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

Dan56

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry this is a few days late, but Dan56 has been engaged in disruptive editing for quite a while now. First he opens a petty RfC over something we'd been arguing about and does so without even notifying me. Then we get into a needlessly lengthy discussion that went pretty much nowhere about a minor edit I made ([1]; I mistakenly thought it would go somewhere), and he does things like this:

• Accuses me of "misrepresenting publications/sources" ([2])
• Says things like this ([3]) when I say we should wait for more input because it isn't going anywhere
• Accuses me of not giving guidelines ([4]) when I clearly did ([5])
• Accuses me of having an agenda ([6])
• Claims not to understand what I'm saying when I've made my position perfectly clear and additionally implies that the whole thing makes no sense ([7], [8]; my position: [9], [10]; note the "0_0" at the end of his first comment)
• Opens a petty RfC about it and words it in an entirely non-neutral way
• Refuses to give up on it four months later and then claims there have been no attempts made to address his concerns ([11])
• Makes questionable assertions at best ([12])
• Says things that simply aren't true ([13]; see [14], [15], and [16])
• Plays dumb ([17], [18])
• Accuses me of saying things that aren't entirely relevant ([19])

Especially in light of his past behavior (see this and this), if this isn't an attempt to exhaust my patience and discourage other editors from engaging in discussion with him, I don't know what is. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just on the first point, while the RFC was exceedingly small, he may have thought it was necessary to gain consensus as you had been repeatedly edit warring to keep an instance of bad grammar in the article. Fish+Karate 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize we were edit warring (to an extent), but what? Bad grammar? I don't know what you're talking about, and you don't need RfC's for bad grammar anyway. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that? See here and here for examples of the sentence without the verb (as well as lots of others). Esszet (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the |all_writing= parameter in {{album ratings}} yields "All tracks written by…" Esszet (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

…Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being impatient, I'm used to getting very quick responses here. Esszet (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and Karate: Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly innocuous content dispute that is being dragged out not by Dan's bludgeoning, but in the failure of the RfC to garner a consensus after a full run and a relist period, as determined by an uninvolved editor. Dan wants the publication's title, you want the actual column within the publication's title, but as of May 2018, the impasse has continued. After being relisted a second time, a third opinion was proposed, with the reasonable solution that both titles be used, which Dan said he was open to a compromise. You're stonewalling the proposed compromise, because using both "seems a little excessive" and it's not precedented, as far as we know. But does that really matter? It's so minor. Would anyone care if we did so? This incredibly minor dispute has been going on for four months, and you're still unwilling to accept an obvious compromise solution? Also, given that Dan was slapped with a boomerang 1RR restriction the last time he complained about you, shouldn't you be happy that he's using RfCs rather than edit warring, however "petty"? Compromise is an essential part of dispute resolution, especially when formal consensus-building methods aren't helping. You claim the RfC should be abandoned and closed in favor of a 1-3 consensus, but it has already been determined that there is not a sufficient consensus, and that has not changed since the second relist. What has changed, is that Dan has proposed a compromise, an obvious middle ground. I think maybe you just need to let it go and settle on a compromise. FWIW, I've reviewed your diffs, and I don't think there's anything actionable there. Swarm ♠ 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You really think Dan's bludgeoning isn't dragging this out? You really don't? You think it's just fine not to give up on a petty RfC four months later? And you're saying I should be happy because he's opening RfC's like this and used to be even worse? Since it is so minor, please tell me why it's acceptable for him to bludgeon the hell out of it and for him not to let it go. What you're saying is that stomping your feet for months on end should not only be accepted in this case, but approved of because it used to be even worse. Really? I really think you have something against me for some reason. I'm not here to try to resolve the dispute itself; if it closes in favor of "Village Voice", so be it. But if you think his behavior isn't part of an obscene attempt to drive away productive editors, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't. Esszet (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Dan's comments are too concise for me to view them as attempted "bludgeoning", and in spite of the length of the dispute, the sheer number and volume of comments has not crossed into the territory of being disruptive. Bludgeoning is what we see here; endless debate, replies and discussion that makes effective dispute resolution impossible. I understand that it must be incredibly frustrating to be involved in a minor content dispute that drags on for that obscenely long, but I don't agree that Dan is intentionally disrupting the dispute resolution process. Dan did not choose for the 1-3 RfC to not be closed in your favor; it was an experienced uninvolved editor who made that call. Swarm ♠ 00:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Three things: 1) the RfC hasn't even closed yet (although someone did call for it to be) 2) it should be pretty obvious that he is just trying to drag this out for as long as he possibly can and make it as frustrating as possible 3) even if it is in…good faith (and I highly doubt it), as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is disruptive behavior, even if he somehow doesn't realize it. Something needs to be done about it. Esszet (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

1) The RfC hasn't closed because an uninvolved editor has relisted. Dan had nothing to do with it. 2) Dan didn't extend the RfC, but he did open the door for a compromise, which you closed. 3) Your individual diffs do not represent a pattern of disruption, IMO. Of course, other admins are here to disagree, so I'll bow out and you can wait and see if you have any luck with someone else. Swarm ♠ 19:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He sure as hell could have given up on it, even if he didn’t extend it per se (pointing that out seems a little bit like Wikilawyering). That’s all I’m gonna say about that. Esszet (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Does NO ONE on here seriously think that REFUSING TO GIVE UP ON ANY RFC FOUR MONTHS LATER ISN'T disruption?!!? I really don't know what to say to that, I really don't. Esszet (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Esszet, I really recommend you don't get yourself worked up over this. Disruptive behaviour is normally more widespread than a dispute between two individuals, but the latter can send good contributors running from the project because they can't take the stress. I would suggest you take a break from this dispute, concentrate on other articles for the time being. If you feel Dan56 is not meeting you halfway, maybe an intermediary could help? Deb (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It really is hard NOT to get worked up when no one wants to do ANYTHING about it. If it isn't widespread enough to warrant sanctions, AT LEAST give him a warning or something. I think it's pretty clear he's trying to drive me away; if you at least give him a warning, it can be used against him if it does become widespread. Esszet (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know it is. That's why I'm telling you not to do it. The problem is that not everyone agrees with you that he is being disruptive, so giving him a warning is not on, unless you are willing to share the blame for the dispute. Take my advice (as one who has been getting upset by incidents here since 2002), it's counter-productive. I really do sympathise, but the time has come to just accept and save your energy for another day. Please take this advice. Deb (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You want me to share the blame, fine, but at least do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's just suppose that Dan56 has been disruptive. Do you not think that the existence of the above discussion will be enough to make him consider his future actions more carefully? So don't you think that your action in raising this issue has been successful and that something has been done about it? Deb (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to get kind of suspicious here, but no, I don't, his past behavior (see this and this) should make that quite clear. Esszet (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not siding with him and there is no reason for you to be suspicious. I am just offering you the benefit of my own experience. But you can see that no one is going to come chasing after you if you decide to leave the project - I just would prefer if you didn't. Deb (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you know what? If "giving him a warning is not on, unless you are willing to share the blame for the dispute", I'll take some of the blame, alright? All I'm asking for is a warning here, I don't think that's too much to ask. Esszet (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now you both have a warning for disruptive editing on your talk pages. I hope that is a satisfactory resolution. Deb (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki personal attacks in articles

• Ideological bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him to be less flattering than Gongwool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left it (Gongwool turned out to be a sockpuppet, imagine that). He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([20]). I disagree.

I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point from JzG, Gongwool had nothing to do with Martin. That account and their socks added multiple BLP violations to an already negative article, and did not make it "less flattering", but more of a BLP nightmare. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair, I was misremembering. I had also forgotten how determinedly you downplayed the antivax bullshit in that article. Which pissed me off quite a bit, but I think that in the end it was mainly better. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made the mistake of trying to make it compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable people may differ on how specific content may be shaded in an article. I hope we are both reasonable people. I don't doubt your commitment to BLP, but am still disquieted by the extent to which you have defended antivaxers and charlatans. However, we can discuss that article by article, as we always have - in the end if we both edit an article it is generally better than if only one of is did, or neither, in my view. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote up about this study and several other scholarly studies when creating the new article "Ideological bias on Wikipedia". Here is the source of the study written by Brian Martin (paywalled, but reproduced here) and User:JzG is specifically identified and criticized by the author. This represents a very clear WP:Conflict of interest and JzG should distance himself from this topic. I believe his complaints about other content are potentially valid, but I think his COI is interfering with his overall objectivity with regards to other content of the article (like Conservapedia, a section which I did not wrote, but incorporated from other articles on Wikipedia). I tried to address this with JzG personally, but they've now recently gone around and removed this study from several pages it was mentioned on. They've also has opened Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ideological bias on Wikipedia and now this. I bear no ill-will to JzG. This has nothing to do with any prior interactions I've had with JzG. My edit of this study (22 May) predates his comment on the AE thread (23 May) and so has nothing to do with that. In fact I respect his fair take on that AE and would never take any opportunity to attack him, and that respect led me to go to him personally, but I was told obliquely to "fuck off". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "scholarly study". Some of the ones you included are - they examine numerous articles and analyse trends, using objective measures over time. This is an article subject saying "look how much more flattering this other article on my rival is" and taking a pop at a named editor (yes, me) for reflecting the mainstream view of his promotion of the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and other antivax conspiracist claptrap. And even where the work you cite is scholarly, you have cherry-picked from primary sources. In fact, your article on ideological bias in Wikipedia is starting to look an awful lot like your personal essay based on your recent repeated failure to gain traction in a number of articles where you assert that Wikipedia has an ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What a troublesome situation it would be if all one had to do to disqualify a Wikipedian from a topic was to criticize their edits on that topic in an off-wiki paper. If JzG were to begin approaching these subjects in a different way (e.g. if he had been writing about Martin positively, but then took a negative view after publication of that article, or if he had not previously edited Martin's biography and received criticism from Martin on a different subject, then began criticizing Martin directly -- neither of which is the case, as far as I can tell), there would be a problem. Continuing to take the stance that got him mentioned by Martin to begin with is just being consistent and in no way constitutes a COI problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another issue that should be raised here, separately from anything about the Martin issue (with which I am not familiar), is that it is emerging at Talk:Political views of American academics#Paul Hollander and Talk:Political views of American academics#Representative presentation of sources that Netoholic appears to have been misrepresenting sources (cherrypicking) in order to push a conservative POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic is under an AE TBAN warning, logged here at 04:08, 24 May 2018, against using admin boards to further a content dispute. Their above at 21:10, 25 May 2018 in which they chose to carry on the the content dispute with Guy, expressed not even a nod toward that TBAN warning, and was unnecessary and unwise at best.

Guy said of Netoholic: "So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea". I agree with that. As Netoholic actually had the cohones to try to use COI as a bludgeon, to warn Guy off from removing this lunatic fringe paper (as Netoholic described differently in their comment above). Completely unaware of their own' COI, both with respect to WP itself and with respect to their conflict with Guy. Abusing one's editing privileges to use WP to attack an admin with which one was in a dispute, is, in my view, beyond "not ...an especially good idea" but rather clueless and .. well, just plain bad, and they also express no awareness of the badness and is somewhere between BLPCOI and HA.

With respect to Trypto's note about cherry-picking, I just analyzed their sourcing and use of sources at Ideological bias on Wikipedia in this diff, and the same thing is going on there.

I don't think this person intends to honor their TBAN has heeded that warning nor are they here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC))

Netoholic isn't T-banned according to that log, Jytdog, but is warned not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia. It's not the same thing. That said, Netoholic may be topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned, if he persistently ignores the warning. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for the pointing out my mistake. It is not the same thing. Fixed. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• The page Ideological bias on Wikipedia has been kept after a "no consensus" AfD discussion. I have opened a discussion about "COI" considerations" at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia. We'll see if anything useful can be worked out. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG should be topic-banned from any mention of Brian Martin

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

---

User:JzG is named in Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017). Martin wrote that "admin JzG (aka Guy) rewrote most of my Wikipedia entry, turning it into an attack on my reputation. In the following months, this negative framing was maintained, primarily by JzG and editor Gongwool." Martin wrote that User:JzG deleted positive material, removing text about his achievements and deleting the list of his works, and added negative material. Notwithstanding his obvious COI, User:JzG on 25 May 2018 began scrubbing mention of Martin's analysis of the edits made to his BLP—and thus mention of User:JzG. The first such removal came at 15:16. Despite a good faith effort by User:Netoholic to reason with User:JzG, the latter continued scrubbing such entries, resuming at 18:06, again at 19:54, another at 21:11, and yet again at 21:29. Since User:JzG has demonstrated his disdain for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, he should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin. KalHolmann (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. Off-wiki criticism of on-wiki actions does not make a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No No evidence for a conflict of interest. Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No reason to believe this is a COI problem. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No Topic banning an editor because an article's subject names them off-site sets a bad precedent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment WP:BLPCOI: "An editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." I don't think a topic ban is needed, but in accordance with the BLP precautionary spirit it would be best if someone else handled the situation. I mean, it's not exactly the best look for integrity when JzG is creating a thread about an article he is mentioned in, on the fringe theory noticeboard [21]. Also it seems like JzG is unnecessarily personalizing the dispute there, speculating that Netoholic's main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Wikipedia's "ideological bias". I agree that it's problematic that this only came to be after the academic mentioned him in the article; but it also means it's already a multi-step "rivalry". --Pudeo (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No - I see no COI here, and as has been mentioned, TBANning an editor because a subject mentions them off-wiki sets a perverse precedent that could allow subjects to game the system. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No to topic banning re "any mention of Brian Martin", but it would probably be a good idea for Guy to let someone else handle anything relating to this paper by Martin critical of him. EEng 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No - It is absurd to suggest that someone outside Wikipedia could determine who should not edit an article about them. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be in retaliation for WP:AN#KalHolmann. Not saying it is for sure, just that it appears to be. Swarm ♠ 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. Also, a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a trout to the filer for rewriting history. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No, obviously, per what I wrote just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing following AfD appeal decision

About 3 weeks ago User:Alexbrn proposed Criticisms of medicine for deletion. After 2 weeks of discussion, an administrator ruled for deletion. Believing that there was no consensus for deletion and that strong policy-based arguments had not been presented for deletion, I appealed that decision. Yesterday an administrator overturned the deletion decision and restored the article. Within minutes User:Alexbrn made 18 deletion edits to Criticisms of medicine, reducing it to an incoherent stub (from about 19KB to about 1300 bytes) and immediately again proposed it for deletion in the vandalized form. The new AfD discussion has many new delete opinions, is confused and pointless. I'm a new editor, but even I can see that this refusal to accept the consensus of the deletion appeal process is contrary to Wikipedia policy. NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The one thing that is clearly absent here is consensus. The overturn was to no consensus, basically. There is nothing wrong with another discussion of this article, given the problems identified elsewhere. Maybe this time there will actually be a consensus. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, that was messed up. I can't see that as anything other than an attempt to alter the AfD outcome. But that aside, it's been restored, it doesn't look like any of the current opposers are doing so based on the fact that it was mostly blanked like that. Do you disagree? (Just as a procedural note, the DRV consensus was to change the closing admin's reading of the discussion to "no consensus". It was not a consensus to "keep" in itself.) Swarm ♠ 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a real concern if the article is again discussed at length in AfD. Editors have already spent 3 weeks discussing deletion (2 in AfD + 1 in appeal). There was obvious consensus (with a few dissenters, including User:Alexbrn) that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course it needs improvement, as would any new article written by a newcomer. I've found two new sources to add for that purpose as soon as we pass to a constructive phase of improvement rather than quarreling about deletion.

In addition, I'd much appreciate it if experienced editors could think about a procedural issue that I, as a newcomer, don't have any idea how to deal with. A fairly large group of like-minded editors, most (not all) of whom are members of WikiProject Medicine, apparently have the article and related discussions watchlisted, so that they can immediately jump in to any discussion. That's perfectly compliant with policy. However, I cannot try to alert people who have views closer to mine about an article, because that would violate WP:CANVASSING. So any such discussion is likely to be lopsided. This came up in discussions about Alternative medicine (those discussions resulted in my being advised to write a separate article about Criticisms of medicine). For this reason I've been warned by an experienced editor that it'll be a waste of my time to try to edit the polemical tone and slanted content of the alt med article. That particular article has also been the subject of an off-Wiki complaint (see the discussion of the article on the NPOV noticeboard), where it was used to illustrate a general criticism of Wikipedia. Using the alt med article as the basis for a general criticism of Wikipedia is unfair, because the article is an outlier. Even though I'm a new editor, I've been reading Wikipedia for many years, and I'm unaware of any other article that is so polemical and slanted (except for ones that are quickly deleted or else edited to remove the POV).NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was raising this same issue yesterday and was badly chastened by many other users saying "I am seeking suicide by cops" and "sinned", but after calmly considering all points, I think I had new ideas which I am glad that ANI was closed rightly yesterday.--Quek157 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was off-wiki for the previous AfD and DRV and I'm participating in the current AfD. For what it's worth, my comments over there are based on a reading of this version, which I suppose is the version NightHeron wants us to consider — or at least not the stub-ified version. From reading some of the other comments, I don't think I'm alone in that. A Train^talk 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• The OP disclosed on 21 May that it is an alt account and that they edit about abortion. Looking at their contribs they edit a lot about alt med too. So.. alt account for two topics with DS.

User:NightHeron, is your other account under any sanctions related to medicine, abortion, or CAM? Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Absolutely not. As I say on the NightHeron userpage, there is no overlap whatsoever between the topics edited under my true name and those edited under NightHeron. I made it clear at the beginning that I am an "outsider" to the health sciences -- that's not my field. My true name account does not edit there at all and never will. I also have no involvement in the CAM world, either professionally or otherwise, and will never edit anything related to CAM under my true name. I was led to the alt med page from the abortion subtopic of herbal abortifacients. Thanks for asking rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• The only consensus here is that the first discussion did not generate a consensus to delete, as the closing admin felt it did. The second discussion is yielding a much stronger consensus, so I think it would be wrong to close that discussion based on a procedural rationale, even if one existed. I'm not convinced that such a procedural reason to close the discussion even exists, as no policy-based reasoning has been cited. Unless there's any clear policy guidance I'm not aware of, this thread be closed as declined. Swarm ♠ 22:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm is quite correct -- I'm not sure what purpose this ANI report is serving. The discussion isn't going to be procedurally closed. I'd wrap this myself but I'm involved over at the AfD. A Train^talk 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: You're wrong to minimize the process issue, which is the refusal by the nominator Alexbrn to accept the clear consensus of the appeal discussion and the decision of the closing admin for the appeal. That decision was that there had been no consensus to delete after the 2-week-long AfD discussion. By now, well into the 4th week, many are just tired of the whole thing. I've read comments of editors who feel that it's a waste of time to continue debating people who refuse to accept consensus. I fully sympathize with their feelings. It's reasonable to feel that 3 weeks are enough on this. It is mainly pro-deletion people who seem happy with the illegitimate new AfD, so of course there will be a strong consensus among them. It's like a sham election in an undemocratic country: if opposition voters believe that the process lacks legitimacy, they'll stay home and those in power will win the "election." It's very strange that the pro-deletion people seem unable to point to a single place in Criticisms of medicine that violates policy, e.g., by editorializing or citing a pseudoscience source. If one such place were found, it could be deleted or corrected through the usual editorial process. But as far as I can see, they don't have any specific place in mind. Rather, they seem to think that the whole idea of having an article on criticisms of medicine violates WP policy, although they seem unclear on which policy it violates and have run through an alphabet soup of possibilities. Meanwhile, I point to specific egregious violations of core Wikipedia principles (such as accepting consensus and no disruptive editing), and am told that I have "no policy-based rationale".NightHeron (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the relevant bit of policy is WP:DP#Deletion review, which explicitly states that "Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate." Swarm ♠ 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and why not first butcher-edit the article (I was told by the nominator not to use the word "vandalize") so as to confuse people and make the whole discussion as complicated and ugly as possible (notice all the cross-outs and confusion about process). Only the diehards will remain, and then you'll get your consensus to delete. A brilliant strategy to censor an article that offends the group's POV.

Since I'm an inexperienced editor, I really don't even know whether or not Wikipedia has a process to appeal a successful campaign to censor a topic. It's really more a topic than an article that's being censored, since the case for delete is not based on anything specific in the article, but rather on the very idea of having such an article. What I do know is that if the censorship is picked up off-wiki, then nobody there will be interested in your lawyerly defense of it by misusing a sentence in WP:DP#Deletion review.NightHeron (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles are deleted, not subjects. Actually, if you left the article in stub form, and it was deleted, you could recreate it since the full length article would not have been decided upon at AfD. Yeah, our rules here are pretty quirky like that. What do you mean by “if the censorship is picked up off wiki?” Are you threatening that deletion of an anti-science article will effect the reputation of a pro-science project? Seems a little grandiose of you. Swarm ♠ 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for appearing grandiose to you; my intention was to say something simple and ungrandiose. The alt med article is a fairly important one that attracts a lot of attention and has already been the subject of off-wiki comment. It is also, as I said before, an outlier and an attractive target for anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for NPOV failure or to criticize the medical project for confirming a common stereotype of the medical profession. Since the suppression of the crit of med article is closely related to the rejection of attempts to fix the NPOV problem in the alt med article, that might also attract off-wiki comment at some point. Another thing to realize is that academics who work in areas like sociology of science and sociology of medicine can use such things to support a thesis they might have about the supposedly biased nature of the scientific and medical professions. And, as pointed out elsewhere by another editor, aggressive promoters of CAM can also benefit because their success depends in part on being able to portray mainstream medicine as closeminded, polemical, and biased. So I'm not trying to be grandiose when I speculate that the medicine project might in the future come under more off-wiki criticism than it already has.

