlured (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful Omanlured — bad faith attacks like the above as well as blatant WP:IDHT could easily earn you a short block. When you do something wrong, it’s best to just own up to it rather than pointing fingers or attempting to smear other editors. We have all been there and we have all made mistakes, and throwing a tantrum is never a good resolution. I will be scrutinizing your edits closely going forward and providing guidance to help you stay out of further trouble. Michepman (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michepman: I haven't looked at Sanford Capital, but Omanlured is right about this revert by Nick Moyes; Omanlured had added Karl Racine's re-election, cited to an NYT elections result page, and then made a link more specific, but was reverted with an edit summary stating that they had removed content. I've re-reverted and covered a bare link after checking both references. So back off a little, please; you may be thinking of other edits by Omanlured, but in that instance he's correct. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m on mobile right now so
This might look a little funny. But you check his vandalism of Sanford Capital you might see the type of sneaky vandalism that I was concerned about:
here he removes a large chunk of text from the article
None of these editing mistakes are that serious, but they are problematic which is why I issued a friendly warning on his talk page. His response was to flip out and make false aspersions. Michepman (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michepman - I admit that I made a mistake while editing in the first edit that you reference. However, if you look again at the second edit you will see that I did not remove the content again after it was reinstated; I instead simply moved a different paragraph one tab down in order to break up what I viewed as an overly long sentence. Again I concede that I should have use an edit summary, but you can tell even the diff that I did not remove any content after the very first edit (which was reverted properly by Argento Surfer). The third edit I actually did remember to use an edit summary for once, and you can see that I removed the wiki link because the person in question did not have an article (and as far as I can tell is notable only for their ownership of Sanford Capital, making it unlikely that they will ever get a separate Wikipedia page). I apologize for not making the purpose of my edits clear, but again I don't see this as sock puppeting or vandalism on my part, just an honest mistake or an honest miscommunication. 16:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
My understanding with stuff like this is that the standard practice is that the article just gets extra monitoring and patrolling for a few days (or until the disruption is over). Usually these things peter out in a short amount of time, but until and unless there's actual on-wiki disruption there's not much there can be done. (If that does happen, it's possible that the article might be semi-protected especially if there is a wave of IP or brand new accounts showing up to perpetrate coordinated disruption). Michepman (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Nick Thorne: I'm not an admin, but have (also) taken a look, as your post rather piqued my curiosity. I suspect your post has helped to raise interest in a few of us now watching those pages, but I don't see any concerted attempt by hordes of new editors to change the various Spaghetti Monster-related pages. If a page comes under concerted attack by multiple editors (and there are 81,000+ 'followers' of that Facebook page) you can post a request at WP:RPP. Preemptively semi-protecting a page isn't something we do, so I think you're right in that there's nothing to do here. But at least, thanks to you, I've now found me a new 'religion' - or should I say 'parody religion' - to admire. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are both long term accounts, but neither of them has made any significant number of edits (<50 for one, and ~150 for the other). So, inexperienced, but still, tough to AGF when both of them obviously saw (and removed) the comments saying not to change the "satire" and "parody" terms. Meters (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
86.24.216.121(talk·contribs·WHOIS) is a SPA on the Danny Williams (footballer, born 1988) article, who makes (largely) correct updates to the playing stats (and I say largely because they have occasionally added matches not supported by sources). However, of more concern (and the subject of numerous messages, warnings, and a recent block) they repeatedly fail to update the date parameter, thereby actually creating false stats.
Why is this a problem? Let me put forward a simple hypothetical situation. As of 1 November 2019 John Smith had 15 appearances, and his infobox correctly reflect those facts. He then made a further appearance on 2 November 2019. That same day a well-meaning editor updated the number of appearances but not the date, so the infobox says he has 16 appearances as of 1 November 2019. That is not correct. Then another well-meaning editor comes along, sees the old date, and assumes the infobox has not been updated at all. They then update the games and the date - so his infobox says he has 17 appearances as of 2 November 2019. That is also not correct. The same thing then happens a week later, and a week later, and before you know it the stats are massively distorted.
