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

IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray

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

At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.

To get right into this matter, see the examples below.

Examples of IiKkEe's problematic editing, spanning years.

In March to April 2015, IiKkEe's edits to the Hypertension article, a GA article, were such an issue that an editor felt that that "it may need to be delisted now." IiKkEe responded by, for example, saying, "I agree the article was a good article and I acknowledge the major contribution you have made to it. I don't think that I completely reworked the article: I did make 134 specific edits with a justification for each in the Edit history notes, and I believe each were an improvement to an already good article. I could be wrong: please feel free to critique one, some, or all of my edits on the Talk page and voice your specific objections, and we can discuss them there in a spirit of mutual respect with the aim of reaching a consensus." Right there IiKkEe acknowledges making a whopping 134 edits, or however many edits, to the article. The editor who complained replied, "I have made almost no contributions to it - which just goes to show that you took almost no time to understand the standing of the article. I just noticed that you acted with terrible arrogance, and we probably need to delist the article." Indeed, IiKkEe's 2015 edits to the article contain numerous errors or issues, and, to save time, I can only point to a few. After the article was restored to its GA status, IiKkEe still needed to be reverted. For example, here, where the editor changed the text to state "fast heart rate at rest" (which contrasts what resting heart rate and tachycardia state), here where the changes were labeled confusing and it was noted that the definitions were already provided in preceding sentences, here where the editor removed an entire section that needed to be restored, here where the editor added birth control as a cause of hypertension (although birth control can be sourced as an increased risk), and here where the editor called a study a treatment. In April 2015, IiKkEe made this edit to the Cushing's syndrome article, stating, "clarify causes of excess cortisol in MEN I and Carney complex." This had to be reverted, because, as stated on IiKkEe's talk page, it's not two hereditary diseases that cause Cushing's syndrome. "More than two diseases cause pituitary adenomas." It was noted that the editor also "added details that are not supported by the ref in question." In 2017, at the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion article, they had to be reverted on sourcing issues like this one, MEDMOS issues, and so on. In April 2018, at the Animal article, IiKkEe's had to be reverted on one of their edits that removed something as "unneeded." The article had just reached good article status via Chiswick Chap's hard work. And then there were more accuracy issues with IiKkEe's edits to the article in December 2018. In October 2018 at the Blackmail article, where I think I first encountered IiKkEe, I reverted IiKkEe because the editor added unsourced text in place of sourced text, and gave the unsourced and unencyclopedic example of "Buy me that necklace or I'm not going out with you." The editor tried a different version, I reverted again, took the matter to the talk page, and contacted WP:LAW. As noted by an editor on the talk page, issues with IiKkEe's edits included the fact that blackmail is not a statutory offense in every jurisdiction, and that "there is no need to separate the common and legal definition—it is the same definition written in a different way." The lead issues were remedied, but not before IiKkEe made a mess of the lead. In March 2019, IiKkEe made edits to the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article, which included IiKkEe asserting that "feel the need to check things repeatedly" was redundant to what was there. I reverted, stating, "Checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. And we use 'or' for a reason. Maybe discuss on the talk page?" IiKkEe kept at it. Didn't bother discussing on the talk page. I took the matter to the talk page, stating, "IiKkEe, you need to discuss your changes because you are changing the context or meaning of some material. Keep in mind that this is a medical article, which is why WP:MEDRS has high standards. Why not just to stick to what the sources state? When reverting you here, I stated that checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. For example, a person with OCD might feel the need to repeatedly check for an email reply. But this doesn't mean that doing so is a routine for them. After all, that is just one email reply. Once the other person replies, that matter is over. The person with OCD might not communicate via emails enough for repeatedly checking emails to become a routine. You went back to changing the lead. You made it so that the lead states 'the need to perform certain routines repeatedly such as checking on the status of something (rituals),' which led Doc James to remove 'checking on the status of something (rituals).' It's best to just leave the lead as it was and include 'feel the need to check things repeatedly,' just like we do in the infobox." In that same discussion, Doc James stated, "It is important to be actively reading the sources when text is adjusted." Since then, the lead of that article still doesn't have "feel the need to check things repeatedly." This is because I didn't feel like dealing with IiKkEe anymore at that time. And where the text used to state "Common activities include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked.", it now states, "Common compulsions include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked." The lead still needs tweaking since feeling the need to check on things repeatedly and performing certain routines repeatedly are both compulsions, but they aren't necessarily the same thing. In April 2019, at the Concussion article, IiKkEe spoke of "copy edit[ing] for accuracy." But like Doc James stated on IiKkEe's talk page, "What is this 'over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury (TBI)'? Are you reading the sources in question? There is no such thing as a score over 15." And Doc James, who watches a lot of medical articles, if not most of them, has had to revert IiKkEe at various articles, as the next few examples will show. In August 2019, at the Heart failure, Doc James had to revert this ("also known as") because it's not "formerly called congestive heart failure", and he had to restore text to its more accurate or just plain accurate form, after IiKkEe's edits. In September at the same article, he had to revert this unsourced material that IiKkEe added. And here he reverted IiKkEe, because, in his words, the text "did not make sense." In October 2019, at the Osteoarthritis article, Doc James reverted IiKkEe because of unreferenced material and because he was correcting IiKkEe's incorrect material. In October 2019, at the Human papillomavirus infection article, Doc James fixed IiKkEe's edits because "it is a step wise process, goes from precancerous to cancerous." Here he was clear about IiKkEe's edits not being supported by a reference. Here he was clear that "no ref [was] provided" and that he was reverting IiKkEe "to better match the source." No reference for this either. This edit shows Doc James reverting one of the stylistic changes where IiKkEe felt the need to explain what a Pap test is. This edit shows Doc James reverting back to a WP:MEDMOS setup (which IiKkEe has been made aware of times before, including on their talk page). Another MEDMOS revert by Doc James here. Also in October 2019, at the Subconjunctival bleeding article, Doc James repeatedly adjusted material, as seen, for example, here and here after IiKkEe's edits, and reverted IiKkEe here (after this change) because "usually it is one blood vessel, not multiple." Even with this October 20, 2019 edit at the HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer article, there's a problem with what seems to have been meant to be a simple copyedit...because IiKkEe removed "lack of any such evidence of a primary tumour" from the "occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes" text as redundant. So right now the text says "The occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes." What occurs? Today, at the Masturbation article, IiKkEe made edits like this, where IiKkEe strays from the source, saying, "delete unneeded and inaccurate 'or other sexual pleasure'. IMO it is only for sexual arousal." So IiKkEe calls "or other sexual pleasure" inaccurate based on his or her opinion? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." The only reason that our Wikipedia article says "or other sexual pleasure" instead of "and sexual pleasure" is because sexual arousal in this context falls under "sexual pleasure." With this edit, IiKkEe replaced "usually to the point of orgasm" with the "with or without inducing an orgasm" wording, stating that the new wording is more accurate. Again, "more accurate" according to whom? To IiKkEe? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure, usually to the point of orgasm (sexual climax)." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." A variety of other sources also stress the orgasm part. People usually don't masturbate without achieving orgasm.

There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.

IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they often overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:

• Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
• Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
• Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
• At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
• IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.

Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.

As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Flyer22 Reborn thanks for raising this. I share your concerns. It is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or simple changes text to what they personally feel is better.
• In this edit[1] they changed correct text to first "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (under 13 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI) and over 15 as moderate or severe TBI)."
• Than in this edit they changed it further[2] "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI), 9-12 as moderate TBI, under 9 as severe TBI)."
• There is NO such thing as a GCS of greater than 15. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

They are one of a certain type of difficult editor, who just tinkers carelessly or beyond their capacity. They have been around since 2014, very rarely engaging on their talk page. This pattern suggests English language competence may be a factor here. A widescreen topic ban may well be the only remedy. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I was mixed up with the Anthony22 issue a month or so ago and I agree that it's a big issue. In this case, it is even worse since he is making a flurry of small but significant changes to articles that alter the meaning (often making them inaccurate). This type of edit is hard for a user who is not a subject matter expert (e.g. someone like Doc James) to patrol since it is not overtly vandalism. It wouldn't be a big deal if this user was responsive on the talk page but he isn't -- like Anthony he just does whatever he wants and leaves it up to others to clean up after him. If this user is willing to be more responsive and to stop making such changes without discussion, I would be OK with letting it go but so far he hasn't been. 73.128.16.15 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the editor continues to edit articles while making no response to the complaint here, I've blocked them for 48 hours. Any admin can lift this block if they become convinced that User:IiKkEe can and will change their editing behavior to answer these concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing this, EdJohnston. I wouldn't state that IiKkEe is as unresponsive as Anthony22 usually is, considering that IiKkEe is significantly more open to responding on his (or her) talk page, but I don't see that IiKkEe's behavior will change at all. Like you noted on IiKkEe's talk page, they continued editing while concerns were being expressed in this thread. And IiKkEe's response indicates that IiKkEe still isn't willing to comment in this thread. IiKkEe stated, "Who are you? Who do I discuss this with? I assume with an objective administrator assigned to look into the accusations, not one of my accusers. I am not familiar with this process." So IiKkEe appears to be stating that this case is in administrators' hands alone. Also, one does not need to be familiar with the process to take the time to respond in an ANI thread about their problematic behavior. Once the 48 hour block expires, IiKkEe will keep on editing the way they have before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• After a discussion at User talk:IiKkEe#ANI, I unblocked IiKkEe so they could respond to the issues raised here. I suggested focusing on a small number of key points. IiKkEe has asked for "a few days" which seems excessive to me, however, there should be a response before further editing occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering that threads on ANI are archived after a certain timeframe, IiKkEe's responses should come before this thread is set to archive. Either that, or it will continue to need a new comment to keep it from archiving or it should be tagged with User:DoNotArchiveUntil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Added DNAU template to keep this alive until discussion takes place. If there is no response from the user within a week, then we should probably move on to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My reply. I may not be able to complete this in one sitting. Please allow me to finish before responding.

Based on the above criticisms, I will take the following actions:

First, I volunteer to stop editing WP for 3 months ie until February 1, 2020.

Second, I propose the following for any of my future edits: 1) I will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited. 2) I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site. 3) I will accept any reversions of my edits and discuss them on the Talk page if I have questions. 4) I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article. 5) I will add a reference to any edit which changes the meaning of that already referenced sentence.

Third, I will respond to the speculation that I am not fluent in English, and that I am not qualified to edit the articles I have chosen to edit. I was born and have always lived in the United States; I am fluent in English. I graduated from Rice University with a BS in Biology. Undergraduate courses included physics, general chemistry, quantitative chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, geology, anthropology, comparative anatomy, physiology, histology, and electrical engineering. I am a physician, a graduate of an American medical school, Board certified in Internal Medicine, and an Assistant Professor at an American Health Science Center. I lecture to second year medical students in my area of expertise. I have reviewed articles submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for accuracy and format. I have participated in clinical research published in peer reviewed medical journals. I have published a single-authored textbook of Internal Medicine purchased and used by thousands of medical students.

Next, I will respond to Flyer22 Reborn's criticism of my editing based on direct interactions with me plus a reading of my Talk page. I believe there are fourteen articles/edits discussed. I suggest that these are not representative of my total work product at WP: I have been editing for 5 1/2 years; my guess is that I have submitted around 17,000 edits to around 500-700 articles, and interacted civilly, amicably, and productively with around 1000 fellow editors. Most have shown appreciation for my edits either at my Talk page, clicking "Thank you", or by giving tacit approval by reading my edits and not reverting or modifying them. I would guess that over 90 per cent of my 17,000 edits still stand as written today. However, I have run up against about a dozen editors over the years who verbalize outright scorn for my edits, reverting them in toto. My reaction to this is to move on to some other article.

Next, I will address the allusion to edit warring. It is correct that twice I have been *accused* of edit warring. But I have never been turned in for or investigated for that allegation. When I asked for details of at which edits exactly I had done this, none were provided. Perhaps on two occasions I was *perceived* as edit warring.

[I have been interrupted by the duties of the day. I will return shortly. Again, please do not respond until I have had a chance to finish. Thanks.] IiKkEe (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that it has been more than two days since IiKkEe said they would "return shortly." WMSR (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel that I should simply go ahead and reply to IiKkEe's comments. It's been days. I've waited for the editor to come back here and add more. So, to begin, IiKkEe stating that they "will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited" only solves my personal frustration of dealing with IiKkEe unless I go to an article after the editor has edited it because I stumbled across it, I was asked for help there, or the article was brought to WP:Med's attention. It doesn't resolve the issues with IiKkEe's edits. IiKkEe would still be editing a lot of articles that Doc James is at, but that I'm not at, and leaving those articles in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray. Placing a notice on the article talk page of any article they plan to edit will simply serve as a heads up. And although IiKkEe says they would be open to scrutiny of their edits and will also notify any major active contributors to that talk page, I worry about the articles that don't have any major active contributors and that, if those articles do have any, those contributors may not be interested in scrutinizing editors' edits; those contributors may also not understand the topic well or well enough to spot IiKkEe's errors. And as for IiKkEe's guess that "over 90 per cent of [their] 17,000 edits still stand as written today," that's a guess and it doesn't mean none of those edits need fixing. If they do need fixing, it just means that no one has noticed and/or gotten around to fixing them. Also, various Wikipedia articles lack traction, which is can also explain IiKkEe's claim that they "have run up against about a dozen editors over the years" who have objected to their edits, if IiKkEe is simply speaking of objection and not specifically "verbaliz[ing] outright scorn for [their] edits." IiKkEe's claim that their "reaction to this is to move on to some other article" is not entirely accurate, since the editor (as displayed by my evidence) is known to try to retain their edits and only moves on after that, but is also likely to return to the article at a later date. But if one or more admins want to give IiKkEe's conditions a try per WP:ROPE, I suppose we can go with that. If that's the case, Doc should be pinged to see what he thinks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete response is unsatisfactory. At their talk I specifically mentioned that an examination of an above claim ("it is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or [simply] changes text to what they personally feel is better") was needed. The response above does not address any of the issues because listing qualifications is not useful. However, this might have to be deferred until activity resumes and any new problems are reported. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) and Johnuniq (talk). Thank you for responding to what I have written thus far, that is very helpful to me. I will make the following observations before continuing with my original response, if that is even necessary: 1)Regarding the dozen or so editors I alluded to who have reverted all of my edits with a single click, my statement was that when I have encountered this situation, I accepted their reversion; and I, not they, moved on to other articles. It was clear to me they were not interested in my input, so I did not challenge the reversions even though I believed my edits improved the Article in question. 2) Johnuniq (talk), I addressed my qualifications because of the suggestion that perhaps I am not qualified to edit the articles I have chosen to edit. I agree that qualifications are off-topic here. 3) It is true that I thought I understood the Glasgow Coma scale, but I did not, and Doc James corrected my error. I made a mistake. 4) I am not sure if I have ever edited a sentence which was referenced without reading the reference. I certainly agree not to do that in the future. I know the majority of my edits are directed toward the Leads of articles, where as you know there is no requirement for references since it is a summary of the article, and most sentences are not referenced, although references are occasionally included there. 5) Johnuniq (talk), if there are any other issues that you feel my response has not covered, please point them out. 6) Johnuniq (talk), I love the suggestion that "this might have to be deferred until activity resumes and any new problems are reported." I suggest we go with that. Thank you and Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that you chose to respond so soon after my and Johnuniq's comments. I stand by what I stated regarding your initial above comment. And as for leads, citations in the lead are sometimes necessary per WP:CITELEAD. And as for you saying you "will add a reference to any edit which changes the meaning of that already referenced sentence," a reference supporting something doesn't mean that the reference is WP:Due or even a quality reference. The definition you might be changing might be the common definition and you may be adding a minority definition, as you have done in the past. I don't agree with putting this issue (your problematic editing) aside and waiting for you to continue in the same vein, not without you agreeing to abide by your suggested restrictions. I don't see the point of your "stop editing WP for 3 months ie until February 1, 2020" restriction, though; so I'm discounting that. In my opinion, you have simply stalled and stalled, waiting for this thread to go away so that you can continue editing as usual. You continuing to edit will result in problems, as outlined above. You have been doing this for years. The problems have not magically gone away because of this thread and because you haven't been editing lately. Again, the only way that I will agree to let you continue editing is if you adhere to your proposed restrictions and WP:ROPE is kept in mind. Pinging Crossroads, Doc James, Johnbod, EdJohnston, HandThatFeeds, and WMSR for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I find it disheartening that IiKkEe love[s] the suggestion of deferring this issue. And indeed, if the user is legitimately a board-certified physician, it is highly problematic that he felt confident enough to make a substantive edit to Glasgow Coma Scale and was wrong. Something is not checking out. WMSR (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

IiKkEe's proposed editing restrictions and WP:ROPE

As seen above, IiKkEe has proposed the following editing restrictions:

1) I will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited.

2) I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site.

3) I will accept any reversions of my edits and discuss them on the Talk page if I have questions.

4) I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article.

Above, I stated, "if one or more admins want to give IiKkEe's conditions a try per WP:ROPE, I suppose we can go with that." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support: To repeat, IiKkEe stating that they "will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited" only solves my personal frustration of dealing with IiKkEe unless I go to an article after the editor has edited it because I stumbled across it, I was asked for help there, or the article was brought to WP:Med's attention. It doesn't resolve the issues with IiKkEe's edits. But if others can agree to all of IiKkEe's proposed ristrictions on the basis of WP:ROPE, I can as well. I left out their number five proposal because, to reiterate, IiKkEe saying they "will add a reference to any edit which changes the meaning of that already referenced sentence" doesn't mean that the reference is WP:Due or even a quality reference. The definition IiKkEe might be changing might be the common definition and IiKkEe may be adding a minority definition, as IiKkEe has done in the past. I'm also not sure about proposal 4. It's clearly meant to address IiKkEe's tendency to make a lot of edits to an article and those edits likely needing scrutinizing, but it seems like limiting an editor to just ten edits per day is something that should be temporary, or that the restriction should be changed to "ten edits per article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'll Support per Flyer22 and WP:ROPE, though I have a feeling we'll be right back here in a month. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Flyer22 and WP:ROPE; it is a good faith proposal by IiKkEe, but I hope they realize that there is an underlying material problem regarding their editing style that could see them back at ANI if not addressed. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you to the five of you who support allowing me to return to editing with the restrictions I am imposing on myself. To clarify, my original proposed restriction is for 10 edits per article per day, not 10 edits per day. And my reason for volunteering to stop editing until Feb 1, 2020, was not to dodge the issue. It was because I was unaware of how long it might take to answer all subsequent questions so that hopefully I might resume editing. Third clarification: I stated that I loved the suggestion that I be allowed to resume editing with my proposed restrictions, not that I loved deferring the process. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request now at two+ weeks, editor apologized, seems simple enough?

• Tatzref (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:El_C#Your_block_of_Tatzref

More than 14 (full 2 weeks ago) ago Tatzref (talk · contribs) received an indef block from User:El C following a report here. Tatzref requested an unblock on his talk page (User_talk:Tatzref#ANI) shortly after, but so far it has not been reviewed (besides me only two other non-admins commented in the relevant discussions, as well as El C who declined to take any further action). I think it is quite unfair to leave an editor dangling for that long; either tell him he is not welcome here for the rest of his life or unblock him. As far as I can tell, Tatzref was accusing of violating WP:OUTING, but while I cannot access the revdel versions, he states that he only suggested that another editor name should have been revealed in a newspaper article (which already named three other Wikipedians, all of them however disclosed their identity publicly). He did not post any name or other private information on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and he did not even speculate about what it may be, he just said that it should be disclosed. El C noted in his reply that Tatzref posted some urls that "seemed highly suspicious at the time and [were] factored into the block" but "on closer examinations [are] actually fine". I do not believe that Tatzref did anything that warrants more than a warning; suggesting that someone's identity should be revealed is in bad taste but it is not OUTING (we don't penalize thoughtcrime, right?). Further mitigating circumstances to consider are the fact that the editor Taztref was referring to has been himself indef blocked by ArbCom for off wiki harassment, of which Tatzref might have been a victim off (I am not sure about that) and regardless of any connection here that Tatzref himself was recently subject to pretty nasty off wiki harassment which he documents on his talk page. So if he lost his nerves a bit, it is somewhat understandable. In either case, in his unblock request Taztref apologized and promised to be careful in the future: "If I did contravene the Wikipedia policy in any way it was unintentional, as the policy does not address this situation, and I apologize for having done so. Had I received a warning, which I believe would have been the appropriate course of action, I would have taken heed. If I am unblocked, I undertake not to discuss the matter further.". Given that per WP:INDEF "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy... As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to stop problematic conduct in future." think that Tatzref should be unblocked, since he clearly promised to be careful in areas related to OUTING in the future. At least, assuming there is any shred of truth behind it when we say that blocks and such are preventative, not punitive. Seriously, if he did out someone, saying sorry may not cut it, but saying that someone should be outed and apologizing for it later is hardly an indication of hardcore vandal deserving an instant ban... Thoughts? Endorse indef, shorten, unblock, issue any further warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, did you ask El C? Guy (help!) 09:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:El_C#Your_block_of_Tatzref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Added to the head of this request. Guy (help!) 10:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to endorse the block, but unblock on the basis of "time served" given that the events were highly charged and the issue is now largely moot. Guy (help!) 10:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Uninvolved editors should not be posting requests to review unblocks here. There are many blocked editors who have been waiting in the queue for a while. Asking admins to handle some random person's request is not fair to the other editors. Someone will eventually get around to the unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Letting potentially unjustly blocked editors languish indefinitely isn't fair either. Tatzref has been blocked for two weeks, and you're saying there's people who've had their unblock requests left sitting for even longer than that. I think that's not a satisfactory situation, so maybe periodic reminders that the unblock request backlog is kinda long would be a good thing. Reyk _YO! 11:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    I had a quick look and Tatzref's unblock request does seem to be at the long end although I was hampered by below. Most others with longer requests either seemed to be the sort of insane requests where the editor had made many unblock requests and I guess no one could be bothered working out if they should kill talk page access do they just let it languish. Quite a few of the long ones also looked like they were socking cases so may require CU comment, or at least may require significant work (if the editor denied socking). Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    Someone changed my subthread into a thread. I don't really mind since it's 50/50 whether it should be a subthread (it arises out of this, but it's only very minorly related), but to be clear when I said below I mean #Username change and unblock request. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  NinjaRobotPirate, meh, no biggie I reckon. This is not a third party unblock request, after all, and people are allowed to have mates on Wiki. Guy (help!) 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, a thought stays in someone's head. A call to out an editor's real-life identity is not a "thought" —it is an outing effort— so the notion of a thought crime somehow having been enforced in this case seems rather spurious. As for the unblock request, as stated, I'd rather someone else attends to it as they see fit. El_C 16:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• El_C A public suggestion to act against a policy is not a policy violation, and is justifiable by WP:IAR. In response, we can tell people that violating policy is a bad idea. But blocking them for a suggestion is not far from thoughtcrime. If I were to say 'I think we should vandalize an article if we feel stressed', that would be a pretty stupid idea, but would you block me for saying this in a discussion? OUTING clearly states "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia ... attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block." It does not state that suggesting such an action should be taken is a policy violation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• That is a stretch. Policies are not created equal and this isn't a philosophical debate — on the contrary, it involves the lives of real people. At any case, vandalism is something that can be quickly corrected, but being outed could have permanent lasting effects. And they were not arguing to change the policy on outing, in general. Rather, they identified a particular individual as a target for outing. Painting that attempt as some harmless, fleeting thought is a distortion. El_C 17:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is an issue worth raising at WT:OUTING. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you would split the discussion. El_C 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Because WP:FORUMSHOPPING. He raised it twice here, once on Tatzref's TP and once on yours. I won't be surprised if we next see it on the Signpost: "Honest editor suggests Jewish conspiracy and paid editing, blocked by stray admin. Appeal to ArbCom ongoing." François Robere (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not split. Here we are discussing specific incident, there we can discus if it is generalization in terms of policy modifications (should suggestion of outing be acted on just like outing itself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I also encourage the reviewing admin (and all other admins, as well) to read closely the redacted edits here and here, especially in regards to Tatzref's claim of an "Israeli/Jewish POV network." El_C 16:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since I receive a copy of the redacted edits, I've reviewed this, and what I see is a statement that "there is a far stronger case for the existence of an Israeli/Jewish POV network than a Polish one" [in reference to the newspaper article covered in recen Signpost issue which makes a claim that a Polish one exists]. Shrug. His view is debatable, WP:NOTAFORUM might be invoked and discussion closed if it is irrelevant for encyclopedia building, but how does it relate to indef block I have not a faintest clue. PS. Come to think of it, since no public information was revealed, I am not sure if said redacted edits should have been or should stay redacted at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I operate under the notion that we have a low tolerance toward depictions which resemble Jewish conspiracies. What is even a "POV network" (how is that even established?) and why single out an "Israeli/Jewish" one vis-a-vis a Polish one? Obviously, there are two sides to Antisemitism in Poland debate, but a POV network? Really? Anyway, any admin is free to un-revdelete those revisions at any time, I have no objection. But as already mentioned, I'd rather not involve myself further in this unless directly queried. El_C 17:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Before being unblocked, shouldn't an editor's unblock request comply with WP:GAB? Most of Tatzref's unblock request continues the battleground behavior by blaming the editor who was outed, claiming it wasn't outing, saying the policy isn't clear, etc. – Levivich 19:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "blaming the editor who was outed". No editor Tazref mentions was outed. Tatzref mentions Icewhiz, who was blocked for off wiki harassment. Not sure which part of his request is 'blaming him'? And what battleground mentality? It's pretty clear that Tazref apologized and promises not to act in such a way again. That's battleground mentality for you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Few things to note:

1. Tatzref was warned against making such comments at least twice before,[3][4] but didn't seem to mind.[5][6]
2. He has repeatedly cast aspersions on his fellow editors, even when those were clearly false (see here for three such occasions). He had repeatedly claimed, without proof, that some editors are being paid for their work.
3. He has repeatedly invoked antisemitic sources, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz,[7] "Mark Paul"[8] and Gilad Atzmon[9] (his first and last edits, respectively). In one case, in order to circumvent a ban on a source, he copied the source's references and tried to retrace its work.[10] He has repeatedly distorted sources, in one case

Tatzref is not WP:here to build an encyclopedia. Don't let him back in. François Robere (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that you, in tandem with the now-indef banned Icewhiz, had criticized Tatzref time and again, including presenting extensive "evidence" about his purported bad edits and attitude, and workshop related proposals, during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. ArbCom chose to disregard all of your claims and made no finding concerning Tatzref, choosing instead to topic ban Icewhiz. One could assume that if Tatzref was indeed here not to build an encyclopedia, ArbCom would at the very least issue a remedy concerning him. Of particular relevance in said ArbCom, in addition to findings related to bad faith and battleground mentality, is the BLP violation one, where ArbCom noted that is inadvisable, to say the least, to make "negative claims or speculations about living scholars". Such as accusing them of antisemitism (see diffs linked in the finding). I'd suggest you take heed of what ArbCom wrote, assume good faith about others, and stop making inappropriate claims about BLPs. Tazref is here to build an encyclopedia just as you are. That his POV may differ is irrelevant. People who disagree with you are to be reasoned with, not banned. Wikipedia thrives on the multitude of voices, not on creating walled gardens by banning everyone who may have a different view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Actually it's at least four editors who have independently raised issues regarding Tatzref's editing (see here and here as well).
2. You already made the point on ArbCom, and I already replied: ArbCom ignored all evidence that wasn't directly about the parties - multiple editors', yourself included. They haven't rejected any particular claim about Tatzref or anyone else. You participated in the discussion on Jimbo's TP where their considerations were explained.[11]
3. I assume you refer to Chodakiewicz, as "Mark Paul" is a pseudonym and Atzmon isn't a scholar. Jan T. Gross said that that Ch. is antisemitic, Piotr Wróbel said he "doesn't like the Jews", Joanna Michlic suggested he's prejudicial towards Jews and minorities, Laurence Weinbaum implied that he comes close to justifying anti-Jewish violence, and Andrzej Żbikowski wrote that he does indeed justify, and that he "lacks empathy" towards Jewish victims.
4. And then there's Ewa Kurek, and the dozens of references to the Polish-Canadian Congress Toronto Branch's website - a non-RS that's unfortunately headed by a man who thinks Jews are trying to take over Poland economically.[12] I think that's enough. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignored means pretty much not found worth of acting. ArbCom was within its rights to add more parties or issue findings about anyone they felt like it. They chose to issue none regarding him, you or me. Do you suggest that they didn't read the other evidence or felt lazy? I'd rather think that ArbCom is at least somewhat competent and that they they considered it and felt it is not sufficient to warrant any action. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When it came down to it, removing those two from the area, along with iBanning from each other seemed to be sufficient on an individual basis. The area already had access to DS and with the additional sourcing requirement, I believe the area could move forward. (WTT, 2019-10-04) In other words, they viewed it as an efficiency measure. François Robere (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• The block was good (I agree that we should err on the side of caution for anything related to outing), but I'd be inclined to conditionally unblock if the user accepts a ban from discussing Icewhiz and the Haaretz article going forward, and provides an assurance to refrain from personal commentary in general. This would seem to satisfy the issues raised by the block. This is a block for a specific offense (and a debatable one at that), and I don't think it's legitimate to retroactively revise it as a NOTHERE block. @François Robere: If you want to topic or site ban the user for general misconduct, I would say compose a sanction proposal. Do it here or at AN, with a separate heading, and I will hold off moving forward with the unblock. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'll have no objections to unblocking if he's limited from editing Poland- and Judaism-related articles. This would probably be the end result anyway, as there are now sourcing restrictions in place.[13] What would you like to see? François Robere (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tatzref started as a SPA for a fringe author "Mark Paul" (pseudonym); did not answer my questions about whether there’s a COI for Canadian Polish Congress (KPK Toronto) where Mark Paul is published exclusively [14]; and then progressed to claiming that the Jews in the first two years of WWII—in 1939 to 1941 while under Soviet occupation—were "de facto" Nazi collaborators (!) [15] bottom of diff. They now wonder out loud, in the unblock request, if there’s a likely “Jewish POV network” on Wikipedia [16].

The areas in question are under discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe & Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland), so any admin can impose a topic ban. Tatzref is aware of DS as they participated in the Antisemitism in Poland case this past summer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Adding to what was already said on Tatzref's choice and misrepresentation of sources, I've looked at the three article which he edited most frequently: History of the Jews in Poland, Jedwabne pogrom and Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946. I've only examined major edits, which would miss a lot of "see also" links he added to "Mark Paul", Chodakiewicz and the Canadian-Polish Congress (KPK); and I avoided identical edits, so straight-up cases of "edit warring" won't show here. François Robere (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • History of the Jews in Poland:
    • Exaggerating Jews' role in the European slave trade [17][18][19][20][21][22] (see discussions here and here).
    • Portraying of Jews as looters, rioters and pimps [23] (see discussions on Talk:Alfonse Pogrom).
    • Misrepresenting sources on property restitution [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] (see discussion from here onwards. My comments are highlighted, and more source quotes are given further down [32][33]).
  • Jedwabne pogrom:
    • Promoting lenient positions towards perpetrators of a violent pogrom, based on the right wing daily Nasz Dziennik, the nationalist and anti-Jewish Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and misrepresentation of other sources [34][35][36] (see talk).
    • Turning "Jews" to "Soviet collaborators" [37][38].
    • Removing material dissociating Jews from the Communist party [39].
    • Removing material on Jewish fighters in allied armies [40].
    • Promoting "Mark Paul" - a pseudonymic, antisemitic writer [41].
  • Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946:
    • WP:COPYVIO of "Mark Paul" [42] (see here).
    • Retaliatory COPYVIO claim [43] and "template sabotage" [44].
    • Misrepresenting sources on property restitution (same as above) and WP:POINT on COPYVIO [45][46][47][48].
    • Lowering the number of Jewish victims by removing material by Tadeusz Piotrowski, inserting estimate by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and cherry-picking from Haaretz (original text mentions "antisemitism, hatred and property issues" as well) [49][50][51].
    • Removing of well-sourced material on the danger to Jews in post-war Poland [52].

