Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Transgender-related POV

Involved parties

• A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mooeena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement

This user cannot separate constructive criticism and suggestions for changes to their pet project page from personal attacks. They take personal offense to editors who make suggestions that counter their agenda and argue constantly in talk pages that people who detransition, or "detrans people" as they call them, are oppressed by LGBT people as a whole, transgender people, and rogue political actors. The vast majority of their edits are dedicated to righting the wrong of detrans oppression or "spreading awareness" to their cause.

In addition, they seem to have developed a vendetta against me personally, and have accused me of interfering with discussions about Detransition for prejudiced, peosonal, or politically motivated reasons and attempted to get me banned from the topic. I find it suspect that this user keeps fixating on the fact that she believes me to be transgender in their ban claims, although I have told them multiple times that I am not.

1. [3] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
   1. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
   2. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
   3. 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
2. 14 March 2019 Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
3. 14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

I believe that I have been behaving appropriately regarding this article and this user has become increasingly hostile towards me for continuing to hold this article to Wikipedia's standards. This user has proven that they cannot edit pages related to this topic responsibly and neutrally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooeena (talk • contribs)

Response

This complaint was filed moments ago here, under the same seemingly inappropriate title. I asked there why it was described as a transgender issue, when the topic is detransition (separate phenoms, separate communities). I'll ask again here, please, why frame their concern for a detrans topic as trans?

Mooeena's criticisms haven't been "constructive", they've been hyperbolic and smear-based. Nearly every comment on Talk:Detransition takes a stab either at editors or at the subject matter. From merely their statement above:

• Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans).
• Calling the article "[my] pet project", "[my] agenda", and "[my] cause".
• Using scare quotes in naming detrans people, and adding "as [I] call them" (this is as detrans folk call themselves, and it's documented in news articles and around the web).
• Claiming that I argue detrans folk are oppressed by LGBT folk "as a whole".
• Denying the documented political suppression of detransition exists.
• Wiki-lawyering.
• Claiming that I've requested anyone's ban.
• Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity.
• Claiming that I "claim ownership" over the article.
• Claiming that I "deliberately misinterpreted" anyone.
• Claiming that I "stealth canvassed other editors" (an admin found this untrue).
• Accusing me of sock-puppetry.
• Shaming me for filing a COI (as they suggested suggested), and then an NPOV (as I was instructed by an admin from there).
• Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin).

Mooeena enterred the Talk page with slurs against the detrans community and smears against editors:

• Using scare quotes in naming detransitioners (implying they don't exist or their lives don't matter).
• Claiming the detrans community isn't marginalized.
• Describing presence of more than one citation as "sin".
• Claiming that anyone has argued detransition to be "a common occurrence".
• Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable.
• Confusing detransition to be a "transgender issue" (they're separate communities, that's like conflating gay with trans).
• Claiming Tumblr and "individual accounts" (unsure what that means) are cited.
• Claiming the article "conflates" transphobia with trans regret (this is among the least cited concerns of detransitioners).
• Using scare quotes for trans regret (implying it never happens).

And that's just our first interaction. And Mooeena has continually claimed to wish to re-focus on content, while returning to smears.

Mooeena's stance seems to be of the all-too-common political motivation that acknowledgment of the plight of detrans folk could somehow be a threat to the plight of trans folk.

Other editors and I have communicated civilly and reached compromises. I've repeatedly stated aim to avoid pitting trans against detrans, but rather to present the topic of detransition fairly. I'd like to continue work in improving this article, without the stress of attacks, please. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I looked at that archived talk page and the points of serious disagreement aren't obvious. Could we have more calmness and AGF in the discussion? This doesn't look like a battle of entrenched viewpoints so I'd like to hope the issues can be worked out. I could try to mediate a little bit tomorrow if that helps. I made an edit to the article (added mention of an old science fiction story to the "fiction" section) so maybe that makes me "involved", but I hadn't really heard of the detransition concept before, and my edit was quite far from any of the controversy. So I think I can be impartial. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm unsure of what is the actual problem here, there seems to be a lot of terms I'm not very familiar with. There seems to be disagrement between users but is it a ANI concern? I feel like this should be able to be solved some other way.★Trekker (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Having looked at the diffs linked, Mooeena's complaints seem valid. I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading.

Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity. You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable. I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere?

Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans). How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic?

Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin). This is valid. Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad.

So, A145GI15I95, unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. Natureium (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The arbitration looks like it will be declined. I've read everything and I think the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic, but setting those aside I believe the diffs provided by both users do show a problem with A145GI15I95's behaviour. One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, the other they link it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally after Mooeena pointed out possible twitter canvassing. I would support a topic ban, possibly short-term in order to encourage them to be productive in other areas of the project, or at least a short-term interaction ban, for A145GI15I95 based on the provided diffs, if they don't accept to change their behaviour voluntarily. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Natureium, to answer you:

I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading. Please let me clarify, and let me know if I can clarify further.

You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist. My concern is that Mooeena may be letting her personal stance on gender politics interfere with the editing of this delicate topic. I presumed Mooeena to be trans due to the five user-boxes employing gender-essentialist language on her user-page (most of which she's now removed). I've already said there's nothing wrong with being trans or gender essentialist. But detransition is not a gender essentialist topic. Furthermore, detrans folk are politically where trans folk were a decade ago: struggling for recognition to receive neglected legal and medical services. There are many activists online who wrongly see detransitioners as a political threat to trans rights. Mooeena has repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs. That is troubling. I attempted to reason with her, but she told me to file a complaint. So I filed the COI (where I wrongly guessed she was trans, I was corrected, I apologized, and I explained my concern is for politics not identity). I was instructed by an admin on COI that my concern is more appropriately NPOVN, so I moved my concern there.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable—I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere? The link again is here. The Atlantic author is Jesse Singal; the Stranger author is Katie Herzog. The claim that they are unreliable is indeed written by Mooeena.

How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic? To say or imply that detrans folk are a kind of trans folk is like saying trans folk are a kind of gay folk. They're all related categories, but they're separate groups with different challenges and strengths. And there is a documented history of trans activists harassing detrans folk, hence my concern that no such thing should happen here (as it already has from other editors on the detrans talk page).

Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad. Thank you for acknowledging the attempt to dox (by a third party, not Mooeena) was bad. Please hear me, though, when I say again that I didn't canvas, as another admin confirmed, and I'd like please not to need to defend myself against this charge every day.

…unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. I can answer more questions if you like. But respectfully, I'm not harassing her. And the amount of time I've had to put into writing these defenses, it feels like the reverse.

SportingFlyer, to answer you:

…the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic… I can answer further questions, if you've any.

One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page Which diff do you mean? I've employed no sock. If someone else is socking, it's not I. Please, I've had to re-explain this repeatedly. Another user attempted to dox me and accused me of canvassing. Someone else reported it to an admin, who immediately redacted the dox. I thanked them privately and asked advice. They instructed I change my name, and assured this would reduce my problems. However, Mooeena has not let this go, she continues to accuse me of canvassing, and since the name-change she's accusing me of sockery. And now you seem to say also that I appear to be a sock, unless I've misread you. I've only followed my name-change instructions.

…it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally… My impression has been that Mooeena has taken something personally against me. I linked the new Detransition article to a handful of LGBT info-boxes and articles, and Mooeena seemed to follow me and unlink nearly all of them.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mooeena removed several userboxes recently, but I do not see which ones she removed which were gender-related.
• You claim Mooeena "repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs." I have not seen a diff yet which shows this to be the case. Please either provide diffs or apologize.
• Upon investigation, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog are journalists. From the diff you posted, it makes it seem as if Mooeena has decided to randomly ignore these, but they provided a helpful response here: Talk:Detransition#NPOV.
• You need to stop assuming everyone is accusing you of being a sock whenever a sock is mentioned. There's a pattern forming here. The diff you linked was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, so I have to discredit it.
• Mooeena is within their right to unlink the links per WP:CYCLE. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• There was a subsection statement and a subsection response. I have added a subsection discussion just below. Because of a possible intent to comment about the said statement and its response. Pldx1 (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  Follow-up: I have a problem with the first subsection, i.e. "Involved parties". I already know this was a part of an Arbcom filling, but this doesn't make sense here. To be suppressed or to be neutralized by adding User:Mooeena as a party ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena removed several userboxes recently, but I do not see which ones she removed which were gender-related. The five gender-politics–related user-boxes here say: "This user identifies as a woman", "This user prefers to be referred to using feminine gender pronouns", "This user identifies as a lesbian", "This user identifies as a girl gamer", "This user identifies as a gaymer". Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with gender essentialism, and I've apologized for possibly sounding as if I suggested that such stance might be unacceptable. My intention was to voice concern that such politics might preclude an NPOV.

You claim Mooeena "repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs." I have not seen a diff yet which shows this to be the case. Please either provide diffs or apologize. Mooeena began this conversation with scare quotes and suggestions that the detrans community doesn't exist or doesn't matter. She wrote here: "…seem to argue that 'detransitioner' is a marginalized gender identity…" And here: "This article mentions 'anti-detrans' activists… The 'expert' cited…" Detransitioners are indeed a marginalized community, and this was already sourced in the article. So why suggest otherwise? I brought to her attention here that the use of scare quotes is unnecessary, and that denial of detrans folk would be inappropriate, but she didn't reply. When she used these again, I asked outright here if she intends for these to be scare quotes, but she again didn't reply to this concern. She also wrote here "I am gay and am close to many queer and trans people of all sorts…" Hopefully this was well-intentioned, but it could sound like the old "I'm not racist, I have a black friend". I tried politely to voice this concern, but this seems to've been ignored too.

You need to stop assuming everyone is accusing you of being a sock whenever a sock is mentioned… If the accusations of sockery in the two filings Mooeena has reported against me (here and here) weren't meant to be directed at me, than I've misunderstood. An unknown editor also reported me for supposed sockery amidst all these conversations. I apologize if my tone has become defensive when attempting to work with Mooeena, but she began her NPOV complaint on the article's talk page with words that appeared to show she herself lacks NPOV, and I've since been hit with a doxxing attempt, a smear campaign (including Mooeena refusing to drop the false claims of canvassing), and yet another editor (granted, not Mooeena) equating detransition with gay-conversion therapy, so it's been a rough week here. I'd like to mention that, of the three open reports (here, here, this page we're on now), the tone of the responses have differed greatly ("keep talking, report is premature", crickets, and this discussion now).

Upon investigation, Jesse Singal and Katie Herzog are journalists. From the diff you posted, it makes it seem as if Mooeena has decided to randomly ignore these, but they provided a helpful response here. I'm sorry, but I don't see where she where she addressed this concern. It appears that Mooeena decried these journalists for reporting stories that activists who wrongly see detrans folk as a threat to trans politics attempt to suppress online. And to be clear, I'm not accusing Mooeena of being activist, I'm asking if her politics might outweigh her POV.

The diff you linked was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, so I have to discredit it. Again, please, which diff I linked was posted by a sock?

Mooeena is within their right to unlink the links per WP:CYCLE. Yes, but it could be, as you say, a pattern, which is what I've asked Mooeena to consider.

There was a subsection statement and a subsection response… and Follow-up… I don't understand what the entries above by User:Pldx1 are intended to mean, or if I'm asked to respond.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• There are some serious WP:AGF issues in your above post. None of your diffs support Mooeena calling you a sock, and in fact Mooeena herself said she never accused you of being a sock. Mooeena did purge several of her userboxes recently, but she did not purge the major ones relating to gender issues. I don't see any problem with her behaviour, in fact I don't see a single "smear" as you've described. I see a general problem with you assuming she is against your point of view, and your attempts to own the article by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you from not having a neutral point of view. I apologise you've been doxxed by a third party, but that's beside the point on this very specific issue - Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and based on the evidence provided above, you are not editing collaboratively in this area. (The diff you provided which was originally posted by a sock was [4].) SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The diff you provided which was originally posted by a sock was [2] Thank you for specifying the link that I mistakenly pasted above to a conversation between Mooeena and a different user. I apologize for this error on my part. The diff I meant to link above to show where Mooeena told me to file is here ("if you believe that I am acting maliciously towards you, feel free to request…").

None of your diffs support Mooeena calling you a sock, and in fact Mooeena herself said she never accused you of being a sock. The two links again are here and here, where she wrote "including one who appears to be a sock". I read that to be claiming or suggesting that the other person is somehow my sock, or that I'm his sock.

I don't see a single "smear" One smear is that she has four times repeated the accusation of canvassing (here, here, here, and here), which was found to be untrue, and three of which were stated after I asked her to stop.

I see a general problem with you assuming she is against your point of view I feel this whole issue has expanded far beyond where it needs to be. Please see that it began simply when Mooeena tagged the article NPOV, and she began its linked conversation using language that itself lacked NPOV (scare quotes, denial of detrans community's marginalization, claims of Tumblr citations, characterizing valid citations she dislikes as sins, calling The Atlantic and Seattle Stranger unreliable, claiming conflation of negative emotions with transition regret). I asked her to recognize her language itself could be read as not NPOV, and she didn't reply. I absolutely understand Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and I'm grateful for that. I believe I've been able to collaborate with other editors, including those with whom I've disagreed and compromised. Examples include dropping my objection to inclusion of the WPATH/Danker study; and continuing to meet the months-long demand of those supporting the Medref warning, working to find and include more and more medical sources (up from zero now to twelve, though those weren't all my additions). This long week of attacks from multiple editors has stretched my forbearance (and to be sure, I can't blame Mooeena for the other editors' wrongs, I just wish to give context). My concern has been whether Mooeena has an NPOV on this topic, based on her language choices, as stated in my first parenthetical of this paragraph (scare quotes, existence denial, Tumblr, sins, sources, and conflation). Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Pldx1, I have added myself to the Involved Parties section. I had originaly posted this to the wrong noticeboard, and the formatting is simply an artifact from that.

I've been a bit quiet, but I think these responses speak for themselves. A145GI15I95 is projecting their own NPOV agenda onto other users. I have stuck with the research that is notable and reliably reported on, and this user has become increasingly upset that I don't go along with their editing agenda. I am not an activist, but this user consistently appeals to the community ofdetrans folk [who] have blogged, vlogged, and formed discussion groups online and in-person to support themselves in order to argue that it doesn't matter that the topic is understudied and undercited. They seem to firmly believe that every person who has exhibited any sort of gender fluidity is exactly the same as the users on the detransition subreddits that they belong to, and any removal from those specific people's experiences is some kind of attack. They're trying very hard to evangelize about these subreddits in Wikipedia, a place where that doesn't belong. Threads (like this one) balloon as they try to argue their position into notability. I would support a topic ban from at least Detransition and perhaps other gender-related articles because they have shown that they cannot play well with others on this topic. They've accused me and other users[5] multiple times of claiming "detrans lives don't matter" for holding the statistics on the article to Wikipedia's standards. That's not something to be accused lightly. That shows a deep level of attachment, and I honestly think it would be better for their peace of mind to step away.