Two corrections: I was not "threatening" anything, just speculating about what might happen; and my article is not "anti-science" -- please look at the sources before you say that.

Interesting point about rejection of a stub not implying rejection of the full article. And there's been some unclarity, especially at the beginning of AfD#2, about what version of the article was being discussed. FYI, I wasn't the one who replaced the stub by an earlier version. Someone else did that at some point.NightHeron (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the subject isn't being censored. Hundreds of people get their articles deleted every day. There's never any guarantee that a good faith article will stick. It's part of the process of building the encyclopedia. You can respond as members of the community are expected to, request to have the article userfied, salvage what you can and try to make a new article that addresses the complaints of the deletion discussion, go through AfC, solicit the help of a relevant Wikiproject, and try to make something better. Or, you can be that guy who singles himself out, cries "censorship!", discredits himself as a member of the community, never gets taken seriously on-wiki again, and is left with nothing but his righteous indignation off-wiki about how unfair and tyrannical Wikipedia is. I know neither of those things sound as good as just having your article kept in the first place, but it's looking like there's a consensus to delete, and your procedural appeal isn't going to hold up due to that annoying bit of hard policy I "lawyerly" "misused" earlier. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, which I hadn't thought of before. Finding a Wikiproject to join is the obvious way to circumvent the no-canvassing policy. I was struck by the effective use of this tactic for the purpose of deleting my article, but I hadn't thought of doing the same thing myself. Can you tell me where on Wikipedia I can find a list of all projects? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe this may have what you are looking for. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: Thank you, that's useful -- perhaps not for editing related to the present discussion (since I would not be welcome in the medicine project), but WP:WikiProject Women's Health would clearly be an appropriate project for editing abortion-related articles.NightHeron (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing is the general act of attempting to bring biased participants into a discussion. There is no way of circumventing the "no canvassing" policy. Using a Wikiproject to canvass is still a severe offense. Wikiprojects are a way of finding other editors who are interested in editing the same topics—that's it. Your jump to "circumventing policy" is quite alarming. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

While a wikiproject is good for finding a community, I strongly recommend against canvassing unless one is trying to find an expedient way to get oneself banned; I should have clarfied this above, and appreciate that Swarm did so after me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus:@Swarm: Thanks for the clarifications. My apologies for the term "circumventing." I realize that what I saw on the medicine WikiProject talk page (notifying the group that a new article has appeared, that it was nominated for deletion, that it was renominated for deletion) is normal and policy-compliant. My only point was that similar communications among individual users rather than within a group would probably be considered canvassing, at least I think so. I'm just trying to understand how things work. I have no intention of canvassing.NightHeron (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that there is disruptive editing going on related to this AfD after all. NightHeron's. Every post makes me less convinced that they are here to build an encyclopedia. A Train^talk 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of canvassing, and I've never done it. I might (or might not) join the women's health wikiproject. That's all. Yes, I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, mainly by editing articles I find curious or interesting and very occasionally with a new article that I think fills a gap. In the context of med-related articles I've been subjected to various accusations of bad faith, but that hasn't happened anywhere else (e.g., when I edit abortion-related articles). That was unexpected and seems strange to me.NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron, you've spent the last several days comparing a pretty bog-standard AfD discussion to "a bogus election in an undemocratic country", "a travesty", "a rigged election", an act of "censorship", and (this is the really good one) the Soviet Union. Yes, how terribly strange and unexpected that editors are doubting your good faith. A Train^talk 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem now as I see it is that NightHeron does not appear to accept that the article in question needs deleting because it is a terrible article that violates a number of our WP:PAGs, but instead sees it as a worthy piece of work which has been been subject to a deletion effort by virtue of unfair "tactics" by "diehards". If this combination of poor editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude continues, then we are going to have problems. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:A Train Let me explain better what I find "unexpected and strange." The 17 experienced editors currently voting for deletion (you informed me that they "have collectively been editing Wikipedia for more than a hundred years") apparently do not believe that it's disruptive editing for the nominator to make 18 rapid-fire deletion edits followed immediately by a deletion proposal for the incoherent stub, all taking place within several minutes of the overturning of deletion by administrative consensus. These experienced editors apparently do not believe that this conduct was in bad faith or that it taints the process. Meanwhile, I (with less than 3 months of editing experience) am continually being accused of bad faith (starting at the beginning almost 4 weeks ago when the nominator accused me of having a "problematic agenda"). Again and again I've been accused of wanting to promote quackery and pseudoscience, never with any evidence given to support that charge. I told you that I was not insulted by your edit summary telling me to "find another hill to die on" (although the admin who initially removed it was correct, because you had no way of knowing how I'd take it). However, I'm deeply insulted by the accusations that I'm anti-science and pro-quackery. Editing abortion-related articles, I have yet to encounter that degree of hostility, except from IP-vandals.

I'm sorry you're offended by my analogies. Since AfD2 started (not before) I've objected strongly to an unfair process. I could have avoided making analogies, but I thought that since I'm expected to be thick-skinned about comments I don't like, that means that other people, especially veteran editors, should also be thick-skinned.NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not offended, buddy. I'm just sorry that something you've poured so much effort into isn't going to work out the way you wanted. Even sadder is that people have been trying to hip you to that fact for days and you just won't listen. A Train^talk 21:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm listening, and I'm hearing loud and clear that the overwhelming majority of those participating in this 4th week are for deletion, unlike in the earlier stages of discussion in the first 3 weeks. What I've been listening for and not hearing is any specific evidence that I'm promoting fraud and quackery in that article. It's amazing to me that veteran editors would repeatedly make such vicious accusations without offering a shred of evidence. I, along with other editors who have contributed, am trying to write an article that is pro-science using only pro-science sources. Why do I encounter such hostility? It's very strange.NightHeron (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User Koppadasao

I'm reporting a user Koppadasao who has been notified of conduct issues several times within a short period
this edit (and accompanying edit summary) are starting to get uncivil.

• There's a pattern of soapboxing going on and various editors have mentioned this to the editor who typically reverts any notifications made to his or her talk page within an hour or so as shown here
• Editor also seems determined to utilize the Tommy Robinson talk page to start non article related discussions.
• Also worrying is a tendency to misquote or misrepresent Wikipedia policies to other editors, as shown here
• In summary this editor is doing everything within his or her power to disrupt and stir up trouble among a group of editors on a controversial issue. I'm personally worried about the in-wiki canvassing and don't like the incivility or the abrupt refusals to communicate with editors who disagree or notify him or her about conduct issues. A scantily mitigating factor in all of the above is that (flatteringly) the editor appears to be under the impression that I'm an admin. Edaham (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• As Koppadasao feels Wikipedia is a "left wing propaganda site", I think he serves an outside agenda and is thus WP:NOTHERE. I'm at work, so I won't be adding more dif's soon, but I feel a pattern is emerging.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 10:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I have blocked this account indefinitely for using Wikipedia as a mean to engage in soapbox and revoked talk page access after continued battleground approach on their user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not saying this wasn't a good block but you revoked talk page access because he undid edits? That seems wrong. --Tarage (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC) The block may be good but I'm confused by the removal of talk page access. Am I missing something? AFAICT, the only thing they did there are being blocked was removed a bunch of content via reversion (and standard reversion summaries) [22]. This included the block notice. It did not include any declined unblock requests. Therefore this seems to comply with WP:BLANKING and the removals should have been left to stand and talk page access could also have been kept. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tarage Nil Einne Another uninvolved administrator is free to restore the talk page access if a simple consensus emerges here, I will have no objections. To comment on WP:BLANKING; I have absolutely no issues with blocked editors removing comments on their talk page appropriately using the edit button; however I disagree that aggressive use of undo button ([23]) against several recent edits with no edit summary makes an appropriate case for blanking; in my opinion, this is more of a reflection on the battleground approach which is consistent with their recent contributions. I am happy to self-revert if consensus is against my understanding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the nothereness of the meta user page, might need more global cleanup.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I need to undo something from an article I am wont to spam undo if there have been a ton of edits. I don't think that's justification for removing the talk page access. It's their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I blocked an obvious sock, User:KoppaFreeTommy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyway to block and delete the user page globally?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Xaosflux has kindly deleted the meta user pages and blocked both accounts on meta. So it is fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the socking and the use of the meta to further their soaping/disruption, removing talk page access was preventative and reasonable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: and @Alex Shih: - those meta actions have been disputed. If you want to follow up you can at meta:RFH. You certainly can deal with any aspect that is approriate on enwiki here (user block, page delete, page blank/protect). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented there as well, but had little more to add. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of block justifications after the fact but whatever. I guess I'm fighting a lost cause here. --Tarage (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih:, @Dlohcierekim: Whatever the problems with this editor, I'm fairly disgusted by what's happened here. Tarage is right it's unacceptable to say after the fact 'well turns out we were right' when there was no justification at the time. I don't see why we should be punishing people for the way they choose to blank their page provided it isn't clearly disruptive. And I don't see how undo can ever be clearly disruptive, only edit summaries could be. We should also remember that plenty of people may be confused how to revert to an older version without undo and sometimes it's simply easier. I was attempting to revert to the editor's preferred version but because there were so many confusing edits, I myself found it easier to simply undo. (In retrospect I should have just edited an earlier version but I was trying to work out how to restore some intervening edits and was hoping I could via multiple undos. Eventually I decided they served no purpose anyway so gave up. I was annoyed enough that I wasn't thinking straight but I don't think I was WP:POINT although I admit that I'm angry enough that maybe it could have been part of my motivation.) But perhaps the big kicker here. One of the key reasons why there were so many undos was precisely because they were incorrectly undid. I mean WTF? How can you fault someone for undoing then you yourself undo something they were perfectly entitled to remove? Undoing them was even more aggressive and in now way did it actually improve things. The best solution, if you really felt one was necessary, was simply to advise them to remove without using undo. But undoing yourself because they evidentally weren't entitled to undo stuff they were perfectly entitled to remove because undoing is 'aggressive'? Pot calling the kettle black much? Disgusting, no two ways about it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add I'm not even convinced that the new justification for talk page removal is correct. Sure they socked. But as far as I can tell all they did was post a good luck message on some editor's talk page. Blocking them as a sock was clearly right and removing talk page access for the sock also clearly right. But there's no particular reason to think they would have continued to do anything in particular on their talk page and if they had done so, this could have been dealt with then. I mean if anything, them posting the 'good luck' message on their talk page would have been less disruptive than them socking, even if both were wrong. And you know what the stupidest thing? This is clearly someone we don't want here on en.wikipedia. They could have been simply handled fairly and everyone would be glad for it. Instead they were treated attrociously wrong and I find myself feeling some minor sympathy for someone who for many reasons I would normally feel none. WTF are we here when the editor could have simply been treated fairly? You know by not removing talk page access for having the audacity to use the undo button to effect WP:BLANKING when they may not have been familiar with the alternatives, were not informed of the alternatives, and the person punishing them for having the audacity to use the undo button, went and fucking used the undo button themselves to undo stuff that the editor was perfectly entitled to remove? And yes I do think this is a big deal. When I first responded I was minorly annoyed about what I saw as a clear ignorance of blanking, and I'm now fucking pissed that an admin thinks it's okay to punish someone for using the undo button, when said admin themselves think it's okay to 'correct' this by undoing back. I'm normally the sort of person who rolls their eyes when people say admins tend to apply one rules to non admins and one rule to themselves thinking it's utter nonsense. But I've seen enough here (and previously) that I'm now starting to think they're right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Persistent e-harrassment by Juicy Oranges

Juicy Oranges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I told this user numerous times to stop harassing me on my talk, and yet he keeps ignoring it.[24]-[25]-[26]-[27]-[28] Even when another user reverted him,[29] he simply re-instated it again.[30]. He has a history of edit-warring on articles, and now he's edit-warring on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And now Oranges Juicy is harrassing the user (@Wikaviani:) who removed his unwanted stuff from my talk page.[31] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is in violation to WP:TALKO and this is a legitimate warning. The claim of harassment towards Wikaviani is false. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:REMOVED. On the user's talkpage, they have the right to remove comments as they see fit, unless it's a denied active block request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

All right I may have been wrong there but there is no way a TALKO warning can be likened to harassment. It just happens to have been done in error. Seems to me that editors can remove whatever they wish and claim WP:REMOVED. Personally I don't want any third party editors removing comments from my space. I would rather decide on how I wish to respond. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ps. I just read your summary. It wasn't removed by the addressed editor but by another editor. He stated afterwards that he has been given the right to stalk the talk page but my point was that what I did where Wikaviani is concerned is not harassment. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If I can point out at this stage that I have no further comments I wish to relate to Louis Aragon. Please note that the first comment was in response to a rude comment directed towards me in a revert summary, and from there on the editor provoked responses by addressing me within the summary. These comments were not to the effect of "I take your point" nor were they presented in the form of a thread. The mannerism is a clear civility issue. As for harassment, I expressly deny this. The method used for the final comment was such that Louis Aragon could not respond to unless he were to re-open a thread or head to my user talk. And so he has resorted to false accusations. Note that I never even touched his recent revert of me. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with LouisAragon, and i would add that Orange Juicy obviously shows an aggressive behavior with other users.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Examples? Or is it proof by assertion? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AND i inform you that users can allow other users to stalk their talk page so that my revert was by no mean a TALKO violation. For example, Oshwah (a veteran admin) allows experienced users to stalk his talk page. I would suggest you to moderate your aggressive behavior on this community encyclopedia.

You pointed that out to me after I reverted on TALKO principles. After that I never involved myself with you expect for the warning. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this is the second time in the thread you mentioned "agressive behaviour". I invited you to provide examples and am still waiting. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Examples ? just check LouisAragon's diffs. Since you confessed being wrong, it's ok for me. Now i think we're done here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Juicy Oranges, since you admitted having been in the wrong (better late than never, I suppose), I guess I shouldn't block you for these final pointy edits, but rest assured, you were indeed in the wrong, and you will be blocked if you keep posting there. A few hints--you are allowed to post notifications of threads on noticeboards if you file one involving the user. You are not allowed to make zero edits to leave remarks like you did in those last two diffs. Moreover, AE has nothing to do with talk page guidelines, so "I am NOT prohibited from implementing warnings or defending myself against outrageous claims. Got a problem? Go to AE" is simply false, in its entirety. Note to others: I have not looked into the user's other edits and problematic behavior; certainly there's some hostility there. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Drmies thanks the the above reflection. I apologise that my real life commitments are at this second EXTREMELY BUSY and I need to make an important point here which might need a little bit of time to prepare. I'd be grateful if you kept this thread open about another 24 hours whereby I respond tomorrow when which things normalise on the home front. If so I'd be very grateful. Thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Miss Kyrgyzstan at Miss Universe 2018

Hello.

I am in a dispute with the User:NewYorkActuary due to the editions made by me in the article Miss Universe 2018.

The user insists that the references used by him to argue that Miss Bergimay Karybekova will represent Kyrgyzstan in Miss Universe 2018 are valid and clear; the references do not even agree on whether the girl won a contest or was designated. The user, even, brought a fake Facebook page of the Miss Universe Organization (of course, by mistake). In my case, I have given arguments to maintain that this information is a possible hoax, and I have erased that information, arguing and asking for patience, because if the information is true, it will come to light. I have tired of explaining why we should not take the inclusion of references so lightly, but the user seems to be infatuated with the inclusion of this delegate.

This has caused the user to report me under rule 3RR, instead of seeking a third opinion. The editor who answered your complaint is User:EdJohnston who has only threatened to block me, and has not been able to intervene in the conflict; he discuss with me on his own page, without resorting to mine.

Both insist that there is a consensus to keep the delegate of Kyrgyzstan on the list of contestants, when, from any perspective, a discussion of two people does not form a consensus.

On the other hand, I have warned both of them that I do not have a domain of the English language, but both ignore it and do not really explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Any wrong action on my part, I accept it, as soon as I am really told what I did; but it is clear that the other two users have proceeded in a partial and capricious manner.

I need someone to intervene to clarify all this. --Alex Duilius (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Alex Duilius Warned) is in order. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Here are some more links on the prior history of this dispute:

• Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint
• Warning I left for Alex Duilius
• Discussion on my user talk with Alex Duilius about how to resolve the dispute

• Alex wants to remove the entry for Miss Kyrgyzstan from the list of entrants for Miss Universe 2018, apparently because he doesn't believe the sources. They include a web site called angelopedia.com and the India Times. People on the talk page who are familiar with the Miss Universe contest claim that these sites are reliable. Alex was reported at AN3 because he was warring to remove the entry for Kyrgyzstan. The punch lins is probably this message I left for Alex: "..Your arguments at Talk:Miss_Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan indicate you are either not familiar with Wikipedia policy, or that you disagree with it. If you plan to edit here, you are expected to follow our policy regarding sources..."

• User:NeilN closed the AN3 as 'warned' based on the message I left for Alex. This ANI post appears to be an appeal of the AN3 closure, but on grounds which are not clear to me. I am guessing that he wants an admin to make a 'content ruling' that the Kyrgyzstan entry should be removed from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from NewYorkActuary. Alex Duilius has an unusual edit history -- edits take place in only a few months each year and they are almost always to the article on the then-current edition of Miss Universe. This suggests to me that the topic is of singular interest to Alex and that he has likely developed a good personal knowledge of it. And this, in turn, leads me to think that Alex truly has a good-faith belief that he is right and that everyone else is wrong. But this good-faith belief will not be sufficient to overcome some of Wikipedia's peculiar rules and processes. Of foremost relevance is our notion of "verifiability, not truth". If at any point in this disagreement, Alex came up with a reliable source that contradicted the existing identifications of Kyrgyzstan's delegate, the discussion would have proceeded along a very different line. But no such source has been forthcoming. Another of Wikipedia's peculiarities is its distaste for resolving disagreements via edit-warring. I continue to encourage Alex to resolve this matter via one of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures (perhaps WP:DRN). I hope that he will take that route. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Related but unrelated - that whole section is a minefield and year-in-year-out subject to sourcing issues, crystal ballery, edit warring etc. Getting rid of the whole section may be an even better approach but that's not a subject for ANI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Can we just please drop all beauty pageant coverage, please? EEng 19:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support to drop pageant coverage. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can now get the immoral support we may actually achieve something. EEng 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Governor Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person!" "That is not enough, madam, we need a majority." --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Wikipedia behaviour

On user BallenaBlanca.

There is ongoing litigation w the above editor related to a number of behavioural problems. The issue is overall with disruptive editing, Wikihounding and one-purpose, POV editing (I hope I am in the right place here). The editor in question claims in his personal page to be focused on medicine, still since approximately September 2017 his activity stands out for litigating on red hot controversial national issues nowadays at the very center of political life in Spain and media, often accompanied with misleading edit summaries. It really looks like WP:NOTHERE.

I had a first contact and numerous discussions in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where the editor in question almost automatically reverts to extenuation edits that do not suit his views, even verified information, with content blanking. I got fed up in that article, and then I found he is jumping onto my area of interest doing highly controversial edits. Admittedly he has irritated me and my reply has not been at times the most level-headed. Thanks

• [32] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [33] Check source here

• [34] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

• [35] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

• [36] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

• [37] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

• [38] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

• [39] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

• [40] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page.

Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 1. For some time I am kindly asking Iñaki LL to stop personal attacks, to respect the Wikipedia policies and to comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users per WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES, without success. See a few examples [41] [42] [43]

As we can see here in his message above, he are again judging my attitude and labelling me, also violating WP:AGF.

He is reverting me with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO. A few examples (and there are several more): [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]

"The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page."

Iñaki LL left a message in my talk page, [52] that I removed per WP:HUSH. After this, I left a message in his talk page and we talked there. Again, I asked him to stop personal attacks User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

Maybe someone can explain me where I make personal attacks in these messages... ? User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

I will reply point by point to his objections (his text in italic):

• 1 [53] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [54] Check source here

I do not understand the objections here, it is more detailed information and adjusted to the source, which explains "[El Ministerio del Interior ha decidido trasladar a la Fiscalía General del Estado las acusaciones contra la Policía Nacional y la Guardia Civil formuladas por la alcaldesa de Barcelona

Misleading edit summary, citing "consensus"? The content of the page was hardly discussed here Request for Comment (last comment 21:48, 18 October 2017) including this section on Violence and injuries. I restored the content to the version as it was at the end of this RfC. You can compare both texts:

- 23:50, 18 October 2017 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[172]"

- 12:33, 20 January 2018 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[208]"

(And in the meantime you can see again in this latest edit summary another one of the Iñaki's multiple and continuous accusations, in this case "POV", and violations of WP: SUMMARYNO)

• 2. [55] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

This refer to the content that starts with "On 18 January 2018, the Spanish Home ..." In my edit summary I was referring to this user Edgarmm81 Edgarmm81 - legal threat I will not to extend in explanations here about how this user were continuosly violating WP:NOR WP:SYNTH, this is not the place. You can read more about this here Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Edits by Edgarmm81

• 3. [56] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

This image has no place on a page about politics (may be fine on a page about art), it is a work of art that offers the author's own version, therefore a primary source and does not comply with WP: RS.