This is therefore potentially a major problem, and something we see far too frequently on soccer player articles. I am therefore raising this here for further input/advice. GiantSnowman10:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor created the account, ITMr4thQuarter for ACC request #283509. maybe he can shed some light on this. From a checkuser perspective, the accounts are editing from many different ranges so it may be online course work. Accounts aren't congregated together as we usually see classes. If this is a class then one of the students should have their instructor contact us and go to the Education noticeboard for assistance. — Berean Hunter(talk)15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter: I didn't see an issue or anything needing checkuser and not a username violation so processed the request as normal. No article was identified as any target at ACC nor did they seem malicious....I didn't see any reason to decline. If I missed something, my apologies. --TheSandDoctorTalk15:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Berean Hunter: I thought you had ACC access as a CU (might be something to consider if not?). I have to be careful what I share here, but the direct answer would be "yes." Based on message the request seemed reasonable and I processed as normal. I really can't elaborate much further on the content (I don't want to accidentally violate the Privacy Policy) and would defer to Oshwah if he (or another ACC admin) believes more can be shared if needed and where. --TheSandDoctorTalk16:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need yet another AN/I thread about minor issues on that article talk page caused by people sniping at each other. If this turns into actual disruption, then yes - but this is not what AN/I is for. Black Kite (talk)15:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User is accusing me for assuming bad faith and issued warning on my talk page. When asked then he gave blanket statement, not differences. But I think they are talking about this edit. Now, as per my simple understanding goes, this is not personal attack or not assuming good faith. I am in long conflict with editor. It will be better if someone will let user understand.--Harshil want to talk?14:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vcuttolo's POV-pushing, unsourced and synthesis material, BLP violations, edit warring, and personal attacks across various articles
At various articles, Vcuttolo makes edits that simply push the narrative he wants. And in order to do this, he adds unsourced material, engages in WP:Synthesis, WP:BLP violations, edit warring, and makes personal attacks against other editors, often arguing that he is balancing the articles. Andreldritch stated it best here at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey: "I found that Vcuttolo's approach is 'get a handful of new citations, make them conform to Vcuttolo's interpretation, and overwhelm other editors.' In each case, Vcuttolo said supporting evidence was cited, yet checking the citation revealed no such wording or content to support Vcuttolo's claim. When called out for the citation not conforming to Vcuttolo's input, Vcuttolo then drops that particular topic/thread and pretends it didn't happen. Not at all helpful, especially when it seems that edit warring is Vcuttolo's default method of dealing with other editors' changes and comments." The Death of JonBenét Ramsey article is why I've brought the matter here to ANI, as I was not aware of Vcuttolo before he began editing being disruptively there. That article is currently on lockdown due to Vcuttolo consistently returning to the article to push his POV and edit war against two other editors (myself included) who have repeatedly explained on the article's talk page why his edits are problematic. Rather than reversing the article to the WP:Status quo while keeping it on temporary lockdown only for the problem to repeat itself after it's no longer full-protected (well, unless an admin were to simply block Vcuttolo instead of allow him to hold an article hostage), an admin encouraged editors to bring Vcuttolo to ANI.
So to get right into this matter, see the examples below. There are various examples within the examples. So perhaps the examples should be called "cases" or something else, or nothing at all. Either way, here they are.
Examples of Vcuttolo problematic editing, from 2018 to 2019.
Example 1: On March 9, 2018, at the Dinesh D'Souza article, Vcuttolo claimed he was adding balance by adding the word "alleged." Volunteer Marekreverted him, stating, "Yeah, that ain't "balance". Vcuttolo made a series of other POV edits, and VolunteerMarek reverted him again. A couple of days later, Vcuttolo was right back at with it, this time adding "claimed" in violation of the WP:Claim guideline. In this case, it was NorthBySouthBaranof who reverted him. After that, Vcuttolo engaged in WP:Editorializing, as identified by NorthBySouthBaranof, and NorthBySouthBaranof reverted that. Here, Vcuttolo re-added "alleged", and NorthBySouthBaranof reverted again, stating, "This word is literally not present in the source - please read the cited source." Here and here respectively, Vcuttolo stated that he was adding clarity and context. He was reverted by Volunteer Marek here and here because the material was WP:OR. Later, he added unsourced material that was reverted by SPECIFICO. He went to NuclearWizard's talk page to complain, but it went beyond a complaint and waded into personal attacks territory; he stated, "I went to Volunteer Marek's Talk page, and I see that you recently had a problem with him doing a mass revert on an edit (or edits) of yours. That SOB is doing the same thing to me, albeit in a far smaller way, on the Dinesh D'Souza page. I am a baby in Wikipedia terms. What does one do when a total asshole like Volunteer Marek abuse[s] his editorial power? I am truly disgusted by his actions. Is there a way to address Volunteer Marek's assholeness? Or should I just give up on Wikipedia altogether?" He was warned on his talk page about edit warring and the personal attack.