Lazy-restless

• 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,[53] 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.[54] 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)

Portals

Prior initial thread

At some point soon we need administration to step up and get a handle on your colleagues.Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.--Moxy 🍁 07:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Despite all of the one-sided personal attacks, WP:HOUNDING, badgering and bad faith that has been occurring against me in the discussion, I have remained calm and civil throughout. There's not much I can do about what another user chooses to type. Not sure why the above is phrased in plural form using the word "colleagues", as I have not engaged in any personal attacks, hounding, badgering or name-calling whatsoever that require "getting a handle on". Hopefully the user who has solely been engaging in these activities against me will calm down. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay for someone to call someone else a liar and an idiot? That seems like a PA to me. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a PA and definitely not ok @anon. Someone needs to muzzle BHG since she's clearly not going to abide by WP:NPA. AryaTargaryen (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Muzzle is not the right word. But I agree, something should be done. The question is will anyone have the gumption to do it. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It will end when both admins are topic banned from portals. This is absurd. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I urge anyone interested to actually read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.

The problem there is that User:Northamerica1000 is engaged in a sustained exercise of gaming the system, which includes:

• systematic and repeated misrepresentation of other editors
• repeatedly citing as guidance a page which they themselves asked not be a guideline
• using sneaky and stealthy editing techniques to hide severe POV-pushing
• refusing offers to collaborate on RFCs to resolve susbstantive issues
• repeatedly posting demonstrable falsehoods across multiple discussions (the most of extreme of which led me finally decided to call a spade a spade, and explicitly call them "either a liar or an idiot")

That MFD is yet another venue for a sustained baiting exercise by NA1K, who has deployed similar techniques many times before. The pattern is that NA1K engages in a sustained pattern of verbosely posting faleshoods, deceptions and failures of reasoning; and then howls "personal attack! hounding!" when called out on their lies and idiocy.

I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both.

I have never before seen on Wikipedia any admin attempt to game system as brazenly as NA1K has here:

1. call for a Wikipedia guideline to be delisted, and downgraded to a failed proposal
2. then cite that same failed proposal in defence of POV-pushing, ... and when challenged on that duplicity, dig deeper trying pompous word-play to create a synonym for "guideline": schema for advisement

This is not social media. We are here to build an encyclopedia. That is an intellectual process which requires both honesty and integrity, and the ability to engage in rational discussion. NA1K's conduct repeatedly reveals some sort of severe deficiency of that combination, and it reached its peak at the Transport MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please justify the above personal attacks of calling them an idiot and a liar. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As seen above we really need a stop to the harassment and attacks. Hard for the rest of us to move forward when we have an admin going out of there way to be disputive and block any conversation about the topic.--Moxy 🍁 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, the admin going out of there way to be disputive and block any conversation about the topic is NA1K.

NA1K has repeatedly refused my requests to collaborate on RFCs to resolve the issues. That's the only blocking of any conversation.

The disruption is NA1K's attempts to game the system, which includes: their sneaky list additions, their stealthy conversions of portals to a "black box" format, their persistent failure to consult or even notify WikiProjects, their creation of massively POV lists, ... and most brazenly, their attempt to cite as a guideline a page which they themself had demanded by de-listed as a guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The above response makes it clear to me BHG has no intention of stopping the personal attacks, so long as they believe that they are justified in their position. WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned Brown is not aware of what others are seeing for the past few months. There have been numerous RFC attempts to help to define portals and there content by third parties all ending because of Brown's involvement. In many cases out right attacks on the proposers based on Brown's POV of a perceived bias of the questions being discussed.--Moxy 🍁 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, like that RFC where Moxy made a thoroughly bad faith proposal to delete all portals, knowing that such a crude binary would be rejected, all just so they could claim misrepresent it as the community deciding not to delete portals?

Of course I denounced Moxy for that attempt to game the system. It was a shabby stunt, which rightly failed. WP:RFC says that RFCs should be framed around a neutral question, preferably agreed by both sides ... and the portal crew has doe far too much of these pointy RFCs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't this, this, and this WP:HARASS? It seems that way and it is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't tolerate violations of WP:NPA, nor should anyone. BHG is harassing and personally attacking Northamerica1000, and should be given a short-term block for that. And given their behavior in this incident and others, I think a topic ban is in order. ɱ (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to Close

Please close this thread by consolidating it with the one below named "Portals". Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done – Levivich 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic/interaction ban proposal

I propose the following, which in my view recognises both the scale and disruption of the problem and the sincerity of those involved:

1. BrownHairedGirl topic banned from portals for six months for battleground behaviour and incivility.
2. Northamerica1000 topic banned from portals for six months for battleground behaviour and gaming the system.
3. BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 interaction banned for one year.
4. A central RfC to decide the objective criteria for closure of moribund or dormant portals and setting clear expectations for the level of activity required to keep a portal alive, allowing for removal of cruft with less drama and forestalling third-party gaming.
   1. Addendum: Also a process for gaining consensus before creating a new portal, as uncontrolled creation seems to have been a large part of the root cause.
5. A moratorium on portal deletions pending the central RfC.

I think we've all had enough by now. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic ban would also cover the RfC. Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemme try to get this clear, Guy. Are you proposing a topic ban on me because I have been "uncivil" to an admin who has been, as you acknowledge, gaming the system, and who has repeatedly refused my requests to collaborate on opening RFCs to resolve the issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I am applying the standard admin technique of dragging the warring parties apart and trying to impose some order. Please don't go WP:NOTTHEM on us, that is never a good look. Guy (help!) 13:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy, it is never a good look to create a false equivalence between an editor who is sytematically gaming the system, and the editor who challenges the misconduct. That approach stacks the field in favour of the gamer.

Note that in this case, as in previous encounters with NA!K, I gave them ample opportunity to stop their gaming. I have also proposed RFCs to resolve the substantive issues, which NA1K has repeatedly refused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about false equivalence. But your behaviour has been horrible from the tiny amount I've seen when it's made it to ANI. I mean saying Northamerica1000 has "low intelligence" is just one example of how terrible your behaviour has been. Nothing that Northamerica1000 has done can justify your behaviour. Nor can anything you, or anyone else has done, justify their behaviour of course but you can't defend your terrible behaviour just by saying the other side has been worse. If you don't want people to support a topic ban of you for your terrible behaviour, don't behave so poorly. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, there is a real, substantive problem here: NA1K's sustained Dunning–Kruger effect conduct. If we are actually here to build an encyclopedia, we need to find ways of dealing with that, and stopping the damage which it causes, rather than just expressing outrage at possibly excessive directness in noting it as they try to deal with the problems which it causes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if your incivility towards NA1k is acceptable, which it isn't, you've been extremely uncivil to many other editors, including myself. I couldn't possibly care if people agree with you on what to do with portals. Hell, I probably agree with you on most of it. This is about your behavior, which is entirely unacceptable and demonstrates a strong lack of compliance with community civility and conduct standards, both for editors and administrators, and your failure to recognize that you are at fault worries me. This is not to say that NA1k is faultless; there are also issues with his conduct, hence why I support all proposals by JzG, but you need to recognize that incivility is not a proper response to perceived "gaming the system", especially as your immaturity and improper commentary causes constructive and good-faith editors unnecessary distress while attempting to contribute to the encyclopedia. Your constant harsh hostility towards editors who disagree with you is not a trait of someone I trust as an administrator, and as there is no community desysop procedure on this project (even if there were, there likely isn't consensus to reshelf your mop) I believe a topic ban is the next best thing. Regards, Vermont (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any proposal that wants a moratorium on portal deletions should also be have a moratorium on portal creations. I'll look over this never-ending portal nightmare in terms of ongoing editor behaviour later Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I think we can only ask for status quo ante but I agree we should look at the issue of whether there should be a bar to creations. Guy (help!) 13:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• If this proposal isn't enacted (and I'm not sure it goes far enough in terms of either number of editors or response to their behaviour, but it's a start) the whole mess needs taking to arbcom. I allowed myself to get bullied out of most portal discussions months ago and absolutely nothing about the behaviour of the usual suspects seems to have improved since. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want an extreme example of bad behaviour, one of the best examples was Thryduulf's sustained efforts to demand one-by-scrutiny of the 4,200 spam portals created by TTH and his acolytes. That was a blatant attempt to rig the system in favour of spam, by demanding that the commmunity put in far more time deleting the spam than TTH put into creating it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, Question What constitutes a "spam" portal exactly? Portals are meant to be navigation aids, as I understand it. Thus, even niche fiction portals have their place, regardless of them seemingly being fan cruft. Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    • @Dmehus: by "spam" portal" I mean: the navbox-cloned automated portals created en masse by TTH + acolytes, which added no value over the navboxes from which they were derived.

TTH created them at sustained speeds of up to one per minute, some of them just for the heck of it, and lamented their inability to produce them faster. Most of this portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), with overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout. The rest were deleted in a series of follow-up nominations,and the template used to ceate them was deleted at TFD Oct 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)\

BrownHairedGirl, Ah, okay, I don't necessarily agree that navbox contents can't make a portal, but we need to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, I think. Some obvious navboxes related to companies should be just that: template navboxes. Others, it is less clear.--Doug Mehus T·C 19:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment For those who've not being following this (such as myself), please could you link to the relevant previous discussions for context/clarity? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Lugnuts: It's your funeral... (oldest to newest): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands of Portals, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal_Issues, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl, & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 13 would be where to start. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - thank you. And you can't spell funeral without fun. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support #1 let's see what the community can acomplish when we are free to have productive talks. Let's see if we can stop the loss of cotent editors for a few months see if it improves moving forward on a scope of an RFC on portals.--Moxy 🍁 15:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support all (including the single addendum) Maybe other editors need to be sanctioned as well, but I just had to look at this thread and the one above to be reminded that it's reasonable to sanction those 2 editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  After further thought I feel I should make clear I would oppose either one of 1 and 2 passing without the other. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I'm not convinced this is fair (I think the problem is that there is bullying on the playground, and this proposal solves this by sending the bully and one of their victims away from the playground), but it would work for the moment, and is better than the inaction we had in the last couple of rounds of discussing these editors. I'd suggest to start the ArbCom case once the next ArbCom is up and running. —Kusma (t·c) 15:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 - I have noticed in particular the battleground behavior by BrownHairedGirl which include edits like: [55] Moxy, as usual you are wrong on nearly every point., [56] As KK87 knows, [57] you and other portal fans have made that argument before. It is focused more on the editor implying that they should know by now that .... whatever, I am frankly shocked by the conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support of all: As Kusma says, I can't help but feel that this is better than no action, but it's not ideal, either. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: it's time to put this matter to bed, and, absent ArbCom action, let's see what the community can do. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose: There are many, many, many other people involved in the "portal wars", and silencing just two prominent users? This will only further escalate the conflict. ToThAc (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have supported having an RfC, but Guy's proposal regarding the individual editors is a bit involved. I think that aspect is primed to go to WP:ARBCOM. bd2412 T 15:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support this (or any) effort to lay down some specific rules governing how and when these processes should be carried out. Right now it is more or less the wild west in terms of portals, with arbitrary and ad hoc reasoning going into arguments both for and against them. I think part of the problem is that MfD is a little-attended forum relative to other XfD namespaces, so perhaps portal deletion discussions should be moved to AfD. I was involved in the creation of MfD, and it was originally intended for things in project space and user space, not for reader-facing content. All that said, there are unquestionably some very poorly conceived portals that should be deleted, but perhaps that task should be temporarily put in the hands of a different slice of the community. bd2412 T 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I wouldn't be opposed to that, either. ToThAc (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support the idea of taking this to ARBCOM: I've been watching this unfold since around the end of August and it has devolved to a point where I'm almost certain that writing each act of incivility on the same Word document would end up with a several thousand word essay. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 15:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support the idea of taking this to ARBCOM ...lets get other admins involved in a wider tlak. Because the integrity of admiship is being questioned at this point. --Moxy 🍁 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking this to arbcom. Its clear that the community has repeatedly failed to resolve this matter. I don't know whether it can wait until January (as suggested somewhere) though, I'd prefer to take it there before it degenerates further. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support JzG's proposal to take this to ArbCom. Question: So, basically, can ArbCom be used to take any proposal that repeatedly fails to gain consensus? I thought they only dealt with editor discipline. I think Wikipedia needs some adult supervision, so this is encouraging. I'd even support giving bureaucrats and ArbCom Clerks expanded powers of veto to override consensus where it's clear so-called "school war" voting blocks are stymieing otherwise sound, rationale, policy- and circumstance-based arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• They'll only look at the user-conduct side; they have the authority to decide that one or more of the parties is acting unreasonably and have the authority to topic-ban them, but they have no authority to determine content so can't rule on whether portals are a good thing or how the creation and deletion processes should work. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve is the official definition of their scope if you want chapter-and-verse. ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Iridescent, Ah, that's too bad. I wonder if there would be community consensus for expanded powers for ArbCom—to determine consensus on its own in a very limited set of contingent circumstances? Doug Mehus T·C 17:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think there would, rightly, be strong oppposition to ArbCom's remit being extended to make content decisions. (As an aside, ArbCom can't "determine consensus on its own" by definition, because a unilateral decision by ArbCom would not be consensus). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, So I'm confused then, why is JzG proposing an RfC agenda to take to ArbCom to have approved? If not what he's proposing, what is he proposing? Certainly he's not proposing to take Northamerica1000 to ArbCom for sanction is he, particularly in light of the compelling diffs Northamerica1000 posted showing admin BrownHairedGirl apparently engaging in both bad faith and personal attacks against NA1K? I have to say, this ANI troubles me greatly...I always held administrators in such high regard, as all-knowing, impartial, and above-the-fray, but these events seem to demonstrate to me that they, at times, engage in the same sort of shenanigans of editors brought to ANI. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are two separate things being proposed here, an RfC for community discussion and consensus, and a referral to ArbCom to examine the bahaviour of the combatants. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dmehus, I'm not. People have replied in the wrong section and messed it all up... Guy (help!) 17:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sub-colloquy re timeline and comments by Northamerica1000

Comment from Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) – I want to be crystal clear here, so I encourage all to please consider the timeline below and check the links. At the MfD discussion for the Transport portal, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has accused me of gaming the system, stating in part, "NA1K is wholly unrepentant about continuing to relay for guidance on a former guideline WP:POG which was delisted with their support; and now seeks discussions to "update" a page whose status is solely a "failed proposal". This is one of the worst case I have seen of trying to gaming the system". Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but my intention in stating that discussion could occur at the POG talk page was that potential future portal criteria could be discussed there. Another option that I didn't mention would be to discuss potential portal criteria matters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. In the thread above on this noticeboard titled "When will it end", Moxy posted a link to the Transport portal MfD discussion. The proposal here written by JzG regarding potential sanctions against me appears to be based upon BHG's proclamation at the Transport portal MfD discussion, or at last it did before others chimed in after JzG posted it, while I was typing this out in the meantime. First and foremost, at the MfD discussion, I have not engaged in any personal attacks, hounding, badgering or name-calling whatsoever. Rather, I have remained calm and civil throughout the discussion. I have also not engaged in any gaming. Meantime, on this very ANI page, BHG has continued their personal attacks against me, stating in the "When will it end" section, "I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both." (diff). This is a reprehensible personal attack, right on this ANI page. BHG has repeatedly engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors that they so vehemently oppose at the Transport portal MfD discussion, over a significant period of time. Ironically, BHG themself has set a precedent for referral to the former Portal/Guidelines (WP:POG) page, now a failed proposal page, at various MfD discussions. I certainly have not engaged in any gaming; the user and other users have routinely refer to POG in MfD discussions, after it was downgraded from the status of being a guideline page. Very importantly, note that the commentary listed below occurred after POG was downgraded. BHG's comments denoted below all occurred in October-November 2019. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Karachi – BHG stated: "The portal was never properly built, and it has basically been abandoned since construction was halted. It has only 15 selected articles (and no separate set of biogs), which is less than even the risibly low bare minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG. All those pages were created in 2008, since when they have had only trivial technical changes, such as punctuation and disambiguation." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below This is a classic deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline. NA!K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bremen – BHG stated: "The set of only 9 articles is less than half the risibly low minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG. It includes no recognised content (i.e. FA-class or GA-class), and there is little scope for doing so because few such articles exist." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline. NA!K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paralympic Games – BHG stated: "So after 9 years, this portal has only 8 articles, which is a trivially small set, less than half of the risibly small minimum of 20 which set by the former guideline WP:POG. And all of them are abandoned. There is no sign of nay maintainer, let alone the multiple maintainers needed to avoid the "key man" risk." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline. NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statemnets that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamabad – BHG stated: "WP:POG was right about some things, including that portals need both multiple maintainers and supporting WikiProjects. In this case we have only one inexperienced editor interested in maintenance, and WP:WikiProject Islamabad is inactive. That's a recipe for continued failure." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did not claim that POG is a active guideline, or that in NA1K's pompous words a schema for advisement. I offered my explicitly personal view that in this instance, it was right ... but I did not claim that it represents a current consensus. NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statement on the value of the former guideline and their own attempt to use it as a shield against their POV-pushing ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Washington (state) – BHG stated: "A mere 11 selected articles+bogs is a pathetically small set, barely half the risibly low minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG, and nowhere remotely near big enough to provide a decent sample of the topic." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly". NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1940s – BHG stated: "The portal was created[1] in September 2016‎ with only selected article and one biog. More were added in 2017, bring to the tally to 5 articles plus 5 biogs. That total of ten is only half the risibly low minimum of twenty set in the former guideline WP:POG. The selection is also grossly unbalanced: all 5 topics listed in Portal:1940s/Selected article are military, and 3 of the 5 are predominantly about the United States ." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly". NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Carolina – BHG stated: "Two articles and two biogs is Perfectly good portal?????? Really??? Am I missing some sort of sarcasm or comedy here? Even POG set a minimum of twenty articles, which itself was risibly low." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline: "risibly". NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Carolina – BHG stated: "A mere one selected article makes a Perfectly good portal?????? Really??? Am I missing some sort of sarcasm or comedy here? Even POG set a minimum of twenty articles, which itself was risibly low." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline: "risibly". NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Statistics – BHG stated: "This total of 13 topics is little over half the risibly low bare minimum of 20 recommended by the former guideline WP:POG, which has now been downgraded to an information page." and "Since late 2006, WP:POG had warned editors "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but that warning was not heeded here." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly". NA1K snipped the sceond snetence from my cescription of the history of the portal. I also carefully worded that comment about "maintain a portal you create" to stress that I was referring to the guidance as it applied at that time when the portal was created. The standing guidance when the portal was created had not been followed. It did not in any claim that POG is a current guideline. NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as current guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which it does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Elbe–Weser triangle – BHG stated: "WP:POG has been downgraded to an info page, but its guidance in this respect was excellent: "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This portal lacks both the supply and the maintainers." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully. I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I did not in any way claim that it has any current force. NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statement of my view of the value of some words in the former guideline and their own statements that their actions in after its delisting creating a POV page are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, of note is that Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), who appears to be a wiki-friend of BHG's, has also engaged in the same behaviors in various MfD discussions, using a copy-paste rationale that synthesizes aspects of POG relative to WP:COMMONSENSE, after POG was downgraded from being a guideline page, which is quoted below with diffs. It is alarming and hypocritical that BHG has not criticized this user whatsoever about this, only me. diff, diff, diff, diff, diff and diff – "The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise" — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. @Robert McClenon explicitly stated his personal view that some parts of POG reflect commonsense. Robert is entitled to state his own view, and he clearly takes responsibility for that view. He has not attempted to claim that POG has current force as a schema for advisement, and he has not in way emulated NA1K's disgraceful attempt to claim currency for POG as a device to justify creation of a POV portal. This is an attempt by NA1K to smear me and Robert McClenon by misrepresentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) As I have stated above, BHG and others have engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors that BHG has so vehemently opposed at the Transport portal discussion. The user is not holding themself to the same standards that they impose on others; rather, they are applying double standards based upon their own selective and subjective criteria. North America1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Section break for sub-colloquy Comment – I dislike how BHG has interjected their commentary within the comment I posted above, and ask that they or someone else please move their commentary into its own separate post. The interjection of commentary within my comment has served to dilute my message, turning it into a long wall of text that is less likely to be read and considered as fully by others compared to the original state it was in when I posted it. I prefer my posts to remain as I posted them, rather than being modified in this manner. North America1000 02:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC) NA1K, you posted as wall of text a series of deceitful misrepresentations of me, which you clearly intended to create through sheer volume of misrepresentation a mountain of "evidence" in support of your false claim that I had acted like you. I have posted in each case an individual response, and taken care to retain attribution. If your message of deceit has been diluted, that is solely a consequence of your choice to deceive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC) You should not have interleaved your comments within NA1K's comment in the first place, per WP:TPO (this is explicitly mentioned in the documentation of {{Interrupted}}, the template you used to mark your insertions). To then thumb your nose in response to a polite request from NA1K not to do this is so brazenly disrespectful it boggles the mind to see it coming from an administrator. Colin M (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Colin M – The inappropriate interspersal of commentary within my comment equates to an entitled rationale of, "I don't like your comment, so I am therefore allowed to modify it any way I'd like, because I say so". This is certainly against the advisement of WP:TPO. I don't like this at all; it's obviously totally off base and highly inappropriate. It turned my comment into a long wall of text that is now disjointed, interspersed with loaded adjectives such as "deceitful" and "manipulative", inappropriately changing its meaning. It is also very concerning that the user has ultimately posted comments below their very own verbatim comments in this strange manner, which bizarrely reads almost as though if they are referring to their own comments denoted in the list as deceitful and manipulative. My premise to the discussions list exists above them, not within the list. My text in the discussions list consists solely of a link to a discussion and " – BHG stated:". That's all. This is not deceitful or manipulative whatsoever. It seems that the user is intentionally working to disruptively dilute and obscure my post by bludgeoning it in this manner, intentionally and disrespectfully tampering with it to make it more ambiguous for other users to read, while interspersing negativity within it, changing its meaning. This is a disrespect to me as well as to the readers of this page. The fact that the user has chosen to reject a perfectly reasonable request to format their commentary properly and in accordance with WP:TPO, and the reasons they have provided for not doing so, only further supports the notion that this disruption as I have described is intentional, for the reasons described herein. Furthermore, since this ANI discussion involves the user and myself and elements of them interfering with my edits and actions in a battleground manner, they should especially not be posting within my commentary in this manner at the very ANI discussion about these matters. It seems that the user just cannot resist interfering with my activity on English Wikipedia. Per all of this, it is my request that someone please WP:REFACTOR the user's posts into one post, as per the directives at WP:TPO. North America1000 20:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Reply That long charge-sheet against me by NA1K is simply more evidence that NA1K is either incompetent or mendacious, or both: In each of the instances which NA1K sets out, I noted that POG is a former guideline. I did not seek to uphold it as guide to ongoing conduct; on the contrary, I repeatedly and explicitly described it as risible. By contrast, what NA1K did was to repeatedly justify their actions as being in accordance with POG, ... and did so to justify their creation of a massively POV list. In other words, NA1K used a non-guideline as their shield again breaching a core policy. Why sort of person tries to claim that these are the same thing? Is NA1K too incompetent to distinguish between those two uses? Or are they consciously lying? Whatever reasons applies, NA1K's statement that BHG engaged in the exact same behaviors is completely false. How on earth can we build an enclyopedia when discussions are repeatedly polluted with such counter-factual nonsense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Northamerica1000, My proposal was based on the current dispute, not any one person's version of it. The fact that both of you think I am siding with the other is pretty clear evidence of this. I'm siding with neither, I am just sick of the drama and looking for a way to advance it that doesn't end up in desysopping and bans for people whose work I admire in every other area. Guy (help!) 17:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC) JzG, I support Guy's comment above. Both are otherwise great admins. It seems the crux of the matter is one's view of Portals and the other's, which views them less favourably. I personally think Portals are a great idea, but am confident they're under-utilized because they're so hard to find. We just deleted a Star Trek portal for Pete's sake—despite there being a lot of Star Trek articles.Doug Mehus T·C 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Some questions for JzG – Since you have devised your proposal based upon the MfD discussion for Portal:Transport, relative to the information I posted in my comment above, do you still feel that I have somehow gamed the system, or is your proposal simply based upon BHG having proclaimed it as their opinion at the discussion? I have not engaged in any gaming whatsoever, and as I have stated, others, including BHG themself, have engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors of referring to POG in MfD discussion in various manners after it was demoted from being a guideline page. Nobody else at the discussion has agreed with BHG's viewpoint of gaming, and most are in agreement with my contention that the portal should be retained and improved. Also, I have not engaged in any battleground behavior there whatsoever. After being continuously personally attacked there, I never responded in kind. I have posted no personal attacks and have harassed nobody there. Rather, I have calmly and civilly presented my point of views in a functional, collegial manner. Also, notice how I posted my comments in a manner to separate myself from BHG, because it is clear that they were angry, and it is not my intention to provoke them. Could you please cite any specific commentary there that I have posted that you perceive as battleground behavior, since you are basing your proposal upon the discussion? When a user is constantly personally attacked in a discussion, should they just not respond, or should they defend their honor and reputation, and try to better explain their position using civil, calm commentary as I have done? In my view, people have a right to stand up for themselves in a civil manner. I worry that any sort of response to BHG's anger, regardless of how civil and well-intended, could be misinterpreted as battleground behavior when it is not, particularly when users may skim the discussion, rather than reading it in-depth. Conversely to the barrage of attacks that have been posted against me at the discussion, I have remained on-topic about the portal and its content there, and have not personalized the discussion in a negative manner whatsoever. Please don't take this the wrong way, and I am aware that you are not siding with anybody, but some specific examples from the MfD discussion would be helpful in terms of qualifying your proposed sanctions against me, since it is what the proposal is based upon. North America1000 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC) More lies from NA1K. No, I did not engage in the exact same behaviors. Please do try to stop repeated your habitual lying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Addendum: I have struck part of my commentary above, replacing with "highly similar". North America1000 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)) More reality inversion from NA1K. Mo, it was not highly similar. It was the complete opposite. I repeatedly referred to a former guideline as risible. NA1K cited a failed proposal as a schema for advisement which justified their breach of the core policy of NPOV. I repeat my earlier observation that only an idiot or a liar would try to equate those opposite actions. This little exchange is an excellent example of why NA1K's conduct is so toxic. NA1K repeats and repeats a patently false assertion which smears another editor and then whines at huge length that they are being bullied and badgered by requests that they desist from the absurd smears and reconnect to reality. NA1K continues to turn themselves into poster-child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC) More personal attacks above from BHG, qualified by gross semantic nitpicking of phrases and words that are naturally open to various interpretations. I even struck part of my commentary in hopes to appease the user, so they would hopeully calm down, but to no avail. The user disagrees per their own interpretation, so they then engage in more name calling, proclaiming and labeling another user as a "liar" on a public noticeboard, in bold, of course, to make it stand out more. More of the same unfortunate smear campaign behavior that the user appears unable to resist from performing. The user feels that it is okay to quickly and eagerly engage in ad hominem behavior, rather than responding functionally, such as saying something such as, "I feel that this is inaccurate". All the while, the user does not address the overall gist of the original comment that was posted. I mentioned WP:POG at the Transport portal MfD discussion in the context of article additions that were performed to the portal. I did not refer to it as a guideline page there, I referred to it in terms of the recommendations that exist there (e.g. where I stated in the discussion, "I simply updated the page in accordance with POG's recommendations.") (bold emphasis mine). I urge readers to read my entire post there, so matters are kept in context. Also, the Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines page is still active, with an active RfC occurring there as I post this. As I stated in my post above, other users have continued to utilize the sentiments of POG in MfD discussions, after it was demoted as a guideline page, such as continuing to qualify deletion as per the points in the lead of POG, stating that portals should be about broad topical areas, should attract large numbers of interested readers, and portal maintainers. For example, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1940s, which occurred after POG was demoted, BHG based part of their nomination for deletion by stating, "That total of ten is only half the risibly low minimum of twenty set in the former guideline WP:POG", referring to a deficient number of articles. The user was directly referring to the recommendations of POG in an MfD discussion as a means to assess the portal, utilizing those recommendations to qualify deletion. I utilized the recommendations of POG at the Transport portal MfD discussion in regards to additions that were performed to it, referring to an increased number of articles, also as a means to assess the portal. Both actions involved the utilization of POG's minimum article count recommendation, just for different purposes. These are not opposite actions, they are similar actions that both involve sentiments of POG's minimum article count recommendation. That the user used the word "risibly" in their nomination in reference to POG's article count minimum is of no consequence; the user utilized sentiments of POG's article count as a qualifier for deletion after POG was demoted. While deletion and retention are opposite in nature, utilizing POG's article count recommendation in various manners is not. The article count recommendation has been utilized in both ways, for deletion or retention, but both uses involves the same action, the utilization of the same general concept, just in different contexts. It's like purchasing cooking oil, which can be used for cooking or to fuel some types of motor vehicles. The action of obtaining the cooking oil is the same, but it is used for different purposes. Since BHG and other users are opining for deletion based in part upon the recommendations of POG after its demotion, it is only fair for users to have an option to opine for portal retention based upon said recommendations as well. It's a two-way street, not a one-way street where its recommendations can only be utilized in the context of deletion. While POG is not a guideline page anymore, in my opinion, people will still rely upon it for advisement. Despite its demotion, it's one of the only pages that provides any sort of direct portal criteria for people to consider. What else should be used in place of it? North America1000 00:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC) NA1K's response continues to actively try to distort my words. There is world of a difference difference between: My observations that a portal did not meet even the risbly low criteria of the guideline which applied when it was last developed NA1K's description of the guideline as still a guideline (by using pompous words which amount to a synonym for guideline), and relying on that former guidance after its demotion which they had requested, in order to crate a massively POV portal. This is all a smokescreen by NA1K to distract from the fact that NA1K: sneakily created a massively POV list. cited in justification a former guideline which did not require the actions they took (POG desribed a technique for making a list. It did not advise editors to suspend judgement about core policies such as NPOV, and it did not require or advise NA1K to use only one of the >20 transport-related projects) failed to notify any interested parties of their actions NA1K writes it's one of the only pages that provides any sort of direct portal criteria for people to consider. What else should be used in place of it?. This is absurd, and massively hypocritcal. NA1K specifically advocated delisting the guideline. They could have requested amendmnents to it, but instaed they supported delisting. The resulting state of having no guideline is therefore exactly what NA1K wanted ... so why on earth is NA1K now complaining that there is no guideline? You got what you asked for, NA1K. Also, as NA1K well knows, I have been asking for weeks (since the ANI thread on my reversions) for collaboration to develop RFCs for guidance on these various issues. I have posted that request at least a dozen times, several of which have pinged NA1K (e.g. [58]), and I have several times set out some of the issues which I woyukd I like to reslved by RFC, e.g. [59] NA1K has not supported any of those repeated requests for RFC ... but is instead insisting that they are right to rely on the guideline which they themself got delisted. This is classic gaming the system. If NA1K wants guidelines, then they can propose that POG be reinstated ... or, as I would prefer, they work collaboratively to develop new guidance, initially in the 3 major issues in dispute. Instead, NA1K is tryig to take advantage of the vacuum which they created, by misrepresenting the former guidance as still having currency. A good faith editor would now agree that there are substantive issues which need resolution at RFC. Will you do that, NA1K? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Comment – Above, BHG stated: This is absurd, and massively hypocritcal and so why on earth is NA1K now complaining that there is no guideline?. My post above consists of observations, not complaints. It is unclear why you are asking yet again about why I was for WP:POG being delisted. I have already addressed this matter at Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) earlier, which you then responded to in a later comment that finished with an intro stating the phrase "Na1k=Liar." (diff1, diff2), so you are obviously already aware of the response I provided. It is you who is being dishonest, because you act as though if you are entirely unaware of matters that I have already stated my opinion upon, and to which you have already responded. Did you not remember when you added my user name and the word "liar" in bold? Your personal attack there should be redacted, and you should learn to at least try to be more respectful of others. Your consistent battleground mentality and behavior is incongruent with building an encyclopedia. Other editors would have already been blocked for such long-term, ongoing harassment. I encourage all readers to please read my post on 10 November 2019 (UTC) at the Portal:Schleswig-Holstein MfD discussion page (diff), where I stated (in part): I have not cited the WP:POG page as a guideline. I opposed it being utilized as a formal guideline page per principle, because its lead was decided upon by one user in a unilateral manner and a WP:CONSENSUS never existed for it to be an official guideline page. Your theories about why I opposed it as a guideline page has nothing to do with this MfD discussion, and is also incorrect. For more information, please see this VP discussion which was closed on 26 September 2019 (UTC) and includes the detailed rationale I provided regarding POG relative to its demotion. So what are the real reasons for why you are acting like you're unaware of my opinion about POG and its demotion? Is it so you can repeat your interrogation here in attempts to further smear my reputation? It certainly appears to be that way. Please cease from asking the same questions over and over again on multiple pages when I have already answered them. If you are unable to remember things I have previously stated, you could consider denoting them in some manner. It is wasting my time, time I'd rather spend performing functional activities, rather than responding continuously to your identical interrogations on multiple pages, whereby if I don't respond, you then imply that I haven't addressed the matter, when the response has already been provided elsewhere. Please stop your constant repetitious badgering and WP:HOUNDING, because it is disturbing my enjoyment of Wikipedia, and likely that of others as well. North America1000 17:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Comment – Above, BHG stated, A good faith editor would now agree that there are substantive issues which need resolution at RFC. Will you do that, NA1K?. As worded, the statement implies that I would exist as a "bad faith" editor if I decline to draft an RfC or collaborate with the user in doing so. Of course, this is a poor preface to begin with when suggesting activities for other users to work on, and equates to complying with a request to perform specific work or otherwise face a potential of being declared as a "bad faith" user. Furthermore, the user's ongoing name calling against me and smearing of my name across various Wikipedia pages inhibits me from wanting to work with them. It is patronizing for the user to request that I perform work on an RfC after the behavior they have exhibited against me. It is unrealistic and illogical for the user to expect a user who has repeatedly been called a "liar" by them, in bold, across various discussions, including in this ANI discussion, to then have an interest in working with them. The user has not been behaving in a collegial manner, and then requests collaboration for an RfC, which requires collegial behavior. The user's past behavior creates doubt regarding the feasibility of working with them, as well as in their intentions in requesting collaboration. If BHG were to perform the good-faith act of redacting each and every instance across Wikipedia, including in this ANI discussion, where they have engaged in such name calling with the words "liar", lies", "lying", etc., only then would I begin to consider working with them on an RfC. Even if this were to occur, I naturally reserve the right to choose for myself what I spend my time working on. North America1000 22:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Strong Oppose per Northamerica1000 above. I've never found NA1K to be anything but impartial and objective. I don't know the whole story, but this seems like too soon. Doug Mehus T·C 17:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Dmehus, do you not watch this page? It's been going on for at least six months. Guy (help!) 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC) JzG, No, sorry, I've only recently started following WP:ANI and, to be honest, I don't like that I see here, by admins and editors alike. I think I should unfollow this page. It's almost as bad as the RfA/RfB "ritual hazings" to which S Marshall so aptly and concisely put it.--Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Procedural Note: There's too many edit conflicts...but can someone move this my struck vote above and the next three support votes at the same hierarchical level above NA1K's comment, so his comment is back together again? Doug Mehus T·C 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Support #1 – This has been a one-sided matter, in which BHG has engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against me and other users over months of time, intentionally working to malign my character and reputation and that of others on English Wikipedia. BHG has also attacked me again very recently, both directly here on this ANI page on 10 November 2019 (UTC) (diff – "I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both.") and on 10 November 2019 (UTC) (diff – "'NA1K=Liar".) I urge others to please refer to and read pages from the extensive list of links provided at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311 § Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl (from August 2019), where Vermont took the time to provide many diffs that demonstrate BHG's ongoing pattern of the performance of hounding, bullying, personal attacks, name calling and harassment. This serves to provide additional context demonstrating that BHG's poor conduct has been an ongoing matter. In addition to Vermont's links posted at that discussion, below are more links from that discussion that I posted there, to serve as an addendum, further establishing the pattern that BHG has been exhibiting: User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 047 § Discussions about portals – 12 April 2019: BHG shames me, and then pings me to the discussion afterward. I replied, and also requested at that time that they "please at least consider toning down on the "us versus them" stances (e.g. above: "shamefully... (et al.), "you portal defenders", etc.) and try to understand that Wikipedia consists of many diverse individuals that have many diverse viewpoints." Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 9 § Collaboration – Country and major geographical Portals - 28 April 2019: I posted a good faith request for some portal improvements at the portal Wikiproject, a project "dedicated to developing and maintaining portals and portal tools." BHG then proceeded to take over the thread in a barrage of shaming and blaming against me, to the point of preventing anyone from potentially responding. Now, BHG could have brought their concerns to my talk page, but instead, chose to engage in smearing my reputation. Furthermore, there is no shame in seeking collaboration to improve Wikipedia content, nor should there be. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Request for improvement: Portal:Northern Ireland – 1 August 2019: Another good faith request seeking improvements, which has realized some positive responses, is met with long tirades of anger and shaming toward me and other users by BHG. It appears that any discussion about portals outside of MfD is considered by the user to be gaming the system somehow. Portals can be discussed outside of MfD. Diff – 1 August 2019: A user asks BHG on their talk page to tone down their personal attacks against me. Diff - BHG then replies with more personal attacks against me. Diff - Then, another user also states that BHG should attempt to tone matters down. Diff – 14 August, 2019, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals: Same pattern, another long wall of text that in part attacks and smears me personally on a public noticeboard. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont – my simple !vote is met with long walls of criticizing text. Another user is also unnecessarily berated. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evolutionary biology - BHG attacks again, yet doesn't attack another !voter who uses a very similar rationale, that the topic is broad enough to qualify for a portal. They only attack me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado – BHG attacks me, in part stating that my suggestion is in "bad faith", and also attacks another user in the discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry – BHG attacks again. For example, see their "Reply to the liar Northamerica1000"...(et al.). Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church – More huge walls of personal attacks and battleground behavior against me. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wyoming – Another copy/paste rant of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wisconsin – Another copy/paste personal attack Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Mexico – Another copy/paste personal attack Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) – More of the same. Attacks another user there as well. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy (2nd nomination) – Attacks me and another user, in a discussion I did not even participate in. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Grenada – Attacks anyone who may potentially discuss the portal in a manner contrary to their opinion. See "Expect portalista opposition."...(et al.). I have not contributed to this discussion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia – Intense badgering against myself and others – I have attempted at times to discuss matters with BHG in a functional manner in various discussions, but the user has continued to attack for months, often responding with great walls of badgering, hurtful and angry text, against myself and many other users. Despite all of this, I have remained calm, civil and objective, and have never posted personal attacks. I have also performed absolutely no gaming of the system anywhere. I have done no wrong. North America1000 17:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Reply. There isn't a venue where all those discussions can be examined properly, but I stand what I wrote in those discussions. They all show variants on the same pattern of NA1K engaging in mendacious and/or incompetent conduct, and then whining about being called out on it. The problem is that NA1K is fundamentally well-intentioned, but is either incapable of conducting rational discussions, or unwilling to do so. They repeatedly post the same falsehoods, and are impervious to reason. That is why I assert that they are either a liar or incompetent, or both. Two examples (I don't have time for diff-farming now): Across multiple discussions, NA1K repeatedly, cited an incomplete sentence from POG, snipping off the part of the sentence which contradicted their case. The full sentence, with a strikeout through the art which NA!K systematically omitted is "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". NA1K persisted in doing so even when they were pointed to the full sentence. That is deceptive and dishonest behaviour, which NA1K repeated across multiple discussions. It is one of the reasons why I call NA1K mendacious, but I also accept the possibility of an alternative explanation: that NA1K is too stupid to recognise the dishonesty involved. In discussions about pageviews of portals, every other editor posted daily averages. NA1K repeatedly replied with a higher number, which was the total pageviews for a different timefame, creating an apples-and-oranges comparison. This was mendacious use of statistics. Subsequent discussion revealed that NA!K was actually substantively incompetent, and made absurd claims such as that an average is a statistic whereas the addition of data across a timeframe is not a statistic. After much discussion, NA1K did eventually agree to stop using simple statistics in this misleading way, but a huge amount of drama was created through their stupidity. NA!K's contributions to portal debates have been full of this sort of mix of stupidity and mendacity. That is a large part of why portals debates have become so antagonistic, because challenging the stupidity and mendacity inevitably involves personal criticism of NA1K. These problems with NA1K are longstanding, and were noted at NA1K's two RFAs, e.g. Candidates need to demonstrate that they have that particular brand of clue that is required of administrators in my experience this user doesn't deal well with disagreements. He just talks over the top of people and doesn't listen to them. -- which is exactly what NA1K has done at multiple portal MFDs When we tried to explain notability guidelines, deletion policy, and WP:NOT then he changed his focus to telling others why we were wrong instead of addressing us and discussing it. He doesn't listen. Then when we had the discussion about canvassing at ARS, he was doing the same thing. He didn't want to understand canvassing policy, he wanted to exonerate ARS. This "I want to win" behavior is dangerous to Wikipedia and certainly not helpful in an admin I do not believe that NA is a proper reader of consensus. Tparis points out lawyering, canvassing, and not listening, and that is my experience also ... suggests that you aren't so much interested in administering Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as you are in saving articles -- exatly the smare issue as at poratl MFDs Tactics as a member of ARS were highly questionable, inluding canvassing and dumping long lists of useless sources which he clearly did not take the time to read or evaluate -- again, similar to NA1K's conduct with portals, where they have made long indiscriminate lists. See e.g. my analysis at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana. What I've seen from them in article space is impressive in terms of zeal and sheer number of edits, but I am less than impressed with their judgment in the matter of evaluating sources--for instance -- the same lack of judgement has been displayed ven in the simper task of their creation of article lists for portals Issue with judgement are clear here Judgement is clearly an issue, reflected in the huge number of edits as well as elsewhere, as is the possibility of hat collecting Like other opposes, I am concerned with Northamerica1000's judgment. the concerns about judgment ring true to me past behavior has led me to have serious concerns about NA1k's judgment, especially w/r/t deletion related issues The core problem here is that in the case of NA1K, the community has failed to act on long-standing concerns about their lack of competence. This has led NA1K to repeatedly extend themselves well beyond their very limited competence, which has exacerbated the Dunning–Kruger effect demonstrated by NA1K's repeated inability or unwillingness to abandon even simple falsehoods and follies. This has created the cycle seen at numerous MFDs, where NA1K repeated posts half-truths or outright falsehoods, is incapable of engaging rationally with the replies, and then plays the victim card by crying "badgering!" "hounding!" etc. This is all inevitable, as described by Ehrliger et al in 2008: poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC) The use of a comma in Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. makes the portion that follows it non-restrictive. Which is to say, it can be omitted without changing the truth-conditional meaning of the sentence. i.e. The sentence could be rewritten as "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas (broad subject areas are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers)." Omitting this non-essential clause requires neither malicious intent nor incompotence. I think you may have acquired a distorted view of what are just ordinary disagreements between rational editors. When you reframe these as "correct editor vs. obviously stupid/evil editor", it makes any kind of movement toward consensus impossible. This is why WP:AGF is so important. Colin M (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC) @Colin M, I disagree with your assessment of that as non-restrictive. Wikipedia guidance pages are not written with such legalistic precision, and the clear intent of the sentence as a whole is that the goal is to create portals with "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". AFAICs, the the essential meaning of the thought is disturbed by the clarification of the goal, so in my view the relative clause is restrictive. It also seems to me to be a breach of commonsense to suggest that a portal is viable if it is unread and has rotted because it has no maintainers. I can respect your different interpretation, while disagreeing with it. That is usually the sort of point on which there is reasoned disagreement, and possibly an RFC to establish consensus for a clarification ... but my complaint about NA1K's omission is that in discussion where those very problems of readership and maintenance were being discussed, they repeatedly acted as if those other words simply did not exist. That is the deceit, and it is the systematic omission which impeded consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Section break