As for "smears," the accusation of canvassing was not found to be untrue. Your previous username and a link to a tweet where you canvassed were simply censored for your privacy. That admin did not make a statement on the authenticity of User:Equivamp's claims. In fact, I found two additional instances of you asking people off-wiki who share your point of view to back you up on the talk page. (Archived links available to admins upon request.) That is canvassing. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

From that post it sounds like if I wanted to know more about detransition, I'd be better off reading the subreddits than the Wikipedia article. I'm not sure what to conclude from that. I do see a bunch of stuff reverted on MEDRS grounds. If that's for medical info ("the recommended dose of hormone X is Y milligrams per pound of body weight") then MEDRS should be adhered to, but if it's about non-medical (e.g. sociological) aspects, then sticking to MEDRS tilts the article to the "medical point of view", which is not neutral (see medicalization). I haven't had the energy to look much further into this (might have more time in a few days). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why won't Mooeena answer my concerns (scare quotes, denial of marginalized community, claim of Tumblr citation, characterization of contributions as sins, attempt to discredit reliable sources, and claim of conflation), please? If her statement at the top of this page started instead …or "trans people" as they call them…, we'd question her POV. Instead she admits she wants me banned. I've not called her an activist, I've noted her wish to suppress certain studies that disagree with her politics is shared with anti-detrans activists. WP:PRIVACY instructs I "do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information" of her now admitted attempt to stalk/oppo/dox me. I can respond privately to admins. A145GI15I95 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think most of us know that there is such a thing as a trans community. It never would have occurred to me that there was also a detrans community or anti-detrans activists. Mooeena may have used scare quotes based on a similar reaction. Do the activists consider de-transers to be traitors to a cause, or what? If someone detransitions and becomes a transphobe, I can see them taking flak for it; but if they just go back to whatever they were doing before transitioning, why would the trans community care? Are they satisfied if you re-transition after de-transitioning? Do they hate everyone who transitions an even number of times (so they're back in the gender they started with) but like anyone who has transitioned an odd number of times? Does anyone ever actually transition more than twice? I think it's reasonable to ask for some kind of sourcing for claims on such topics. That said, if there's not much mainsteam sourcing I personally don't mind seeing stuff from less prominent outlets that might bother the harder core RS zealots around here. Our readers are adults and we shouldn't worry about warping their minds by presenting diverse viewpoints on stuff like this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't addressed some of your concerns I didn't feel I needed to continually answer for the specifics of a post I made after one read through the article and before joining the discussion (and frankly they came in a very long list) but I'll do so now for the sake of other editors not having to dig through diffs.

• Scare quotes: "detransitioner" and "detrans" are novel terms that I and most other editors had not heard before, so I put them in quotes. The term seems to be the self-identified term for a community, which is obviously fine, but most of the sources I have seen do not contain people self-identifying as detrans, which I believe is an important distinction.
• Denial of marginalized community: I had never heard of detransitioners before, and the article seemed to be about a concept, not a community of people. I am not, of course, saying that that community doesn't exist and that their feelings aren't valid, but that the article doesn't seem like it's about the community.
• Claim of Tumblr citation: The Katie Herzog article references a tumblr blog with around a hundred followers to reference the number of detransitioners, which seemed to me on my first reading of the wiki page to be too small an online community to be notable.
• Characterization of contributions as sins: I apologized for my wording right after you objected to it because I saw that it could be construed as aggressive. I'm not sure what else you want here.
• Attempt to discredit reliable sources: On my first reading of the wiki page, the Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal articles stuck out to me because those authors were well known (Though I had mixed up Katie Herzog with Katie Hopkins at the time) among the transgender community for their anti-trans rhetoric, but it would clearly be hypocritical of me to remove them because I disagree with the authors' politics. I haven't, because on the many read-throughs I've done since two weeks ago, I realized that those are really the two best news sources there are on the topic.
• Claim of conflation: See discussion here. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not doxxing you. I have given no identifying details that may identify you off-wiki or irl, just noted a fact for the benefit of qualified admins who know how to confirm claims while protecting your privacy. I don't want anybody to harass you off-wiki. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Let us try to do our own home work. First of all, page Detransition was build by 480 [Edits], among them 196 edits ($\approx 40.000$ bytes) by [A145GI15I95] and 6 edits ($\approx -9.000$ bytes) by [Mooeena]. Among the last 6, the first two (2019-03-02) are "POV tag", the other four are suppressing citations "en masse", without detailed discussion. Saying source contains a slur, isn't noteworthy, and doesn't contribute to the article when removing [seven references], is not an honest way of proceeding. Each of them contributes, i.e. is clearly about to the topic of the article, while "contains a slur" are only weasel words: which reference among the seven contains which alleged slur ? Moreover, the question is not if you like or not what the references are saying, the question to discuss is sources or not sources, i.e. should we repeat what the references are saying with our own voice, or only quote the reference as what was said by such and such and maybe quote another reference saying otherwise ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  
  This user is an Angel.
  This user is a cat.
    About infoboxen. User: Mooeena uses these two infoboxen. This amounts to assert that it exists cats that are also angels. Such a strong philosophical assertion should have been backed by strong sources, but I don't see them. When asking my own cat for a second opinion, then undisclosed_possessive_pronoun_for_my_own_cat answer was: any angel would have guessed that using The biggest sins [of A145GI15I95] in a complaint is boomerang-prone, while any cat would have known that using his pet project to describe an article about gender identification is only horrible and disheartening. Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a good point. I have tried to keep out of the article space until the BRD cycle is concluded. I intend for the discussion to come to a consensus before I move in and make changes on the article.
  • I made an honest mistake in that I only saw one added reference, which I hope you can see why I found it problematic. Said adding user was a sock who immediately proceeded to post slurs against multiple groups on my talk page, so I didn't consider the rest of the edit in good faith once I had noticed my mistake. If some of the other sources that he added would actually contribute the article, I have no problem with them being added back.
  • It's true that the phrase The biggest sins is aggressive. I recognize that, and I apologized for my wording right after I said it, and here I'll apologize again.
  • I would contest that {tq|pet project} is disheartening, but I will apologize for that too. I consider creating articles for underrepresented woman firsts my pet project. That doesn't invalidate the subject, but it also doesn't mean that I get upset when other people make suggestions. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Dear User:173.228.123.166 (how to ping?),
    • It never would have occurred to me that there was also a detrans community… I grant that, yes. My concern is the combination of words (noted parenthetically above) that sound like rhetoric used by anti activists (such as Julia Serano).
    • Do the activists consider de-transers to be traitors to a cause… Yes. This is noted and sourced in the article under the "Cultural and political impact" section, first paragraph, last sentence, "detransitioners express experiences of harassment from activists who view detransition as a political threat to trans rights" (four citations there).
    • Dear User:Pldx1,
    • [The] page Detransition was build by 480 Edits, among them 196 edits… I apologize for submitting small edits across multiple successive commits. Mooeena criticized this on the talk page, I apologized, explained I'm new to the system, and I then took to submitting combined work instead.
    • Dear User:Mooeena,
    • I have tried to keep out of the article space until the BRD cycle is concluded. Thank you for this. I, too, have stepped back a bit, and I'm glad to see the pool of contributions has grown over the last few days. And I recently submitted RfC in the hopes of welcoming even more fresh voices.
    • It's true that the phrase 'The biggest sins' is aggressive. I recognize that, and I apologized… Your linked diff apologized for [coming] on a little clinically, which sounds different, but I'm encouraged to see your clear acknowledgment here, and I very much thank you for this good-faith sentiment. Apology accepted.
    • I would contest that 'pet project' is disheartening, but I will apologize for that too… Thank you for apologizing for this too.
    • The term [detransitioner and detrans] seems to be the self-identified term… These terms are used by journalists in the article's sources.
    • …the article seemed to be about a concept, not a community of people. The article is about the concept and the community, as evidenced by its sections.
    • I am not, of course, saying that that community doesn't exist… Thank you for making this clear.
    • The Katie Herzog article references a tumblr blog… Yes, and nothing from that portion of her article is sourced in our article.
    • …on the many read-throughs I've done since two weeks ago, I realized that those are really the two best news sources there are on the topic. Thank you very much for saying this.
    • Claim of conflation: See discussion here. That discussion is regarding desistance, not negative emotions or trans regret.
    • I'm also not doxxing you…just noted a fact I don't know what you're doing or what the correct term would be, but it seems like stalking or oppo research or doxxing, not simply not[ing] a fact.
    • Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Who's on first? EEng 22:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• A145GI15I95 and Mooeena, are things reasonably peaceful between the two of you now? If yes, I'm glad it worked out and maybe someone can close this thread. Otherwise can you more clearly identify the remaining points of disagreement where you think you need outside help? Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I didn't come here in order to give a point-by-point apology. Now that they see (I hope) that other editors are not doing it out of malice, I would like User:A145GI15I95 to defer to consensus made by other users in the following discussions at Talk:Detransition or else be temporarily topic banned:
    • Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#What_WPATH_didn't_say
    • Talk:Detransition/Archive_1#Coleman_statement
    • Talk:Detransition#Detransition_vs_transgender_desistance
    • As well as reducing language such as Detransitioners (persons who detransition) have similarly experienced controversy and struggle. in the lede which references relatively non-notable anti-detrans activism. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • An or else ultimatum does't seem collaborative. Consensus was reached on the two archived items over a month ago; resurrection would be counter-productive. The third item was just introduced last week, a related RfC was opened last night, and its OP has today expressed satisfaction with the current state (consensus has been reached). The lede has been stable for a month; I've said repeatedly I'm not married to its wording. The sentence you quote is backed by at least seven separate sources, and it applies to the majority of cases; it's unclear how it could be non-notable. You're familiar with trans causes, but unfamiliar with detransition. There's a history of suppression against the topic from parties who fear it as a political threat. Would it be fair to ask your motivation in coming to a new topic and seeking this many deletions, please? A145GI15I95 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Mooeena, may I ask you please to continue this conversation before reverting consensus on the article? A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Mooeena, I've not added or deleted content to our contested article during this ANI conversation. Why would you ask here about reverting content more than a month old, and then push twice a revert with neither completing this ANI conversation nor start a new conversation on the article talk page? Please, continue talking and be collaborative. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that the issue had been resolved, but I see now that it has not. I have made a minor change in wording supported by four different users on the talk page. The only user objecting was you, and you were very gently told why this could be worded better. There is clear consensus on the talk page for this change. You yourself have edited the page a dozen times since I posted this ANI, so I'm not sure your point here. I had hoped that we had come to a resolution, but it unfortunately seems that you are continuing to be disruptive. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would you assume resolution here? My recent edits have been talk-page or technical (typos, punctuation, formats, citations; not content). Your change deleted a sentence; that's not minor. Please don't call me disruptive during conflict resolution. Resurrecting settled issues (especially without new discussion) is counter-productive. Please answer my question above regarding motivation, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mooeena has changed language of the article for a third time today, without continuing this conversation here. May I please request administrative intervention until we resolve our differences? Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A145GI15I95, Mooeena - You're both engaging in edit warring on this article by reverting each other in a back-and-forth manner and can be equally held accountable for these actions. Please don't make me have to impose any admin actions or apply any blocks..... I really don't want to have to do that. Both of you need to stop making edits to the article and discuss the dispute per Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A145GI15I95, Mooeena - I had the pleasure of speaking to you both individually on your user talk pages following the warning that I left regarding the edit warring. You both responded in a logical, level-headed, civil, and understanding manner, and I appreciate that greatly... seriously. :-) For two editors who both appear to be experienced, intelligent, knowledgeable, and understanding in regards to policy, guidelines, and process.... I'm sorry see you both in such a deep and complicated dispute with one another... I hope that you two work things out and that the dispute comes to a peaceful close. I think that you both would make a great team given your similar level of intelligence and expertise. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95, what would you like out of this discussion before it is resolved? You've said There's a history of suppression against the topic from parties who fear it as a political threat. Would it be fair to ask your motivation in coming to a new topic and seeking this many deletions. I don't fear detransition as a political threat. I am not one of the anti-detrans activists that you've discussed. I harbor no ill-will against people who detransition. I came here hoping that you would begin to assume good faith of me and other editors to the Detransition article and allow the WP:Cycle to proceed smoothly, but that has not been the case. What would you view as a favorable outcome? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• To Mooeena re your post of 02:22, 19 March (sorry for the slow response, and also it's late for me now so I'm groggy): I looked at those three talkpage discussions and I think it's misstating things to say A145GI15I95 is resisting consensus in them. Or if by "defer to consensus made by other users" you mean refrain from contributing to the discussions but just go along with the outcome, of course A145GI15I95 is as entitled to contribute as anyone else. So I feel like you're having trouble explaining what dissatisfies you about A145GI15I95's editing, and are instead putting up examples that miss the mark.

  Regarding the varying usage of "detransition" and "desist" across sources, the obvious thing is put a mention in the article noting it. Regarding Eli Coleman's talk, maybe someone can email him and ask if a recording is publicly available. The wording of the lede is of course something to discuss on the talk page.

  Detransition is apparently a novel topic though the French Wikipedia has had fr:Détransition (transidentité) since May 2016. That article is more relaxed than ours about including useful-looking links (they are not RS, but their content is not being cited in the article) in the further reading (lectures complémentaires) section. They look likely to be appreciated by readers trying to research the subject in more depth. Unlike (say) a history article, this article is more of an information resource than a narrative. And again, it's an area where readers have to use adult judgment on whatever they read, whether it is in RS or not. From that perspective I have to see deleting stuff from the article as often more tendentious than adding stuff, even if the stuff being deleted is on the weak side compared to what we'd expect in e.g. political BLP's.

  Therefore I can't possibly support a topic ban of A145GI15I95, who seems to have done a lot of good work despite making some new-editor errors. Is there anything that anyone still wants from ANI? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would definitely say that I don't think A145GI15I95 should be topic banned (not that there are many pages for them to be banned from so far since there isn't much content about detransitioning) since they seem to be a good editor who just has gotten over their head since they're new and not 100% on all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet.★Trekker (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mooeena, consensus isn't a vote-count. I've followed WP:Cycle; please don't claim otherwise without evidence. Please don't suggest non-AGF with other editors; we're talking about you and me.
  • It's challenging to assume good faith when you say or else, call me disruptive, resurrect settled issues and revert stable content without talk, call for my ban, search for me outside Wikipedia and gather archived links of whatever you believe you found, and given your unfamiliarity with detransition and closeness to trans issues.
  • Imagine if a religious fundamentalist or hardline conservative appeared on the transgender page and declared it needed a complete rewrite, while being unfamilar with basic trans terms. It's fair to note when an editor's actions concur with activists who suppress a topic needlessly to further their own cause. I'd like your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly, please: Why such strong interest/motivation in reviving arguments and reducing content on a subject to which you're new and appear prejudiced? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to suppress a topic. I came across an article that I believed was non-neutral, and I am discussing the article because I still believe that language in it is non-neutral. It's much better than it used to be, but there are still parts that need improvement. I could ask you the same thing. Why such strong interest/motivation in the topic? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Can you point to a section which you think has non-neutral language right now?★Trekker (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
        • For instance, A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% desisted from their transgender identity before reaching the age of 29,[15] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20. in the Occurance section misrepresents the studies in question to conflate "detransition' and "desistance." They make no mention of a child's transgender identity, nor desistance before a certain age. They studied the persistence of gender dysphoria at follow-ups after/around puberty. Gender dysphoria in these studies is not defined as identifying as transgender but as discomfort with their own sex and gender roles and higher scores on the [Gender Identity Interview for Children] respectively. There are some other instances, but that discussion would be better located on the talk page.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 07:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
          • They make no mention of a child's transgender identity, nor desistance before a certain age: Yes, they do. It appears you've not read the studies and their third-party, medical-journal-published analyses. Do you suggest that terminology and those ages were invented for Wikipedia? You're proffering a view voiced not by reliable sources, but rather by activist bloggers who see detransition as a threat to transgender issues.
          • My interest has been to improve this article on a topic with which I'm familiar. I worked with others to add significantly more news stories and medical journals, and to improve the accuracy of their summations.
          • You've admitted you're unfamiliar with the topic, your background suggests bias against it, and you've seemed unable to view this topic on its own (outside the realm of transgender politics).
          • I appreciate you now softening your criticisms of the article (from needs complete rewrite to needs improvement), and you stating now that you don't consciously fear detransition politically and aren't actively seeking the topic's general suppression. But to suggest your strong interest is coincidental, given your past words and familiarity with a conflicting topic, is suspect.
          • I'd ask you, please, to continue not altering content within this article (it's fared quite well these past two weeks), and to pursue topics with which you are familiar or to which you appear less biased. I'll similarly not alter content within primarily transgender-focused articles if you wish. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

Ted hamiltun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ted hamiltun made some very sporadic edits since the account got created in 2017, but his activities suddenly intensified in March 2019.

