Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Lazy-restless

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

---

• Lazy-restless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lazy-restless caught my attention after he had made this comment, and his history on Wikipedia shows that he has been trying to push a WP:FRINGE theory, which claims that Muhammad is a messiah of Hinduism. So far it is clear that Lazy-restless has no idea what is WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE and WP:BATTLE.

Until now, Lazy-restless has created:-

• Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book) (deleted after this Afd)
• Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (deleted after this Afd, also look at the DRV initiated by him)
• Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures by moving a faulty draft to main page

After the issue was raised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures, he was quick to start canvassing other users,[1] and displayed further WP:IDHT. Bharatiya29 18:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I just looked a bit more through their editing history. That, and their latest edits/comments suggest someone clueless about the Vedas, when Bhagavat Purana was written, etc. That is not the problem here though, as we don't expect editors to be experts in the subject or field they are contributing. The problem is the repeated disregard for our content guidelines, repeated use of questionable and fringe sources in topic areas that are sensitive/controversial/provocative. Possibly a WP:NOTHERE who should move their attention to subjects/topics other than Indian religions, broadly construed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• Another problem with this user's edits seems to be quotation farming.[2] I support a topic ban from religion since the problem is wider than just Hindu-Muslim relations subject. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is problematic. I favor a warning, rather than a topic ban as an incremental step to let them learn / reform. @Lazy-restless: Why this recent massive WP:QUOTEFARM-ing of primary sources here, without a cite to any WP:RS? Would you be willing to self-revert please, and instead focus on summarizing scholarly sources such as this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Now I also support indefinite topic ban from sexuality, not just religion per comments below. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban from religion and from sexuality indefinitely,[updated] or even block. I've dealt with this user before and they are a pusher of fringe viewpoints. For example, here, after misinterpreting a scientific study, he said All your edit attempts based on sexuality and orientation seems pseudointellectual to me. and pointed to some preacher's blog as justification. In this talk page discussion he wants to use centuries old Christian sermons as sources, and he points to a YouTube video and claims the articles, either theoritical or informative, about homosexuality in English wikipedia tend to be too much influenced by homosexuality-friendly western notion's point of view.
• The AfDs and other evidence above show he has been doing this for years. The first AfD is from 2014. (He used to be "Sharif uddin".) He's also made a bunch of edits to LGBT in Islam which I never had time to look over. It's clear that he does push fringe theories, and that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior which he is not stopping despite what others say. He's already had the chance to reform and has not. In my experience such users often succeed in placing their poorly sourced POV content in a few places where it remains for years, because those places weren't scrutinized, so we need to prevent any further damage from him continuing to do so. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've updated my proposed topic ban to include sexuality and to be indefinite based on the evidence below and on thinking it over. Since this has been ongoing for so long, and they have over and over again, many times, been admonished by others and yet not changed their overall behavior, I see no benefit from this being temporary. It just means he can then resume the behavior with the possibility no one will notice and more damage can be done, and that someone must put forth effort to notice and to bring him back here. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban from sexuality and from religion. Lazy-restless is one of our more problematic editors, on both religious and sexual topics. He, for example, will add a bunch of text that shouldn't be added, disregard WP:due, repeatedly commit copyright violations, engage in WP:Synthesis, misrepresent sources, and edit war. His talk page extensively documents these and other problems, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. These examples span years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all religion and sexuality subjects per above. Bharatiya29 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited topic ban per Flyer22 Reborn, say 1 to 3 months (I have struck out my earlier "favor warning" preference, in light of the evidence presented and their continued more-of-the-same editing without responding to my question above); if they repeat after the sanctioned period, recommend indef. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• The problems with this editor continue, as their edits to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion prove, and to Islah, which they turned into a quotefarm. Other indicators of their inability to work on a collaborative project is a total lack of edit summaries. They seem to have a really, really hard time with copyright, and it's funny to see how many times they were warned for messing with various sexuality templates. Finally, of course, they never bothered to show up here to discuss matters, and as it turns out they've been warned many a time, and blocked three times for various kinds of uncollaborativeness. So, I propose we have had enough of this, and I am going to block indefinitely for a combination of disruptive editing, refusal to communicate, original research, edit warring, and, in the end, incompetence. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the block, but in case there's a successful unblock request (somebody is already suggesting what needs to be done for an unblock) I support indefinite topic ban from religion and sexuality as proposed. It could be lifted in the future should we see some understanding of how to use reliable sources pertaining to the two subjects, but the mere passing of time will not achieve that (not for someone who has been editing here since 2014) and so I think it needs to be indef. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Aidayoung inserting fringe/promotion, removing sourced content despite warnings, potential COI

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

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:

On Oleg Maltsev (psychologist):

• Added Introvigne-based content
• 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"
• re-inserted and warned

On Massimo Introvigne:

• inserts content citing a print book and attributing an extended quote to a scholar named Gallagher.
• Quote was removed by User:Grayfell after investigation of the print book showed the quote's source was Introvigne himself, not Gallagher.

On CESNUR:

• Removed sourced content with misleading edit summary
• Warned for 'Removal of content on CESNUR with a misleading edit summary' by User:Thomas.W
• re-removed same content
• again re-re-removed

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 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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 ^talk 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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 [3]. 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 [4] (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 [5] - 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),“. 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 [6], 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 [7]. 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: [8]. 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.

Aidayoung (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• 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)

• 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 ^talk 16:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if relevant to this ANI, but the AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Roux, has several other editors raising concerns on CESNUR as an RS, including Nblund and 4meter4. Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• comment I share several of the WP:COI concerns voiced above. @Aidayoung: Bitter Winter is 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. Nblund ^talk 23:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

(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)

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)

I note Aidayoung uploaded an Iphone6 photo from Odessa taken in Oct 2016. On a hunch, I checked to see if Introvigne happened to travel to Odessa, Ukraine that month. Whaddya know, another coincidence. Feoffer (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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 ^talk 03:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@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 ^talk 17:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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. Nblund ^talk 20:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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 ^talk 16:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm 100% with you, I just misused the terminology of 'closure'. I thought it meant admin assistance. Sorry bout that! . Feoffer (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Emory College students placing assignment tags

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

---

Patrolling recent changes, I stumbled upon a project apparently created by Emory College with the apparent aim to edit a number of articles on Wikipedia [9]. I've had a look at some of the edits. As can be expected in any college course, some are really good, other rather bad. My reason for bringing it here is that students place tags at article talk spaces, as in this example. I have doubts about this. I take it Emory College is not exceptional in any way, so if we decide that this is ok, and we soon have 1000 college courses *60 students, we'll be looking at 60.000 tags being placed. If there is a policy in place, I am not familiar with it. I must say I do not see how these tags contribute to WP in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} currently has 25,772 transclusions. Certes (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty standard if not invariably used. Useful too, as it directs discussion of issues to course instructors and WikiEd liaisons. Don't see where the detriment comes in? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a standard template used widely. I find it most helpful. The only way it would stop being used would be a village pump consensus by a wide part of the community. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Such flags are useful in understanding some otherwise strange editing patterns, with new editors biting off more than they can chew or edit-warring in material because they feel that it needs to be kept in in order for them to get a good grade. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If you edit history or art subjects you will be extremely familiar with them, and they do serve to warn other editors. In fact, amazingly often there are no edits to the article, or very minor ones. What I don't like is that the tags never get removed, & some articles already have more than one (eg Talk:Claude Monet - 2 from 2018), as this programme has been running for several years. Contrary to what Elmidae says, it is very difficult to engage the students/instructors/Wiki-Ed "experts" in useful discussion. The choice of obvious big subjects already with very good articles very often sets students up to fail, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So, do we need some sort of guidance or project page that documents this as normal and/or expected, to avoid future confusion? Guy (help!) 15:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: The template documentation at {{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} might help, but yes, that template ought to include a link to Wikipedia:Education program. Pinging @Sage (Wiki Ed): who created the template. PamD 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And I'd add that I find these templates very useful, as it offers a contact route to point out to the teacher involved when there is a pattern of poor editing reflecting either poor teaching or poor learning! PamD 16:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I apologise if we sometimes appear difficult to contact. If you ping Ian (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed) or Elysia (Wiki Ed) we will respond. Students don't always get how to engage on-wiki (and are sometime afraid to) but they will almost always respond to concerns funneled through their instructors.

As for working on well-developed articles - we strongly encourage students to work on stub and start class, and steer them away from B, GA and FA-class. We're still working to get better at this (last semester added a system to notify us when students edit GAs or FAs), but we actively discourage student editors from editing high quality articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/Guettarda 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC) (Double-signing in keeping with the rules regarding alt accounts in project space.)

I can't say that's been my experience frankly (I specified useful discussion). One typical problem is that the reviews, on which quite a lot of emphasis seems to be placed, typically are placedcon the student editor's talk page, not the article's, which effectively prevents other (more experienced) editors commenting. Plus of course that neither students nor instructors ever seem to stay on wp, so don't read comments or see edits. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, sad but true. BTW, I've had students write reviews on article talk pages, only to be scolded by regulars who didn't wish for reviews by untrained editors to be placed there. In other words, sometimes you can't win. I agree that many times such reviews aren't very conducive to article improvement, but they sometimes do help those student editors become better editors. At least for that semester... Drmies (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I just thank everybody for the helpful replies. Despite editing for so many years, I had never come across this (perhaps I edit topics that are not interesting enough ;) ). In any case, I understand the tags and they are indeed helpful. Some of the students involved appeared to do constructive edits, some to plagiarize. As a Professor myself, I recognize both behavior very well, so nothing unusual there. Thanks again for the information. Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If you've never come across this reoccurring issue, then, with respect your not well placed to ask anything. Can I just request you stick to commenting on areas in which you have knowledge, and are not so fraught, and don't involve usefully guiding students. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: while I agree students editors are a recurrent theme which come to ANI and other places very often, your response seems unnecessarily harsh. For starters, I don't understand how someone can be "not well place to ask anything" unless we're talking about something like a debate or some formal manner of asking questions. Part of the way people learn is by asking questions, discouraging it just because they lack sufficient experience is just weird. Okay sometimes people probably should do some more research etc before asking, but that's complicated and your specific comment was "never come across" not "failed to research". Notably, part of the problem can often be that the person simply doesn't know where to start. Now that Jeppiz has been informed, they can do research more easily. There are plenty of cases where people are unaware of something that is common. E.g. in a thread below I just pointed out that 2 editors didn't seem to be aware of the way we generally handle the user pages of deceased wikipedians. And these editors weren't just asking questions, they were providing advice. I simply pointed out the guidelines, without suggesting that they are not well place to offer comments. It's not like Jeppiz made demanded some change without knowing what was going on. They simply asked a question, and made a vague suggestion. Also AFAICT Jeppiz has not been involved in guiding students in any way. AFAICT they simply asked a question here, and made a vague suggestion as I said before. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Snooganssnoogans edits on Julian Assange

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.

• Revert: November 8 [10]
• Revert: Nov 11 21:20, 11 November 2019‎ [11]
• I created Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_on_Julian_Assange_location_and_condition at 01:47, 12 November 2019‎.
• Revert: Nov 12 02:17, 12 November 2019 [12]
• 02:20, 12 November 2019 I advised Snooganssnoogans here [13] content was now subject of RfC
• 3RR notice: 02:22, 12 November 2019‎ [14]
• Revert: Nov 12 02:27, 12 November 2019 [15]
• 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)

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_C 03:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What did I just say immediately above about aspersions? Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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[16], 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[17]. 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[18], but well, its okay I suspect if they engage in "aspersions", right?--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh as we live and breathe, yet another edit war unfolds[19].--MONGO (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I just had another editor arrive on my talkpage to complain [20]. 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)

This behavior has been going on for months. Focusing on the last day is far too narrow MrThunderbolt1000T Apeholder (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

- he's still at it - reverting big blocks of text while claiming he only has an issue with part of it. He also claims Propublica, Slate and direct quotes are unreliable sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/927218361 Apeholder (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 04:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 3RR is not an entitlement unless were talking about vandalism...and all these appear be a content disputes.--MONGO (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute and really come on, this is a minor quibble really so WTF is the edit warring all about?--MONGO (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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[21] and wasting time reverting and talking to what was obviously a yet-to-be-exposed-sockpuppet account[22]. 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)

• You accused me of trying to bully bad content last week. Now you accuse others of the same. BRD means you take it to the talkpage after one revert, not three. Consider joining Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club.--MONGO (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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).[23] So it is new (and the source cited is from 1 November 2019). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Yes, and just for clarification: I only removed that part (the long-standing content) once[24], 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)

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 [[25]] or this case where the editor ignored the objections of two other editors (one being an IP editor) [[26]]. 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.[[27]] The long term pattern of behavior was noted by @Awilley: here [[28]]. 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)

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.[29] 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)

There is a long line of aggrieved editors with whom Snoog has edit warred.