• Support for Guy's #3-5 of amended, clarified proposal; call it reluctant support for #1-2. Doug Mehus T·C 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support for #1 BHG is violating WP:HARASS through examples like: this, this, and this. What is even more concerning is that BHG is an admin, a privilege that is meant to be a role model for examplar Wikipedia behavior. NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes. It is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• If the harassment escalates further, it may become a case I suggest where BHG receives a review for the possible removal of adminship through the proper process. (WP:DESYS). AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This from an editor with "Northamerica1000 is such a fantastic editor and my Wiki-Idol." on their userpage. Well, thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I put that on my userpage back when NorthA was considering retirement. I wanted to remind the public of the good and benefit they are to encyclopedia. It is not bias, it is the truth. Also why did you leave out "Please do not retire, we as a community support you"? Are you trying to shorten it to make me look worse? I am clearly stating my opinion based on the evidence and sides given. I am not a yes-man to NA1K, I am an individual human who wants to improve the encyclopedia and stand for what is right. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• While this can be seen as a potential WP:COI or w/e the reasoning, the provided diffs with things such as NA1K is either an idiot or a liar or both is concerning. This is focusing on the editor rather than the debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• AmericanAir88, Agree completely. That's what troubles me the most is the harassment and incivility of another administrator. I thought admins were supposed to be above this sort of thing. That does not mean they are not infallible, but BHG's apparent reluctance to see where she erred is what troubles me most. Someone said above there is no consensus as to desysoping procedures, which is also problematic if ArbCom is the only solution. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Bureaucrats have discretionary authority to desysop an admin under limited circumstances. Doug Mehus T·C 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  AmericanAir88 writes NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes, and provides three diffs: this, this, and this..

Those three diffs are of edits where I provide evidence to show that NA1K was systematically lying in order to WP:GAME the system and thereby disrupt consensus-forming processes. That is not harasssment.

It seems that AmericanAir88 is appalled by an editor being called a liar, but entirely unconcerned about the fact that the admin NA1K has lying in order WP:GAME the system,and that NA1K did so in support of a massive beach of WP:NPOV. That says a lot about the priorities of AmericanAir88, and not in good way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not appalled by an editor being called a liar, I am appalled that someone of admin status, like yourself thinks they can treat their peers this way. It is not just these examples I provided, you have been proved to harass other users and make untrue claims such as calling NA1K a "liar". I see no violation of WP:NPOV on NA1K's end and only see it on yours. You target this user, you not only target them: You harass and obsess over them. I'm not here to argue, I am here to state that NA1K is not in the wrong and I am shocked by the amount of disrespect you have given me and other editors. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @AmericanAir88: I called NA1K a liar because they were lying. I stand by that assertion, and have provided evidence to support it, which you sadly choose to ignore.

I am appalled that someone of admin status, like NA1K, treats their peers so badly by lying to them repeatedly. Their repeated deceit is incompatible with adminship.

And I do not target this user. I respond to their repeated lies.

As to WP:NPOV, NA1K violated WP:UNDUE by making a selection in which over 50% of the geographically-bound articles relate to their own country. NPOV is a core content policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Like I said above, I am not here to argue. I can pull evidence from plenty of previous discussions and your edit summaries as evidence that you are harassing and targeting users. Accusation is not the way to hold a discussion and you are personally accusing NA1K of something they had no intention of doing. Also, how would you know where NA1K lives and if they are making UNDUE edits? Your claim of NA1K having UNDUE edits and a violating NPOV is you trying to start trouble. Again, I do not want to argue and I want to be civil. However, I believe you are harassing and being disrespectful to editors and you need to be held accountable for your actions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88:: User:Northamerica1000 carries a userbox which says this user lives in the United States of America. I relied on that statement. Is that unreasonable?

As to UNDUE, you can check for yourself in the list posted by NA1K at MFD:Portal:Transport: 19 are generic topics, without particular ties to one country. A majority of of the remainder (i.e 24 out of 45) specifically relate directly to the United States. The 24 are 5=Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, 6=SS Christopher Columbus, 7=Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 8=AirTrain JFK, 10=American Palestine Line, 11=San Francisco tech bus protests, 12=Congestion pricing in New York City, 13=Greyhound Lines, 14=Pony Express, 17=Metrorail (Miami-Dade County), 19=Bay Area Rapid Transit, 22=Bayview Park ferry wharf, 24=Northwest Seaport Alliance, 25=NYC Ferry, 26=Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 29=Port Miami Tunnel, 31=Kitsap Fast Ferries, 32=Staten Island Ferry, 35=List of Interstate Highways in Texas, 46=Goat Canyon Trestle, 49=Transportation in Omaha, 59=Forksville Covered Bridge, 60=Interstate 355, 63=New York State Route 28.

It is strange that you dismiss this evidence of bias as me trying to start trouble. If you genuinely want to be civil, that ABF dismissal of my noting a breach of core policy is an perverse way to go about it.

NA1K has had plenty of opportunity to express good faith by saying something to the effect of "oops! yes, that was unintended, but not acceptable. My bad. Needs a fix before it goes live". Instead they have been saying variants of 'former guideline made me do it', which is not true, and 'set of articles made me do it', which is also untrue.

As to accusation ... NA1K posted to the MFD 14 hours before I did, accusing me of making a series of rapid, drive-by edits. NA1K neglected to acknowledge the reason for my revert and instead complained that I had made difficult to update portals. From the info which NA1K belatedly posted at the MFD, I found that the concern over the effects of a hidden article list was justified: NA1K's hidden article list is a POV violation.

If you do not want to argue, why critcise me accusation, but say nothing to say about NA1K opening the discussion with an accusation against me about a revert I made for reasons are justified by the facts? NA1K's massively-POV list would have been spotted promptly if had been visible on the face of the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all portals and topic-ban all Wikipedia editors from ever discussing portals again. It's the only way to be sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC) (Not entirely serious, but it would be an improvement over this continued warring.)
  • Oh, and more seriously oppose any punishment of BHG for continuing to carry out this frustrating but helpful task. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 I've had enough. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 way iban Support Guy's proposals #3,#4 & #5 - most especially proposal 3, which I'd ideally like to be a no fault iban. While on a much bigger scale, this reminds me of the feud between Dream & Hijiri88 – both excellent editors in different ways, but months of drama followed once they began interacting. The iban they had in Jan seems to have been effective in ending the feud. It was later clarified that both could continue to post in project spaces like ARS, both could post on AFDs etc, they just needed to not talk about each other. Hence Im not sure we need to ban either of them from Portals at this stage, and Id prefer the ban to be no fault. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1. As an involved editor my opinion may be predictable, but BHG's behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. The diffs quoted clearly show which contributors are conducting themselves in a civil manner, and that this is not a symmetrical dispute with both sides equally at fault. It would be very unfair to also sanction an editor whose only crime is to be selected repeatedly as a target for abuse. Certes (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sadly, it was entirely predictable that Certes would pile on to support NA1K's diff-farming exercise of mendacity. NA1K created a pile of diffs to "prove" that I had done as NA1K ... yet in reality, the substance of it is that I did almost the exact opposite. The diffs show that I repeatedly noted that the former guideline had been risible; by contrast NA1K cited the guideline as justification for breaching a core policy.

Certes's endorsement of NA1K's reality inversion is a large factor in why portal disputes have become so toxic. NA1K's mendacity and incompetence has persisted because it is repeatedly endorsed by NA1K's cheerleaders and enablers such as Certes, who if they had sufficient competence and integrity would long ago have been asking NA1K to desist.

The fact that Certes's chooses even now to endorse NA1K's lies and smear tactics is just evidence that Certes also needs restraint.

I am heartily sick of accused of "bullying", "harassment" etc for calling out this co-ordinated campaign of mendacity. This project is supposed to be about building a encyclopedia where verifiability is a core policy, and the anti-truth antics of the likes of NA1K in support of their prolific incompetence should have no place in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Where is your evidence for this? Sadly, it was entirely predictable that Certes would pile on Are you suggesting that this editor came here to target you? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue needs to go to arbcom, where evidence will be properly presented and personal attacks will be subject to clerking. The disorderly proceedings here make portals look good. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't between two editors though anymore, it is clear from those supporting that BHG has rubbed a number of editors the wrong way. She may be right with her arguments, but in no way does that excuse the poor behavior presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic bans and interaction bans. Support an RfC that results in the creation of guidelines for portals. I've closed a lot of the MfD's on these portals, and while some of the discussions have been heated, I haven't seen any that have risen to the level that would justify a topic ban or interaction ban for either of these editors. Having an actual agreed-upon guideline would calm down the whole situation, as it wouldn't require the constant stream of individual portal MfD's, which seem to be causing friction on both sides. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 01:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Scottywong: I have very limited involvement in XfD and don't close discussions but wow, are regular accusations that the other editor is lying or an idiot, or deceitful or being deceptive or making sneaky changes or has low intelligence or whatever else really a level that is normal enough not to justify a topic ban or interaction ban? (Yes I've concentrated on one of the editor's here, because the other editor's problems are more complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  While I would agree that these discussions could be more civil, I also understand that this is a difficult topic and passions run high on both sides. I think that BHG has some valid points, but also agree that those points could be expressed in a more civil manner. My opinion is that this is a relatively minor problem, that should be resolvable without resorting to extreme measures like banning these editors from participating in anything related to portals. In short, I agree that there is a problem, I disagree that items #1-3 in this proposal contain the right solution to that problem. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 02:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  My view is that clearly these haven't and most likely can't be resolved without extreme measures. It's been several months. And yet we still have this sort of terrible behaviour. Further, while I'm sure many will attest I often make long posts, I can help but notice every time one of these threads opens on ANI it's soon filled with very very long back and forths mostly (although far from exclusively) between Northamerica1000 and BrownHairedGirl which partly drown other discussions. It's hard for me to imagine how there's any simple solution, or that it's a minor problem which IMO partly explains why we're still here months later.

  And on the topic of the personal attacks, while I've just told another editor that sometimes they need to put stuff said about them they disagree with aside, there is also a limit. IMO these attacks seem to have well breached that limit especially since they are persistent, and I find it very disappointing if we don't treat them that way. It can't be easy to work with someone when they keep saying you have a low intelligence, are a liar etc and I don't think we should expect editors to do so. As I've said before, it's possible to say someone lacks the competence to edit in a certain area without needing to say they have a low intelligence. There comes a point where we have to say enough is enough, and IMO we're well past that.

  A particular problem which BrownHairedGirl doesn't seem to understand is that her attacks are not only angering those she is opposing, they are angering those like me who don't give a fuck about portals. She may have some valid points, but they're often not coming across because she is so terrible at making them.

  And ironically her own words IMO provide a rationale for why it's fair to take action. She lacks the WP:Competence to be able to edit in this area without editing in such away she just puts every off by what she says. I don't know why, and I don't think it matters. I definitely don't think there's any reason to think it has anything to do with her intelligence. But IMO based on the available evidence, it would be best if she is forced aside from the area for the betterment of wikipedia. I'm sure there are others who can argue her PoV, and they'll probably do it far more successfully when BHG hasn't managed to turn everyone against her "side" by her behaviour. (I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I think we have to be realistic that when one of the most outspoken supporters of a PoV is coming across so poorly, it's difficult for that not to colour people's perceptions.)

  Frankly since I only really know about these from when they make them to AN//I, I would be fine just banning any mention of portals on one of the noticeboards for a year and letting them fight it out elsewhere. But I know that's not fair to those involved, nor will it actually solve the problem since someone still has to deal with all the MfDs and other problems that arise.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support #1 - This has become disruptive to the project. There is no rush regarding deleting these portals. How is the project harmed if we leave them be? If an ordinary editor had behaved in this manner would we be here debating? Lets give portals a break. They will still be here in 6 months. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Specifically in regard to BHG's conduct, I've created a page listing a few highly uncivil quotes written by BHG in this ANI section. (User:Vermont/BHGANI) I've left my opinions above, although I hope that her blatant incivility in this section, towards multiple editors, sways those on the fence. Vermont (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1-5 - In anything but the least contentious areas, 1,000s and 100,000s of edits indicate a ferocity beyond natural limits, and naturally induces panic. On this date, an armistice must be declared in the portal wars, enforced upon the resisting combatants. An RfC and guideline (maybe call it a charter?) must guide future developments in the portal area. Excess does not recognize itself, as surely seen in either TTH or BHG. Shenme (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ArbCom is the best venue for these disputes to be resolved as much as possible, which have been intractable in all other venues for many months. I am strongly against punishing @BrownHairedGirl in any way for her remarkable and selfless work cleaning up the portal mess created by others. My personal experience with her as an editor has been informative. We first interacted at CfD and clashed because I didn't know what I was doing there and she called it out, but I had the fortitude to understand I had screwed up in my votes, corrected them, and apologized to her. Our wiki-relationship has had its ups and downs since (yeah, I called her a troll before, which I bet portal fans never realized from our interactions at MfD), but overall, she has been very gracious editing and collaborating with me despite heated clashes and unkind words in the past.

It would be absurd to topic ban her from portals or take away her adminship when the two principal issues at play here are: the swarms of unread junk portals a handful of editors randomly defend for reasons none can articulate and NA1K's ridiculous actions, neither of which are her fault. She's spent well over 1,000 hours over the last seven months cleaning up an enormous mess others created, so please give it a rest that she is in any way the problem in portal-land, which was a 15-year joyride in a candy store that responsible adults have been cleaning up. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support #2, #3, and #4 if the community thinks that it can resolve this. User:BrownHairedGirl is right on all of the technical issues, and has been trying to pull together an RFC, but has faced opposition from the supporters of portals. However, it is clear that these two editors cannot get along and really do need to be interaction banned. BHG is mostly right that the arguments advanced by User:Northamerica1000 are inconsistent and incorrect, but should not be characterizing them as lies. However, it would be better to let ArbCom handle the matter first, and then see what can be done on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• ArbCom is necessary here, I'm afraid. My frustration with this conflict stems largely from BHG, who - the best and most recent example is here - has continually attempted to block any improvement of portals by saying that we need to have RfCs to determine portal structure and content, while voting to delete almost all portals in spite of a total lack of policy or guidelines on which portals should be kept or deleted. It's a continuous double standard and it's bringing a battleground mentality to an already very contentious area, and it's ending up being incredibly difficult for editors like myself who just want to contribute to the project constructively. I don't see any way forward without ArbCom. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 BHG’s conduct has frankly been reprehensible. Other options should be examined, even desysoping or a recall. This is not acceptable behavior from anyone, let alone an admin. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 BHG's repeated personal attacks need to stop and it is clear that she won't stop voluntarily. I am strongly against taking this matter before the current iteration of ArbCom. They've mishandled too many other situations to be trusted with this one. Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions, support RfC per ScottyWong and BF. Also, I doubt an Arbcom case would be helpful. What's needed is a guideline. – Levivich 00:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1-5 for a comprehensive solution to a huge problem that has already gone on way too long. Krow750 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• So, BHG recently wrote on her talk page: "So sustained incivility directed at me is fine, but my incivility in response is unacceptable? Wow." To me, this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our civility policies, and the place of an administrator as someone who should respond to incivility with maturity and rationality rather than mirroring those who they percieve as uncivil. I believe their level of incivility is significantly worse than anything I've seen from NA1k, although even assuming that NA1k was uncivil, BHG's thought that it's perfectly justifiable to respond in turn is worrying. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My thought is how wrong I was to assume that my replies to Vermont on my talk page were part of a discussion with an editor who was making a good faith effort to talk civilly about a disagreement. I could and possibly should have halted the discussion when Vermont opened by making false assertions based on their failure to to do 30 seconds of checking before posting, but I foolishly AGfed that there was no malicious intent.

Vermont has already disregarded my request to stay off my talk, and their post here indicates that their aim in the discussion seem to have been to take a quote out of context and weaponise it.

The discussion is at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Selective_Application_of_Consensus.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You told me I would be welcome to comment on your talk page if I retracted the statements that I copied from you. I specifically retracted them. Stop trying to pretend I'm at fault here. I left a response to you, using your exact wording which you rudely used to describe NA1k. You told me it is "spectacular rudeness" and uncivil, which it is, and when faced with the fact that you wrote it, you reverted my edit and kicked me off your talk page. As I explained, my intention was solely to show to you how rude you are to people who you disagree with, and that you should stop. And no, that quote was not taken out of context; you recognized your replies to NA1k and others are uncivil, but you don't yet recognize how your incivility is against policy. Vermont (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering past comments, I could reasonably predict a decent-length wall of text that skirts around the whole bit about her writing rude comments to people and focuses on attacking me for asking her to be civil. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, I used the phrase "word soup" to describe a tautologous phrase conveyed no meaning. You abused it to describe a lengthy, reasoned reply, and you have confirmed that your intent as to provoke.

That's cheap trolling, and I have no time for it.