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : [6] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [7]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [8]), here are some examples : [9], [10], [11], [12]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : [13].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The reported user has battleground mentality and aggressive behavior. He's unable to participate in a proper way. See how he replied to my comment.[14] Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; @HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Qahramani44:. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing [15] [16] Not to mention he has a PHD in spamming talk pages with his rants (I can't be bothered to show 8 links for this one, just look at his every edit basically). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm dragged into this now, may as well add another point too that hasn't yet been stated. Besides his ethnicity-baiting posts, falsifying sources/pushing non-RS sources, and edit-warring, he also seems to have blatantly ban-evaded here [17], with this new IP that only posted once, in the same page that he was edit-warring in before, immediately after he was banned for edit-warring. Qahramani44 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Users user:Wikaviani User:Qahramani44, User:Wario-Man User:HistoryofIran

Note: Ted Hamiltun opened this new thread. Since it is the same issue, I am merging it here to centralize consensus building. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear Wiki Adminstration these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team taking advantage of wiki rules to push their Ideas in different articles and boycott any other source of Information which contradict their views

If you have noticed they're all take part in attacking and reporting Individuals that they consider a chalenge to their views, accusing him with all sort of accusation , aggressive, mentally ill, fabricating sources, racist, nationalist, having Agendas and etc....

This all started when I asked them to remove a phrase that Is not in cited source which meant to eliminate the presence of a whole population of a province a phrase which spread hatred, User:Wario-Man with aid of User:HistoryofIran changing role continued reverting my ask for providing a sourc to that phrase or just remove it, I even express my concern about the issue with them In talk page [18] but no one responded, due to this Ignoring and aggresive behaviour my last attempt to solve the problem was to write for other editors to take part in this discussion and put an end to this illegal behaviours [19] which User:HistoryofIran interpret as ranting against "Persian editors", and reported me, I got Blocked 48 hours for  reverting my legal request to remove a racist phrase which is not in the cited source after I wrote for you and other editors "finally" User:Wario-Man removed that phrase, with so much anger you can see they have highly an Anti-Semitism view to the topics that they engage [20]

Now they changing, The other member of the team user:Wikaviani is reporting me  with his team mates, and again they are all came back accusing me with all kind of accusations Just to eliminate me once and for all and make It easy for themselves to apply their Ideas with out any question

I ask you to take a carefull look at these unjust acts and misusing of Wiki environment

Thank you  Ted hamiltun (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ted hamiltun: What ideas do you believe those editors are unfairly pushing? Can you provide more diffs? Bold claims require appropriate evidence. My advice to you: instead of leveling personal attacks on editors like Wario-Man, or reporting those who reported you, you should be examining your own conduct and responding to the valid concerns brought up about you at this noticeboard. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

taking advantage of wiki rules Boy I sure hate it when folks follow the rules around here... Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment. WP:SHOT and abusing report system. This is 2nd time this user shoots himself in the foot. See how he tried to delete and manipulate another editor's report on 3RR noticeboard.12 --Wario-Man (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment "these editors are from what I called earlier the Iranian editors community they work as a disinformation team" just another example of Ted hamiltun's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and ranting toward a group of editors.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: He's WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND case. Look at this diff. He deleted and manipulated this report just like what he did on 3RR noticeboard. Clearly he has no idea what WP is and uses it like a forum. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ted hamiltun just posted this on my talk page. I think the real highlight is this personal attack: It's so simple these guys all are Iranian with racist agenda attack individuals. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a big WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. For instance, reporting the users who reported them, repeatedly using personal attacks about race and ethnicity, and POV pushing. At any rate, I think there is also a serious WP:CIR issue. I don't use CIR lightly, but I think that this is such a case. While I understand that English is not everyone's first language, this is the English Wikipedia. CIR presumes that users have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively as well as the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. Ted's talk page messages are cryptic to the point of unreadable, their edits to Persian Gulf and the subsequent talk page conversations show that they are unable to effectively communicate, are unwilling to follow sources, and can't be bothered by consensus. Combined with their generally uncivil handling of this ANI, I think Ted is WP:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, i forgot to mention his WP:CIR issues (inability to speak and comprehend English properly). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Proposal: As numerous editors pointed out with their above remarks, it appears quite obvious that Ted hamiltun is not here to build an encyclopedia, has some serious WP:CIR issues and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Therefore, i propose an indefinite block for this user as previously suggested by an admin at AN3.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above comments and evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support per my above comment. I do however see that this user only has 130 edits, so I don't necessarily want to bite a newbie here. Note that I have slightly reformatted the proposal to remove excessive bolding. If anyone believes that to be an inappropriate refactor, please revert me and let me know :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he's only 130 edits, but he has been editing here for about 1 year, so, he's not really a newby IMO. Also, thanks very much for removing excessive bolding of my proposal.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the reason that he doesn't seem to have learned or changed his behavior in any way over the past month, even after being banned once for edit warring. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support The compelling evidence shows that he's indeed not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Without a doubt WP:NOTHERE INeedSupport ^:3 17:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorism

• Ck4829 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created Category:White nationalist terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and added hundreds of white nationalism-related pages that have no apparent connection to terrorism. Many of these pages are BLPs. To give an example, they added Jack Posobiec to the category. I have no love of Posobiec (or any other white nationalist person or group), but he is most definitely not a terrorist. I would have taken this to BLPN, but many of the pages they added are not BLPs, and there may be some value to the category so XFD doesn't seem like the right place either. I think this is best seen as mass disruption. R2 (bleep) 22:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment I noticed this too, the editor seems to have a history doing the same thing. Appears to be an ongoing attempt to game Wikipedia (I'm no fan of these right-wing extremists either). Bacondrum (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the only thing they have been doing for the past year has been adding POV-pushing, mostly inappropriate, categories. Category:Heresy in Christianity to some religious Trump film[21], creation of a now-deleted category called "Perceived judicial activism in the United States" (and adding that category to articles the editor finds to be judicial activist), mass-adding Category:American conspiracy theorists to BLPs that do not contain any sources about them being conspiracy theorists[22][23][24][25][26] Another mass-categorization based on his "Militarization of society" was found to be "completely inappropriate" at CfD. Clearly, if Ck4829 fails to accept that categories need to be supported by the content and sources of the articles (and that this is vital especially in BLPs), he needs to be stopped. --Pudeo (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the user has chosen not to respond here or at there talk page but continued to add the category including clearly erroneous cases [27] (thus so far failing the Turing test), I blocked them for 31h. I encourage users to continue discussing here, since, if the above remarks are correct (which I did not have time to check), the user should not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate, the examples I put above (and you could find a lot more) about the category "American conspiracy theorists" had no mentions of conspiracy theories at all, yet he categorized them. However, I said "mostly inappropriate" because some articles do mention conspiracy theories like Michael Flynn[28]. But per WP:DEFINING it's probably still not right to categorize Flynn as a one. Given that the majority are completely unsourced, this is a mass BLP violation that requires a lot of cleanup. Back in 2017 Graham87 stated on this user's talk page that you've been making problematic category edits for the last eleven years; please knock it off. and he did not respond. --Pudeo (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick sampling shows that the editor has been tagging everything that could be remotely construed as racist or white nationalist as "terrorist." This is at least an overreach. In general, categories are supposed to reflect explicit sourcing, and nearly all of the articles that have been tagged have no such description in referenced content. These should all be rolled back, Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to lack of competency and failure to communicate. The last time that they communicated with anyone on wiki was 2006. Given the warnings by Graham87 and Doug Weller that were ignored, this person has used up the good faith of the community.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Rollback all categorizations into Category:White nationalist terrorism. If that category should exist, then pages should only be added to it upon careful consideration, not in the indiscriminate rapid-fire manner that Ck4829 did it. Deli nk (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hold the phone, here. @Ymblanter: you identified this as "clearly erroneous". In that example, we have an article on a Black American war veteran being beaten almost to death by white assailants in a clearly racially motivated hate crime, along with the local and state law apparatus refusing to prosecute. It would be a valid editorial discussion to debate whether or not this qualifies as terrorism, but it is not clearly erroneous. If your block is based on that, it's a bad block.

As for the supposed erroneous conspiracy theorist categorizations, all of them are easily sourceable with the simplest Google search:

• Paul E. Vallely: CNN: "... Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a promoter of the birther conspiracy theory ..."
• Gordon Klingenschmitt: Huffpost: "Klingenschmitt claimed [...] that he was booted out of the Navy because of the form of his prayers, when, in reality, he deliberately got himself court-martialed by disobeying a direct order not to appear in uniform at a political rally ..."; also MSNBC: "Klingenschmitt is a rather notorious figure, best known for, among other things, writing a book that argued, in all seriousness, that President Obama is possessed by demons."
• Peter Sprigg: SPLC quoting Sprigg's 2010 book, Homosexual Assault in the Military: "Welcoming open homosexuality in the military would clearly damage the readiness and effectiveness of the force – in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military." Sprigg's view has been widely criticized as corresponding with the widely-debunked homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory.
• Wiley Drake: Word & Way: "Drake is plaintiff in a federal suit asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to void California's electoral votes for Obama on grounds that he did not meet all the constitutional requirements for eligibility for the office of the president." Or just Google "Wiley Drake birther". Note also all of the widespread coverage of Drake encouraging his followers to pray for Obama to die.
• Tony Perkins: also a birther, among other things; read the article's Controversy section.

If the categories are being added without the sourcing being up to date in the article, then the correct, WP:HERE way to fix that is to add the sourcing to the articles; that's how we get an encyclopedia built. Removing the categories when they're clearly correct does not: it satisfies BLP on the face but actually it's hiding reliable negative information in what could reasonably be seen as an effort to promote these individuals through sanitizing their unsavoury political activities. We should fix these articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding categories which are not backed up by sourced material is a BLP violation. Doing it instead of addressing the concerns does not make it better. Though of course if someone wants to unblock they are welcome to do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but categorizing someone as a terrorist or a conspiracy theorist and having it sit there for months for someone else to back up, is a completely wrong course of action in BLPs. Also as mentioned, it's important to consider whether these are WP:DEFINING characteristics of the BLP. --Pudeo (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that many of these are WP:BLP violations. The terrorism and conspiracy theory categorizations should be immediately removed from BLPs and only restored after there is explicit consensus that it is appropriate for that article. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in the two cases I reverted the categorisation I checked that the word terrorism was not in the article--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × several) Okay, fine. See the collapse below for sections taken directly from the articles, as of Ck4829's edit:

Excerpts from Wikipedia

Paul E. Vallely: In 2010 Vallely was one of three retired general officers who expressed support for U.S. Army Lt. Col. Terrance Lee Lakin in his refusal to deploy to Afghanistan based on Lakin's claim that President Barack Obama had no legitimacy as commander in chief. In an interview, Vallely stated, "I think many in the military—and many out of the military—question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama." Gordon Klingenschmitt: In 2014, Klingenschmitt wrote in an email that openly gay U.S. Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) wanted to execute Christians; both political parties in Colorado disavowed Klingenschmitt. In 2014, Klingenschmitt (then a Republican candidate for Colorado state representative in an eastern El Paso County district) frequently compared President Barack Obama to a demon, saying on one occasion that he was a "demon of tyranny" and was among "the domestic enemies of the Constitution." Klingenschmitt also asserted that "Obamacare causes cancer." In March 2015, in response to an assault where a woman from Longmont, Colorado, had her 34-week-old fetus cut out of her womb, said the incident was evidence of the "curse of God" for abortion. Other Republicans denounced Klingenschmitt's comments. Despite Klingenschmitt's apology and recanting of the remarks, he was removed from the Health, Insurance and Environment Committee for two weeks. He voluntarily suspended his television ministry for six weeks. In July 2015, Klingenschmitt responded to the Boy Scouts of America lifting their ban on gay scoutmasters by saying that this would lead to an increase in child molestation in the organization. The following month, Klingenschmitt reportedly stated that gays and pedophiles are influenced by different demons. In January 2017, he stated that gay men should be disqualified from teaching positions because of "their immorality." Peter Sprigg: He has linked homosexuality to pedophilia, and argued that homosexuals are trying to brainwash children into accepting homosexuality through public schools. Wiley Drake: On The Alan Colmes Show on June 2, 2009, Drake stated that he is engaging in imprecatory prayer, praying for God to kill President Barack Obama, who he claimed needed to "turn his life around." In 2008 he was party to a lawsuit in federal court, Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama, which claimed that Barack Obama was not an American citizen and therefore ineligible to be President of the United States. Also in 2008 he said that God would punish Rick Warren for agreeing to give the benediction at the inauguration of Obama, who he called an "evil illegal alien". Tony Perkins (politician): In 2010, the Family Research Council—under Perkins' leadership—was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which characterized the group as "a fount of anti-gay propaganda". Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as a political attack on the FRC by a "liberal organization" and as part of "the left's smear campaign of conservatives". Perkins has also made statements critical of Islam. In September 2010, Perkins claimed that "the ultimate evil has been committed" when Muslims interpret the Quran in its literal context, that Islam "tears at the fabric of democracy," and that World history classes dishonestly portray Islam in a positive light by providing an "airbrushed" portrait of the religion itself. In 2015, Perkins affirmed the debate over Obama's birth certificate as "legitimate", remarking that it "makes sense" to conclude that Obama was a Muslim. References