Example 2: On July 1, 2018, at the Brett Kavanaugh article, Vcuttolo added conspiracy theory material. On July 2, NorthBySouthBaranof reverted, stating, "I am really unsure we should be using a discredited book of conspiracy theories to attack a living person in this manner. Discuss relevance on talk page." He then warned Vcuttolo on Vcuttolo's talk page about Vcuttolo's penchant for the conspiracy theory angle, and for making this edit at the The Secret Life of Bill Clinton article, where Vcuttolo decsribed Gene Lyons as a "Clinton apologist." NorthBySouthBaranof stated, "Your personal belief that a reporter is a 'Clinton apologist' is nothing more than that, and has zero place in a Wikipedia article." Did Vcuttolo take this comment to heart? No. That is why more examples follow.
Example 3: Also on July 2, 2018, at the Suicide of Vince Foster article, Vcuttolo engaged in POV editing, with claims that he was trying to achieve balance. He was reverted by Teratix, who also left a message on Vcuttolo's talk page about the matter. Vcuttolo then made this edit, which took away the entire lead, stating, "Fucking tired of liberal bullshit editing out a balance in an article." He then started gutting the article, as seen here and here, bemoaning "Is there a wikipedia editor anywhere who cares about balance at all???" and "I am sick and tired of spending an hour carefully crafting an appropriate edit, only to have someone with an ax to grind deleting the entire thing with a single keystroke." He also left a nasty message on Teratix's talk page, stating, in part, "I am so absolutely sick and tired of working for hours to carefully edit a Wikipedia entry appropriately, only to have some uninformed schmuck spend one second ignorantly destroying everything I've done. I realize that I am in the distinct minority of being a conservative in the overwhelmingly liberal Wikipedia world, but might there be some liberals who actually care for honesty and integrity? Your deleting my corrections to the Vince Foster alleged suicide article, without bothering to spend a moment finding out if you have a leg to stand on - that was the straw that sent me off the edge. Too often those who share your narrow world view have done the same to my edits, and I simply can't stand it anymore." He was warned on his talk page about the personal attack. It took admin Black Kite coming along to restore the material to fix things. Vcuttolo engaged in more disruptive editing, and was soon reverted by Calton, who stated, in part, "rewrite, don't whitewash." Vcuttolo made more deletions and was then reverted on July 4 by Volunteer Marek, who asked him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. He then made an edit querying why he needed to "prove a negative" and that "the information [he] removed is contradicted by dozens of sources." Calton reverted him, stating, "Why yes, yes you do." He reverted Calton, and then MrXreverted him, stating, "This has been reverted half a dozen times, and for good reason. Please don't repeat the edit until you have consensus on the talk page."
Example 4: On August 16, 2018, Vcuttolo was warned by admin Doug Weller about edits he made to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article appearing to be a violation of WP:BLP, and because he needed "to avoid any edits related to the conflict until [he] reach[ed] 500 edits." Coffeeandcrumbsalso reverted him, stating, "Removal of sourced content to a relevant section."
Example 6: On November 7 2018, he was warned on his talk page by multiple editors for edits he made to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and for edit warring. He was blocked.
Example 7: On November 11, 2018, Vcuttolo violated his topic ban with regard to the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article, which was explained to him on his talk page. There, NorthBySouthBaranof told him in part, "What you really need to do right now is stop, step back from these issues, and go edit less controversial articles on other topics of interest, while taking time to learn about Wikipedia's fundamental policies like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:RS." NorthBySouthBaranof gave Vcuttolo the benefit of the doubt and stated that he wanted to see Vcuttolo develop into a productive editor. He tried to explain to Vcuttolo why Vcuttolo's edits are problematic. Rather than heed the warning, and take the advice, Vcuttolo complained at NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page, stating, "The Israeli-Arab ban was a result of a misunderstanding, as I explained to him clearly, and the rest was just an attempt at crushing a little guy who is trying to keep things balanced." He also posted to the article's talk page again, and then Bonadea had to revert, as also noted on Vcuttolo's talk page.