Your statement now that your intention was only to provoke me into something you could cite as rudeness is proof of absolutely nothing other than your own bad faith abuse of my openness to discussion. Your conduct was an uncivil attempt to play disruptive games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You are not allowed to be uncivil to people, I am not allowed to be uncivil to people, NA1k is not allowed to be uncivil to people, no one is allowed to be uncivil to people. You have no right whatsoever to look at someone else's argument, one which they may have spent much more than 10 minutes on, and discount it as junk while regarding your own argument as reasoned and correct. Of course you think you're right, everyone thinks they're right, but that gives you no special priviledge to insult other people while believing you're immune to the 4th pillar of our community. And now you've called me a troll, bad-faith, uncivil, and disruptive, for quoting your words back to you. The people who you used those terms on, Na1k and others, how do you think they felt? Do they not have every right that you do to contribute in an environment free of insult? What about when you called me incompetent in an effort to discount my attempts at an argument at MfD? It's necessary that you recognize your actions in applying rude and uncivil terms against other people, which you recognize are rude and uncivil, is not okay. What if I had called you incompetent, a word which you've used on numerous occasions in discourse? You have no special pass to be uncivil, whether it be because you think you're right, an administrator, or anything else. Incivility is what causes editors to leave our community, and you're doing nothing but perpetuating it with the double-standard I've outlined here. Vermont (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction against BHG unless someone can produce statistics showing that a majority of the portals she has nominated for deletion end up being kept after community discussion. When I stopped participating in the MfDs, BHG's track record was very good—uninvolved editors supported her arguments. Then the pushback started from those that like glitter. Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone ever tried addressing BHG's accusations concerning NA1K beyond exclaiming how naughty the words are? Obviously BHG has become frustrated but that would be due to lack of engagement with the underlying issue. Solving the portal issue based on who can be nice while engaged in a battle won't work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  That seems backwards. Shouldn't the real question be whether or not her accusations have ever been proven? Generally, one doesn't need to fall back on rhetoric and insults when a good case can be made without them. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed? My point is that simplistic hand waving is not suitable when there is such obvious conflict over an important issue (should there be limits regarding what portals are created?). BHG is known to be a good and civil editor so the background that has led to the current situation calls for investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  User:Johnuniq, User:Lepricavark - The statistics that I have been recording on portals do not include who nominated them, but the large majority of the portals that have been nominated for deletion have been deleted, and I am not aware of any portals that were nominated by User:BrownHairedGirl that have not been deleted. Her nominations continue to be detailed and well-researched. Yes, I have "asked BHG what she is getting at". What she is getting at is that User:Northamerica1000 is making unilateral changes to portals in order to improve them to prevent their deletion, but that BHG thinks that the changes do not improve the portals enough to warrant keeping them, and that BHG thinks that NA1k's changes are arbitrary and introduce systemic bias and have other disadvantages. BHG has also objected to the very large number of portals for which NA1k had self-designated as a portal maintainer (at one time as high as 42, although nearly all of those have now been dropped). No one has raised any technical issues that I know of about what BHG has said, except that she has been very uncivil. Johnuniq is correct that the only real criticism of BHG is precisely that her words are naughty, but no one really is answering whether the portals are crud or whether NA1k is making sneaky changes to the portals. My own conclusion is that what NA1k is doing to the portals is something of an improvement, but not enough to warrant keeping them, and that it is being sneaky, and it is introducing systemic bias. That is my analysis, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: It's unfortunate that you are dismissing repeated, rank incivility as mere naughty words. It's also unfortunate that you and Johnuniq can review the above thread, full of BHG posting massive walls of text and attacking the good faith of anyone who disagrees with her, and wonder why people (aside from you, Robert) aren't asking her what she means. However, if were are content to set aside BHG's repeated abuse so that we can launch further accusations of sneakiness at NA1K, then on what basis should we do so? How has he been sneaky (which is an accusation of deliberate bad faith on his part)? And don't refer me to any of BHG's comments. I have no intention of wading through any of her grandiose haystacks hunting for the mythical needle of substance. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  User:Lepricavark - I was quoting User:Johnuniq when I referred to "naughty words", and recognize that that choice of words minimizes User:BrownHairedGirl's incivility. I am also aware that her incivility diverts attention from the fact that she is almost always right on the facts about portals, and that, because she is insulting other editors, is being ignored on the technical merits. I know why BHG is saying and doing what she is doing. She is being right, but so uncivil and unpleasant that she is being ignored. I don't know why User:Northamerica1000 thinks that it is necessary to save as many portals as possible. I have repeatedly asked the advocates of portals what the purpose of portals is, and I usually don't understand their answers, so that I think that portals must have some mystical appeal to some editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: again, where is the evidence that NA1K is being sneaky or otherwise acting in bad faith? Lepricavark (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  User:Lepricavark - I didn't say that User:Northamerica1000 was being sneaky or acting in bad faith. I said that NA1k was making unilateral changes to large numbers of portals to prevent their deletion, often during or immediately before a deletion discussion, but was introducing systemic bias in the process, and had been designating themselves as a portal maintainer for a very large number of portals, and then backed off from that load. User:BrownHairedGirl characterized making all of those changes as sneaky, and that is because the changes are not documented or explained. BHG said that NA1k was acting in bad faith. I have said that NA1k is doing things that are inconsistent and that are not explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: this is a quote from you, with emphasis added: My own conclusion is that what NA1k is doing to the portals is something of an improvement, but not enough to warrant keeping them, and that it is being sneaky, and it is introducing systemic bias. That is my analysis, anyway. That comment reads differently from your most recent comment. At any rate, we have one admin repeatedly attacking the competence of another admin. They can't both be right and we can't just ignore it at this point. We've reached the stage where either NA1K really is incompetent and should be dealt with accordingly or BHG has made repeated, unsubstantiated personal attacks and should be dealt with accordingly. And I really don't believe that NA1K is incompetent. Lepricavark (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  This is pretty much getting to the nub of the argument here. BHG is making personal attacks and failing to assume good faith, whereas NA1K is making improvements to pages that are nominated for deletion (of course without making them perfect in the limited time available). The first flies in the face of policy, but the second is normal good practice. There is no equivalence between their behaviours. I say this as someone who would be happy to see portals disappear completely, but that is totally irrelevant to discussion of behavioural issues. Indeed one of the reasons that I have declined to state my opinion in any discussion about portals is that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with what BHG says gets flamed, and I prefer not to have to deal with such issues in the limited time that I have to edit Wikipedia between my postgraduate study and looking after my grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  User:Lepricavark - Oops. I misquoted myself. No, User:Northamerica1000 is not acting in bad faith. They believe that what they are doing is for the good of the encyclopedia. Yes, they are doing it behind the scenes, without consultation, which can reasonably be characterized as sneaky, and is being characterized that way by User:BrownHairedGirl. They both are doing what they are doing for what they see as the good of the encyclopedia. BHG is right on the merits that the portals are crud and that NA1k is making minimal improvements to them that do not warrant keeping them. BHG is also being so uncivil that she is distracting from the technical correctness of her argument. Yes, no, this should have stopped in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support All. When half of a long discussion at ANI is taken up by the two editors continuing their battleground behaviour against each other you something needs to be done. Arbcom isn't a stupid idea either, but lets at least get this one underway to start with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq above any sanction against BHG unless someone can produce statistics showing that a majority of the portals she has nominated for deletion end up being kept after community discussion. BHG says above that an editor created (portals) at sustained speeds of up to one per minute, some of them just for the heck of it, and lamented their inability to produce them faster. Most of this portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), with overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout. I participated in those discussions back then and thought that was the end of it. I can't believe this is still going on. Those portals were junk, BHG worked very hard to clear up the disgraceful mess, she should be commended, not sanctioned.Smeat75 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The latter

-EEng

The former

Doing good work for the encyclopedia is not mutually exclusive with incivility, and the former does not justify the latter. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The mass creation of portals was almost entirely reverted in April 2019. The vast majority of the portals nominated for deletion since then were much older. Certes (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. the battleground mentality is extremely excessive and counter-productive. Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment BHG has started another portal MfD while a potential topic ban is underway here. I don't think its a good idea in my opinion as she directly relates to this ongoing discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • AS I just noted at that MFD[60], if and when any topic ban is implemented, I will respect it, as I hope other editors will also respect any bans. But no decision has yet been made.
    The other party to that discussion is NA1K, for whom a topic ban has also been proposed. Since that ANI discussion opened, NA1K has started three portals MFDs: MFD:Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, MFD:Portal:Geography of Kenya and MFD:Portal:UK waterways. If you want some sort of moratorium pending resolution of the ANI, then you should feel free to propose it, but it seems to me that what you are doing here is to make a partisan prejudgemnet of the outcome

I note that KK87 has made no complaint about any of the 3 MFFDs opened by NA1K. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unaware or had forgotten about the other new portal discussions since this thread opened. I generally feel that all parties should take this thread seriously. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support the proposed topic and interaction bans. It's possible that portal-related disputes will eventually end up at Arbcom, but the community should make an effort to address the problems first. Oppose a suspension of portal deletion discussions, as there have been multiple instances of portals that merited deletion under any plausible standards. The problem is not that some portals are being deleted; it is the behavior of some participants in the portal deletion (and other portal-related) discussions. As far as having another portal-related RfC goes, that hardly seems to require the endorsement of ANI. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction bans and topic bans. A moratorium only makes sense if it's both on creation and deletion. The need for hundreds of separate deletion discussions is a direct consequence of the conclusion of WP:ENDPORTALS (see also Wikipedia:The Problems with Portals for some more links) and it's not BrownHairedGirl's fault, while other users have chosen to repeatedly filibuster the individual examination of portals. I am skeptical about the idea that yet another wide RfC might reach any useful conclusion; it's only a way to waste more time and produce more hard feelings. If there is a concern about consistent criteria for deletion, I would suggest to appoint a working group to divide all the remaining portals in a few dozens groups of portals in similar situations, and then open group deletions in short succession, giving 1-3 months to discuss all the remaining portals. This would allow a larger participation without forcing people to follow small discussions for months or pile on in big drama shows. Nemo 17:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 Per WP:ADMINCOND and ongoing issues re BHG, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility_issues_with_User:BrownHairedGirl. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Example RfC agenda

1. As a matter of policy, what is the project-focused goal of portals?
2. Should portals be required to be active?
   1. If so, what should be the criteria that define an active portal
      1. Miniumum number of active editors?
      2. Minimum number of edits per month?
      3. Update frequency (i.e. number of updates rather than number of edits per update)?
      4. Article updates?
      5. Page views?
         1. Absolute or relative to something else (e.g. main topic page)?
3. Should we have an anti-gaming criterion?
   1. Updates by editors who do little other than portal updates across multiple topics?
   2. Updates by editors new to the portal, that a reasonable person would perceive as gaming (WP:CLUE)?
4. What should be the removal process?
   1. XfD, PROD, CSD?
   2. How to prevent "school wars" style voting blocks?
   3. Are there any arguments (other than activity) that are or are not normally relevant to whether a portal should or should not be deleted?
5. Should there be a bar to creation?
   1. Should there be a review period for newly related portals, e.g. after 12 months, with a low-bureaucracy removal period if they have not survived the initial enthusiasm?
6. Should there be a bar to nomination for deletion?
   1. Nominations by editors who do little to no constructive work on portals?
   2. Nominations by editors who do little to no work in the topic area?
   3. Nominations by editors who have nominated this or similar portals before?
   4. Nominations who are engaged in a dispute about the contents of the portal?
   5. Nominations by editors who have made significant changes to the portal recently?
      1. What does "recently" mean?
   6. Repeated nominations of the same portal?
   7. Number of concurrent nominations?
7. Should deletion nominations that fail to advance a reason specific to the individual portal(s) nominated be speedily kept?
8. Should we continue to link and reference portals from the banner on the Main Page?
9. In general, should we increase, decrease, or keep-the-same the prominence of portals across the wiki, from the perspective of directing users there?

Feel free to add / amend. Guy (help!) 14:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've added and amended. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow! Thryduulf's proposals are yet another attempt to game the system

No other XFD venue has any restrictions on who can nominate pages for deletion. No other namespace or type of page has such restrictions.

Thryduulf is quite blatantly trying to rig the system in favour of the portal fans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the assumption of bad faith. These are simply questions that should be answered by the RfC, I fully expect that the answer to many of them will be that the restriction is not needed but it is important that comparable restrictions for both sides are discussed by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the bad faith did not need to be assumed. It is structurally bound into your suggestion that only the creators of a particular type of page should be allowed to propose its deletion, because that rigs the field in favour of the creators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you are approaching this topic area with a battleground attitude. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're projecting, Thryduulf. The battleground attitude is your attempt to exclude those who disagree with you with portal deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Wow. You're an administrator as is Thryduulf. My mind is blown. I've never seen an admin assume bad faith about another admin. Doug Mehus T·C 16:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you must be new here! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, in order to keep the process fair, there should be no bar to asking a question, even when the answer is obviously "no". Guy (help!) 17:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I fully support Guy's proposal. I'm sick and tired of... well, this. At this point, anyone looking for proof that the portal crusade has gotten out of hand in terms of incivility and bad faith need only look up. WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've added two more questions about the prominence of portals (one on the Main Page, one more general.) A lot of people seem to be discussing that aspect, and I think we might want to consider whether it is useful or helpful to direct users to portals. I'm extremely skeptical about some of the suggestions to try and revive portals by making them more visible - they've been prominent for a long time, and don't seem to be accomplishing what they were intended for going by the relatively low views and participation. This makes it hard to see why we should be sending users there in their current state. The suggestions to make them even more prominent seem like a solution looking for a problem - all indications seem to be that most users don't need or want portals, and that they're generally just an unnecessary bit of cruft and complication. We can leave the active ones around for the people who use them while sunsetting the general push to make them a major part of the wiki (which, I think, we can all agree had failed, and which it seems hard to justify doubling down on.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – As discourse at this overall ANI discussion involves portals and users have expressed some significant interest in portals herein, below is a neutrally-worded, non-partisan notification (as per WP:APPNOTE) regarding a request for comment I have devised.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

NA1K is gaming the system again

I have have only just seem this note above[61] about the RFC opened by @Northamerica1000 (NA1K) at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates. It is an outrageous abuse of RFC, which invites endorsement on NA1K's stance by simply omitting any mention of the other view.

I am shocked. In the last month I have made numerous proposals to have an RFC on these matters, and have repeatedly asked NA1K to work with me to create a neutrally-constructed RFC to resolve them. NA1K has consistently failed to take up that offer.

Now NA1K has opened an RFC without any attempt at the prior consultation which I have repeatedly offered ... and did not even have the courtesy to notify me of the RFC, despite being very well aware that I have been the major critic of NAIK's ideas.

The RFC which NA1K has opened is appallingly badly structured, because its two questions do not in any way indicate he existence the key issue which I have raised both in my reverts and in many subsequent discussions: the fact that the methods used by NA1K leave the portal with no visible, linked list of the articles used in the portal. This issue is also not mentioned in the lengthy post by NA1K in reply to the nomination, which uses first mover advantage to frame the discussion.

The lack of such a list makes scrutiny of the list much harder, which has led to severe delays in detecting the very poor quality of the lists built by NA1K, e.g. at Portal:Ghana and at Portal:Transport. In each case the very poor quality of list-making was detected only by analysis at the subsequent MFD: discussions: WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport. (Neither MFD was opened by me)

There is absolutely no remotely plausible way in which NA1K could be unaware of this issue. They have been a party to discussions about it at:

• ANI last month, where NA1K posted repeatedly about several dozens of reverts I had made, in all of which my edit summary noted sneaky addition of dozens of articles which are neither listed anywhere visible nor disclosed in edit summaries, let alone discussed (e.g. [62])
• Portal talk:Australia#Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG, where I posted a lengthy explanation of the issues[63]
• WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport, where I posted at length about the problem.

I also posted a long explanation on my talk page in reply to Scottywong, at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Help_me_understand (permalink)

NA1K has ignore my repeated requests for collaboration, and has instead opened an RFC which they have framed in a way so as tho exclude the key issue in dispute. They have both omitted any mention of my concern, and also omitted from their list of examples cases such as Portal:Wind power, which combines the use of transclusions with a visible list.

This RFC is the complete of opposite of the RFC principle of neutrally framing the issues to seek community comment. On the contrary, it is an attempted stitchup: an attempt to force a decision to be made by considering only the technical issues, while excluding the scrutiny-and-content-quality issue which I have repeatedly raised. So far, it appears to be playing out just as NA1K hoped: their partisan proposal and partisan description of the issues is receiving overwhelming support.

Given the protracted nature of the dispute behind this RFC, and the fact I have made repeated offers to collaborate with NA1K on drafting such an RFC, I cannot see any way in which a competent editor (let alone a competent admin) acting in good faith could have created an RFC which excludes the key point in dispute. WP:GAME says that "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia".

That is what NA1K has done here. It is just the latest instance of the multiple ways in such NA1K has sought to game Wikiedia's consensus-based decision-making processes, and which have led to me to use very harsh and direct terms about their misconduct. My language in response to this has been the subject the of severe criticism; but it has been in response to a long, long pattern of such gaming conduct by NA1K, who has now escalated their antics by blatantly manipulating the RFC process to secure retrospective consensus for the attempt at creating a WP:FAITACCOMPLI for their very poor-quality list-making which they obscured by technical means.

Right now, I see NA1K's gaming of the system raised to a whole new level. As a result, I am feeling more disillusioned about the whole nature of Wikipedia than I have felt in the near 14 years since I started editing here.

I had not previously been persuaded that the huge time-sink of an ArbCom case would be useful. But this latest action by NA1K is a new extreme, and I am shocked that NA1K feels entitled to so brazenly try to game the system while this ANI discussion is open. So I now believe that only an ArbCom case can properly examine the extraordinary scale and scope of NA1K's gaming of en.wp's processes ... but I am unsure whether I have the energy or will to spend weeks diff-farming to challenge the appalling conduct which I am seeing. I just feel physically sick that the wonderful, glorious ideal of a free, verifiable NPOV encyclopedia built by good-faith collaboration can be undermined by NA1K's sustained manipulative conduct, and that so many editors above seem willing to endorse it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl, he notified no one, except for the above template as well as notices at several places in Wikipedia space, and is is obliged to notify no one. Opening an RFC is not "appalling conduct" or "gaming the system"; it's the way we attempt to form a new consensus. They're typically open for a month, so there's no rush for you to voice your opinion. Please take a wikibreak; if Wikipedia is making you physically ill it's time to stop. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. @Diannaa, please read the whole of my post, where I note the cunningly partisan framing of the RFC by excluding the key issue in dispute. For some reason, you have sadly chosen to overlook all the substance of my post, and focus only a minor point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course I read and understood it; I just don't agree with you. I am logging off now, I am tired. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa, it would have been helpful if you had explained why you believe that was appropriate for NA1K to spend a month ignoring requests to collaborate on an RFC, and then unilaterally frame an RFC to produce the answer which NA1K wants by excluding the key point of dispute. I would genuinely value your explanation, because from where I am sitting after 13 years as an en.ep and nearly 40 adult years involved in political decision-making processes, this looks to me just like the sort of stunt pulled by manipulative political operators, and nothing at all like the sort of collaborative consensus-building which is at the core of what I have always understood to be Wikipedia's principles.

So please explain to me why you apparently believe that NA1K's efforts to construct a partisan framework for a decision are compatible of genuine collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Right or wrong, this is just another example why an interaction ban might be for the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87, this RFC demonstrates how an interaction ban would be a truly great recipe for facilitating NAIK's gaming of the system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For anyone just joining us, reading through the RfC is a perfect microcosm of this conflict. As I write, the RfC is currently 12 users for, 0 against, and 1 procedural close for "gaming the system" from the user above. This is a perfect example of how this user has tried to WP:OWN the entire portal discussion and is content to turn it into a battleground when necessary. The difference here is that portal discussions aren't as well attended, see the talk page of Portal:Australia where everyone had agreed on a way forward except for this user, who said an RfC was needed to make any changes. When an RfC was opened up, this user claimed it needed to be closed. When combined with a recent personal attack on the RfC's creator here, I don't see why we're continuing to put up with this sort of behaviour as a community. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For anyone just joining us, reading SF's comment above is a perfect microcosm of the problem here.

SF doesn't actually engage with the substantive issue, or address the fact that the RFC has been designed to game the system by excluding a key issue from the headline question. Instead, SF follows the well-trodden portal-fan path of attacking the messenger without even mentioning the substance. This attack-the-critic rather than discuss-the-criticism approach has been a regular of portal discussions since the first debates back in February about speedily deleting the portalspam. If this whole matter ever gets to RFC, and if I have the energy to participate, I will be able to produce many dozens of diffs of similar conduct by a group of editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, if you want there to be an accessible list of all articles that could be transcluded, that could be an outcome of the current RFC, which I think only exists because you have repeatedly asked for RFCs. The "substantive issue" here is tiny and can be fixed in less than three minutes per portal thanks to user:Certes who coded the showall parameter. —Kusma (t·c) 08:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: there are actually many possible ways to resolve this, and as I have repeatedly pointed out a solution already existed in the shape of Portal:Wind power, which since Sept 2018 has combined transclusion with display of a visible list. NA1K doesn't even mention that.

But the fact remains that as you acknowledge I have been asking for a month for an RFC on that issue ... and NA1K has chosen to open an RFC on the technical issues which dictate that outcome, without even mentioning why the debate started. NA1K even goes so far as to provide a list of discussions which they carefully selected to omit the many discussions in which I raised that issue of a visible, linked list to facilitate scrutiny. Once again, NA1K is being sly, cunning and deceitfully selective instead of being open and collaborative.

That rigging of the debate's framing and of its list of previous discussions is the sort of deceitful, manipulative conduct which I have seen too many times in low politics, and it is completely contrary to the collaborative principles which are at core of Wikipedia's values. It is gaming the system, and I am utterly disgusted to see NA1K being supported in this sort of manipulative conduct. I didn't join Wikipedia to participate in the sort of manipulative scheming that I have seen so many times in so many political scenarios. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, again, this issue is fairly minor and not worth getting all that worked up about. A narrow reading of the RFC makes it completely pointless, as there has never been anybody who said transclusion from article space should be outlawed. As usual in RFCs, people have been trying to make it more useful by expanding the question into other directions: should other means of excerpting be outlawed, and should random transclusion be accompanied by a list? If you could focus on collaborating with the other people in the discussion instead of on NA1k and his behaviour, you could possibly even get consensus for a position of "random transclusion should usually be accompanied by a list". As an aside, the method used on Portal:Wind power only works well for portals with a reasonably narrow focus, and lacks a display of all possible transclusions (which is helpful for troubleshooting and for figuring out whether the entries are appropriate or not). —Kusma (t·c) 10:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: aaargh! if you could focus on collaborating

For goodness sake, I repeatedly asked for collaboration, and was repeatedly rebuffed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. Now can we do something constructive? —Kusma (t·c) 08:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I do think it's a bit bold to start another RFC while we're already discussing much broader and comprehensive RFCs (especially since the outcome of those will probably be important enough to change the context of anything else.) That said, if you think that that RFC doesn't touch the locus of dispute at all, I would suggest starting your own that does - presuming they're genuinely separate issues, or only tangentially-connected ones, then it wouldn't really break anything to have RFCs for both at the same time. If their outcomes turn out to cause problems in a way that can't be reconciled, we might need a third RFC to split the difference. Really, though, it would probably be ideal to put a hold on RFCs until the much bigger comprehensive one described above happens, and to put other questions in that rather than starting a totally new RFC for them. Part of the problem here is that we've had a ton of RFCs and processes with different wording and sometimes-ambiguous outcomes, and nobody agrees on what they all mean. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidence NA1k is not gaming the system

• I want to highlight the fact BHG's concern is a relatively minor one, and an issue which was talked through at Portal_talk:Australia#Comments_and_analysis_by_BHG. I think the key diffs were here here (my proposal) and here (NA1k). I'm including these because my proposal demonstrates just how minor these adjustments are, that NA1k has agreed with them, and that specifically, NA1k has already agreed with the proposal BHG has made. NA1k was even the user who pinged Certes, the creator of the template, to see how easy it would be to edit the template to make the changes BHG requested! I don't think there's any question NA1k is NOT "gaming the system" with this RfC. They are not trying to push any specific viewpoint at the RfC which differs in any sort of material way from BHG's. The only potential criticism of NA1k is that they didn't accept BHG's offer to work together to propose the RfC, but I can hardly blame NA1k for not seeking BHG's input given the level of animosity between the two. The RfC has only been proposed because BHG threatened to continue blocking any progress on portals until a community consensus existed, even though local consensus had been established at that point!

The primary issue here isn't that BHG's points are invalid about portals - we do need to establish rules for portals - but that the way this particular user has behaved towards that process has been severely disruptive and full of personal attacks. We're now at a point where the first RfC is being solidly supported in spite of the fact NA1k, the user and administrator who suggested it, is a sneaky low competence editor who is also apparently either a liar, idiot, or both, which I think further demonstrates the level of disruption here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• SF, I'll unpick that.

1. Note that the key issue in the October ANI was that I had reverted a few dozen portals to a version where there was a visible, linked list of articles, which allow the scrutiny that was impeded by NA1K's edit. You say that NA1K has accepted that; but at no point in that Australia discussion does NA1K explicitly accept that point. The closest they get to it is their post of 09:10, 18 October they ask about feasibility, which is a different issue, and state I don't think portal improvements such as this should entirely hinge upon whether or not a template is able to be changed, and that otherwise portals should remain unimproved. There are other ways to get the exact same result. So they are still trying to knock this back to being a technical issue rather than a key component.
2. In that Australia discussion I made the very point that Per WP:MULTI they should be decided in a central discussion, and per WP:LOCALCON they should seek broad community consensus through a properly advertised RFC. Sadly, the portal platoon is stubbornly resisting these basic principles of en.wp consensus-building, and instead is trying to keep these choices off the radar and hidden away as local discussions on individual pages.
   Yet you are now trying to tell me that fact an RFC has been opened proves how wrong I was to ask that there be an RFC.
3. That need for scrutiny has been amply illustrated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport, where belated scrutiny after NA1K finally created a visible linked list showed that they had actually crated a massive breach of NPOV. It took five days after POV issue that was noted before NA1K belatedly acknowledged that they had indeed beached NPOV, tho the form of word used carefully avoided accepting any responsibility for that, by describing the edits in a passive voice.[64]
4. If, as you claim, NA1k has already agreed with the proposal BHG has made, why was there absolutely no mention of that point in the RFC? If it was accepted, then it should be been mentioned as a requirement for the templates. But it wasn't.

If, as you claim, NA1K is not a low competence editor:

• why didn't NA1K explicitly state anywhere that they had accepted my point about a visible list?
• if they had accepted it, why did they launch an RFC without noting that it needed to be achieved?
• Why did the allegedly not-low-competence editor NA1K create a massive breach of NPOV which was undetected due to the lack of that visible list?
• Why the allegedly not-low-competence editor NA1K rage at ANI in October at the reversion of non-transparent edits, when they now (according to SF) accept the need for that transparency, even though the need for scrutiny has been confirmed NA1K's half-hearted acknowledgement of their huge POV breach.

What you are saying in effect is that BHG is wrong because she was right about every single point she has raised. I hope you can see the contradiction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Enough. First, I'm absolutely astounded that you decided to make yet another personal attack against Northamerica1000 in your response. I'm also astounded that an administrator with your tenure and edit count fails to take a post which directly relates to your behaviour and turns it into a "well I was right" as if the ends justify the means.

Furthermore, every single point in your responses involves the other editor.

1. It seems as if your goal here was to hold all portals in a frozen state until an RfC was created and agreed upon. You reverted dozens of portals through a misuse of WP:BRD. (I'm not going to dig for diffs, but did you even discuss this with Northamerica1000 after they made these changes?)

2. I think this is categorically false, as demonstrated by my diff here - at no point were any of the involved parties trying to gain a local consensus in lieu of a general consensus. We were trying to gain a local consensus to immediately improve the Australia portal. You were not wrong to ask for an RfC, and you will note I proposed opening an RfC as part of the way forward. However there is nothing wrong with creating local "law" where no community-wide "law" exists, especially when the discussion has been relatively well-attended, and only one party dissents.

3. As an experienced administrator, you should have been either able to create a visible linked list or view the source without putting the burden on the other editor.

4. NA1k is under no obligation to satisfy you. You have been harassing them since at least April (that diff isn't necessarily harassment, but it's indicative of the start of this mess.) The RfC directly relates to your mass reversion of their work on portals because of their template choice. I have absolutely no idea why you chose to take the route of bulk reversion instead of using civil discourse, especially since the problem you identified was solved simply by pinging the creator of the template. You have used a gun to hammer in a nail, and yet you are standing here claiming your actions were justified because the nail currently holds the beam together, whereas we are all concerned about your choice of the gun, not at the result.

What I am in effect saying is that I am absolutely shocked an administrator of your stature has continually harassed another administrator for a period of half a year and I'm shocked you haven't been desysopped or banned. If I had chosen any one of your actions as a lonely five-digit-edit-count editor, I would have been very lucky to escape a block. If that doesn't clarify to you how seriously I'm taking your actions (as opposed to the outcomes of those actions, though one of those outcomes is this lengthy ANI thread), I don't know what will. SportingFlyer T·C 04:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply to BrownHairedGirl: Northamerica1000 and you don't get along. That's obvious. And it's pretty obvious too to see why he would not be interested in working with you: the constant barrage of insulting, demeaning remarks you have directed his way. Instead of subjecting himself to more of that by attempting to work with you, he's decided to move forward on proposing changes to the way portal pages are constructed and independently opened an RFC, which is gaining support. This doesn't mean there's a cabal or a political conspiracy against you or that he's gaming the system or being sneaky; it simply means that consensus might be in favor of his proposals at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Time for action here as seen above .--Moxy 🍁 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Regretfully I have to agree. This isn't an "everybody but me" type of thing when multiple editors try and give advice to BHG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa, at the October ANI, I repeatedly stressed the need for RFCs. I did so many times after that closed, and I repeatedly sought collaboration to make a neutrally-framed RFC. At any point, NA1K could have said "no, I don't want to work with you", which any editor is entitled to do for whatever reason (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY). Instead the only comments they made to object to the principle of holding an an RFC ... until they decided to proceed unilaterally, and did so despite recent discussion at WT:POG where sever editors agreed on the need to define RFC questions

I get you message loud and clear: that my attempt to reach across the divide and collaborate on a neutral question was wrong, and that my choice not to act unilaterally was wrong ... but that NA1K's choice to proceed unilaterally without even acknowledging the key point in dispute was absolutely fine and dandy.

Your message is very loud and clear: that I should have acted unilaterally, and opened an RFC framed solely according to my priorities, and thereby gained first mover advantage. And I hate that way of working, I have been in too many work environments where that sort of stunt is pulled, and I know well how it is done ... but it's a really bad way of building consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. There's more thoughts on your talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Previous portal discussions

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals (April-May 2018)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 157#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals (February-March 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal: Halt the mass deletion of non-spam portals and focus on achieving consensus on portal guidelines (14-27 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#RfC: Ending the system of portals take 2 (19 June 22 September 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space (September-October 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC: Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 152#Portal Guidelines (16-19 July 2019)]]
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 151#RFC: Portals and Project Sponsorship (30 March - 1 May 2019)
• #When will it end (currently open)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive editing and personal attack by User:Tisquesusa (13 October)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted (12-16 October)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Northamerica1000 at MfD (4-8 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Legacypac and portals (22-28 March 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (4-15 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Portal deletion at MfD and G6 tagging and deletion of portal subpages (11-18 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl (14-15 August 2019)
• Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 4#Request for comment: Require that users be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space (11-28 April 2019)

This is almost certainly incomplete, please expand it with any I've missed, and possible improve the order - I've run out of time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these Thryduulf. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The original AN portal discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands_of_Portals

Declined ArbCom Case

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=890921122#Portal_Issues

Misconceived RFC proposals

The problem with the RFC proposals above is that they try resolving a problem by focusing on its symptoms rather than its causes.

The underlying causes of the problems with portals are fairly simple:

1. WikiPortals are functionally redundant to head articles, cross-linking, navboxes, and search. Readers don't need them and don't use them. (even the 8 portals linked from the prime place on the mainapge are massively underused compared to other mainpage items)
2. Nearly all WikiProjects have rationally abandoned the portals within their scope (thanks to User:Britishfinance for identifying this problem)
3. Most content-creating editors have also rationally abandoned portals for similar reasons.
4. Despite the evident functional redundancy and lack of reader interest, the community has declined either to delete all portals, or to lay down conditions for their existence.
5. That leaves most portals without wider scrutiny, and all of them without any guidelines
6. Some portals are developed or maintained by lone editors who bring demonstrable skill (e.g. Portal:Law/BD2412)
7. Most of the rest have become a playground in which portal enthusiasts with low general skills and no demonstrable expertise in a topic can make huge changes without scrutiny.
8. Portals do not require the normal intellectually-taxing editing process of discussing how to use which sources, which has left portalspace dominated by such low-skill editors. Some have technical expertise in tasks such as coding, but nearly all lack experience and skill with actual content, and lack skill both in applying policies and in discussing disagreements to reach consensus.
9. This low-skill group has found a comfortable niche in the vacuum created by the rational abandonment of portals by readers and content-creating editors. Portals are the only part of Wikipedia where they can design and maintain large reader-facing pages, with almost free rein on the content, because what little scrutiny is applied usually only comes only from within the low-skill group.
   • For example, Portal:Transport was one of dozens of portals rebuilt by a highly energetic but massively incompetent and serially mendacious editor, who built a hugely POV article list for the portal by a) maximising the number of articles with no regard to bias, even tho a smaller set could have been less biased; b) working off the assessment lists of only one Wikiproject, even tho there are 22 WikiProjects within the field. This level of stupidity doesn't last long in article space, where it is outnumbered by skilled editors, but it has flourished in the under-scrutinised portal space.
10. This low skill base of the portal crew as a whole is long-standing, and is evident in multiple ways: e.g. the failure to establish and sustain community consensus for guidelines on the nature of portals; the extraordinary flakiness of the former featured portals process, which conducted assessments with no checklist of criteria and focused overwhelmingly on presentation rather than on substantive content; the systemic failure of the portals project to assess the quality and importance of portals (most are unassassed); the ease with which they were lured into support/acquiescence with TTH's automation spree, and then for his spam; the persistence of
11. As has happens with content areas of Wikipedia which have become dsyfuctional walled gardens (e.g. longevity and its piles of GRG-cruft, or various types of fiction which became filled with fancruft), the portalspam episode triggered scrutiny by outsiders who have tried to trim the low quality cruft. This outside involvement has been bitterly resented by the portal fans, many of whom lack skills which would be transferable to actual encyclopedic content. For some of them, the low-quality magazine-style portals are the only area of Wikipeda where they can thrive, and they are understandably frightened and threatened by the squeeze on their ecosystem. They have responded with rage, low quality dissembling and deceptions, and with demands to exclude no-fans from scrutiny of portals.