Note that Ck4829 did not add or modify any of this text, they only added the category. I had to modify one of the references because its website has since been blacklisted, otherwise this is what is currently published on Wikipedia and has been for months at least. These edits were from last November, and the categories are still present in all of those articles as of right now. Why the push to whitewash those articles now? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. No one here is defending white nationalism. Calling something "terrorism" is different. Natureium (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the "conspiracy theory" categorisation here. Guettarda (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivan could you refactor and perhaps put the conspiracy theory bits under a subheading? I thought I was the only one confused by this. Fish+Karate 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to whitewash anything. It's reasonable for us to expect that categories should not represent one editor's original research or synthesis, and to demand that care be exercised in the use of narrow, pejorative categories. One can make a convincing argument that lynching amounts to terrorism, for example, but that doesn't mean that we should find every article concerning lynching and place a terrorism category. At the very least a consensus needs to exist. I've removed the more obvious examples that I came across. All due care must be exercised for BLPs to ensure that "terrorist" has an explicit basis for inclusion in a BLP, not just an argument that they're bad people deserving of the appellation. Acroterion (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could add a sub-heading, but it would be below the second comment in the thread. My point, really, is that having brought up these seemingly unrelated categorizations at all (which, as noted, are all properly sourced and were added months ago universally without objection) seems less like it has anything to do with objections to the white nationalist terrorism category and more to do with using this opportunity to suppress valid categorizations which the complainant disagrees with. If someone can pick apart the thread to pull out the influence of that false allegation on the calls for sanctions, they are welcome to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: it would be helpful if you could stop attributing motivations to other editors. I've removed the "white nationalist terrorism" from The Turner Diaries, a racist polemic that advocates racist revolution, Wouter Basson who was unsuccessfully prosecuted for allegations of systematic murder from racist motivations, ghost skin, a racist lifestyle, and others that are tangentially related. Applying "terrorist" to all horrible things cheapens the appellation. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries is literally a fictional account of a government led by African Americans and Jews being overthrown by a violent white nationalist revolution, which was used as a manifesto by the Oklahoma City bomber and numerous other violent white nationalists, but okay, it doesn't belong in Category:White nationalist terrorism. That sounds like a wonderfully encyclopedic approach to a sensitive topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You appear to think I'm arguing about this. You're wrong. I just think that slapping the "terrorist" tag on everything that is unambiguously bad and which can at least tangentially be linked to terrorism, at whatever distance, should be carefully reviewed and discussed. Many of the editor's tags look OK to me, but it is clear that they've been using a very broad brush. Acroterion (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, we agree on that point. I've reviewed a few - it's not just that some of them are inappropriate (I removed one from Golden Circle (proposed country)) but some are just technically improper: they added the category to Dylann Roof, which definitely qualifies, but that article is already a member of a container category that is also a member of the one we're discussing, so it just didn't need to be there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we're working along the same lines. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• All five diffs showing the addition of the "conspiracy theorist" category seem correct for those articles based on the content of those articles (see excerpts posted by Ivan above). For my part I think it's an appropriate categorization of Flynn, too (he promoted the Pizzagate nonsense and led crowds in chants of "Lock her up!"). I also agree that Isaac Woodward's case is an example not just of white national terrorism, but state-sponsored white national terrorism. Christian heresy seems an appropriate category for The Trump Prophesy, as the article has a quote that says, "unbiblical at best and heretical at worst". (Also, suggesting a president is a prophet is kind of the definition of heresy, isn't it?) Mass categorizations of hundreds of articles–especially controversial categories added to BLPs–certainly make me nervous, but looking over these diffs leaves me asking, "where's the beef?" Leviv ich 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Again, in the case of Isaac Woodard this might or might not be terrorism. This should be a subject of a discussion. The article currently does not mention terrorism. However, the user so far did not discuss anything, they just continued adding categories like a robot, even after warnings and a message that the ANI discussion has been opened specifically about this issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  There is recently (since approximately 2016) some indication that past incidents of white nationalist violence are coming to be seen as terrorism, or at least being compared to incidents of violence perpetrated by non-whites which were described as terrorism at the time. It's pretty likely that the editor was swept up in that when they created this category, and there are several examples of inappropriate categorizations (related to Category:White nationalist terrorism specifically) in their recent edits. This probably should have been addressed by discussing with the user, but you can't discuss things with a user who doesn't interact, so I have to agree with your block (I'll strike my "bad block" comment as soon as I can find it in the mess of edit conflicts). I object to further sanctions, at least not yet - see if the user responds after their block. As for the category itself, it's valid at least on the face of it although it could probably just be up-merged into Category:White nationalism, and many of the articles it's been attached to do need to be reviewed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yes I think we all agree that these categorizations (like all categorizations) are subject to review and consensus by editors. But I see these as good faith additions–BRD means I can add a category, and somebody can remove it, and as long as I don't re-add it, I'm not being disruptive, right? So by "where's the beef?" I mean, "where's the conduct issue?" ("beef" as in "complaint", that's the double entendre, you see...), not that every categorization was correct. So far the ones I've seen are at least correct or could be correct and thus made in good faith. By the way, for my part, I think all lynchings are terrorism by definition and that all lynching articles should be categorized as terrorism, and if government officials aided or permitted the lynchings, then it's state-sponsored white nationalist terrorism, but that's a conversation for another page. (Someone ping me and I'll bring the sources.) Leviv ich 17:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Copied from Ck4829's talk page by Leviv ich 18:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC):

Hello, I'm serving my time as I should, I am appealing nothing, I meant to disrupt and I succeeded, guilty. My edits went too far, maybe? But I sought out include individuals, cheerleaders, ideologues, organizations, symbols, rhetoric, propaganda all as white nationalist terrorism. While it's clearly a very uncomfortable subject, I find it odd that practically nobody corrected my 'overreach' with what appropriate examples are, if someone were to tell people in that discussion something, one could tell them "I put absolutely nothing in that category as a joke or to be ironic and I sought out to populate it as quickly as possible."

I hope that helps, I've been told by a friend I should probably limit my time on Wikipedia for a while, especially going through all those disgusting pages.

Ck4829 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be honest folks, the collective reaction to my complaint sickens me a bit. Pudeo's perfectly reasonable pointing to Ck4829's past questionable behavior over conspiracy theorists quickly led to the discussion being railroaded in an inappropriate direction. What on earth are we doing picking out one or two of the hundreds and hundreds of questionable categorizations to bicker over whether they're correct or not? It shouldn't matter. If an editor indiscriminately mass-tags 500 articles, and 250 of them end up being correct, does that mean the mass tagging was appropriate? Does it mean we now have to pick through all 500 of them, and does it mean the editor wasn't being disruptive? No of course not; if half the stuff in the Wikipedia is incorrect and inflammatory, then that stuff does FAR more damage than the good that's done by the half that's correct. Not to mention the ridiculous burden that's placed on the community by this sort of indiscriminate mass tagging. Throw in the BLP dimension, and the contention that we should pick through these categorizations one by one is flatly contrary to core policy. I mean as best as I can tell, this editor literally was taking every single white nationalism page and adding it to white nationalism terrorism. That's blatant disruption. It might even be part of an effort to game search engine results. Don't lose the forest through the trees, guys. Geesh. R2 (bleep) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  Are 250 out of 500 incorrect? I look at Category:White nationalist terrorism and while I haven't gone through each one of the 100+ pages, scanning the list, it all seems in order: KKK, White Patriot Party, assassination of Barack Obama plots, Emmett Till... granted, these may have already been cleaned up by others, and I can't see what it used to look like. Spot checking the contribs, I'm seeing instances of other editors edit warring to keep in his categorizations. None jump out at me as incorrect. Some are not properly diffused (or whatever you call it), but... maybe I'm just not seeing it. Leviv ich 19:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have clarified, that was purely a hypothetical. However I just looked through Ck4829's 10 most recent tags, and only 3 of them said anything about terrorism. R2 (bleep) 19:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I went through 50 or so before petering out, and the proportion that mentioned terrorism stayed at roughly 30%. There was some wiggle room due to ambiguity of what might be considered a reference to terrorism. R2 (bleep) 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, we're talking about these 10: Eutaw, Donald, Rosewood, Till, Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, 16th St. Which of these are not proper for the category White nationalist terrorism? Leviv ich 19:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they're improper, but I think that the category structure would be better served if the category were applied to a higher-level category which these incidents are already categorized in. For example, Category:Ku Klux Klan crimes ought to be a member of the white nationalist terrorism category, and that would catch most of these articles already. Possibly also Category:Lynching in the United States, and/or Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans. This is my point, anyway, that the categories aren't really incorrect, they're just incorrectly applied. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Well, when a new category is created, it needs to be populated. We have several "terrorism" subcategories within other nationalist category trees, and (as I observed above) the subject of white nationalist terrorism is being actively discussed recently, and so mass-populating the new category with articles related to white nationalist violence is a reasonable approach. Most have been fairly accurate, some are a stretch, a handful have been shown to be editorially inappropriate, but I don't think anyone so far has found one which was definitely wrong (as in, say, dropping Abraham Lincoln Alexander Hamilton into this category). Regarding Posobiec: it is a reasonable view that deliberate alt-right false news constitutes terrorist propaganda; it's not right for Wikipedia to repeat that opinion without decent sources and considering an appropriate balance, but this falls within my definition of stretching. Most of the obvious problems that I've seen while picking through these is that they are duplicates via parent categories, and so while the category is valid it's also redundant. None of this on its own should've been grounds for a block, but there were other factors.

A bigger question maybe is if Wikipedia can describe these incidents as terrorism, I mean I would, but if sources don't agree then the category needs to be renamed. Category:White nationalist violence would be a suitable replacement title. It would usefully narrow the category and simply definitions that way: people like Posobiec who promote nationalism through their media channels but don't themselves actually participate in violent incidents would be excluded, and it's more likely then that remaining members of the category would be defined by this aspect. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If only all editors got the level of "stretching" that you're giving this editor. I mean no offense but a garden variety alt-right Twitter troll like Posobiec is in no way, shape, or form a terrorist nor a terrorist propagandist, and saying otherwise seems like a pretty clear-cut BLP vio to me. But that's just my opinion, of course. R2 (bleep) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, these sources appear to disagree: [29] [30] [31] - I'm not saying these are good sources, we probably couldn't use them (really, they lie between "probably not acceptable" and "what the fuck were you thinking?"), I'm just making the point that calling Posobiec and/or other promoters of conspiracies and fear news "propagandists" and "terrorists" is not exactly novel. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this comment reflects well on you. Your sourcing standards... leave a lot to be desired. I don't know what part of the encyclopedia you've done most of your editing in, but that would never, ever fly in the AP space. R2 (bleep) 20:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You do see where I wrote that we couldn't use these sources, right? I'm demonstrating that Posobiec has been described as a terrorist (an "information terrorist", most directly) in one or two opinion pieces (and self-described, but obviously in jest), not that Wikipedia should describe him this way. And if one were to subscribe to that opinion, then categorizing Posobiec's bio in a "white nationalist terrorism" category is definitely a stretch (by which I mean that we cannot do it), for Wikipedia's purposes it's wrong, it violates a bunch of editorial policies, but it's just reasonable enough that it should not be considered a blockable offence (in isolation). I was expecting you would be able to see that point, as I thought I described it reasonably well, but I'm also tiring of your subtle personal attacks so I'm going to stop trying to explain this to you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I understand now. And to clarify my position, I never suggested that this editor should be blocked for a single miscategorization. Hell no, that would be awful. The problem is the volume and the amount of painstaking work required to fix the violations short of a mass rollback or a TNT deletion of the entire category. R2 (bleep) 20:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• No offense to him or anyone else, but I think it's fair to ask if this edit renders Ivanvector involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure I'm involved. What's your point? Unless you have a specific involved administrative action of mine that you're suggesting should be reviewed by the community, this just looks like trying to stir up shit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all. Why does my being or not being an administrator have anything to do with it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy to take this to user talk, but continuing the bad-faith accusations here is disruptive. Just calm down, dude. You're a good admin. I didn't mean to get under your skin. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Then maybe don't start tossing around accusations of administrative misconduct in a content dispute, if you don't want to get peoples' backs up. I'm not the one who made a bad-faith accusation in this section. If you want to move on that's fine by me. I'll start a discussion on that article's talk page about the blurb I added that you reverted, but I'll have to do it a bit later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that there may be a better name for the category, and that and all other categorization discussions should be had somewhere other than ANI. Bringing it back, I still do not see diffs of activities that merit bringing this editor to ANI and blocking him without so much as a talk page warning or any other attempt to communicate at their talk page. If all we have is what's been brought here so far, I respectfully suggest the editor should be unblocked, this thread closed, and a dialogue should be opened with them on their talk page if there's any problem with how they're categorizing pages. It took me all of five seconds to open communications with the editor, so I'm not sure why others have skipped this step in this case. Leviv ich 20:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here mainly because I think their categorization effort should be rolled back, and I didn't know of a better place to request that. I still don't. It's odd to suggest that I was somehow required to discuss the matter with an editor who hadn't participated in a single talk page discussion since 2006 before attempting to address what still appears to be a serious and widespread BLP problem. R2 (bleep) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To me that's a strange reason not to try and communicate with someone. Anyway, I think an attempt at resolving a dispute on a user's talk page should be a prerequisite to filing at ANI. Leviv ich 20:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like an overcat for many entries. Something can be a massacre, a crime, segregation, whatever, but one needs an RS explicitly telling that "event X was an act of terrorism". For example, not every crime against humanity was terrorism. I think this needs to be discussed at the CfD, and people should check the pages and sub-categories if the category will be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

behavior

• " I am appealing nothing, I meant to disrupt and I succeeded, guilty." 1 Still support indef block based on behavior. He would do it again. The content dispute above should be left off as we don't have content disputes at ANI.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would also support an indef based on that. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, I suggest instead a topic ban from categorization, as in, they may not create or edit categories, and neither add nor remove categories from articles. Their "I meant to disrupt" treatise isn't promising, but I'm hopeful it's a result of broken English, and anyway I'm not aware of any disruption not directly related to categories. Point taken about content disputes. There's some cleanup to do as a result of the incident reported here, maybe editors would like to meet me at Category talk:White nationalist terrorism? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, you are involved by your own words. The !voting should be from uninvolved editors shouldn't it?
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: I have a great deal of respect for you, so I'm curious as to what you mean with this comment which I might call nonsensical if it had been written by someone else. We do not restrict editors (admin or otherwise) from making comments in community discussions, with exceptions of a very small few who are subject to specific restrictions, unless I am very badly mistaken. "Editors involved in disputes hashing it out in public" could easily be a subtitle for this page. I'm just honestly confused by your comment. The statement you're referring to is not intended as an admission of involvement but a question to the accuser of why in the hell it mattered whether or not I was involved. And seeing as I was being accused of desysop-level administrative misconduct (WP:INVOLVED) pretty much out of nowhere ("admins should be aware" my ass) yeah, I was angry about it. I have no prior association with the blocked editor nor as far as I know outside of this thread with the original poster. My entire "involvement", outside of having commented here, is one edit I made to the white nationalism page today (this one), which was reverted by the OP, and which I have not (yet) challenged. I haven't taken any administrative actions here or anywhere in relation to the issue being discussed. Even if I had, going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting tool misuse had occurred. A fair question was asked "No offense to him or anyone else, but I think it's fair to ask if this edit renders Ivanvector involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute." 1. The correct answer is yes and he never alleged tool misuse at all. I believe that he was trying to really find out your status and whether you would be involved if you took admin action. You accused him of "trying to stir up shit". He clarified, "Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less." Your reply was "No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all." That is an allegation without evidence as he never accused you of administrative misconduct and I do think that he has a valid point about "weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved." But to answer your question, "Even if I had (taken any administrative actions), going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter?" Then that would most certainly be tool abuse.
• Comments are allowed by all editors here but they should be given appropriate weight. This should be decided based on the neutral parties. Not looking to make an case of this, but you need to realize that you are indeed involved in the dispute and are not being impartial. Someone came here because they needed to report something and you have involved yourself in the content matter which isn't something that I've seen from the other admins in this thread. I don't think that your !voting is made by an impartial admin in this case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  How can an editor be in a content dispute if they never communicate and never revert? How can an admin be involved in a content dispute if there is no content dispute to begin with? Leviv ich 02:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• You would be arguing with him because in his own words, "Then maybe don't start tossing around accusations of administrative misconduct in a content dispute" 2.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, now who's wikilawyering, Berean? :-) Leviv ich 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just countering the goofiness.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when does WP:INVOLVED forbid administrators from commenting on editorial disputes and suggesting or commenting on proposed courses of action? I'll answer for you, to save you the "goofiness": it doesn't. If I wrote the fucking category myself and tagged every page in the fucking encyclopedia with it, those actions would not bar me from commenting on another editor's issue with the category. It is not tool abuse to comment. It isn't. It's "goofy" that you believe it is.