• From the last couple days: @ Evo Morales government resignation: 1, 2, 3; @ Julian Assange: 1, 2, 3; @ Concealed carry in the United States: 1, 2, 3.
• From the last couple weeks: @ Don Bacon (politician): 1, 2, 3; @ The Wall Street Journal: 1, 2, 3; @ Mitch McConnell: 1, 2, 3.
• From the last few months just at National Review: 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
• For 2RR and lesser examples, see the histories of Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Great Leap Forward, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Kim Jong-un, and Jack Posobiec.
• 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]
• Either Snoog needs to lay off the undo button, or we need to implement El C's the 1RR suggestion. – Levivich 06:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• That was actually MONGO's proposal — I merely commented on it not being suitable for AN3. El_C 06:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.) – Levivich 06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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. – Levivich 06:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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. – Levivich 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

All the negative. All the time. Policy be damned. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what NPOV says afterall, snicker.--MONGO (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Great, now pick some that aren't ones I labelled "lesser examples". – Levivich 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  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)

• 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.[30][31] 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)

• (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[32] 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)

• (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[33] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me - because I do build consensus).[34] 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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. – Levivich 06:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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,[35] 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[36]. 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)

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)

• My question is why does Snooganssnoogans have a "history" with so many people? Is this healthy?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not. Refer to the comment below by Pudeo. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Snooganssnoogans has been recently doubling down in his battleground approach: he recently called another editor's RS/N comment an "unhinged rant". His edit summaries have become uncivil as well: "remove shit source", "tasked my ass", "holy fuck, who added that the school was accredited when it's not at all?", "shit sources", "It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog", "bullshit". I suggest that WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE are enforced, or else getting away with everything will just embolden him, it seems. --Pudeo (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Look at Special:Log/Snooganssnoogans logs as evidence of WP:BATTLE. Does the Assange article have discretionary sanctions already? Snoogan asserted it did on my talk page [37] here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"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.[38] I was not aware that "shit" as a description of a source was prohibited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think language like that is prohibited, but it's not conducive to co-operative editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note: JzG has applied 1 RR to Julian Assange. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC).

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)

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 ([39] [40] [41]). 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 ([42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]), 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 ([53]), 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 ([54]), 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: [55]. I then updated the lede, as discussed on the talk page: [56]. Exactly 20 minutes later, Snoogans reverted my edit: [57]. 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 ([58]), 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" ([59]). 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)

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)

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 ([60] [61]), 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)

Current state

• Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) protected for 10 days by El C
• 1RR applied to Julian Assange by me
• DS notice issued to Rebecca jones

What else needs doing, please? Guy (help!) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you check the diffs presented above documenting a history of edit warring? Or does that need to go to AE? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose 1RR for AP2 for Snooganssnoogans

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)

• Support 1RR limit as proposer. Springee (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR limit as per the above diffs. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above notes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Snooganssnoogans.--MONGO (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per above diffs. – Levivich 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in line with my comments and those of NorthBySouthBaranof and Snoogs above. Neutrality^talk 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support 1RR Snooganssnoogans. Edit wars are disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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[[62]][63][64][65]). 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[66][67]... 1RR would have stopped me from doing that, which is what this editor wants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. – Levivich 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Again, Snoogans' edits on Great Leap Forward were in the best interest of Wikipedia, and you should thank them for those edits rather than holding them up as evidence of gaming. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per the above diffs + Red Rock Canyon. - DoubleCross (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per the above, especially Red Rock Canyon. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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[68][69]. 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[70]. 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)

• 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)

• The RfC did not conclude in favor of the text that you edit-warred into the article (a misleading snippet)[71][72], but a different NPOV version of the text (a full quote which made it clear what the context was)[73]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC accepted a version that I proposed. Please stop trying to spin this. You're only further demonstrating why this 1RR ban is needed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The version you proposed in the RfC is different from the one that you edit-warred into the article. Here are the diffs for anyone to see[74][75][76] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You were quite literally the only "Oppose" vote. This is getting tiring especially now that you're trying to WP:BLUDGEON anyone who speaks out against your high-impact, high-conflict style of editing. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the comments upthread by Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR as probably useful. Add: please note that I am involved. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - pretty obvious why this needs to be imposed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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[77]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  OK, let's examine this claim, and see who Snoog is reverting: at Evo Morales government resignation, it's Kingsif (2 years, 14k edits); at Julian Assange, Jtbobwaysf (13 years, 5k edits); at Concealed carry in the United States, MrThunderbolt1000T (4 years, 141 edits) and Apeholder (1 year, 559 edits); at Don Bacon (politician), RandomUserGuy1738 (3 years, 4k edits) and MONGO (14 years, 75k edits); at The Wall Street Journal, Springee (11 years, 8k edits); at Mitch McConnell, Rwood128 (10 years, 22k edits); at National Review, some IPs and Rick Norwood (14 years, 21k edits). And that's just from the last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like Snoog is using 3RR just to fight vandals, sockpuppets, and POV trolls, but rather, regular editors. Some of our most long-standing, dedicated editors, in fact. – Levivich 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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.[[78]] 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)

• "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)[79][80][81][82][83]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  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. – Levivich 20:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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[84][85][86][87][88], 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)

  (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. – Levivich 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  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. – Levivich 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• Support 1RR for Snooganssnoogans for continued pattern of disruptive behavior, WP:TE, and clear evidence of WP:BATTLE here [89]. Even Snooganssnoogans recent comment on this very ANI page (below) [90] 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 Weller talk 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  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)

• @MONGO: I didn't comment on reaching 3RR but the comment by User:MrThunderbolt1000T that "the facts show that he breaches 3RR regularly..." If people are voting based on that belief I'm worried. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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 Weller talk 06:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support 1RR in AP2. This has been getting worse (or at best not improving) since 2016.. Better late than never taking action. It should be accompanied with a no personal comments sanction because of their long-standing habit of casting aspersions. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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:EW An 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per NorthBySouthBaranof and Johnuniq. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  Is it also telling that your editing history consists of vandalizing articles with "poop poop poop", I wonder? --Pudeo (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  That IP belongs to an educational institution. El_C 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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: [91][92][93][94] [95] [96][97]. 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)
• Oppose Snoogans is not the problem here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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 [[98]]) and the general civility issues [[99]]. They were tband from mass edits that were clearly not just patrolling [[100]]. 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 [[101]]. 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)

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)

"pushes against the POV-pushing that occurs on AP2 articles" Are you willing to consider that perhaps Snoogans is engaged in Pov-pushing himself? JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

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[102]) 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)

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 · c} 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• This is my userpage[103]. 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)

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)

How is a collection of insults (many of them off-wiki) that Snooganssnoogans has received negative information related to others? That seems to miss the point of WP:POLEMIC. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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. – Levivich 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

It's also an accurate observation. Grandpallama (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

A number, yes; a majority, no. Grandpallama (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Bingo.Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [[104]]. 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)

"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)

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)

This link was interesting [[105]]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [[106]]. The RfC is clearly against snoog's preferred content. Notice snoog's 30 Oct edit [[107]]. 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)

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)

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)

Oh, I think I am fully grasping the bigger picture. Grandpallama (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Someone else accusing Snoog of "bludgeon[ing]" is not itself evidence that Snoog is bludgeoning. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. And with the evidence presented, OJ was found not guilty. UberVegan🌾 20:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to be told that I am correct, but ... what does that mean? XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Editors can't have an ideological bias? They must be "authentically" neutral? What does your rationale even mean? Grandpallama (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Recommended reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Were he authentically a neutral editor then he would receive equal opposition from both sides. Frankly, that's not how life works. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

True; the idea also has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:NPOV. --JBL (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)[108] and that immigration can have adverse impacts (which goes against Democratic talking points)[109][110] 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.[111][112][113][114][115]. 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.[116] Those are illustrative examples from just the last few days. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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 [[

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal&diff=prev&oldid=925926526]]. Rather than see that your approach is a problem you attack other editors. That is a civility problem with you, not others. Springee (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  ^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)

  Am I still a n00b? Am I an SPA? Am I a POV pusher? Am I offended at the suggestion? Yes to the last one. – Levivich 23:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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? – Levivich 05:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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. Nblund ^talk 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: insufficient basis for this sanction. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support: support per nom and ubervegan. Loksmythe (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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.[117] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like you just followed me here. And just more evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Loksmythe (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure Snooganssnoogans was already paying attention to this discussion before! --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Meh per Guy and Black Kite. --JBL (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• ^This editor has less than 50 substantive edits to their name, and a sizable portion of those edits were used to edit-war out reliably sourced descriptions of the Christchurch mosque shootings killer as "alt-right". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose: No good reason for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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" [[118]] 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)

• ^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[119][120]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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.[121][122][123] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• (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[124], whereas the different text that was ultimately approved[125] 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)

• Tagging The_Four_Deuces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apeholder (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• ^ This is a brazen example of canvassing. Furthermore, the editor, Apeholder, is also vandalizing my userpage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1RR limit Dream Focus 03:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• ^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[126][127][128], 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[129]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[130] 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)
  • 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 [131] and tell me if there is a problem with Snooganssnoogans editing and how he represents what's going on. Dream Focus 13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • 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[132]. However, even after you were notified that you misused a primary source, and fact-checkers and RS such as PolitiFact,[133][134] NY Times[135], and FactCheck.Org[136][137] 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)

• 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

• when the consensus is against him, he knows how to let it go and move on, or then he just lists the issue in User:Snooganssnoogans#Content that needs to be in Wikipedia but isn't. --Pudeo (talk) 07:58, 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)

• 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)
• Comment: it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes - wow, if that's not a defiant attack on BRD by Snooganssnoogans, then what is? Based on this egregious behavior, a topic ban may be in order. XavierItzm (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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" ([138]). "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)

@Thucydides411 and XavierItzm: - Snooganssnoogans has made two voluntary commitments [139], which you can read below , which are certainly in the spirit of adhering more to BRD. starship.paint (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(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)

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)

^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)

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)

Snooganssnoogans has made two voluntary commitments

Wow. How kind of him. - DoubleCross (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support, per above comments and diffs and for example Hillary Clinton said without real evidences that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset,[140] 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 [141].

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

More attention required at Julian Assange

There is currently an RFC at Julian Assange that could certainly benefit from more attention, if admins have energy for that. A number of editors have attempted to remove statements by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer despite overwhelming coverage in reliable sources: New York Times, The Guardian, Reuters, The Washington Post, Newsweek Op-Ed by Melzer, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, The Brussels Times, Repubblica, The Independent, Business Insider, Al Jazeera, The Financial Times, The LA Times, The Hindustan Times, The Times, The International Business Times, The Irish Times], Express, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Hill, Liberation, USA Today, La Presse, Deutsche Welle, Counterpunch, Salon.com, The Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Bloomberg, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, France 24, among many others.

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)

And this is a far from neutrally worded notice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This isnt the notice, the notice is over on the Assange talk page, and it is neutrally worded there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

I don't understand why editors thought that the text implied Assange was going to be killed. I just can't see that implication.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well for one given it was a UN expert on torture...Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

So what?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Experts and views of the United Nations no longer admissible. -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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. – Levivich 05:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, if you didn't go to Harvard it's a crying shame. You'd fit right in. EEng 10:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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. – Levivich 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 [142]:

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.

Hopefully, with many brains working hard on this issue, we can figure out some text that avoids mention of any of these conclusions. Otherwise EEng we might need to bring in some Harvard-educated lawyers to explain why evidence of torture is just unsubstantiated opinion. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a reasonable assumption at all. It's jumping to conclusions.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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.) EEng 21:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

College it was- Winthrop House [143]! -Darouet (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion beyond the scope of ANI

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) 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. – Levivich 01:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC) 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) 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 obviousNblund talk 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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 Weller talk 09:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) But you're an American.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Whether Assange should be linked with American politics is totally irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I agree. That's fucking batshit crazy!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC) 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) 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)

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 [[144]] 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[[145]]. 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)

• 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)

How are links to comments made by other editors, out of their original context, "useful references"? Springee (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• Remove as POLEMIC per reasons above Springee (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose removal: Given the traditionally wide latitude given to users on their talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javert2113 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• REMOVE - this user takes pride in the fact they are essentially trolling various communities and causing havoc Apeholder (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Apeholder, can you explain why you vandalized Snoogans's user page yesterday? Neutrality^talk 17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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 [146]. 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, [147] & [148]. 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)
• 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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  "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. – Levivich 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 20:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. Neutrality^talk 17:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. This proposal appears intended to simply annoy the subject. WP:BOOMERANG should come into play at some point. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Propose AP2 Topic Ban for Snooganssnoogans

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)

• Support as proposer--Rusf10 (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not convinced by 1RR, though it may have consensus, TBAN is way too far. Guy (help!) 20:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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. Neutrality^talk 20:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. Neutrality^talk 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@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)

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. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose - Undecided on 1RR, but this seems like too much based on what evidence has been provided. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if there is a demonstrable problem (I remain unconvinced), this is way out of proportion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• "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)

  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? – Levivich 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  What is the difference between "every" and "overwhelming majority"? 25%? – Levivich 04:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The difference between every and less than every approaches infinity. (100-x)/(100-100) O3000 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban as over the top. Snoogans is in the main a constructive editor in American politics. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
• Oppose. The usual crew of POV-pushers are back. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: no sufficient basis for this sanction has been presented. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Utterly unwarranted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - there certainly has not been a level of disruption rising to a topic ban. starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: All this is just an attempt to handicap an opponent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see behavior close to justification for a TBan. O3000 (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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. Toa Nidhiki05 00:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse action Your approval is not needed when a mountain of evidence is presented. The opinion of the community doesn't change the proven facts. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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. Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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. Dream Focus 00:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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[149][150][151], 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[152]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[153] 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)

• 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. — JFG ^talk 00:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• There was not extensive discussion, and in fact it appears his proposals to unilaterally sanction multiple editors were cautioned against by others. In fact, at least one editor, User:DGG, questioned Awilley's involvement in AP2. Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• ??? 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? Nblund ^talk 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• @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)

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. Nblund ^talk 02:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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_C 01:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• These discussions take a lot of time from a lot of people. Taking unilaterial action indifferent to all of that time/effort is... not ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• Endorse action - Per Awilley’s discussion just above. Previous warnings were given. Jusdafax (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• The 1RR proposal had been closed as no consensus [154], which Awilley referred to in the sanctions notice [155], and I'm guessing he hadn't noticed that the discussion had been re-opened [156] prior to posting the notice. – Levivich 01:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• ^I have a history with this editor. If you check BattleshipGray's contributions[157], 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[158] and pushing conspiracy theories about the DNC email hack.[159] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Interesting, GlassBones. I see you did your best to insert some conservative talking points in various articles ([160]) 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)

I think it used to be Ajwilley, Drmies, but it's Awilley now. Re-pinging for you. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC).