This can be resolved only by the community resolving the core issues, roughly in this order:

1. Why keep portals when readers don't use them?
2. What precise purpose is supposed to be fulfilled by portals? These are pages which consist of a one-at-a-time display of articles from a non-prominent list of articles with no stated clear criteria. What exactly does this offer which is so important that we should keep it even thou readers don't want it?
3. To what extent do any portals actually fulfil that purpose?
4. How can a topic-based portal be sustained when the editors and WikiProjects who work on that topic have no interest in the portal?
5. Apart from deletion, how can we prevent under-scrutinised portals being effectively captured by incompetrent editors, as happened e.g. to Portal:Transport and Portal:Ghana, Portal:Chad

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because this doesn't seem to address the core problem or, more accurately, question, either, which is why users aren't using portals. To me, they're not prominently placed on the homepage. Instead the homepage is cluttered up with useless "featured articles," "did you know" and "on this day" factoids, and featured photos. The sister projects and other areas of Wikipedia links are useful, but they're all located "below the fold." To me, the DYKs and FAs are useless wiki puffery in which editors clamour for getting their articles featured on the homepage. We waste TOO much time on DYK and FA voting instead of improving Wikipedia. The homepage should be, fundamentally, a navigation aid; not a collection of daily-changing article links. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, getting content on the Main Page is a fun little game that encourages some people to write better articles. It is not clear that taking away the motivation of seeing your article on the Main Page would make people volunteer more in other areas. As for your proposal of turning the Main Page into a navigation aid: we have Portal:Contents which tries that but doesn't do it well. —Kusma (t·c) 19:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, I agree with your comments on Portal:Contents not doing it well; it's too text heavy. I'm just saying, to me anyway, I find the Wikipedia homepage wholly irrelevant. Rarely does an interesting topic get featured I look it. In fact, of late, I've been accessing Wikipedia via the first article page that comes up (usually Canadian Tire Services or Motusbank, both now redirects to other pages). From there, I check my "Watchlist" and then check on a few WikiProjects; hence my thinking to making the Portals figure more prominently and have the FAs and DYKs take up much less "screen real estate." Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – In response to the neutral point of view concerns that have been presented regarding Portal:Transport, I have removed most, but not entirely all of the U.S.-based entries from the portal (diff). Removing all of the U.S. based portals would conversely present a non-neutral point of view of intentionally avoiding all U.S. based topics. Per this, I have also removed some U.K-related articles, because after removing the U.S.-based articles to balance it out, the portal would have been slightly slanted toward U.K. related topics.

The portal would certainly now benefit from more additions to further round it out in relation to presenting additional transport-related articles from various areas of the world. I hesitate to add any new articles to it, because at this point, article selections should be discussed on its talk page. Of course, now one could state that there are too many or not enough of one type or another type of topic present in the portal, such as it now having too many engine-related transport articles, as in articles involving transport regarding vehicles that use engines, not enough animal-powered transport articles, too many port-related and nautical-related articles, too many historical-related articles, too many articles that involve modern aspects of transport, not enough aviation-related articles, etc., and also vice-versa per these notions. Furthermore, it could be argued that some transport-related topics are presently not covered in the portal. So, if the portal is retained, I encourage talk page discussion to occur.

As I have stated at the MfD discussion, there was no intention of creating a non-neutral portal. Articles were added relative to WP:POG, where it states, "For the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal" that are "of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively". While WP:POG is no longer a guideline page, many portals are still based upon it, and it is common sense to use high-quality articles in portals. However, I certainly understand that article selections in portals should not favor one geographic area over another, and that elements of systemic bias that may exist in various areas of English Wikipedia should not be reflected in portals.

The following is a list of articles that are used in the portal as transclusions after the above edit occurred on 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Transcluded article list for Portal:Transport, as of 13 November 2019 (UTC) (Permanent link)

1 Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) 2 London congestion charge 3 MTR 4 London Underground 5 Horses in the Middle Ages 6 SS Christopher Columbus 7 AirTrain JFK 8 Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II 9 Oil tanker 10 Flag of convenience 11 Congestion pricing 12 Bayview Park ferry wharf 13 Ambulance 14 Port of Split 15 Calais 16 Port of Ploče 17 Road transport 18 Semi-trailer truck 19 Intermodal container 20 General aviation in the United Kingdom 21 Timeline of the London Underground 22 Rail transport 23 Steam locomotive 24 Innherredsferja 35 Transport in the Soviet Union 26 High-speed rail 27 Bulk carrier 28 Electric vehicle warning sounds 29 Electric vehicle 30 Kochi 31 Port of Skagen 32 Port of Rijeka 33 Ice trade 34 Skateboarding 35 Cycling 36 Car 37 Canadian Pacific Railway 38 Winter service vehicle 39 Indian Railways 40 Hybrid vehicle 41 Boeing 747

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Sub-colloquy on issues with creating an RFC)

• @Dmehus: The en.wp main page gets an average of about ~16 million hits per day. The 8 highest-level portals are linked from the absolutely prime real estate on that page, but get only ~1500 hits per day each.

So even if we make the absurdly generous assumption assume that every hit for those portals comes from a mainpage link, that leaves us with less than one in every thousand visitors to the main page using even one of those very prominent portals.

Readers are voting with their feet, and shunning WikiPortals just as they shunned webportals as soon as better navigation tools became available in the late 1990s (powerful search, and massive cross-linking facilitated by CMSes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This still does not explain why your stopping progress on portals. Just cause you hate them is not a reason to block attempts at there improvement or to verbally rape other editors.--Moxy 🍁 00:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not stopping progress on portal. On the contrary, I have repeatedly asked NA1K to collaborate on opening RFCs to resolve key issues around how portals should be built, and that offer remains open.

Sadly, NA1K prefers to make unilateral decisions and create a widespread WP:FAITACCOMPLI, rather than build consensus. They prefer to sneakily and stealthily create a massive breach of POV, without even notifying the topical WikiProject ... and then cite in support of their efforts a guideline which was delisted with their support, which has in any case has never supported POV-pushing.

The Moxy notion of stopping progress on portals is no more than another of Moxy's bullying ways of saying that I am an evil cow for seeking transparency and consensus. It's all much the same logic as Moxy's efforts at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses to bully me into abusing my AWB tools to implement a personal preference of Moxy's for which Moxy refuses to seek consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why cant you look at yourself in the mirror here and see what you are doing wrong rather than going with a "everybody but me" kind of defense. Can you do a self evaluation to see why so many editors are saying the same things? you aren't at fault for arguments, you are at fault for your conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

KK87, I have looked v hard. No amount of pile-on will alter my view that the structure and population of portals should be decided by consensus at RFC, rather than decided by one prolific editor trying to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. No amount of pile-on will alter my view that stealthily creating a black box portal with massive POV issues is a problem wrt core policy. No amount of anger from Moxy will alter my refusal to breach AWB rules.

My conduct is a mater of challenging these things. Sadly, it seems that there is much greater concern about the tone and language with which that is done than with the substantive problems, which remain unresolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: if you want an RfC, why didn't you just start working on one? If anyone refuses to work on you in designing the RfC then it's their own fault. By your own admission there are plenty of other "portal fans" who can work on you in making a good RfC. Provided you give Northamerica1000 and anyone else entitled to participate, the opportunity to participate, without continued name calling etc, and anyone who does participate gets equal voice, then it seems to me the community is likely to reject anyone's complaints about the RfC. (But these conditions do have to be met. For example, if you work on this in a personal sandbox and barely mention it to anyone else, don't be surprised if the community accepts that the drafting of the RfC wasn't done in a reasonable fashion given how contentious this whole thing is.) Of course if everyone else is so sick of portals that almost no one new participates in the RfC then I guess the outcome of the RfC isn't going to help, but still that doesn't seem to be your concern. From what I've seen, I imagine the more likely scenario is that the drafting of the RfC degenerates and you all won't be able to come to consensus what should be in the RfC which is why I supported all of Guy's proposals. At a minimum, I suggest you should first try to come agreement on how the final wording of the RfC should be decided that everyone is happy with. It would be good if User:Northamerica1000 explicitly agrees to participate in drafting an RfC but at the same time I can understand their reluctance to agree to something so abstract after all this time. Especially made in the middle of this highly contentious ANI. (I believe you said you made this proposal before, I don't know where and why Northamerica1000 didn't agree but IMO it's not worth discussing.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I didn't start working alone on an RFC because that can look like a "please approve my draft" exercise.

I thought we were far more likely to get a productive process if the RFC evolved out of dialogue. And given the amount of disruptive unilateralism that has been happening around portals, I was trying to lead by example rather than simply creating my own fait accompli. Sadly, it seems that I was mistaken, and that the preferred modus operandi is to charge ahead unilaterally and then yell "bullying" etc when challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: For clarity, I wasn't suggesting you start working alone on an RfC and then submit it for approval. I guess I didn't explain very well but I was suggesting that was the sort of thing which the community (and I don't mean those you may call "portal fans") is likely to reject such a process as flawed and is the sort of thing you shouldn't do. In fact, an RfC evolving out of dialogue was precisely what I was suggesting.

Find a place where it's suitable (as said, I think definitely no one's sand box) and mention briefly what you want to do. I have no idea if there is some sort of noticeboard that those involved in portals are likely to read, I suspect not from what I've read. In which case it would probably be fair to invite people to it using some process which isn't canvassing but ensures most who are highly interested in portals, whether generally supportive or opposed, are invited. I assume it's likely Northamerica1000 would end up invited in such a case, I would hope they would participate but if it not they would still have to accept the result of a fair process. Since you started it, it may be necessary to prod the process along by making some initial proposals and other stuff, it may not be.

Ultimately provided everyone is given a fair chance, IMO it will be hard for people to complain. But someone needs to at least initiate it. (As said, IMO the far bigger problem is what happens when you have a dispute, unfortunately I have no simple suggestions for that. A mini non advertised RfC on an RfC can sometimes help, but not always.)

My main point was there was no reason why Northamerica1000's not responding to your suggestion had to be a roadblock to developing any RfC. Nor would it mean the RfC wouldn't evolve in a fair process out of dialogue with all interested parties feedback and views taken on board fairly in it's development.

It seems to me this is the way to lead by example. And if I'm blunt, not what you've done. There's no need for anything to be unilateral or "fait accompli", but nor do you have to wait for any particular editor to respond. Especially since I believe you feel, there are plenty of our editors who's views are not that far from Northamerica1000. Continually fighting with another editor, to the extent that you are making personal insults that do not in any way advance the conversation, whatever their failings, is not in my book, leading by example.

I get that you strongly disagree with a bunch of stuff Northamerica1000 has done, but it doesn't justify what you've done, and maybe more importantly, what you've done IMO often hasn't helped anything. Personally, I think it would have been better to just ignore some of the stuff, while I haven't looked in great detail, even if the changes Northamerica1000 made were not beneficial, from what I saw none of it was so bad that it really matter so much if it was instantly reverted, let alone make such an aggressive challenge understandable even if I can understand why you weren't happy about the way it came about. Still if you wanted to challenge it, you could do so in a manner which didn't require all this, while continuing the development of the RfC with whoever else was taking part.

If you had developed a successful RfC with other interested parties, ultimately the portals NorthAmerica1000 worked on would need to comply. I think the community would rightfully reject any attempt by them to keep them in a manner which didn't comply with our guidelines simply because they just changed them when they were aware of the controversy and chose to go ahead anyway.

IIRC, I intentionally did not support any action against any editor last time this was at ANI precisely because I hoped someone would do something which would help improve the situation. From where I stand, you could have done that, but you didn't hence why we're here now and why I'm now supporting.

Again, you didn't have to do anything unilaterally or in a "fait accompli" manner. IMO you should have led by example by doing something which would hopefully help lead us out of the mess we're in now, precisely by starting a dialogue for an RfC (and whatever else). Actually, it was already a bit late by then as other than it already having IMO gone on for too long, I expect the process would have been more fraught than it needed to be since the parties clearly were quite annoyed with each other for various justified reasons which yes included what you'd said. (To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that was the only thing, or that you didn't also have good reasons to be seriously annoyed.) But I still hope that even now, you all are able to put that aside and come up with something to put to the community and we won't know until it's tried.

Technically it could be anyone to start the process, including me. In fact having a neutral party who takes a more leading rule is often the best way to minimise problems. But I'm not interested especially given my often expressed attitude towards the portal disputes, and don't think I have the experience. And it's not clear to me anyone else is that interested. And frankly seeing all that's happened at ANI would likely put many off, and again yes this includes but is by no means exclusively referring to what you've said and done.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: since we were discussing RFCs, please see the note I posted[65] below at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NA1K_is_gaming_the_system_again. Briefly, after a month of ignoring my request for an RFC, NA1K has attempted to game the system by unilaterally opening an RFC which frames the issue so as to entirely exclude the concerns which have repeatedly raised.

This is just the latest of dozens of episodes in which NA1K has tried to game the system. It has repeatedly provoked me to anger and to using harsh descriptions of the misconduct ... but this latest stunt is so blatant that it actually made me physically sick. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I've been debating whether to post this since you're clearly quite unhappy and I don't want to add to that, but here goes. I'm not happy about the way NA1000 has handled various matters and yes I do agree that opening the RfC when there was active discussion of what to ask at an RfC is one of the things which isn't good. That's why I supported a topic ban of both of you.

But at the same time, I'm unconvinced that opening this RfC was really that big a deal. The issues you want to ask, don't seem to be greatly affected by this RfC. If the community decides to allow transclusion, it's not going to prevent us deciding to only keep portal where there is an active WikiProject supporting them. It's not even going to stop us deleting crap portals.

And this gets maybe at the heart of why I think your approach, putting aside the civility issues, doesn't seem to be ideal. I appreciate you feel that NorthAmerica1000's changes are often not an improvement. Yet you seem to acknowledge most of the portals they tried to improve were totally crap and seriously outdated before. In my opinion the changes are actually an improvement considering how poor some of the portal were before. (Okay I only looked at 2 or 3.) I'm not saying they aren't also flawed since I agree with you on some of the issues e.g. systemic bias in article selection. But of course wikipedia works by collaboration and even if NorthAmerica1000 makes mistakes, provided they're willing to accept changes by others, that's how things are supposed to work.

More to the point, from what I've seen in some of the recent MfDs one of the issues is some editors feel that they cannot properly assess the portals since what you've done has effectively blocked possible improvements. I haven't see any reason why these changes are really so damaging or harmful that they warrant such strong resistance from you.

Your primary objection seems to be in the way these changes have been carried out. In that way, the RfC, as much as I'm unhappy about how it was opened, may actually be beneficial. You and others will have the opportunity to discuss, hopefully with the involvement of others in the community, one possible (but not mandatory) way of constructing portals. If you have specific concerns about what is being proposed, then hopefully these will be considered and dealt with. Then, in future, NorthAmerica1000 or anyone else will be required to consider the result of this RfC in any changes they make.

This won't deal with your other concerns but it doesn't have to. If NorthAmerica1000 etc are given time to make the changes to portals they feel will improve them enough so that community agrees to keep them, then hopefully the MFDs will be clearer. People will feel, that those who argue the problems can be solved have been given the chance and if they've failed, then this supports the decision to delete. Or maybe their results won't be futile and the community will feel that actually it's okay to keep their portals. I don't consider either outcome bad, and don't think you should either. I do not believe there's a strong mood in the community to keep something just because someone has spent a lot of time on it, so the amount of time they spend on it is IMO not going to be a barrier towards deletions unless it results in improvements sufficient to allay any concerns.

The only risks I see is that 1) because improvements take time, it may slow down the deletion process since people will feel that it's better to give the portals some time for development before deletion. But I do not feel this is a big deal, since I do not see any big problem with those few extra weeks or months. 2) This RfC may reduce the community's appetite on portals for more discussion like that wish you propose since the community is already sick of portals. But frankly the community is IMO getting even more sick of it from these very long and challenging ANIs. Okay people at ANI are not necessarily the same people who will participate in an RfC but still, I'm not convinced that one RfC matters much.

I will add that this whole latest saga on the RfC also adds into my feeling the way you've handled this hasn't helped. As said, I don't see any reason why you needed to wait for Northamerica1000 to construct the RfC, nor that it needed to be unilateral "approve what I've done" thing. You could hopefully have involved others and made a good go at it. If you had done so weeks or even months ago, we may now have an example of the proper way to go about things and could clearly contrast it with what Northamerica1000 did. But we don't have that, all we have is that you asked Northamerica1000 to participate in making an RfC but they ignored you which is a bit better than what Northamerica1000 did, but not much. (I mean it's possible no one would have worked with you in making the RfC. In that case, you could at least demonstrate how you tried and if everyone else really refused to participate, you'd have good justification for unilateral writing an RfC.)

P.S. One of the things that tempers my concern is that IIRC, there were about 50 or so portals that NorthAmerica1000 tried to edit. This is quite a few, but it's IMO not rising to sufficient concern to warrant some sort of immediate reversion. I'd note that while I've mostly stayed out of these portal problems I did IIRC !vote to ban whoever that was that mass created portals last year because that seemed clearly out of control. Also this is only one RfC. If NorthAmerica1000 keeps opening RfCs on different issues while ignoring the RfC you and others are developing, this would also cause great concern.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Throw-Away Comment on RFC

User:Nil Einne - I usually agree with User:BrownHairedGirl on substantive and technical issues about portals, although I very much wish that she would be civil when she is correct. However, I think that I am less optimistic than User:BrownHairedGirl about the possibility of a useful RFC on portals. I tried publishing an RFC on what I thought would be a straightforward matter, which was ratifying the portal guidelines that were commonly assumed to be in place, for more than a decade. These were frequently cited by portal advocates as saying that portals should be about broad areas. In fact, they said more than that, so that quoting just "broad areas" missed the mark. However, even that proposal, to ratify a long-standing statement, didn't get a consensus. I would like to see a consensus on something about portals, but I am not optimistic, and I don't think that the advocates of portals know why they want portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

you "don't think that the advocates of portals know why they want portals"? it seems obvious to me. there are SOME portals that serve a useful purpose. "they want portals", in that they want portals as a whole to exist. Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

oh, just re-read your statement. ok, yes, ratifying existing guidelines shouldn't be that hard. not sure why it didn't go through. can you please provide a link? Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 Here should be a link to the RFC that has been downgraded to a failed proposal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_153#RFC:_Formalize_Standing_of_Portal_Guidelines_as_a_Guideline_(18_July_2019)

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ok, it seems you wanted consensus, and didn't get it. ok, that still doesn't mean thaat supporters of portals "don't know what they want." Sm8900 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sm8900 - I think that they want portals because they think that portals are cool, and because creating a portal is fun. That is what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think they consider portals to be a valid and useful part of Wikipedia. Sm8900 (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I actually agree with you it's easily possible there will be no consensus. I've largely glossed over it because BHG seemed to feel that a big part of the problem was that NA1000 did not work on developing an RfC with them. If BHG develops and RfC but there's no useful result, that is unfortunate. But it actually adds to my view there's no reason to get so worked up about it. If the community doesn't share your concerns, even if it's a case of no consensus rather than a consensus against what you want, you have to accept that's how they feel and so things aren't necessarily going to go your way. Sometimes you have to let things be even if you aren't happy with the outcome. To me it seems particularly the case here, since the minimal reader involvement is an added reason why it doesn't matter much. I'm not saying we should allow anything, and if people did turn portals into a place where BLPvios, conspiracy theories, highly POV content etc flourished I would agree with a strong level of concern. But I do feel that the community would feel the same. And from what I've seen this isn't really happening at this time. There may be issues like system bias, very outdated info etc, but not much of this. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It's possible my views are somewhat influenced by my participation at the reference desks as quite a few also feel they are completely useless and should be closed down. But I do feel sometimes even though you don't like something, you have to take a step back and ask your self whether it's really that big a deal or whether it might be better to just let it be even if you're not happy about it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: being able to accepting that consensus is sometimes against you is a core attribute which is required to participate effectively on Wikipedia. That has happened to me many thousands of times over the last 13 years. It's how it goes.

But that's a whole different issue to gaming the system create an outcome which doesn't actually reflect the broad consensus. That dents anyone's faith in the whole basis of Wikipedia. I have never seen such sustained gaming of the system as that which NA1K indulges in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed: take this to Arbcom

But first, please read this: [66]

I propose that this be taken to Arbcom on the basis of it being a dispute that the community is clearly unable to resolve.

I further propose that one of you who is into this sort of thing post a draft Arbcom request in your userspace and invite your opponents to comment/edit, with the goal of having an Arbcom request that is endorsed by at least some of the major players. The main request should be a NPOV question; you can lobby for what you want done in your Arbcom comment section. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the problem is that ArbCom can't take on the core issue, which is: do portals have a purpose, and if so, what criteria, if any, should govern their creation, maintenance, and deletion. A bit like infoboxes, where the finding was "meh" on whether to have them or not but beatings for everyone who warred over them. Guy (help!) 17:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom was able to help resolve some of the intractable problems re:infoboxes; surely a case is worth considering re:portals. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. All we are going to get from an RfC is the usual characters having the same argument again (as you can see from the "Support #1" votes above from the Portal supporters). This needs to go to ArbCom who can look at the behaviour of all parties dispassionately. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa as well. While Arbcom won't say yay or nay to having a portal, it can address the behavior issues within the battle. — Ched (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I know! We can have the WMF Trust & Safety Team solve this!! (Guy Macon runs for cover as everyone throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support taking this to ARBCOM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom declined a case on this topic already in March 2019: here— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand your thinking - and perhaps right at the moment isn't best, but once ACE2019 has been resolved, I think the ripeness of it may have turned. — Ched (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds this thread is way too long; it's becoming hard to reply to. The parties involved need to be separated. I prefer JzG's proposal, but would support Guy M's proposal of having some editor/admin create a draft userspace ArbCom proposal on which we could comment Doug Mehus T·C 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking to Arbcom. This has degenerated into both sides getting into escalating beligerance, and multiple attempts by the community have failed to resolve it. There's very poor behaviour on both sides that needs to be examined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC) (moved from above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose Per Guy's argument above, and per there still being reason to think a community solution would work. There's a huge amount of history and context here. Lets not take up the Arbs time & energy on this until we've at least tried a simple iban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the monumental list of portal discussions above is somewhat damming - obviously a couple were on the underlying thoughts but a number are about how the dispute has been waged and we've not resolved the problem yet. Pending ARBCOM making superceding temporary injunctions, I do still think that a 2-way IBAN and temporary TBANs for both parties to avoid first-mover advantage from the IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support sending to ArbCom, but I will note that an extended discussion of portals that began on 1 March 2019 was closed on 11 April 2019 with no consensus except for the view of many editors that the community was too divided to resolve the matter and that it should be sent to ArbCom. A case request was filed to send the issue to ArbCom, and it was declined. I said at the time that the idea that the community was a few weeks away from resolving the issue was too optimistic. The community did not resolve portal issues within a few weeks or a few months. I still think that this will have to be resolved by ArbCom, because I don't have the faith that ArbCom had in April that the community would be able to resolve the matter. But that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This seems very like the infobox issue which was likewise intractable and so had to be referred to arbcom. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as I have noted above. I think that we need to be clear, however, that there are two distinct controversies here. One is the establishment of some rules for addressing the status of content in portal space in an orderly manner. The other is the specific behaviors, actions, and accusations that have welled up recently with respect to portals. bd2412 T 00:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support although I think we should give it a few more days and see if the original proposal gain consensus. I imagine a case will take at least that long to develop anyway. If any of the original proposals gain consensus, the editor's primarily involved can consider whether they will need to take this to arbcom or whether to give it another chance with the implementation of the communities decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Conduct issues make resolving this dispute hard if not impossible. The factionalism makes any community-originated sanctions unlikely. Clearly an intractable dispute that needs a structured discussion to resolve. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking this to ArbCom. The issues involved have been intractable for many months and the community has been unable to reach a resolution to poor behavior by some or the issue of swarms of clearly worthless portals still in existence that some want kept for unexplainable reasons other then WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support After BHG's reprehensible conduct in this discussion, I see no other option. Vermont (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proponent, and because there is evidence of behavioral problems in this area that the community has not been able to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support It seems the ongoing issues cannot be resolved at the community level and the community has made concerted efforts to resolve over many months. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for far too long, and the community has not been able to resolve it. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Seeing that the community has made some unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation, maybe an WP:RFAR is in the works as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before !voting further, editors should look at the last 20 closed MfDs of portals (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates). The standard of analysis is as good, or higher imho, than AfD (and I have plenty of AfD experience). The admins closing these portal MfDs are some of the most experienced/active uninvolved closers in WP and include: Scottywong, JJMC89, Killiondude, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and many many more. Rarely do you ever see these closers criticize the standard/quality of the arguments around portals, and at least, it is evident that a lot of hard work has been done at MfD to clean up the mess – and it is a mess. Just look at the MfD of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alaska, where the MfD is a long thread over an abandoned portal that is a link to the Main Article Alaska, and an article on a polar bear, and on a sea-lion, neither of which are relevant/notable enough to Alaska to be in Main Article Alaska; same with lighthouses. While the community has decided not to unilaterally delete all portals, a lot of editors have toiled away for years now, respecting this decision and addressing portals one-by-one in good-quality arguments that in almost all cases, result in a deletion by a wide range of experienced + uninvolved administrators. Some of the comments above (I am not going to name them), I find unworthy to these editors (of which lately, I include myself), who have given their time to this process. Therefore, unless the community is going to change its mind on portals (which I doubt, and ArbCom is not going to intervene on content), this process will continue. I am not going to opine on the BHG/NA1K interactions, which I do find very unpleasant and increasingly unnecessary, however, as I have said to both BHG and NA1K – two of the most productive and valuable editors in WP – if we declared a moratorium on Portal deletions for 5-years, that wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of them (e.g. +80-90%) are going to collapse of their own accord anyway. Whatever purpose they served 10 years ago, they are now functionally obsolete to Main Article+Navboxes on one side, and WikiProject Directory on the other side. There are many examples of portals where the Main Article is indefinitely protected due to extensive vandalism (e.g. Alaska, Mesopotamia), but the portal requires no protection, as the vandals have given up on it. It would be such a shame to lose one or both of the best contributors in WP over a tool that is already far down the highway of obsolesce, and in almost all cases, will not be coming back. Britishfinance (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It means nothing that a group of very adept closing Admins did not comment on unacceptable behavior in their close. Behavior issues are addressed at the proper venues after proper complaints have been made. Authentically, kudos are in order for these closers and their skill.

Regarding arbcom - I've ivoted "support" for Arbocom intervention. I'm going by what I see in this ANI and at a recent MFD. I have to find the link for that MFD again. BHG has engaged in the same personal attacks over, over, and over again - and these are only two discussions, albeit long discussions. I am an uninvolved editor. I have not participated in any RFCs or MFDs related to any portals.

What I am seeing is BHG creating a hostile atmosphere that is anathema to the collegial type editing that Wikipedia strives for. Losing a major contributor, or more than one, is not a sound argument for giving a pass on disruptive behavior. One of the problems is, BHG's attacks overshadow issues they are trying to point out about the behavior of one or more other editors. And, as has been shown, BHG's attacks have occured in other discussions, for which links are provided in the previous section. Also, if there is ongoing factionalism in these Portal RFCs and MFDs, then that needs to be addressed as well. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: This is more of a tit for tat behavior. And even if BHG is guilty of any misconduct at all, the fact remains that NA1k's conduct has been no better, as has been proven multiple times. ToThAc (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is gaslighting. Misconduct by one editor does not justify gross, repeated, shameless misconduct by another editor. It's nothing to do about whether BHG is justified and has everything to do about the sort of hostile environment this creates.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: You do have a point about potential gaslighting, so it might be better to just cite a good example.

I just now learned that there was in fact a fairly broad consensus to eliminate the subpage-based listing of portal content in favor of lead-section transclusions in a community proposal that even BHG herself supported. But even though that partially nullifies the argument that NA1k's implementation of this consensus was "sneaky", potentially unintentional gaslighters (such as myself) still appear to have the argument of NA1k repeatedly failing to justify said proposal as the basis for their actions (hence BHG's reversions were based on misunderstandings she would only just now be aware of) and implementing things clearly outside of the established consensus (such as failing to disclose why they selected the content they added to portals).

In my unbiased conclusion, I believe this is a case where one editor is creating a fait accompli whether it was their intention or not (NA1k), while the other is assuming no clue (BHG). @NA1k: I don't wish to be biased in any way, so would you care to comment on my analysis of your behavior? I'm all ears. @BHG: did NA1k ever cite the consensus here as justification for his actions a month ago? (Feel free to answer this as well, NA1k.) ToThAc (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: I am not aware of any instance where NA1K cited Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 6#Portals are moribund as a reason for their actions.

I have just read through that discussion for a second time, and I don't see any consensus emerging from it, let alone a formal closure. A lot of ideas were discussed, but I don't see any consensus being reached. I am astonished by the suggestion that I supported there any proposal for how to structure portals; my one comment in that discussion (timestamp 14:32, 29 March 2017) was to support a purge and consolidation. I did not comment on structure.

In the course of other discussions in 2019, I have supported the move towards excerpt transclusion to replace the content-forked subpages which are maintenance failure a vulnerability. I have not endorsed doing so as a "black box" model without any visible, linked list of selected articles. The best model I have seen so far is Portal:Wind power, which displays a list on the face of the page. I am not thrilled with its layout, but the transparency is there to facilitate scrutiny, and improve usability for readers who don't want the excerpts.

But this mining of two year-old discussions seems to me to a big diversion. NA1K set out to do a massive restructuring of dozens of portals. NA1K didn't cite any prior consensus for doing so. NA1K didn't post anywhere to explain their plan. NA1K didn't seek any input on whether their preferred method was actually supported, let alone specifically seek support on it. NA1K didn't notify any WikiProjects or any other stakeholders. This was a unilateral WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

In 2019, NA1K has been a prolific participant in discussions at WT:WPPORT. They commented there on many issues, and started lots of threads, so it is very hard to see any good faith explanation of why they chose not to even notify the project of what was clearly a plan for widespread restructuring, let alone seek consensus that it was a god idea both in principle and in detail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• edit conflict I've updated several portals before without disclosing or needing to disclose as to why I added specific articles, though I almost always add featured content. There's not enough editors updating these to have a substantive discussion about what to include, and portals have shifted away from being a quasi-magazine to now being more of a navigational structure for quality content. Portals are currently the wild west, there's no style guide for how to improve them, and that's one of the biggest reasons why we're here - apparently any edit NA1k makes can be reverted for going "against consensus" because there is no consensus, but NA1k has made a number of constructive edits and it's tough from me as an outside party to see exactly which rules they've been breaking when no rules really exist in the first place. I've worked constructively with NA1k to bring a couple portals up to speed, including on some of these portals where the changes "weren't discussed" and the edits were constructive. NA1k to justify all their portal edits isn't required anywhere, and the fact we're discussing it at all demonstrates the battleground which we overlook. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict Why does anyone believe this one editor need anyones ok to edit theses pages? As the editor even posted what was going most of the time as seen here. This has not happened as much to other editors...so why this admin -because someone thinks there an idiot is not a valid reason? --Moxy 🍁 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you are getting to one of the core issues of portals - there are no regulations/rules around portals (unlike Main Articles which have full PAG). Mass-update of portals to give an artificial illusion of activity and maintainence is not what I think is meant to happen. When BHG has tried to engage with NA1K on a portal-by-portal basis (as only she could do), the mass-update approach breaks down? Beeblebrox's comments about The Portal Rescue Crew on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alaska are this very issue. Abandoned, artificially supported portals, give the impression to potential Alaska focused editors, that WP is a failing project. Why do this to ourselves? Britishfinance (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not correct in fact we have had a few portals do very well in updates when Brown is not around - when brown is around they revert any changes by multiple editors. (i.e as seen here )with walls of text not related to the portal at hand Portal talk:Australia. We here at wikipedia follow editor discretion and use Wikipedia:Portal#Features of portals for guidance.--Moxy 🍁 00:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy that diff you posted is to NA1K's sandbox. It is utterly bizarre that you seem to think that an edit to a personal sandbox is some sort of notification to other editors. (I don't sniff around other editors sandboxes, and visit them only when asked or when they appear in cleanup categories). Your diff has the opposite impact to what you intended: the fact that NA1K created such a list but apparently chose to post only in their own sandbox looks to me like evidence of an intent to be sneaky about the scale of changes they were making.