Calling out my supposed involvement here has nothing to do with an impartial review of the reported matter, it's plainly meant to have a chilling effect. If I had made an administrative action or suggested that I was going to, then calling my status into question would have been completely valid. But pulling it out of nowhere just to tell other editors that my comment should be disregarded is plainly an ad hominem meant to cast doubt on my ability to comment, based on my userrights and having nothing to do with the substance of my comments. It's plainly a personal attack, and I'm annoyed that you keep repeating it. If editors can use INVOLVED to scare off any admin that makes a comment they don't like, we have a problem. That is clearly not the policy's purpose. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The "goofiness" is in reference to Levi's wikilawyering that there isn't a content dispute, among other things below that had nothing to do with you. I never said that it was tool abuse to comment, "Comments are allowed by all editors here but they should be given appropriate weight." I have made no personal attacks. You seem to be equating that INVOLVED must equal an allegation of wrongdoing which is incorrect. And your involvement runs deeper than the one edit. I imagine that it would be confusing of R2 to report a matter here and think he is getting an impartial admin review. You didn't give that. "I'm not the one who made a bad-faith accusation in this section." 3 but yes, you did when you said "Why the push to whitewash those articles now?" 4 which set the tone between you and R2 and others which is casting aspersions by questioning their motives. Another admin has told you that "...it would be helpful if you could stop attributing motivations to other editors." 5 but you still haven't stopped.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You started out this sub-thread with a suggestion that I shouldn't comment here because someone else suggested I was involved. Your "should be given appropriate weight" comment, directed to my response, suggests that other editors should view my comments as inferior, that they should be ignored, because I happen to have not agreed that one instance of apparently incompetent miscategorization ought to lead immediately to a site ban for a 13-year veteran with no prior blocks, and that I gave my opinion that the mischaracterized categorizations from last November were not relevant to the issue at hand (they were revealed correct with minimal investigation, they do not indicate a pattern, and so on). I agreed that lack of communication is an issue and one often met with blocks, although Levivich has aptly observed that other editors made only cursory attempts to communicate with Ck4829 over this particular incident before reporting it here. I suggested a different sanction, even, intended to address the core complaint (of poor application of categories) following the user's not-really-fantastic reply less than an hour after Levivich reached out. I've also tried to work with editors in the original main thread to resolve the issues with BLP violations in the category: I suggested renaming and refocusing, I reviewed and reverted a number of the articles myself, and I suggested that anyone interested should continue discussing it on the category's talk page, before Fram mass-removed the category (which was the right thing to do, in case anyone's going to come after me for attacking Fram next). I like to think that my approach to solving problems is more nuanced than just pointing fingers at who should be blocked and for how long, and that's what I tried to do here; if your view of that is that it makes me involved then so be it, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it. This isn't a topic I have any interest in throwing myself into, but neither am I going away because some editors insist I'm up to no good. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose sanction without warning – If you look at User talk:Ck4829, there was a level one template warning given for one particular page 21:43 17 March, and a half hour later, 22:18 17 March, an ANI notice. The editor did not edit in that half hour. The prior warning was five months ago in October. The editor made many edits between October and March that apparently nobody complained about, at least not on their talk page. It's unfair to sanction an editor without giving them a warning first and a chance to actually respond to that warning. Leviv ich 21:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ...he picked right back up and started the same thing at "23:03, March 17" 1 totally ignoring the messages that three different editors left him. Ymblanter's block was because the guy intentionally ignored communications and you have made a ridiculous argument. He admitted it and here you are wikilawyering an untenable position. He was given warnings that he chose to ignore.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

    Berean Hunter, what messages that three different editors left him are you referring to? Before this ANI was filed, there was one message, and it did not say "don't add more categories". The ANI notice doesn't say that (nor does it say, "come to ANI and talk to us"). Nobody at any point left any messages on his talk page asking to stop doing anything, or asking him to join a conversation, or asking him anything. When I posted a message, I got a response in minutes. Can you post a diff of a message that he "ignored"? I have no idea what editors are referring to when they accuse this editor of a communication problem. He was taken to ANI and blocked before anyone even said hello. Leviv ich 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Sure it does. From the very first message, "please stop adding POV categories to pages." 1.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That level one template message was left at 21:43 17 March. They added Category:White nationalist terrorism to the following pages after that, before their block:Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, 16th St. For which of these pages is "White nationalism terrorism" a "POV category"? Do you disagree about that categorization for any of those pages? (Spoiler alert: On the Duluth talk page, you'll see I posted sources supporting that categorization, like the New York Times, a peer-reviewed journal, and a book from a university publisher, so I guess that makes me involved, too.) Leviv ich 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I'm not getting into the content dispute and second, you did not address where I just flatly proved you wrong. Can Leviv admit they were wrong about the first message where you said, "Nobody at any point left any messages on his talk page asking to stop doing anything".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That message was posted 30 minutes before the ANI was posted (I'm running out of ways to emphasize that), and they did not edit between the posting of that message and the posting of the ANI (as I said above). After the ANI was posted, their categorizations weren't POV (I posted the diffs above, twice). Leviv ich 03:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So, no Levi can't admit when he is wrong. You wrote "Before this ANI was filed, there was one message, and it did not say "don't add more categories"." but clearly it does and your arguments fell apart. No one is going to believe your arguments because they lack credibility.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Berean, the one message said "please don't add more POV categories", and he didn't add any categories between the message and the ANI post, so what justifies the ANI post in the first place? And, he didn't add any "POV categories" after the ANI post, so why the block? I guess since "POV" has no real meaning in the phrase "POV category", yes, technically someone did tell him to stop adding categories before the ANI was filed, so I was wrong earlier when I said that template didn't say that. I don't think that really undercuts anything about how this editor was given no warning before being taken to ANI (since they didn't edit in the half hour between the level one template and the ANI post), but I'm happy to leave it there. Leviv ich 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef, per Berean Hunter. Besides, anything less would send a very bad signal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. Sure, that message looks really bad out of context, but reading the entire post does not suggest to me an editor who needs to be hit with the fullest possible force of the banhammer or anything remotely close. It looks clear to me that the editor does not understand the special idiomatic use of the term "disruptive" in our community and was not trying to express that they were trying to disrupt our processes, but rather were trying to "disrupt" in the sense that an activist might use it--now, the user clearly needs to be educated as to the fact that the one can become the other in a hurry and that activism itself is often incompatible with good editing--and vitally, engaging with the concerns of other editors is a must when they feel you have crossed the line on appropriate editing. They should be made aware that "as quickly as possible" is close to a complete inversion of the approach we favour here. But far from convincing me that this user is so disruptive that they cannot be allowed to continue to contribute, their talk page message actually openly contemplates that their are reasonable limits to what content should be added, and that they understand their edits may have crossed that line.

So the real issue here is that they need to learn to become more engaged with both the consensus process and responding to concerns. I think that can be effectuated in this case well short of an indef--or at least that we can afford to start with WP:ROPE in that respect. If the propensity for adding the same kind of problematic edit and refusing to engage in discussion persists, then I think we are starting to look at a long-term sanction, but I don't think we're there yet. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If they have competency issues that is their own fault as they never responded to any messages where it could be discussed. It isn't because other editors haven't tried repeatedly. They have over 2400 edits and they are a 2005 account that ignored warnings and didn't communicate until they were blocked. He has said that he isn't appealing but I believe that we have the right to get assurances that it won't happen again and he hasn't given us that. Keep him blocked until he does. Indef doesn't mean forever and he is the one that can do something about that...but none of you can.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is because editors haven't tried repeatedly. Diffs or it didn't happen. I posted the timeline above: there was a message in October, and then a level 1 template in March, and 30 minutes later they're at ANI. I hate peppering this thread but you're kind of stretching the facts IMO. Leviv ich 02:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You got it wrong and most everything else, too. I posted the correct diff above.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So you said It isn't because other editors haven't tried repeatedly. and as evidence you post a diff of a message 30 minutes before the ANI was posted and you call that support? The last talk page message before that diff you posted was in October. That's why I said what you said wasn't factual. Leviv ich 03:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I was answering to the longer wiki career and the other warnings that admins and editors had left for a very long time. The one diff was to refute what you had written in a different post. They are not the same. Two different posts and you have mixed things up again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

They edited between October and March, adding a bunch of categories and nobody complained. Then there was a level one template, and after 30 minutes in which they did not edit, an ANI post. Then they added Category:White nationalist terrorism to Tulsa, Woodward, Duluth, Soweto, Overland, and 16th St, and were blocked, and now you think they should be indef'd. Are you disagreeing with the facts as I've laid them out in this post? Leviv ich 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think they should be indeffed until we get our assurances. ROPE comes after.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you just say ROPE comes after an indef? :-D Leviv ich 04:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it is usually done. See ROPE...particularly When not to use: "If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many of these edits are to BLPs, where we must have definite cast iron sourcing before we class people as White Supremacist Terrorists (or involved in White Supremacist Terrorism). The editor does not seem to express any understanding of the vital need for such sourcing. They should remain blocked until they make it clear they understand the requirements for BLPs (and probably should be topic banned from categorisation even if they are unblocked).Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. Seems like the categories were being wielded as a weapon to serve a greater cause. I can sympathize with that, but applying a contentious category to a BLP should be done thoughtfully and with consensus. Extended failure to communicate isn't something to encourage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree extended failure to communicate isn't something to encourage, but when I posted a message to their talk page today, I got an answer within minutes, and I think I'm the only one who has really tried to reach out to this editor, ever, so I don't see an extended failure to communicate. Leviv ich 02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Shortcuts

• Support indef This editor is clearly gaming wikipedia by adding completely POV catagories, hoping they will go unnoticed - the user is simply attaching them to anyone with far-right views and has been doing so for years. Of the pages I watch that the editor added this category to, only one actually covered a subject that has been involved in terrorism of any kind. (For the record, I utterly despise Neo-Nazis and White supremacists with every fiber of my being, I think they are the scum of the earth, not that it matters, wikipedia is not a place for me to hate on fascists, it's meant to be an encyclopedia - I only mention this because I don't want to be called an apologist for nazism for simply expecting the user to not game wikipedia with POV catagories). The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, it's deliberate and ongoing POV vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban from categorization This is a BLP issue, but he hadn't been warned, so he didn't know this was a problem until now. Maybe a few months will help. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that the user engaged in WP:BLP violations, having unilaterally imposed contentious labels in inappropriate circumstances, via categorization. The primary defense seems to be that some of the labels were retroactively justified, but if there are any BLP violations, which there are, then good edits are not a defense, because editorial/opinion-based judgment casting from Wikipedia editors is not a valid reason to violate WP:TERRORIST. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef. I stand by what I've said here up to this point, but this edit from today, after being blocked for this, shows an incredible willingness to ignore community advice, as well as incompetence (as in lack of understanding of how categories work). If they successfully appeal their block in the future, then they should be topic banned from categorization. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahem - [32]. I don't suppose there are any uninvolved admins watching this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Alexandre Bissonnette is a white nationalist terrorist, and his attack, Quebec City mosque shooting is an example of white nationalist terrorism. It says so in our article, and also The Atlantic, NYTimes, WaPo, CBC. White terrorism also seems like an appropriate page for the category? I'm curious because I would have added those same pages to that category myself–that would have been wrong? Is it because he's adding categories to redirects? Leviv ich 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: there are a number of problems. Most importantly is that they're continuing to place the category after this discussion should have been an indication to knock it off. But also: adding the "white nationalist terrorism" category to the "white terrorism" category is backwards, it's putting a parent category inside what should be a subcategory. White terrorism is not a subset of white nationalist terrorism, it should be the other way around. It's like standing on top of an umbrella and expecting to stay dry: it doesn't work. That was one of the complaints raised in this thread, that Ck4829 doesn't understand how categories work and is just tagging things blindly. As for Bissonnette, yes, it's inappropriate to categorize that way, because potentially defamatory information about living persons is required to be referenced where it appears, and besides, there is not universal agreement that Bissonnette should be described as a terrorist. Lots of outlets have repeated it, and it's probably valid, but our article also spells out that he was not charged with a terrorism-related crime, so this is a subjective value-laden label. And besides that, the page that the Bissonnette redirect redirects to is not a member of that category. If the category should be anywhere, it's there. The real issue is that it should be discussed, but Ck4829 is just continuing the same behaviour that they were blocked for just a few days ago. And even though you reached out and did get a response, they obviously haven't actually heard anything, or they don't care. This is indef territory either way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To prevent the topic from being arxived--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef I was trying to avoid "voting", but if we're still waiting for a clearer message, then yes they should be blocked for the BLP violations and the extremely bad-faith reaction "I meant to disrupt" to it. Similar to the WP:CIR concerns mentioned above, they've just added a sub-category as a category for the main topic[33] (Donald Trump isn't a Trump administration controversy). So I don't think they currently have the competence required for mass categorizations, which is bad since that's really the only thing they are doing, and then there's the disruption and attitude part. Obviously they could be unblocked if they demonstrate they can communicate with others, understand cateogorization better and drop the "I meant to disrupt". --Pudeo (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, The user continues adding inappropriate categories without discussion and apparently does not care about this topic. I was considering blocking them indef for some time, and decided not to, since I have blocked them for the first time and posted in this thread defending my actions, so that some users could consider me involved. However, this just can not continue, and also the additions of categories by this user need to be rolled back.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, you reverted the editor's addition of Category:Nationalist terrorism to the article Christopher Paul Hasson with the edit summary "no evidence in the article". But that article already says he is (1) a white nationalist, and (2) a terrorist. It is sourced to some 30-some-odd references that describe him that way. The article is already in the categories Category:American white nationalists, Category:Terrorism in the United States, and Category:White nationalism in the United States. I believe the mistake is that the editor should have added the subcategory Category:White nationalist terrorism ("WNT") instead of the parent category Category:Nationalist terrorism ("NT"), but then that WNT subcategory had been previously added by the editor and was rolled back. So, I re-added the WNT category. If the editor gets indef'd for lack of communication, that happens, but "no evidence in the article" doesn't strike me as accurate, and I don't think this particular categorization is an example of any kind of POV-type issue. (Lack of communication being a separate issue.) Leviv ich 17:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  If a category Category:Nationalist terrorism is added to the article, the article at this point must say that the subject has to do something related to Nationalist terrorism. If our only evidence is a combination of categories, this is original research, an in relation to BLP articles also BLP violations. Strategy "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles" is absolutely unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable if we are talking about BLP articles (the main interest of this user). So far, they had enough chances (were given enough rope) to listen to this to know better.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with what you wrote. What I'm saying is that Christopher Paul Hasson meets the criteria as you describe it, without it being OR. The article already says he is a white nationalist terrorist. There are 30-something references supporting that. Here is one example, The Washington Post headline "... A self-proclaimed white nationalist planned a mass terrorist attack, the government says". I think the editor's addition of the category was OK, not an example of "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles", but an example of a correct application of Category:White nationalist terrorism. Leviv ich 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Before writing what I have written (and in fact before removing the cat) I checked all occurences of "terr" regexp in the article. None of those was coming in a combination "nationalist terrorist" or similar. Whereas the guy can likely be a nationalist terrorist, and whereas it might be possible to justify this point of view by checking the sources which are in the article (as you have done), this information must be present in the article before the category has been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  Another reminder to prevent automatic arxivation--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