Example 8: On December 16, 2018, coming out of his topic ban, Vcuttolo was reverted on a series of edits at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article on the basis that edits were "undue synth [...] we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel."
Example 9: Also on December 16, 2018, admin Bishonenstopped by Vcuttolo's talk page, stating, "I noticed with surprise that here, you inserted a 'falsely' into the (properly sourced) statement that Leah Nelson labeled Colin Flaherty a white nationalist propagandist. The source you added for 'falsely' — stated in Wikipedia's voice — was a comment by Flaherty himself. Wikipedia goes by reliable secondary sources, and most definitely not by what people say about themselves. (Nobody is likely to call themselves white nationalist propagandists, just as no political party is likely to call themselves 'populist' or whatever. That doesn't mean we can't use those terms, as long as reliable sources use them.) That was not the only poor-quality edit you made to the same article, but probably the most egregious. Please take a look at our policy concerning reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, before you continue editing." As seen there on his talk page, Vcuttolo engaged in WP:Wikilawyering. Bishonen shut that down.
Example 10: On January 31, 2019, at the Kamala Harris article, Vcuttolo added the words "the married" after the words "she dated" so that the text read as "she dated the married Speaker of the California State AssemblyWillie Brown." This was [reverted by Zefr as irrelevant, but the problem with the edit was pointed out on Vcuttolo's talk page by Snooganssnoogans. Snooganssnoogans stated, "Your edit here makes it appear that Kamala Harris had an illicit affair with a married man. However, all RS on the subject make it clear that the man in question had been estranged from his wife for more than a decade - why did you leave out that context?" Vcuttolo's explain was, "I was under the misimpression that Brown was still together with his wife at that time. When I saw the second revert, I read the added link which explained that Brown was already separated, which is why I chose not to pursue it further." So this was yet another careless edit by Vcuttolo at a BLP. Vcuttolo also stated that he felt that the information was still relevant because "it is worth a mention that Brown had separated from his wife at the time." Going by the statement on his talk page, one would think he was done and that he would not again imply that Kamala Harris had an illicit affair with a married man. But no. On February 1, 2019, Vcuttolo returned to add "who was married," stating, "It is hardly irrelevant to the story of Kamala Harris to note that she dated a man she knew to be married. In the case of every other politician it is considered relevant. See Donald Trump, for example. If anyone else has a problem, please go to the Talk Page." Bellowhead678 removed the piece with this edit and added a different source, stating, "brown had been estranged from his wife for a decade at this point - seems irrelevant." That source was replaced with a different one by MrX.
Example 11: On February 17, 2019, because of his edits to the Vince Foster and Suicide of Vince Foster articles, Vcuttolo was "banned from any topic relating to Vince Foster or his death, broadly construed, for six months." As seen there on his talk page, he complained, stating things such as "It continues to amaze how some parts of WP are utterly allergic to facts. All I wrote - on the TALK PAGE, mind you, not in the body of the article itself - is that the evidence clearly leans heavily to homicide, not suicide." and "You can block me for 1000 years, but that will not change the fact that the WP article entitled 'Suicide of Vince Foster' is chock-full of falsities, verifiably so." Doug Weller explained to him that "The sanctions apply to behaviour on talk pages, as does our BLP policy." Calton also explained matters to him. And admin Acroterion, who left the message on his talk page about the topic ban, also told him, "Consider this your only warning about breaches of your topic ban - appeals may be made to me (and it must be a good-faith appeal, not a complaint) or to the Arbitration Committee venue noted above. Nowhere else. This [198], for instance, is an example of a topic ban violation - testing boundaries is more of what you've been doing."