• 4. [57] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

The accurate information is what I left after my edit in the page, Amaiur, that "Baztan in the autonomous region of Navarre in Spain". In fact, if you do a search on Navarra's own page, there is not a single link to Basque that I removed from Amaiur.

• 5. [58] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

No, what I did was to complete the information with more accurate and adjusted data, also adding information and a link to the Autonomous Community in the infobox, which only contained the population and the country, but not the Autonomous Community.

• 6. [59] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

Look at my edit summary “Unsourced. Please, feel free to re-add this information supported by a reliable source”. Unreferenced content can be deleted without further explanation. I think all of us know the WP:RS policy.

• 7. [60] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

Look at my edit summary “Adjusted nationality as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. The Constitution of Spain only admits one nation, which is the Spanish Nation.” There is no such thing as " Basque Spanish" nationality, it not exists and nobody uses it. This is an invented term that violates WP:NOR.

And I now add something that I did not write in this edit summary, which is that in this way duplicate information is simplified and avoided reiterations (see the following content: "He became the second elected Lehendakari (President of the Basque Country)") Also taking into account that the lead section must be a concise overview per MOS:LEAD.

• 8. [61] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

I am very happy that you put this example here so that everyone can see that you are even withdrawing the nationality from the infoboxes.

You can see more about this here Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 2. I wonder if this can be considered as WP:CANVASS, since they are not cited nor involved here, just me, and they edit in the same line as Iñaki LL, [62] [63] [64]. If not, I apologize for my mistake. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been noticed about this discussion and I haven't followed all the events surrounding it, but I have seen the editions made by BallenaBlanca in order to promote certain agenda. Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose: trying to use the opinion of the Spanish Constitutional Court as the point to determine how an article in Wikipedia should be written, even for people from other countries and nationalities. I think that this attitude is utterly disruptive. Maybe this section is out of the scope from this Incident, but he is even trying to change all the "Basque Country" links to "Basque Autonomous Community", and we all know that they are not the same. It seems that this user is following a plan to deliverately promote certain views. -Theklan (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 4.@Theklan: you are saying “Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose”. I'm sure you're writing this in good faith, but it's obvious that you're confusing me with another user. Can you please provide diffs to prove this assertion? I have never edited on pages about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people.

I am always editing assuming good faith, including references and respecting the policies about verifiable sources WP:MEDRS WP:RS. See for example this 500 edit summaries.

I'm always listening the opinions of other users, editing collaboratively, using the specific talk pages, and arguing from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. You can see here that 17% of my global contributions are in Talk pages and 73% in Main pages, while the rest in miscellaneous.

And if I'm wrong, I have no problem recognizing it. See for example this Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Last edit by BallenaBlanca and how I did the reversion myself (Restored previous version, trimmed primmary source per talk) and also the same in Operation Anubis (Reverting to revision of 17:06, 30 April 2018. Trimmed content supported by a primary source per WP:RS). This only an example, and obviously does not fit with a POV pushing editor.

About your last comment, once again, I repeat that my edits were intended to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. I adjusted as stated on the main page on Basque Country (autonomous community). See the edit summaries [65] "(The Basque Country is officially the Basque Autonomous Community. See Basque Country (autonomous community))." Edited: By the way, "Basque Country" is a desambiguation page.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not. The editor in question seems to know very well the rules and uses them against editors in the opposite spectrum of his POV, deceptively citing administrative/technical reasons ('adjusted', etc.). Looks like a bureaucracy really. Anyone knowing the topics, knows this editing is extremely controversial and contested, they are red hot national sensitive issues in Spain at this very moment, for which I have doubts over this account. He goes browsing the EN WP removing automatically Basque/Catalan for Spanish, and acknowledging only administrative realities, or citing the Spanish Constitution.

His reaction above is very telling about his attitude, he does have a lot of time to question the contribution of others, pushing the most restrictive interpretations according to his POV, there is always a pretext, in a way that the outcome of the edit is virtually a censorship of the relevant piece of information. It is highly disruptive, ultimately scaring away editors.

I had to leave the Catalan referendum article, and now he is coming over to Basque topics as some kind of rescuer of the WP. Anyway, I think the diffs I added above are revealing enough of his POV, one-purpose activity. Admittedly, at times he got bit on my nerves. One year-ago, a disruptive editor, User:Asilah1981, was finally banned after 2 and a half disrupting the WP (I went through all kind of tricks and attacks against me, eliciting improper reactions from mine), and this is looking not very different. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 6. Iñaki LL, with all of my respects, I will kindly make an observation. Maybe then the main problem is that, as you are saying yourself, you are losing your nerves. Arguing, reasoning or interpreting the conversations and messages of others with neutrality is very complicated, while not impossible, when one is not calm, centered nor focussed. Maybe that's the reason why, despite all my explanations, you continue to accuse me of bad faith, violating WP:AGF, with the accusation you added here that I am gaming the system (I cite your words, follow the link "Looks like a bureaucracy really"). I would suggest that you try to calm down, please, so that we can talk in a fluid, neutral and calm way.

What I am doing is respecting the rules and asking others to respect them too, as simple as that. They are the basis of Wikipedia, without them this would be chaos.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. You are not respecting the rules, but making a sui generis interpretation of them to promote your POV in a disruptive way. You are also accusing others of not following the rules, and in the same talk pages you are not even accepting an argument over your bureaucratic attitude towards the subject, disregarding what external sources say, what common sense say and what the reader would expect fom a Wikipedia article.

About the changes in other nationalities (Quebécois, Flemish, Kurdish...): sorry, maybe it wans't you in the discussion who claimed that he/she was going to change them all. I have reviewed the conversation and I think it was Crystallizedcarbon who claimed it. -Theklan (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Catalan separatism is on my list. EEng 19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a case for dispute resolution rather than admin intervention. Perhaps inevitably the situation in Catalonia and Spain itself is being reflected by users from that country on wikipedia with a huge amount of passion for the subject, and dispute resolution seems to be the only sensible way forward, given this thread. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is nothing about passion except what I pointed that I overreacted to the editor's controversial campaign and wikihounding, the sequence of edits are clear above. The editor in question, mild mannered but extremely aggressive in actions, shows a command of policies to censor other editors in highly sensitive issues, evading common sense and consensus seeking, besides having plenty of time, always pursuing the rule, if any, in its most restrictive and alienating interpretation, changing the edits of editors with a different POV. See also here (verified information), where a verified authoritative voice was automatically reverted by the editor ultimately "for being a primary source", when nothing more is being reported in the text than what that authoritative voice said.

The case of Navarre above (Amaiur) ("In fact, if you do a search on Navarra's own page, there is not a single link to Basque that I removed from Amaiur") is very revealing of the kind of self-entitled reasoning of the editor in question, incomprehensible, just self-entitlement, only what he says is good. He removes Basque, critical information (I do not know if this editor knows anything on the village, it seems that he does absolutely nothing if his edit is anything to go by) and adding Spain, with no nuance or further considerations other than that.

The disruptive POV pursuit is clearer in his way of migrating from one article to another, evading more easily detection. He claims to edits on "medical", although it clear looks more of a facade if his edits are anything to get by. I strongly believe a topic-ban applies, other than that, a warning temporary block, incremental if he continues his disruptive the WP or his hounding pursuit. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that I also have to apologize if I have time to edit in Wikipedia...

Your sense of "hounding pursuit" is very easy to explain.

The starting point was when this thread was opened on May 15, 2018 Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality, page that I have been following for some time. My first intervention in this thread was on May 21, 2018 [66] You can enter my contributions and check dates, to see that before May 21, 2018, I had not done any edit correcting errors about nationalities (because they do not comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context).

From there, I was interested in seeing how the situation was in other related pages. That was as simple as looking for categories, entering the lists and going checking pages one by one, correcting the irregularities (a great part has the correct data). As I have looked at several tens, it seems that I have coincided with you, for what I have been able to verify later with your multiple reversions of my edits, with misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil edit summaries violating WP:SUMMARYNO.

I'm not trying to upset you, your reactions depends on your personality. For example, I am very calm and I did not react violently to these edit summaries, although reasons were not lacking:

1. (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
2. (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing)
3. (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
4. (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing)
5. (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
6. (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
7. (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing)
8. (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
9. (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor)
10. (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor)
11. (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
12. (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
13. (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr)

On the contrary, have you noticed that I have not undone them? Except for a couple of pages a few days ago, in which we both undid edits, I have not touched the rest (easy to check it seeing the histories). If I were like you say that I am, I would have continued to revert, but I am waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont is resolved.

In addition, a user left me this message in my UTP on 23 May, with a list of pages arbitrarily edited by a sockpuppet currently banned, who systematically introduced irregularities about nationalities violating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, among other things.

Linking here and there, I ended up reviewing a large number of articles.

P.S.: Note that the policy that you mentioned hounding says:

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.

About your bann suggestion and seeing that you still do not calm down, judging and accusing me more and moere, keep in mind that it could be applied WP:BOOMERANG.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban would need to apply to both sides which is why dispute resolution would be much better. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If he feels there is a "POV pursuit" on my part, I am not responsible for it. I do not know what more can I do to get him to calm down, although I'm trying to ask him kindly.

It is easy to show that I am not following or harassing Iñaki LL and that the times we coincided in pages were fortuity.

I have taken the last contributions of Iñaki LL (I have eliminated the duplicates, that is, the pages in which he made several edits).

Let's see the RESULTS:

ARTICLES:

• May 27, 2018: 16 edits by Iñaki LL, reverting my only edit on those pages, except in Joseba Sarrionandia, in which I made 2 edits, and Carlos Garaikoetxea, in which I made 7 edits .
• May 25, 2018: 2 pages edited by Iñaki LL, one of them reverting my only edit in Étienne Polverel. I did 5 edits in Juan José Ibarretxe.
• May 23, 2018 to April 15, 2018: 38 pages edited by Iñaki LL. I made 0 edits in 35 of these pages, 1 edit in University of the Basque Country, 1 edit in José María Arizmendiarrieta, and 179 in Catalan independence referendum.

TALK PAGES:

• You can see how I am using the talk pages of articles in which I have edited several times, but I have not followed Iñaki LL to any other page.

And if you keep looking back, you'll see the same pattern (I'm not going to put more here to not collapse the page).

In conclusion: We have edited in a few same pages coincidentally, there is no bad faith on my part.

I paste here the results of the reports and the links so you can check it:

Articles

ARTICLES: May 27, 2018: 23:44, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-33)‎ . . Arnaldo Otegi ‎ (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Arnaldo Otegi (0.27% of the total edits made to the page) 23:41, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-80)‎ . . Zarama (band) ‎ (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Zarama (band) (5.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Jorge Oteiza ‎ (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Jorge Oteiza (1.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:39, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-25)‎ . . BAP (Basque band) ‎ (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on BAP (Basque band) (2.22% of the total edits made to the page) 23:35, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-46)‎ . . Betagarri ‎ (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Betagarri (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:16, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-75)‎ . . Negu Gorriak ‎ (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Negu Gorriak (0.74% of the total edits made to the page) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-65)‎ . . Nestor Basterretxea ‎ (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Nestor Basterretxea (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:13, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-45)‎ . . Joseba Sarrionandia ‎ (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 2 edits by BallenaBlanca on Joseba Sarrionandia (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:12, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Delorean (band) ‎ (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Delorean (band) (0.67% of the total edits made to the page) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-82)‎ . . Fermin Muguruza ‎ (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Fermin Muguruza (0.74% of the total edits made to the page) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . José Antonio de Gaztañeta ‎ (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on José Antonio de Gaztañeta (1.92% of the total edits made to the page) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . Federico Krutwig ‎ (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Federico Krutwig (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Diego de Borica ‎ (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Diego de Borica (1.04% of the total edits made to the page) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Pablo Sorozábal ‎ (Undid revision 842926050 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Pablo Sorozábal (1.27% of the total edits made to the page) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-100)‎ . . Kortatu ‎ (Undid revision 842930320 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Kortatu (1.11% of the total edits made to the page) 20:45, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Carlos Garaikoetxea ‎ (Undid revision 843032492 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv to inclusive definition, critical national background) (Tag: Undo) Found 7 edits by BallenaBlanca on Carlos Garaikoetxea (5.51% of the total edits made to the page) May 25, 2018: 22:14, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+94)‎ . . Étienne Polverel ‎ (Undid revision 842923556 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Étienne Polverel (1.56% of the total edits made to the page) 22:13, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Juan José Ibarretxe ‎ (Undid revision 842917331 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv removal of critical information / controversial editing) (Tag: Undo) Found 5 edits by BallenaBlanca on Juan José Ibarretxe (2.81% of the total edits made to the page) May 23, 2018 to April 15, 2018: 22:59, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-43)‎ . . Altsasu incident (2016) ‎ (Undid revision 842634762 by Oraina (talk) Rv non existent category, also Spanish judicial truth still pending) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Altsasu incident (2016) ‎ (0% of the total edits made to the page) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . Basque Nationalist Party ‎ (Undid revision 842599191 by 112.64.68.70 (talk) Not grammar) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque Nationalist Party (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+124)‎ . . Xirula ‎ (Undid revision 842570006 by Dbachmann (talk) Rv per WP:VER) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Xirula (0% of the total edits made to the page) 14:02, 22 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Reconquista ‎ (Undid revision 842419682 by 62.12.175.131 (talk) Rv to accurate, balanced version) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Reconquista (0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:09, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+113)‎ . . Immigration to Europe ‎ (→‎Spain: Picture) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Immigration to Europe (0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:21, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+122)‎ . . Syrian Civil War ‎ (→‎Ceasefire and escalation (April 2012 – December 2013): Picture) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Syrian Civil War (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:13, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . 2018 Gaza border protests ‎ (→‎14 May: Picture) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Gaza border protests (0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:07, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+36)‎ . . Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners ‎ (→‎Recent developments: links) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners (0% of the total edits made to the page) 15:37, 17 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Battle of Toulouse (721) ‎[ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=BallenaBlanca&page=Battle+of+Toulouse&max=500&server=enwiki Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Battle of Toulouse (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)] 07:09, 17 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+669)‎ . . Basque Country (greater region) ‎ (Undid revision 841633490 by 174.71.219.114 (talk) Rv IP) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque Country (greater region) (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:02, 16 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Pamplona ‎ (English) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Pamplona (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 00:55, 15 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+748)‎ . . José María Arizmendiarrieta ‎ (→‎Biography: Expanded) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on José María Arizmendiarrieta (1.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:43, 14 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-90)‎ . . Reconquista ‎ (Idem) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Reconquista ‎ (Idem) (0% of the total edits made to the page) 13:01, 12 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Lemóniz Nuclear Power Plant ‎ (Idem) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Lemóniz Nuclear Power Plant (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 07:56, 10 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . French Basque Country ‎ (Undid revision 840446672 by Jamez42 (talk) English language name) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on French Basque Country (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Navarre ‎ (Undid revision 840405482 by 152.16.39.247 (talk) Rv unexplained change) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Navarre (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-169)‎ . . San Sebastián ‎ (→‎Modern Age: Restored previous removed info, avoided redundancies, cleaned up) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on San Sebastián (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+173)‎ . . Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette ‎ (Undid revision 840338018 by Wehwalt (talk) This is a fully free licensed picture, it is in Pasai Donibane for everyone to see, thanks) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:22, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Alsasua fight ‎ (Fixed) (current) (Tag: New redirect) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Alsasua fight (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . N Alsasua incident ‎ (Redirect) (current) (Tag: New redirect) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on N Alsasua incident (0% of the total edits made to the page) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Lèse-majesté ‎ (Tweak) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Lèse-majesté (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:44, 7 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+69)‎ . . La Manada sexual abuse case ‎ (Oops, links) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on La Manada sexual abuse case (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:55, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . Carmen Lamela ‎ (→‎Audiencia Nacional of Spain (National Court): Link, fixes) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Carmen Lamela (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+142)‎ . . Alsasua – Altsasu ‎ (Link) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Alsasua – Altsasu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . User:Iñaki LL/sandbox ‎ (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User:Iñaki LL/sandbox (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+425)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Current requests for increase in protection level) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 10:05, 29 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+293)‎ . . GAL (paramilitary group) ‎ (Undid revision 838698301 by Abedulanilla (talk) Rv unexplained change) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User talk:Amorymeltzer (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . Olárizu ‎ (info) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Olárizu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:00, 22 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m Battle of Irún ‎ (→‎Notes) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Battle of Irún (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 11:20, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+265)‎ . . Crown of Aragon ‎ (Ref) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Crown of Aragon (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:56, 20 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+376)‎ . . Catalan independence referendum, 2017 ‎ (Undid revision 837411460 by Crystallizedcarbon (talk) No, no and no, it is a reported statement of what a recognisable, authoritative document says) (Tag: Undo) [Catalan independence referendum, 2017 Found 179 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)] 23:20, 18 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Charles Martel ‎ (→‎Background: Nuance) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Charles Martel (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 11:38, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+50)‎ . . Mimizan ‎ (→‎History: links, paragraph) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Mimizan (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 15:16, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Wikipedia:Help desk ‎ (→‎Redirect and rename issue) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Wikipedia:Help desk (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:00, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . Ikurriña ‎ (Undid revision 836696508 by 150.241.162.243 (talk) Testa desegin) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Ikurriña (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:25, 15 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . University of the Basque Country ‎ (Wording, pragraphs) (Tag: Visual edit) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on University of the Basque Country (0.4% of the total edits made to the page) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . N UPV-EHU ‎ (←Redirected page to University of the Basque Country) (Tag: New redirect) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on N UPV-EHU (NaN% of the total edits made to the page) 00:43, 13 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-16)‎ . . EH Bildu ‎ (Reverted 3 edits by 79.136.107.17 (talk): Misrepresentation of source. (TW)) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on EH Bildu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)

Talk pages

TALK PAGES: 23:49, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+269)‎ . . Talk:Carles Puigdemont ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 16 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Carles Puigdemont (3.8% of the total edits made to the page) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+432)‎ . . Talk:Carlos Garaikoetxea ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 9 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Carlos Garaikoetxea (33.33% of the total edits made to the page) 23:05, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+389)‎ . . Talk:Juan José Ibarretxe ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 7 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Juan José Ibarretxe (21.88% of the total edits made to the page) 09:44, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+515)‎ . . Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette ‎ (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 17:16, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+269)‎ . . User talk:Amorymeltzer ‎ (→‎Removal of Page protection petition) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User talk:Amorymeltzer (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 01:03, 26 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+635)‎ . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 ‎ (→‎Revert of authoritative document) Found 102 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.24% of the total edits made to the page) 18:28, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+130)‎ . . Talk:Basque Country (greater region) ‎ (→‎Edit warring in lead) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Basque Country (greater region) (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

More argumentation based on evidences, showing what Iñaki LL has omitted.

There are more problems with his accusations against me. When only part of the facts are exposed, a biased view is being given.

Iñaki LL said: "It is nothing about passion except what I pointed that I overreacted to the editor's controversial campaign and wikihounding, the sequence of edits are clear above. The editor in question, mild mannered but extremely aggressive in actions, shows a command of policies to censor other editors in highly sensitive issues, evading common sense and consensus seeking, besides having plenty of time, always pursuing the rule, if any, in its most restrictive and alienating interpretation, changing the edits of editors with a different POV. See also here (verified information), where a verified authoritative voice was automatically reverted by the editor ultimately "for being a primary source", when nothing more is being reported in the text than what that authoritative voice said."

I will develop the rest of the information that Iñaki LL has not mentioned and that can prevent you from seeing the facts with the necessary neutrality.

This is the edit that Iñaki LL refers to Revision as of 22:25, 20 April 2018 BallenaBlanca (Leaving aside other considerations, trim this content per WP:SPA. Before reinserting again, please reach consensus in the PD.), which was made by Edgarmm81 here: Revision as of 09:34, 20 April 2018) Edgarmm81 (→‎Press coverage and Internet)

I undid the edit and asked him to use the TP Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017/Archive 7#Revert of authoritative document. When I said "leaving aside other considerations" I meant that, besides having a behaviour compatible with WP:SPA [67], he did not listen to the multiple advices to use verifiable sources, complying with WP:NPOV, using the templates to format the references and taking care of the presentation and writing.

The source that Iñaki LL says is "a verified authoritative voice" does not comply WP:RS: it is a self submitted publication by a hacker / activist. A small extract from the discussion (by the way, opened by Iñaki LL himself) [68] (Notice that it is not me who is arguing this):

• First is that the statement that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" is original research on a primary source as what the document criticized are the alleged methods used but does not make that claim.
• Second the phrase "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes" is misleading, as this is not an official report. The committee is still ongoing and has opened a site where document submission is open. (see here) it lists all those contributions on that page. Since it is not subject to editorial control, so it would not qualify as a reliable source.
• Third the term US expert is also misleading. McGrath is just a young hacker and an activist that has developed some software tools for gathering data.

In fact, after an edit war motivated by the user who added it and another user indefinitely blocked for being a suck puppet [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74], who kept adding it without paying attention to the discussion, the information has not been added again.

This edits profile has been the general rule in the referendum page and the reason why I have done so many edits on that page (and its talk page), seeking neutrality, consensus, and trying to avoid vandalism and irregularities.

Best regards.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that is a wall. Why are you bringing all these links? Thanks but I do not need them and do not think nobody requested them, my claim is much more simple. However, the link above ("fake news") seems to be right, so you are right on that link, I was wrong in choosing that diff. I remember now that it was actually discussed. A point for you. Your mild manner is not an issue, that is good, but it is not about the words, it is about your actions.