@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)

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 | talk 00:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC).

• It would be imprudent for me to endorse this action. Like others, I fear that this unilateral action will only serve to further inflame tensions. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

The 1RR restriction should remain as-is. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

No, the consensus is going towards imposing the restriction anyway. Awilley should not have gotten involved.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

I fully agree, Snoog seems to get away with very poor behavior and he's still at it e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Endowment_for_Democracy Apeholder (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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_C 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• @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)

• 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)

• @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)

DGG, as has been stated several times, when Awilley enacted the sanctions, the discussion had been closed.--MONGO (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  "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)

  Technically yes, but the point is that there was no consensus for any sanction, yet you put one in anyway. Volunteer Marek 02:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  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. – Levivich 03:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  This is what I meant. There was no emerging consensus, so an admin action was, by default, “against consensus”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

* 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)

• For what it's worth, the sanction was withdrawn several days ago here, so why do we have to keep beating up on Awilley? Omanlured (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Meh. Why was this still open then? It should just be closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

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. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: AP2 noticeboard

The more I look at this, the more it seems to me that friction concerning Snooganssnoogans is exposing a weakness in WP. A lot of comments above suggest that he's doing the right thing in the wrong way. Some note, accurately, that 1RR would prevent him protecting articles against attack by POV-pushers. Others note, accurately, that he has a tendency to edit-war. Ultimately 1RR would require the proliferation of discussions on Talk pages often with limited eyeballs.

I propose that, for at least the period until the end of the 2020 US election cycle, we set up an American Politics noticeboard, where editors who specialise in this topic area can raise issues in relation to articles that are subject to disruption, without leaving any editor feeling they are fighting a lone battle to protect the project, with the attendant risk of burnout. Alternatively we could set up a new WikProject for American Politics as an intersection of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject United States.

I feel that a centralised discussion area might help to prevent the current proliferation of fires around the project. This has worked reasonably well for fringe science, biographies and reliable sources. Guy (help!) 01:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoted up one level to separate from Snoogs thread, as some people are misperceiving this as an alternative to addressing Snoog's conduct, which it is not. Guy (help!) 09:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This solution is absolutely ludicrous. To respond to widespread evidence of Wikipedia policy violations on the part of Snoogans with "let's make a noticeboard" is just completely dismissive of the integrity of Wikipedia. I would support your proposal if it included 1RR on Snoogans, but it seems that direct evidence of his battleground attitude isn't enough: we must need the edict of a deity to condemn his conduct for what it is. It doesn't matter if 1RR would impede Snoogans from repelling POV pushers: his actions have demonstrated a clear need for punishment. He ignited the dumpster fire. Get someone else to do an impartial patrolling of AP2, since it seems Snoogans can't seem to do that. You can't help Wikipedia if you violate its policies. Are we seriously going to resort to "he can violate the rules all he wants if he catches people violating those same rules"? --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- We already have talk pages for the purpose of discussing edits and Snoogans doesn't seem to like them anyway, "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." [161] If there is legit vandalism, I have confidence that any one of other other editors can deal with it. Also, nothing would stop him from reporting vandalism to WP:AIV. I can assure you that Wikipedia will not collapse due to an insurmountable amount of uncontrolled vandalism just because Snoogans is under a 1RR restriction. Some have asserted that Snoogans is doing the right thing (even if he may be going about it the wrong way). He is not. He is engaging in POV-pushing edit-warring.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is a good idea, I think, regardless of whether Snooganssnoogans individually has crossed any lines or not. It's a much bigger issue. After all, American politics isn't going to get less fraught over the next year. I've wanted to solicit third opinions and ask for expert input and been flummoxed by the lack of an obviously active, well-trafficked central location to do so. Yes, we already have talk pages, which go unwatched, and we already have a WikiProject or two that are at least in the vicinity of relevant, but they may not be geared up for the particular challenges that lie ahead. None of our Noticeboards are perfect, of course, but they're not bad examples to follow. (Parenthetically, I note that it's logically possible to support creating WP:AP2N and believe that Snooganssnoogans should be put under 1RR. This is a bigger-picture question.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – I fear that such a noticeboard will end up looking like this thread, which in turn looks like a lot of AP2 talk pages. If you ask me, the structural solution is to ECP and 1RR all of AP2. – Levivich 05:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, I rather hope the opposite will be true: interested editors will be able to collate discussion of controversial editing in a controversial area, much as we do with WP:FTN, and thus forestall the problem of individual editors burning out defending the project. Guy (help!) 10:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich and JzG, I have myself contemplated proposing a blanket ECP across American-politics pages. I haven't yet been convinced that it's necessary — at least, not convinced enough that I was willing to start the drama-filled process of a proposal debate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Levivich's concern is reasonable, but we need that discussion to take place somewhere, ultimately, and I feel that a centralized noticeboard has more of a chance to attract outside voices and get people to calm down than limited discussion on talk pages. While this particular discussion might be particularly rancorous despite the number of people involved, I feel that in general, adding more people to a discussion helps stabilize it and calm it down, because at a certain point you get enough experienced editors who, personal views or not, know the policy and understand how a particular dispute ought to go. Also, much like WP:RSN, a centralized board might have a better chance of building up a broad consensus about recurring issues that are otherwise overlooked due to the discussion being scattered over a bunch of talk pages. We're going to have to have those potentially-ugly discussions somewhere, and I feel a dedicated noticeboard is better than scattered talkpages. Although, one caveat - does a clear WP:BLPN / WP:RSN / WP:NPOVN issue go to one of those noticeboards, or to the hypothetical WP:AP2N? There is certainly also some advantage to putting issues in front of editors who are not knee-deep in AP2. (Though in practice political disputes can get arcane and offputting enough to the point where, in my experience, only people who are already involved in the topic area really weigh in when they come up on those boards anyway.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, A reasonable question, and one we already deal with in cases where BLP and FRINGE overlap, for example. We can post notification of BLP issues at BLPN, linking to the thread, and move threads to the board with the widest group of editors knowledgeable in the subject area. A modest amount of curation is required but past experience indicates it is not that big a problem. Guy (help!) 09:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent proposal and can't come soon enough. Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Guy: it should have enough eyes to avoid becoming a walled garden, but with the expertise/specialisms that are often (ahem) lacked on this board. Those who !voted in opposition should be given the chance to speak again in light of Guy's clarification. ——SN54129 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This really is a separate issue involving a lot more than one editor. The next year in American politics is going to be the most difficult year Wikipedia (and perhaps America) has experienced so far in terms of different parties trying to manipulate our articles - and we know from what's happened on social media these "parties' are unlikely to be purely American. Neither ANI nor AE are appropriate places to discuss the issues Guy and others have suggested could be handled at the proposed noticeboard. {u|Levivich} your structural suggestion just isn't practical. Even now new pages are being created daily and the number is going to continue to grow quickly, at least that's what I see happening. No one would be able to find all the pages, let alone spend the time to ECP them, add edit notices etc, and a bot wouldn't be able to do it either. One subsidiary function of the proposed board could be to let others know about new pages. A number of issues are common across multiple articles and handling them article by article won't work. I don't know how well such a proposed board would work, but I think it would be better having one than not, and if it proves disastrous, which I doubt, we can shut it down. [[User:Rusf10, -User:MrThunderbolt1000T, your opposes seem to have been based on a misunderstanding, do you still oppose? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia exists in the real world, and, in the real world, more POV-pushing on the English Wikipedia is concerned with American politics that any other such broad topic. A noticeboard is a good way to deal with this issue rather than a reliance on lone editors on particular pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – although I'm not entirely convinced it'll work, there's no reason not to try it. – Levivich 20:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sure..."we don't need another noticeboard"...but the alternative is what we have today. Centralizing these issues together could do some good and I'm willing to give it a shot. Buffs (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment are you aware that a new noticeboard called Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard was set-up in May 2019 and it's already dead? --Pudeo (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say dead. It's been useful and has resulted in stability being brought to, e.g., terrorism lists, Trump impeachment articles, HK protest articles. It's not the busiest board, but it's been effective at getting editor eyes rapidly on an article. – Levivich 21:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  As someone who was directly involved in the terrorism lists issue, the Current events noticeboard was definitely a valuable resource during that discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is an interesting idea. I don't think anybody disagrees the topic area has problems. I don't know whether this might be a helpful solution or if it would just turn into AN/I 2.0 - another venue dedicated to endless bickering. I think there might be some structural changes that could help with that, but I'm not sure what yet. What structural elements could be put in place to ensure that a new noticeboard would aid editors in working collaboratively vs. engaging in partisan warfare?
  As for putting the entire topic area under ECP, I would strongly oppose that. That's too high a barrier for new editors, and yes, we occasionally get good new editors, even in controversial topic areas. A couple high profile BLPs might be good candidates for ECP, but definitely not everything. I just semi-d a couple BLPs yesterday that had zero protection...Semi-protection or even pending changes is a high enough bar for the vast majority of political articles. ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because it won't do anything to tackle the problems and bad faith edits this user makes on a daily basis Apeholder (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Apeholder, what user are you referring to? ——SN54129 08:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Farming out these disputes to a dedicated noticeboard might help focus on recurring issues, attract better-informed participants, and relieve some of the stress on AN/I and AE venues. Or it might totally fail… In both cases it will be fun, so let's try it! — JFG ^talk 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support If the board gets broad community support it would be a useful alternative to having those conflicts ending up at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN when they don't really belong there. Nblund ^talk 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support this excellent idea. This would save lots of time and be central place for these specialized discussions and issues. If a talk page template is created for this, please include a link to WP:AP/N (or whatever). -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. there is the WP:Current events noticeboard which needs more traffic. If anything relates to a problem with a current event, I'd hope people feel free to post it there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Amendment. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics which I totally just forgot about until now. Wouldn't any proposed noticeboard be redundant to that page? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Well actually, I didn't forget about it completely. I actually check that page, but I forgot about it within the context of this proposal... I'm just going to see myself out. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don't like this, and I understand the "not another noticeboard" opposition. But it would centralise discussion, it would reduce those interested missing out threads on the more obscure pages, it would place discussions under the view of a cadre of editors knowledgeable about the topic and it would reduce some cruft onto ANI more generally. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support on the basis of the very substantial benefit of moving those inevitable and interminable discussions off of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ivanvector's logic here, and I wonder if we can go further to move even more inevitable and interminable discussions off this page. For example, in addition to WP:American Politics Noticeboard, we could also create WP:LTA Trolling Noticeboard, WP:Rehashing of Old Feuds Noticeboard, WP:Revenge Against Administrators Noticeboard, WP:Rival Cabals' Battleground Noticeboard, and WP:Unnecessary Content Dispute Escalations Noticeboard, leaving just chronic and urgent disputes for ANI. – Levivich 18:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  I piped those links for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ha! That made my day. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• I support JzG's suggestion for a specialised AP2 noticeboard, especially because I'd like to see ANI relieved of the American politics bloat under which it now groans. Bishonen | talk 20:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support Last election cycle, one super PAC used over a million USD on online-campaigning: LA Times: Be nice to Hillary Clinton online - or risk a confrontation with her super PAC. It's not like Wikipedia is immune to that kind of campaigning. For some reason, the powers that be allowed Cirt to evade his politics topic ban despite the socking becoming an open secret. We are going to need scrutiny on things like that. Right now there editors who edit American politics 14 hours a day. So if the scope is broader like this, it will be needed. Now this kind of critical discussion often needs to be held on off-site Wikipedia criticism sites because it's outside the scope of ANI and AE. --Pudeo (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Worth a try. Paul August ☎ 01:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Hmmm - This sure seems like something to be discussed at VP or otherwise somewhere other than as a [former] subthread of a specific ANI matter. Worth noting that the current events noticeboard has never really gotten off the ground -- as most of the AP2 issues seem to be related to [reasonably] current events, maybe people could just start using that first? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  +1 on Village Pump. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  +1 to VP and list it on WP:CENT and WP:CEN. (rly it should be WP:CURN) – Levivich 05:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as an editor with very little interest in American politics, I would welcome anything that reduces its pollution of the rest of the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support in principle, with details to be worked out by consensus. Please don't call it AP2 noticeboard though. Let's not perpetuate Arbcom's forking silliness. Just call it American Politics Noticeboard (WP:APN aka WP:TRIBAL).- MrX 🖋 12:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  MrX, fair point. Or possibly current politics, since Brexit causes all the same shit and was also the result of Russian covert operations. Guy (help!) 18:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  A general politics noticeboard might be the best way to do it, since all political topics have similar problems, just at a lower scale outside of US + Britain due to enwiki obviously leaning towards an English audience. Also, including a wider variety of politics might reduce the danger of it turning into a pure WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I partially disagree here. While this might work for the Americas and (most of) Europe, we’d be ill advised to extend this internationally, as Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia all have very different and complex reasons for their issues. We’d be better advised to make regional noticeboards if this proves to be a global issue. Thus far, the existing noticeboards seem to be able to handle the issues on the English Wikipedia, aside from maybe South Asia (India-Pakistan-Bangladesh). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support a general politics noticeboards. It would be great if admins patrolled it and issued ECP, 1RR, etc, as needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the need to relieve AN/ANI of the AP2 burden. I'm concerned that creating a specialized noticeboard for AP2 topics will make it a hotspot of disruption that will attract even fewer independent voices, and as a result will be even harder to moderate. It also offers far too easy a target for sustained disruption. JzG, are you visualizing this noticeboard as a location where sanctions may be levied? If so, you do realize you are proposing the creation of only the third venue where sanctions may be placed based on community consensus? Also, AP2 stuff is terrible, but it isn't qualitatively worse than our other political dispute areas (ARBPIA, ARBIPA, and a couple of others). A general politics noticeboard would be something I'd be a lot happier with; it also avoids giving the impression that we take American politics disruption more seriously than that in other areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, I envisage a forum where articles may be discussed. I would not expect sanctions discussions to happen there, certainly in the first instance. I would expect sanctions requests to go to the usual venues should an editor be considered sufficiently unmutual. Guy (help!) 22:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  I see. Well, I'd support the creation of a noticeboard to discuss content related to politics in general. There is a need for more focused dispute resolution with respect to politics. I would oppose the creation of a new noticeboard where sanctions may be levied (Thanks for clarifying that that's not what you want, JzG, but I think this proposal has taken on a life of its own) and I would also oppose anything that's AP2 specific; we don't need another locus for the frequent-flyers of this topic to argue ad nauseum among themselves; what the AP2 disputes need is incisive input from voices less familiar with the whole mess, and who are thus less likely to get lost in the weeds. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting. I like it. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support if notifications of discussions on the AP2 noticeboard can be handily found on the already existent NPOV, fringe theories, etc. noticeboards. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This area has been fraught with long-term problems since the wider divide of ideology in American Politics emerged, primarily traced to the doubt cast on reliable sources in mainstream culture, which is a persistent problem (even among veteran editors). This is in addition to the huge time sink of LTAs, sock puppets, POV warriors, and SPAs who seem to frequent these pages nowadays. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm very torn on this idea. We're at the start of what I think will be the most divisive election in recent US history. Pulling the madness out off the existing boards, ANI and DRN in particular, would be helpful IF AND ONLY IF there is a solid core of admins willing to actively monitor and help defuse situations. Being aggressive about using 0RR/1RR on articles and even short blocks (2-4 hours) to stop initial disruption and get editors to discuss. My real worry is that this may help some, and then we'll have Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan and Eastern European boards popping up and that needed core of admins gets more and more dispersed. Ravensfire (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Refinement

