Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Regular edit-warring from user:Jim7049

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

---

Jim7049 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been warned since January against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. This user has also been blocked and unblocked multiple times by admins but again continued edit warring yesterday on 11 March 2019. Please look into the matter and determine whether this user should continue their Wikipedia editing. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already warned Jim7049 earlier today for edit warring on Portal:Current events/2019 March 11, and the edit warring has stopped since then. I chose not to block Jim7049 in order to give him/her a chance to put the brakes on the back-and-forth reverts and to discuss the matter properly; Jim7049's contributions show that he's/she's added a discussion to the portal's talk page, which means that he's/she's attempting to do so. There's no block needed at this time, so long as the edit warring doesn't continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also left him an in-depth explanation of policy, expectations, and how I step in and manage issues and disputes - see my resposne here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You may want to revisit. 1 / 2 / 3 reverts of the same user on Portal:Current events/2019 March 15 plus an admittedly noncontentious rv of a second user. This edit (a third user) shows willing to engage with disputes on talkpages at least some of the time; but, "Please stop this kind of false editing which is completely fake and disrupting," is not really the way to begin a content dispute in a civil fashion. Jim seems keen to improve the wiki, but is skirting boundaries a bit and could maybe do with mentoring. Madness ^Darkness 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Same situation, long-standing, on Commons; multiple explanations since January now. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I had recently declined an unblock for edit warring. Jim7049 was then unblocked after affirming understanding what to do instead. DlohCierekim 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jim seems to have gone quiet for now, although I'm not too optimistic they won't resume their warring upon their return. Madness ^Darkness 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• I see that, after @Oshwah:'s attempts to get through to them without blocking, they proceeded to edit war at Portal:Current events/2019 March 15, over an editorial attempt to invoke the label "terrorism" without a source. This was not only edit warring, but a breach of WP:TERRORIST and WP:V (which dictates that contentious unsourced content that is removed can only be re-added with a source). This was while this thread was open. That, is aggravated further by the fact that they are already under a one month block at Commons for the same thing, to which their response was incredibly egregious. They falsely claimed that there was no reason for the block, and that the reasons given were false, and basically harassed Magog the Ogre into providing a lengthy-justification for the block, to which they responded by accusing Magog of being "hateful" and "bringing up past mistakes". Unreal. Seems to be a clear CIR case, with little chance of adjusting their behavior reasonably, so I will be blocking indef. If they want to continue editing they can go through the unblock process. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Original report

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

---

Revisiting a case that was closed as I believe that there was no long term solution to resolve this case. An explanation of this situation is provided on the previous report that I have linked. The user that I have concerns with is NicholasHui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as they have been making persistent disruptive edits on certain NHL articles. Yowashi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have any specific examples? SportingFlyer T·C 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Don't expect people to wade through the wall of text from the previous ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on other account: NicholasHui had another account with which they edited with before. I had asked them to mark it as retired, or they could have stated a legitimate reason to keep it around, but they did not respond. I have since blocked the other account.[4].—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of NicholasHui's contributions that were incorrect. ([5], [6], [7]). I made corrections to these at a later time. The thing that I can't understand is why they can't just wait for the information provided by this source (which they don't use) to be updated.

Some information I add in to the GAA average for Goaltender Statistics comes from the NHL Teams 2018-19 regular season stats. An example is I changed Anthony Stolaz's GAA average to 3.43 because I saw it from the Edmonton Oilers regular season stats. But even though I put it to 3.43 GAA average, Sabbatino informed me that the information Yowashi gets is from http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=goaliesummary&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&playerPlayedFor=team.22&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=wins. I even said that on my edit summary from the Edmonton Oilers 2018-19 season page history. NicholasHui (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasHui (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the issues raised by OP, I am concerned by edits like this (possible sock?) and this (CIR). GiantSnowman 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that NicholasHui (evidenced by their own statement above and by the last ANi report) is not using reliable sources. As far as I could tell, NicholasHui was coming up with numbers on their own (failing WP:OR), taking them from live TV broadcasts of the games, or using unreliable sources (a fact which they warned about by Sabbatino here). I'll note that the last ANI was closed with this warning about about WP:V and WP:OR (as well as not socking). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article [8]. I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that I admit to calculating the playing time for Ottawa Senators goaltender statistics incorrectly was because the game was not totally finalized yet. That was why. Also, stop complaining how my updates are like when they are correct. Note that when you updated the Calgary Flames 2018-19 season player statistics when they lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, you forgot to add in the Games played for Garnet Hathaway and it was on your behalf. So that was partially on you. You look at the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season stats and you find that another IP User editing the Ottawa Senators page does it similar to how my edit strategy is because I was following that user's example on the Ottawa Senators season page since. NicholasHui (talk)

I didn't forget. In my defense, for whatever reason, NHL.com had Hathaway's GP listed at 61. Every other player on the Flames roster had been updated so I assumed that Hathaway's was updated as well. My mistakes are different from yours, as mine are not intentional, yours are, because you intentionally provide incorrect information. If you want me to stop complaining about your edits, then listen to what myself and other people have been trying to tell you this entire time. Other than that, I'm gonna keep complaining until you learn how to edit the proper way. Yowashi (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused on my talk page for not updating the stats correctly even though I explained the situation in my comment above. Honestly, in my opinion, this individual is not here to build an encyclopedia. Yowashi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment @NicholasHui: I'm unclear what you were trying to achieve by making accusations on Yowashi's talk page as well as here at this ANI discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most recent update @NicholasHui: For your most recent edit to update Toronto's stats (looks like an hour or two at most) after the end of their game, can you explain the specific sources you use to edit those stats? Thank you.—

The stats I add in to the wikipedia stats are from the recap games on the team stats for that game only. NicholasHui (talk) Sometimes, I might use the official team stat source if I was unsure of how my edits match to the official source.

Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I believe NicholasHui uses this as their reference. However, there is a waiting period until it gets updated. The only other possible source I can think of is this one, but this one doesn't display the player's stats for the entire season. So, my guess is that they calculate the new stats by adding on or subtracting any of the numbers from a player's previous game. For goaltenders, they definitely calculate the stats, considering a goaltender's stats for the entire season are not displayed anywhere on the game recaps. The recaps only show their statistics for that specific game only. Yowashi (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: NicholasHui might be using this (or any other teams' website) as his source, which does not get updated immediately. I must also note that teams' websites tend to list different information than the main NHL stats website. Seeing that stats differ, I assume that some teams calculate the stats differently than the NHL. In addition, teams' stats websites tend to list only current players and omit any player who was sent to another league (two-way players), traded, bought out, etc., which just shows that you cannot get a full list and correct stats from the teams' websites. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Perhaps NicholasHui does use the team's website as their source. For example, when they changed Anthony Stolarz's GAA to 3.43, the only source that I found that had that information was from the Oilers' official website. I initially thought that 3.43 could have been his GAA with the Flyers and Oilers, but I realized that the stats only reflect time on a player's current team. I still believe that NicholasHui calculates the stats, as there is no source that has all this information updated immediately after a game has concluded. They also update the stats section very quickly after every game, so that would eliminate the usage of sources besides the ones that I mentioned previously. I do believe that they had mentioned getting their information from the recaps sometime in the past. Yowashi (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't depend too much on official NHL team sources. Many of them haven't even updated their captains & alternate captains, for the current season. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent contributions by NicholasHui. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [9], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [10], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [11]) My contributions from March 16 that are corrections to NicholasHui's edits. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [12], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [13], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [14]). I used this website as my source. NicholasHui needs to be stopped from editing these articles, as it is clear that they don't use official sources to obtain their information from, and for refusing to rearrange the position of players based on total points. Yowashi (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. However, I would suggest we remain focused on 2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season for now, and not get too sidetracked with potentially too many open issues. I do notice that your source URL is diffrent from what is cited at 2018–19_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_season#Player_statistics. Is there any prior consensus among the WikiProject on 1) what source to use, 2) when it is reliable to update?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: We use this source instead of this one, as the latter does not show information on players that have been traded, sent down to other leagues (generally a team's American Hockey League team), their contract being terminated mid season, etc. Occasionally there may be some discrepancies between the two sources. For example, the first source that I listed from NHL.com has Frederik Andersen's GAA listed at 2.75, while the team's website has it listed at 2.74. We're not sure why there is a discrepancy, but considering that the team's website doesn't show information on players that are currently not with the organization, we have deemed the team's website as an unreliable source. Perhaps the sources provided on the team's article shall be changed to the other source, maybe during the 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, as we still have to do statistics for teams that participate in the playoffs, or change it when articles for next season are created. NHL.com usually has the information updated 30-40 minutes after a game has concluded, but some information gets re-evaluated. It is recommended to update the stats section on articles hours or even a day later. Yowashi (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a current discussion in regards to this topic over on the Wikiproject Ice Hockey talk page. Yowashi (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to digress from the issue at hand but Andersen's GAA is 2.744970798183. Shouldn't it be rounded down to 2.74? I didn't even know there could ever be inconsistencies between the league website and a team's website. When I'm updating the GAA leader in the infobox for the Lightning I always just plug in the numbers to this website after a game is over, unless the game ends in overtime. Tampabay721 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that when you told me that Mike Smith's saves in total he had in that game against Winnipeg Jets, I checked my work and I added in the information correctly. So the mistake was on Yowashi's behalf as he forgot to add one more save in total in the game against Arizona Coyotes. I admit the mistake was part of mine because I assumed that Yowashi's edits where done correctly. Also, when I update the statistics for Canadian Teams, I add or subtract the players numbers from the recap game. That might be why I may be at fault for the mistakes if I was not using the official team stats source. But Yowashi has to be part of the blame too if he was not checking his own work as well. NicholasHui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

For Mike Smith's SA, 919 was literally what I obtained from the source. So please tell me, how am I supposed to double check that, when these sources are supposed to give accurate information? Also, SA stands for (shots against), not saves. Yowashi (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC) How you double check the work is you also look at the recap games for the total amount of shots against he had in the teams stats for the recap game only. It can be added in to the stats on wikipedia. Mike Smith's total amount of shots against should have been 920 since he faced 26 shots against. Not 25 shots against.NicholasHui (talk)

You seriously expect me to do that? I mean, I shouldn't have to calculate numbers when I can literally take numbers from a source. Note, calculating numbers is very unreliable, and can lead to mistakes. So that's why I don't do that. Also, if you think you're so darn good at updating the stats, then you do it. We'll see how well that goes. Yowashi (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

[15] [16] Edits to standings by NicholasHui earlier today incorrectly indicating an eliminated team. Tampabay721 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent contribution by NicholasHui incorrectly calculating Andrei Vasilevskiy's GAA [17]. It is 2.26 according to NHL.com. How many more examples do we need, to prove that this guy shouldn't be updating these articles? The fact that no action has been made against NicholasHui just blows my mind. Yowashi (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning from previous ANI In light of the blanking reported in subsection below, it seems that an earlier warning by admin Abecedare to NicholasHui after the last ANI got lost in the shuffle in this current ANI discussion. The previous post advise: If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies. A clear consensus was never established, yet the editor continues editing in the disputed area, even as this new ANI is active.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposed topic ban

Clearly some action needs to be taken here. The time and effort of editors is being used to fix NicholasHui's continued mistakes. Thus I propose that:

NicholasHui is topic banned from updating sports statistics in articles for a period of 1 year, at which time they may appeal their ban at AN. Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR.

• Support as proposer. NicholasHui was warned at the closure of the last ANI involving them and hockey to follow WP:V and WP:OR. They continue to show disregard for reliable sources. Perahps some time away from sports articles will give them time to fully understand what reliable sourcing means. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: NicholasHui just blanked this section after I posted it [18]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I left a warning on his user talk page asking him not to do that, which he promptly deleted. Oh well... so long as he understands and he doesn't continue the behavior, that's the important part... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, this might be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, too. He's certainly not heeding any advice. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, it's hard to assume good faith at this point, especially given the several instances of comment removals. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, NicholasHui needs to be punished for their actions, as they have continued to refuse countless messages and warnings in regards to this situation. They continue to display odd behavior when it comes to editing NHL related articles, despite being told the proper procedure of updating statistics. Yowashi (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Bans are not meant to punish, but rather to prevent further disruption. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Current block NicholasHui has been blocked for 60 hours. See details above.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

After the block expires, would we still be able to discuss this proposed topic ban? Yowashi (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignore my comment above. I posted my previous comment before reading the details in regards to NicholasHui's block. Yowashi (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the blocked editor is now editing signed out. Suggest we be on the look out for possible socks as well. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay - Where? Under what IP? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