So going through articles you never have worked on, where I have been recently or not long ago, in my area of interest, exclusively to substitute 'Basque' for 'Spanish' (an ideological move and highly contentious in Spain, more so in certain politicians, needless to say), with a focus also in 'independence' matters (from above), after having a good number of scuffles and litigation with you in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (for which I left the article) is just a coincidence. That has a name in the WP, for which came here. It does not look very constructive, it all seems more to elicit a reaction or tediousness.

You do not need to undo anything for Wikihounding. As for the rest, your history and mine are there for whomever to look at. I have been for 10 years on the WP, I had to put up with a disruptive editor, a sockpuppet, finally banned after two years and a half roaming freely through the WP, accusing me (etc...) of all kind of things. To whomever this refers. I have nothing more to say. I request a sanction on the grounds pointed above, based on breach of healthy editing environment. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for acknowledging your error.

10 years? Really? And after 10 years in Wikipedia, you're surprised because an edit of yours is undone because it does not provide references? (neither verifiable nor unverifiable, no reference at all).

Neither you are taking into account that I invited you kindly to add the content again, supported by a reliable reference. Let's see the my edit summary in the link you just provided: Unsourced. Please, feel free to re-add this information supported by a reliable source.

Neither you are taking into account that I have not undone it, although that is what should be done. It is still the current version [75].

Also, please remember that Wikpedia is an open voluntary project and that the users can edit in the pages we want, and we do not need to justify or explain why we choose the topics or the articles we edit; we do not have obligations or a calendar of edits WP:CHOICE WP:VOLUNTEER. We only have to comply with (all) the policies, this is the basis of Wikipedia.

It seems that you think you are not obligated to comply with the rules and you can apply them arbitrarely, and that you edit letting yourself be carried away by emotions. This is a big problem for Wikipedia...

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I continue providing documented evidence.

Let's see now how Iñaki LL has also forgotten the facts? / made a mistake?, saying that I have been harassing him and that because of my behaviour he has had to stop editing on the referendum page.

He has said it twice in this thread (citing his words literally): “after having a good number of scuffles and litigation with you in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (for which I left the article) "highly disruptive" "pushing the most restrictive interpretations according to his POV" "editing is extremely controversial" “I had to leave the Catalan referendum article, and now he is coming over to Basque topics”

Here we have the complete list of his edits on the referendum talk page:

• Found 94 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (8.51% of the total edits made to the page)

Edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 - Detailed list

23:03, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+635) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:12, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+974) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,383) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+500) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 22:08, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+0) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+15) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,602) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+609) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 19:33, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+201) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2,574) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+0) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Typo) 19:59, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+928) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 20:13, 20 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+654) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */ Format) 20:02, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,073) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+362) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+936) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 22:58, 14 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+273) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-8) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:56, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */ Fixed) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,417) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+452) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+3) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+688) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+884) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+509) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+893) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+6) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */ Reply) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+19) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+580) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */) 10:11, 20 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+98) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 10:07, 20 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+766) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+87) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Consensus version altered */) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+802) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Consensus version altered */) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+963) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-13,906) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ Reply) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-27,124) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Do add your information in the article, sourced and accurately) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-13,850) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ No and no, this is no wall, come here for discussion to fix specific problems) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+249) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:14, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:13, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+225) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+316) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 20:41, 10 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-30) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ Fixed link) 20:39, 10 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+407) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Multiple voting */) 12:44, 30 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+26) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */ Sb added this in the wrong place, not belonging there, create section) 08:21, 28 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+270) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Apparent Misquote in article with no citation for support */) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-6) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Thanks but no, do not alter the meaning of signed comments) 22:48, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+307) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* "The Guardian" about fake news of violence */) 22:42, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+514) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,174) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:58, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+323) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Undid revision 806077687 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv unhelpful edit, by WP:TPO, like improductive and harmful personal edits, see also WP:NPA) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Removed userbox per WP:TPNO) 13:59, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed link) 13:59, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed link) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,912) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:38, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+391) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:06, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+579) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+458) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:23, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . m Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:22, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,748) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+426) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:28, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+282) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:15, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:10, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+799) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 08:41, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+263) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 08:36, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+319) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed comment) 08:32, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+367) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:37, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+3) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+613) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:21, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+707) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 22:01, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+378) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 21:56, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+576) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 21:35, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+557) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 21:04, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+646) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:36, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Spelling) 20:35, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,808) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 17:38, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,507) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+708) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 10:25, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+410) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+220) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+237) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Supposed illegality of "approved law" */) 20:02, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+788) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Supposed illegality of "approved law" */) 19:33, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+267) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Unsigned comment) 13:52, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,139) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+580) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Neglect to include Franco-Catalan electorate in referenda */) 22:21, 08 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,338) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Request for Comment */) 20:39, 08 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+869) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Request for Comment */)

If what he is saying is true, we would have to see how he was continually discussing with me until his last edit and leave because he could not stand it.

Well, we can verify that it is completely false. Checking his edits one by one in reverse chronological order, from the last one on April 25, 2018 to October 19, 2017 (I have skipped edits with minor changes such as (+0) (+15) (-2) (-4)... and I have not included all the edits because the list is very long, but with these is more than enough to get a clear idea) and seeing who he is answering to, we have the following results:

• The last time he was answering me was almost 6 months ago, on January 20, 2018.
• 18 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon
• 7 Replying to BallenaBlanca
• 3 Replying to Aljullu
• 3 Replying to Ymblanter
• 2 Removal of inaccurate content
• 2 Replying to Edgarmm81
• 2 Replying to BallenaBlanca and Crystallizedcarbon
• 1 To everyone (please WP:INDENT)
• 1 Voting

Detailed list with links for you can check it

Revision as of 01:03, 26 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:12, 26 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:15, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:42, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:03, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:03, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:25, 24 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 21:33, 24 April 2018 To everyone (please WP:INDENT) Revision as of 21:28, 24 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 21:59, 21 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 22:13, 20 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:01, 17 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 23:29, 16 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:58, 16 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 00:58, 15 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:55, 12 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 11:18, 25 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 02:27, 25 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 17:33, 23 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 01:53, 23 February 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 01:27, 23 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 20:38, 21 January 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 11:11, 20 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 11:07, 20 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 19:27, 14 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 18:45, 14 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 00:52, 12 January 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 18:41, 11 January 2018 Removal of inaccurate content Revision as of 18:39, 11 January 2018 Removal of inaccurate content Revision as of 10:14, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 09:13, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 09:01, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 21:39, 10 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 10:21, 28 October 2017 Voting Revision as of 00:48, 20 October 2017 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 23:58, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:58, 19 October 2017 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 15:57, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:38, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca Revision as of 00:06, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca

I think that the multiple false accusations of Iñaki LL towards me, with the aim of getting my ban are very serious and deserve WP: BOOMERANG.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Is my first time here. Is any administrator going to say something? -Theklan (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've all said too much, nobody wants to wade through all that. I would suggest you all get back to editing, and if a fellow editor's editing bothers you, then calmly and politely, and most importantly succinctly discuss the issues with them on their talk page, or the talk page of the article in dispute. Remember, ¡sucintamente! Fish+Karate 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thank you very much for your answer.

I will follow your kindly advice. I will go back to editing in the various topics in which I have interest and in which I can collaborate positively to improve this encyclopedia, expanding them when interesting or possible, and fixing the numerous errors detected and adjusting them to the Wikipedia policies.

Of course, as I am always doing,, I will continue talking with other users calmly and politely.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

...Wow, so much noise, no surprise one cannot gather conclusions from the maze above. @Fish and karate: Beautiful words are good, but actions speak louder than words. I came here for a solution to irregular activity with POV overtones, for which I added a list of approx. 8 diffs, and an short explanation for each (see above). For whatever is worth, here is another diff [76], a revert dismissing a balanced edit of mine, including a vague/misleading edit summary, see here Archive 4 discussion referred in the edit summary by the editor in question; see also the reference supporting my statement [77] (headline goes, "Violences policières en Catalogne : attention aux images trompeuses / La journée de dimanche a été marquée par les violences policières en Catalogne, mais certaines images-chocs ont été manipulées. Explications.") Check out my edit, check out BallenaBlanca's revert, go to Archive 4. Please do it. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor maintaining list of 'problem' users.

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

---

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is maintaining a list of 'problem' users contrary to the provisions of WP:POLEMIC. I removed the list in accordance with the provision given at WP:POLEMIC. ZH8000 has restored the list claiming I should have not removed it ([diff]. WP:POLEMIC clearly states that such list are permitted provided they are used in a timely manner. As the list was created in November 2016, I would suggest that any timely use is long passed and the list should be deleted. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheVicarsCat: A link to said list would be helpful.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be the list of IPs in this talk page diff that TheVicarsCat linked to above. A Train^talk 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

<<ec>> ::Oh. I see. Not quite as presented, is it? I don't think you should be removing content form their talk page either. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Have I misinterpreted something? I am not as experienced as some and pointers are always welcome. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right that ZH80000 is maintaining a list of problem editors. It's just that this seems like a pretty straightforward collection of problematic recurring IP vandals and not a Richard Nixon-style enemies-list like your post appears to suggest. I'm not sure there's any action to take here. A Train^talk 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The list appears (or appeared) to be the pre-cursor to an attempt by ZH8000 to make a sock-puppetry case to remove an editor who was disagreeing with him (and there seems to be a history of this). Having had a look at the list of addresses, they are most likely a single editor with a dynamic IP address making good faith edits (though lacking sourcing). It is no coincidence, that this gambit was recently attempted here, where three unrelated IP editors (two dynamic IPs and a third static IP - all from different continents) were accused of sock-puppetry with no evidence other than that they were disagreeing with him over a point where he was plain wrong (the subject of separate action elsewhere). Further, he had included IP editors who were completely unconnected with the subject dispute, though were IP editors who had disagreed with him elsewhere, in an artificial attempt to bolster his case (or kill two birds with one stone).

So why does WP:POLEMIC not apply here as has been suggested? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to collect data for use in a report such as an SPI or a request for a range block. Such information should not be permanent, but should exist for as much time as needed to accumulate the information and file the report. In any case, this is not a stand-alone list, it is part of a discussion between editors. It appears to be legitimate, and not a violation of POLEMIC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of a list on a subpage, this is a post on their talkpage, as a reply to another user.--Auric talk 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW if anyone wants to check, here are the two most common ranges: Special:Contributions/65.129.128.18/17 and Special:Contributions/67.1.109.60/16. ansh666 19:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen (and ladies?). If nothing else, I may have learnt something so something good came of it. I think this can probably be knocked on the head. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Retaliation for a complaint made here

User:Alexbrn has retaliated against me for a complaint I made above (WP:ANI#Disruptive editing following AfD appeal decision). Today he put a warning on my userpage User talk:NightHeron#May 2018 saying that I was engaged in edit warring on the Abortifacient article and was in danger of being blocked. This accusation is completely false, as is clear from the revision history of the Abortifacient article. About 10 hours earlier Alexbrn had deleted all five sources that I'd added in an edit two months ago. When I discovered that, I put them back in (with edit summary pointing to the talk page), fully explained this on the talk page, and also made a minor insertion edit for clarification. Then Alexbrn deleted my edits so as to once again remove the five sources. The only reason his action was technically not edit-warring is that Abortifacient, unlike other abortion-related articles, is not page-protected and so 1RR does not apply. In any case my two edits -- the only edits I've made on that page since March -- could not possibly be called edit warring.

Seven minutes after Alexbrn put that warning on my userpage, another veteran editor from WikiProject Medicine, User:Jytdog, put another warning on User talk:NightHeron#Sourcing claiming that I had refused to follow proper sourcing. That warning says "a bunch of us have tried to call your attention to MEDRS ... and you don't seem to be engaging with it." As I had just explained on Talk:Abortifacient, the sources I used supported the statement in the article that "Modern scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties in animals." According to MEDRS, the sources are obviously not recent enough to be used in connection with current best practices in medicine; however, it is equally clear that they are sufficient to support the statement about the effects of certain herbs on animals. After all, the second half of the 20th century is well within "modern science." From my reading of WP:MEDRS, it provides guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules, and in any case most sourcing is subject to RS, not MEDRS.

Brief background: Alexbrn is one of a "bunch" of members of the medicine WikiProject who on various discussion pages have made repeated bad-faith accusations against me. They seem to be displeased that I have suggested edits on Talk:Alternative medicine to deal with the NPOV problem of that article, have participated in the discussion of this that was initiated by another editor on the NPOV noticeboard, and wrote a new article Criticisms of medicine that is now near the end of 4 weeks of deletion-related discussions. At the same time, I want to make it clear that the group of editors who have ignored WP:GF, WP:BITE and other policies calling for civility includes only a small proportion of the medicine WikiProject, and I am by no means complaining about the medicine project itself, which is an extremely valuable one on Wikipedia. In fact, it was a veteran editor from the medicine WikiProject who suggested to me that I write the Criticisms of medicine article and provided valuable guidance to me when it was in the sandbox stage.NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not "retaliation", but your saying here you were editing on abortion led me to check out your contributions, in the light of the problematic edits you've been making elsewhere. Suffice it to say I was not impressed with what I found (e.g. old rat studies being used to imply modern-day human effects) and trimmed it back - together with unsourced content that had apparently been added previously by others ... but this is a content question out-of-scope for this n/b. As to your various other unevidenced general complaints, I shall leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Starting to think NightHeron needs a topic ban from medicine articles... --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At the very least. S/he seems to only be here for the drama. If you're incapable of going 72 hours without nailing a manifesto up at ANI, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. A Train^talk 22:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider it the last bit of rope I'm willing to offer. A topic ban on medicine related articles to see if they can edit ANYTHING ELSE without causing drama. --Tarage (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing how this is a disclosed alt account created so the person can edit about abortion (see here) (which they said here in the ANI thread above, led them to alt med), it is unlikely that they intend to use this account to edit about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then they go back to using their other account and the problem is solved. --Tarage (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I can assure you that I am not on Wikipedia editing some med-related articles because I'm seeking the "drama" of constant insults and abusive language, including mockery and profanity, that I've gotten from a small bunch of veteran editors. Most people I know (especially women and people of color) would have given up on editing Wikipedia by now if they were subjected to the same verbal abuse as I have been. My purpose in recently becoming an editor was to improve certain articles on topics of interest or curiosity, starting mainly with abortion-related ones. I see from User:Alexbrn's comment that he is continuing his retaliation by reverting other abortion-related edits. The statements in question relate to animal studies and conclude that certain herbs have abortifacient properties on animals. Such tests suggest (but do not prove) that they might have similar effects on humans. There is also extensive anthropological evidence (not the same thing as rigorous scientific testing, of course) that says that the same plants have been used by women for hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of years in different parts of the world for early-stage abortion. This is amply sourced, for example in books written by the prominent historian of medicine and pharmacology John Riddle. During the last 24 hours Alexbrn has deleted well-sourced material from my edits, then put a formal warning on my userpage falsely accusing me of edit-warring, and then continued deleting well-sourced material. This is harassment and retaliation.

Concerning my two postings to this site, the second one is just for Alexbrn's retaliation against me for the first one.NightHeron (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Women and people of color are weak or emotionally fragile? Is that what you're insinuating? I find that pretty insulting. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Let me repeat what I said in a comment I made on a very good recent Signpost article on Wikipedia's systemic bias. A typical reaction of women I know might be: "I encounter enough jerk behavior from men in my daily life, I don't need more of it." A person of color might react similarly, knowing that if they want to enjoy their life, they'd better choose their battles carefully. And maybe improving Wikipedia shouldn't really be a big priority for them. Of course, plenty of white males would come to similar conclusions. I've speculated that one reason for Wikipedia's high attrition of new editors and only 1 out of 6 editors being women is probably the failure of Wikipedia to control abusive conduct by a relatively small number of veteran editors.

Concerning my true name account, as I say on my userpage: "I use it only to edit articles that are directly related to my profession." There is no overlap between that general area and the areas where NightHeron has edited or will edit. Those have included other topics besides the abortion-related ones, such as women in science. Why bring up such a question here, anyway? Is it standard practice on AN/I to divert the discussion to talk of blocking the person bringing the complaint?NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When you come to ANI, ALL PARTIES are fair game. You can't just go "This isn't about me it's about them" because anyone who's watched ANI for any amount of time will realize that boomerangs are a very real thing. When you posted this, you opened yourself up to people examining ALL of your edits for context. And quite frankly, you appear to be a complete net negative in this space, hence my suggestion of a topic ban. I don't honestly care who you are, what you do for a living, or what your other account is. All I see is an editor who regularly causes drama in the medical article space and has created TWO topics here in a short period of time, neither of which have resulted in anything actionable. Again, my last bit of rope for you was the topic ban so you could prove to us that you can be less dramatic editing somewhere else. If that is the result, or you cease using the account, both are fine outcomes because again, it stops the needless drama YOU are creating. --Tarage (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron you might want to review WP:BOOMERANG. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 04:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe in trafficking in insults, so I won't respond in kind to User:Tarage's message. Although I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, I'll go out on a limb and say there's probably no WP policy that bans someone from a topic for "creating drama" by making two postings on AN/I in rapid succession (the second complaint being about retaliation for having made the first one). As I understand it, sanctions are if I violate policy, not if a bunch of editors lose their temper at me in the course of discussions. On the other hand, I can fully understand the tactical wisdom of "when attacked, counterattack" whether or not there's any merit to the counterattack. Lawyers often do it: If they sue you, countersue them.NightHeron (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So you two are telling me that no one's going to care that a veteran editor reduced an article to an incoherent stub immediately before re-nominating it for deletion, i.e., that disruptive editing's okay if it's done by an experienced editor? And no one's going to care that the same veteran editor posts a ban-warning on my userpage with a charge that's demonstrably false (if you just look at the revision history for the article where I'm accused of edit-warring)? And that all I'll accomplish by coming here is to get myself blocked? And not for violating any specific policy I've ever been warned about? Very strange, don't you think?NightHeron (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)-