There's a lot of discussion here about sanctions, but meanwhile we have hundreds of miscategorizations, including BLP violations. (Isn't that the more pressing issue?) I propose a rollback of all of Ck4829's additions to Category:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 06:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The category has been removed everywhere. Fram (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm not sure if you're saying that you removed it, but if so, you missed redirects and other categories where it's still in use. I presume you'll correct that (I'm apparently not allowed) but also I have a question. Would you entertain a discussion on proper use of the category and/or renaming/refining its scope, or is removing it from all pages an indication that it should not be used anywhere? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the actual existence of the cat, and no objection to people using it as any other cat (under BLP rules and the like). The reversion (which I'll complete, thanks, my AWB option was too restrictive) is about the way it was added here, in an indiscriminate (or way too braod and problematic) manner, for a category that is obviously controversial if used incorrectly. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

{@Ivanvector and Fram: I'm pedantic, so for me, putting "symbols" and vague "rhetoric" and people who he decides (not sources) are "cheerleaders" into a "coat rack category" is not the proper course of action. Instead of making categories for "WNT in [country]", he messed up the format by putting the one into several country categories.

If I wasn't so busy, I might consider populating the main category exclusively using "events"/"attacks" (confirmed by sources, of course), and groups (that have been confirmed by sources). With lynching, you could probably make the KKK crimes category a subcat. We should also sort the events by country and put them into a "WNT in country" cat that fits. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Category is now truly empty. Fram (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Fram, I'm confused about what happens from here. May I boldly add that category back to pages (including some which you removed them from), or was you rollback a reversion in the BRD process, such that you and I must now discuss 100+ pages and whether they fit into that category? Leviv ich 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I would go with it being more or less a reversion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If you decide to add this back, it should only be added to articles where reliable sources explicitly label it as white nationalist terrorism. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been planning to suggest renaming the category to "White nationalist violence" (or just starting over with a new category) because "terrorist" is a fraught label, and that is at least a significant issue with the original complaint. I don't think most people would object to most articles in the former set being described as "violence". But it's also true that whether the category is "terrorism" or "violence", it's probably better off as a parent category for things like KKK crimes and lynchings and nationalist-driven racial violence, rather than being populated with specific incidents. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My view is there are multiple potential categories here: (1) White nationalist violence/(2) White nationalist terrorism are subcategories of (3) Racial violence and (4) Racial terrorism. "Racial terrorism" is the term I've seen used the most to describe things like Lynching in the United States (check the article, it's in there, sourced) and Klu Klux Klan. Some examples: The Smithsonian: Inspired by the film Birth of a Nation, they burned a cross and swore their loyalty to the Klan, ushering in a new era of white nationalist terrorism. [34]; The New York Times Editorial Board: "Lynching as Racial Terrorism"; The Washington Post: "‘Lynch him!’: New lynching memorial confronts the nation’s brutal history of racial terrorism"; The Nation, in a piece entitled, "On White Identity Politics and American Terrorism": The Brooklyn Museum mounted an exhibit on white racial terrorism this summer. It draws on research done by the Equal Justice Initiative, documenting 4,425 lynchings of black people by white mobs between 1877 and 1950. Another term used in the literature is simply "white terrorism" (because that's what it is, as opposed to "Islamic terrorism"), but I'm not even gonna try and propose that one cuz people will go apeshit. Leviv ich 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

We have already Category:White nationalism. I do not think we need anything else. That was good rollback. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Precedent for "white terrorism" is here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This particular subdiscussion should probably continue at Category talk:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Which editors are watching an esoteric category talk page, exactly? ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Most likely everyone who has commented here, at least. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so. It's just that I genuinely don't think I've ever even seen a link to a Category talk space, ever. I, personally, would never even have considered checking out the talk page. It's never crossed my mind that people actually use Category talk pages. I did not mean to be rude, R2's idea just genuinely struck me as absurd. In fairness, I have never been involved with Cat meta-maintenance. If my response was rooted in ignorance, I apologize. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It was my suggestion, really, but way up the thread, and I didn't interpret your comment as rude. It's a good point. My logic is: here's not the right place for content discussions, so might as well use the page-in-question's talk page. Category talks are quite rare, but not unheard of. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. I'm not a category person either, but it seems that if there's a discussion to be had about a specific category's scope or inclusion criteria, that discussion would live most appropriately on the category's talk page. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mnpie1789

User:Mnpie1789 has repeatedly made edits at the Bobby Beausoleil article, with the clear aim of seeking to present the (living) article subject as an artist who is incarcerated, rather than as a notable murderer who has artistic interests. The edits started in December 2016 and have continued ever since, in some cases adding poorly-sourced material and, more recently, blatantly edit warring to impose their wording, particularly in the opening paragraphs. The issue has been raised at Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation", and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil, with a clear consensus among other editors that some form of action needs to be taken against the user concerned. To date, they have given no indication that they will edit according to community consensus or guidelines. As a (largely) single purpose account, is it the view here that some action should be taken against that editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and reverted the last edits the user made, shortly before you filed this. A quick look at Mnpie1789's edit count shows the degree of interest he has in this article's subject and how little in anything else. While his editing is problematic in the apparent desire to present Beausoleil in the best possible light, i would like to see something from him indicating his understanding of the issue and intent to correct it; only if that is not forthcoming ~ or the behaviour continues ~ would i hold the view that action should be taken. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 00:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Every effort has been made to resolve editing conflicts with this user Ghmyrtle and other editors, in comments when doing revisions and discussions at Talk:Bobby Beausoleil#Dispute over "occupation" and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Bobby Beausoleil.

As I have said multiple times before to these editors, no attempt is being made to leave any of the negative aspects out of reporting. I am attempting to give a balanced view since, Beausolell has made significant contributions in the creative arts both prior to and during incarceration. It is well documented that Beausoleil began playing music professionally at age 17. He played with Arthur Lee’s Love when it was called the Grass Roots. He formed the Orkustra in 1966 which became The Diggers’ house band. Due to one of his Orkustra performances, Kenneth Anger wanted him to be in his next film, Lucifer Rising. Beausoleil agreed to it only if he was allowed to do the soundtrack. When things fell through and a short time later, Beausoleil was convicted of first degree murder of Gary Hinman, Anger got back in touch and had him create the soundtrack for Lucifer Rising (after scrapping Jimmy Page’s score for it). This soundtrack has also been used in several other movies by such filmmakers as Gasper Noe (Love) and Chris Moukarbel (who most notably included parts in his recent documentary about Lady Gaga). In addition to this album that he created in prison in the late 1970s (a feat pretty much unheard of then), he has composed and released 8 others which are all in worldwide distribution. He has been also been creating art since the 80s with a gallery show in 2005 in California (at Clair Obscura) which is referenced on his page (using a parole transcript that another editor left up and one that I have attempted to remove due to the editors/Wikipedia guidelines saying anything court related is not allowed) and one in 2015 at the Contemporary Art Tasmania in Australia.

Since there were issues with me using blogs and his personal website that have lots of well referenced articles on it, I have no problem getting rid of those and putting the actual referenced book/article/interview, etc. In an effort to fix this, my latest revisions reflected that...but they have now been reverted back to the narrative style that the editors had such an issue with and wanted changed immediately.

While I understand that some editors have issues with anyone who has been associated with Charles Manson, this cannot be what guides factual reporting. There is no dispute that Beasoleil murdered a man. It was a savage crime that he has been incarcerated 50 years for. However, Beausoleil is also a respected musician and artist with a modest following of fans around the world.

It is clear that the reverting the other editors have done this is an attempt to vilify Beausoleil. The comments in both sections of Talk and Biographies of Living Persons well as the reverted edits, have said that if anything his occupation is prisoner, that he is primarily notable as a murder, and how he is a very minor and probably non-notable musician and artist. The Wikipedia guidelines for living subjects clearly specify that information reporting on a subject should be balanced and not be used to push a particular agenda. I have clearly stated in the discussions with other editors that my purpose is to make the article balanced by including the positive aspects of the subject’s life without removing or significantly editing the information in the article referencing the crime he committed fifty years ago. This editor maintains the position that this is consistent with the Wikipedia parameters for living subjects. Mnpie1789 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

These comments essentially repeat those made previously by this editor, and it seems to me that they fail to identify or resolve the matters of concern. The fundamental issue is one of judgement and balance, but I have not seen any other editor sharing the view that the edits made by Mnpie1789 meet the criteria in WP:BLP and MOS:OPENPARABIO for a balanced approach. No-one is trying to unduly "vilify Beausoleil", but the fact that he is notable as a murderer rather than as an artist needs to be accepted. In my view the article lead must focus on the reasons for the subject's notability - that is, as a murderer rather than as an artist (as in the current version) - and the citations derived from the subject's own site should be removed (or, at the very least, minimised) along with the material they support (currently at least 19 of the 49 references derive from that personal website). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page [35] suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD [36]. There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question [37]. as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever.[38] and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process [39] Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" [40], calling other users who are interested in portals as biased [41], and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not of fan of Legacypac's conduct by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand why other users are frustrated. Nevertheless, it was absolutely inappropriate for OhanaUnited to use the term 'xenophic' in this context. Such use of the term is insensitive to those who experience real xenophobia and is a plainly wrong representation of what Legacypac actually said. That much should be made very clear. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time [42] so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Barb is aimed straight at ya'

EEng

Yeah, I believe that barb was aimed at me. Perhaps the aimer can clarify where I ever advocated such a thing, or, you never know, just apologise. Sheesh. -- Begoon 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "aimer" you are referring to me, then I don't see a need to apologise for stating something which is true: You desire to see portals deleted without regard to quality. Portals contain content (that it is republished content is the whole point of portals). Some portals you wish to see deleted contain content that is bad and/or badly organised, some portals contain content that is good and/or well organised (and others contain content that is between the two, it's not black and white). Therefore what you desire is the deletion of both good and bad content. You are perfectly entitled to have this opinion, but those of us who do not share that opinion are not being disruptive simply by disagreeing with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced pages

I recently rewrote[43] the article "Mirza Khizr Sultan" due to it being almost entirely unsourced and barely comprehensible.[44] User:Nafeessiddique, who had previously contributed to the article, quickly restored their own, unsourced content under the sub-headings "Family" and "Ancestors" (since corrected to "Descendants").[45] I asked them on their Talk Page if they could provide references for their additions,[46] and when they did not respond, I reverted.[47] They then restored their content, and responded on their Talk Page that if I wanted sources, I should "go To Rampur Raza library or Istanbul Museum" to prove it for myself.[48] They followed by complaning that "the deep state" was trying to restrict information [49] (these responses were written under separate sub-headings).

They have since created two more, closely related articles in the same vein, with the two references between them not actually mentioning the subjects.[50][51] I have not been able to find any coverage of either of these individuals and I don't think they can be considered notable, even if they did exist.

Also note that the content they added went far beyond the scope of the article, including descendents born all the way up to the 1990s. The fact that Nafeessiddique mentioned that their "jewellery" was all the historical evidence they need for their content,[52] leads me to believe that they are basing their info off their own family traditions and family members, possibly posing a conflict of interest. They have since stopped responding in the Talk Page, ignoring my continued requests for sources.[53]
Alivardi (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted them, given them a 3RR warning and pointed out that Royalark.net isn't a RS (discussed at RSN). They don't seem competent, eg this comment by them on their talk page: "I know that you want to be create a environment regarding Great Empires of the world if you don't want to give correct information for the people then we don't need to go Sach type of one sided world in which everything information according to Deep state who is ruling the real world just like they did in past during University of Qurtba every documents Steeled and then a rule passed by Government that everyone should go to patent his discovery in the Royal Scientific Society . So Don't worry we have historical evidence of documentation .. which is our Jewelry.." Huh? Doug Weller talk 12:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Muhammad Khanbahadur which bundles both new articles. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I might have overreacted since I thought that too many Categories, which seems rather random to me, could escalate too quickly. But I assume we can find a solution on the main-talk page. Thanks--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Evlekis: extension of range blocks and removal of TPA requested

• 46.233.78.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (Telefonica O2 UK; apparently Evlekis's home range)
• 94.119.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (The Cloud Networks open WiFi)
• @Boing! said Zebedee, NinjaRobotPirate, and Edgar181: Both of the ranges above are currently rangeblocked (the first one CU-blocked and the second one blocked for masive vandalism), with blocks that will soon expire (the first range three days from now, the second one on 3 April), blocks that prevent Evlekis from using the ranges for vandalism, but doesn't prevent him from spewing crap on talk pages of various IPs in those ranges (see recent contributions from the two ranges), so I'm requesting long extensions of their current blocks, to prevent them being used for vandalism (since Evlekis obviously is still using them, and is showing no intention of ever stopping...), and removal of TPA for the whole ranges, to stop Evlekis from posting abuse, and wasting other editors' time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: please don't reply to threads like this saying something is done when you haven't done it. I'll take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding my own comment, the blocks were extended by another admin. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Lucifer article and categories (including Sub-Categories)

I consulted the Users talkpage regarding my objections, but the User just didn't get my point. Therefore, I am posting here. (It is the first time for me, since all disputes before could be handled on a talkpage. But the user here is making several questional edits in a short time). It is about Category:Lucifer and the sub-categories in general nad not only about different versions of one article (for that reason I do not use diffs but only links to the articles and categories). Since there are several issues I would make a list:

• I stated that Lucifer (the fallen angel or Satan in Christianity) has no official offspring. The sub-category Category:Offspring of Lucifer‎ is undue.
• Further, I objected the category itself, since we already have a Category:Satan. Both would be just Content fork.
• On talkpage he answers that this category is not intented to be abuot the fallen angel Lucifer but about the Greek deity Phosphorus (morning star). Both are, although both derive from an interpretation of the Planet Venus, distinct figures. Simultaneously, he added Category Lucifer to several other Categories, which are not related to the Greek deity Phosphorus in any way, such as Bogomilism (In Bogomilism, Lucifer is only a demiurge not related to the phosphorus legend in any way, but is only Lucifer in the sense of Satan. Further he also added his new Category to Category:Fallen angels and Category:Satan, thus the Category covers two distinct ideas and merges them together.
• I further suspect Original research, sinc creating a genealogy between a Planet, considered as a deity, who literally begets children, absent in later myths, which derives from this, could be a conclusion by the User himself/herself. As stated above, I tried to talk to the User, but the User only offered me sources, which do not even support his claims.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Largely irrelevant. The article Lucifer is not about Satan, but the mythological god/figure from Greek and Roman religion. As the article already states:
• In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch. The Greek name for this planet was variously Phosphoros (also meaning "light-bringer") or Heosphoros (meaning "dawn-bringer"). Lucifer was said to be "the fabled son of Aurora and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.
• The second century Roman mythographer Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:

"The fourth star is that of Venus, Luciferus by name. Some say it is Juno's. In many tales it is recorded that it is called Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Luciferus and Hesperus."