At his talkpage, but I'm mistaken. It's just an IP, helping him with his 'unblock' request. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem; this IP user seems legitimate, so I agree that he/she appears to just be helping... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, looks like they needed similar help on their unblock request in February as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thus my concerns about his competency on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment What are the other areas outside of hockey statistics has the the user made positive contributions?—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm checking their contribs reveals that Hockey is really their only area of editing. The only other area they seem to have contributed to has been rev-deled (at Ariel Castro kidnappings). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The revdel reason shows COPYVIO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well that doesn't inspire confidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment First off, I want to thank the admins and the others that participated in this for assisting with this situation. I think this situation would have dragged out even further if it weren't for the community. So, thank you all for that. Back to the proposal of the topic ban, I think that a topic ban would be the best solution for this. It's clear that NicholasHui didn't get the memo from their first block on February 28, and I don't think anything would change when their current block expires. For me, I'm pretty exhausted about having to argue about something like this, and I don't want to have the same thing happen again in the future. I'm open to any thoughts or suggestions from anyone. Yowashi (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My 'pedia experience tells me that NicholasHui, will merely continue his disruptive habits, the moment his 60-hr block is up. We'll likely be back here, seeking a full ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I think we should make a final decision on the topic ban within these 60 hours, rather than discussing it after the 60 hours are over. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @Bagumba:, there's weird stuff going on at NicholasHui's user talkpage, that heightens my WP:COMPETENCE concerns about him. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is concerning. He has all of his IP accounts listed on his user page. The weird one on his talk page doesn't match with any of the ones listed. We should still keep an eye out though. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Something weird's happening. He claims to be the IP that corrected his unblock request & then reverts that very IP's correction of his unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that the IP was actually him. Perhaps this needs more than just a topic ban, on WP:CIR grounds? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly a competency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this indeff territory tho? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If he keeps being disruptive (after the 60 hrs block), then it's indef territory. After all, blocks/bans are for preventative purposes. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Be prepared come Thursday night. A lot of NHL games scheduled. Five Canadian teams are set to play that night. Be prepared to be discussing here, because he is going to be editing those articles as soon as his block expires. Yowashi (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion It seems that it might be as or more productive to drive consensus on stats source usage at the relevant WikiProject Ice Hockey thread than to rubberneck on users' talk pages or speculate on what one may or may not do after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous comments. However, I just don't feel confident that things will change after NicholasHui's current block expires. I have since left some suggestions in regards to updating statistics on the WikiProject page for other users to take a look at. Yowashi (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we seriously need to consider a topic ban for NicholasHui. I just found this edit made by him. The GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate. I calculated both of their GAA's, which are totally different from what NicholasHui got. I didn't publish the changes in case my calculations were off, but I'm pretty sure my calculations are more accurate than his (update: my calculations were correct). The other contributions of his that I discovered that were inaccurate, were on the Calgary Flames, and Montreal Canadiens articles. I'll admit, on the Flames article, I accidentally put in the wrong link for the recap in the game log. NicholasHui corrected it, but his edit summary read, "Wow, a mistake I found. How surprising!!". I'll admit, I wrote a similar message in one of my edit summaries a while back when I had to correct one of his edits. I was tired and frustrated that one night, but that is no excuse for me to leave a message like that. However, I do believe that what he did was a new level of low. Yowashi (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing of the GAA Average was that when I calculated the GAA Average for Connor Hellebuyck and Laurrent Brossoit's GAA Average, I did not change Laurent Brossoit's GAA Average team leaders in case my calculations are off. I knew my calculations were off. Also, note that the recent player stats edits to Calgary Flames page, I do admit getting at least two errors for Travis Hammonic and Michael Frolik since I did not check my work hard enough. Note that when Yowashi has said that the GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate, I changed the GAA Average according to the Winnipeg Jets official stats website. NicholasHui (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have temporarily "indef-blocked" NicholasHui for their resumed problematic editing and WP:IDHT conduct immediately after the previous block expired. I have no objections to the block being lifted once this topic-ban discussion is concluded, or if the user can believably commit to not edit hockey stats without first establishing a consensus-based standard for how to do so. Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• No ban, keep indef block WP:CIR is the main concern with their editing in general, and they have not been editing in any other areas besides sports stats either. Given the close of their last block that there was no consensus yet on whether their stats calculations were WP:OR or WP:CALC, and they were told to get consensus at the ongoing WikiProject talk thread, it's unfathomable why they would make the exact same types of edits fresh off their last block. Their is either a WP:LISTEN problem or plain inability to comprehend WP:CONSENSUS. Then there is the buildup of minor issues, like inability to format a proper unblock request still (third block now), or problems signing their posts e.g. manually typing (incorrect) timestamps.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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. [19] 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 [20].) 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[21] 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)

Problem with adding information to article

I wanted to add information concerning book written by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski called "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski". Recently Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) gave interviews with Polish Press Agency and weekly magazine "Sieci" in which he pointed out some mistakes that the authors made and addressed exact evidence to backup his arguments. One of the major pointed mistake is blaming Blue Police (which was not allowed to ghetto) for the crimes done by Jewish police inside Jewish ghetto in Bochnia (this case is well documented in files from Samuel Frish's criminal case).

Opinion of Gontarczyk was highly publicized in Polish media including the biggest TV channels, newspapers, radio, Internet.

The first time I added that information (to the articles about Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski) it was removed and I was told that the source was not good enough in some quite unusual manner of two tables with exclamation mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluffer8

Then I changed the source to the following ones:

https://afaae.com/poland/yes-ladies-and-gentlemen-this-is-a-new-school-but-not-the-research-but-the-deception-of-the-holocaust/

https://www.polskieradio.pl/321/1222/Artykul/2275685,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

and my update was removed again. I asked the editor Icewhiz (talk) about what was wrong and got the answer: "Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV".

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

In the same discussion I gave him many alternative sources from Polish TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and German media (newspaper Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat owned by Axel Springer SE), and asked for opinion. At this point to the discussion joined the editor Volunteer Marek (talk), they had some vivid conversation and here are the arguments that Icewhiz gave:

- Polish government was considering implementing law which would that supposed to end up "Polish death camp" controversy,

- The law was only a project and was no implemented, but for Icewhiz that case it is good enough to say that Poland tries to impose, what he calls, "Holocaust law",

- Because of this nonexistent "Holocaust law" Polish sources "are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history".

- The situation in Poland is similar to the situation in Russia - "state control or repression" and no free speech basically.

And in the last section Icewhiz said:

- Source of German owned newspaper Dziennik are also not allowed because: "All these sources, even those critical of PiS, fall under reach of the >>Holocaust law<<"

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

Maybe these arguments would make sence if Poland was totalitarian regime without freedom of speach and trying to impose their own false propaganda, and I was trying to add this lying propaganda into Wikipedia's article. But all I want to add is just well documented and backup criticism of a book done by a professional historian documented by dozen of sources.

It feels like Icewhiz's opinion is a pure form of antipolonism and censorship based on offensive, false and biased arguments that are hard to understand (vide fantasies about made up "Holocaust law" and ban on Polish sources based on subjective and offensive opinions). Apart from that there are plenty of sources based on Polish newspaper in the Wikipedia and they are also allowed in the article I wanted to update - here are examples from the article about Jan Grabowski:

https://www.rp.pl/Konflikt-Polska-Izrael/180229915-Polski-historyk-Jan-Grabowski-ostrzega-Izrael-przed-dialogiem-z-Polska.html

https://www.biznesistyl.pl/kultura/oblicza-kultury/5829_.html

"Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018

This whole case is example of censorship based on biases and wrong information - some updates of Wikipedia's articles are banned because of made up reasons. Please help me to add to Wikipedia the information about the arguments Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) used to point out mistakes from the book.

Bluffer8 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion is at the article talk page or RSN. Poland's "Holocaust Law" curtailed free speech in Polish media on the Holocaust (see article in Index on Censorship and very wide coverage on this). Adding Gontarczyk's opinions from a radio appearance to a BLP is more than questionable given that:

"Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation""

per academic source Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz words that "Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions" are clearly a manipulation. I have not done even one successful edit concerning Gontarczyk - all my Gontarczyk related edits have been deleted and one cannot count discussion about that deletions as "edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk".

What I would like to add to Wikipedia are concrete arguments of professional historian, based on well documented files from Samuel Frish's criminal case. Contrary to what Icewhiz says Poland is not a regime and there is freedom of speech in Poland - the best proof of that is that the book (we are talking about) has been published in Poland (and as far as I know - in Poland only).

One can find in Internet any source that fits into its thesis that slams any person or any country (in example Gontarczyk, Poland, etc.). But this cannot undermine that Piotr Gontarczyk is well known, respected, professional historian employed in history research institute and his arguments are backed up by solid evidence.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to 3 articles adding Gontarczyk, reverted by a number of users, and discussions of said edits (for some odd reason on my talk page, and not on BLP/n or the article's talk). This prior edit to Jedwabne pogrom is instructive - adding a paragraph denying (the mainstream academic view in all countries) Polish responsibility for the massacre and burning of Jews in a barn - sourced to a Polish-Canadian YouTube channel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what is wrong with adding testimony of living witness of Jedwabne pogrom (prior edit) unless one has problem with information that do not fit into his particular point of view - but this is not how Wikipedia should work.