As to this has not happened as much to other editors ... that's simply because no other editor has done anything anywhere close to NA1K's mass restructuring of portals. I spotted it a whiff of it one day when I was looking at the relatedChanges to Category:All portals, and then looked at NA1K's portalspace contribs. That was when I noticed the scale of what was happening, and started the examination which led me to begin reverting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Its very concerning that your not reading what is posted by others as the chart in the sandbox has already been presented to the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted.--Moxy 🍁 00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: its very concerning that you choose to me berate for responding to what you actually wrote, and to falsely accuse me of not reading. The only not reading in this exchange is your failure to read your own words before attacking me.

You posted a link to a sandbox, and that is what I commented on.

Now you say it was also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted ... but you don't seem to notice that was that thread was posted in response to my reverts (which you definitely should have noticed, because you started the thread[67] about those reverts). So what you have unintentionally achieved is to reinforce my point that NA1K did not advertise their mass takeover of portals while it was underway, and instead advertised it only after the fact.

This is yet another example of why I have said several times in other ways that you are a repeatedly disruptive factor in discussions, because you do not demonstrate remotely effective communication skills. Instead, you start exchanges like this in which you generate a lot of heat and give a strong impression of having little or no regard either for either the facts which you assert or for their significance. The repeated need to counter your streams of false and/or misplaced assertions wastes the time of other editors and drains their patience ... and then you hypocritically complain that the responses which debunk your nonsense are walls of text. I don't believe that you are consciously or intentionally trolling, but conduct like this is a technique used strategically by some clever trolls who so understand how disruptive it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet again your trying to stop progress on a point you keep raising Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) #Use of direct transclusion in portals and the newer portal transclusion templates.--Moxy 🍁 12:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support For BHG being held accountable. My proposal below was not allowed on ANI space and it contained why BHG should be desysop. At Arbcom, other experienced users can have a closer look at the reasons. It would also bring a possible resolution to this discussion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Further comment to my Oppose (above). As I said above, I think the process of portal MfDs will go on; however, unfortunately, I don't think ArbCom is going to add anything useful in that regard. Most of the major portal RfCs were split affairs, and any real consensus, outside of small RfCs which are not really meaningful (often for good reasons), was not forthcoming. RfCs carried out in the heat of this ANI will probably even be more detrimental to the longer-term resolution of the portal mess; untimately, the functional obselence of the vast majority of portals (per above), will see their own rapid deterioration continue at pace. Somebody in 10 years time, will delete most of the portals in WP (but not all), and nobody will probably care.

However, the specific issue of BHG/NA1K interactions are undoubtably very problematical. I understand the basic argument of BHG's first problem with NA1K, in that his mass-updates across many portals is not how portals are meant to work (e.g. meant to have proper topic-interested maintainers/enthusiasts), and NA1K's actions are artificially extending the time-scale of their demise (like TTH did in 2016). While I agree with BHG on her technical point, her language to NA1K is not acceptable and way off base, no question.

However, BHG also accuses NA1K of further behaviour (which she describes as "sneeky" or being a "liar"), around the technical way in which he has attempted mass-updates that mekes them hard for anybody but proficient editors like BHG to undo or spot. I don't understand this argument. If BHG is correct, then it is a different issue, and one could argue that BHG that been driven "off the cliff" (because her language is "off the cliff" in my, and I think most editors view, regardless of their view on portals), by NA1K.

Ultimately, we would either need a targeted ArbCom to look at this issue (either BHG is unacceptably/unfairly bullying NA1K, or NA1K has been doing things that he should not have been doing), OR, we get some uninvolved senior admin who understands the technical detail of portals (but is not a portal enthusiast, understandably), and what NHG is accusing NA1K of (e.g. somone like Scottywong). Anything else will be a mess in my view, and will produce no useful outcome to the project, and a huge loss of editing-power from one or both of the most productive editors on the project. We owe editors like NA1K and BHG more targeted and considered analysis, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I notice Scottywong has kind of started this at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Help me understand. Britishfinance (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Does this really need a consensus here? Can't someone just open one if they think it has reached the level of needing Arb involvement. AIRcorn (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, they can, but a case will have more clout if it shown that there is a strong consensus among editors that other methods of resolution have failed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbcom will not and cannot investigate the underlying issues regarding portals. All Arbcom can do is count how many bad words have been used by each participant and urge the community to hold a discussion. Rather than wringing our hands over the fact that BHG has made certain accusations, an investigation of the issues should occur. Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed? Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: "Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed" Last time this was brought to ANI, less than a month ago, I tried to mediate a discussion on how to move forward at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Talking it out. Specifically asking how they both "think we can move forward from this and de-escalate" and "What is it you both want to see happen?". As you can see from that discussion and this one, it was not a successful strategy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. BHG has made an almost record number of unsubstantiated personal attacks without any admin doing their job and blocking them (As far as I can see from the above mess, the 'death by section overload' tactic seems to be well in hand here). A normal editor or IP who repeatedly called someone else stupid (and don't think snide references to dunning-kruger make you seem more clever) would have been blocked for significant periods of time by now. Neither has any editor or admin seen fit to enforce WP:NPA which allows anyone to remove personal attacks. So if no one is going to do anything, send it to Arbcom so they can put their official stamp of approval on BHGs bad behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. User BHG's sustained attacks are unacceptable at this point. Many users have tried to negotiate, but to no avail. It usually ends with user BHG claiming their bullying is WP:Spade and then the insults get extended to the negotiating party until they give up and duck out. Several solutions have been proposed, most along the lines of "let us punish both sides equally", as some kind of ill-fitted compromise. Which of course is ridiculous. You don't punish both bully and victim because you are annoyed by the ruckus. I get it, nobody wants to read the tens of thousands of words that come along with portal discussions. Let ArbCom handle it then. --Hecato (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The name-calling, personal attacks and failure to assume good faith have been going on for a very long time without any admin stopping them, so Arbcom is the only resource left to us. I agree with the comments above that this isn't a case of "a plague on both your houses" but a situation where there is a clear bully and a clear victim. On the underlying content issue I would lean towards the position taken by the bully, but that doesn't excuse such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Phil Bridger; Support. If the community is actually able to express some consensus on this, then yes, perhaps ARBCOM can help somewhat. Sm8900 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support: I just want to be completely clear here: I'm supporting this action only if it questions the general individualized civility of everyone participating in portal deletion discussions (myself included) as was established in this ARBCOM case, though since I wholeheartedly feel that BHG's actions aren't the only root in this conflict, I can't find myself supporting otherwise. ToThAc (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed BHG is not the only bad actor in this dispute - there are multiple editors, not all on the same side, who need removing from the topic area for bad behaviour. BHG is simply the worst individual participant. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, there's multiple editors with major poor behaviour, and quite a few with a bit - on both sides. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support sending to arbcom to address the behaviour and conduct of all involved parties. Arbcom will not and should not address the content issue (which is what portals in and of themselves are). Both BHG and NA1K are utterly incapable of interacting civilly with one another to the point where both of them are demonstrating behaviour that will make people question whether they should keep their sysop rights, and an interaction ban in the meantime would also be sensible. Fish+Karate 16:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Could you provide some diffs that highlight incivility from NA1K? Lepricavark (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT. (2nd bolded comment by this user.) Sometimes, the real value of an Arbcom case, is simply to get Arbcom involved, so that they can tell everyone, "play nicely," and then intervene after that for notable examples of contentious behavior., in this case, that is a lot of what we need. Sm8900 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support As well as reading (all of) the current discussion I have looked back at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Buaidh (as I recall my only portal participation) and I have browsed the discussion leading up to the latter. Even restricting to these situations, I am very concerned about some very poor editor behaviour and it is important something is done. If the community cannot agree on a satisfactory (or any) action to improve things, the matter of editor conduct should be referred to Arbcom. It is important the community or Arbcom takes action on matters of conduct such as have been shown here. Thincat (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support because, in addition to what other editors have said, it takes way too long to scroll past this massive wall of text. WMSR (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support if and only if the case is initiated after ArbCom elections: I will support this, but only after a new ArbCom has been elected and seated. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Javert2113: Why do you think this needs to wait until after the elections? Why do you oppose the current committee handling it? Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: I have three major reasons. First, the Committee, as you may note, has already declined to accept a case on this very matter back in March; at the time, this was a question of ripeness, but it does cast a shadow on this iteration of the Committee accepting the case anew. Second, well, many of the Committee's decisions this year, for lack of better descriptors, have courted significant controversy: and, believe it or not, I'd rather this case not be taken by the Committee this year. Finally, given how close we are to Arbitration Committee elections, it would be prudent to hold off until the new Committee is seated: fresh eyes, new ideas, and all. Anyway, I hope that satisfies your curiosity. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Considering that the decisions which generated "significant controversy" concerned some of the most difficult and divisive cases that have ever been faced in the history of the Committee (Fram and Antisemitism in Poland), controversy would have been inevitable no matter which way the cases were closed. Why not just come out and say how you truly feel, which is that you believe the current Committee is incompetent.--WaltCip (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support an ArbCom case to examine the conduct of everyone involved. It is definitely true that ArbCom cannot resolve the underlying issue, but part of the reason things have gotten to this point is a broad breakdown of WP:AGF and aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the part of several people involved in the dispute. I think a lot of problems are obvious just by skimming this page, but we need to lay all the accusations and counter-accusations to rest at some point, and at this point the finality of an ArbCom case examining all of them seems like the only way to accomplish that. --Aquillion (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Abolish Portals, please (closed)

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

---

If only the community would've followed through at Village Pump & chosen to abolish all portals :( GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, we have already had two lengthy discussions with a clear community consensus not to abolish all of the portals. At this point its a WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I like the idea of Portals, so wouldn't support such a proposal. In fact, see above, where I've argued for featuring the portals more prominently on the homepage instead of useless (in my view) FAs and DYKs. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Best to abolish them, as they're more a negative asset, then a positive. I've never seen the value of portals, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point, such proposals are in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. bd2412 T 19:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly.... nobody at the moment wants another lengthy debate on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree not the time but also agree they don't work as we though they would....be it because of lack of accessibility due to mobile view limitations or the labour intensity of the old style portals making them outdated. If a few are to stick around I belive Portal:Canada can server as an example of what a portal can provide....being a showcase for featured and vital content while providing a navigation aid (cotents) and introduction to the backside of Wikipedia by way of project introduction - Wikipedia:Portal#Purposes of portals.--Moxy 🍁 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with portals is that their very low utility and very low readership means that most of them have been rationally abandoned by the more skilled editors who might have built them into something which adds a little more value. For similar reasons, they have also been abandoned by most active WikiProjects.

As a result, most (tho not all) portals have become the playground of

• those who like creating Rube Goldberg machines: vast forests of templates, Lua modules and sub-pages just to display an excerpt which is only marginally better than the excerpts built into the Wikimedia software. Most portals are basically just an absurdly baroque wrapper round a short list of articles which could be displayed in a few lines of [[Article1]] * [[Article2]] etc
• very low-competence editors such as Moxy and esp NA1K. NA1K charges around a vast range of topic areas in which they have no demonstrable expertise or skill, making lists without clear criteria which would enable other editors to examine why those articles have been chosen over others. NA!K's competence levels are so abysmally low that they are either unable or unwilling even to acknowledge that there is a serious problem in their choice to crate a list of massive bias even on the broad topic of transport, where they populated the portal with a list where of 50% of the geographically-tied articles relate to their own country.

Even in that extreme case, when NA1K was challenged about it, they failed to do what any honest and competent editor would do: promptly acknowledge that they had screwed up really badly, and that some wholly different approach was needed.

Most of the antagonism over portals derives from their collapse into this status of a playground for the incompetent, who bitterly resent being challenged about the abysmal quality of what they create with their low skills, and are frightened that their playground is shrinking.

This structural problem could be resolved either by deleting all portals, or by the wider community making a much firmer grip of how portals should be designed and built. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Propose immediate block for yet another personal attack by BrownHairedGirl against NA1k and Moxy, just above. I'm too involved in the portal dispute to do it myself, but I can't understand how this harassment and bullying has been tolerated for so long, and BHG now continues to attack and bully other editors in a thread started because she has been bullying and harassing other editors. Is the WMF right and we are a pro-bullying pro-harassment website that can't get its house in order? Even if BHG were right about portals, I can't see any excuse for this anymore. —Kusma (t·c) 20:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem we keep running into....an administrator not willing to engage others with any respect.--Moxy 🍁 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I show great respect to editors who try to work in good faith within their skill zone. Those like you who repeatedly demonstrate bad faith and refuse to recognise your own imitations get less respect from me.

As one example, it's only a few days since you engaged in sustained bullying of me at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses because I refused to accede to your repeated insistence that I should abuse tools such as AWB in pursuit of your desire to circumvent long-stranding aspects of interface design. You were especially outraged that I insisted that I would have no part of that unless there was a clear community consensus to do so.

I do not express respect for an editor engaging in that sort of bullying and contempt for consensus ... and I have no respect at all for your blatant hypocrisy in behaving like that and then calling me all sorts of names . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure what your linking to when it comes to a personal attack on you at that page. But it is odd that after that talk you changed some inline-portal templates limiting accessibility for 50 percent of our readers. You can see how time and time again many are not convinced your edits related to portals are made with our readers in mind and has lead to numerous complaints about edits and behavior.--Moxy 🍁 21:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: if you had genuine concerns and wanted to know why, you could simply have come to my talk page and asked why I changed some inline-portal templates. But sine you chose to make a drama of it here, this is the answer.

My AWB setup for updating portal links after deletions does not change the portal template in use. In most cases, this works fine, but in cases where {{portal-inline}} has been used there is a problem when one portal links is replaced with two, because {{portal-inline}} takes only one portal as parameter. I usually let my AWB job do the replacement, and then cleanup the errors.

After the deletion of Portal:Indian classical music, its links needed to be replaced with links to Portal:India and Portal:Music. I used a different methodology, and manually handled those cases of {{portal-inline}}. AFAICR, I used a variety of approaches depending on context, and in some of those cases, such as [68], I used other portal templates which take more than one parameter. It depended on what seemed to be the neatest and easiest solution. In that case {{Portal bar}} seemed both easiest and neatest.

If Moxy or any other editor wants to deprecate any portal template such as {{Portal bar}}, then they are free to bring it to TFD. Meanwhile, I used a valid portal template to resolve a problem caused by {{Portal-inline}}, to ensure that links were displayed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Even a moron like me would have simply used a second inline template to not hide the portal to 50 percent of our readers. Again think what is best for our readers.--Moxy 🍁 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, that would be your choice. I chose not increase vertical bulk, and instead to reduce it by displaying the portal links prominently in a {{Portal bar}} in (AFAICR) about 5 or 10 cases.

You have a particular personal obsession with using only {{Portal-inline}}, for reasons which you believe are important. I weighed the benefits differently. As I noted above, if you want the community to deprecate any portal template such as {{Portal bar}}, then open a TFD and seek consensus for your view. But, unless and until there is consensus to do so, {{portal bar}} remains a valid alternative, used on 74337 pages. So back off your bullying. This is just a continuation of your personal attacks on me on at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses, where you demanded that I use AWB to make changes to implement your personal preference. WP:RFC is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This could be what the main problem is (understanding of others intent) ...was no demand nor any attack on you at that page...as for portalbar ..that is a good choice and is one of the temples we got fixed to work in mobile view. But that was not what my example was.--Moxy 🍁 00:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, if you truly believe that NA1k and Mo on you to do anythinxy. perhaps its a cominication are too incompetent to edit here, you should either start attempts to ban them (I guess you know where to find the ArbCom), or you should rejoice that they spend so much time on niche low-viewership things like portals instead of in places where they could do more serious damage. It is quite difficult to disrupt the encyclopaedia using portals (again, pageviews and number of editors involved are not huge), but you have succeeded many times to blow the issue up to epic proportions by focusing on contributors instead of content. Bullying is bad and the ends do not justify the means. —Kusma (t·c) 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: I recoil at the bureaucracy of an ArbCom case. Months of diff-farming does my head in. After The Troubles case ~12 years ago, I vowed never again if I could avoid it. And my experience of ANI is that is good at simple, immediate issues, but very poor at handling cases involving prolonged issues with several people, esp if the miscreants have a vocal fan club. (Part of the flaw is structural: non-admins get equal voice in the decision-making, so its not really an admin board).

So I hoped that progress could still be made without bans, by enough outside editors getting involved to outweigh the vocal-but-incompetents. Most of the time this has worked well, but every now and then it all flares up, as it has just done over transport, or as Moxy tried to do with P:Lighthouses.

If you actually look across the range of MFDs, you can see that I have tried v hard to focus on content. I spend a lot of time researching and writing detailed researched, rationales (to the portal crew has denounced me for that: it's "intimidation", they said, because they prefer ilikeit debates).

The problems arise when the likes of NA1K arrive and post nonsense. Moxy mostly just posts garbled hot air, but NA1K specialisses in truthiness: well-written nonsense which is structured like reason, but littered with non-sequiturs and falsehoods and half-truth. A debate/discusison format is ill-equipped to deal with sustained half-truths like that, so things can kick off as NA1K responds with verbose scattergun nonsnense. You can see an example of it further up this page, where NA1K accused me of doing "exactly the same thing" as they dis, even tho I had done the exact opposite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Kusma: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

We are here to build that enyclopedia.

Building an encyclopedia requires skills.

Editors who lack the skills to contribute effectively in a given area are expected to have the self-awareness to recognise their limitations and find other way of contributing. Failure to do so is disruptive.

Massive disruption has been caused, and is being caused on an ongoing basis, by the failure of those editors to work within the limits of their own competence.

There is now a persistent problem that those who challenge this disruption caused by this incompetence are accused of all sorts of wickdeness for pointing to the emperor's nakedness.

If the solution is to silence the critics, then the problem will not be resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, That's true...I do agree with this, "Massive disruption has been caused, and is being caused on an ongoing basis, by the failure of those editors to work within the limits of their own competence." I try and limit my editing to Canadian politics, corporations, and North American radio and television stations. I wonder if part of the problem may be the country-specific WikiProjects whereby editor-members are editing, on a mass scale, on topics which they have little knowledge but are colocated based on their being in the same country? Perhaps we need a re-think of WikiProjects such that we eliminate country- and geographic-specific WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 20:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just country-specific portals that are the problem—it's just that you're seeing those because they're the ones that are potentially viable and have consequently survived deletion. TTH's portal-creation script was based on search terms and was very scattergun, and we ended up with things like Jannie de Beer in Portal:Alcoholic drinks. (I have no idea if that was a real example or not—that's just one I made up to illustrate the issue—but anyone who was there can confirm that I'm not being unfair.) ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, True, and I don't disagree with you. I didn't realize editors were creating portals via script. I assumed most were created manually. Excuse my Pollyanna syndrome. What I meant was the WikiProjects (not Portals) contributing to the perceived, if not real, problem of editors editing beyond their topical competence. The Canada Portal is a good example of a portal (but so was the now-deleted Star Trek one). The real problem, I think, is the country WikiProjects (i.e., WikiProject Canada; WikiProject United States of America, etc.). Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the main problem with country WikiProjects is that they tend to be too large to have much coherence. I don't quite see how WikiProjects cause people to edit outside of their competence. Most people tend to edit topics they are interested in, and from my own experience trying to cheerlead the Germany project I can tell you it is rather hard to find people who will help with some "important" topic that they don't enjoy editing. YMMV of course. Anyway, this is off-topic and might be better at the idea lab. —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

In 2018, a script was used to assist in creating portals, all or almost all of which have been deleted. The script has been blanked and the templates which it used have been deleted. Certes (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Dmehus. I try to limit my editing in similar ways. My topics are politics and modern history in Ireland and the UK.

However, this has almost nothing to do with WikiProjects, which have largely abandoned portals. Most Wikiprojects as less tha active, but insofar as they are still functioning, WikiProjects do prvide a forum for steering editors away from damage.

This is about portals, where NA1K in particular has charged in and rebuilt many dozens of portals on a vast range of topics. At one stage they had even listed themself as the "maintainer" of over 42 portals, including Ghana, Free software, Guatemala, Biochemistry, Money, Djiboti, Tanks, Moldova. After repeated criticism, they removed themself as maintainer, but went on to sneakily rebuild dozens more portals on topics where they have with no demonstrable expertise. Every one of those which I have examined in detail was very poor quality work.

This is the Dunning–Kruger effect on steroids. NA1K has some bizarre delusion that the have some magic skill which gives them expertise in all these diverse topics, and doesn't learn to change course when the evidence is set out that they have screwed up yet again. Part of the reason this continues is the portal fan club, in which low-skill editors are dominant. None of them as severely deluded as NA1K, but they cheer on NA1K against what they say are the bad nasty people who "bully" NA1K by challenging the failings. So NA1K continues in a bubble. It's a dystopian group version of Randy in Boise, with lots of Randys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As one of the low-skilled editors who continue to cheer portals, this was probably my favourite diff from the recent discussion on Portal talk:Australia. And I love the argument you need "expertise" in a topic to improve a portal, or, indeed, anything on the encyclopaedia. With some simple researching skills, I've added citations to many topics I've never heard of before, and portals should be even easier to update if there's an associated WikiProject. Requiring "expertise" has never been a rule anywhere on Wikipedia, and is just another example of how BHG continually moves the goalposts on portal-related discussions to ensure no progress ever happens. SportingFlyer T·C 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So far as I could see then, and so far as I can see now, SF was the only Australian editor still participating in those discussions. The others were portal regulars. So I asked for notification to WP:WikiProject Australia, because This talk page is dominated by editors without connection to Australia, rather than by those with demonstrable expertise in the topic.

I note SF's derision at the notion that anyone needs any expertise in a topic to select a list of significant articles in that field. It's a very disappointing attitude, which I have never seen outside portal-space. Sure, anyone can research a particular point of detail, but selecting a representative set to give an overview clearly does require prior knowledge. Why on earth not ask?

I also note SF's claim that asking for notifications is moving the goalposts. On the contrary, a courtesy notification to parties who work on the relevant issues is common good practice across Wikipedia. SF's indignation only reinforces my point that portalspace has normalised poor practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my attitude disappointing. It's not at all difficult to become competent in a topic, I'd say it's even a requirement to be able to WP:HEY an article at AfD (which is not at all difficult.) Also, it's not as if I'm looking at NA1k's contributions to the Australian portal and going "tut, tut, if only they were an Aussie they would have picked better content to feature." Requiring only Australians to edit the Australia portal makes no sense at all, especially given none of the articles added were close to being controversial. Furthermore, how is it not moving the goalposts? There's not a single rule anywhere on Wikipedia which requires competency before someone can edit an article, and especially not from good-faith editors. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, please do re-read what I wrote,[69] and take care not misrepresent me. My comment there is only two sentences long, so it shouldn't be confusing.

I did not suggest requiring only Australians to edit the Australia portal.

I did ask that Australian editors be notified. This was to give them opportunity to comment if they wanted to.

Your indignation is is based on you attributing to me something which I neither stated nor implied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I am just stating that any consensus here isn't going to override community consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I would recommend it be taken to the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We've been to the PUMP about this, multiple times and recently. It's completely ineffective for this, because the people who want to keep Portals refuse to even consider changing process at all. Instead, any attempt to even propose guidelines for portals is met with accusations of "backdoor deletionism" and the whole thing grinds down to No Consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Well in my humble opinion, well constructed portals are doing their jobs by getting the views. If proposals are made they have to be careful to not lump all portals into the same category. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see a lack of willingness to change, but an overly narrow focus by both those who support portals and those who do not. There has been very little attempt to engage editors interested in the various candidate topic areas. Without support from the editors interested in a given topic, there is no chance of long-term viability for a portal on that topic. (I get why it's scary to engage: the vast majority of areas have shown no interest in portals. But there's no point in creating a portal in an area that you're not actively interested in supporting and pushing it onto a group of editors who aren't interested in the portal.) On the other hand, portal detractors seem to think it's necessary to bring up their points repeatedly because they're not being heard. But brainstorming ideas is a messy business, and people are going to discuss avenues even if you think they're going down unproductive paths based on faulty evidence. People can be wrong in discussions, and that's OK: they need the freedom to slip up to allow new ideas to bubble to the surface. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - BHG, there is NO excuse for the continued name-calling. I don't care if the other editor is Hitler reincarnated. Stop the personal attacks. Now. This shouldn't even be up for debate. It's one of the five pillars. Be civil or leave. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Desysop BrownHairedGirl (closed)

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

---

I am not an admin and I know I do not have much say, but I am initiating this proposal. User:Toa Nidhiki05 said that other options need to be explored and I believe this to be a possible option to end the dispute. I propose we desysop BrownHairedGirl for the reasons below. No blocking or topic banning needed, just one proposal. I want to be as polite as possible. BHG, it is not personal and I do not want to argue, this is just a proposal based on previous evidence. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl

1. Harassment. Plenty of evidence is prominent through diffs and this discussion. Targets other users. This violates WP:ADMINCOND and is against Wikipedia policy through the pilars.

2. Violation of WP:ADMINACCT. BHG does not reason properly as she erupts into poor judgement and accusations. She breaches multiple policies

3. Reverting and edit warring. Violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE by reverting other admin's edits. She reverts other users edits without consensus and does not consider WP:ALTREV and WP:ROWN.

4. Not a role model for non-admins. Administrators are meant to be examples of Wikipedias who excel in the pilars and understand all policies. They are meant to cooperate and help build an encyclopedia. BHG being able to commit activities I mention above is not what an Admin stands for or what ANY Wikipedian should be doing.

• Feel free to chime in at WP:DESYSOP2019 though. – Levivich 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• I am aware that no discussion of AA88's proposal can take place here, but I think that it is only fair to be allowed to make a one-off response to the allegations made by AmericanAir88. I have followed the same numbering scheme:

1. WP:Harassment is specifically restricted to "intentionally target a specific person or persons". That has not happened. Where NA1K's actions have fallen within my normal field of work, and I have seen problems, I have been outspoken about them, especially when they have been repeated. That reactive criticism is not targeting.
2. WP:ADMINACCT says "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools". This is the first allegation I have seen anywhere in these discussions which even suggests that I have failed to account for my use admin tools. No evidence of of any example is provided. So far as as I can recall, my only use of admin tools in relation to portals has been in deleting subpages after the closure of an MFD.
   • The claim that BHG does not reason properly is perverse. I have repeatedly posted lengthy reasoned arguments, especially when I have been critical of other editors.
   • I stand by my judgements. A generalised accusation like that needs example of of poor judgement, but AA88 has provided none.
3. Reversion does not require consensus. It is part of the WP:BRD cycle. I have done a second revert only in cases where the contested edit has been restored while discusion is ongoing.
4. The 4th para by AA88 is just generalised assertions, without specifics. It is simply an example of the logical fallacy of proof by assertion. The closest thing I can see to a specific is the generalised allegation that I do not co-operate. That is counter-factual: most of the criticism heaped on me is because of my support for oral deletions, in support of which i have opened about 500 consensus-forming discussions. I regard to the questions of portal structure and content which led me to revert NA!K's edit, I have in the last month repeatedly asked NA1K to work with me to design neutrally-worded RFCs to resolve those issues, but NA1K has not taken up that offer. It is perverse to accuse me of non-co-operation when I have repeatedly sought that co-operation.

I note that AA88 says it is not personal. But a set of unevidenced and counter-factual accusations looks very personal to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, you have access to the block buttons. Suppose you were attempting to mediate a dispute in which one editor repeatedly attacked the intelligence of the other editor. At what point would you consider issuing a civility block? Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Useless proposal, bound to waste a lot of time and create more division and hostility. Wish Floquenbeam hadn't reverted his own closing of this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

IPs adding/re-adding unreferenced material

91.140.110.64 (talk · contribs), 78.87.169.180 (talk · contribs), and probably others have been adding unreferenced material to many Doors (rock group)-related articles and other album, song, and music bio articles. Specifically, an editor or editors keeps re-adding unreferenced material to L.A. Woman (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After these edits by 91.140.110.64[70], I updated the article and removed most unreferenced material, since it was tagged "needs additional citations" since April 2014.[71] Nearly the same material, still without references, was re-added by 78.87.169.180.[72] I removed it[73] and added uw-unsourced2 to their talk page.[74] They re-added[75] and I removed with the edit summary: "removed unreferenced material (OR?), please see WP:BURDEN: 'All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.'"[76] Nearly the same material was again re-added by 91.140.110.64[77] without any references. They consistently do not add references, provide edit summaries, and have been reverted and warned by other editors. Clearly, they are unable or unwilling to contribute to WP in a meaningful way. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I must concur with Ojorojo, this user has no intention of sourcing or communicating with other editors regarding their disruptive editing. Robvanvee 14:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also adding 37.6.220.114 (talk · contribs) to this report as an IP that was also part of the group that overwrote the redirect Spanish Caravan in the same manner. I've sent this and another redirect to RPP recently, both of which were semi'd already by Malcolmxl5 and El C respectively. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

46.190.69.62 (talk · contribs) has begun similarly re-adding unreferenced material. Reverted and added uw-disruptive4 to talk page (also added Template:ANI-notice to their & 37.6.220.114's talk pages). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

91.140.104.191 (talk · contribs) is carrying on the same edits. Reverted, warned, etc. Since their block expired, 78.87.169.180 is back editing the same. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How about we block these IPs for one week each:

• 37.6.220.114 (talk · contribs),
• 46.190.69.62 (talk · contribs),
• 78.87.169.180 (talk · contribs)
• 91.140.104.191 (talk · contribs)
• 91.140.110.64 (talk · contribs)

These IPs are all from Greece, and might be operated by the same person or by a group of people who are coordinating off-wiki. User:Sphilbrick did some revdels at L.A. Woman (song) on 10 November for copyright violations. If anyone thinks semiprotection is a better option than blocks could they make a list of all the affected articles? If you notice other IPs doing the same thing, feel free to add them to the list. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe semipro for the articles would have been better. We'll see how this goes and advise. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ojorojo, I'm slightly in favor of semipro. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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 [78]. 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 [79] (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 [80] - 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 [81], 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 [82]. 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: [83]. 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)

Bacondrum's non-stop bad-faith accusations

User:Bacondrum and I have been engaged in Talk:Call-out culture. They never stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. Here is a list of diff demonstrating recent instances:

• Accusations of "bias and pushing" "Just one of many examples of Srid's bias is hanging out" (note that the word 'divisive' comes straight from a primary source)

• Accusation of cherrypicking

• Suggestions of 'bias' and 'writing off'

• Covert accusation of bias

• Accusation of confirmation-bias

• Accusation of "cherrypicking negative quotes"

• Suggesting I cherrypick sources with overtly negative bias titles

• Yet another accusation of cherrypicking <!-

And that's from just the last two days. I can cite more from the immediate past if necessary.

In response to their repeat cherrypicking accusation, I asked the user several times to WP:AGF (see here for one instance). I also stated that their accusations had no base. According to my meticulous search of scholarly sources and the internet, most sources on the topic happen to bring one group of viewpoints (something that's not represented in proportion in the article currently); and I challenged Bacondrum to demonstrate otherwise. Instead of offering the sources, they only continue to accuse me of acting in bad faith in periodic intervals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridc (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ongoing content dispute regarding this topic (we already have a mediator who offered to help!), and this report is not about content disputes.

Prior reports on Bacondrum

This user has been reported here previously. The last two, in fact, are in relation to the same topic (Call-out culture):

• POV editing ("Bacondrum has now deleted 37K bytes of reliably sourced material from Alt-right" -- this happened with Call-out culture too; see next section below)

• ANI: Requesting a subject-matter ban for user Bacondrum on the Call-out Culture article

• ANI: Stalking and ad hominem

• The user has previously received a 2 week ban, followed by a topic ban from Milo Yiannopoulos.