There's consensus above to move ahead. We already have a relatively lightly used Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard which has one in-scope question and a couple for RSN - should we repurpose that? Retitle or keep the name? Guy (help!) 18:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy: I posted on WT:CEN to inform people watching it of this discussion. I've also made a post at WT:POLITICS/USA since this will likely effect that forum as well. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

MJL, Good shout, thanks. Guy (help!) 20:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The bot that has been removing a photo in a draft...

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

---

I am here to report a bot, JJMC89 bot, who has been removing a photo on Draft:WSVW-LD. DizzyMosquitoRadio99 has been explaining that it was a free use logo for WSVW-LD, but the bot kept reverting it. Cheers! CentralTime301 22:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

But it's not tagged as free use. It clearly has a non-free license rationale, which is not allowed in the Draft space. The bot is doing it's job correctly. The bot is clearly linking to WP:NFCC#9 which states this. -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

First, this shouldn't be at AN/I. Second, DizzyMosquitoRadio99 has not claimed that the image is free; in fact, they explicitly claim that it is non-free. Third, it is a policy violation for either of you to add/restore a non-free image to a draft, which is clear from the bot's edit summary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 has previously been advised about NFCC#9 and non-free content use before not too long ago both here and here. They've also received warnings from others about inappropriately filing reports at ANs and inappropriately warning other editors. There's also WP:THQ#How can I get rollback rights? where CentralTime301 queries why they's not being granted roll back rights, even though multiple requests were denied. CentralTime301 seems to be enthusiastic about trying to help out, but I'm wondering if they have enough experience at editing at this time to be focusing on issuing warnings, etc. For example, this uw seems a bit bodd, not because the other person wasn't edit warring, but because they had already been warned twice for doing so, the last time five minutes prior to CentralTime301 adding their warning. There's also User talk:DizzyMosquitoRadio99#Readding WSVW-LD logo which shows more unfamiliarity with WP:NFCC by suggesting that a draft should be moved (perhaps prematurely) to mainspace simply to stop the non-free file from being removed by the bot, which seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps it would be better for CentralTime301 to focus more on editing articles and gaining experience in how policies and guideline are applied; they seem to be suffering from a case of WP:ADMINITIS in trying to increase their edit count in certain areas in the hope that they will be able to get to be allowed to use certain tools. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 edits may need a closer review

I think a closer examination of CentralTime301 adding of user warnings and use of Twinkle may be warranted. If this needs to be in its own discussion thread then feel free to move it to one.

Looking at their contribution history, it does appear that "cleanup" is their primary focus. There's nothing wrong with this per se, and may editors are WP:GNOMEs; however, I think it has to be done a bit carefully and that there should be edit summaries left explaining why so that others don't have to guess as to the reason. For example, they warn RHaworth with a {{uw-delete2}} here, but then self-revert the warning two minutes later here. No edit summary was left explaining why the warning was self-reverted, but perhaps this was just a simple case of mistaking one editor for another; however, after looking at the page history for UNC-TV, RHaworth hasn't ever edited the article at all. It also is a bit odd that CentralTime301 would revert an edit to that article that Rhaworth was warned about here, but then once again self-revert almost immediately without leaving an edit sum. The time stamps show that CentralTime301 actually warned RHaworth for edit he didn't actually make before they actually tried to cleanup the the problem edit, and then promptly self-reverted their cleanup attempt.

Another example is this "rollback-like" revert here to KDHU-LD using Twinkle which undid a number of intervening edits (including some made by CentralTime301 themselves) to return the article back to a May 2019 version. No explanation given for the revert so no way to tell why it was made, or why the other IPs version was correct.

Although I've never used it, I understand that Twinkle can help clean up vandalism, etc. a bit quicker, but this edit made to "KDHU-LD" was not vandalism and the edits CentralTime301 reverted which were made by IP 107.77.169.5 to the same article also don't seem to be vandalism. It appears that in their eagerness to be recognized as a vandalism fighter by other editors and be granted certain user rights like WP:ROLLBACK that CentralTime301 might be being a bit too eager. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that warning was issued to RHworth for an edit they made to WUNC-TV which redirects to UNC-TV. RHworth redirected the page which is what apparently triggered the "uw-delete2" warning. However, there was an edit summary left stating that the page was redirected. The page had actually been set up as a redirect to the UNC-TV before CentralTime301 time tried to develop it as a separate article here, which is OK, but was then redirected. No idea whether a redirect is warranted, but it would be something better discussed on the article's talk page than issuing a user warning about. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this issue rises to the level of abuse, but sometimes making and then immediately reverting a bunch of inconsequential edits is a way to boost your edit count (e.g. to qualify for autoconfirmed or extended autoconfirmed, or to just boost activity to qualify for a Wikipedia:Service awards). I'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, but I'd just encourage the user to be more methodical in the way they use tools like Twinkle to avoid confusing people who stumble across a flurry of strange edits. 107.77.204.158 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with assuming good faith and understand that everyone makes mistakes, but I believe this is starting to move closer to a CIR issue when it comes to user warning. Just in the last day, there have been more posts added to CentralTime301's user talk about edit warring (1, 2, 3) on multiple articles, trouting other editors (4), questionable NLT warnings (5), adding warning templates and using Twinkle (5), and making frivolous ANI reports (6). Once again, while I think CentralTime301 most likely means well, they don't seem to be learning from their mistakes at all. This ANI discussion was started by CentralTime301 about a bot doing what it's supposed to be doing and removing non-free content where it shouldn't be used. CentralTime301 then starts ANI/AN3 threads at WP:ANI#About Spshu.. and WP:AN3#User:Spshu reported by User:CentralTime301 without even attempting to follow WP:DR with the other editor they are disagreeing with. One of these things happening once or even twice could be written off by WP:AGF as just simple mistakes; the combination of all of these things, however, does seem to show (at least in my opinion) a lack of understanding that might indicate some WP:CIR issue, at least with respect to user warnings and Twinkle, which need to be addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 has been properly warned and counseled, so I guess the next step is to see whether the editor follows this advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly - that's good insight, and I agree. Hopefully the warning takes off. 107.77.202.170 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

More editors have further advised CentralTime301 to slow down and take it easy since NinjaRobotPirate's post above, but there's still been no real response from CentralTime301. Not much more to do now except wait and see how CentralTime301 responds; either they will heed the advice they've been given and try to be more careful, or they won't. In the latter case, they will most likely end up back at ANI again so hopefully they will take the advice given and try and avoid any further issues with others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 doesn't appear to have responded to any of the concerns raised and has now been blocked for a year by Beeblebrox for the CIR issues.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I've been watching their talk page for some time and what I'm seeing there is very troubling, but not really all that unusual for a young editor. It's my opinion that none of this is malicious, they simply aren't mature enough for Wikipedia at this time, and they clearly don't get the collaborative nature of the project, since they won't apparently won't really participate in discussions about their own editing. So WP:RADAR is maybe a secondary reason for the block as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: FWIW, I never thought that there was any malicious intent; just perhaps an over eagerness to try and establish a reputation as a "good" editor so that perhaps to be able to get certain user rights (e.g. ADMIN) sometime soon in the future. I am curious though as to why you decided on a one year block. Seems a bit harsh given that CentralTime301 has never been blocked before. I'm not saying a block wasn't warranted, but just curious about the length. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Because they self-identify as a young person. So the problem is hopefully not "they are totally unsuited for this and always will be" but rather "they need to mature a bit before they are ready for this". A lot can change in a year when you're young, hopefully for the better. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough and thank you for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

About Spshu..

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

---

As I mentioned at C.Fred's talk page, Spshu has been making a threat to me, saying that I should be trouted and not him; he said to never post, not even a single message on my talk page. Spshu is always like that to me! For proof, check this evidence out:
Spshu has to be warned about that he made a serious edit war on WLNS-TV, but he did not listen to me and reverted it. Proof about this: Cheers! CentralTime301 20:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment You literally took a WP:TROUTing (a template you posted on your user page that you said was okay to perform!) as a legal threat for editing issues on WLNS-TV. We don't allow legal threats here. He doesn't have the same want of TROUTING on his page and simply asked you to not post there again. Once again, I'm concerned about your ability to edit here as you've taken on way too many responsibilities here over your short editing career and performed none of them well, and taking this both to ANI and 3RR when you haven't gotten anywhere near a report on either venue is concerning. Just edit, and stop trying to take on the world in every edit. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

@CentralTime301: The message by Spshu about trouting you was left on your user talk page after you trouted them! I do not see how you can seriously see anything in their behaviour threatening, given that they responded in kind to you.