"Everyone keeps telling me I'm wrong. Is the world wrong or is it me? Surly it's the world." --Tarage (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Very amusing. The basis of the anger about my participation on the alt med talk page and the discussions about Criticisms of medicine seems to be the suspicion that, because I (like some other editors before and after me) raised the NPOV issue in connection with the former article, I'm shilling for quacks and charlatans. True, my view is different from the apparent view of the editors who want to ban me or the one who is using disruptive editing against me. I believe that CAM is not necessarily 100% bad (maybe 90% or 95%, but not 100%), and that such a view needs to be reflected on Wikipedia. According to data cited in the alt med article, that's the view of 88% of Americans surveyed and of 60% of U.S. medical schools. So how do you conclude from that that the rest of the world thinks I'm wrong?NightHeron (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "anger". Rather mounting exasperation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron - since your immediate reaction to having your (bad) content removed was to put it straight back in again, I think my use of {{Template:Uw-ewsoft}} was helpful gently to alert you, as an "inexperienced editor" to the concept of edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, let's be factual. Looking at Talk:Abortifacient and at the revision history of Abortifacient, anyone can see that my description of what happened is correct and yours is not. Using standard Wikipedia practice, I restored the deleted material and did two things. First, I explained on the article talk page why my sources are RS for the purpose for which they are used. Second, I realized that it was not necessarily clear from context that we were talking about abortifacient properties as verified by animal studies, so I made a second edit inserting the words "in animals." So your first edit had the positive effect of alerting me to the need to do that. So far so good. Then without any justification whatsoever, you put a formal warning on my userpage informing me that I was in danger of being blocked and reminding me of the 3RR rule. In truth, if the article had been page-protected (as is normal for an abortion-related article), your 2 reverts within a 10-hour period would have been edit-warring. So you made a false charge against me, coming on the heels of my complaint on this site about your disruptive editing. That's retaliation. By the way, do you think your use of the word "gently" for your behavior will fool anyone?NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Using standard Wikipedia practice, I restored the deleted material" <- except, standard practice might be better described as getting consensus before restoring contested text, particularly for a controversial topic. You edits were obviously bad, as others have explained. There is a burgeoning WP:CIR issue here, which combined with WP:BATTLEGROUND is proving rather a time sink. The template I used is the special "soft" version, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As before, you're misrepresenting what happened. I was sourcing a statement about an effect of certain plants on animals, not a medical claim. Animal tests do not show that something can be used in medicine, although in some cases they suggest that later studies for medical purposes might be worthwhile. To increase clarity on this issue, I added the words "in animals" when I restored the text. What I did was not edit-warring, so your accusation against me was false. I'm not aware of anything in Wikipedia policy that says that any time someone doesn't like a sentence in an article and deletes it, the sentence then becomes "contested text" and must not be restored unless there's a discussion first with multiple editors so that a consensus can be reached. That would indeed be a "time sink." What's "obviously bad" to you -- because you've said you believe me to have a "problematic agenda" (and some others have also accused me of promoting fraud and quackery) -- is not "obviously bad" to other editors who are not presuming bad faith on my part.NightHeron (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Old rat studies might "suggest" to you that herbal abortifacients are effective, but your inexpert view is not worthy of inclusion. What if the research is flawed or just wrong (much is)? We absolutely require secondary sources to analyze/validate it, and yes animal studies are WP:Biomedical information so subject to WP:MEDRS - but if you'd actually read/understand the links many editors have provided for you, rather than donning the spidey suit, you would have got that by now. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As usual, your hostility and mockery toward me are matched only by the inaccuracy of what you say. I was not speaking of rat studies suggesting anything to me. Nothing about suggesting anything was in the Abortifacient article, and in my comments I was simply alluding to the well-known fact that animal studies are often conducted in order to get an idea of what might work in humans. Is it unreasonable to say that in a discussion? Are only experts supposed to participate in Wikipedia discussions? If you seriously wanted a constructive discussion, I could suggest two books by John Riddle, which are secondary sources. On the subject of expertise, I would ask you, taking full advantage of your PhD in English (from your userpage), to please return to the last part of the Abortifacient lede that you just edited and correct the grammar. What you left there is not a sentence.NightHeron (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is already getting non-constructive ... but no, you don't need to be an expert to edit ... but views we insert into articles should be backed by sources which embody requisite expertise. So your adding "Modern scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties", backed by iffy primary sources, is not okay because this is your view, not the view of any cited source. Please see WP:V & WP:NPOV. This is a running theme in your editing. I'd be happy to fix any grammar error - what's wrong? Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replied to your false allegations several times already, so let me just tell you where the grammar error is: The end of the lede is: "reports that they may have caused severe side-effects, including death." This dangles (no verb) and is unconnected with what came before in the non-sentence. The dangling can be fixed with a few additional words, but it will then be a run-on sentence. It has three parts and two sources. The second source is for the first part, the first source is for the third part, and the second part is unsourced. Not a great model of editing IMO. By the way, at this point I'm not going to add secondary sources or do any other editing of abortion-related articles because of the likelihood that you and your vindictive cronies will get me muzzled, not for violating any policy, but for disagreeing with you about the alt med article and related issues. So be it. Wikipedia is volunteer work, so it's not like getting fired from a paying job. My acquaintances (and some other Wikipedia editors) think I'm crazy to be continuing in the face of the abuse.NightHeron (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So.. you are (apparently) very new here, in this account and your "true name" one; you keep saying this and asking for accommodation on that basis. Yet you have fought efforts to correct poor edits you made, and turned efforts to teach you how edit better, into big battles, and gone yet further and attacked everyone else. Taking you at word, that you are a new editor (in both your "real name" account and this one), you are demonstrating that you are unteachable.Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My true-name account, as I told you in response to your earlier query (and is mentioned on my userpage), is only for topics in my profession, and I doubt there'll be much controversy there. That account is also a recent one. I've relied heavily on Wikipedia for many purposes for years as a reader, and had formed impressions of what I admire and don't admire in the articles (overwhelmingly the former). I still have a lot of learning to do about Wikipedia policy and subculture. For example, initially I'd read that Wikipedia articles don't belong to anyone or any group of authors, and I misinterpreted that to mean that attribution is unimportant on Wikipedia. I very recently learned that that's not true, and that I had violated policy by erroneously copying a preferred version of Criticisms of medicine to my sandbox. When I was told about that, I immediately deleted my copy. (I also did not know that "userfy" would give me access to any version I wanted to work on in the sandbox.) However, on the question of sources, I have a good-faith disagreement with some editors. Please see my comment on MEDRS below. My view is a reasonable interpretation of policy; it is not a refusal to accept policy.NightHeron (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a growing list of "support" below. You are doing something significantly wrong. Several people have taken time out of their day, to try to explain, and you have argued with each one and complained about what other people have done. This is what "unteachable" looks like. I will not be replying further. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are using the very fact that I am defending myself against accusations as the reason why you believe that I'm "unteachable." The accusations are not for the purpose of "teaching" me but for the purpose of building a case to muzzle me.NightHeron (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Defending yourself against accusations and refusing to listen to any criticism anyone is leveling at you are two very different things. Imagine if You told me that I was reading the word "banana" wrong. Imagine if I replied to you with an essay about how arbitrary symbols can mean anything and that your interpretation of the symbols that form the word "banana" are wildly different than mine and who am you to tell me that I am wrong? Imagine how frustrating that would be. Congratulations, that's exactly what you are doing. Every single person who has tried to explain to you what you are doing wrong has been beaten down by your arguing and wikilawyering and refusal to get the fucking point. Again, look at how many people are voting to topic ban you. Notice how NO ONE IS SUPPORTING YOU? Get a FUCKING CLUE already. It's NOT US. It's YOU. --Tarage (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for NightHeron from Medical articles and talk pages for six months, broadly construed

• Support as nominator. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This user is apparently incapable of responding to or absorbing criticism, which is an essential virtue of a collaborative encyclopedia editor. NightHeron has been an inordinate drain on volunteer resources, with a revolving door of experienced editors patiently (and seemingly pointlessly) trying to disabuse NightHeron of his/her idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. If they really are interested in helping to improve Wikipedia, they can go help out on other topics for a while. Ideally they stay away from ANI for six months, too. A Train^talk 23:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I realize that it can be annoying when a 13-year Wikipedia veteran editor and admin gets counterarguments from a newcomer. For an example of my interaction with this editor, please see User talk: NightHeron#Criticism of medicine AFD (skip the first paragraph, which is from someone else). This interchange occurred 4 days before he voted to ban me.

As far as my use of AN/I is concerned, what happened was that after the Criticisms of medicine article was restored on appeal of a delete decision, the original nominator immediately reduced it to a stub and then renominated it for deletion. I went to the userpage of the admin who'd helped me with the article in my sandbox and asked for guidance on how to handle the situation. The nominator of deletion then came there and told me that doing that was canvassing, and that if I had a problem with another editor I should bring it to AN/I; that was the first I learned what AN/I was. So I wasn't trying to be "grandiose" (as one editor accused me of being) by bringing it here.NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter-arguments aren't annoying — they're brilliant. I routinely change my mind in discussions because of a well-argued point from another editor. That's the sort of thing that keeps me coming back here.

Counter-arguments are not what you're making. You're moving goal posts. You're torturing logic. You're not arguing in good faith, because you have an end point in mind and you're incapable of accepting any logical route that doesn't arrive at your preferred destination. I'm not the only person that thinks so, just scroll. If you want to avoid a community-imposed sanction, you should take a voluntary ban on medical topics and help out the encyclopedia by editing constructively in other areas. A Train^talk 19:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@A Train: I won't respond to your characterization of my arguments. Those arguments have generally related either to the alt med article or to Criticisms of medicine. If you want me to agree to ban myself from those two articles for 6 months, okay. That means that I wouldn't do edits on the alt med article or talk page (or contribute to the NPOV noticeboard discussion of it), and, if Criticisms of medicine is deleted, I'll only work on it in the userfied form (that is, not try to publish it). However, a "voluntary ban on medical topics" is too broad for me to agree to, since it would (presumably) include all abortion-related articles. For example, today I learned that a discussion had just been started on a proposal to retitle Anti-abortion movement by replacing "anti-abortion" by "pro-life," and I gave an argument in opposition. I would be banned from doing this if a topic-ban includes all medicine-related topics.NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@A Train: I'll also certainly agree to keep away from AN/I for 6 months.NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty soon you aren't going to have a choice. --Tarage (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support . Hopefully this user can continue to contribute usefully on other topics for a while using their other account. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• As I explain on my userpage, my true-name account is only for editing articles in my professional area, which is not in health sciences. This ban would (I believe) forbid me from editing abortion-related articles. For example, right now I'm in two discussions (that I initiated) for NPOV-retitling United States pro-life movement (pro-life to anti-abortion) and United States pro-choice movement (pro-choice to abortion rights). The proposed ban would muzzle me in a broad sense.NightHeron (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that they can appeal it after some length of time {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• The accusation comes from my participation in discussions of alt med and Criticisms of medicine in which I disagreed with and was not convinced by the arguments of certain editors, mainly relating to questions of what NPOV means in the context of those two articles. It is unclear to me what is disruptive about my participation in those discussions. Are disagreements about NPOV or other matters supposed to be resolved by seniority, with those with more years or more edits being the authorities and less experienced editors holding their tongues? I have never used insults or profanities, even in response to a few editors who used them. I have remained cordial when certain editors made accusations of bad faith, mainly that I had a hidden agenda and was promoting fraud and quackery.
• I have never been accused of disruptive editing of any article, with one exception. On 30 May the editor who is the subject of my earlier complaint here put a warning against "edit-warring" on my userpage that says: "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Abortifacient... this is known as 'edit warring'..." Please look at the revision history of Abortifacient. I have made only 3 edits to that article since becoming a Wikipedia editor in early March. One was on 27 March, and the other two were the ones on 30 May that I described above. The charge in the warning is clearly false. Other than that, I am unclear what Wikipedia policy I am accused of violating.NightHeron (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• support We all have work we want to do, and trying to work with a new editor who is not only unteachable but runs to the drama boards to attack others, is a drain of the most valuable resource we have - volunteer time Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support NightHeron needs to demonstrate a better understanding of Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy, as well as collaborative editing. Since there is apparently a desire not to reveal their alternate account, the only way to establish that they can contribute positively on medical articles is to use this account to edit on some other topics. Building experience will in turn build credibility and, hopefully, a better attitude toward working with others and listening to their points. Grandpallama (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've listened carefully to the points raised by other editors. By "a better attitude toward...listening to their points" do you mean either agreeing with them or else refraining from making counterarguments if I disagree?NightHeron (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As Tarage earlier pointed out, your attitude is that if the consensus disagrees with you, you are still right and the consensus is wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, however right you may feel you are. To work collaboratively is to compromise and accept that your ideas and contributions will sometimes be rejected by the consensus. So far, you don't seem to grasp that, so while you may be listening, you're not hearing. The fact that you immediately followed my vote by implying there's a cabal of editors conspiring against you from a WikiProject pretty well epitomizes the problem. I think you could be a valuable contributor, but you've got a lot to learn and some behaviors that need changing. The only way to demonstrate that you're ready to wade back in on medical articles is to edit on other topics for a while and demonstrate you are working in a collaborative manner. Grandpallama (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My response to your vote (my indented comment, not the comment below) concerned only what you had said, nothing else.

What you say now is not correct. I have repeatedly accepted other editors' criticisms and suggestions, for example at different stages of writing my contributions to Criticisms of medicine. For instance, when it was in the sandbox stage, a member of the medicine WikiProject who disagrees with me about the alt med article nevertheless made extremely helpful suggestions and criticisms. It's only a small number of editors of that project who have made insulting comments about me and now want to ban me; it's not a "cabal."

When that article was closed with a delete decision after 2 weeks of AfD, I thought that there had not been a consensus for deletion (because I had read in several places that consensus is not established by majority vote) and appealed it. That was respectful of procedure and did not constitute a refusal to accept consensus. The appeal overturned the delete decision, based on consensus in the appeal discussion. That consensus was not respected by the nominator of deletion, who went to great lengths to reverse it. So it was not I who was disrespecting consensus. Nor was I the one who, by unnecessarily starting a new AfD in defiance of the appeal consensus, caused many other editors to have to waste time in a 4th week of debate about deletion.

Can you cite any specific instance when I refused to accept consensus?NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Listening, but not hearing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I both listen and hear, loud and clear. Can you answer my question: Can you cite any specific instance when I refused to accept consensus?NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Several editors have already said this, but here's a final try. The first AfD was overturned to NO CONSENSUS, it was not overturned to keep. Thus there was no consensus to respect. The purpose of my second AfD was to achieve consensus in its absence. This is why nobody (other than you it seems) objects to the process. You seem unable to accept the second AfD was a good thing - this is an example of you not accepting something and moving on. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right that no consensus is different from keep. I recall reading a WP guideline that said that after a keep one should wait 6 months before renominating for deletion, and after a no-consensus one should wait just 2 months. You waited 1/2 hour. Nor is it acceptable practice to reduce an article to an incoherent stub immediately before renominating it for deletion. That's what I objected to. Until the 4th week, following your disruptive editing, I had no procedural objections to anything.NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I give up. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since User:Alexbrn brought up the subject (see above), I'd like to mention an unresolved honest disagreement that has gotten me into trouble with some members of the medicine WikiProject (in addition to my criticisms of NPOV problems in the alt med article) and was the basis of the second warning on my userpage. They believe that WP:MEDRS is a hard-and-fast rule that should be applied to any statement in the biomedical area, broadly defined. I believe that this would rule out RS sources that are appropriate for certain purposes and are needed to make articles accurately reflect scholarly knowledge. While I accept the criticism that some of my earlier edits need more secondary rather than primary sources, there are secondary sources that support the edits, such as two books by John Riddle (both published by Harvard University Press). He states that certain abortifacient herbs have been used by women in disparate parts of the world since antiquity, and still are in some places (usually remote rural areas without access to modern techniques). He also cites some animal studies. Of course, he does not recommend such herbs for current medical practice, and warns about the dangers, as do other sources. These sources are clearly RS, but probably not MEDRS. I think it's okay to use them, and some other editors think it is not. Judging from the second warning on my userpage, this disagreement is one of the reasons why some members of the medicine WikiProject would like to ban me.NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS is there for a reason. I could go out and find a dozen books that notionally pass RS and which describe homeopathy as a powerful form of healing. They are True Believers. It could be a hundred or a thousand, it would remain abject nonsense. Same is true of people promoting herbal remedies (which are, in the main, unknown doses of poorly understood pharmacologically active substances with unknown adulterants). We stick with MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point about RS is a good one. Even a reliable source sometimes might make an irresponsible statement. For example, WebMD is (I think) generally considered a reliable source. But their passages on "alternative medicine" are problematic to say the least. Neither I nor John Riddle is promoting homeopathy or herbal remedies, and none of the statements I want to use Riddle for would be promoting them either. My point was that if MEDRS is applied rigidly without exceptions, then Wikipedia cannot accurately reflect scholarly knowledge in certain areas. Some areas of knowledge are multidisciplinary and use medical science combined with, for example, history and anthropology (Riddle's work is an example). Not all sources in such areas satisfy MEDRS. Of course, I'm not talking about current medical practice topics, which are the main area where MEDRS rather than RS is needed.NightHeron (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly anything in Wikipedia "is applied rigidly without exceptions". But in general if an editor wants to support biomedical claims with non-MEDRS there needs to be a very good reason. WebMD is not a good MEDRS source and best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. It appears NH is having a huge emotional investment into the topic, thus on its face a TBAN could solve that by forcing them to edit elsewhere. However, I doubt it really is applicable. I would much rather support a formal warning or short (<= 1 week) block.

1. NightHeron disclosed being a WP:VALIDALT intended to edit controversial topics. While there are controversial topics outside of medicine, NH has not edited them yet (as far as I can see), and seems to agree here that the TBAN is equivalent to a full ban. Do we really want to make it 6-months long?
2. I am not convinced the problematic behavior on display here is linked to the topic. We're not talking about edit-warring or article talk page bludgeoning or edit request spamming etc. What I see is a mild form of WP:IDHT (especially regarding their belief that the DRV overtun to NC should somehow shield the article for two months) coupled with some paranoïa ("some editors are out to get me"). I find it hard to pin it down to the topic; the whole thing has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so the battleground mentality about defending their article is not a temporary adrenaline rush, it is a mindset, and I see no reason to expect that mindset to change on different topics.

Sure, a TBAN would prevent some disruption, but is it really the good tool? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're raising good questions here, Tigraan. Given that the AfD they're focused on is due to end today, a week-long block feels punitive, which isn't what blocks are intended for. I think that the logical path from what you're saying is a site ban/indef block: you're right that the user's entire mindset seems geared towards problematic battleground behavior. Given the track record of the past week or so, would a formal warning accomplish anything? I would link diffs but one needs only to scroll up in this discussion or look at NightHeron's talk page to see how that would go. A Train^talk 13:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

CIR concerns: Unknown contributor123

Unknown contributor123 is a newcomer with only a month's tenure here on en.wiki. However, his talk page has amassed quite an impressive array of complaints. There are strings of PRODs: [78] [79] [80] as well as commensurate CSD and even AFD. Now these are not frivolous challenges: you can clearly see that every page questioned has since been deleted and shows as redlinked. There are also the declined drafts, and some articles which had to be moved out of mainspace. Two friendly plain-English warnings were issued by concerned editors: "slow down!" UC123 responds that he isn't much concerned about the need for others to clean up after him, and proclaims his intent to continue, full-steam ahead. Now, conversely, his contribution history indicates that he has successfully created about 11 new articles which have yet to be deleted. He seems to work in Argentine topic areas, obscure for en.wiki. I am skeptical that his relatively prolific prose output is wholly original. Google search fails to reveal obvious COPYVIO, but is it machine-translated? Cross-wiki? Not really sure. That may be superfluous if we conclude that the signal:noise ratio is just too low here. Thoughts? Comments? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The first one I looked at - Luis Rubio - is a direct translation of es:Luis_Rubio_(humorista) from the Spanish wikipedia. Same for Manuel Pizarro Cenjor, which is a direct translation of es:Manuel Pizarro Cenjor. He is translating these without attribution which means they are copyright (or at least licensing) violations, see WP:TFOLWP. Those all need to be deleted and I'm sure there'll be a template somewhere which explains to the user why translation without attribution is a breach of licensing. I'll sort it now. Fish+Karate 09:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be issues at Commons, too, looking at c:User_talk:Unknown_contributor123. Fish+Karate 10:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted all the articles the user created, due to their lack of attribution; let's see what happens now. Fish+Karate 10:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish & Karate, a breach of licensing is a copyright infringement. See WP:CCBYSA, section 7, first sentence: if you breach any terms, your rights vanish, so anything you've copied is a copyright infringement because you've copied something without permission. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So one would need to place a link to the other language article with a "translated from" note?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at: w:Template:Copied and w:Template:Translated page. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a couple of editors on my talk page asking me per WP:RIA to restore these deleted pages and add the attribution for each. I am happy to do this, even though it takes bloody ages, but would appreciate a second opinion on whether this is the right thing to do; my thoughts were that a copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio, as Nyttend says. When you create a translation you are supposed to note that in the edit summary with a link to the source Wikipedia page, so the chain of attribution can be maintained. I did one page - Luis Rubio as a test for how to correctly do the attribution, it can be re-deleted if necessary. Fish+Karate 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Attribution can absolutely be added after-the-fact; see WP:RIA. Normally, I would be all for preserving good content, but this content is...not...good. UC123 has had dozens of deleted articles: if we preserve these last few, will they just undergo AFD or PROD later on anyway and cause more work? And by deleting these machine-translated pages, is anything of value lost? How much work does it take to go to es.wiki and run something through Google Translate again? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: User has been blocked on Commons for prolific 100% copyvio uploads. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the user you're talking about. I have many articles that I want to create, however, most of them got deleted. Why? All of them should be in the Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very nice that you think they should be here, and thanks for your desire to contribute! However, you have been missing critical steps that are necessary from the standpoint of legality. As you may have read in the many, many warnings on your talk page, every single one of your contributions violates copyright in some way. At the very least, you must give credit to the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia who created the articles you're translating. If you could do that, we could keep some of your content. Other content, however, is not so great, such as all the photos you stole from the Internet and put on Wikimedia commons. You cannot take what is not yours and use it here. A huge amount of content on the Internet is copyrighted and not appropriately licensed for our use. We could be sued if we hosted it here. So that is why all your articles were deleted: the threats of lawsuits are too great to ignore and keep it around. Thanks. Spanish translation follows.

¡Es muy bueno que pienses que deberían estar aquí, y gracias por tu deseo de contribuir! Sin embargo, ha estado perdiendo pasos críticos que son necesarios desde el punto de vista de la legalidad. Como puede haber leído en las muchas, muchas advertencias en su página de discusión, cada una de sus contribuciones viola los derechos de autor de alguna manera. Por lo menos, debe dar crédito a los editores de Wikipedia en español que crearon los artículos que está traduciendo. Si pudieras hacer eso, podríamos conservar parte de tu contenido. Otro contenido, sin embargo, no es tan bueno, como todas las fotos que robó de Internet y puso en Commons de Wikimedia. No puedes tomar lo que no es tuyo y usarlo aquí. Una gran cantidad de contenido en Internet está protegido por derechos de autor y no tiene la licencia adecuada para nuestro uso. Podríamos ser demandados si lo organizamos aquí. Es por eso que todos sus artículos fueron eliminados: las amenazas de demandas son demasiado grandes como para ignorarlas y mantenerlas. Gracias. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall be pursuing deletion, through WP:PROD and WP:AFD if necessary, for your surviving articles. Their quality is so poor that they simply make us look bad, rather than being useful to the project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored about half of them (see a list on my talk page) as potentially ok. The rest are unsalvageable one sentence stubs that would get CSD'd or gibberish. Fish+Karate 09:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

page swap of portals

Resolved

A few moments ago, I closed an RM discussion regarding portals. I have included the screenshot of the error that I received. How should this move be performed? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

pinging Amakuru, and BD2412. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I haven't seen that one before, but I suspect it's because you're trying to move 477 subpages all in one go. Do you know what it means by a "swap"? What operation are you doing exactly? (Also, I'm not sure WP:ANI is the correct venue for this dicussion... perhaps WT:MOVE or somewhere like that)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have guessed VPT, myself. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that before, either. bd2412 T 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an error message from the script, not an error message with moving. Admins will still be able to do G6s, and pagemovers should still be able to do manual round-robins. I would talk to the maintainer of the pageswap script about why that is the case first, though. There might be a good reason.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: Yes, the script can handle only 100 subpages i think. Once I moved around 42 subpages when DYSK had moved a an entire wikiproject. During that incident, I had communication with Andy (creator/maintainer of the script), the script cant handle a lot of subpages. @Amakuru: Yes, basically it is like A to tempA, B to A, and then tempA to B. Even with the increased page move rates for page movers, I think that would be a lot of pages to move (semi)automatically. —usernamekiran(talk)

@Amakuru, TonyBallioni, and BD2412: We cant use the script (neither page movers nor sysops) for such a huge number, not sure about the sysops though. Thats why I came here originally: how should we handle these moves? Is there any work-around? any tips-tricks? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no workaround. Admins can use AWB to move the pages, but for non-admins the pages just have to be moved individually with Special:MovePage if there are more than 100 subpages. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I take that back, there is a workaround but only if you think about it beforehand and don't cock it up. Specifically by suppressing redirects, then you can recreate the original page after the move, move it to the new location (moving 100 subpages as you go) ad infinitum until you're done. Of course, you'll then have to restore the original (now-deleted) page at the final target, but it would save someone potentially having to move 450 gorram subpages (even with AWB it's tedious as hell). Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri revert at Peter Wilby

User:Kashmiri (talk) has performed a revert here on the article about the British journalist Peter Wilby. He claims of my edits: "Rv tendentious editing. Minor incident in an editor's career, no need to make it into 75% of the article". In fact he has reverted my expansion of Wilby's period as editor of the New Statesman (1998–2005), a significant part of his career. For reasons which are easily ascertained (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George Galloway) I do not believe merely discussing this issue on the talk page will resolve this issue. Not only because of the above case, but because of the low level of editing which the Peter Wilby article receives.