In the link to Jedwabne pogrom that Icewhiz gave (prior edit) there is not a single word about Piotr Gontarczyk. Please note that Icewhiz manipulates again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluffer8 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If one submits the following sentence in Google or Duckduckgo search engine:

"piotr gontarczyk" "piotra gontarczyka" site:wikipedia.org

then it is clear that there are plenty of references to Piotr Gontarczyk and his work within Wikipedia and much, much more in other sites. If Piotr Gontarczyk is so evil, as Icewhiz says, then why is he referred so many times.

Bluffer8 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Considering these [22] [23] [24] appear to be the diffs that have started this, and considering the text appears to be the same, this raises large WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Reliable sourcing aside, the information does not even appear specifically related to any of the articles, apart from the fact they seem to have the opposite point of view. SportingFlyer T·C 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain me what exactly WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues does it raise? I could change the form of the article update.

This information is not just the opposite point of view - it proves serious mistakes found in the book. This information is related to the articles - it shows the controversies that authors/book raises and there are plenty of similar cases in Wikipedia (articles about authors) with proper sections which address controversies in the way I would like to do it - here are examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• For instance, on the Grabowski article, the controversy from Gontarczyk has already been given due weight in the diff of the article you linked under the book's heading. Splitting it out into a separate section overstates the level of the controversy. Also, the fact you're saying it "proves serious mistakes found in the book" is not a neutrao position to be taking for these edits. Removing the topic completely from the analysis, a historian published a book and received criticism from another historian in regards to the book. That's all this needs to be, especially given the contentious nature of the topic, and this has been already adequately represented in that article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see exactly where can you see "the controversy from Gontarczyk" in the article about Grabowski - he is not mentioned there even single time (I think he was mentioned but someone "updated" the article). Could you please point it directly? How can you say that this topic "has been already adequately represented in that article" if Gontarczyk arguments are not even mentioned.

If you look at the article into section "Dalej jest noc":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Grabowski_%28historian%29#Dalej_jest_noc

then you will find positive and subjective opinion/flattery about the book from historian Jacek Chrobaczyński. I completely cannot understand why I am banned from adding (into the same section or the new one) scientifically based criticism of the book, done by professional historian? And yes - according to Gontarczyk's word he found some serious mistakes, which are well documented and well described. In Wikipedia it is common practice to add criticism concerning books/authors - I gave examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child

If the source is right (it does not come from totalitarian regime where there is no free speech), if the author is right (he is a professional historian employed in well known history research institute) and the topic has not been described yet then what is the problem?

I hope we will reach the compromise here - which could be adding the Gontarczyk's opinion into "Dalej jest noc" section of the article about Jan Grabowski and creating "Controversy" section for the article about Barbara Engelking.

Bluffer8 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed Dalej jest noc has its own article where Gontarczyk's opinion appears. The book on Grabowski's main page links to Dalej jest noc, and has a sentence or two about the criticism it received. I would suggest not adding the Gostarczyk opinion back to any of the pages and instead focusing on Dalej jest noc, though I think what's currently on that page is good enough. In any case, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything actionable at ANI. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

For me it looks like you are trying to stop adding of important Gontarczyk criticism of the book (and the fact that the book has been criticized) - because some other, older Gontarczyk's opinions are outside Wikipedia, in the book (could you please show me where exactly have you found it?). And at the same time you do not even allow to mention (in the article) that the book has been criticized in mass media and to inform why. I am not satisfied with that answer and I do not agree with this approach - I gave enough examples of the book criticism (in Wikipedia's articles) to see that double standards and censorship are applied here.

It looks like a group of editors usurp and owned the article, and disagrees on any changes because it ruins the point of view they try to convey through the article. One can see that to stop the article updates, Wikipedia users are flooded with arguments (sometime absurd - vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk) and that every bigger update to certain articles are immediately removed by the same editors.

It this is your final opinion, then I will proceed further with my doubts concerning the article update. Thank you for your time.

Bluffer8 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no interest in this topic at all but am trying to balance concerns with WP:UNDUE as neutrally as I possibly can. The current write up here clearly shows there has been criticism of the book. [25] Adding more specific criticism would violate WP:UNDUE. The book also has its own Wikipedia article here Dalej jest noc in which Gontarczyk's criticism appears. I haven't looked at anything outside of Wikipedia, but I do not see any problem with "double standards" or "censorship." I do have a problem with giving the criticism undue weight. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:UNDUE: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide COMPLETE information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean EXCLUSION of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

The Gontarczyk's opinion is not a view of "distinct (and minuscule) minority" and was highly publicized in all media (what is worth mentioning on its own) - weekly magazine Sieci gave this topic a front cover:

https://oko.press/images/2019/03/ok%C5%82adka.png

Gontarczyk works for Institute of National Remembrance and his opinion is not just a tiny, unimportant voice since he represents this institute.

In the meantime Polish League Against Defamation has joined to this case and publicly called authors of the book to address Gontarczyk's objections:

http://www.anti-defamation.pl/rdiplad/aktualnosci/oswiadczenie-rdi-w-sprawie-ksiazki-dalej-jest-noc-i-recenzji-dr-piotra-gontarczyka/

So as you can see this is not a voice of a small minority that could get undue weight by being addressed.

I am not trying to dominate the whole article with extremely big section "controversies". I just want to add valuable and important information (maybe one or two sentences) that would guarantee that "all significant viewpoints that have been published".

Bluffer8 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lest we forget, this is a professor at the University of Ottawa (covered in mainstream press and academia). Gontarczyk is covered this way in a RS: Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, Joanna B. Michlic, page 111. As for the nature of wSieci's covers, well: Polish magazine causes outrage with cover showing white woman being sexually attacked by 'migrants', Independent, 17 Feb 2016. A number of WP:REDFLAGs here - Bluffer8's edits were reverted by 4 different experienced Wikipedia editors. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

As for the particular piece in wSieci, it is covered here (Polish): oko.press - which notes that aside from appearing on the cover, Grabowski and Engelking do not appear in the actual text (which discusses a chapter by Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska). The piece on oko.press (a fact-checking service) notes a detailed rebuttal by Polish Academy of Sciences (with whom Swałtek-Niewińska is associated with) which oko.press endorses - saying Gontarczyk omitted or failed to notice that Swałtek-Niewińska did cover the Jewish police as well. In regards to Gontarczyk's accusations of "introducing lies", oko.press conclude with the rhetorical "Did Gontarczyk mean himself?". Now - this all being rather off-topic for Grabowski (ignoring the sensationalist cover) - it would be questionable to include cited directly to Gontarczyk on a hypothetical page on Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska (TOOSOON). I would question whether Bluffer8 is possibly WP:NOTTHERE in regards to advocating inclusion of such material in 2 BLPs (Grabowsky and Engelking). Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The link to the book, that you gave, does not work - I get a message that some viewing limits have been reached.

That is ridiculous that you suggesting me being WP:NOTTHERE especially if one consider the argument that you use to stop me (and others) from updating articles (vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk). The history of the deletions (that you have done in the articles) also says a lot.