As for the issues at WLNS-TV, I would like to think that you two have a legitimate content dispute. However, Spshu has initiated in constructive, policy-based discussion at the article's talk page, but you have not. That does not reflect well on your intentions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Central Time meets Spshu. EEng 21:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Joseph Rowe

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

---

Joseph Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user is (being polite) disingenuous to an extreme. Here [[162]] the edit summery claims Guy Macon agrees with the distinction (and thus the edit), yet over at the talk page Guy Macon posted this [[163]] and Rowes defense is to say he never made the claim [[164]]. And continues to deny he ever made the claim Guy Macon supported his text [[165]]. In addition over at Talk:Conspiracy theory‎ the users dis-ingenuousness is getting to the stage of wp:tenditious appealing to "common sense" [[166]], claiming users are just impulsively undoing his edits [[167]], Accusing users of wanting to wish to obfuscate "facts". [[168]]. I think it is clear that not only do we have a case I am not hearing this, but of agenda driven POV pushing of a very disingenuous (if not dishonest) kind.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I vigorously deny being either dishonest or disingenuous. And I believe that anyone who reads my words carefully will be led, like me, to wondering whether those who accuse me of either of those things just might be motivated, not by any serious desire to protect the values of the community, but to punish me for my arguments themselves, to which they are hostile — which would itself be a form of psychological dishonesty on their part — in other words, a projection. I was absolutely not disingenuous, though perhaps I was a bit careless, in assuming that people will read what I say carefully... AND follow my own suggestion to look at the discussion on my talk page! If they had bothered to do that, it would have become abundantly clear that the editor in question is anything but a supporter of mine, but that we had managed at least to agree on the distinction I mentioned, which for me was a compromise. I didn't think I had to spell it out for careless readers, and say "... but even though they agree with the distinction, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll agree with the act of putting it into the opening remarks on the entry page, though I am hoping that the person will at least not block this compromise." Also, I confess I didn't know about the policy of notifying an editor when one discusses them. I'll do that from now on (though it happened to be unnecessary in this case, since the person in question was keeping close track of the controversy).Joseph Rowe (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you learn to WP:Indent please? I was wondering why on earth you were talking about yourself as being disingenuous to the extreme. I could change it myself, but I don't like messing with people's indenting since I've had a number of cases where people have incorrectly changed my indenting. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I should have informed Guy Macon.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I had a quick read of your response and all I can say is accusing experienced editors of dishonesty let alone psychological projection rarely ends well. I haven't really looked into the original complaint, but your response here is enough to suggest to me your editing is probably a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

And now accusations of Tag teaming [[169]] as well as more falsehood, I cannot see where anyone called him a megalomaniac, though the indentation makes it hard to know who they are replying to.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDLY changed all instances of "Guy" to "Guy Macon" to avoid confusion with the other editor who posts to ANI a lot and is called "Guy". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Alas, Joseph Rowe is engaging in conspiracist ideation and is accusing other editors of a conspiracy against him:

• "...they don't want readers to know"
• "...hidden agenda..."
• "...motivated, not by any serious desire to protect the values of the community, but to punish me for my arguments."
• "When a band of people get caught up in that mindset, it's called fanaticism."
• "...attempt to discredit dissent by dismissing dissenters as lone deviates."
• "I'm not going to stop exposing the ... well, to be very polite, the misguided mission of the little minority clique."

Finally, I noticed one thing Joseph Rowe wrote in passing:

• "I suspect that at least some of these people (I don't say all) have a huge need for security, in the form of a handy polemical stick, with which to beat away uncomfortable challenges (such as those offered by film-maker Oliver Stone)"

Yes, that Oliver "JFK conspiracy deniers are in denial"[170] Stone.

Related: [ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Oi! I resemble that remark. Guy (help!) 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Admins be advised that Joseph Rowe has been notified of the discretionary sanctions in place for pseudoscience and conspiracy related topics as seen in this edit, therefore you are free to consider using the artillery here if you need to. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Joseph%20Rowe tells the whole story here. I am sure he could be helpful if he wanted to be but he tries to insert fringe-supportive material and then throws his toys out of the pram when we don't realise his peerless wisdom. It's pointless trying to educate him because that is pretty much all he has ever done: arrived to advance a POV and make a lot of noise when he fails. Guy (help!) 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Do nothing for now. Joseph Rowe has indicated on his talk page that he will be more careful about saying that other people support an edit, and I don't see any other sanctionable behavior at this time. I talked it over with all the other members of The Cabal Whose Function Is To Attempt To Discredit Any Dissent Which Is Apparently Too Much Of A Strain For Certain People To Debate By Using Only Reason And Facts (TCWFITATDADWIATMOASFCPTDBUORAF),[171] and the consensus was to do nothing for now, close this, and see what his future behavior is like per the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• The TCWFITATDADWIATMOASFCPTDBUORAF T&S department has reviewed the posts since I wrote this, and has convinced me to change my recommendation to Escalating series of blocks. I don't see any lesser response having any effect at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, if you look at his few contributions, they mainly consist of two cases where he's tried to make an edit that advances a fringe agenda, been rebuffed, told everyone they are wrong about policy, and then huffed about how he is not going to waste his time explaining to everyone why they are wrong if they are not going to accept him as final arbiter. The signal to noise ratio is exceptionally low. Guy (help!) 23:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You make a good point. How about a short block combined with a stern warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Er, I've never seen a disambiguation page used for WP:COATRACKING, but there's a first for everything. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I was about to say the POV pushing has now opened on a new front. Ironically I would have no issue with a link to that page, but not with the blatant attempt to POV push with editorializing. I do not think this is going to go away, just move on to other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This (by the way) [[172]] was his first attempt, it does not even link to an article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, If I were not WP:INVOLVED I would be WP:NOTHERE blocking at this point. Every post he writes on Talk amounts to: "I am right and I can't be bothered to even explain it any more, it's so obvious". Guy (help!) 12:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say I disagree but the more I wrote the more I kept wanting to say "but I do not think it will work". Its clear to me the user is using second rate debating society tactics to try and get their way. Given that even a last warning would not (I think) change their behavior, simply because they think they are considerably cleverer then we are (unfortunate isn't it). Thus they will always to find ways any sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Call for immediate block to stop continued disruption by Joseph Rowe

• Joseph Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Even after the above discussion and a similar discussion on his talk page, Joseph Rowe has continued his disruptive and WP:IDHT behavior, this time at the conspiracy theory disambiguation page. Dealing with this is becoming a time sink for multiple editors. I call for an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block to be lifted when and if Joseph Rowe convinces us that he understands what he did wrong and that he will follow our policies and guidelines if unblocked. Given his behavior pattern, his talk page should be monitored to see if his post-block behavior justifies TPA being revoked --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I posted User talk:Joseph Rowe#Warning saying that any further similar edits without clear consensus will result in an indefinite block, and that discussion cannot continue for an unreasonable time. If anyone more familiar with the case wants to handle things differently, such as with the called-for block, please do so without needing to discuss with me. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm newer to Wikipedia editing than most of you, and I admit that I wasn't aware that a clear consensus had to be established before a NEW edit; I thought (mistakenly) that since people were reverting my edits without any honest effort at dialogue with me, then I could revert their reversions, especially if I had preceded it by an earnest effort at dialogue with them. OK, I'll of course follow policy now that I'm aware of it; and I do understand the practical necessity of giving privilege to long-established edits. Contrary to the angry allegations of Guy Macon (who seems to have a personal vendetta), I am not "disruptive", at least not in the intentional sense that he claims.

I'm not going to attempt to reply to each of the critical things that some people have posted above about me. But in general, I will say that, for the most part, they demonstrate the very same fallacy that I have been trying to point out since I first became involved with trying to improve — disambiguate as it were — the CT article: the use of a pejorative, polemical stick as a substitute for rational thought, debate, fact, and research. Examples are: "fringe" and "POV pushing". If I'm pushing a POV, then isn't it strange that most dictionaries, especially the best ones, are pushing exactly the same POV? But the real jewel is "conspiracist ideation": what a convenient stick, for dismissing the arguments of anyone who disagrees with any status quo! And for those of you who happen to disagree with (for example) Oliver Stone's theory of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, all you have to do is call his arguments "conspiracist ideation." No need to think, no need to study his arguments and facts, much less answer them! The man is a conspiracy theorist, that settles it! (You might also add that he's pushing a POV, though you might not get away with calling him fringe.) The really impressive thing about this kind of fallacious reasoning is that it not only denies any possibility that Oliver Stone might be right... it even denies him the possibility of making an honest mistake! The guy's not really trying seriously to explain anything with a genuine theory, much as scientists do, because he's a conspiracy theorist.

PS thanks to the person who posted the following humorous comment above, which unintentionally reveals how they subscribe to this fallacious reasoning...

"Oi! I resemble that remark. Guy (help!) 22:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)"Joseph Rowe (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I was being honest, saying what I thought. I suggest you stop the Ad hominem now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And I'm being honest now, when I say that I can't understand why on earth you see any ad hominem in my remarks? As far as I can see, I've criticized only arguments, never people. I even looked in my dictionary, to make sure I hadn't overlooked some usage of "ad hominem". The only thing I could find that might explain your charge, is "questioning the motivations of an interlocutor, instead of replying to their argument." If you can show me one example of an ad hominem in this or any other dictionary sense, I'll either try to elucidate a misunderstanding — or retract it, if I agree that it fits any reasonable definition.... However: please don't take this as a challenge or a demand on my part. I have better things to do with my time than muster a defense, and I imagine you have better things to do than defending an accusation. I'd prefer it if we could just drop the matter, and write it off as a misunderstanding. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe, dude, I am the other person who posts on this page who is called Guy.

Guy (help!) 10:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, dude, hello. I do understand that you're the person whose joke I deconstructed (according to my own reading of it, of course). I'm sorry if you thought it was in any way a remark about you personally. Dude, I know absolutely nothing about you, and have no opinion about you — I try very hard not to judge human beings by what I consider to be their fallacious and distorted arguments. For all I know, you're a kind, respected member of your community, with values that I share. I repeat, I've no idea, and no opinion regarding you. If it had been Groucho Marx who made that joke, in that context, I'd have responded in exactly the same way. As I said above to Slatersteven, I'm certain that I intended no ad hominem, and if anyone can prove to my satisfaction that I inadvertently made one, I'll retract it. However, please take note of my last sentence to Slatersteven above. I'd prefer not to have to spend more time on this matter, and perhaps you would also. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ad hominem "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument," Examples "a form of psychological dishonesty" "who seems to have a personal vendetta" "that those who are doing the reversions are motivated by a wish to obfuscate the fact that the automatic pejorative meaning of "conspiracy theory", want more? These are attempts to attacks the character or motivation of those who disagree with you.

Now if I am right (its now I think time for others to decide) then its clear you do not get what you did wrong, and that we will be back here. Thus I have no choice now but to back a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As for dodgy debating tactics [[173]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• BOOM! Done. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I think a TBAN was all that was needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have likewise pushed for that, but JR's continuous response to disagreement being a longwinded "you're wrong but I can't expect you to understand that and obviously the problem couldn't be on my end" suggests a lack of ability to cooperate in ways that would cause problems regardless of the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully he will take a day or two to reflect, decide to mend his ways, and then successfully appeal his indef block and start editing constructively. Posting a long-winded personal-attack-filled diatribe against other editors and then in the last sentence saying, "But I don't want to argue, so let's just drop this" is not a good way to make friends and it creates the kind of tension that stalls collaboration. Omanlured (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the sanction applied will have the exact same result as any lesser sanction. There were four options available:

1. Do nothing. The probable result would have been further disruption and someone else taking it to ANI.
2. A topic ban. The probable result would have been repeated TBAN violations.
3. A series of escalating blocks. The probable result would have been the end of the series and an indef.
4. An indefinite block. The probable result is one or two unblock requests consisting of more longwinded "you're wrong but I can't expect you to understand that and obviously the problem couldn't be on my end" responses along the line of his last comment before being blocked.[174]

Now it may be that I am wrong and that Joseph Rowe actually is capable of and willing to follow our rules. if so, then he will post an unblock request that shows that he understands what he did wrong and a sincere commitment to not do it again. If I see that, I will support a WP:ROPE unblock, and I expect that others here will support it as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Fallyisback changing numerous articles from Native American to Indian or American Indian

Fallyisback has, since mid October, changed Native American to American Indian or Indian on numerous articles. Examples are -

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navajo_Nation&diff=prev&oldid=923289469
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navajo_Nation&diff=prev&oldid=924612841
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Indian_Affairs&diff=prev&oldid=924612958
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colorado_River_Indian_Tribes&diff=prev&oldid=924613605
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Congress_of_American_Indians&diff=prev&oldid=924614085
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiowa&diff=prev&oldid=924614328
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ke-mo_sah-bee&diff=prev&oldid=926216195
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Department_of_the_Interior&diff=prev&oldid=926217174
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=927050770

This is just a sampling. The terminology used has been long standing and there seems to be no legitimate reason for all of these changes. I have warned them on their talk page as have other editors prior to today. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You know, editing while tired, I just mass-reverted them and made sure they were aware of previous discussions about the naming issue. But now, paging up their talk I see that they never responded to previous, escalating warnings in October. Rather, they just backed off for a bit and have now resumed the exact same, disruptive editing spree. I think we have a classic WP:RADAR WP:SPA. So I'm raising the level 2 warning I gave them to a level 3. I predict a block in the near future. The name implies a returned user. I'll look for similar blocked sock patterns tomorrow. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My edits have no intention on being disruptive. I’ d first like to explain the edit I made on “Native Americans in the United States.” I replaced the phrase “Native American and Alaska Native” with “ “Native American and Alaska Native” because according to the U.S census, ”Alaska Natives” and “American Indians” are both Native Americans. The said phrase “Native American and Alaska Native” was also in reference to the U.S census of 2010, which racial identity category states “ American Indian or Alaska Native.” Furthermore, my other edits also deal with the same issue. Native American refers to both American Indians and Alaska Natives. My edits changing “Native American” to “American Indian” and sometimes “Indian” (depending on context) are because the article is only referring or discussing American Indians and not “Alaska Natives” Now I understand that American Indian and “ Native American” is sometimes used interchangeably, but in the United States it is factually incorrect. I hope I was able to clear up a few things. I will also be more descriptive when explaining my edits, as I understand they can be a bit lacking. Anyway, Thank You for the feedback and am hoping that you understand my motive: which isn’t to harm/disrupt anyone or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallyisback (talk • contribs) 02:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User posted the above bit at usertalk, twice; already responded there. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 02:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Fallyisback has, since mid October ... - Fally registered their account on October 27th, that is not mid-October. Besides bombarding this, apparently, newbie editor's talk page with templates – in the space of an hour: 01:34 (warning), 01:38 (warning), 01:45 (warning, struck out), 01:46 (warning), 02:07 (ANI notice), 02:34 (warning) – have either of you engaged or attempted to engage constructively with them? All but the last template came after FiB had stopped editing (hiatus between 01:25 and 02:15) and all of them came after they stopped editing articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. My apologies for getting the specific time line inaccurate. I am happy to strike through my mistake and correct it if you would like. FiB had been warned previously for disruptive edits, not by myself. I understood that giving them warnings was appropriate. I did not warn them on every edit they made, nor have I gone back and reverted all of the changes that were made on longstanding consensus terminology. Conversation has occurred on their page and although they have not edited since they are firm on their changes being correct. I am not sure what to do going forward. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The first warning was appropriate, it's the five that followed that weren't. That FiB believes their edits to be correct is evidenced enough by the fact that they made them in the first place, since most editors don't go making changes they believe are wrong (exception: vandals). The normal course, after bold edits are reverted, is to hold a discussion (one that doesn't involve threats of blocks, preferably). FiB, unless, by some miracle, you get consensus to change "Native American" to "American Indian" this editing needs to discontinue. Refer to WP:ONUS. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