While there are probably more sources which could be used to expand an outline of Peter Wilby's career before 1998, User:Kashmiri's revert is a unilateral decision which which was taken without any discussion. The sourcing for Wilby's article was significantly expanded in my series of edits. Philip Cross (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has failed to notice, this contributor Philip Cross is under arbitration discussion for related isses. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why this content dispute is here rather than at the talk page (where two editors have expressed concern with PC's edits, and PC has not responded) or WP:BLPN. The most likely administrative outcome is a WP:BOOMERANG against Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I raised it here because it is more a case of blanking a substantial part of a properly sourced article rather than a content dispute. Admittedly I was not clear enough above. Philip Cross (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Philip Cross: I disagreed with your "expansion" of the article with so much of he-said-she-said material, nearly all of which actually potrayed the article subject in a negative light (the allegations of the subject's "row" with Odone that both parties denied it ever existed, a CHERRYPICKED quote that the subject is "either dull or silly", ad nauseam focus on the cover incident, etc.). In my view, it displayed a WP:BIAS, which incidentally is also being discussed at AN and, likely, ArbCom; was below the quality required for Wikipedia; and so reverting it did not put me in the wrong. I encourage you to read WP:BRD. Also, you did not engage in the discussion on the article's Talk page nor you tried to reach out to me directly but are posting straight at ANI. No further comment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Philip, are you aware that extensive use of primary sources is problematic in most situations? Report what the secondary sources say; primary sources, like news reports, necessarily lack a sense of what is long-term important. Since encyclopedia articles are based on what secondary sources say, if you can't provide evidence that the subject has been covered (or solid evidence that it will be covered) by secondary sources, you're making an original assertion that it has or will be covered — no adding things based on your own opinions or research, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• There is certainly something going on - User: Kashmiri has now reverted the entire addition 3 times, using different arguments each time, including some of the most specious edit summaries I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Count again please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User Monsore

Hi, Monsore is edit warring in the Al-Biruni article, trying to change the ethnicity of this scholar while a consensus has been reached on the relevant talk page. I spent hours explaining them why, but they keep trying to edit the article according to their POV : [81], [82]. I warned them and took the time to welcome them (as a new user) and explained them some Wiki rules : [83], but with no positive result. Our discussion ended up with this comment of Monsore : [84] which is, according to me, an obvious case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Then i asked Wario-Man for an insight : [85]. Could please an admin deal with this case ? Thank you very much. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, consensus was not reached here and the content of the article is still under dispute as far as I am concerned. Relevant sources have been cited and changes are still being refused to be made. As such, an admin should take a look at this and make the proper corrections or categorize this as a disputed article that future readers should take caution on when reading. ThanksMonsore (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no discussion between you two on the articles talk page at all. Neither of you have even made an attempt! Take this content dispute back there and hash it out. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user, thanks for your comment, but please take a look at the diffs i posted above, the user Monsore is a very new user and he started the discussion on his own talk page instead of Talk:Al-Biruni. Do you think it's possible to discuss anymore with someone who says : "You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud." to you ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Monsore: The content of article is not disputed (his origin and background are well-sourced). Your first edit[86] is clear POV and disruptive changes. Your 2nd attempt[87] is ignoring this discussion: Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#Consensus_for_the_lead_section:_older_revision_(his_ethnicity). You are free to open a new section on Talk:Al-Biruni and discuss your concerns there. But your comments on your talk page show signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:POV stuff. Also it seems you have never clicked on that Iranian link. Did you read it or not? It's an ethno-linguistic term and it's not about being from Iran. Before opening a new section on article talk page, read all previous discussions and cited sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely what i said them on their talk page : [88] ... but the user ignored my comment and kept going on with his POV.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if an admin clarifies some basic WP rules and guidelines for him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I was welcomed and then confused with inconsistent jargon on how things get edited on Wikipedia. One minute wikipedia is not a reliable source of information when I provide references from it to prove my points. The next minute others are providing me links from wikipedia to prove their points. This is inconsistent non-sense [89]. If it were consistent I wouldn't have any issues. I stated this, I read through all references provided. I don't feel that my edits are POV, my references are being ignored and the majority of the references discussing Al-Biruni's origins refer to him as PERSIAN, not Iranian. There is a difference. Keeping it as Iranian is misleading to the reader. If these changes are not made, than the article is under dispute as far as I am concerned. As such, he should be referred to as a Persian scholar, not an Iranian scholar, because that is what the current references on his page refer to him as (completely ignoring all other sources I've provided). I've read the references, I question whether you guys have though.Monsore (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I reopen that discussion on his page? What is the proper channel or source code etc?Monsore (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed the part where you blatantly insult Iranian academics and deny historical facts : [90], let alone the fact that since you're a new user, you should listen to more experienced users instead of edit warring with them, Wario-Man, me and other contributors edited the article with "Iranian" and i explained you patiently and politely some Wiki rules and the fact that being an ethnic Persian Pashtun, Tajik, etc... implies being an ethnic Iranian (and also Wario-Man did so above). As to Wikipedia, i already explained you that you cannot use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia but for our readers, Wikipedia is a great Encyclopedia and is widely used worldwide.Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain to me if being an ethnic Kurd implies being an ethnic Iraqi, an ethnic Iranian, and ethnic Syrian or an ethnic Turk? So that we can apply this reasoning to Pashtuns and Tajiks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, take a look there : Iranian peoples, to spare you the trouble of reading the whole article, i quote : " Modern Iranian peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Wakhis and Yaghnobis". Also, FYI, "Iraqi" is not an ethnicity, it's a citizenship. You're welcome if you have any other question.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, as i already told you on your talk page ((see [91]), the right place for a thread about an article is the article's talk page, i.e Talk:Al-Biruni, but again, as Wario-Man explained you above, Biruni's ethnicity is not disputed.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ref Desk again

I happened by Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language where I noticed a series of problematic "contributions" from User:Baseball Bugs. This surprised me because we just [92] had an ANi that included considerable concerns with his Ref Desk activity. He does not understand WP:NOTAFORUM and refuses to consider advice to provide better quality answers or not answer at all. [93] and [94]. After I posted the last section he proposed a IBAN between us [95] which is as offtopic and inappropriate as his useless Ref Desk participation.

Anyone unfamiliar with his participation can peruse Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs for gems like [96] Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Singular_or_plural_verb_in_"Shingles"_article? and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#What_is_the_meaning_of_"soy"?

I therefore think we should revisit the idea of banning him from Ref Desk. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable in any of these diffs. The whole "soy" thing *is* an Alex Jones conspiracy theory, and the rules on plurals are different in British English than in American English. I'm willing to take his word on Milo's marital status, I would much prefer not to know or look on that one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. None of the links show anything even remotely problematic. They also do not display any WP:NOTAFORUM problems. How "Some theories turn up on Google, but nothing confirmed" is deemed a "gem" is difficult to understand. The ANI thread linked to was about posts at ANI - not the ref desks. It should be noted that Bugs gave a succinct answer and was thanked for it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Bieberbach etymology/meaning in German. This thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#500 Mile Race and this one Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#World's oldest warning label show Bugs giving reasonable answers to questions as well as finding links to items on the web to help with those answers. This thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Draft: Don Peretz contains a suggestion to help an editor. As someone who regularly scans the ref desks I can say that Bugs has taken previous criticisms on board and has moderated past behaviors. I would suggest that others looking into this read posts at the ref desks thoroughly. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MarnetteD - I'm not seeing anything problematic and the "gem" was them finding nothing on Google ? ..... I would suggest withdrawing this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW Bugs is on a self imposed ban from ANI which means he won't (in good faith) be able to respond to this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion regarding these diffs, a point of clarification: Bugs is topic banned from ANI, but that topic ban enacted there has explicit exceptions for threads he starts or threads about him (i.e. commenting in this thread would not [and should not] be a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's nothing in he least actionable here, and I respectfully suggest to Legacypac that they drop the stick regarding Bugs. This request was completely unnecessary, and I agree with Davey2010 that it should be withdrawn and archived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bugs is on a community imposed ban from ANi, only self imposed when it was obviously going to pass. The last ANi had considerable support for a RefDesk ban from high profile editors and Admins but he continues to spend a considerable amount of time there giving substandard answers. I just picked a few quick examples of thousands available. I'd like to see others weigh in who were involved in the last discussion. If his ref desk participation has really improved (I don't think so) then great, but since if looks the same it this is worth some more eyes. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You must know that's not the way it works. If there are "thousands" of examples of Bugs' disruptive activities on the RefDesk subsequent to the recent ANI, it should be easy for you to provide more than a handful of them, and hopefully ones which other editors find to be problematic. Claiming misbehavior without providing the necessary supporting evidence is WP:Casting aspersions, so the onus is entirely on you to provide that evidence, not on other editors to do your work for you. As Nick Thorne suggests below, failure to do so may well result in a BOOMERANG. Either provide the evidence, or withdraw the complaint, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but there simply is not any problem with the edits you are complaining about. Legacypac, this looks a bit like harassment. Please leave off this ridiculous not-picking about non-issues lest you find yourself on the receiving end of a boomerang. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You better read the harsh comments about Baseball Bugs in the last ANi and think again before you accuse me or harashment Nick. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing sufficient WP:DIFFs presented to support this at present. It looks like BB got a warning from Cullen328; perhaps he should weigh in. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, part 2: In my mind the question is whether BB provides useful information at the Reference Desk. If it is adjudged that he does; then there is rationale to allow him to post there, and the question becomes whether his irrelevant comments at the Reference Desk outnumber and/or outweigh and/or neutralize whatever assistance he actually provides there. The onus is, however, on the filer (or others) to make this case rather than on ANI !voters to go on a goose-chase. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I have interacted with Bugs twice recently about what I saw as flippant or speculative answers at the Ref Desks, and we had a slightly unpleasant conversation on my talk page on May 20. I encourage other editors to let him know when he makes an inappropriate comment at the desks. But at this time, I do not see an ongoing pattern of behavior that requires a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Swarm and a number of others found BB's participation problematic but an even broader topic ban from all Wikipedia space did not pass. In my estimation, nothing has changed with how he treats the Ref Desk since that discussion so a revisit is worthwhile. If people see no issue, I'm not here to push hard. I just wanted to raise it since he blew off my comments on his talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Be careful about past ANI consensus. There has been ANI consensus to indef LegacyPac on at least one occasion. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• This comment is just as improper as Legacypac's report, or even more so, as evidence is only asserted, not reported; Legacypac at least offered some evidence, only no one appears to agree that it is problematic. ANI cannot be a place where one floats trial balloons, vague accusations with little or no evidence, then waits to see who comes along to prop up the charges. We should perhaps start to consider such behavior as being sanctionable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Legacypac and Baseball Bugs proposed

So, in the previous discussion[97] Legacypac proposed a TBan for Baseball Bugs from "Wikipedia Space" (specifcially intended to keep him of the Ref Desks), which was closed as "no consensus" on 6 May 2018.

Legacypac then posts an extremely vague post on BBs user talk page[98] posting to a ref desk page where BBs ""contributions" from May 27-May 31 range from downright stupid to completely confusing. Please stop posting stupid misleading unresearched "answers" based on whatever nonsense pops into your head." BB correctly asked for diffs[99]. Legacypac refused to provide any twice[100], with rather circular reasoning: "that sou can't see the problem is exactly why you don't belong there". BB then proposed a voluntary interaction ban between them[101], which Legacypac above describes as "as offtopic and inappropriate as his useless Ref Desk participation."

And then Legacypac opens a section here, with diffs (not clear why they are needed for us but not for BB when he asked for them), and it gets universally rejected. And the conclusion Legacypac gets from this is to ping someone who supported him previously (which violates WP:CANVASS) and to reiterate that "nothing has changed with how he treats the Ref Desk since that discussion so a revisit is worthwhile" but that "he blew off my comments on his talkpage". Um, no, he didn't, he just wanted some indication of what Legacypac was actually complaining about, not some handwaving, and considering the responses here it was only logical that BB didn't know what you meant.

As BB wants an IBan with Legacypac, but Legacypac sees nothing wrong with his own approach here (at BBs talk page and in this ANI section) even though no one agrees that there is a problem with those diffs he provided (not "the problems you note are worrying but severe enough", but one comment after another noting "there simply is not any problem with the edits you are complaining about" or a variation thereof), I propose

Baseball Bugs and Legacypac are formally banned from interacting directly with each other, and from discussing each others edits (apart from reporting violations of the interaction ban). They are otherwise allowed to participate in the same threads, talk pages, articles... Fram (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would support that. I stay away from the Reference Desks because nobody on there trying to be funny is actually funny, which makes it really depressing. Looking at it winds me up, unfailingly. IF it were up to me, the reference desks would all be deleted, but it's not up to me, and so I just avoid them. It seems Legacypac has the same issue, but not the same solution; if he can't stay away from looking at the reference desks, getting irritated by BB's nonsense and trying to get him banned for it, then a formal interaction ban will at least mitigate the overreaction we see here. Fish+Karate 09:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Fram you need a lot more evidence then restating that there is less consensus with the current participants to do something about this users activity at Ref desk today then a few weeks ago with a different set of participants, even though nothing has changed with the behavior. We improved the Ref Desk by topic banning StuRat, so there is precedent. I have extremely limited unteraction with Baseball Bugs and a Tban would serve no purpose. As for diffs I referenced all his controbutions visable on the page between two dates and said exactly what is wrong with them. None of the contributions provided real answers. Imagine if all users that see a question just posted "I can't find anything on Google"? Anyway, let the ref desk carry on as a place where pointless banter rules the day and no Refs are required. Who cares. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm unarchiving and unclosing this. This was closed by Legacypac out of process, and archived by Jbhunley. Also, I support an interaction ban. Given this attempt to make the interaction ban disappear, I also support a topic ban on posting to ANI for Legacypac. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate what a dumb thing to do. There were suggestions I withdraw the complaint - which I did! You reverse that withdrawal to try to get me topic banned from making a complaint I withdrew? What possible value is there in that? I'm done here and my respect for you just dropped a couple points. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I planned to comment here later during the day however to my surprise it wasn't here! (because it was rather quickly archived by Jbhunley),
  

Anyway Support IBAN - I respect both editors but due to the constant postings here I see no other viable option than an IBAN, I personally feel it would be better if LP were to be banned from creating ANI threads on BB (I can't say either party because BB doesn't create threads....). –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You may not realize this is the only thread I've ever created about Baseball Bugs and I withdrew the complaint when a few other disagreed there is an issue. The last ANi on Baseball Bugs did result in a limited topic ban, but no consensus for the wider topic ban I proposed as an uninvolved editor. I'm still an uninvolved editor with no dispute involving Baseball Bugs or other interaction except in that last ANi thread I did not start. As an ANi regular you are in the same position as I am with many editors discussed here. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @NinjaRobotPirate: There was no intent to 'disappear' it on my part. There was a closing statement of "No interest on this board in pursuing this issue at this time" by a well known and experienced editor who does NACs. I did fail to notice how short of a time it had been closed and would not have archived it if I had. No excuse for that much as there is no excuse for you accusing me of deliberately trying to "disappear" a thread. I will make sure to double check close time and statement to make sure it says what I think it says. Jbh ^Talk 23:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. The close seemed like an attempt by Legacypac to avoid the consequences of their opening the thread in the first place. I support the I-ban. There should also be some sort of stipulation for Legacypac regarding the opening of an AN/I thread without hard evidence of a problem. One suggestion is that future actions of the sort should come with a block of a brief duration. Hopefully, this would be a preventative measure against such an occurrence. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW the claim that "I can't find anything on google" is problematic is just ridiculous. It means that Bugs - or any other editor that uses the phrase - tried to find an answer to the question and was unsuccessful. There is no problem with posting that to any ref desk thread. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that there are two issues here: (1) Responses to Ref Desk questions which are not genuine, knowledgeable answers (by anyone) to those questions. (2) The fact that Legacypac's intrusion into the matter is not helpful either and is achieving the reverse effect: increased disruption. On the issue of item 2, I would suggest Legacypac voluntarily drop the stick here in regards to BB. On the issue of item 1, I would suggest that it be determined whether idle banter should be allowed at the Ref Desks or not. (It seems to be that it should be a scholarly Q&A devoted to helping the querants and nothing more, but I have never posted there.) Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• How about if everyone just goes home? Softlavender's idle-banter question should be raised some other time, without reference to any particular editor. EEng 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any serious ruling here The issues are borderline inane - the Ref desks have a long history of being less-than-serious on a regular basis, and trying to make them into some sort of "special discussion area for serious stuff only" is a substantial change to the way those desks have been used for the entire history of Wikipedia pretty much. Even Quora permits levity, and it is set up in a far more serious vein than the refdesks here were. I would note that the refdesks, in fact, get very few actual serious queries, and most of the queries are not of a scholarly nature at all. Collect (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeated upload of copyvio images

Sri Harsha Malempati (talk · contribs)

Editor has continued to upload copyvios after numerous warnings and a final warning. They also reuploaded a copyvio after it was deleted once. I'm asking for a block due to repeated copyvios with no evidence that they understand copyright or are willing to abide by our policy on the matter. --Majora (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor an indefinite block, making it clear that they will be unblocked if they make a firm commitment to stop uploading copyvios. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lihaas and vandalism in Arkady Babchenko

I am astonished to see such edits [102] [103] from an established user, but this is, well, vandalism. Previously in the same article they removed info that the subject got a literary prize and took it to AfD as non-notable (the article was speedy kept in several hours). Could we do smth with this pls? Given my past ANI experience, I do not expect to get them blocked, but this disruption must be stopped ASAP. Not going to AIV for obvious reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand his argument, that these sources are so out of date that even the titles are known to be false. Whether that renders the entire article unusable is a matter for discussion. So I wouldn't call that vandalism, but certainly his insistence that his version should stand during the discussion is very very problematic. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am absolutely astonished that such a established user would resort to WP:NPA in accusations of vandalism.

While I am having a very civil discussion at User_talk:Lopifalko#Arkady_Babchenko regarding the content, I have also asserted the right to WP:BOLDly add content, while others also have rights to dispute per WP:BRD. The WP:ONUS is then on getting consensus through discussion not accusing people or coming here without even attempting a discussion on the talk page (of which I told him to do so). Secondly, despite the fact that there is a right revert and seek sconsensus, I have still maintained the content on the page AND in the second link above maintained the sources while only hiding them in the interim.

I took it to AFd it was closed (which should have been at least 24 horus if not 7 days), I did not dispute that. If you look at my first edit of mine on the page, you can see how I took the BOLD steps to organize and clean the article up. (no idea what relevance the Afd has to do with this, particularly in light of how I initiated the cleaning up of the article).

I am merely asking, both on the OP's talk page and here, to discuss and gain consensus first, nor am I seeking to remvoe the content (while keeping the disputed sources hidden). Why the ego to have it up as one wants and not attempt to discuss as ive requested? In fact the point of a fact tag IS to improve on sources, or at the very least have a second source.Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: How is "my version" to stand the issue? If it was "my version" I would keep the content out, and upon that revert, even the source. On the contrary, I have kept the content and even the source n the editing box as an accomodation. (the latter being hidden from readership in the interim). I have also praised the editor of the civil discussion for his valuable additions. Is that problematic? Who is being "problamtic" w/ NPAs (both in summary and this section title (after notifying him on his talk page and he replied that h e would come here instead of discussing, or even for tht matter apologizing)) and spurning requests for discussion to resolve the issue amicably? Did I sulk when the AFd was closed?Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring is a problem, whether you are adding content, removing content, or hiding content. But the problem I am referring to is your insistence that you get to decide what the article looks like while the discussion is taking place. But if you are done edit warring, then that is no longer an issue for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, one of the sources was BBC, and it was not outdated for the facts it sourced. I do not see how this is good-faith behavior. What better quality sources do you want if you do not accept BBC?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The discussion had not been initiated even. See the civil discussion where I encouraged him to tag to get more people to the discussion. Then I was the one who took the initiative to add the tags. I was not reverting back. I was trying to initiate discussion by doing so on user talk page, altering the content so as to both encourage constructive change 'and appease them with the content. As you can see on the links above, I initially removed, was reverted, then kept content, then added tags...all in an attempt to resolve disputes. The LAST thig I did was to have it my way.