You try to disqualify weekly magazine w Sieci based on some cover and I disqualify oko.press (the source of your information) because oko.press is highly controversial ultra left-side portal, which promotes lefties aggression and physical violence towards jurnalists:

https://www.tysol.pl/a28879-OKO-press-jeszcze-wczoraj-promowalo-autorki-ataku-na-Magdalene-Ogorek

From what I know Gontarczyk's objections have not been answered yet - this article proves this:

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/438334-zlapani-na-klamstwie-zamiast-powaznej-odpowiedzi-grozby

If you have a good source of information concerning that case (Gontarczyk's criticism of the book) then I am eager to add it to the article. The case is developmental and the new information comes every few days. That is why I suggest adding the new section "Controversies" which could be updated accordingly to the news.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:02, 19 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" : [26] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [27]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [28]), here are some examples : [29], [30], [31], [32]

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 : [33].---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.[34] 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 [35] [36] 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 [37], 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 [38] 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 [39] 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 [40]

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 indeff

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)

• 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)

User:Mountain157

Mountain157 (talk · contribs) is pushing their POV onto the article on Tartary, attempting to pass a fringe theory that claims Tartary to have been a historical country whose existence was suppressed after its demise as undisputed fact wrong section, please see here instead. In Talk:Tartary they have constantly levelled personal attacks against me, accusing me of violating various Wikipedia policies when I attempted to revert the article to a Neutral POV in an attempt to discredit me even after an administrator ruled that "many of Mountain157's accusations are unsupported and constitute personal attacks" above. (Though I have previously opened a content dispute, I believe it to no longer applies and have requested it be closed) Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This user did not try to revert to a Neutral POV. He removed various sources, and maps that had to do with Tartary possibly being a country[[41]] back to a version that had no sources at all. I am not pushing any "fringe theory" despite this user claiming that I do. That itself actually constitutes a personal attack because WP:FRINGENOT says that accusing others of Fringe theories is often cited in discussions and edit summaries to demonized viewpoints which contradict their own, for which this user has exhibited on multiple occasions such as comparing the existence of Tartary to "Glester John"[[42]] and claiming the sources I added were "outdated by centuries".I cited a CIA document [[43]] that talks about the re-writing of Tatar history by the Soviet Union, so I am pretty sure this is a reliable source. [[44]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this user has opened up another another notice against me so I am moving this here[[45]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157: The main source I see you used was this book, published before 1832. Its no wonder that Midnight-Blue766 reverted the edits based on it. I think part of the problem here is that the source is using outdated terminology. It refers to Tamerlane as emperor of the Tartars, when he was in fact emperor of the Timurid Empire. Newer, more reliable sources are needed. Even if the CIA source claims that the Soviets rewrote history, the Soviet empire has been dead for decades. Should Tartary be a real place, then modern scholarship should be able to confirm that fact. This boils down to a content dispute, one which should be handled in a civil manner, using reliable sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thank you for your response. Here are all the sources that I did use to base my argument that Tartary was a country aside from the document above,[[46]],[[47]],[[48]],[[49]],[[50]],[[51]].

Thanks for sharing those. Again the issue here is that these sources are centuries old. We need modern scholarship that confirms the existence of Tartary as a country, and not just a region of the world. For instance, the title of one source, writing in the 1650s, refers to a Tartar conquest of China. But other sources hold that at that time China was conquered by the Manchu in the Manchu conquest of China. I believe that the word Tartar in these conquests has wide application to any number of central Asian peoples, such as the Manchu, the Mongols, the Timurids and the like. The Tartar disambig page says that a Tartar is Someone from Tartary, the historical central Asian landmass populated by Turks, Mongols, Manchus and others. There remains no reason to believe that Tartary was an organized nation-state with an established Tartar government. I think it boils down to four-century old Europeans not knowing the difference between eastern peoples and labeling them all "Tartars" and ascribing the deeds of many nations to one. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 12:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but why then as recently as 1865 is Tartary listed as a country and having a a flag?Mountain157 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Read this source, which seems to eloquently cover the European misconception of the supposed country. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Midnight-Blue766: Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks by Mountain157, aside from the content of the previous ANI involving yourself and M157? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already provided the diffs to Talk:Tartary; the majority of the statements I construe as personal attacks should still be up there. My own talk page also has some of his vandalism accusations. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Our article Tartary is in terrible shape and is a perfect opportunity for a competent editor who understands Central Asian history to do some good work. A poorly refererenced article on an obscure topic is fertile ground for fringe editing. There is a serious underlying problem because this topic is a subset of a fringe disinformation theory called New Chronology (Fomenko) which is one of the most sweeping and disruptive and bizarre conspiracy theories of the last 50 years. Wikipedia editors simply cannot allow this delusion to infect our articles, although we must describe the theory itself in neutral terms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick googling reveals that Tartary is the subject of a great deal of kooky fringe theories (such as the Russians and CIA conspired to hide its existence, or it was a perfect civilization built using the Ark of the Covenant). Its resurgence does appear to be concurrent with New Chronology, (as evidenced by the fact that Vladimir Putin gifted a supposed map of Tartary to Tatarstan in 2017 [52] (note that this article concludes that Tartary may have been just a misinterpretation of the Golden Horde). This is an article that needs some attention for sure, lest folks push some wild POV. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to point out how convenient it is for an account after a month of inactivity to wake up with this gem and then for the WP:BOOMERANGed user to blank everything except that message. And, as it turns out Thegman81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has strongly overlapping topic areas. Does anyone else hear quacking?Thunderchunder (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a small note which may be unrelated to this discussion, there is currently an AE notice filed against User:Mountain157 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mountain157. Just wanted to point this out here. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mountian157 has been indeffed as a normal Admin action. I agree with User:Thunderchunder's identification of User:Thegman87 as a possible sock puppet. Do we have to file an SPI or can some Admin look into this based on this thread? Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no technical evidence that these accounts are related.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! Thunderchunder (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring from User:Alex95-Ukraine