Possible explanation

Given that the complaint in the second ANI report was about Bacondrum deleting a large portion (compare this to this) of the article text, despite the consensus among editors to keep majority of it (here & here) - the fact that I'm recently engaged expanding ( see here) the article to be as elaborate as it was before Bacondrum got involved, I can only surmise that Bacondrum is WP:NOTHERE as far as Call-out culture is concerned. Which brings me to:

Request for action

Given this pattern of behaviour, I request a topic ban of User:Bacondrum on Call-out culture. Every day it feels to me that this user is hindering progress (as User:VQuakr from the first ANI report observed, they "are going to exhaust other editors' patience pretty quickly at this rate"). Please take a look at Talk:Call-out culture (scroll from middle to end of page), to realize how much time, energy and effort I have been putting on this article.

Reply to reporter

—Srid^YO 00:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If I understand right, the main thing you're objecting to is being accused of bias and WP:CHERRY. I don't think that cherrypicking is that severe of a thing to bring up - it's usually seen as a content and not a conduct complaint, except in the most egregious cases, and it isn't always deliberate. Remember that bias doesn't have to be intentional and doesn't always raise to the level of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing; bringing it up is an important part of resolving disputes. Many editors are unaware of their own biases, and you have definitely described some sources, like Haidt, as neutral on a subject where I definitely wouldn't consider them such. I think Bacondrum could have worded his objections more cautiously, but "I think you're putting WP:UNDUE weight on one point of view" is central to the dispute here, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your edits have at least had a very heavy focus on adding voices, like Haidt, with a very particular culture-war angle on the topic to the article. Obviously the content dispute is partially over whether those changes are needed or whether they end up giving that angle undue weight, but I don't think it makes sense to accuse Bacondrom of personal attacks for basically articulating his position in that dispute (ie. that those sources don't reflect the broader view and are therefore cherrypicked.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" - is what happened here. In regards to the content dispute question you raise, it would appear you have somewhat chosen to ignore my response. Here it is again, for your benefit:

One such earlier instance of you saying it was "It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible", to which I responded: "That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.".

Once their initial WP:AOBF was addressed, they either should have provided the evidence (sources) asked for, or stopped WP:AOBF. They did neither. —Srid^YO 14:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Back & forth area

There's a pattern of harrassment with the endless spurious reports from Srid. I've been critical of edits and proposals on talk, no personal attacks. I've been trying to be more civil after a bad start between us, but it makes it hard when every disagreement ends in a report. This is a content dispute, nothing more. How many times is he allowed to do this before it's seen as disruptive? I mean look at the reports, clutching at straws, this is vindictive reporting, is it not? This request for a topic ban is him clearly trying to shut down debate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment by largely uninvolved party

• @Sridc: I haven't looked at anything you wrote. But are you aware that probably the most common result of repeatedly opening ANI threads on another editor in a very short space of time is a WP:Boomerang? In such cases, the one who's exhausted everyone's patience tends to be you. As a case in point, you opened a WP:DRN, it was far from perfect and it wasn't just your fault. Still it looked to be somewhat proceeding. I'm not sure why you didn't just let that proceed with hopefully all of you learning something and also coming to some sort of consensus, rather than a third ANI in few days which has prevented the DRN from proceeding for now. (The 2nd ANI may not have been intended for ANI, but it actually dealt mostly with stuff best dealt with on ANI.) I personally suggest you just withdraw this complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The last time I made an error in opening an ANI here (I really should have gone for dispute resolution; but then being a new Wikipedian I was still getting to grips of how all this works). But for this ANI, I had put a lot of thought into the matter. I tried discussing the matter with User:Bacondrum in the article talk page several times (see the diffs; also the Talk page), but they do not show any sign of stopping. Per WP:AOBF, "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.". As I understand, an ANI report would be the natural next step. —Srid^YO 02:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't aware that DRN and ANI had to be mutually exclusive. I also wasn't aware that we were to suspend Talk page activity while the DRN is active. The article is currently locked, so I figured I do research on sources to use and post them in the Talk page (see Talk:Call-out_culture -- scroll from middle to end). —Srid^YO 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the 2nd ANI was not something suitable for DRN. It was a complaint about another editor, something that will not be dealt with at DRN, but will be dealt with at ANI. So regardless of where you wanted to post it, it was basically an ANI complaint. As me and others have said in the previous ANIs, maybe the behaviour of some of the parties involved isn't perfect, but it doesn't seem to rise the level requiring action at ANI. The natural next step is sometimes just to put aside your reasonable or not, annoyance with what another editor has said and done, and work in improving wikipedia via the processes available. Actually being able to put aside your differences, disagreements and grievences is a key part of collaborating on wikipedia, as it is in a lot of other places. Sometimes others go to far, and we will sanction them for it and not expect people to just accept it. But not every misbehaviour requires action, and in fact if it did you'd also be blocked by now so you should be glad about that. Anyway I don't think it's likely anything will result from this thread other than it being closed without action and largely ignored albeit still having wasted your time and a small amount of mine, and probably others when they read at least part of it. But you should be aware that opening more and more of these threads probably isn't pushing us towards the action which you seem to desire namely some sanction of Bacondrum, but instead some sanction of you. As for the DRN issue, well I don't do stuff there but I'm not surprised when one party is trying to get one of the parties sanctioned, it gets put on hold. The fact that you're still so new and still so unaware of how everything works, is maybe a good sign you need to take a step back and stop trying to get Bacondrum sanctioned every 3rd day or whatever it is, and instead focus on the article content. As I believe I said before, ultimately one editor cannot permanently prevent changes to an article since once enough editors are involved, it will be clear if consensus is against them. (Although I don't believe it's only one editor opposed to some of your proposals anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I will continue to work with Call-out culture, either way. However, with Bacondrum this process is going to be unnecessarily long and painful. I'd recommend a minimum 1 month topic ban on Call-out culture. Please take the whole context into consideration before making a decision; consider their mass deletion history (I provided references above), and continued opposition to improve this article. I don't even understand how they were able to get away with deleting a huge portion of the article early this year despite lacking consensus from other editors. —Srid^YO 03:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saw your response above. While I continue to reflect on it, please note a correction. I did not post the second ANI here (it is actually the first ANI; I ignored linking the second ANI). —Srid^YO 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page [84] since while what I say may be of some benefit to others reading this discussion, I should try and cut down on the number of lengthy replies by me at ANI largely consisting of advice to editors involved. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely want this content dispute moderated Srid appears to be unwilling to find a compromise and is using ANI reports to shut down debate. Bacondrum (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN and WP:ANI are mutually exclusive. Forum shopping in Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. I have placed the DRN thread on hold while this matter is resolved. I don't really understand how User:Sridc thinks that they can have a content dispute at the same time as they are trying to have the other editor topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: DRN involves User:Aquillion as well, so it would be between the three of us? Even if Bacondrum is not going to get a topic ban - I think involving you, Robert, in Talk:Call-out_culture discussions such that I'm not dealing only with Bacondrum would be of tremendous help. Sorry, I don't really know how DRN process is going to play out, but if an another active neutral editor (such as you) gets involved, that I would consider that to be an acceptable solution. In the last two days, however, wherein I delineated so much of the sources - it was basically Bacondrum word-salading / WP:AOBF'ing me - so the future of the article looked rather bleak. —Srid^YO 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Srid's behaviour

I believe this report should boomerang. Srid may be new, but he has: Been edit warring -

1. 00:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC) "Bold edit, fixing neutrality of intro paragraph. 1) Move feminist sources below to 'Description' section (inasmuch as it is not NPOV). b) Use Haidt's book to describe the synopsis."
2. 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925118534 by Aquillion (talk) - This is not how I understand WP:BRD to work. You made a change, I reverted it (citing properly). Now it is time for you to address the many arguments I made on the talk page. Please do, thanks."
3. 23:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925117894 by Aquillion (talk) - This was discussed in Talk. Ctrl+F "Evan Gerstmann""
4. 22:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925107941 by Bacondrum (talk) -- They are verbatim quote from a reliable source. Your 'challenge' does not have any substance, was already addressed in the Talk page."
5. 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925105041 by Bacondrum (talk) - Discuss to establish consensus before reverting"
6. 21:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not the place to display one's beliefs. Don't replace verbatim quote sourced directly from a reliable source. If you have an alternative source that's reliable, provide it in the Talk page."

Making spurious ANI reports -

• [85]
• [86]
• [87]

Appears to be colluding to act against another editor -

• [88]
• [89]
• [90]

Canvassing editors during a moderation rather than opening an RFC -

• [91]

And now, personal attacks in the above thread -

• "However, with Bacondrum this process is going to be unnecessarily long and painful"

He's been forum shopping Also asked for moderator to help with a content dispute and simultaneous tries to get editor invlved in moderation topic-banned. And that's just the stuff I can remember. Is there a point where this is disruptive? I mean how many guidlines does this fella get to break before there's something done about it, a warning? I mean the guy has demanded I be topic banned for a month, seems more than a little vindictive. Bacondrum (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Or even better, Srid retracts this stupid report and we get back to moderation, which would be my preference. Bacondrum (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Srid's final statement

I ask the admin to consider why Bacondrum would copy-paste the six diffs from a former AN3 report, which had the result of protecting the page, without even mentioning it.

Here's my stance on it. I've provided the evidence–that which I had been asked for in my prior "Stalking & ad hominem" ANI– here so as to illustrate the fact that Bacondrum is creating a behavioural roadblock to the article. Obviously I'm not alone, as you can see from the prior reports from people other than me. I also believe they were lucky enough to get away with it in the past, and gave them the opportunity to continue deleting en masse the contents of the article (compare this to this) without any established consensus on the Talk page (see here & here). There really wasn't much of consensus-based editing prior my involvement, and other editors (who are no longer active) thanked me for it. I really only see two solutions to this:

1. Topic ban User:Bacondrum on Call-out culture for a certain period.
2. Failing that, as stated above, involvement of a mediator (as is already the case, albeit on hold) and neutral third-party editors on this article for at least a month is absolutely needed to improve the article.

I implore the admin to consider not only all the context, but also the long pattern of behaviour (taking a look at ANIs opened by other editors, which were referenced above), and choose "1" as the response, even though "2" would work as far as the article is concerned.

—Srid^YO 13:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ANI, we don't deal with content disputes. We cannot force a mediator or neutral third parties to get involved in an article for a second, let alone a month. Consider also that your behaviour is probably not encouraging anyone to get involved since while it's fine to be new and inexperienced, what's not fine is to be unable to take onboard what everyone is telling you. No one wants to deal with a new editor who seems to have a persistent case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and unfortunately that's how you're coming across, at least to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nil, by your own admission you did not read the diff evidence I posted. I wonder how you are able to provide a precise response when you have not even read the essence of my report. —Srid^YO 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't need to read any diff to know we don't deal with content disputes at ANI. And I especially don't need to read it to know we can't force anyone to get involved in something. So for outcome 2, you are at the wrong place without needing to read anything but what you said. As for the rest, well as I already told you, when you've had 2 bites at the cherry in ANI in about 2 days, and people didn't seem interested even you yourself should recognise maybe it's time to drop it. And you were told, both times to just drop it and instead work on the content dispute as best you can. After you came here a third time on the fourth day, I told you again, as did others, to just drop it. I was hoping you'd take that advice, but instead you continue to demand action, even an action we cannot possibly fulfill and which is unsuited for ANI i.e. assigning a neutral third party for a month. So from my mind, it's starting to get to be a case of IDONTHEARTHAT. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 on Nil Einne's advice. These are 100% content disputes on articles with several experienced editors (i.e. Aquillion), who also disagree with you. WP has several other noticeboards for content disputes (e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard), or edit warring (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) and dispute resolution, which you have already been just recently invited to by Robert McClenon. This is I think your third extensive post to ANI in just a few days, and despite being given the same advice each time, you seemingly ignore it. This is not a good button to keep pressing. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" - is what happened here. This is not content dispute, which was already addressed several times in the article Talk page. Here is one instance:

One such earlier instance of you saying it was "It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible", to which I responded: "That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.".

Once their initial WP:AOBF was addressed, they either should have provided the evidence (sources) asked for, or stopped WP:AOBF. They did neither. —Srid^YO 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

But he keeps pressing that button. Come on now, surely that's enough. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Nil Einne Hi, Is this kind of behavior okay? It feels quite personal and like I'm being stalked by these two - an attempt to gang up or stack votes rather than contest/debate content. Reading this I really think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, it's just really grubby. Bacondrum (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN Status

I have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread as failed due to various problems including this thread, and allegations of canvassing. After this thread is closed, any survivors who wish to request assistance in formulating a multi-part neutrally worded RFC may make the request at DRN again. Do not come back to DRN while this thread or any other conduct dispute is in progress. I will not be taking part in the dispute here, in order to preserve my own neutrality in case I am requested, as mentioned, to assist in developing an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I will gladly request assistance in formulating a multi-part neutrally worded RFC once this done. I think this would be the ideal course of action at this point, it's how this should have gone from the outset rather than spurious ANI reports. Bacondrum (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Srid really acting in good faith?

This editor has been:

• Repeatedly making spurious ANI reports
• Editwarring
• Canvassing
• Repeatedly focusing on another editor rather than content during moderation
• Requesting moderation then making an ANI request while moderation is ongoing
• Exhaustively starting new discussions on relevant talk page while involved in Moderation that they requested over dispute on said page
• Demanding unreasonably long blocks for other involved editors over content disputes
• Repeatedly ignoring advice from admins
• Forum shopping
• Repeatedly referring to content disputes and criticisms as personal attacks and bad faith accusations

Bacondrum (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Compromise

As this is clearly a content dispute and it's going nowhere - I propose closing this report and using DRN to formulate a multi-part neutrally worded RFC about the article. This would be done with the expectation that once the RFC is posted that myself and Srid agree to participate in a civil manner, focusing only on content. Also, myself and Srid agree to make no edits to the article until the RFC is closed, and following the RFC's closure, we make no edits (and no reversions) without a firm and clear consensus on the talk page first. At least until this dispute has settled down. Bacondrum (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I am an external editor who came to know about this from the DRN, and I notice your first post there was to accuse Sridc[92], and the first to open hostilities. Also you repeatedly accuse him of canvassing[93][94], whereas WP:APPNOTE states "Appropriate notifications ... Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article", which is exactly what Sridc did, as he notified the top 4 editors by authorship[95] apart from the 3 editors already involved in the DRN. So your strategy of defending by accusing may be WP:KETTLE. Sridc sure is not without blames, but he's new, with your experience, you should know better how to act in this situation (ie, let it be). --Signimu (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Signimu. Bacondrum, you were also told to drop it last time including IIRC by me. I haven't directly addressed you since then AFAIR, in part because Sridc always began these threads. But sometimes the best response is no response, especially when your behaviour has been far from perfect. At this time, I don't think anyone feels there's anything that warrants administrative attention, but that could change and it could easily be a WP:Boomerang from either side. BTW, I had a quick look at the thread you linked above and mostly what I see is an inexperienced editor seeking help. Given the circumstances, I don't think sufficient canvassing concerns arise. While User:DeRossitt's replies may not have been perfect, IMO there's nothing that crosses any real line. While I can understand it's uncomfortable being talked about in a manner you don't feel is fair on some other editor's talk page, provided there's sufficient reason, it doesn't go too far, and it doesn't happen too often, it's something we should accept will happen. Another key point is I assume you are able to reply, although I would strongly advise against it. (If DeRossitt had banned you from their talk page, I would have far greater concern.) So yes, just drop it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that FOARP's latest suggestion on Talk:Call-out culture#A Chill Pill (and FOARP is a very experienced editor), for both Bacondrum and Sridc to take a break from Call-out culture is worthy of consideration. These are 100% content discussions issues, however, their intensity is ratcheting up now, and that is only ever going to end up in one outcome, for both of you, if it keeps coming back to ANI? Take a break, and no harm will come to the article while you are away. Life will go on, give yourselves a break from this. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes definitely worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I should clarify that IMO the best result from this thread is that it is either it's archived without action, or dies a natural death because everyone stops responding. I'm not sure much more is going to come from it. Hopefully the editor's involved take the advice offered but formal action doesn't seem likely. (And so yes, I'm not likely to respond anymore.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would concur that this AN/I post should just be closed down before it becomes worse, and that this is mostly just a content dispute. However I'll mention I advised Sridc against taking a content dispute to AN/I and they ignored this advice and took the precise same dispute here twice. In the spirit of WP:BITE I'd suggest against a boomerang this time but I would suggest Sridc should receive a final warning against attempting to resolve content disputes this way going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223, and Nil Einne; if this comes back quickly again to ANI as an(other) content dispute, a topic ban will be advocated. Closing this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• A TBAN would work, but should we also IBAN? Guy (help!) 01:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought this discussion was closed (albeit NAC) - who re-opened it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Emory College students placing assignment tags

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 [96]. 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)

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)

Mikola22

The user history shows not only are they not here, but a clear case of I did not here that. Here (this is not the first problem) [[97]] he starts a thread claiming this person Krunoslav Draganović is a historian (as well as talking about facts and the truth). Here [[98]] shows that he is here to right great wrongs. This goes back a lot further, [[99]] claiming there are no historical records to support a claim made by RS. Here [[100]] he talks about "original historical document", it subseqiazntly turns out its in fact a relatively modern book he is using, not a historical document. The latest is this [[101]]. This [[102]] a response to a user tying to explain RS sums it up. He knows better than any historian we use. Also a look at his edit history shows it seems to very much be a SPA. And the level of tendentiousness is now getting tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović (Matići near Orašje, 30 October 1903 - Sarajevo, 3 July 1983), was a Croatian historian in Croatian Wikipedia. I used a couple of information from his book written in 1937 for which he defended his dissertation in German language.[103] Otherwise I did not know that it was banned from Wikipedia as a data source? All the quotes I have provided as proof have Latin records below the page from Vatican archives known to the public. Otherwise the same book is mentioned in various doctoral dissertations by Croatian historians. I'll answer part by part Mikola22 (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

[104] My quote: "Wikipedia speaks that he has Serbian origin, although there is no historical document which proves that he is Serbian?" I asked how it is possible that Mehmed Pasha is Serbian when there is no original written historical information for that. The other editor's answer that this is true but that and some others do not have historical information about origin? But this is Wikipedia and truth should be told. There is no historical record that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin but on Wikipedia RS claims that he is Serbian? Bosniaks live in Bosnia; Vlachs, Croats and Bulgarians are mentioned in that area. Based on the archives in Istanbul, the American historian Harold Lamb claims that he is Croatian. but he is Serbian without one original document? And I asked to be explained that and how it could be. Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Uskoks[105] My quote: "Large numbers of "Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans to Croatia" there is not a single piece of information that anyone from Serbia comes to the Senj area or Dalmatia where Uskoks live. And I asked how it was possible for this information to be on Wikipedia when it was not correct and true. I would like to point out that I am not talking about the area of Eastern Slavonia(and Hungaria) because there are some Serbs from Serbia coming there, this is about Uskoks along the Adriatic coast. It would be as if it somewhere writes that Serbs are migrating to Italy from Serbia, although there is no historical information for that. That would be removed tomorrow. And that's why I asked how it's possible and what to do because it's an obvious lie. Once again, to be clear and specific "there is not a single historical record that speaks of the migration of someone from Serbia to the areas along the Adriatic coast and Uskoks area" Did anyone migrate probably yes but we do not have this historical migration data. Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "Question asked earlier so I ask it here too. If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs(15th, 16th, 17th century) and historian in the book states that in same village(15th, 16th, 17th century) live Germans, Croats or Serbs (it is not important), what do I do?" Since I have provided evidence that some Serbian historians are falsifying the truth If in some village are mentioned Vlachs and that is about 70% of Croatia and Serbian historians throughout books mentione that they are Serbs without proof, I am interested what to do because it is not true information, it is a forgery. I say this because part of Croats are also referred as Vlachs in documents and these forgeries are actually created some fiction fact that Vlachs are Serbs, which means that part of the Croatian population are of Serbian origin, which is not true and such manipulation is not in good faith. Therefore it is not RS but forgery and manipulation, how to stop it? Mikola22 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another" Article about Serbs from Croatia, I quote: "According to Srđa Trifković, by the mid-14th century Serbs were present around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača there was an Orthodox majority" So I asked where there is good faith when in those Serb-cited places we have no historical data there there live Serbs. It is the 14th century? Therefore, if we do not have historical information about Serbs in those places, why anyone entering this in Wikipedia article, is this a provocation? How can this be written on Wikipedia? This means that Serbian historian population of Vlachs from Croatia 14,15th century who lived there as in every state in the Balkans consider as Serbs. What the Serbs have to do with Croatian Vlach population? And I asked how that was possible. The second part My quote: Serbian source, "A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs"" Book of Croatian historians has original record(letter) I quote: " King Ferdinand in November 6, 1538. writes a letter to Petar Keglević "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque" in which he mentions "Rascians or the Serbs!" "And Vlachs!" (who are commonly called the Ćići ). Therefore we have one original letter. Croatian historian brings original letter and translation, the Serbian historian does not have this letter in his book but writes something which is not written in the letter, that is, he is lying. Where is here good faith? Wikipedia is supposed to promote truth, not lies and manipulation by some historian. I stand for true Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

You aren't helping by posting randomly indented run-on paragraphs. 2001:4898:80E8:0:DBE:B655:97CB:B70E (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikola: A word of advice before you dig yourself too deep in. This is not a place for content discussion. This discussion is about your edits in relation to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, more specific about your understanding (or lack of understanding) of Wiki rules about reliable sources and original research. For your own sake, please consentrate on that. --T*U (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "But there is no historical record that he is a Serb, an American historian speaks of him as a Croat because he found in the archive that he was Croatian or from Croatia, why he is not Croatian? If some historian or encyclopedia claims that he is a Serbian origin and there is no original information that speaks of him as a Serbian then it is not relevant evidence" My explanation say it all, we do not have original historical documents that he is referred as a Serb, and the editors of that article keep that information. So if everything is in good faith and you know that there is no historical information that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin why in good faith not asked for consensus i.e remove that information from the article. This is good faith, maybe Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Bosnian? You know that there is no information that he is of Serbian origin and you you keep that information in the article, that is not right, this whole world reads. Mikola22 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Also a look at his edit history shows it seems to very much be a SPA. And the level of tendentiousness is now getting tedious" I have proved every word entered on Wikipedia with a history book or historian and a link to that evidence. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm being accused of something, so I have to answer. I don't know what i should say, i explained my views. Why I would dig myself, because I warn that something in the articles is untrue, this is read Croatians in America, Argentina etc, students, ordinary people. Does anyone here control what is written on Wikipedia? Why there are no such facts on Croatian Wikipedia? Why doesn't someone write that Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin on Croatian Wikipedia. There is no evidence that is of Serbian origin that’s why he can’t write it. I thought that all Wikipedia have the same rules? This is a big surprise to me. Mikola22 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is read by ordinary peoples and they don't know that it is not an Encyclopedia, these are millions of people in the world. They will really think that some Serbs live in Croatia in the 14th century. On forums Wikipedia is more for data source, but ordinary people think that it is an Encyclopedia. So I suggest to consider changing some rules, to make Wikipedia more truthful and accurate. Mikola22 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you are able to accept that the rules aren't going to change, and that you probably won't get your way. 2001:4898:80E8:0:DBE:B655:97CB:B70E (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is why we will know that Serbs live in Croatia in the 14th century. And that’s okay and should be. That's why no one sees Wikipedia as a serious source of historical information but unfortunately only in local forums, the whole world thinks it's all true, I thought I'd change it, but it won't work. At least I tried.Mikola22 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A simple question, just answer yes or no, Do you intend to obey our policies on wp:rs wp:or and wp:concensus? If multiple users say no will you listen?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but when I add a fact to an article, I don't know if it violates a rule. How should I know that? It is important that source has a background in the book and with some historian. As far as consensus is concerned, if the information that Serbs live in Croatia since 14th century and that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin in Wikipedia on the basis of consensus then this is true. It's a little weird to accept that, but I was obviously mistaken. Mikola22 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is often hard, but (as has been said) wp:rs is a good place to start. Ask yourself "does this meet these criteria". If othre users then say "no its not an RS" Or "this is OR" or "This is not supported by that source" listen, do not start 3 or 4 RSN threads (again as I have said see wp:tenditious, wp:forumshop might also prove useful. At this time I am happy to close this as you seem to have agreed to obey policy. But I would strongly advise to stop editing articles about Croatia or Serbia until you have a lot more edits under your belt, and understand our polices better and how to apply them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. I think you should take some time to read WP:RS and WP:OR carefully and make sure you really understand what they say. If something is not clear to you, you can ask at WP:TEA or WP:HELPDESK. We have all experienced that Wikipedia takes time to learn. --T*U (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Slatersteven regarding the WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior of the editor. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I had a couple of discussions with Mikola. He just not interested in another opinions. And in the policies of Wikipedia too.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You must know that I first look at Croatian Wikipedia, most Serbian books and historians are not there RS nor foreign historians and books who write on the basics these historians. On Croatian Wikipedia is more looking for original evidence and that is why the same Wikipedia for the Serbian side is propagandistic or fascist. But that is original history. You can always find an editor who writes this or that on Croatian Wikipedia especially when Serbian editors appear. Anyone who has original documents in their book and claims something this must be accepted on Croatian Wikipedia, but unfortunately there is a lot of mythomania and forgery from the Serbian historians and books and that is why for someone from Serbia it seems fascist but Serbian history must be blame not Croatian Wikipedia. I thought that all Wikipedias had the same rules so i was wrong. That is the problem. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, Not according to Croatian minister of science. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Also all irrelevant, what they do over there has no impact. influence or interest to what we do here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13

User:Anaxagoras13 refuses to engage in conversation in regards to the article 2019 WBSC Premier12. I have left talk pages on the article's talk page [106] and on the talk page of the user [107], which have been reverted with the reasoning "Sportsfan 1234 is not allowed to edit tis page, this is considered vandalism". What am I supposed to do in this case if the user is refusing to engage in discussion? Back in January User:Bishonen blocked the same user for labeling my edits as vandalism (and refusing to discuss). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just stop your disruptive and unconstructive editing in 2019 WBSC Premier12, that's all you have to do.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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 [108]
• Revert: Nov 11 21:20, 11 November 2019‎ [109]
• 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 [110]
• 02:20, 12 November 2019 I advised Snooganssnoogans here [111] content was now subject of RfC
• 3RR notice: 02:22, 12 November 2019‎ [112]
• Revert: Nov 12 02:27, 12 November 2019 [113]
• 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[114], 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[115]. 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[116], 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[117].--MONGO (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I just had another editor arrive on my talkpage to complain [118]. 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)

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[119] and wasting time reverting and talking to what was obviously a yet-to-be-exposed-sockpuppet account[120]. 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).[121] 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[122], 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 [[123]] or this case where the editor ignored the objections of two other editors (one being an IP editor) [[124]]. 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.[[125]] The long term pattern of behavior was noted by @Awilley: here [[126]]. 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.[127] 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.[128][129] 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[130] 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[131] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me - because I do build consensus).[132] 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,[133] 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[134]. 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 [135] 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.[136] 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 ([137] [138] [139]). 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 ([140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150]), 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 ([151]), 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 ([152]), 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: [153]. I then updated the lede, as discussed on the talk page: [154]. Exactly 20 minutes later, Snoogans reverted my edit: [155]. 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 ([156]), 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" ([157]). 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 ([158] [159]), 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[[160]][161][162][163]). 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[164][165]... 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[166][167]. 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[168]. 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)[169][170], but a different NPOV version of the text (a full quote which made it clear what the context was)[171]. 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[172][173][174] 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[175]. 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.[[176]] 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)[177][178][179][180][181]. 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[182][183][184][185][186], 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 [187]. Even Snooganssnoogans recent comment on this very ANI page (below) [188] 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: [189][190][191][192] [193] [194][195]. 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 [[196]]) and the general civility issues [[197]]. They were tband from mass edits that were clearly not just patrolling [[198]]. 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 [[199]]. 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[200]) 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[201]. 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 [[202]]. 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 [[203]]. 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 [[204]]. The RfC is clearly against snoog's preferred content. Notice snoog's 30 Oct edit [[205]]. 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)[206] and that immigration can have adverse impacts (which goes against Democratic talking points)[207][208] 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.[209][210][211][212][213]. 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.[214] 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.[215] 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" [[216]] 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[217][218]. 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.[219][220][221] 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[222], whereas the different text that was ultimately approved[223] 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[224][225][226], 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[227]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[228] 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 [229] 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[230]. However, even after you were notified that you misused a primary source, and fact-checkers and RS such as PolitiFact,[231][232] NY Times[233], and FactCheck.Org[234][235] 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)

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 [236]:

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)

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 [[237]] 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[[238]]. 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 [239]. 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, [240] & [241]. 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)

• 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)

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[242][243][244], 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[245]) with a false edit summary just because it failed to portray illegal immigrants in a horrible light.[246] 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 [247], which Awilley referred to in the sanctions notice [248], and I'm guessing he hadn't noticed that the discussion had been re-opened [249] 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[250], 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[251] and pushing conspiracy theories about the DNC email hack.[252] 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)

• 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)

---

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)

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." [253] 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)
• 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)

• 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)

User:Fcbjuvenil

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

For a long time now this user has not really helped or taken part in WP:FOOTBALL project, and yet he/she has been told multiple times not to do certain edits regarding Spanish football club edits. I've noticed the same editing pattern for far too long and even messages from admin Mattythewhite have fallen on dears ear. In August he edit-warred with some user who was reported to be a sockpuppet, at the end of September was banned for just 36 hours. I really don't think the message is getting across, I would say that Fcbjuvenil has been waging an edit-war against a whole project for a long time with out any real consequence. There are been lots of edit-warring with other users on wikipedia over the years and Fcb still hasn't learned from his action. I am sure that stronger action needs to be taken to resolve the issues, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of questionable conduct? When have you attempted to recently discuss the issues with the user before coming to ANI? GiantSnowman 09:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I pointed to the project with this edit about an issue and he undid it anyway and if he is going to simply removing all the talk conversation from his talk page. Well look at that history! Between his Contrib and history, there are lots of issues to count up. Being you GiantSnowman I am sure you must of crossed paths with Fcb. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So we look to have an editor who disruptively edits against community consensus, does not provide edit summaries to explain their edits, and does not respond to talk page posts? GiantSnowman 10:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, do you have any other diffs? SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I found this diff where he's recently called Mattythewhite a "Sucker" in the edit summary? Incredibly mild, realistically, but a look at their talk history does show a series of blanking, a past block, which was responded to with a single sentence - "lol", and overall a series of unhappy sections. To say the user seems problematic is probably a fair call. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeetcetera - All I see in that diff is just the edit without an edit summary, seems like you'd made this quoted word up. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I can clear up my own query on this - the Portuguese word in the edit summary (which is actually this diff translates into the quoted word. I would think that Mattythewhite would also have typed in the Portuguese word as well as I did just now. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 17:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the user's talk page history troubling and makes the user appear WP:NOTTHERE. I agree the edit summary comment is mild. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say they are Not here to build an encyclopedia but I would argue that WP:CIR is applicable - the edits they are making don't seem like your usual troll/vandalism attempts, but the lack of communication and team-work does lend itself to believe that the user simply isn't willing or able to work in a co-operative fashion. Either way, I would argue it's high time we talk about some form of stronger action. Perhaps another block? I'm hesitant to suggest anything myself considering my small length of service here, I would usually leave that to another more experienced editor. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 14:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, can't really do much now, I managed to fracture my left hand today! I can only put the issues I saw forward, I hope other ppl can come to the right decision on what to do here. cheers Govvy (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So, Govvy, you're a good-hand/bad-hand account now? EEng 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This user is still doing this slow edit war with incorrect edits, per [254], he has blanked his talk page while this conversation is still open, Govvy (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning for edit warring with edits like this - if he does it again I'll block. GiantSnowman 10:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

aaaand he's ignored my warning and continued to edit war so I've blocked him for a week. GiantSnowman 11:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that if this user is spotted doing edit warring upon these articles one more time by page watchers that the next block would be indefinite - they have probably not been aware that 3RR is a serious breach. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I am starting to feel confident that this user could be a potential sock, have a look at the edit interator between both users. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 17:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @EEng: I broke fingers on my left hand! I don't understand the dig at me, seems very rude. Bbb23 I saw you did an indef block for socking, maybe we can close this now? Govvy (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  So you've got a good hand and a bad hand, right? EEng 18:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Film Fan, site-ban unblock request(s)

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

---

Hi. The above user was site-banned last year and has now made several requests for their block to be lifted. The first decline (by Yamla in October) states "Try again no sooner than six months from today, and only if you refrain from engaging in any further ban evasion..." They then pretty much posted the same request again, which was declined by SQL two days ago. Their third request (!) starts with "I have not socked in a long time..." and even imply that they are still socking here, stating "For the record, the above list is mostly incorrect". So therefore, some of them must be correct. This user has been indef'd not once, but twice, with the latter having a site-ban. The full block log is here. IMO, I would not want to see this editor unblocked, but I would welcome further input. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain (again) that they are community banned and they need to try and convince the community here, not just one admin. If they don't post something coherent and reasonable soon, talk page access shoud probably be revoked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock mostly because of the unblock spamming and apparent inability to understand what is expected of them. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words (revisited)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words.