@ymblanter, is this not a case that yu could have discussed on the talk page? I have issued my concerns with thison the far more civil Lopifalko's talk page w/o either of us resorting to attacks. Why the ego? As for what do you want that is a discussion for the talk page...not ANI, which is what I was seeking.

If the facts are reliable then one can easily find another source that is not outdated. Hence the fact tag. So prove, then, that sources can verify the facts with articles that are reliable (even if the the same source, as I mentiond in discussion link above). Not a damn hard thing to do iat all. I'm out. That's all I sought and was easy to resolve w/o this. Good night/good morning, where you are.Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have seven reverts on that article, today. 1234567. That last one is you hiding content, but that doesn't make it magically not part of an edit war. You were also removing some of this same content yesterday. Dude, you've been blocked enough times, you know how this works. I don't care which part of BRD you're on, whether the other two guys are editing the talk page, or how unreliable you think the sources are. Any admin could block you right now. If you don't get that, you're going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, stop removing properly sourced material and start discussing at the talk page then. The article was created three days ago, you have already triesd to apply BRD to it by nominating it for deletion - and failed badly. Now you trying instead to remove sentence by sentence does not matter whether they are well-sourced or badly sourced. Just stop it. If you have issue with some sources, raise them at the talk page, there are enough people watching the article, and you will have a swift response.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, hopefully we can close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and removing comments on talk page by alexson_97

I would done a rfc or leave this to asking for help at the help desk, till the user began removing my comments from the talk page [[104]] and a very sneaky edit.

A disgruntled former student of Kursk State Medical University, seems to be here on only to discredit the school and other Russian Medical Schools. His main tactic thus far has been to reduce the article to a stub (here is what it was before he came [[105]]) and then list criticisms of Russian medical schools in general, 3 of then not mentioning this university specifically [[106]]. After much reversion and explaining why this wasn't kosher, he very craftily uploaded a file to the commons of the one source that does mention it- and buried links to the other three that don't, in the file! [[107]] While I don't respect that level of sneakery, ya gotta admire the creativity.

He refuses to talk about these issues on the talk page, and is now removing the list of things I see as problematic from the talk page. Along with trying similar tactics on other Russian Medical Universities [[108]] [[109]]

A little humor amidst a all this- he he is convinced I paid off one of his sources to vanish [[110]]. TantraYum (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This post should be delete since you are leaking the identity of editor .http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/family-demands-answers-on-medical-students-death-in-russian-hostel/ . https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/06/11/russia-hostel-fire-victim-dies-kelantanborn-student-to-be-buried-in-tumpat/ . http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20110811093831853 . I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ? I had been grievous hurt(criminal case) by sri lanka student , but the university decided to protect their fame and because sri lankan compose a big bulk of students and is their major source of income ,thus threaten me not to report to the police(while my russian is not so good yet) , force me to sign the fake document that I am wrong and sorry for everything. LOL the victim say sorry to the offender .And you are thinking you are the justice ? Nice paid editor . TantraYum said (the one that does mention this school is a first hand account on a blog.) No , its the article of esquire that you paid to put down , but I did have backup . I could give you the original source , but I afraid that you will report it and take it down again . Of course , it meets the reliable , published source criteria . TantraYum said he gonna built this marvelous advertisement back. [[111]] For this , the whole page is advertisement without source , and you are supporting it . Nice paid editor . In wikipedia , everything must be source . Why there are not much victim stand out ? Because survival bias , dead man don't speaks , but I am not afraid of it . Alexson 97 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Brother I am so sorry that happened to you- it sounds awful.

I despise, hate and oppose people being treated like that. I would LOVE to expose ANYONE who treats people that way.

AND Wikipedia has very strong guidelines about how are articles are written and how editors interact with each other.

You have broken A LOT of those guidelines in a very short time. I have pointed this out to you many times, with no response and no willingness to discuss them, and in fact your behavior has gotten worse.

And now we're here.

End of story. TantraYum (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course , since you are trying to bring back the great capitalism advertisement by trying to lure new editors together in for your job , that's why I forced to revert your propaganda . Don't try to twist the guidelines . If corruption is common disease among Russia University , and whole Kursk State Medical University is under Russia University category , thus we can conclude that corruption is also common disease among Kursk State Medical University . TantraYum should improve his Math , so that he does not need a life of PAID editor . Alexson 97 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ?, right above. I think this deserves a WP:CIR block.

you are trying to bring back the great capitalism advertisement by trying to lure new editors together in for your job , that's why I forced to revert your propaganda, Brother, you are WP:NOTHERE. byteflush _Talk 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ?

It is a metaphor , people should have rights to know what is happening inside , thus could think twice before falling in("saving life"), but not the sugar coat of agents which earn a load by it ("fighting the capitalism") . To tell you , I gave up profession of QS world rank 50 due to the sugar coat of agents. Alexson 97 (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• OK, this is copper-plated WP:GREATWRONGS. I doubt the editor would be able to ever edit dispassionately here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1932344/all . All link are 404 , due to the time or taken down , but thestar are the largest newpaper in Malaysia . That time when I know about this university , I am at another country , thus with other country ip address , the search only show the advertisement article on wikipedia(WHO recogniton , ~.~ , WHO is very busy and no time to do such stuff ) and all others agents promoting website , and I paid the fees before I went back to Malaysia . Alexson 97 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Broter continues to push an Islamophobic POV -- time for a topic ban

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

See also: previous ANI thread.

Two years ago, I started another ANI thread about Broter after he edit warred to insert ridiculously Islamophobic WP:OR, citing cherry-picked misquotes from obviously sectarian and non-academic sources.

Since that incident, he has:

• Added gratuitous praise for anti-Islamic author Robert Spencer ([112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118]), even completely neutering critical sources
• Tried to prove that Muslims want to take over Europe
• Edit warred to link to image hosting sites to share images for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day at that article and at Depictions of Muhammad (with no independent sources to establish that they're noteworthy examples) - [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]
• Added an image of Tommy Robinson (activist) to the Islam article as an excuse to post Islamophobic material (he didn't respond my more thoroughly sourced suggestion to link to Mark Twain to the Book of Mormon article for some reason)
• created a (now-deleted) user box advocating a Muslim ban
• Promoted a self-published Islamophobic work by Tommy Robinson in the Islam and Islamic terrorism articles
• Replacing the standard Quran and Hadith links to link to Quranx.Com, a Quran and Hadith resource created and used by Islamophobes - [126], [127], [128]
• Engaged in a slow and long term edit war to promote the views of authors who claim that Islam is fundamentally a terrorist religion ([129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145])

The reason I started this thread is that if we look at Portal:Right-wing populism, we'll see that he's restored a deleted section of quotes that contains material like:

• "We have to stop pretending that Islam is merely a religion—it is primarily a totalitarian ideology that aims to conquer the West."
• "Islam is the problem."
• A cherry-picked hadith with Broter's personal emphasis on the words "I have been made victorious with terror."

Now, the first two examples, if done by another user, could be construed as examples of how some right-wing populists use Islamophobia to rally their base. However, the last example has nothing to do with modern politics, its inclusion is just modern Islamophobia. The last example removes any possibility that Broter made all the previous edits I've cited from any perspective but Islamophobia.

If he wants to believe that Islam is only a terrorist's religion, he's free to believe that. But WP:NPOV obligates us to not entertain his beliefs as fact on any project space.

He does other work relating to Mormonism and the Republican party that may be useful to the site, so I'm only going to suggest Broter be topic banned from Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see that between me saying that the quotes are exactly why I'm going to start this thread and me actually starting this thread, Broter removed the quotes, perhaps so he can beg to not be "punished" like he did last time. This is far from the only issue, and his slow edit war at Islamic terrorism and puffery at Robert Spencer (author) are proof that he's not interested in editing Islamic topics neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Response: I have removed the quotes section in this Portal because I think it makes it more neutral. All edits with the exception of the edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were not accepted. The edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were correct to make the article more neutral. The Spencer-article had problems with being to biased against Spencer.--Broter (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits went well beyond WP:GEVAL into WP:UNDUE worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Broter: What's the meaning behind {{User The pen is mightier than the sword of Islam}}? Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: Look at Charlie Hebdo shooting. We should not be afraid of death threats.--Broter (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for further proving you cannot distinguish between Islam and Islamic terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: You should not denounce a wikipedian because of his userboxes. All my edits on this topic with the exception of the Spencer-article were reverted. But the edits on the Spencer-article are correct.--Broter (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They were all reverted -- and yet you kept trying and trying and trying to add the same or similar material. The userboxes in isolation are not why you would be topic banned, but they do provide a Islamophobic context to your edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if almost all of your edits in a topic were reverted, that generally means that your editing in that topic is misguided and/or disruptive, and that you really shouldn't be editing in that topic. Also, please indent your talk page comments, please. ansh666 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• (uninvolved comment) You're wrong, Ian.thomson. WP:NPOV obligates representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Broter's edits seem to be in-line with a viewpoint which is significantly held, and though some of the sources are not reliable, he is at least consistently sourcing his edits. Some of these diffs are truly dusty - going back over 2 years to provide only meager pickings. In particular, Ian.thomson misleadingly mentions a "slow edit war at Islamic terrorism" but Broter hasn't edited it since 18 June 2017‎ and "puffery at Robert Spencer (author)" but Broters last edit was on 27 November 2017‎. A time-wasting report which lacks credibility and seems designed more for character assassination than out of concern for the encyclopedia, and coming from an editor who recently thought it was OK to call someone else a "crank" in an edit summary. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I called a user who was recently blocked under WP:NOTHERE for promoting a book on a fringe theory while insisting that he's the only person who knows anything about the topic and that academia knows nothing about the topic -- that last part is the definition of crankhood. Now why would you downplay that when trying to turn this on me?

And how, exactly, would one demonstrate a long term problem without citing past behavior? These are the majority of his edits to Islamic focused topics. He admits that they were largely reverted -- indicating that his edits were against consensus.

And the issue is not that he's properly giving WP:DUE weight to level-headed criticism of Islam, it's that his activity in Islamic related articles continually presents undue weight on the perspective that there is no difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism -- a bigoted position that no mainstream academic would defend. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly heinous, and in any case, WP:NPA doesn't give you the right to use an attack even you're "right". Keep some self-control, and, if you make a mistake and use an attack, definitely don't double down on justification like you're doing here. I believe it relates because it might show a pattern of disrespect for editors that hold what you believe to be contradictory beliefs to your own, such as may be evidence in this poor report. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If we (by which I mean you) are going to start making accusations without evidence, that opens the door to the prospect of suggesting that you're opposed to this topic ban because you believe that Wikipedia isn't far-right enough. Do you really want to go down that road? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think you missed the part where I did provide evidence (see diff above). I don't have a particular opinion as to Wikipedia being anything "enough" other than it being eternally incomplete, per its mission. Are you saying that "right" political beliefs are not "significantly held" viewpoints worthy of fair inclusion? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You cited a case where the community concurred with my identification of a user as WP:NOTHERE, as evidence that for a claim that I start threads to use topic bans on anyone I personally disagree with. Now, if that was the case and it wasn't that I bring to attention any user I see who is not helping the project, then you'd have no trouble finding largely ignored or dismissed threads where I call for topic bans against users with particular view points. Instead, you're going to find that most of the threads I start focus on disruptive behavior and the community (like now) usually agrees with my findings.

And if you're going to twist my words, then you're not arguing with enough good faith to make it worth my while to continue discussing things with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support tban from Islam and topics affecting it, broadly construed Ian.thomson , I've copied the deleted code to the userbox in question here that Broter created here so that others can see it. A picture really is worth a thousand words in this case (cc. CambridgeBayWeather as deleting admin). Anyone who creates the userbox below and then sources edits in articles to FoxNews.com insiders (they tend to allow fringe viewpoints free reign in that particular part of their website), added Xenophobic fear mongering to articles, and even was kind enough to grace us with his own hand drawn image of Muhammad which he added to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day for us is clearly not here to promote a neutral picture of Islam. Heck, I might support an indefinite block here, but I'm willing to try a Tban. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, to clarify my last sentence, I also support a site ban in this case, but have equal preference with a TBAN. My support of the lesser sanction should not be considered opposition to the greater one. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's an entire Gallery on that article - should we TBAN every uploader? Are you implying that the personal support for or against immigration is by itself bannable? Then why is the exact opposite view not also bannable? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You will note that every single other picture was taken on 19 or 20 May 2010, the day of the actual event the article is covering, and was transferred from Flickr for depections of the event itself. There was only one that was upload by a Wikipedian 7 years after the fact and not even on the anniversary of the day with the intent [...] to send a message to the islamic terrorists. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• It does say "to the islamic terrorists" right? Not simply "to islam"? Is it an unusual belief to be opposed to terrorism? -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're aware, right, that millions of people around the world would find it offensive? The drawing clearly implies Muhammad is a terrorist, and given the context of his other actions, it's not a stretch to say that he views Islam as a whole in a pretty negative light and is here to promote that POV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a discussion about his edits, not what you estimate his views are nor your estimate of hypothetical "offense" (after all, WP:NOTCENSORED applies). I also note you don't seem to be overly concerned about avoiding "offense" in that you've reproduced his content below. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the offense isn't hypothetical, and NOTCENSORED does not mean that you are able to use Wikipedia as a political soapbox to promote views that could rightly be considered prejudiced. It means that if there is a legitimate topic to cover, we don't delete it if it is within our scope. A hand drawn picture of Muhammad by some random guy on the internet 7 years after an event is a WP:NOTSOAPBOX violation and shows an intent to push a certain POV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a political soapbox then please explain Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. I am sure that people of opposing views to any of those take offense or might feel they are prejudiced. There is no recent evidence of pushing a POV, and that image was done over a year ago, so what is the urgency now to support a ban? What has he done lately? No evidence presented of recent problems other than one self-reverted edit. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I hope that it exists only to separate the weed from the plants. byteflush _Talk 05:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This user supports a Ban on Muslim immigration.

File:My Muhammad.png

Broter's freely licensed contribution to Wikipedia for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day [He] drew Muhammad with the programm paint. This is the result. [He] decided to upload it, to send a message to the islamic terrorists.

• Note that the image described above has been deleted from Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and actually I would be OK with a siteban, his contributions indicate that he is here to advance his POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban - If anyone created a userbox that said "I support a ban on Jewish immigration," they should be equally banned for anti-Semitism. Wikipedia cannot be a platform for the promotion of religious hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Only two diffs from the OP are recent (and one of those was a self-revert of the other), the rest are from 6 months to over 2 years old. Whatever problems this user might have had in the past seem to have tempered. His userpage displays several recent barnstars for his work, of which there is no indication given of any problems. His stated personally-held beliefs should not be used as grounds for a ban, since we would never consider banning the oppositely held beliefs either, and especially as there is no recent indications given which show his beliefs affect his approach to editing. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and would certainly support a siteban. Going through those diffs makes it very clear that there is an agenda, and that there is a long-term problem here. Their reiteration above that the Spencer edits were "correct" shows that it is not a problem that has passed, either. --bonadea contributions talk 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite and broadly construed tban from Islam per others and oppose siteban as stale (pointed out by Netoholic) and because of possibly valuable contributions in other areas. Also, it is likely that the user will continue editing under new names in case of a sitewide ban which would make monitoring him more challenging. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Having a "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" is absolutely not a reason for a TBan. Many users here have a "This user hates Donald Trump" userbox and are course not TBanned from Donald Trump-related pages. It is a matter of opinion. I even think that the "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" userbox is less offensive for others than "This user hates Donald Trump". If a there is a TBan, it will be for POV-pushing and not for this userbox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's more complex than that, right? Regardless of my opinions on the political stance behind the userbox, there is a difference between saying "I support a ban on Muslim immigration" and having a template that says that with a picture of a mosque with a no symbol on top of it. We would rightly assume that if someone had a box that said "This user opposes Catholic immigration" and had a picture of the pope with a no symbol through it that they would be promoting a certain point of view that is incompatible with Wikipedia. We'd need to look at their other contributions, but it is not a factor we should just ignore: it provides context. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why stop at the pope, what about one that strikes through the cross, or that userbox strikes through God or one that strikes through every religion? --Netoholic @ 19:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "I disagree with this particular belief" and "I think that people should be banned from entering a country just because of their religion." That difference is about as big as "I think think bacon is God" and "I don't want to pay Kosher taxes." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support a site ban, or at least a broad, indefinite topic ban - The evidence is quite clear. I am disappointed that Broter is still misusing Wikipedia in this way, even after I warned him more than a year ago: [146]. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• support a site ban this person has persistently abused their editing privileges for advocacy for one POV in violation of WP:SOAP, which is policy, and that one thing is hateful, which we do not tolerate either.Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support broad and indefinite topic ban no objection to site-ban. There is a certain nuance which is often missed when discussing believers in any fundamentalist moralizing religion or other belief structure, particularly in relation to "othering" which leads to violence. Wikipedia, and most public discourse, does not generally deal well with such matters nor should they really be expected to.
  Even if there were an arguable systemic NPOV issue in the topic area (I am not saying there is and I doubt there would be. I simply generally do not read Wikipedia on such topics.) Broter is obviously not trying to deal in nuance. Rather, they seem to be trolling based on a sophomoric, in the Greek sense, view of a religion and cultures they are quite obviously clueless about. It is better not to have such contributions here — actually it would be better if we did not have such commentary anywhere but it would also be better if no one of any religion killed innocents for their version of God so… Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, Oppose site ban. Per Netoholic, I don't think it's fair to indef a user for old POV edits when the user also edits outside of that topic. That being said, I disagree with Netoholic in that I support a TBan for Broter over anything to do with Islam, as they clearly have an opinion that they aren't willing to put aside for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Note that I didn't factor the userbox in this decision, as I believe users should have leeway when it comes to userboxes. I have my own beliefs in my userboxes, and I've seen constructive long-time editors with similar userboxes, so I just don't find it right to judge an editor based on what they might have on their userpage. Nanophosis (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck per User:Eggishorn mentioning the previous ANI thread, which I made the mistake of not looking at. The disingenuous begging from Broter that they are currently repeating here is very telling, and indicates to me that they don't intend to stop the disruptive behavior that landed them here in the first place. I'm rather sympathetic due to their various improvements and additions to portals, but I think an Indefinite block is in order, and if the block is lifted, a TBan on religion would hopefully prevent further issue. Nanophosis (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have contributed very much to Mormonism and to ban me for my contributions for Islam is very harsh. The edits which you all talked about were all deleted material. To ban someone for things which are not even current content on wikipedia is far too harsh. My contributions in other topics are well accepted and I urge you all not to ban me from wikipedia.--Broter (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone knows that my first interest on wikipedia is Mormonism and all other topics are only subtopics.--Broter (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I promise you all to never edit Islam and related topics again. I only want to improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All examples of my misbehavour towards islam are so old. I want to only improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support block or site ban of whatever length admins feel appropriate. On the contrary to the most recent message immediately above, there are examples of misbehavior in this very thread. Complaining of bias against outspoken white supremacists or using a terrorist attack as a excuse for their edits shows they cannot be trusted to understand the most basic and fundamental parts of WP:CCPOL. Bargaining that they be allowed to remain to edit on a different religion is no help to their cause. If they can't remain at least slightly neutral on one religion why would they be any less neutral (although, one presumes, in the opposite direction) towards any other? They apparently previously avoided sanctions through disingenuous begging and stated: "I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future." Here we are in the future and they either forgot or ignored that lesson and are not behaving better on the very same topic. To dip into religious verse myself, Matthew 7:20 seems strangely appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Broter deserves another chance, a ban would be really too harsh because he confessed his mistakes, therefore, we should accept his excuses and give him a second chance. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