21rojasjustyn

Can someone please block 21rojasjustyn (talk · contribs)? They have been ineptly adding new articles on non-notable streets (most already deleted), have not responded to any of the many warnings on their talk page and have been repeatedly removing AfD notices on their dubious creations after warnings. Their removals have already led to one pair of duplicate AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad Village Drive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad Village Drive (2nd nomination) (now redirected to the first nom but probably losing some comments by second nominator The Mirror Cracked in the process). I'd block them myself but I'm too involved at this point. I will notify. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @David Eppstein:, I was just typing up my own ANI report about 21rojasjustyn. I thoroughly endorse David's request. Despite heroic efforts by David and other editors, 21rojasjustyn refuses to engage in any dialog, and refuses to stop recreating articles in clear violation of WP:V and WP:N. I think we are into clear WP:CIR territory. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a temporary block to stop the disruption, but if this is an incompetence problem, it'll probably need to be extended. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that some of the redlinks listed at the user's sandbox have not been previously created and deleted, I presume that the user intends to create additional disruptive article in the future, so I will watch their activity once the block expires. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Dboora - Persistent Reversion of Irrelevant Information

Dboora has persistently tried to put in information into the article The Apprentice (British series 15), pertaining to claim it is relevant to know this for anyone reviewing the information about the series' broadcast. Unfortunately, their claim on relevance is rubbish - the information pertains to a chart denoting the performance of entrants to a contest connected to the programme, and how they fared in each stage - a business related task in which for the majority of all stages, members work in one of two teams. The table therefore denotes who won on a task, who lost, who led the team to their eventual result in the task, who was brought back to face scrutiny on performance and contribution, and who is eliminated from the contest. The information being put forward relates to a minor role, which doesn't have relevance to this table. Unfortunately, the user has not heeded the edit summaries regarding the reversion of the original edit and subsequent reversions of their reversions, to the point they are now pushing this towards an Edit War. What makes this galling, is that they make rather cheeky closing remarks in their summaries which seem demeaning to those generally attempting to both warn them and suggest they discuss the matter in the article's talk page.

The editor in question was given warnings last year for their behavior, including the possibility they could be blocked. They have no regard to discuss the matter when advised to take it to the article's talk page, and as the editor trying to reason with them that their edits raise problems and need discussion on, I have become increasingly annoyed that they will not listen. I need an Admin now to deal with this matter, before the editor pushes me into doing something I will regret. Please help me, as I really cannot deal with another problematic editor, after another had to be blocked for going too far (although in the defence of that editor, they did have Aspergers and little understanding of what they were doing). GUtt01 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this content dispute at the article talk page, and I see no mandatory notification of Dboora on the user's talkpage. I have corrected the latter for you. Gricehead (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing and violation of 3RR

E-960 (talk) keeps disruptively deleting and changing referenced information, claiming there is no consensus, often because because he alone objects.

Violation of 3RR within 24 hours here: [175], [176], [177], [178].

I didn't take this to the 3RR admin page because this is part of a larger pattern of disruptive removal of information. This dispute goes beyond content and involved the pattern of behavior just blanking information that the editor does not like, ignoring various attempts to get feedback from others, clarifications, etc. The diffs below precede the recent 3RR:

I added this information from the source Myroslav Shkandrij. (2015) Ukrainian Nationalism: Politics, Ideology, and Literature, 1929-1956. New Haven: Yale University Press pg. 19 : [179].

E-960 removed parts of it (specifically, reference to Jews being victims in the camps, and the words concentration camps) without prior discussion: [180].

I then started a thread on the talk page:[181].

Volunteer Marek did not change the words "concentration camps" despite misgivings but did remove reference to Jews. Another editor, Paul Siebert, didn't have a problem with reference to concentration camps or Jews, but suggested different wording: [182]. No further input from Volunteer Marek.

So based on Paul Siebert's feedback, I changed the wording and added the info:[183].

E-960 changed the wording without consensus [184] and removed it again [185], adding a false edit summary that his version was the original statement (clearly, as we see, it was not. I had written the original statement).

I then added the text plus the full quote from the original source into the reference to make clear that it was supported by the text: [186].

E-960 removed it again: [187].

I then found another reference and included it: [188].

E-960 removed it: [189] with false edit summary about no consent on the talk page for my edit (he was outnumbered 2:1, for what it is worth). As if there was consent for his version.

So one editor has seen no problem with the text I added, E-960 objected to it so he kept reverting. Even after I changed it to match the other's opinion, even after I changed it by adding an additional reference, etc. he kept reverting.

Seeking more opinions, I opened an RFC on this topic: [190]. The contributor concluded here: [191]: "First, the source was quoted not verbatim, so quotation marks are misleading. It uses "supported" in a context of not only military, but "university professors, priests, lawyers and doctors". With respect to interned Jews and other nationalities it says "sympathetic". Second, this source does support this statement, and Jews are mentioned explicitly, partially because their testimonies "described murders and abuse." However, I don't know if this source provides a mainstream viewpoint, or it represents just a minority view. Taking into account that the publisher is very reputable, and that the book was cited in 25 articles, it is likely that it is not a minority view, but further analysis is necessary to confirm that."

On the rfc, E-960 accused me of forum-shopping:[192] and flooded the rfc with off-topic complaints about me.

Then he, the same editor that kept removing information sourced to a book published by Yale University Press, added information (diff:[193]) from a Polish nationalist website: [194]! This strongly suggests that he is biased.

After another editor questioned the words used: [195] E-960 then blanked the entire section without waiting for further discussion: [196].

I added additional information. He reverted it: [197].

I restored the blanked paragraph. He then blanked the entire paragraph again: [198] with false edit summary that there was some sort of consensus not to have the paragraph included.

The issue isn't strictly about content, it is about disruptive behavior of removing anything and everything he doesn't like (i.e., something critical of the Polish government's behavior), refusing to take into account others' feedback, and then adding stuff from a Polish nationalist website. Wiki shouldn't be a nationalist's battleground.

I had brought this to the attention of an admin on his personal page (here:[199]) but he said he didn't have time to read it so I am coming here (I don't think this is black shopping, he simply didn't have time to look at it).Faustian (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and edit warring, neither belong on this board. Also please be more concise. 2001:4898:80E8:0:C5E4:A71B:487F:72C4 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Faustain, pls consider that you were the editor who FIRST inserted the new and contentious material into the Polish–Ukrainian War article (other editors simply reacted to your changes), here [200] adding weasel words "Poles claimed" in front of longstanding statements which contained reliable reference sources, and later more changes here [201]. Your edits were reverted by users E-960, Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella, and discussions were initiated on the talk page, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. However, you restored those disputed edits drawing a rebuke form users KIENGIR [202] and Volunteer Marek [203]. Then you disparaged some of the editors by calling them "Polish editors" here "two Polish editors should not own wikipedia articles..." Faustian 19:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC) and here "...hopefully Polish editors will not remove?" Faustian 19:08, 17 November 2019‎ (UTC). When the original talk page discussions were not going in your favor, you opened up two RFCs literally a day after the first discussions were started here [204] and [205]. Then here [206] an anonymous IP restored some of the disputed material you first added, prompting user Volunteer Marek to revert, and to raise concern that this may be a sockpuppet "We can discuss the changes but this is obviously disruptive editing by a SPA sock"[207]. Unfortunately, you only see fit to accuse other editors of misconduct when they restore original content, however as evident, your editing is rather disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason I added "claim" was because the information with "claim" placed in front of it was from questionable Polish-language sources that contracted a clear English-language reliable source. Two of the Polish editors who reverted those edits have extensive block histories for edit warring (one of them seems to be banned from editing on World War II-era Poland-related articles). I opened an rfc to get other people to take a look at this article. Very telling that you feel that this is a bad thing.Faustian (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the correct venue to report edit warring WP:AN/EW.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do.Faustian (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that this [[208]] has caused me some concern as it involves claiming sources say something they do not really say as well as some pretty dodgy use of snippets. As well as link s that seem to be to host front pages, rather than articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Slater. Polish–Ukrainian War has that familiar mix of: edit warring by established accounts + communication through edit summaries + arguments on the talk page about whether the RfC statements are neutrally-worded + accusations of violation of various WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINKS + a lot of mention of the ethnicities of sources and editors. – Levivich 17:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And now we appear to have OR [[209].Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

To my mind E-960 is now crossing over in to wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that it was actually the OP, Faustian, who broke 3RR on the article, not E-960. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Then sanction both, one for edit war one for tendentiousness.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My "edit warring" was the direct result of the tendentiousness. "Revert" means to return to a previous state. My "reverts" mostly did not do that - I added more references or augmented the statements that were being deleted by the tendentious editor, in the vain hope that the result would be solid enough not to get erased again [210] [211]. That having been said, thanks to the intervention of other people including Slatersteven, the situation on this article caused by the tendentious editor seems to be stabilizing.Faustian (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, its not an excuse.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editors on Camila Cabello's related articles

Hi. There are some "new" editors that are edit warring on Camila Cabello discography: A few days ago, on November 13 user Maxgoldman12334 moved songs Easy, Cry For Me and Living Proof from the Singles section to Promotional singles section without explaining their edits, with no discussion and without providing reliable sources. Since then, they were reverted. On November 18, user LOVI33 did the same edit with no discussion. On November 20 I reverted their edit because sources says otherwise but as soon as I did it, another user GetawayDress reverted my edits. I send warnings to the user but they keep reverting and user LOVI33 re appeared again [212]. Please just check the edit history of the article.

Recently I made an edit on Living Proof, restoring edits and providing a source, and then again user GetawayDress reverted my edits without any explanition

They don't stop reverting me and everyone since weeks ago. Looks like the users have an agenda: they try to change the status of songs like Easy and Cry For Me to promotional singles because they are the less successful singles of the album's singer Camila Cabello. Many users had tell to them that sources don't support their changes, but they keep reverting everyone [213]. This behavior is the same on articles like Easy (Camila Cabello song) and Cry for Me. I don't know what to do cause they are 2 disruptive editors right now (GetawayDress and LOVI33) editing and reverting on their own and I don't want to break the 3 revert rule, so I have stopped. Best regards. Miaow 00:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• The history of Romance (Camila Cabello album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a lot of reverting, and it looks like GetawayDress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has crossed WP:3RR. The talk page discussion also doesn't look too good. Similar at Easy (Camila Cabello song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Camila Cabello discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Cry for Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see Ss112 has been editing these articles, maybe he has some insight here. – Levivich 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, user GateawayDress made this edit on the talk page [214].