The IP editor is still at it: latest incarnation 27.81.2.164. I have just spent a disagreeable 40 minutes undoing some of its damage. I didn't even bother trying with these diffs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, where the most recent IP edit partially overwrote pre-existing garbage (check both columns).

I also found its friend 2400:2652:481:CB00:807A:38E7:568E:BC5A, active on 30 May 2019, responsible for diffs such as this, which had escaped notice until today. Some of the garbage was still there, and I attempted to fix it by hand. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also seen several cases but left them as I know nothing of the subject and they may have some meaning which I can't discern. It's been going on since at least 2014, with the IP changing frequently. They tend to be on Japanese topics: here is a sample (with a few false positives from chemical formulae). Certes (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think all the ones I've seen have been in biographies of Japanese voice actors. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• This was also requested at EFR, but I guess we'd all been procastinating. Anyway, see 1010. Discussion of the filter can continue at WP:EFR#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Inexcusable vandalism to my edits on the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church page

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

Please help.JoeScarce (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. Please read WP:BRD. Failing that, you can create a WP:RFC to get additional input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It definately started out as content but JoeScarce has now well broken the 3RR limit today on Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, and is not contributing collaboratively on the Talk Page; blocked for a week in October 2019 and their reaction You are pathetic, was not a good look. Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I was blocked for including edits to Diocese of Kalamazoo which a user didn't like. I mentioned this in the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church talk page. I added the names of sourced priests who were accused of sex abuse and was falsely accused of trollingJoeScarce (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce - I would self-revert because you've made 4 reverts there and are in violation of 3RR.--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't close this. I've got to get diffs together, but I'm pretty sure the above comments about the Kalamazoo thing are illustrative of WP:IDHT, and it clearly carries over here. Someone should check the Archdiocese of Detroit article for BLP issues, BTW. It's pretty clear Joe is WP:NOTHERE just in this complaint. Ill be back with some diffs in a bit. John from Idegon (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• On second thought, never mind. He'll foist himself on his own pittard soon enough. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have given JoeScarce a firmly worded warning on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Endorse warning, I have found this editors contributions problematic. He synthesised material, not supported by sources and edit warred with multiple editors to try and force it into multiple articles. Attempts to discuss were met with abuse. I would go further and suggest that given the clear single purpose editing pattern, combined with a battleground mentality/inability to work collaboratively a WP:NOTHERE block may well be appropriate. WCM_email 09:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I reviewed many edits, I do not think this is a NOTHERE case, at least at this point. Guy (help!) 20:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please tell them about the Pope Francis Falklands edit I made that you didn't like. It was very much backed by sources[255] I don't appreciate you claiming my material was "not supported by sources." JoeScarce 22:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

38.114.82.82

• 38.114.82.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have blocked this IP indefinitely. It triggered filter 1008 with an attempt to add "$NAME is a traitor" at ITN and a review of contributions finds nothing but vandalism. It was AE blocked in January 2018 for similar nonsense, so it seems to be stable for now. Guy (help!) 23:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've converted it to a 1 year block. It's a bad idea to indefinitely block IP addresses. Sometimes IP addresses stay allocated to the same person for months or even years, but even if it were a static IP allocated to a single person, the customer would likely change their service after a few years. In many cases, it's more likely that these years-long troublemaking IP addresses are public computers or open wifi, an open proxy or compromised server, or – against all odds – sometimes just a random IP address that is repeatedly allocated to trolls. If it stays disruptive, the next block will probably be multiple years long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I went with indef because the vandalism has already gone on for more than a year with no apparent edits by any other individual. I don't particularly mind, but I don't see much likelihood of anything other than a repeat perfor4mance if a block expires. It appears to be static, and is in Washington. I did wonder if it was a political campaign IP - I guess we know all the Congressional ones? Guy (help!) 10:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the right IP address? I checked here and there's no filter trips on 1008 by that IP address. --Jayron32 17:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: please see above. I also checked, and the only hit I see ever on filter 1008 was not on that page and not by an IP (and probably a false positive). This IP has tripped some filters but never that one, and never edited nor tripped a filter at ITN. The last hit on any filter at WP:ITN was over a year ago. And the IP you blocked hasn't done anything at all since 9 May 2019. What's going on here? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, virtually all hits are suppressed or don't show in the log. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=1008 Guy (help!) 19:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible compromised administrator account

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

---

• K6ka (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Deacon Vorbis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

{{checkuser needed}} Could somebody please check if the technical evidence (user agent, IP address) tends to confirm or refute the hypothesis that this administrator account may have been compromised. It's been behaving extremely bizarrely (blocking an established user based upon no apparent evidence[256], failing to leave a block message for the user, failing to respond with an explanation when requested by the user [257], and refusing to answer my query about it [258]). The Deacon Vorbis account has been reverting my attempts to obtain an explanation.[259]"piss off""fuck off" I do not understand why they are doing this; perhaps their account is also involved in the underlying issue. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• What on earth makes you believe that K6ka is compromised? He explained several times on his userpage that he was done having the same conversation and gave a very clear answer to everyones WP:ADMINACCT inquiries. Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I will look at that link. Why didn't he just say that to me? Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Why repeat it when you can just scroll up and read it yourself? Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see a proper explanation at that link. There's no evidence the Giano account was compromised. If an account does something that appears weird, the first step is to ask them to explain it, not to block them, and certainly not to block them and leave no block message. Afterwards when one makes a bad block, one has to answer questions that will follow. The answers might be repetitive. That's fine, just cut and paste or politely leave the requestor a link. Removing a request from a fellow administrator unanswered is a violation of WP:ADMINACCT and heightens my suspicions that the account may have been compromised. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
        • What part of WP:ADMINACCT says "Administrators must answer to Jehochman's liking"? He answered with a very clear reasoning. Praxidicae (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Strawman argument. They did not answer me at all. They reverted my message dismissively. That's not an answer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Maybe because he answered a nearly identical question on the same exact page less than 2 hours prior? No part of WP:ADMINACCT means you have to like the answer you're given. This level of obtuseness is out of character for you. Are you sure you're not compromised? Praxidicae (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
              • Then they could just have said "I answered this two threads above" and I would have been satisfied. Instead, they reverted my question, which is not a normal thing for an administrator to do. It was also concerning that somebody else had posted about another disputed block within that two hour window. What's going on with an admin account making not just one but two strange blocks. I understand the block of Giano was jusified based on WP:POINT but not an hour after the pointy behavior had stopped. And it is bad, bad practice to block an established user and not even leave them a block message explaining what they did wrong. K6ka was acting strangely in multiple ways, which leads to the obvious question, was this user accusing Giano of being a compromised account because they had compromised accounts fresh in mind. See also User:Archtransit who was caught after making a couple strange blocks (one of them me). Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
                • And yet after being told no less than 4 times the exact reasoning, you've continued this thread despite it being a complete misunderstanding or lack of comprehension on your part. Are you compromised or just trolling? Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • I'm not sure how to answer your question because you provide two choices that are both false. Jehochman ^Talk 17:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
                    • Ok,so what's your goal here? Then they could just have said "I answered this two threads above" and I would have been satisfied. For k6ka to go back in time? You've been answered. Repeatedly. Praxidicae (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
                      • My goal is for K6ka to answer me, one of their peers, and to recognize the validity of my concerns. They could say, "I realize it was wrong not to leave Giano a talk page message explaining my block." That would be the ideal response. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• I want to add that Deacon Vorbis has attempted to remove this report about them. They should be immediately blocked to stop that behavior. If my report is wrong, please explain why. Jehochman ^Talk 16:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • • • • Thanks for answering my question. You created this thread based on the pretense that you had a concern k6ka was compromised but in reality it was because you did not like the answer or the way you received it? Am I reading that correctly? Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
                      • • No. Let's continue on your talk page, if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Gee, I fucking wonder why. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Would you please stop the demeaning responses. If you have a good answer, give it. Don't insult me. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: if someone "removes" their AN/ANI notice, it is really just a confirmation that they have seen it. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  I believe he meant remove it from ANI, which Deacon Vorbis did do here. And to Deacon Vorbis, this situation is confused enough without needless invective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• (not a CU) K6ka's edits and logs do not appear to be that of a "compromised account" that is causing harm in need of emergency response. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  I consider any compromised administrator account to be an emergency, and this account is running around doing questionable blocks. The talk page shows at least two blocks that have very recently been challenged. Jehochman ^Talk 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Jehochman has no basis for suspecting either of our accounts to be compromised, and is simply doing this as a transparent, WP:POINTy and WP:HARASSing way of voicing his displeasure. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  I suspect something is going very wrong here in part because of the way you've been acting. Look at this diff: [260] (as well as those I posted above). Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Why are you protesting, if there's no compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm the one who challenged one of K6ka's other blocks an hour or two ago. I don't know if the account is compromised (this definitely did not occur to me), but as far as I can see that block was done in good faith, even if in my opinion it was appalling as an example of admin behaviour. I'd wait until the dust settles on this thread before bringing that forward. – Uanfala (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Having looked closer, the K6ka's account does not appear to me to be compromised. As for their block, I'll bring that up on some other venue as the matter is urgent. – Uanfala (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have no idea who Deacon Vorbis is, or what their typical editing style is like, but their contributions contain a surprising number of personal attacks (both borderline and explicit), as well as generally assuming bad faith from various editors. I only checked the first page of their contribs, and don’t know their history with any of the editors... Maybe they’re just having a rough time. But it was a little shocking to see someone doing this to that much of an extent. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Explanation from K6ka is more than sufficient. He essentially made a "good faith block" that the account was compromised rather that assume it was deliberately committing vandalism... What's the goal here? This was explained before this was even opened. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• I can confirm that k6ka's account is not compromised. Deacon Vorbis is also editing normally, from my limited experience with them. The edits Giano made were more consistent with those of LTAs than constructive discussion, and compromised accounts are one of the few cases where a quick block without warning or discussion is merited. That issue has been investigated by the Stewards and resolved. Jehochman, I'd reccomend that you withdraw this and move on. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• As above, no evidence whatsoever k6ka is compromised. k6ka was clearly mistaken that Giano was compromised, but given the obvious disruption (which could possibly have warranted a block to prevent further disruption), it was also clearly a good faith belief by k6ka. Deacon Vorbis was rather rude IMO, but rude or poor communication is not evidence of being compromised. Jehochman, I urge you to listen to the numerous editors here saying the same thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• As I was the one who got a report about this incident round the clock: I have reviewed the edits, (cannot CU due to stale loginwiki data and I can't CU on enwiki) and while I understand why he might consider the account compromised, I thought it was not a compromise, rather a deliberate vandalism (some people later suggested it was sort of action to make a point, but when you are dealing with possibly compromised account, I have no time to consider whether it is a drama-action with long and delicate history or pure vandalism. I do not waste a time digging AN/ANI/local dispute history when I am dealing with an emergency.) of their own.
  Reason specified on K6ka's talk page which I won't repeat; only thing to add is that if the "Giano" account had any advanced permissions (such as template-editor, abusefilter, abusefilter-helper, etc etc kind of userrights) I would've also locked them out of precaution: Long-seasoned editor suddenly engaging in the vandalism is one of the sign of compromised account. Latest mass-compromise incident was just a year ago. (I usually do not visit ANI, you might want to ping me if you have question or I will never notice) — regards, Revi 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• K6ka has published a SHA-512 commitment of user identity on their user page. I'd like them to prove that they are the person who published that commitment. That will end this controversy, and I'd also like to see how this commitment of identity works in practice. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They are under absolutely no obligation to do so. I think it's time for this witch hunt to come to an end. ST47 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

    ST47, seconded Kb03 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• We are done here. The users in question did not answer my questions. It's a shame that you all have condoned Deacon Vorbis rude behavior and K6ka's very poor administrative practices. I am disappointed. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User talk:Bbb23 reverting

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

---

A user (whose name is Bbb23) has been rollbacking my edits I made on his talk page. I even left a message on that talk page about to stop his disruptive rollbacking, but as always, he rollbacked it. Maybe he has to stop his disruptive rollbacking. Cheers! CentralTime301 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: Why did you fail to notify Bbb23 of this ANI filing?--WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only other rollbacked edit was this malformed edit war template, I don't see a problem with Bbb23 rolling back the edits to their talk page considering they engaged with CentralTime301 on their talk page two minutes after this ANI thread was posted (and five minutes after the second rollback.) Don't think there's anything to see here. SportingFlyer T·C 13:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to rollback anything on their own talk, although of course an edit-summary is polite. However, WP:ADMINGUIDE/R is very clear that "it should not be used for edits that were made in good faith (even if problematic)"; likewise, WP:ROLLBACKUSE is equally clear on the limited occasions when it can be used out of user space. ——SN54129 13:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

He has been disruptively rollbacking, even my edits. Cheers! CentralTime301 13:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, he hasn't. As an administrator, he correctly removed a malformed report from WP:AN3 which you added, which lacked any diffs or other information. You then gave him a warning on his talk page for doing that. I'm hardly surprised he rollbacked that as well! Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think the use of rollback on AN3 was proper (I think CT301's report falls into the "problematic good-faith edits" category), but what's done is done. CT301 should take a look at WP:DTTR, and both should take a nice deep breath and move on. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

SPAs at Oleg Sokolov article

Freshly created accounts, edit warring, personal attacks.

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

The information was added for the fist time recently by Tempus ([261])

• My deletion: [262]
• Revert by Kbuek: [263]
• Reverts by Saypeter: [264] [265]

May be some protection needed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Colleague @Ymblanter:, please pay attention to this request. Tempus (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with these edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I would ask for clarification. You don’t see the problem that barely created accounts get involved into the edit war? And is everything okay with the edit summaries like "‎vandalism", "I repeat, vandalism"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with the material they are edding. May be if you stop reverting everything on sight they do not need to call your edits vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

May be if you stop reverting everything on sight - You are talking nonsense. All diffs are presented.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I am talking nonsense. Let us see what other admins have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. I would be grateful if in the future you will not be in such a hurry to fulfill Tempus's requests. It seems to me that three minutes between his request and your answer is a bit small for a person who is trying to figure out a situation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, which I obviously disagree with.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Tempus 15:00 | Ymblanter 15:03 - "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the OPs complaint, there's some merit to the fact that three brand-new accounts showed up in rapid succession to repeatedly revert a single edit of his at a rather out-of-the-way article like this. That seems to me like prima facie evidence that a checkuser might want to look into any shenanigans. WP:SPA would be the correct venue for this. --Jayron32 17:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this is "a rather out-of-the-way article". The subject is very much in the news at the moment here in the UK, although he has no apparent connection to this country, so I suspect that he is also in the news elsewhere. This seems like yet another case of editors rushing to create an article based on primary breaking news reports rather than proper secondary sources, which inevitably leads to conflicts over which sources to believe. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Kbuek and Saypeter seem  Likely to each other, for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I am not really surprised with that, however, a valid edit was recklessly reverted by OP two three times without any reasonable explanation, and the OP, when I pointed this out, instead of providing any explanation, started to attack me. I think WP:BOOMERANG would be in order here.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  But what was really happened: I deleted this piece of text with the intentions of the murderer's lawyer, saying in the edit summary "rm excess whitewashing" [266]. It was returned without any explanation [267]. I canceled and asked for the reason in the edit summary [268]. Instead, another fresh account reverted and wrote "vandalism" [269]. This is how things really are. Once again, I humbly ask you, Blanter, to stop slandering me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  To summarize: you have been edit-warring in this article removing valid content. Now you are attacking the administrator who looked into the case and disagreed with you, in particular, tryiong to imply that this administrator did not use his own judgement but blindly listened to your opponent. Whereas some of your opponents turn out to be socks, and whereas they clearly used unacceptable language (which is likely explained by the fact that this is a new user, and nobody cared to explain our policies to them), I do not see how this excuses your own behavior. When you think I can take a decision which you need you go to my talk page and try to convince me to do it, but if I disagree with you, I am suddenly "slandering" you. You see, this is not the Russian W#ikipedia, where this behavior has been tolerated for years (and where in the end you apparently got an indef block anyway).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Whereas some of your opponents turn out to be socks, and whereas they clearly used unacceptable language -- Oh what I see. But in the beginning, you said something completely different: I do not see any problems with these edits. To summarize: You rushed in three minutes after Tempus' requests and started talking that I am "reverting everything on sight" and there are no "any problems". Then you continued to slander that I did not provided any explanation for my actions. If you and Tempus consider this to be valuable content, you need to explain your position on the talk page. When consensus is reached there, this information will go into the article. Everything is simple. P.S. It's not me, but Tempus walks through the talk pages of his friends admins from ru-wiki [270], [271]. Enough of this false accusations, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Probably I should stop responding to this bullshit. Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and all that.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked the above named accounts for sockpuppetry. --Jayron32 15:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:5.102.238.1

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

---

This user is running around Pink Floyd related articles, changing all the personnel lists without any sources or edit summaries. Can somebody who's not a Floyd nut (like me) take a look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Trust your better judgement. I saw this one: Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Most of it is fairly innocuous stuff. The one you just linked is just re-ordering the list. this one just added an obvious instrument (drums are a subset of percussion, and it's not really wrong to say Nick Mason played drums). I have spot checked some others, and its mostly cosmetic stuff like that. I don't see any real problems. Not the most useful things to do, but nothing bad faith or harmful. --Jayron32 19:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I will note that @Ritchie333: has made no attempt at any interpersonal communication, asked the user no questions, and has done nothing at all to solve anything before coming straight here. ANI is only for when you've tried everything else, and can't get a user to stop being blatantly disruptive. It isn't "I saw a thing I don't understand, but can't be bothered to ask the person directly". Please try to talk to people first before dragging their asses here. It would save everyone lots of time and effort to just handle this on your own. --Jayron32 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I was worried my message might come across too much as "oy, I WP:OWN these articles, gerroff", so I wanted a more neutral and uninvolved person to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A simple "Hey, I don't understand what's going on here. Can you explain why you're doing it?" doesn't imply ownership. It implies confusion. You can always phrase your conversations to be either inviting or accusatory. Any conversation can be initiated with any tone you want to, and choosing the correct tone will get you better responses. Just be nice about it. --Jayron32 20:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It was very clear why Ritchie333 brought this here. Trying to avoid WP:OWN behavior. I too am puzzled by this IP editing behavior exhibited here. Check out another article that I sort of contributed to a bunch. Nonsensical edits from an IP. Yet I am also sitting on my hands to avoid the same appearance. Adding nonsense, and taking it away, and then doing it again with more nonsense. Maybe trying to get the edit count up? I have no idea. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Theofeliciano: Mass creation of very short unreferenced song articles

The user in question, Theofeliciano, has been repeatedly creating many short articles about various songs with a similar edit summary. The user was asked to create unfinished articles in the draftspace ([272]), yet continued to create extremely short, unreferenced articles after the warning was presented. ([273], [274], [275]). The user FlightTime and I draftified 6 of these articles up to the present, assuming good faith and believing that the author would return to these articles. However, based on the ignoring of the notice on their talk page to continue to create these sentence-long descriptions in mainspace, I do not believe that to be the case. Could an administrator look into these articles and make the appropriate deletions? Thank you, Utopes (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I also wanted to provide the contributions and the talk page for the user Theofeliciano. Please note that this editor has a history of creating extremely short, referenced stubs. (As a result, this case may require the deletion of many articles at once.) Utopes (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment I think you took the right action. They belong in draft and then MfD when they languish Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see absolutely no attempt whatsoever at communication from this user, and repeated warnings over the course of a year. I'm therefore blocking indefinitely, with any unblock contingent upon understanding proper sourcing. Generating this much extra work for other contributors is a net negative. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

They have finally communicated on their talk page, though a one-sentence line about a song is either just not getting the point or very misguided taunting. TP removal may be needed. Nate • (chatter) 14:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning, any additional disruption should result in revoking talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Jacob Emden

The Jacob Emden page includes a long section of text which is copied directly from an academic article:

Thus Moses Mendelssohn, founder of the Jewish Enlightenment movement, wrote to him as "your disciple, who thirsts for your words." Although Emden did not approve of the Hasidic movement which evolved during his lifetime, his books are highly regarded amongst the Hasidim. Thirty-one works were published during his lifetime, ten posthumously, while others remain in manuscript.

I think a quote of this length without attribution is probably considered plagiarism, so I put it as a block quote with appropriate reference. However, User:High Leader repeatedly reverted my edits in order to make it inline text again. How should we precede from here? (P.S. Is this the right forum for this request?) Ar2332 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ar2332, this is indeed a right forum for this request, and I am curious what High Leader has to say to motivate their actions. Please note however that you are required to notify them of this thread. I have done it for you now, but you re expected to do it yourself in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Any quotation from a source (even if public domain) needs to be properly attributed. In my opinion, a three sentence quotation does not need block quotation formatting, as long as it is attributed properly. It makes no difference whether a properly attributed quote of this length is denoted by normal quotation marks or by block quote markup. That is a matter of editorial judgment, and is not a policy issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

But if I understand the complaint correctly, the quote (which is btw in the lede of the article) is not attributed and not marked as quote, but just resides in the article as part of the prose. This is copyright violation, and we typically remove such quotes and revision-delete the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

49.195.107.72

Just seems to be adding "Jokes" like this [[276]] and this [[277]] vandalism only.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. For future reference, vandals can be reported to WP:AIV. This board is for generally for issues that need discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

system email from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lysdexia

Seems out of the blue but I got a wikipedia-managed email from that user name that was moderately insulting. Ping me if someone needs to know any details. Smkolins 11:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering he's a blocked user then perhaps it would be a loophole in the system that he can still send me an email? Smkolins 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite an indefinite block, and an LTA page, their block log appears to show that they retain access to their talk page and to the email system. Smkolins, have you edited any articles either recently or in the past that overlap with Lysdexia's interests as outlined on their LTA page? By the way, it was a rather convoluted process to ping you since your signature links neither to your user page nor to your talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for any complications pinging me - I still use raw editor rather than auto-ed which might be part of the problem. I wasn't avoiding linking the talk page. I've not seen any direct contact with Lysdexia. There are a few "hard science" articles I've worked on but only a few and none in language font stuff that I can recall. I do edit in religion articles but not Christian so much though some overlap. I do see this person is female so I'll try to use female pronouns. Since access to email services is known Smkolins 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC) - seems like a change in behavior of how signatures work… using the "signature" button didn't seem to help: --Smkolins 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it may be the Bahá'í Faith article or related ones. According to the LTA page "She is an outspoken atheist and she enjoys baiting religious editors with insults to their god/religion and invitations to debate her regarding religious topics", she may not have edited them directly but simply observed them or their talk pages. As for your signature problem, Smkolins, try going to your Preferences tab at the top of every page, then click User profile. Under Signature, uncheck the box labelled "Treat the above as wiki markup". Voceditenore (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That kind of article does seem likely - just seemed pretty out of the blue. I was going to ignore it when I noticed the user had a pattern and didn't know if this was an extension of a pattern that people should know about it. Thanks for the cues on the signature settings - I don't remember toggling that. Let's see: (seems to work in preview!)Smkolins (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I was taken aback by the personal tone of that LTA page (e.g., the Her personality is best described as... line). I'm also wondering whether some parts of it constitute outing. Would it be appropriate to prune/remove these elements? I can't see how they'd be necessary to prevent on-wiki abuse. Cheers, gnu57 14:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Withdrew email and TPA. Guy (help!) 14:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've toned down the wording on the LTA page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User Jonel

Jonel (talk · contribs)

This editor has been around awhile. His behavior over a TFD and a speedy deletion nomination has been less than optimal.

I CSD this creation of his. He didn't like it, so he removed[278] the speedy deletion tags. Which isn't WP:Speedy deletion allowed because he created the template in question.

Another creation of his, Template:1952 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox, I nominated[279] for deletion- Template:1952 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox] as it is a navbox with just one link.

Some of his behavior since the TFD started-

Jonel insists, here[280] and herethe template nominated has four links. It doesn't, one blue link and the rest of red. That is considered one link at TFD. I have taken part in many TFDs and started them. NAVBOX with just a link or two are routinely deleted[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_28#Template:Charlotte_49ers_softball_coach_navbox. Jonel decides to add[281] other Olympic NAVBOX to the TFD. All but one of which have 4 or more links and directly above my rationale for the TFD which is just one link. This is both WP:POINTY and not in good faith. Obviously the rationale given at TFD don't apply (I say one link) and makes it appear the nominator doesn't know what he is doing. I reverted these additions but he re-added them. The TFD rationale doesn't match, this is bad faith editing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And he just created another NAVBOX[282] without a single link it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It is incomprehensible to me how much difficulty has arisen to add results of the 1952 Olympics in a format consistent with the most recent (2016) Olympics.

The 2016 Olympics articles, and other recent articles, use templates for individual games to maintain consistency between results on the event article and the articles for the nations and templates for group standings (similarly, to maintain consistency for groups for the event article and each of the typically 4–6 nations in the group). So when I started adding results for the 1952 water polo tournament, I used that format.

WilliamJE put a speedy deletion on one of those individual game templates, with the nonsensical reasoning that it was "not a template." Since it obviously is a template, I removed the CSD tag. I was unaware of the rule against creators removing such tags; upon being so informed (and despite this being a good candidate for IAR), I used the "contest CSD" link. Unfortunately, that process is not particularly effective; an administrator deleted the template apparently without even considering the contestation. Fortunately, the administrator listened to discussion and quickly restored the template.

One of the other pieces of the template architecture in the 2016 Olympics articles is the Template:2016 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox. This has links to convenience template navboxes for each of the team sports that use this template architecture for that year. In the process of building out the 1952 water polo articles and templates, I created Template:1952 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox. The other three team sports for 1952 (basketball, field hockey, and football) had previously been created without using the more recent template architecture. Thus, the new navbox had only one blue link (for water polo) but had three additional redlinks--links that I or other editors could use to begin converting the other three sports to the current format, as well.

Within 2 hours of the navbox's creation, WilliamJE brought it to TFD arguing that it had only one link. Of course, it had only one blue link because the work is unfinished; it had three red links that will turn blue as I or anyone else converts the other three sports. I pointed out to WilliamJE that this was a work in progress and followed the format of more recent articles and templates.

Two other users commented on the TFD page that this kind of navbox should instead be a category. I don't have a position on this issue, but that rationale applies not only to the 1952 navbox, but also to the 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, and 2000 navboxes. If the 1952 one is converted into a category, they all should be. Therefore, and as I explained on the TFD page, I added the rest to the discussion so that we would not come to inconsistent results with all of them. If WilliamJE has a reason why they should be treated differently, he is welcome to make that argument on the TFD page. Instead, WilliamJE reverted the additions, arguing that only WilliamJE's rationale--and not that of other commenters on the TFD--should control what even gets discussed there.

I am now working on the basketball pages, or would be if I didn't have to deal with this. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Jonel, I have to agree with William, it was rather pointy of you to nominate the others for deletion. Please don't disrupt processes to make a point.

Not trying to make a point or disrupt any process. I believe that all of these templates should be considered together--if one is converted to a category, why not the others? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WilliamJE Is there a policy I don't know about that has "four links" as some sort of magic number for navboxes? Also, was it really necessary to come here? With all politeness, I feel like you and Jonel, who are both very experienced, could probably have just talked through the issue. I don't get bad faith vibes here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Four is kind of borderline, TFD results will vary. There is no hard consensus on four navbox links being enough or not enough. It could depend on the topic. One or two, no links at all(I've seen them[283]and created by experienced editors too), and these have been routinely deleted time after time. Putting in additional nominations at the top of the template without a note right there with them to say these were added later on and why plus above the ominator's rationale which this didn't apply, makes the nominating editor look dumb (because most people aren't going to look at the tfd history just the rationale) and I'm the nomiator and I don't like that or its indirect putting words in my mouth that I never said or wrote. Plus all editors who had taken part in the TFD till then should have been pinged to notify of any changes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I put a note in the TFD saying what I was doing and delineated which ones were added with separators. I feel that was sufficient, as I assume people can read and that people who comment in a TFD tend to follow later comments. If you don't think that is sufficient, please feel free to add further notes and ping anyone you want. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Paid editor not following COI guidelines

User:Marnie Hawes is a disclosed paid editor on behalf of perennial political candidate Rocky De La Fuente. (She used to have a userbox on her userpage disclosing that she works for Upwork, a freelance editing marketplace, but she replaced it with two boxes naming specific clients, Josh Rimer and De La Fuente. In September she created a page abour Rimer, but it was AfDed.) She has been editing De La Fuente’s page since October 1. On October 13 she was challenged and counseled on her talk page,[284] and in reply she claimed that she was editing as a volunteer.[285] However, she added a paid disclosure userbox to her user page on October 17, 2019.[286]. She continued to edit De La Fuente’s page. On October 31 I counseled her about the COI guidelines and the need to use the talk page before editing.[287] I did not realize that she had been counseled previously. She continued to edit his page directly, and has not used the talk page except to reply when her edits were challenged. On November 10 she added material directly to the article,[288] whose accuracy was challenged by another user. On November 13-14 she again added material to the De La Fuente article. [289] IMO she is not abiding by the COI guidelines which have been explained to her twice. Since I am peripherally WP:INVOLVED, I am bringing the situation here for input or action by someone uninvolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that everytghing short of a block has been tried. She lied om 16 October she is not paid, just to put a notice of paid editing on 17 October. She was pointed to relevant policies including WP:COI but still continued editing the article she has COI, and the edits were problematic. At the very least it should be a several days block with a very clear indication that is she continue the next block would become long-term or infinite. (I did not check the older contributiions, but I somehow assume that if she has several thousand edits some of the contributions must be good, otherwise we just block indef and be done with it).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Good thought. I checked her older contributions. She has been here since July. Her first contributions were external links and images on subjects which appear unrelated to each other; several edits were immediately deleted but were not vandalism, just determined to be inappropriate. She continued to make minor edits to a variety of articles. Starting in August and through September she used OAbot to add links to literally thousands of articles - by far the great bulk of her edits. This all appears harmless, although there is so much of it, it makes it hard to analyze the contribution history. But some activity kind of smells paid. On September 4 she drafted an article about a software company called Draft:Nascenia and spent several weeks trying to get it approved, but it was rejected several times as not notable. Also in September she successfully created an article about Rutger Hoedemaekers and unsuccessfully created an article about Josh Rimer (that one was acknowledged as paid). Just for what it's worth. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat

Howdy hello! Can someone take a look/block/deal with User:8.37.114.218 based on [290]? Thanks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who, uh, might or might not have IRL work experience with comparable matters, I view that particular communication as enough of a potential WP:DOLT situation to err on the side of bringing this one to the Foundation's legal liaison's attention, whomever that lucky person is. Just sayin'. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)