User:Alex95-Ukraine has made countless edits to 2019 Australian Grand Prix adding flagicons to tables (an example seen here, and here are 2 example) citing a consensus when in fact there was a consensus made a few days ago on the talk page for the opposite, (s)he has been informed of this several times but still refuses to wait for the outcome of the new discussion he has started on the talk page. On top of this he has also accused me of WP:SOCK (here) without any evidence. SSSB (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was only about adding entry list to the article which I dont mind. There wasnt any consensus about removing flags from the tables and also at least 4 users are against removing (while only 2 want to remove them) but still you decided to change the consensual version of the article to the version which you want. Alex (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the discussion fully you would know that the main reason the entry table was added was to remove the need for 2-3 flagicons per driver, therefore there was a consensus, as for the discussion it currently stands at 2 v 2, (Alex95-Ukraine, EchoFourFour v me and Mclarenfan17, those are the only people who have contributed to the new discussion you started, there is no consensus for the reintroduction for flagicons in results tables. SSSB (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to ignore opinion of other people like Admanny who also written in that talk page that he thinks that article should be kept like in previous years? Also 2-3 flagicons per driver is not 15 like it the wrc article. There is no reason to remove them. Alex (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring I just didn't see as it was a different thread, but 3v2 after a few hours still isn't enough to declare a consensus, in response to your other comments, they should not be discussed here but on the talk page. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Whereas the behavior of both Alex95-Ukraine (not constructive participation at the talk page) and SSSB (warnings of vandalism about behavior which is clearly not vandalism) is not exactly constructive, I think the problem can possibly only be solved by starting an RFC which would include other similar pages as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but overnight the talk page has flooded with responses from editors supporting the reinclusion of flags in all tables and all based on the same argument. Now I have been around a long time—I used to edit as Prisonermonkeys—and I have never seen any of those editors before. One has never edited a Fornula 1 article for anything more than spelling, one has been inactive for a year (save for a single edit in September) and one has only ever contributed to the discussion on that page. It feels a little suspicious. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, I have nothing to do and have 10 accounts. That what you wanted to say, right? Alex (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. It feels more like canvassing to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we can deal with this here, at least not until the canvassing accusation has been proven. A RfC, however, will solve the issue for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is necessary, there is a clear consensus in favour of keeping flagicons and until these canvassing can be proved we will simply have to follow it. SSSB (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter — I'm not accusing anyone, just voicing suspicions that something is amiss. When four editors (and one IP) with little to no history of editing Formula 1 or motorsport pages (I think they had two edits between them) all descend on the same talk page within hours of one another, it gets my attention. It could be that this is just the first race of the year and so there is an upswing of new editors, but when that has happened in the past, those new editors work on a much wider range of related articles. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't think there was canvassing here. If there was, it would be easy to detect that in their contributions. I think there is just a clear comment interest, namely Australia. The subject is the Australian Grand Prix and it seems some user just came by to edit the article on their home Grand Prix. A number of them edit frequently on Australian motorsports subjects. Now, you should not be voicing concerns over other users' contributions as your recent contributions don't demonstrate exemplary behavior either. In the past 60 or so hours you made one, two, three, four, [53], six reverts on that article regarding the flags. The first four of them where a clear WP:3RR violation. You have been blocked many for that behavior when you were still known as Prisonermonkeys. I don't know why you weren't blocked for it this time. It appears that in all those years you still haven't learned.Tvx1 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And you have been lobbying for me to be blocked at every opportunity. You have a history of misrepresenting things to the point where admins were ignoring your reports. I know that at least one admin felt that you were using ANI and 3RR to settle personal scores. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope that was you with that sentiment. The admin gave you a boomerang. You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own. The facts are the facts though and the evidence in the contributions for this article is clear. Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me. And that "every opportunity" claim is a joke. I think the last time I reported you for anything must have been over a year ago.Tvx1 02:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me."

And we have misrepresentation. First of all, I was the subject of the first ANI (which went nowhere), while I was referenced in this ANI as someone who could attest to the initial complaint. Your comments about "ending up at ANI" imply that I was the subject of both reports, which is not true.

Secondly, you have been involved in both ANIs. In the first instance, you took it upon yourself to lobby for the admins to take action when none did. I don't see how you can claim that neither ANI involved you when here you are trying to draw the admins' attention away from the original subject. That's involving yourself.

"You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own."

Maybe I am trying to throw shade on others to avoid attracting attention to myself—but that doesn't give the admins nearly enough credit. Maybe they really do feel that your habit of misrepresenting things (such as suggesting that I was the subject of this ANI) calls into question the merits of your reports. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you were not the subject of this report, it’s your actions again that are the root cause of why someone got reported here. Youre edit-warring to the point of breaching WP:3RR again is what caused this sorry mess. And I’m sorry to say this but I think SSSB mishandled the situation and blamed the wrong person. It‘s very telling that the OP of the first report predicted to SportingFlyer that wouldn’t be long before we would return here for an incident sooner rather than later. And barely two weeks later here we are. It’s clear that these are not isolated incidents. And my comments regarding involvement did not deal with the ANI reports, but with the incidents that led to the reports being posted. What I meant to say, is that I was not directly involved with the altercations that caused these reports to be posted, and I stand by that.Tvx1 13:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment. If they violated or gamed WP:3RR, we have a special place you can go to report them, which is where this report should be based on a look at 2019 Australian Grand Prix, but they did not. It's the correct place to file a report against the user reported here as well. I've read the entire talk page again and I can't see anything remotely sanctionable. Also, as someone with little interest in racing, I would like to remind everyone involved the article should conform with WP:MOSFLAG, which it does not currently do. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not want a sanction per se. I want Prisonermonkeys/McLarenfan17 to finally have an insight on their behavior so these sort of incidents just don’t happen anymore. Do you really believe that the Wikiproject F1 members enjoy gettin embroiled in this from time to time?? As for MOS:FLAG, there was a large discussion over there years ago and the consensus was that F1 articles do conform.Tvx1 14:55, 19 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[54], 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[55][56][57][58][59] 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 [60] (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[61]. 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: [62] [63] [64] - 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 - [65]. 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)

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. [66]; 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)

Camps Maria and Plastiquedoll12

Can someone enlighten me on the edits of

• Camps Maria and
• Plastiquedoll12

They seem to be keeping stats in their userpage, and (for Camps Maria) zero edits outside of that. The (minimal) edits that Plastiquedoll12 does outside of the userspaces of the two accounts seems to give the suggestion that the stats are related to RuPaul's Drag Race, mostly Season 11, but I then fail to see a (direct) connection between the edits performed on the userspaces and on the articles.

I've tried to ask both editors what they were doing 2 weeks ago, but neither have responded thus far. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this before on other accounts and user pages, too. To be honest, I'm not completely sure. I just moved on and called them "test edits" in my mind... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm thats weird, I've seen those types of edits before, and with a variety of users. Boggles me as to...what or why, not sure if its socking or what. In the past I've just tagged it for U5 WP:NOTWEBHOST speedy deletion, which is what I have done for these userpages at the moment. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and CaptainEek: I was hovering between the 'test edits' and 'notwebhost' type as well (they did not really bother me, except that they hog an edit filter). Lets see what happens next ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra - Indeed. With the accounts that I saw that had this same kind of user page, I didn't see much happen beyond the creation of the tables. Some did update them later (if they were sports scores, or something else that needed such), but other than that... I don't remember seeing anything else happen. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I've blocked this person before, but – if I have – I don't remember who it is. Anyway, the following are  Confirmed to each other: Camps Maria, Idol Academy, DanceSchool2019, Plastiquedoll12, The Next Drag Superstar, Lolitadragracerace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Oh wow... thank you. That puts things into perspective... I'm still puzzled as to what these pages are even for? Is anyone opposed to me (or someone else) deleting them per U5? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Zakkarygraham (user page) - another? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been considering whether this is some game between some of the fans of this Drag Race. As the ratings come out they (sometimes) update the pages itself, and for the rest play their own game. That would certainly qualify this material for U5. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I found one that was blocked: Renten12 (talk · contribs). Some others: Unrulydragbrunch (talk · contribs), Birdsofpreyshowdc (talk · contribs), Dragbingo2 (talk · contribs), Dontitodragbrunch (talk · contribs), Christianloera20 (talk · contribs). For some reason, these "contestant progress" socks trip filter 643. I still haven't found any that I personally blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Interesting thought. I went ahead and U5'd the user pages of the accounts you listed that still had tables and information published. Worst case scenario, one of them will message me on my user talk page about it and explain. Restoring the material is easy to do if it turns out to be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: it appears to be tripping 643 (written to catch a sock that as one of their MOs is editing to win/brag about prizes in contests and hence links sometimes to that in their edit summaries) because they consistently edit sections that state ..'/* Contestant Progress for Season 1 */ ...' (at a rate that trips the filter). It is a false positive in the terms of what I try to catch, and, as I said, rather annoyingly clogging the filter. Hence my attempt to communicate (and now I am here after lack of communication) to figure out whether I should filter them out of the filter, or whether we should just 'block, delete and move on' as this is WP:NOTHERE material. Seen this communication, I think a future block-delete is the appropriate action. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Christianloera20/sandbox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Missedge1/Archive may be related, too. One of the socks has a "contestant progress" user page. These accounts don't seem to be hurting anything, but it looks like a few of them have been blocked for WP:NOTHERE or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was sure that issues surrounding articles pertaining to the show had came up before and sure enough it seems I'm right [67]. I had a quick look and most of those editors seem to be in good standing although there was one or two who was blocked or an IP. And nothing struck me as particularly similar. But I can't be bothered investigating in detail, so does anyone know whether this could be related to previous problems? Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

POV pusher

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

This editor is obviously pushing a POV. he/she keeps adding images about Arab slavery into articles and adding "Islam" to Arab trade slavery removing responses to cristism of Muhammed and Islam(doesn't respect balance). I am going to start with each of his edits.