• Ovid, in his first century epic Metamorphoses, describes Lucifer as ordering the heavens:

"Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae took flight, in marshaled order set by Lucifer who left his station last."

• "In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths, though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."
• Phosphorus (morning star) is not a distinct deity, but the Greek version of the same mythological figure, the son of Eos/Aurora (mythology).
• VenusFeuerFalle claims OR, despite both the article on Lucifer and his parents and offspring already having sources on the genealogy of this deity. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you both might get better results with a third opinion. @VenusFeuerFalle:, I noticed that several times in your discussion on the Talk page that you said "let an admin decide", but admins don't mediate content disputes. Try the third opinion option, or Dispute Resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Also try the article talk page. The diffs from the article's edit history really don't show that much of a disagreement, just some bluelinks/bible verse links added/removed. Seems to me the disagreement is whether Lucifer and Phosphorus (morning star) are separate entities or not? This is a pure content dispute and as such you need to either get more opinions or go to dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 03:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to call an Admin, since this was recommanded when someone makes several edits, which might be disruptive. It is not only the Lucifer article, but also the Category: Lucifer, there different concepts are merged together. As an ordinary user, I can not revert so many Category edits over and over again. But when I will try the talkpages.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I would recommend admin oversight specific instances, especially in cases of WP:3RR, but I see this so far as a pure and honest content dispute between two experienced editors. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Possible advertising

User:Mmkulu has been kept creating articles about some unknown guy named Muhammad (or Osman) Kulu. He won't stop even after several warnings. Judging from his name, he might even be describing himself or promoting here. Can we do something, such as cooling him down with a short block? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not all, his user page has been deleted several times for "web host". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 12:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

CHecking their edit history, the page they created this morning was the first edit they made at all to Wikipedia since 2015. I'm not sure if a block is warranted yet (though to be honest, I'm surprised it didn't happen years ago). I'll keep an eye out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've creation protected the userpage (repeatedly recreated since 2011) and also Osman Kulu. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

Good move, but remember that this particular user has moved on to different titles for articles whenever the originals got creation protected (or "salted", apparently). Hopefully he learned a lesson this time, but if that happens another time, you may need to consider a block. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 10:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

On the basis that blocks are preventative not punitive, and User:Mmkulu hasn't actively contributed to the project since 2012, I would support an indef block on the basis of WP:NOTHERE / possibly compromised account. WaggersTALK 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Linda Gottfredson

Sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I don't usually edit in contentious areas like this. There's some edit warring going on here, even though the article is under discretionary sanctions. Perhaps somebody experienced in these matters can have a look. (not me, and I'm involved as I have commented on the talk page). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Randy, the correct venue would be WP:AE as there is a violation of WP:DS per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want to make more trips to WP:AE, right after your appeal of a topic ban just barely made it through? The edit warring is mostly by a disruptive anon IP who is an obvious sock puppet (given the topic area). Do you really think it a good idea to enable this person and go running to WP:AE on their behalf? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Actually there's two anon IP addresses being used here, though they geolocate to different places, given the history of Race & Intelligence articles it's not presumption to think it's coordinate. One of the IPs has been indef'd under WP:NONAZIS [54], and the page has been semi-protected).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is [55]. Past IP edit examples: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62].

The motive behind these edits is unclear (anti-Semitic? Zionist?).

These edits from this range are sparse, so a range block would be inappropriate. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that can be done (edit filter maybe?) but figured I should let admins know about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing a person's ethnicity to "Jewish" has at times created a lot of negative feedback. There was an enormous to-do over indicating Bernie Sanders is Jewish back in 2016. But there are different reasons for this reluctance so I, for one, would have to know why the IP editor was insistent over changing this aspect of a bio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "ethnicity" but rather changing what was previously a person's nationality or citizenship to "Jewish" in the lead sentence of a BLP. This is inherently disruptive because it promotes the inference that Jews are not legitimate citizens of the countries where they live and hold legal citizenship. The comparison to the 2016 "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish?" controversy on Wikipedia is not valid. Not one single editor ever advocated that the lead sentence of his biography should be changed from describing him as an American politician to a Jewish politician. In brief, the issue was instead whether an ethnic Jew who is not religiously observant should be described as "Jewish" in the infobox, which implies religious affiliation. That was a far more nuanced and intelligent discussion and completely different from going to articles about Swedish citizens and American citizens, removing their citizenship, and calling them "Jewish" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror yours. It can easily be read as anti semitic. But even if it's not and we agf, it's at least disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir The relevant range is Special:Contributions/185.113.97.195/22, which still has a decent bit of other editing but is much more reasonable to be blocking. Judging by this unsurprising edit on the same IP as some of those edits, I think Liz's question should be answered. Anyhow, I'm testing on Special:AbuseFilter/953 a general filter to track labelling of people as "Jewish" in the lead (since this occurs more often than it reasonably should..). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I see you've blocked 97.195; did you mean to block the range? I've also blocked 98.123 which was making the same edits. Looking through the range's contributions, while there is some productive editing there, I'm not absolutely convinced there's more than one editor behind it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant to block the IP, not the range; the politics related edits are quite possibly the same person but there's enough various editing stretching back years that I think rest is other people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I lack the technical familiarity to evaluate whether the test filter is working, but provided it only provides a list of edits for humans to scrutinize (rather than warning editors not to say "Jewish", of course!) then this is a rare case where an edit filter actually seems warranted. This seems like a classic anti-Semitic focus (compare (((echo)))) and the distortion done to articles, including by the incidental removal of adjectives replaced, is significant. Of course, Wikipedia articles should always welcome sourced information about persons' religion and ethnicity, properly added by human editors. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment on and off the site

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

---

My client has been being harassed both via his wiki page and personally through messages. He enquired with someone he found online to aid in updating his page since it had not been updated in some time and no longer represented his professional work correctly. After deciding to go a different route this user has been sending his aggressive messages, deleting any and all updates to his page (and texting photos as he does it) and creating a profile (again sending messages taking credit) that is a mess and will affect my client's professional image. I believe this person operates using several profiles and needs to be banned from continuing to harass my client on your site. A separate police report has been filed, but that cannot protect him from this online abuse. My client's page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Miller_(cinematographer) and the abuser is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aspening and I believe his other profiles are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melcous and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Turtle_neck_ninja

Please confirm that this will be dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadleyCG (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, starting your ANI report with the revelation that a "police report has been filed" against a Wikipedia editor is not exactly a wise course of action to endear yourself to admins. Please retract your legal threat against Aspening, whom I note you failed to notify of this discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:DenchArnold also your account? Natureium (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google certainly implies that it is.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@HadleyCG: It is unlikely that this will be resolved in the way you wish. You have been making edits to your client's page that violate our policies in at least the following ways:

• You are paid to make them, but you do not make the paid editing declaration required by WP:PAID.
• You have added unsourced information to the biography of a living person, in violation of our policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons.
• You have added information backed by sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source.
• You have now made a legal threat against another editor. Per our policy on legal threats you are free to take legal recourse, but if you do so then you will be blocked from editing here. You have to choose between resolving disputes here or through the legal system.

Given the above, it seems very likely that your account will be blocked shortly, unless you start to comply with our policies. The editors you accuse of harassment are, in fact, just making sure that your client's article complies with our policies. GoldenRing (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):This is pretty much a textbook Orangemoody style scam. Firm notices some spammy editing to an article -> emails target from their info on their (the subject's) official website, claims to be someone in power -> subject/representative jumps to the logical conclusion it's the person reverting (or the scammer says they are that person) -> tries to extort them. Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I see HadleyCG has been blocked, but per WP:DOLT, I'd still like to comment here. I have no worries about User:Aspening and User:Melcous. Nothing about their behavior raises any red flags to me at all, and instead they should be thanked for helping clean up advertising. But I'm a little curious how User:Turtle neck ninja, a declared paid editor with three clients (two of them declared on their user page, one not), has run across the two UPE/COI pages they've "cleaned up" (Dr. Panda and Tony Miller (cinematographer)). The only thing they've done besides spam their clients' articles is identify pages that aren't clients with UPE problems. That seems kind of Orangemoodyish to me. Are we to believe that they happened to stumble across two articles with UPE's who aren't sophisticated enough to hire someone to do it for them? Is this discussion OK here, or should it go to the COI noticeboard? And finally, I notice no one has notified the three accused editors. I'll go do that right after I hit "save". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just commenting to explain my actions since I was mentioned - I reverted the original edits in question on the page mentioned because of some UPE concerns while on routine UAA patrol. As part of UAA patrol, I check the contributions of any user who trips abuse filter 149, which user DenchArnold did, because almost all users who trip that filter are either in violation of the username policy or are editing with a conflict of interest. Quickly realizing that this was the name of a talent agency, I reported DenchArnold to UAA as a promotional username, and they were blocked. Aspening (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• For the record both Tony Miller and Dr. Panda contacted me saying they found my number on a reddit. I told them I only make disclosed paid edits at which point they began threatening me with doxing, cyber attacks and legal action. I always disclose any conflict of interest and I always make sure my clients abide by the policies and guidelines laid out here. I don't like being harassed either or asked to compromise my ethical standards. After I refused to help these people they went ahead and made the edits they wanted me to make so I reverted them, cleaned the pages and tagged the pages incase any other editors wanted to see if there was anything I missed. Turtle neck ninja (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Two separate people asked you to make undisclosed edits for them, and when you said no, instead of just finding someone else, they both threatened you? With doxing, cyber attacks, and legal action? How fucking stupid do you think we are? I am blocking User:Turtle neck ninja indef for attempted undisclosed editing and harassment, and deleting the two pages they created that haven't already been deleted by others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Good block, Floq. The stuff TNN deleted from Dr.Panda article was mostly added back in Jan 2017, almost two years before TNN started editing under this account. So the claim that, After I refused to help these people they went ahead and made the edits they wanted me to make so I reverted them... is provably false. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • floquenbeam I missed TJN being included in the original complaint, but you're right, that is super OM-like. Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like this is close to resolved, but just commenting as I was mentioned, after being notified by Floquenbeam - thanks, as I was unaware of this discussion previously. My edits were initially to revert the COI editor User:Tonymillerdp in 2016 after self promotional phrases were added. It then came up on my watch list this year and I reverted User:HadleyCG's unexplained removal of the COI template and addition of external links. I've had no contact on or off wiki with anyone about it other than that. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• ArbCom was already aware of this and we have private evidence that should be taken into account in any appeal. I've therefore taken over Turtle neck ninja's block as an {{ArbComBlock}}. – Joe (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[63]

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes [my] true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Wikipedia, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Wikipedia for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

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

---

A article published by the Huffington Post has revealed that wikipedia editor BC1278 was paid by Axios and NBC to whitewash the Wikipedia article on Axios. This should not be taken lightly because whitewashing is a form of censorship according to our own article on the topic. I even found an over promotional sentence in the lede of the article, which I've now removed, which said, "Axios articles are known for their brevity, clear structure, and frequent use of bullet points." I understand that the user has disclosed their paid editing on the talk page of the article, but that does not make their whitewashing acceptable. Correct me if I've gotten anything wrong and feel free to share your thoughts in the replies. X-Editor (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

🤬 It's abuse like this that may very well contribute to changing the anonymity aspect of WP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

X-Editor and Atsme There was already a thorough AN investigation of the article here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing The HuffPo story and allegations were thoroughly discredited after an in-depth review. I am confident HuffPo will eventually be forced to retract that entire article. I say this as a journalist and editor of 25 years who has worked at some of the best known publications in the world, like The Wall Street Journal. I know how difficult it is to get a publication to retract an entire article and issue an apology. But I feel confident it will happen here. As to Axios (website), I did not write the language you described. This article was created by someone else, and then I came along and suggested extensive changes on the Talk page. You can see that the lead I proposed for the revised draft did not have that language: Talk:Axios_(website)#Expansion_of_article. But the reviewing volunteer editor, and other editors who came before and after, get to make the decisions about what goes in the article, not me. I can only make suggestions. It also just so happens the specific sentence you removed was already under discussion, with a Request Edit by me and a new source, Talk:Axios_(website)#Request_Edit to make it far more neutral. As you'll see if you want to follow look further, I always propose changes to articles on the Talk page, for review and approval, through volunteer editors. As an aside, I do not work anonymously. My real name and company name are on my user page. And I think it would be a great reform if Wikipedia eliminated anonymous editing. Undisclosed COI and agenda editing is the big problem here. BC1278 (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@BC1278: I apologize for the misunderstanding and I now hope the HuffPost retracts the article. X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that discussion is still open, so this case should be redirected to it so we don't have 2 different discussions going on at the same time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the AN investigation has not yet been thorough, as it is still open, nor were the HuffPo story and allegations ... thoroughly discredited after an in-depth review. While the Huff-Po piece was certainly exaggerated and overblown, it seems unlikely that they will retract the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Identity Evropa

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

---

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Edit war going on. I had trouble figuring out what the stable version was. Could somebody please take a look? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a bunch of 50-edit socks obstructing editing. People shouldn't be able to throw a monkey wrench into a consensus by recruiting a couple of buddies to show up and masquerade as independent voices. I've reverted to what I consider the consensus version, based on discussion by legit editors on the talk page. More eyes, and admins willing to block obvious obstructionist socks, encouraged. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be NPOV issues on the page, and who are legit editors? Based on the original edits, one user in the edit war claims to have radical political positions on their user page - who is to say they do not have an axe to grind? If due weight is being requested then I'm not really sure why that's so difficult to consider - numerous users have raised NPOV concerns throughout the talk history, but are shut down rather quickly by the same group of editors. SheepDirectory (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

30 seconds of looking at your contributions tells me that you are not one of the "legit" editors. Good try with your trying to smear a legitimate editor with your false equivalency question, though! No one is going to buy it, unfortunately.--Jorm (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this page for coordinated personal attacks or for discussing the content of the dispute? Obie Kenobi139 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not coordinated with anyone. You seem to be disregarding my contributions based on "illegitimacy" by implication that I am in some sort of coordinated attack merely because I do not have the edit history of Greyfell, Doug Weller, etc. More experienced editors may even be more likely to engage in such conspiracies because they actually spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. Not to mention that some of these editors with large edit counts do claim to possess radical political positions on their user page and spend a lot of time editing political pages of people they obviously disagree with strongly. Given all these baseless conspiratorial accusations, simply put, I want my arguments to be dealt with honestly and with reference to NPOV, RS, cherrypicking, assumption of good faith, etc. We can sit here and accuse each other of things all day, or we can just deal with the merits of each other's arguments. I have now been interrogated and my motives questioned by numerous people, all without merit, all without evidence, simply for requesting a neutral point of view. Large edit counts do not give editors free reign to do as they wish and flagrantly ignore the rules and the arguments of people offering legitimate criticisms."SamSamuel11 (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• This article may be a good candidate for 30/500 protection.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Concur. Put this article under permanent ECP would be necessary. Recently leaked chat logs showed this neo-Nazi group has a "Wiki Project" dedicated to whitewash their coverage on this article, with one Nazi suggesting The issue is that if we have 5+ accounts that are brand new vouching for my arguments then its gonna look suspicious and admins may be less inclined to make the changes I have suggested and another replying We all should start editing on Wikipedia and beef up our accounts. Their edit campaign last summer fell apart after one of them kept "[shedding] some light on an inconvenient truth" by adding "XX is a Jew" onto various BLPs.