He has "learned" from his mistakes before. He's had a second chance. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he did some mistakes, but who can claim to have never made mistakes, let alone that Broter is far from being a new user. he's also contributed nicely to this encyclopedia.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he's not a new user and contributes elsewhere is why I've called for a topic ban. He's shown that he cannot neutrally edit topics relating to Islam and that he'll just give empty apologies and pretend to back down whenever he gets in trouble. He admits that the majority of his edits are reverted, which is an indication that he should have learned to stop making those kinds of edits by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban/topic ban. Andrevan@ 22:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Islam-related articles, broadly construed. At least. Linking and citing overtly islamophobic works on the main articles regarding Islam and Quran are simply indefensible, and no one who does that should be allowed near the topic again. This is the sort of behavior that could have quickly lead to an indefinite block, so a topic ban is lenient in my opinion. Broter should just accept this and move on - you will still get to edit, just avoid Islam. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban and support TBan. This is clearly not an SPA and many of their contributions are nice. Indef banning would be, IMO, not a good idea. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Ian.thomson: why would you use the term islamophobic instead of say, anti-Islam? For instance, the Associated Press Stylebook stopped using the term in 2012 because they prefer not to be "ascribing a mental disability to someone". It just feels off to use this word for a single editor's actions and then start !voting on bans. --Pudeo (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobic implies fear, hatred, or prejudice against Muslims in general. "Anti-Islam" could be understood to mean that one is opposed to just the teachings of the religion while still respecting the rights of those who follow the religion (in the same sense I've observed some folks use "anti-Christian" to describe themselves). If "anti-Muslimism" or "Islamoprejudice" were as commonly used as Islamophobia still is commonly used according to the rest of our article on the term, I'd use one of those terms instead. Like Xenophobia, it's generally not seen as a diagnosis. "Phobia" (or "-phobia") has both a technical use and a common colloquial use, and the common use pre-dates and is the origin of the technical. Established non-diagnostic uses of "-phobia" need to be verified by the DSM-5 or ICD-10 about as much as someone writing outside the field of computer science needs to make sure that their use of the word Daemon refers only to a programmed background process. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are studies that conservatives actually have a stronger disgust reaction to pathogens and outgroups[147] so it's almost never about fear. Disgust or hate maybe. In any case, I still do think it's inappropriate to speculate whether a particular editor is motivated by hate or fear, not least because it's easy to demonstrate a battleground mentality without having to directly use a stigmatizing term. --Pudeo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Islam, broadly construed. If the editor is using the same kind of garbage sources in articles about Mormonism, then they should be topic banned from religion, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I've not picked through their edits on Mormonism, they are why I've only called for a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The edits on Islamic terrorism alone are worthy of a block, either per POV or per CIR (edit warring over the insertion of a ridiculous source by a non-notable person). They are clearly trying to make Islam look like some essentially terrorist outfit, as if one were to take the...what are those idiots called, who protest at soldiers' funerals and blame their death on America being gay, as if one were to take them as representative of all of Christianity. So sure, I support a topic ban for Islam in the broadest sense, including anything that reeks of immigration and terrorism. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban The diffs provided at the start of this report display extremely problematic agenda pushing behavior, but most of it comes from 2016 and 2017 and I would have supported a ban six months ago. However, there are only a couple of examples from 2018. If this is a ongoing problem on the same scale as it was last year then I have to ask why are there not more diffs from this year? If there is going to be some sort of sanction then it should be a TBAN at most because he's a prolific editor and there is only evidence of problems in one specific area, and even most of that is not particularly recent. A site ban would punitive and not preventive IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why I called for a topic ban in the title. I don't know why people are pushing for a site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, oppose topic ban As others have noted above, the problems this user may have had with the topic was in the past, with no real instances of the same issues. The userbox at their userspace is a non-starter. Do we topic ban atheists (a great number of them really, really hate Christians and think Christianity should be outlawed) from editing articles related to Christianity? Do we topic ban Democrats (a great number of them really, really hate Republicans and think Liberal/Progressive thought is the only correct political ideology) from editing politically Conservative articles? Topic banning would set a really dangerous precedent. Site banning would be incredibly wrong. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  While you make sound points that we should be careful to heed, we would only have a problem with an atheist who hates Christians if they demonstrated they could not edit neutrally. There is plenty of evidence of non-neutral editing here. I don't think you can justify a site ban based on edits made in the last six months, but sometimes a topic ban can be justified if there is a "loss of confidence" in the editor, and that might be the case here. If it has got to the stage where you have to check every single edit an editor makes in a particular area that places an undue burden on other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban or indefinite block - I obviously support a topic ban from Islamic related articles, but I'm assuming that Broter is useful in articles on Mormonism for the same reason he's problematic in articles on Islam (not a comment on Mormonism in general, this is an issue that can be found among adherents of any worldview). For this reason, I'd oppose a topic ban on religion in general, just specifically Mormonism (and if he becomes problematic in articles on other religions, then we can discuss banning him from all religion articles except Christianity). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBan and / or indef block: these edits are recent: 23 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 and obviously islamophobic. It also appears that this has been an on-going issue, per prior AN discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits are the addition of quotations which can be seen as Islamaphobic (some of the quotes definitely are, but not all of them - more than one is talking about Islamic terrorist acts) - the statements/writings are of others, not the editor in question. How can you say the edits are Islamaphobic when the editor didn't write the words? That's like saying someone who edits the David Duke article and places racist quotes from Duke in the article is a racist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If someone was spamming David Duke's article with extended racist quotes cited w/o context to Duke's own writings, that could be perceived as an extension of someone's racist beliefs. But we are not deadling not an isolated incident here anyway... K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support broad TBan or Indef block, which ever finds the most support. Not someone we need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All my edits to improve the Robert Spencer (author)-article were accepted. My userboxes should be no reason to ban me. I am a valuable contributor to Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between all edits being accepted, and no one noticing that an article has been filled with puffery. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I got several awards for my work on Portals. Look at my userpage.--Broter (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I find it funny that you're begging to keep something, without addressing, let alone denying, the very point you are being charged with. That alone should give pause to those who are voting against a topic ban. You're not denying you're anti-Muslim, or that you can't tell the difference between Islam and terrorism, or that you have a POV that makes it impossible for you to edit neutrally on that topic. I'm not sure if I should appreciate your honesty or be saddened by this bigotry. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The authors and intellectualls which I promoted do not say that all muslims were terrorists. Furthermore support for Donald Trump does not make someone an islamophobe.--Broter (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No one (except for you, just now) has brought up your politic views, this is entirely about your views on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Based on the initial diffs this is necessary, and Broter appears to have semi-voluntarily agreed to it. It would be useful for an admin to determine whether they added the Islam quotes on May 24, or simply moved them from (now-deleted) subpages such as Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. If this is the only concern from the past 3-6 months, I don't feel an indef block is justified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I took a look and Broter was the creator and sole contributor to Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. The page was created in 2016 and updated over the course of two years. ansh666 20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes thing, everything was long ago. Nobody wanted me to be banned. All this stuff was so long ago, I do not think a topic ban is necessary.--Broter (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The "it was a long time ago" argument really doesn't counter "this is a long-term problem." It kinda proves the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam per all of the above. Not sure about siteban - if TBan doesn't pass, weak oppose to site ban. The editor can be productive in other areas, but only if they remain a fair distance away from Islam-related articles. byteflush _Talk 05:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, support siteban Frankly, portals are doing well enough that we do not really need to put up with this sort of nonsense, regardless of what contributions this user has made. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed, but would support any other ban/sanction which has majority support. I am astounded that some people have opposed without even reading the 2015 ANI linked at the outset of this report. What did he say then? "I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future". Quite clearly he did not and has been slowly but consistently pushing the envelope ever since. Note that he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI, after which he deleted the whole quote section. Trust me, without a topic ban, he'll soon be back with more. He's had his "second chance". The last thing Wikipedia needs is Broter continuing to edit in this area. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Voceditenore: he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI - On this point I believe you are completely wrong and the evidence will bear it out:

• 15:34 - Ian.thomson posted about these quotes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals (which pinged Broter).
• 16:22- Broter reverted himself.
• 16:28 - Ian.thomson posted this ANI and contacted Broter.

This timeline clearly shows Broter realized his mistake as soon as he got a ping about it and moved swiftly to correct it himself before this ANI. I am sure that he would have done the same if Ian or someone else had simply posted on his talk page and given a warning. This discussion of a TBAN is based on flimsy, stale evidence that Ian.thomson posted AFTER the situation had already resolved itself. -- Netoholic @ 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're leaving out that I announced that I said I was going to start this ANI thread. And the disingenuous begging from the last one. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Netoholic, "he realized his mistake" after Ian.Thompson threatened to take him to ANI. It's splitting hairs, frankly. He should not have needed that threat. He needs a topic ban or he will keep pushing the envelope more and more, hiding the evidence when he's challenged, and sneaking it back later when he thinks things have blown over. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The quotes were not by myself. They were by Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and so on.--Broter (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You put in a cherry-picked Hadith that has nothing to do with modern politics, which explains why so many of the quotes you selected were condemning Islam (instead of just elaborating on modern politics). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Broter, the fact that the quotes at Portal:Right-wing populism were not by you is immaterial. Out of the 12 quotations, 10 specifically attacked Islam. Eight were from right-wing figures who have said a lot of things on a lot of subjects. Why choose only Islam? Worse, the criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't belong in that portal at all. She is most emphatically not a right-wing populist. Ditto Wafa Sultan's quote. Then to top it all off the final quote is a hadith with your personal bolding on the words "I have been made victorious with terror." Again entirely unrelated to right-wing populism, unless you're claiming that Mohamed is a right-wing populist. It is blindingly obvious to any neutral observer what that quotations section was meant to do. The fact that you only removed it after the threat of an ANI report and are still defending it here speaks volumes. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban. That's just OTT, given the otherwise productive contributions. A specific solution (tban) exists. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From the lead of the article Right-wing populism:"In Europe, right-wing populism is an expression used to describe groups, politicians and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration,[1] mostly from the Islamic world[2] and in most cases Euroscepticism.[3]" --Broter (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in trouble for what other people said about Islam. The people who accuse me of wrongdoing should recognice that this people attacked Islam and not Muslims in their quotes. For them to criticise Islam is within the law.--Broter (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broter: Let's reverse the situation here. Let's say an atheist user kept adding material to Christian articles about how Christianity is inherently a religion of persecution and warfare... edit warred to include such material... admits that that material was reverted... had previously promised to stop engaging in that sort of behavior... added "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" to the communism portal... and also added a dozen other negatives quotes about Christianity that largely have nothing to do with communism, with the excuse "but those speakers are communist" -- would you not see the necessity of topic banning such an individual from articles relating to Christianity? If they argued "but I'm useful in articles on LeVayan Satanism," would that excuse their edits to Christianity?

Imagine if a user (who had previously promised not to engage in this sort of behavior) kept edit warring to add material (citing explicitly anti-Mormon sources) calling Joseph Smith a treasure-hunting occultist, kept adding material about possible relationships between Mormon leaders and multi-level marketing schemes, and added an out-of-context Smith quote to, say, Portal:Organized Labour with that editor's own emphasis to try to portray Smith as out to screw over the working man or something, along with a dozen other anti-Mormon quotes from vaguely left-wing individuals... Again, can you honestly pretend that a topic ban would not be necessary? Would you really buy "I'm sorry, I'll do better," when they said that before doubling down on the same behavior? Would "but my edits to Pentecostalism are good!" as an excuse?

I'm not bringing up those examples as a suggestion for article/portal changes -- I'm bringing them up so you can reflect on how your answers would relate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and so you try to understand why you're really "in trouble." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hadith can also be seen at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220. I showed the entire quote and it is not forbidden to cite Muhammad.--Broter (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban per Jytdog, with a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed, as second choice. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
• Support TBAN based on the egregious diffs above, not sure on site ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the quotes section myself and the other stuff was not accepted anyway. So I think this is not a big problem.--Broter (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, if one of the users in the examples I pinged you in made those same arguments, would you really buy them? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your appreciation of the size of the problem, @Broter:, is not a useful contribution to the discussion. It is entirely unsurprising that you don't think it is a big problem. In fact, that's why it is a problem and why we are having this discussion in the first place. Your refusal to either see or admit that this problem is the very same one you promised two years ago not to repeat is the reason sanctions are being considered by your peers. You should have already known not be editing in this area at all. You selected the quotes and by doing so, assembled a collage of the words of other people to give the biased message you wanted that page to send: that all Muslims are terrorists. You are responsible for that message and you can't blame it on the "other people" you intentionally picked. You only reverted when you were threatened with reporting here, so it was in no way voluntary. This is all recent and ongoing behavior. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN broadly construed at this time per cogent reasons well illustrated with diffs above. Will support escalating to siteban if the disruption continues elsewhere. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"that all Muslims are terrorists" was never the message of the quote section. I quoted Muhammad at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220 but this is a completly different matter. It is adequat to criticise the islamic prophet without being accused of being anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be possible to criticise Jesus/Muhammad without being accused to be anti-christian/anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And if someone added a dozen quotes to Portal:Communism to criticize Jesus, and edit warred in the articles on Christianity and History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance to portray Christianity as fundamentally a religion of torture and oppression, we would topic ban them from editing articles relating to Christianity. @Broter: Do you think that would be unfair? Your continued avoidance of this issue is why people are !voting to topic ban or even site ban you -- because you are coming across as either unwilling or unable to consider your behavior needs to be held to the same standards that you'd (presumably) want others to be held to. If you don't think you should be held to the same standards, that's gross hypocrisy; and if you don't think the hypothetical anti-Christian or anti-Mormon users I illustrate should be topic banned, then there's very little means of enforcing WP:NPOV besides blocking otherwise productive editors.

Your best bet to get out of this without any further trouble is to explicitly and voluntarily announce that you will accept to a permanent topic ban from all pages relating to Islam, to be appealed only by community consensus, with one year between each appeal. The community is going to topic ban you from Islam pages one way or another, but a lot more people are calling for a site ban than even I'd like. I don't think you should be site banned, but the surest way to make sure that doesn't happen is to agree to the topic ban as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban or at least t-ban - Sure, you can claim "those are not my words", but you applied those words in bundles to misconstrue Islam as a terrorist religion. Some of those opposed may say "what about the Atheists" or "what about the Democrats", and they should be ashamed of themselves. Hate is hate, no matter what the source is. Once it spews onto Wikipedia, it becomes a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. POV editing is a real problem in WP. POV editors who ran into an ANI in the past, and survived, can simply attempt to game the system by guarding themselves, just enough, not to run into another ANI just as has happened in this case, except in this case the POV the second time around was, again, too much to be ignored. Taking the position that having just a couple of recent POV editing cases is somehow OK, in itself shows a lack of understanding the NPOV policy and, in a sense, makes such commentators pro-POV supporters themselves. There's no place in WP for POV, and POV editing continues to be a real problem in WP. Far more editors have left WP due to POV pushers than due to personal attacks. There's also a real problem with anyone who believes that it's OK to have sources that are not reliable, as Broter has been editing, as long as he editor consistently sources his unreliable sources. You won't find that in the WP:P&G anywhere. Then there is the question of, why a site ban instead of a topic ban? Because when we only topic ban an editor who is an anti-Islam (or anti-anything) POV pusher, we leave the door open for that same editor to start POV pushing of Pro-Christian, pro-Jew, pro-atheist, etc., articles. So the POV pushing doesn't end, it shifts. The net effect is that the community has accomplished little, if anything at all if just a topic ban is implemented. Mercy11 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP addresses registered to the University Of South Florida

Greetings all. I've just filed a WP:RFPP report for an article (Judy Genshaft) and I noticed that the incoming vandalism all seems to be coming from IP addresses registered to the University of South Florida, specifically the 2607:FE50:0:8209:*.*.*.* range and 131.247.226.34. I don't know who deals with school blocks so I was unsure where to raise this query. If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Prisencolin

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

After reverting an unneeded hatnote at Africa, I have looked at this user's contributions and am concerned by their overall editing pattern. These include:

• Adding an unneeded hatnote at Papa John's Pizza
• Adding a ridiculous note to Cleveland school shooting, and creating Grover Cleveland shooting as a redirect to that.
• Creating -. .. --. --. . .-. as a redirect to Nigger (dog).
• Creating SoSoCal and SoSoSoCal as redirects to parts of Baja California, terms which appear to be entirely of their own imagination.

I'm not entirely sure what, but I feel something needs to be done. Based on the volume of concerns on their talk page and their limited response, I doubt there will be any useful result from a discussion there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I was wondering when Prisencolin's name would pop up here. Throughout the few years I've been aware of them, their presence has been hallmarked by not really minding other editors. It's always been them creating hundreds of low-quality, usually ambiguous articles, with over a quarter of them getting deleted, but never changing their ways. There was actually a Village Pump discussion about having higher standards for esports articles and even when it was pointed out, they created about twenty new poor-quality articles before the discussion was over. I mean, it's been years of deletion templates, warnings and queries for discussion and they just haven't changed or been receptive by a molecule. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've deleted those redirects per WP:R3. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Smell a troll here Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Perplexingly, his contribs are not entirely disruptive/meaningless. Split-personality? Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To further qualify my above statements, and having quickly glanced through his contribs, this is clearly not any troll -- he demonstrates a remarkable level of sophistry and a good grasp of key policies. If only he put all his talent to "Good" use. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Warning posted. I've posted on the editor's page asking them to state whether or not they're here for any other purpose than to waste other editors' time, and warned them to explain themselves either here or there before making further edits to other pages. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

WP:RPP is now very backlogged

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

---

There are 29+ remaining requests there, can some admins deal with it, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh Seriously, you don't have to post everytime there is a small backlog. This should be at WP:AN anyway instead of ANI. Alex Shih (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih Really? I think it is a big backlog. So how many is small/big to you? Hhkohh (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

I made an update to a Marvel Comics page, and it undid my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekinraptor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting a false positive result for Cluebot should be done at User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I rather suspect the phrase, "Colossus is a homosexual..." is what tripped it. Such a phrase is generally more likely to be vandalism than genuine content. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Keble College Boat Club

• Keble College Boat Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 129.67.117.139 (talk · contribs)
• 192.76.8.79 (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced and promotional content and non notable persons (Coaches, student atheletes}, removal of maintenance templates. Attempted ownership by COI accounts at Oxford. General disruptions in last few days. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The only disruption I can see is the removal of the names of club officers & club coaches (which are verfied with reliable sources). These being displayed is consistent with what is displayed on the pages of other College boat clubs, and also the clubs are student run so saying that while the boat club is notable enough to have it's page, the people who run it cannot be named is just plain insulting, as well as a contradiction of the notability guidelines clearly stating they are about whether something warrants an article, not about whether facts can be included in an article. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, this seems to have passed for a logical statement in defense of Oxford's edits [148]. Other Oxford rowing articles were cited as examples; they, too, could use some objective oversight. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Institutions may be notable, but the students who temporarily head them--in this case a university boating club--are probably not. Their omission may be interpreted as insulting by themselves or similarly associated conflict of interest accounts. It is disruptive to have an undeclared COI interest, and insist on inserting your or associates' names into an encyclopedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article clearly states that "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it.",so the criteria of Notability is not relevant to whether or not the names of Captains & Coaches can be included. The page then goes on to link to the content policies. Please show a reference to a content policy that means this information cannot be included in the article. I agree there was originally some biased language in the article (likely edited by another student), that has now been removed, and everything on the article is now properly sourced and relevant. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • While that's a guideline, I don't recall seeing it applied to permit non notable individuals to be listed in school and university articles. Unfortunately, your credibility resides between slim and none at the moment, given the refusal to acknowledge WP:COI, and the little matter of coming to my talk page to call me an asshole. I'm hoping that suggests you're an underclassman and not a faculty member. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's just wait for an admin to make a proper ruling on this - I did read the COI page but I didn't think there was anything to discuss about it. If the ruling is against the current club officers & coaches being listed, then it should also be equally applied to all the other Oxford Rowing related-pages. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Admins don't adjudicate content disputes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Deny talkpage access for blocked IP

Resolved

2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:B9A2:311F:9F17:72A3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) can somebody please deny this person talkpage access? DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Done by DoRD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please fix page move made during AFD

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

---

Can an admin please move User:Susheel Kumar Singh back to Susheel Kumar Singh? It's in the middle of an AFD. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This item has been deleted as A7. See also Draft:Susheel Kumar Singh and User:Susheelbhai/sandbox — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

IBAN violation?

I goadly accepted an IBAN with User:Godsy because of their persistent stalking of my edits and antagonism toward me. With this series of edits [149] they alerted another editor to 4 Drafts handled by me (and 3 handled by User:Hasteur) with the clear intent of overturning my actions, then summoned a third editor to also edit for them. Does stalking edits, making a list and editing by meat puppet violate an IBAN? I'd like this to stop either way. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Related to this - I was not impressed at all with the way Godsy pinged every editor previously either neutral or in favor of his position at WT:CSD#Request for comment: Promising drafts but omitted the one editor (Legacypac) who explicitly opposed it. This stinks of deliberate weaponization of the interaction ban. —Cryptic 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic: What else was I supposed to do? I am not allowed to ping them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Not ping everybody else. —Cryptic 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It was necessary, and appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• WP:IBAN Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means Seems like it would be a violation of the IBAN. "by other means" would be getting another editor to undo someone's edits. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: "Editors should not remove [Template:Promising draft] unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. I update User:Godsy/Promising drafts to match Category:Promising draft articles almost daily. I identified the missing pages, confirmed the templates were no longer present on them, then notified the user who placed them. No interaction with Legacypac occurred. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I monitor all pages tagged with {{promising draft}} at User:Godsy/Promising drafts. "Editors should not remove [Template:Promising draft] unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. I did not revert or mention Legacypac's actions (i.e. I did not break the interaction ban). Calliopejen1 was due a notification that the templates they placed were no longer present and Uanfala was already largely aware. However, this edit by Legacypac is clearly a direct response to the question I put forth at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts (this other edit by them was in the section I started; both are especially inappropriate by their own standards if this complaint they made at xaosflux's talk page is taken into account). Suggest boomerang for any of those reasons. A draftspace and userspace case at arbcom may be due because of all the continued squabbling (which is ridiculous). Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts was only started because various editors refuse to respect community consensus (on a side note, I merely started it as a discussion, another editor converted it into a request for comment). Lastly, I would like to reaffirm that I have never stalked or harassed Legacypac and the community has never come to that conclusion (I am also not, and have never been, the antagonizer).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the only way to resolve this dispute is to have a wide-ranging, well-publicized discussion that determines the rules for draftspace, and to ban either or both of Godsy and Legacypac if they act to subvert that consensus. My recommendation is to TBAN both of them from further participation in the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)