Both users (GetawayDress and LOVI33) had been making disruptive edits today without any type of consensus on the articles mentioned above, reverting in a synchronized way in some of them. Originally, in all these articles the songs Easy and Cry for Me have appeared as single per the sources there even on her discography, but since a few days ago these users have been changing it to promotional single without any support from the sources cited there. Today I just realized they are making such edits and reverting everyone that restore to a previous version of them. Miaow 01:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not involved in this in any way, so I'd like to suggest any admins looking into this issue outright block GetawayDress. This user has a history of problematic edits—they have outright vandalised articles in the past (on Megatron (song) [215], [216]) and they mix this with constructive edits, but they have clearly gone over 3RR (I count nine reverts on Romance (Camila Cabello album) earlier today—the latest five are here: [217], [218], [219], [220], [221]) and reverted constructive edits without explanation here, and it's gone on long enough. LOVI33 needs to stop as well and receive a stern warning from an admin. As for the issue at hand, all editors need to stop reverting each other and discuss. This has gone on long enough on both sides. I stopped caring about what was a single or promotional single in regards to this album a week ago and I don't think anybody on this noticeboard particularly cares about the content dispute at the centre of this. Ss112 02:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked GetawayDress x 2 weeks for disruptive editing. This is not a first offense and their editing history suggests they did not learn from their last time out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Malmmf and NCES stats updating issue

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

Malmmf is prolific in updating the tedious NCES stats for schools which is excellent, but unfortunately is let down by two problems; not updating the access date or removing it altogether. I regret bringing this here but I did write a pre-warning it may come to this on 18 November 2019. Multiple editors have mentioned this problem: First one in January 2019 by Magnolia677 which Malmmf replied about forgetting to change it and "will work on that" (Meters was going to point out this issue), Archer1234 on 6 November 2019 (John provided a response) and then me on 16 November 2019. It seems the editor is showing no sign of following this advice. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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 [222] for example. This is not appropriate. Meters (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

--Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

The quotes is the default way, I mean the ending </ref>. Yeah that's the other problem, just a simple "Updated NCES stats" or something would suffice. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Overlinking issue

• B.Perrine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. MB 03:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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. Ss112 05:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MB: At first I was thinking you were kinda exaggerating a bit, but dang that's excessive. Communication is required, so maybe they should get a friendly block until they are willing to discuss things? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A friendly block – what will they think of next? EEng 06:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a loving, caring, family intervention type block, EEng? For their own good? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Girth Summit: Any luck getting through to the user? I see this teahouse thread, but they didn't respond there yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dean Orbong

• Dean Orbong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021 § Dean Orbong failure to WP:ENGAGE

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)

This is the same MO as Kev519, a proven WP:SOCK. Their entire editing style is exactly the same. I support the indef block, and a SPI might be needed also, I just don't have enough support to open one. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

WP:ONUS would be the relevant policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted their addition of content sourced to DM. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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" /]

Thank you for your help. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot say that you’re joking in offering those as sources; I can only say that I hope you’re joking. EEng 09:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Not mentioned at WP:RSP either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1RR for Jeffrey Epstein

This seems to me to come under AP2. I think 1RR would be a good idea. Guy (help!) 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Applied "consensus required". This is a magnet for disruption right now. Guy (help!) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Kphawkins

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

Kphawkins has been on a path to flame-out since an edit sourced to the Daily Caller (a deprecated source) was challenged at Boyfriend loophole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Boyfriend loophole.

He removed his contributions to the article citing According to David Gerard and JzG I am a disruptive user who uses unreliable sources. Take it up with them. I'm not going to be a party to their partisan agenda. I'm not interested in the quality of a platform which bans right-wing sources and greenlights left-wing sources, then has the audacity to pretend like they're invested in truth and impartiality. It's insulting. I reverted it to the version they prefer, one without my input. That's textbook WP:OWN. I reverted; he reverted again this time stating There are factual errors in my original edit, so I am reversing it. I introduced deliberate bias into the article and misrepresented one of the sources .

At this point I no longer know if he is editing honestly, trolling, determined to have his way or no way, or what. This doesn't appear to be defensible behaviour. Guy (help!) 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If he wants to take his ball and go home, I'd say let him. There's no need to antagonize him any more. I don't think he's done much wrong to require any sanctions; he was involved in a heated, but IMHO good faith dispute, his position was not upheld by consensus, and if that consensus means he doesn't want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore, let him go. As far as I am concerned, he's free to go or stay as he chooses. If you're concerned about his contributions, let him take them away, and instead of reverting him, add the information back in your own words with your own sources. Problem solved. --Jayron32 16:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by the open admission fo adding falsehoods into the article. Guy (help!) 16:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I read that more as part of his tantrum rather than an admission of actual guilt. It's easier to claim he falsified the information so you'll let him remove his contributions (that's the "taking his ball and going home bit"). Perhaps he even things we've accused him of that (no one has, though) but really, I don't think we need to do anything. Willing to let someone else read into it and come to an outside view though. This is just how I read the situation. --Jayron32 16:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say leave him, unless he persists - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. My inpression was that this editor made two very small 'errors' but acted wholly in good faith. He/she simply overeacted to our shared wish to improve this encyclopaedia. Their first minor mistake was unwittingly adding content based on a source they didnt know we had elected to distrust. Having taken umbridge at the way other editors dealt with them over the matter, they not unreasonably felt they wanted to withdraw all their work they had donated to improve the article. That seems a real shame. Their second 'error' was omitting the word "apparently" or "I'm told that" from their edit summary when deleting text they had been advised was unreliable. I am surprised you couldn't see that Guy, and I think if I had been them I would be doubly annoyed at Wikipedia for then taking them here to ANI. It would only serve to reinforce my belief that Wikipedia isn't the place for me. Maybe one lesson for us here is that our default ways of dealing with minor problem edits can easily be misinterpreted and seriously turn new people away who might otherwise go on to make sound contributions for many years. The alternative lesson is that some people will inevitably be easily offended and riled up by any reasonable challenge and are going to feel driven away, no matter what we do or say. I suspect the reality is somewhere between those two extremes. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternately, you could read his words and see that he thought we were politically biased leftists for not accepting a source that had been deprecated for being literally untrustworthy for factual claims, and that he kept attributing its deprecation to us being biased against conservative sources rather than to it being literally untrustworthy for factual claims ... I am utterly unconvinced that there is any level of gentle response that would appease an editor quite this determined, and especially along these particular lines - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

1RR for AP2

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

---

I have noticed a few cases where content has been added to an article under AP2, reverted, then re-inserted by the original editor. At this point both editors are at 1RR and potentially contentious material is in the article. I believe the intent of 1RR is to enforce WP:BRD. I wonder if it's worth going back to ArbCom and asking for a modification to 1RR so that it defaults to exclude? Or can we do that as a community? Guy (help!) 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

American Politics doesn't automatically have a 1RR restriction like Israel-Palestine articles do. The restriction is solely if an admin chooses to impose discretionary sanctions. If you're using Template:American politics AE/Edit notice to do so, it defaults to 1RR plus You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, but the admin imposing the sanctions, or a consensus at WP:AE, could apply any combination of sanctions that they want. ST47 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I know. My question was, should we be using a restriction that allows for an editor to crowbar in controversial content, or seek to revise it to a point where the default is to exclude content pending consensus. Guy (help!) 20:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still fairly confused. I'm not an admin, but BRD has been an option via the template since December last year [223]. It's not default, but as I understand it, as is the norm with discretionary sanctions, admins are free to apply it to any page covered under the regime as they see necessary. E.g. Kamala Harris (Talk:Kamala Harris). Editors can ask an admin to consider applying it. I believe but I'm not sure, that the concept of enforced BRD came about largely via community discussion (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive305#Proposal to replace "Consensus Required" on American Politics articles). But in any case, while I don't know if arbcom has ever specifically commented on it, it's existed long enough that I assume if they felt it wasn't actually something allowed under the discretionary sanctions regime, they would have said something. But they've chosen not to, most likely since they consider that it's a reasonable use of discretion in implementing page level sanctions and in any case, I see no reason to question it's a valid option. Is the question whether we should make "enforced BRD" default? From what I've seen when there's been discussion, the general consensus seems to have been to keep it as admin's discretion on what sanction to apply. E.g. the earlier discussion and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Enforced BRD vs. Consensus required although both were enforced BRD vs consensus required, rather than just 1RR. But then again, as I understand it, consensus required and 1RR are both on by default. That being the case, it may be reasonable to remove any default option (or at least consensus required as a default option) and require admins to specify what sanction to apply. If you want to make enforced BRD the default, I'm not convinced that will succeed since not everyone agrees it's generally the better option as each option has its pitfalls. If you want to eliminate consensus required as an option, it seems to me from previous discussion this is unlikely to succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. While I'm not opposed to removing any defaults, I'm not convinced it will make much difference. My impression is that only a few admins apply most sanctions and they're already familiar with the options and mostly follow their personal preference and assessment of the article. I actually suspect short of requiring a certain sanction the most likely way to change things is if some new admin gets heavily involved or a current one far less. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, 1RR seems to be the default. Tbh I had forgotten that BRD was even in there. It's not a standard in AP2. Perhaps it should be. Guy (help!) 21:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"Consensus required" is widely followed by experienced editors on all articles, regardless of any DS page restriction. The "24-hour BRD" sanction that's replaced it on certain articles is not really enforced, despite the appealing-sounding language in the page restriction. 1RR does not seem to have been a problem on any of these articles. Violations are generally inadvertent and are quickly undone once the editor is made aware. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Chuck Grassley

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

---

New editor Stupidfunmichael is edit warring to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Grassley is a "Russian asset". I have warned the editor regarding BLP policy but they are persisting. I would appreciate assistance from other administrators, as I want to avoid even the appearance of edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked per NOTHERE. How's it going, Cullen? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pretty good, Drmies. In 15 minutes, I will sit down with my wife for a dinner of white bean soup, garlic roast chicken, asparagus in a lemon sauce and wild rice. And wine, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Good stuff. In the meantime, I'm revdeleting more neo-Nazi swinery. Bon appetit, Cullen. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Continue your duties as assigned, Drmies. I will be back on duty after my meal break. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What, a Wikipedia editor with a life? And here I've been doing this all wrong for 9 1/2 years... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rashida Tlaib

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

---

Subject of racist vandalism. We need user blocks and rev/deletion, please. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:DC62:1EB1:2CA:68F8 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. There's a lot of bored racists active tonight. They should be watching PBS. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of that, and other unsettling crap around. I followed a few edits by an erstwhile contributor here, and found multiple attempts to whitewash articles on race and Nazism, when they weren't extolling Bama high schools. Sorry. 2601:188:180:B8E0:DC62:1EB1:2CA:68F8 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Feinoa

I have encountered User:Feinoa a couple of months ago on a few pages I edit. While I believe they are editing in good faith, they seem to have some issues with understanding our guidelines as well the collaborative nature of our project, which are unfortunately causing disruption. Some of their behaviour is manifested as persistent edit warring and a refusal to initiate/participate in discussions on the talk page. Here are some examples

1. Long term edit warring and refusal to discuss at Grab (company). Here are the diffs. Although multiple editors have suggested them to open a talk page discussion, that has never happened
   1. Bold Edit 1 (Jul 2019) - reverted and warned by another editor
   2. Edit 2 (Jul 2019) - reverted and warned again
   3. Edit 3 (Jul 2019) - reverted and warned through the edit summary
   4. (Aug 2019) - I reverted to the stable version in Sep 2019. Explained on their talk page about my revert and requested them to open an article talk page discussion
   5. (Nov 2019) - I revert
   6. (Nov 2019)
2. Slow moving edit warring at 2019 Hong Kong protests - [224], [225], [226], [227], [228] (they have been warned by other editors regarding this)
3. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss -
   1. Oct 2019 cn tags removed with edit summary weirdly obsessive amounts of citations - Reverted by another editor pointing out that citation is mandatory in Wikipedia
   2. Cn tags removed again Oct 2019 claiming "Not when there's 13 of them in a single article, with many of them absolutely unnecessary and not requiring a citation needed tag at all" - Reverted and editor points to WP:WHYCITE
   3. Nov 2019 cn tags removed again after a month. No explanation or edit summary given
4. Edit warring to include information where source doesn't support the statement. It's not clear if they understand the importance of WP:V and citations
   1. Re-insert content not supported by source - I reverted pointing to WP:V
   2. Inserted again - Reverted by another editor who points to BRD and requests not to edit war
   3. Inserted again claiming "common knowledge" and "Do we really need to be pedantic here" among other things.
5. Unexplained changes without any edit summary
   1. Removing reference
   2. Adding incorrect information. This was incidentally a revert of this edit which corrected the information in the first place
   3. (There could be other problematic edits, but I haven't looked them up)

I believe that Feinoa is editing in good faith and it is clear that their intention is to contribute positively. However, some of their actions are creating a bit of mess which requires cleanup. I have tried to explain the issues multiple times on their talk page such as here, here and here. However, I am not sure if they are listening and they are accusing me of Wikihounding (see here and here). So I think it would be better if other members of the community could perhaps advise Feinoa about our guidelines and collaborative editing on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that these edits and diffs show a long-term pattern of issues related to edit warring. Feinoa's contributions show evidence of participation on some talk pages (mostly the talk page for the Singapore article), but it appears that these issues have continued despite this participation. I also agree that Feinoa has been given multiple notes, notices, and warnings from different editors on his/her user talk page about these different issues as well, and that the issues have continued despite those repeated attempts to ask him/her to stop. At some point, things need to go up a notch and enough needs to be enough.

I think that the best thing to do is leave a warning on Feinoa's user talk page pointing them to a permalink of this ANI discussion, note the long-term issues that have been ongoing, and state that this long-term behavior needs to stop and that discussion and proper dispute resolution is expected from him/her moving forward. I'd conclude the warning message letting him/her know that, moving forward, editors will either immediately leave an edit warring notice if Feinoa repeats this same edit warring behavior on a particular article - and that these notices will serve as an indefinite finial warning, or they will file an appropriate report seeking administrative action if such a warning for the particular article has already been given. Then, stick to that ultimatum. I think that this will give Feinoa one final chance to stop the behavior (like you said, Feinoa seems to be attempting to edit in good faith - this will be an appropriate next step to take without jumping too far), and if this doesn't succeed and if it continues, he/she knows exactly what is going to happen. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely should be blocked

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

---

Just saw this "interesting" edit (read the last edit request and you'll see what I mean). I've already reverted it and placed a warning on the user's page, however, due to what's in the edit and where it was placed, I'm thinking this user needs to be blocked. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by GirthSummit (I have turned off talk page access too). Edit has been revdel. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Winged Blades of Godric WP:INCIVIL WP:PA

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

---

• Winged Blades of Godric engaged in a Personal attack at AfD
• I asked the editor to remove the personal attack. Diff
• The editor ignored the request and continued editing in another area of the project.
• I removed the personal attack myself
• Notified the editor that I had removed the PA
• The editor then blanked my message on talk page without responding.
• Next the editor restored the PA and added another.
• Here is the present AfD Editor removed my RPA template and the first PA and then added a different personal attack calling me "consistently disruptive".