SamSamuel11, Student4N, and SheepDirectory all have just over 50 edits with the latter two registered like last week. They all appeared roughly around the same time on the Identity Evropa article, with SamSamuel11 edit warring and sealioning hard on the talk page and SheepDirectory being unusually excelled at Wikipedia skills and gadgets for a brand new editor. These may be block evasions. We definitely need administrators' eyes on that page and these "new" editors. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at his user page and past contributions Tsumikiria is one of the people with a high edit count who blatantly have strong ideological opposition to the organizations involved and spends the vast majority of his time editing ideological opponents. He openly identifies as Antifa on his user page and his most recent edits are on the pages of as follows: Josip Broz Tito, Identity Evropa, Al Noor Mosque, Christchurch, Gab (social network), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Jacob Wohl. Right down the line, he is engaged in radical political disputes and nothing else. S/he is clearly not respecting NPOV. Clearly an activist editor.SamSamuel11 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the invocation of 30/500 protection would be prudent on this article. It will be an ongoing issue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You and your friends seemed to be desperate to get me removed from this article. What's so wrong about an antifascist movement? Serious question. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

...but not one to be continued on ANI. That is more suitable on other talk pages.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Protected at ECP level. This is a good example of when semi-protection is ineffective. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Watch32619

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

---

This user is clearly a sock of someone. Some of their first edits are to tag themself as a checkuser [70] and copy Bbb23's talk page to their talk page [71]. Home Lander (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Berean Hunter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

IP user(s) repeated unsourced edits to Jimmy O. Yang (BLP)

• 73.71.130.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:645:C000:E881:A108:3FC1:20F7:BD8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Jimmy O. Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was created under the title Jimmy Ouyang and moved to its current title after the actor changed his name. Reliable sources used in the article refer to him by the surname/last name 'Yang': Yang's own website, the Hollywood Reporter, SFGate.com, and Deadline.com.

Despite this, several IP editors keep treating his name as if his middle initial O were part of it. Two of them, 73.71.130.157 and 2601:645:C000:E881:A108:3FC1:20F7:BD8 share an ISP and location. The third, 221.186.4.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), looks unrelated.

Here 73.71.130.157 changed his name and was reverted by CrispyCream27, who asked them not to add unsourced material to a BLP. For some reason, the IP posted on TonyBallioni's talk page about it; it doesn't look like he had anything to do with them or the article. They changed the name again, which I reverted. I posted on the talk page with links to WP:RS used in the article, and asked the IP to stop; they responded with their different view of reality. A different IP, 221.186.4.154, changed an infobox link, and was reverted by Materialscientist. Again, 73.71.130.157 changed to their preferred (unsourced) version. I reverted them and warned them about edit warring. They said they would stop and await consensus. Another IP, 2601:645:c000:e881:a108:3fc1:20f7:bd8, expressed their opinion that his name is O. Yang.

I realise that these edits are stale. Yet I'm almost certain that if the article were changed to reflect the sources, an IP would once again pop up to change it back, and I've no wish to be involved in an edit war. The more adamant and prolific IP is dynamic. I'm not sure what to do. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A raft of nonsense additions to DAB pages

• 2601:1C2:1780:A0D:981F:9B57:1A08:D386 (talk · contribs)

Too many to list. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A strange case of NOTHERE

• Tim198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tim198NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Koolguy105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A couple months ago, I came across this user while patrolling recent changes. It appears that, since 2011, Tim198 has focused almost solely on editing and using their userpage to host what appears to be various television-related content (see their editing breakdown). I also noticed a similar pattern of editing with Tim198NY (which was linked in the editing breakdown tool), though that account has been inactive for nearly four years.

A sole focus on editing within one's userspace and using it to host non-encyclopedic content runs contrary to WP:NOTHERE and WP:WEBHOST, so when I first came across this, I mentioned this on the #wikipedia-en IRC to seek advice. As a result, DragonflySixtyseven left a message on Tim's talk page pointing them to an alternative outlet for this sort of activity, and I left things at that to see if they would change. I became busy with real life commitments and forgot about this until I recently came across Tim again in the recent changes feed. It appears that they ignored Dragonfly's message, and the same pattern of editing has continued in the months since then.

I'm not really sure what sort of approach or administrative action is appropriate here, given that this has been going on for a pretty long time apparently without any intervention, hence why I am posting here. Should Tim198 be blocked for not being here to contribute? Should their userpage (with a little over 8000 revisions) be deleted under CSD U5? Or is something else appropriate? EclipseDude (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do they have two accounts? Regardless, I say indeff for WP:NOTHERE, as of their over 16,000 contribs, more than 14,000 have been to user space. They haven't meaningfully contributed to main space articles since 2010. They're clearly just using WP as a webhost. Edit: Oh and yes I think the pages qualify for U5. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not the only one wondering about this editor. I've been noticing him for years, and user:Sro23 directly asked what was up more than two years ago [72]. The post was immediately blanked, as were all talk page posts since 2010, when he was still making article space edits and last responded to talk page post. The last article space edit I can see was almost five years ago, and since then thousands of userspace editsand nothing else. It's weird because most of his userspace work looks like it might actually be intended to be article space edits, but it never gets moved to article space (and wouldn't be useful in articlespace if it did).

I'd be happy to entertain any reasonable explanation from the user as to how this incessant activity is intended to improve Wikipedia (maybe this is a staging area for some other account?) but I doubt very much we will hear from Tim198. Failing a response, I think it's time to pull the plug on these accounts. Meters (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tim also appears to be linked with another old inactive account, User:Koolguy105. Tim both created and blanked their userpage (first and last revisions). I will list it at the top of my post. EclipseDude (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Tim198 yesterday and got distracted so did not report back here at that time. The other accounts are inactive so I plan to leave them alone for now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pushing outdated or irrelevant sources at "Equinox"

In this series of edits 81.139.163.204 (talk · contribs) reinstated for at least the 3rd time an old source from the 1930s and concepts from articles that were not about the equinox. I detailed the problems with these sources and concepts at Talk:Equinox#Explanation of the oscillation of the date of the equinox beginning on March 22. The material was reverted both by me and by AstroLynx. Edit histories make it obvious that the editor is the same one who used 81.139.160.225 (talk · contribs). The editor was warnedon March 22 and notices of this discussion will be provided momentarily. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The page protection by MusikAnimal on March 20 for one day has turned out to be for an insufficient length of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to reply on the talk page when the notice of this discussion reached me. On the talk page Jc3s5h confirms that there is nothing wrong with the source I cited. 81.139.163.204 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In view of the editors response at 13:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC) I formally accuse the editor of being a troll. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some mischiefmaking here. It's very difficult to extract Jc3s5h's argument from his posts but I continued the discussion on the talk page at 13:24. Jc3s5h makes no mention of that, probably because he realises his argument is untenable. 81.139.163.204 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

RealScienceGeek

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

---

RealScienceGeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Edit warring and removal of sourced material, promoting acupuncture. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your information is out of date and out of line with currently medical thinking and practice. I sited my statements and did not promote acupuncture, I just updated the information so it reflects what the current thought is. The current information is out of date and sourced from poor studies as shown in this study, which includes the Cochrane studies the current definition sites. I am not promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealScienceGeek (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

How is updated the page to reflect what is the current stance of the NIH and CDC promotion of acupuncture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealScienceGeek (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want to say that acupuncture does not work, you need to acutually provide data that supports that position. If anyone is promoting their own ideas, I would say it is you. CDC and NIH are our leading scientific governing bodies. They are not in line with the information you are so committed to keeping on this page - again out of date and sources from poorly designed and implement trails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealScienceGeek (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your problem, Geek, is to bring sources that support your position. Simples. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

RealScienceGeek, Please sign your posts. See WP:SIGNATURE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

First edits of this user being to the acupuncture article, as well as their username "RealScienceGeek", leads me to believe that this user is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Organized disruptive editing of Aleksandr Khanzhonkov page in recent days

Page name, lead and person's details including transliteration have been persistently changed by four different users during the last five days to one particular template: [73] [74] [75] [76]. I was told it's not vandalism but POV-pushing and redirected here, even though the edits are obviously organized. Users user:Гуманіст, User:Стефанко1982 and User:Visem are reverting the referenced page where Khanzhonkov is named "Russian film producer, etc." to the User:Yasnodark version where he is proclaimed "Ukrainian" with one reference to the Ukrainian The Day daily paper. All users have "Ukraine" in their description, all of them are doing same reverts. I can't tell whether they are friends or bots, or maybe something happened in Ukraine that motivated them to do so, but I see these edits as disruptive and non-natural. Apart from multiple references in the original version there are obvious facts: that Khanzhonkov never lived or worked in Ukraine (he started his business in Moscow during Imperial times, during the October revolution fled to Crimea which became part of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic only in 1954, then fled to Europe, then returned to work in Moscow. AveTory (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

″Khanzhonkov never lived or worked in Ukraine″ He was born in Ukraine)))--Гуманіст (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No he wasn't. He was born in the Don Host Oblast of the Russian Empire which was divided between Russian and Ukrainian SSR only in 1918, then between Russia and Ukraine in 1991. But even then Khanzhonkov's occupation is not defined by the place of his birth, but by the place where he worked. And even then this must be supported by WP:RS. AveTory (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Russian - Ukrainian relations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I think AveTory makes a good point, and, in addition, it is not uncommon for Ukrainian Wikipedia users to coordinate things off-wiki, but I am not going to dig into this shit. I have seen similar edit-warring in other articles, and dealing with it is very frustrating.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me also remark that Гуманіст, who has 6 edits in this project (which include the above edit) is at best a disruptive meatpuppet, and at worst WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the position with Oleksandr (in Ukrainian or Russian it is more easy to name, but in English it is a problem). Anyway, I may understand the position of User:AveTory, but still there is no neutral point of view in his/her edits. That is why such conflicts of editing begin. --Visem (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

My edits are primarily based on reliable sources (Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Cinema by Peter Rollberg, Encyclopedia of Early Cinema by Richard Abel, Early Cinema in Russian and its Cultural Reception by Yuri Tsivian, interviews with Khanzhonkov's granddaughter). Khanzhonkov's own 1937 memoirs are named "First years of Russian cinema". Your reference is a modern-day Ukrainian daily paper. AveTory (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Fully protected. Discuss on Talk:Aleksandr Khanzhonkov. Enigma^msg 00:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some weird sockpuppetry like stuff is going on around here; red link editors claiming to be the subject

I created the model Adesuwa Aighewi's page last year, and used the Fashion Model Directory source for her date of birth. It's not the best source, to me at least, but it's something. Fashion Model Directory is reliable for information about a model's career all things considered. So a few weeks ago, all of a sudden the birth year kept changing by IP users without giving a source for it, which is obviously disruptive editing; therefore I had the page protected.

8.30.105.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed it 3 times:

1. 03:38, 19 January 2019
2. 03:39, 19 January 2019
3. 13:56, 10 March 2019

Then just days after after pending changes protection, 66.108.235.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did the same thing:

1. 17:05, 21 March 2019
2. 17:06, 21 March 2019

Now what a interesting coincidence it is that two "different" IP users made the same mistake twice.

Which brings me to... two days ago, a user calling themselves "Adesuwa Real" and claiming to be the model requested we change the birth year to 1992, of course without a source to provide for it. Naturally, I have reason to believe someone just made that up to get around the page protection to get their dubious edit in there by way of an unwitting editor. *deep sigh* Hours later, after someone with the username "Adesuwa Aighewi" did the same. Implicitly, I have strong reason to believe that it's not really her at all and that username should also be salted like "Adesuwa Real" was, until they take the proper protocol to prove their identity. The person claiming to be Adesuwa Aighwei claims that at the BLP noticeboard this age discrepancy is affecting her career. Being that merely 2 days ago she was in a Chanel advert, it just doesn't add up. And from what I've surmised, the real Aighewi doesn't even type like that. Pray tell, what does one do? Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• We cannot change a birth-year based on IP/wikipedia-editor's word alone but if the only available source is iffy, just remove the birth-date altogether. Abecedare (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Abecedare says. A fashion model directory is akin to other database sites such as IMDb and does not meet the stringent sourcing requirements of WP:DOB, especially if the date is disputed. I've removed the date per our policy regarding dates of birth. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The subject should be delighted. Now she's ageless. EEng 19:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The secret to immortality was Wikipedia all along! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I imagine there's a picture aging in an attic somewhere as we speak.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm no fan of original research, but I took a look at the Minnesota Birth Index at Familysearch.org and it confirmed the April 22, 1988 date of birth. Until then, one of these days a Vogue, Elle, or Harper's Bazaar will inevitably reveal the truth. *dun dun dun* Trillfendi (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

SPA persistently adds copyvios despite warnings

• Elintner27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stephen Cloobeck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting indef block of WP:SPA User:Elintner27 who has only [77] [78] added copyvios and removed content from the article Stephen Cloobeck [79] [80] despite reverts, suppressions of copyvio edits, and warning [81]. Despite the edit summaries emphasizing updates and sources, the persistence indicates definite intent to deceive. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked him indef and revision deleted the offending content. If he can convince another admin that he won't repete the problematic behavior I have no objection to someone unblocking. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

this account

After the global rename of my main account, this account became obslete. I have made a different account that is used on public computers as I heard global renames take alot of server resourses and that its recommended to make another account in the case of that account having low edits; could this account be stripped of the confirmed and extended confirmed access and renamed to something random as I know accounts cannot be deleted. If possible, transfer the user rights to User:Gangster8192 (alt). Thanks. SwagGangster (alt) (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)