Example 14: On August 25, 2019, Vcuttolo's problematic editing at the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article began. The problem has continued since. He has been warned about synthesis, WP:Undue weight, and edit warring there more than once. On the talk page, he stated, "I have read thousands of pages on the Jonbenèt case, watched numerous videos, and have become something of an expert on the case over the years." He claimed that the "family member theory" had been discredited and that the article gives too much weight to that theory. He made it clear that he believes in the "intruder theory" and wants the article more heavily weighted in that direction. He stated, "If [I] see how [the article] looked six months or a year ago, before [you] touched it, the article represented the investigation as conclusively clearing the Ramseys, period." I told him that "I've been with this article for years. Which version of the article are you referring to? You can link to that version via the edit history if it exists, but I don't think it does. All we've ever stated is, like we currently do in the lead, 'In 2003, trace DNA that was taken from the victim's clothes was found to belong to an unknown male; each of the family's DNA had been excluded from this match. The DA sent the Ramseys a letter of apology in 2008, declaring the family 'completely cleared' by the DNA results.'" He never linked the version of the article he claimed existed because it doesn't exist. I told him, "Suspicion of the Ramseys is not some fringe view. What WP:Reliable sources do you have stating that 'most believe the Ramseys have been conclusively eliminated as suspects'? I'm just not seeing that." He went on about what sources he personally considers biased and therefore unreliable, never mind what WP:Reliable sources and WP:BIASED states, and went on about how he thinks I'm not fit to edit the article and suggested that I "recuse [myself] from this situation." I told him "we are dealing with two theories here. There are no reliable sources that state that the intruder theory is more accepted than the family member theory. There are no reliable sources that state that it's the consensus theory." He wasn't accepting any of this and continued his disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. Acroterion came along and told him, "Vcuttolo: Demanding that other editors stop editing because you assert that they're not up to your standard of expertise in 'true crime,' whatever that is (the Wikipedia definition is accounts, often sensationalized, of criminal events) - short of Truman Capote, you don't get to pick and choose who edits articles like this. Your demand isn't acceptable on Wikipedia." Eventually, Vcuttolo stated, "Let's see how often I continue to get reverted by someone or another for daring to try to balance out this article." Acroterion also warned Vcuttolo on Vcuttolo's talk page, stating, "Much of your extremely lengthy talkpage discussion takes the form of thinly veiled attacks on other editors. This must stop." As seen there, Vcuttolo engaged in more personal attacks and Acroterion warned him again. When, after that, he engaged in more personal attacks on the article's talk page, Acroterion blocked him for 36 hours. By this time, it was September 3, 2019.
After his block expired, more problematic editing from Vcuttolo continued. Eventually, the article needed to be full-protected. When full-protection wore off, Vcuttolo continued where he last left off at and was reverted more than once by Crossroads1 and me, with and clear explanations as to why. Instead of stopping and taking the matter to the article's talk page, Vcuttolo took the matter to Crossroads1's talk page and wrongly accused him of misconduct. He also cast aspersions on his talk page. He was very recently warned about both on his talk page, but has continued to imply that Crossroads1 and I are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. He was reported by me at the edit warring noticeboard. Taking him to ANI was brought up. The report was deemed stale because the edit warring stopped. A month passed. Vcuttolo returned. Most recently, Vcuttolo made thisWP:POINTY edit, arguing, "Either include all relevant sides, or none. Stop cherry-picking miseading information." Again, the editor has no understanding of our WP:NPOV policy. He's been reverted on this removal multiple times now, with valid reasons as to why. After that latest edit, a revert by Crossroads, and Vcuttolo reverting again, the article was full-protected again, with specific reference to Vcuttolo. And, on the talk page, editors (me included) have again taken issue with Vcuttolo's editing and the article being full-protected with his edits intact (never mind The Wrong Version). About the latest editing, I was clear that I reverted this because Vcuttolo added WP:Undue material about the autopsy, again trying to cast doubt on the coroner's report. What he added is not commonly reported at all. Regarding this, Crossroads reverted because Vcuttolo engaged in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT behavior by removing the important fact from the lead (which is also an aspect covered lower) that "others, including former Boulder police chief Mark Beckner, disagreed with exonerating the Ramseys, criticizing exonerating anyone based on a small piece of evidence that has not yet been proven to be connected." Vcuttolo acts like the removal is now justified because of this and this material he added about Beckner. It's not. Like I stated when appropriately re-adding that Beckner material, Vcuttolo engaged in WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis. There is no "Within days, Beckner walked his comment back" or "Beckner then quickly reversed himself, clearly indicating that this was in fact a DNA case." Nowhere does Beckner take back saying that it's absurd to exonerate people based on a small piece of evidence that wasn't proven as connected.
Trying to discuss matters with Vcuttolo on the article's talk page are hardly constructive because Vcuttolo will simply ignore what we are saying to him about rules (including Wikipedia's sourcing standards and WP:Due weight), and he will also go back to attacking us. It got to the point where Acroterion hatted a discussion there. And when sanctioning Vcuttolo was very recently brought up, including at the article's talk page by the admin who full-protected the article twice, we can see on the admin's talk page that Vcuttolo still doesn't get it, stating, "I was otheriwse sanctioned for fighting against biased and ignorant editors."