FYI: I looked back in my history to see where this was coming from. the only other experience I found where I had conflict with the editor in July 2019 when the editor did a non-administrative closing of an AfD and editorialized the closing

Note that two other editors also had an issue with the closing and voiced concerns on the editor's talk page. The editor did not ever respond or strike/remove the PA or revisit the closing to revise remarks. That is the only negative history I can think of with the editor. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support warning Winged Blades of Godric for personal attacks and incivility and then I would ask another editor to RPA at the AfD- I do not want to edit war. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• You are a disruptive influence on nearly all AfDs, I have seen and I won't strike that. I have self-removed my first comment. ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. Consider yourself warned. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, Calling someone as disruptive, based on well-evidenced history (and other stuff, I can't be bothered enough to link) ain't a PA; snowflakes and all that. ∯WBG^converse 18:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Calling someone "incompetent" and "disruptive" are most certainly personal attacks, whether you think so or not. Please read WP:NPA. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, just to confirm, can someone not be incompetent, even when they show incompetence towards a task they clearly cannot do? Secondly, can someone not be disruptive when they disrupt something? To you, this might be impertinent for me to ask, and I don't really care, but to me it's an opportunity to clarify semantics, which we should all care about. Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously some people are incompetent. You seem to think it is not a personal attack as long as it's true. A personal attack is a personal attack whether it's true or not. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Since when has the truth been "uncivil"? Would you describe John Wayne Gacy as a murderous scumbag psychopath, or is this "uncivil" in your world? Secondly, how can some people be incompetent but it be uncivil to call them so when they beg to differ? Thirdly, and linked to point two, would you take umbrage at someone who is skilled to be called "skilled", when they think they're not? Maybe you could also define what is a personal attack? I bet if differs to my interpretation. Do you not see what a lot of subjective bollocks this is? Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul August, do you seriously wish that I dig up old diffs of you calling other editors to be engaging in disruption and/or disruptive? I have self-removed incompetent, an hour before this was filed; not sure what's your issue with it ... ∯WBG^converse 19:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Dig away ;-) Outside of places like ANI, or ARBCOM, which are designated as places where it is appropriate to discuss other editor's behavior, I've never called another editor "disruptive" or "incompetent". And my "issue with it" (as I wrote above) is that "Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia" and it's against policy. Have you read WP:NPA yet? Paul August ☎ 19:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I consider taunting another editor by asking if they've read an established policy to itself be a sanctionable personal attack at worst, and unproductive gutter-sniping at best, along the same vein of WP:DTTR. WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your patronizing tone is well noted. My question was about your's choosing to be bothered with an edit of mine, that I have already self-redacted prior to this thread. At any case, I point you to SlaterSeven's reply, later in the thread - deeming PressReleases as materials lending passage of GNG/SIGCOV is textbook incompetency.

I read WP:NPA, following your sage advice and see that it starts with Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. It does not hold ANI/ARBCOM to be special places, at all. Now that you have indirectly accepted of having called other users as disruptive at ANI/ARBCOM, may be a mass-apology is in order, going by your new found definition of PA? ∯WBG^converse 20:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, if you deal with Wings you have to have a Wikipedian-backbone of "assume good faith", and just accept them as they are. My only comment would be to ask Wings to let up a bit on editors who can't take a boatload of insults without going to the authorities, and apologize to those editors once in awhile. Good for the soul. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. First, Wings removed the more attacking comment only after being pushed into it and never apologized for it. Second, calling someone disruptive is a personal attack. If there's evidence for it, then seek sanctions against the editor for persistent disruptive activity. Otherwise, don't call someone disruptive. I might add that Wings could have made their point without resorting to name-calling, so the insult is gratuitous.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose -- More snowflakery. It's better to suck it up and move on - WP is a big place. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why do we have civility rules?Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You tell me. One person's "incivility rule" is another person's piece of learning advice. Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of WP:CIV. It's an irredeemable dumpster-fire of subjective policy that leads to nothing but wasted time and breath on drama boards. Let people sort it out amongst themselves. That day will never come, of course. WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is still in place, and until it is not it should apply to us all.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support a discussion that includes—indeed focuses on, as it would seem to be the root cause of the affair—the alleged disruption from AfD, and any passive-aggression concomitant to it. (Which, as Slatersteven may be alluding to, is as much a form of incivility as aggression itself). ——SN54129 19:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, what I was saying is why do we even have rules if the attitude towards those who break them is "well get used to their behavior". Our polices must apply to everyone or no one.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to live in a dystopian world where everyone speaks in fluffy pink language to one another whilst languishing on pillows of marshmallow and honey, but nothing would get sorted and this project would be all the more worse for it, if that were possible. This project, in years to come, would've been built on people having frank discussions, and honest, if somewhat heated at times, debates. Cassianto^Talk 19:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe people should just not be dicks? If in your view that creates a dystopian future, perhaps you are on the wrong project. PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

...is exactly the type of subjective bullshit CIV seeks to confuse upon. Your WP:DICK might be another person's DICK. That doesn't make you right because you've said it first. And with regards to the wrong project? Maybe I am. Maybe we all are. Who knows? In 20 years time when there's a better online encyclopaedia out there, we might all be asking the same question. This one is failing and it's the fault of people not being able to talk constructively to one another and being strangled by safe spaces and snowflake "rules". Cassianto^Talk 19:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean it is one the 5 pillars of the whole project. If you think it is just some safe space & snowflake shit I cannot help you. Good luck. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is always a brutal place, but your comments make it a little bit more so. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No, as all I said was the rules must apply to everyone equally. If that is dystopia then yes, I hope to live in such a place.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

However I must say that whilst WBG was not exactly civil I am not sure it raises to a serious PA, if (and it is an if) the user has done something that was incompetent then it should be called out wp:CIR. If they did indeed argue a press release established notability that would be incompetence as it is a gross misunderstanding of wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not really Slatersteven, I did a quick search and saw overwhelming evidence of GNG. As did other editors. That I picked one PR is not problematic IMO. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• oppose- this user seems to spend half his time making specious arguments at XfD and the other half dobbing people in for things. Calls people vain, disruptive, and paranoid himself, yet is very sensitive and litigious when he's on the business end. This is not behaviour that I care to reward. Reyk _YO! 19:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks Reyk. I see you still did not strike your personal attack against me yet. Sigh...always a fun place to visit this ANI. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do consider camping at someone's contributions history in the hope of catching them out to be sad and pathetic. I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh...always a fun place to visit this ANI. "You pays your money, you takes your choice", I'm afraid. In other news, how did your complaint to Arbcom go about you being "outed" (i.e., have the name of the account mentioned to which your current account still links to...?) You see, you are very keen, as mentioned above, to drag people to noticeboards, but seemingly have something of a blindspot for the necessary policy and procedures. Or is that a PA in you book too? ——SN54129 19:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And please do not refactor my comments, as you did here. ——SN54129 19:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I twice went to the editor's talk page. I was twice ignored. RPA the edit, editor restored. Then left a second personal attack. Here I am slogging through AfDs and contributing. It is ok if you do not like my contributions. I was discussing policy and the article. Not the editor. If personal attacks are ok we should rewrite the policy. Seems pretty clear by my actions that I was trying to avoid this messy place. Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• The PA has already been removed. So I am out. If WBG is ok to go on like that attacking, lets rewrite the policies. Have a great weekend everyone. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with the above statements of Paul August, and I note that the participants in this discussion who happen to actually be administrators are generally on the same page. With respect to "snowflakery" comments by Cassianto, there is a concept called broken windows theory which would be worth your attention. It teaches that when low-level violations are permitted, this signals potential perpetrators that higher-level violations can also be gotten away with, while the enforcement of even the most basic laws signals that the law will be enforced throughout. On Wikipieda, civility is the law. We enforce it so as not to descend into the chaos of moral relativism. As for the proposition that an encyclopedia of nearly six million articles, including a substantial selection of in-depth coverage rivaling or exceeding the quality of professional endeavors, is "failing" is an... interesting... hill to stand on. Of course, those who really believe that this project is actually "failing" don't stick around to lament that feeling here. BD2412 T 20:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The broken windows theory relates to Giuliani and his view that if you live in an area with a broken window, the rest of the neighbourhood will deteriorate. I agree with that theory, but it is not relevant to this discussion and is about as far removed from your point as is possible. Seeing as no one else is able to define it for me, maybe you can: what is a "personal attack"? Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you that broken windows theory is not contingent on there being an actual physical window that is actually broken. With respect to the definition of a personal attack, that is thoroughly described at WP:NPA, but can be summed up with the admonition that arguments should be addressed to the issue, not to the characteristics of those arguing the other side of that issue. There are specific fora where editor conduct itself is the issue being examined. AfD is not one of these. BD2412 T 20:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I want your interpretation of it, not a lot of subjective nonsense written by complete incompetents...oops. Surely you're able to think for yourself and don't have to rely on other's views to justify your own? Cassianto^Talk 20:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The admonition that arguments should be addressed to the issue, not to the characteristics of those arguing the other side of that issue is my interpretation of it. If the argument for a specific course of action, such as deletion of an article, can be made on the merits, then that is the only argument that should ever need to be made. BD2412 T 21:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So, for example, is it good for an admin to call a blocked editor from a registered account "a troll", in your opinion? Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have indicated, that would depend on the context of the discussion. It is not unheard of for people to come to Wikipedia for the purpose of trolling. However, it would not be appropriate to use such a label merely to counter someone's disagreement in an editing dispute. BD2412 T 21:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI threads need to have a consensus of all participants contra your attempted grant of privilege to the POV of janitors. At any case, Broken Windows Theory has a tonne of criticism, (many of which are not event mentioned in our article) and to put in a nutshell, neither the academia nor the practical word has been much kind to the proposition. That being said, I am thinking about bringing a proposal to deprecate WP:CIR, how can an outright PA (as so many of you seem to hold) be ever a supplement to a guideline? ∯WBG^converse 20:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators have been vetted by the community as having trustworthy judgment. Of course, anyone can post their opinion on this noticeboard, but ANI is not a vote any more than any other discussion; the administrator who closes this discussion will properly take into account the judgment of those who participate. BD2412 T 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - You know the project has gone to shit when terms such as "incompetent" are now considered a personal attack. Lightburst may I suggest you grow up and grow a thicker skin?. –Davey2010^Talk 21:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

^{Pssst...Davey2010, I think maybe it is and so is condescension. Atsme _Talk 📧 21:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)}

^{Not to be disrespectful but that's your opinion, I see no condescension in my post, I simply don't agree being called incompetent should be labelled as a personal attack .... Idiot, Moron etc sure but Incompetent ?... Not really but like I say Agree to disagree :). –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)}

• Support a warning Actually, I was about to give a formal warning to WBG when I saw this had been brought here. "incompetent" when used as a reply to an argument in an AfD is a PA; the proper thing to say is, at most, something like "your argument does not seem relevant". A negative term directly addressed to a user is a PA. The key characteristic is it being directly addressed to the user, which is why saying "CIR" is not a PA, tho if said inappropriately it may also be impolite. I agree completely with 'BD2412 and PA. The behavior of the other party is not relevant. If one replies to a PA by a PA, both parties are in the wrong. This is the sort of behavior I hope the next arb com will finally address.

But , Atsme, condescension is not literally a PA; it is impolite, and impoliteness short of a PA is also a matter of concern. But it is very hard to judge the degree of things like condescension,; direct PAs are much easier to determine, so its reasonable for us to start improving matters by dealing with them, before we get to the subtleties. . DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• The issue isn't whether "incompetent" is universally a personal attack, it's that in a very normal AfD discussion about sources, WBG, for no reason, called the editor incompetent to belittle them and discount their opinion. If you want to know why the "project is going to shit" it's that any time someone popular gets told meta:Don't be a jerk editors come out of the woodwork to argue why and under what conditions we get to be jerks to each other. If WBG (or anyone) has legitimate concerns about WP:CIR or other disruption on the part of another editor, the proper way to handle it is to bring it to a noticeboard like this with evidence (see WP:ASPERSIONS), not engage in ad hominem at AfD. I agree with BD2412; looking at the first diff posted I do not believe that is the kind of interaction we should be encouraging. Everyone has off days, we can recognize that without circling the wagons and normalizing toxic interactions. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des​ 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:FilmMakingUserFMU

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

---

User:FilmMakingUserFMU has removed an AfD tag after their final warning, vandalised another admin's userpage and was warned for violating WP:MOS and WP:CRYSTAL. I think that a block is required for all of this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The user has removed the AfD tag again. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. I deleted the article per G5 to shortcut the "is it a hoax" question. Being listed on the IMDb means absolutely nothing as far as whether it's a hoax or not, though I'm not so sure about Crunchyroll. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

DePiep

Despite having an extensive block log, DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at it again.[229] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them for three months. Clear contravention of their restriction. Primefac (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a CBAN from JimboTalk would be of service as well? Just an idea. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Why? Primefac (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)