• 1-He has got reverted multiple times by two different editors after he added an image to the lead and yet he ask us to get consensus although he is the one who has to make a consensus. he added the image here he got reverted here and so on until I and him got blocked after he reported me immediately (I have reported him but I got no response so I got upset about it and editwar happened).
• 2-Slavery article after we discussed this and we got consensus about this issue which was that he don't put the Arab Slavery photo in the lead and he somehow agreed on that(see the talk page) he added the image again saying that Musicfan122 is has no responded to him although I did response to him and he didn't come back with anything just said (okay thanks for pointing that out)
• 3-adding the images of Arab slavery into different articles you a can see that from his contributions.
• 4- calling other editors edits "possible vandalism" he was calling this edit btw a possible vandalism and actually he made an edit war there with Ross Finlayson because of this simple issue he just don't want to listen. He also used Wikipedia as a source in another article here

I am totally disgusted with this type of behaviour can you do something about it? My English isn't so good to actually describe this type of behaviour and extensively explain how all of his edits like putting unbalanced images into the lead please see talk:Slavery as I explained to him that and he didn't response and again he reverted it's totally disrespectful. I feel like if I am being trolled (to be honest) by that revert BTW. I have made a promise to MSGJ that I am not going to edit in any slavery related articles and I did my promise BTW I am not topic banned or something I am by myself choose not to contribute in that area any time soon yet I can't actually stand this behaviour so I decided to ask you guys to help me..--SharabSalam (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the articles that you both have edited, I see a lot of edit warring and disruption between the two of you. You both are equally responsible and can be held accountable for resorting to edit warring instead of following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and working things out. I saw that Balolay added an image from this topic area (Arab / Islamic slavery) onto the Photograph and Photography articles; I removed the image added to the photograph article, as it clearly isn't necessary at all. This unnecessary addition of images from this topic (as well as Balolay's edit history which looks to be almost exclusively within this topic area) shows that Balolay might have a single-purpose point-of-view and hence be a single-purpose account in regards to this topic area. Edit warring doesn't make anything better, however. If Balolay starts repeatedly reverting your edits to an article, you should stop reverting things back and instead file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I'm no expert in this topic area, but I can definitely say that things can't continue as they've been doing, and a deeper look into Balolay's edits may be warranted here. I'm happy to see that you've kept to your word and have stayed away from this topic area. Otherwise, I believe that the back-and-forth reverting and other issues would've just continued and resulted in more administrative action taken against the two of you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

After I got blocked I did not edit war with him but it got my attention that he readded this image into the lead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/888145117 totally ignoring me and saying that another editor hasn't showed up see the talk page and what we have reached too literally he still didn't come back with any response to my argument this is trolling and unhealthy for me--SharabSalam (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Oshwah Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Regarding my edits on Photography, I don't think I was pushing a particular agenda since it is a totally unrelated topic. However, I added the image since it's an important historical piece highlighting the importance of photography in raising awareness on particular issues. And my edit history shows that I add images to various unrelated articles fairly frequently. I hope this clears any doubts. Regards

@SharabSalam I think it's highly unfair that you are blaming me considering the fact that the other editor you were supporting turned out to be a sockpuppet troll account. You have previously reverted my good faith edits on other articles such as Islam, which were later corrected by other editors. I have engaged in countless productive discussions without offending other editors such as the one on Talk: Criticism of Muhammad. Regards Balolay (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay, there is no way in which this was a revert of "possible vandalism". And please see WP:TOPPOST on organizing posts. You had four separate paragraphs at two levels of indenting: very confusing. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• And I'm beginning to think there is something to the complaint. Take this edit, which is also, really, this edit. Balolay adds images of the enslavement of Africans by Arabs, and that such enslavement happens is clear and not part of the discussion, but why that image (which is heartbreaking, of course--looking at all those images, ah humanity...) ought to be in Photography or Abolitionism is entirely unclear. It is true that photography was helpful for some abolitionist, but the sources make that case for Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, not for abolitionism (some of which preceded the invention of photography) as a whole, and certainly not for the slavery that this photo illustrate. One can say that one image can stand for all, but if it is true that the editor also likes to add "Muslim" or "Islamic" or whatever to "Arab slave trade" (we will need to see evidence of that), or that otherwise the editor seems to have an anti-Islam POV, then the selection can be seen as part of POV-editing. And even without that evidence, I just do not see evidence for Balolay's claims that these images are inherently applicable to these articles. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and sorry for tagging you. Here the addition of Islam/Muslim to Arab slave trade. Special:MobileDiff/885936221 here he added "Arab Islamic world" here I reverted Special:MobileDiff/885945047 here he readded it Special:MobileDiff/885965956 I reverted again Special:MobileDiff/886041705 with the edit summary that you can see. notice that this is 17 days ago. one day ago he added it no edit summary whatsoever Special:MobileDiff/888475680. 10 mins ago his edit was reverted.

now for the Slavery article I will explain what was happening he had an edit war with a user called Musicfan about an image in the body of the article again they were arguing about the image in the body of the article while they are arguing he added an image to the lead that is mainly about Arab slavery I objected that edit and started discussing that in the talk page and as you can see at the end of the discussion that I explained why the lead should not contain that image per MOS:LEADIMAGE. he asked me what is my position on the image of the body(that he was arguing with Musicfan) I said I don't have any problem with it(and I have said that before in the discussion) he readded the image of the body to the article saying (per TP) although he didn't make any consensus with Musicfan about the image in the body. This whole problem that is about the lead image started 2 weeks ago. 2 days ago he readded the image of the lead saying (Restored image in the lead after no response from Musicfan122 for more than 7 days on talk page.) and I was like: WTFFFFFF that's was between me and him and he didn't make any reply to my argument!! he totally dismissed me and that edit summary was IMO pure trolling. same as calling other edits possible vandalism. This behaviour is totally toxic to me. The conclusion that I have reached from his contributions that this user is actually pushing a POV and that the talk page are worthless to him. he says that he has commited and discussed with other edits in another articles then why doesnt he do that with me why did he totally dismiss what I said in the talk page of slavery and went and readded the image to the lead? Also tagging Eperoton who might have an opinion about his edits. also I want to clarify that I made a promise that I am not going to edit in the slavery article again because it is a sensitive issue and I don't want to say or do things that could be considered offensive. I didn't edit any slavery article since I had that problem with him. However, yesterday I reverted his edit in Photography or Photograph and Slavery because I saw that no one noticing what he is doing. (Forgive me for using he/his/him but it's hard for me to not use them) --SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies makes a point. On closer look to Balolay contributions some of his contributions are highly unnecessary and only questions WP:HERE motive. Such contributions are mentioned above, as well as this [68] and/or adding controversial statements [69] and/or removing others [70]. This looks like this user harbors anti-Islam POV to me, but a more experienced user could perhaps investigate further. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I want also to add something to what Wikiemirati said. The user has added a passage into the Criticism of Muhammad and it was removed here [71] if you took a look at it it is sourced to Wikipedia article but what Wikipedia article? An old version of the same article (Criticism of Muhammad)!!!! I find this hilarious tbh. Do you know why he did that? Because that passage was challenged before and was already removed because the source doesn't say what the passage says. See talk:Criticism of Muhammad--SharabSalam (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies this was clearly a mistake as I thought I was mentioning the official NZ stats website when in reality I was mentioning another wiki article. However, there is nothing wrong as the figure 1.18% is exactly correct per 2013 census.