Example 15: On November 1 2019, as seen by this revert by Andreldritch, Vcuttolo engaged in problematic editing at the Michael Baden article. This article is related to the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article because of Baden material included in the Death of JonBenét Ramsey article. With the revert, Andreldritch stated, "Cites speculation and leans towards opinion." Vcuttolo came back and made this edit. No edit summary. Andreldritch reverted, stating, "Please check previous entries: Baden was not fired by Kock, he was not re-appointed, etc." Vcuttolo reverted, stating, "I responded on the Talk page. I will also be adding additional reliable sources which characterize Baden's removal as a 'firing'." He made more edits. Andreldritch made this edit, stating, "Change as per TALK and definitive references." Vcuttolo made more edits. Andreldritch made this edit, stating, "Once again, use a definitive source about the incident--the NYTimes--not a reference inside another story." Andreldritch again stated, "Firing is not mentioned." On the talk page, we can further see how things went. Arguments over "fired" and what the sources state. Vcuttolo argued that the court used the term "fired" when addressing the situation. Andreldritch asked Vcuttolo, "Please cite the passage (paragraph, clause) in your openjurist ref where the judge who heard the case uses the term 'fired.'" Vcuttolo did not.
Example 16: On November 24, 2019, Vcuttolo added material that was reverted by Eagles247 as POV language. Vcuttolo came back made another edit; this was reverted by Eagles247 with the edit summary that it "didn't happen." Vcuttolo added more material, and was reverted on this piece by Eagles247, who stated, "even if it was mentioned in the sources here (it's not), it's still in violation of WP:NPOV." He added something else and was reverted by a different editor, who stated, "Doesn't say 'late hit' anywhere in the NYPost citation. Please be more specific with your citations; we do read them." After more edits by Vcuttolo, Eagles247 reverted him on this, stating, "The NYT article is describing how he was tackled. Does not say he was tackled, and THEN held on after he was tackled. Says he was wrapped up, held on, then dragged to ground."
Example 17: Also on November 24, 2019, Vcuttolo added this material to the Devlin Hodges article. He was partially reverted by Eagles247, who stated, "source provided has nothing to do with this week's game." So why did Vcuttolo add that material? Not paying attention? He simply wanted to add "ineffective" in front of "Mason Rudolph"? Whatever the case, it was problematic. Why is he adding "ineffective"?
Example 18: On November 26, 2019, at the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article, Vcuttolo added "has been widely accepted" in place of "is universally accepted" so that the sentence read as "The NIST explanation of collapse has been widely accepted by the structural engineering, and structural mechanics research communities." Vcuttolo argued, " 'Universally' is a big term. At least one structural engineer with AE911 would probably disagree. 'Widely accepted' seems to be the more accurate description." This again shows him going by his personal feelings. He was reverted.
Example 19: On November 26, 2019 and On November 27, 2019 respectively, Vcuttolo referred to Crossroads1 as "[my] partner" and "sidekick." The comments show him continuing to suggest that Crossroads1 and I are conspiring against him and are doing so only because he believes Crossroads1 and I are very close. How close? You'd have to ask Vcuttolo.
Example 20: On November 27, 2019, after Andreldritc's comment at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Vcuttolo went to Andreldritc's and made this "Is that a knife in my back?" post, opining that Andreldritc had "kick[ed] [him] when [he's] down."
There are a lot more examples. But most of these were highlighted because of the paper trail Vcuttolo left on his talk page. In the collapse box above, he is noted as stating that he is "sick and tired of working for hours to carefully edit a Wikipedia entry appropriately, only to have some uninformed schmuck spend one second ignorantly destroying everything [he's] done." Well, given the way he edits, that doesn't compare to spending hours gathering diffs and typing up an ANI thread just to put a stop to a problematic editor's behavior. I don't know if he only needs a topic ban from controversial articles, but something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– Levivich 04:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Done (Non-administrator comment) - Rollback appears to have done the trick. :) AddWittyNameHere 02:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrator note I have abbreviated the very long title. The concern appears to be alleged stalking of edits and disruptive behavior by the above IP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Unrelated to Alainlambert. You were right to be suspicious, but Alainlambert should be unblocked - they were simply being framed by an LTA. ST47 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