Take this edit, which is also, really, this edit. Balolay adds images of the enslavement of Africans by Arabs, and that such enslavement happens is clear and not part of the discussion, but why that image (which is heartbreaking, of course--looking at all those images, ah humanity...) ought to be in Photography or Abolitionism is entirely unclear.

If the same logic is applied then none of the other images in the lead stand a chance either. That image in Abolitionism is just as important as those of anti-slavery movement collection boxes. The sources I have provided clearly mention that powerful images like these were used as a tool to end slavery and if you read the image description on wikimedia commons it says exactly the same. The only point of contention I am seeing here is that the image mentions Arab slavery which has offended some arab editors including a notorious sockpuppet troll who harrased me for a long time before he was blocked.

it is true that the editor also likes to add "Muslim" or "Islamic" or whatever to "Arab slave trade" (we will need to see evidence of that), or that otherwise the editor seems to have an anti-Islam POV.

I have already explained the reason in detail on Talk:Arab slave trade.

In short, the image I have added to Abolitionism and Photography was no different from several others I have added to various wiki article leads over my course of being a Wikipedia editor. I have even added a particular image (that I considered worthy) to many articles. The only difference here is that the mentioned image here refers to Arab slavery which has offended many. Regards

@ User:Wikiemirati you said This looks like this user harbors anti-Islam POV to me that's a big accusation you are throwing at me considering the fact that SharabSalam who mentioned me here for POV pushing removed a valid image from criticism section of Islam several times [72] [73] giving vague reasons such as it being offensive to Muslim. If I weren't to point that out, that image might have gone from the article forever. If that's not pro-Muslim bias and POV pushing than what is? Balolay (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Balolay, the problem is, and I don't understand why you don't see this, that "The sources I have provided clearly mention that powerful images like these were used as a tool to end slavery" is simply incorrect. The sources talk about specific images used by specific abolitionists in specific historic circumstances. You are talking about a different image, in a different historic circumstances in another part of the world, and there is no clarity on which abolitist(s) used your image; in fact there is no proof whatsoever that this image was used in what you provided. I don't care what the description on Commons says--anyone can go in and edit that. What you are doing is definition of WP:SYNTH. Now the question for ANI is whether you know this or not, whether you do this on purpose from your POV or not. That you're doing it is undeniable. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. I've had my share of questioning SharahSalam edits. Both of you were edit warring and both of you were blocked. Now, regarding your edits you seem to disagree with him by adding an image based on some sense of "time" that its been on wikipedia. Clearly, the image was added by you and contested by at least two other users. The dispute arose by your contribution adding the image and not by their edits of removing it. Status quo has been restored in Slavery article by an admin, and then again by me, but the edit warring resumed when you have re-added the image. You need to follow WP:BRD and discuss your changes with those who do not agree with you. I agree with both Drmies and Oshwah on their opinion of your edits and honestly I don't find any good reasoning or anyone else supporting you either which makes me question your motive of such unnecessary edits. With that said, you need to stop reverting users who do not agree with you and present your reasoning in well formed manner compliant with Wikipedia policies of WP:OR,WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I have not seen any of that and therefore object your contributions which in my opinion are highly unnecessary and only questions your motive, which to me sounds non-neutral. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Asking for advice to avoid being accused of edit warring

Guy Macon and I are embroiled in a dispute involving White genocide conspiracy theory, Population decline, The Turner Diaries, the ORN and NPOVN noticeboards, WP:JIMBOTALK (where I complained because there was a related discussion ongoing and I felt like I was being stalked and bullied -- but that only escalated the problem), and WT:OR#"Directly related to the topic of the article" does not mean explicitly referring to it, which is a balanced discussion on the central issue involved. I've engaged with him civilly for the past three days, but I no longer think he is acting in good faith.

He had objected to a paragraph about birth rates I added to White genocide conspiracy theory#Criticism because he, along with several other people, considered it original research because it was not related directly enough to the subject. So I added essentially the same paragraph, plus another source which two editors had approved of, to Population decline#Interpretation of statistical data, which he has now deleted twice; diffs: [74], [75]. On the talk page he said that the inclusion was OR, but he didn't say which statements, if any, were unsupported by reliable sources, and he didn't say that the issue of low birthrates was unrelated to the article's subject. However, in his initial edit summary he said that he was deleting the passage because of WP:NPOV, which he didn't mention on the talk page. The only third party on that article's talk page says it should be included in the body, not the introduction which is the only place that I've ever included it, although I originally proposed adding it to the intro. I would like to replace the paragraph in the body of the article. Question 1: If I do that now, would that risk the appearance of edit warring? If so, which dispute resolution method is appropriate in this case?

I also don't think Guy is being sincere because of his false claim that, "you won't find any specific mention [of] the white genocide conspiracy theory in The Turner Diaries."[76] I'm sure he didn't read the book or do a thorough search for sources on the topic, as explained at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Does The Turner Diaries specifically mention the white genocide conspiracy theory? which I copied to the book's talk page to support the correct claim there. He has repeatedly been deleting my replies to him on that and other topics at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Proposed Criticism section inclusion; diffs: [77], [78], [79]. He thinks he is allowed to delete my interspersed replies to his several bullet points even after I restored his original comment to its precise initial state. Does he have the right to delete my interspersed comments just because I quoted his subsequently? WP:TPO appears to say just the opposite. Question 2: If I tried to replace my reply to his several bullet points for a third time in Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory#Deleted responses, could I be accused of edit warring? If so, how should I handle this?

In any case, I'm going to step back for a few days during which I intend to limit my editing to this thread only. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a complicated content dispute, just small advice to you, some things on this wikipedia are just not worth the stress, take those pages off your watchlist and let them go, in time the articles will get improved as is the way of things and you will also be happier. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Standard ANI response: As is my policy, if any administrator tells me to stop doing something I stop doing it immediately, whether I agree or not. If I really feel the warning was out of line (this has not happened yet) I will discuss it with the admin on their talk page rather than ignoring the warning. I would urge any admin with an itchy trigger finger to please try warning me before considering a block. I have a history of 13 years with no blocks and want to keep it that way.

OK, let's look at a timeline with diffs:

At 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited one of my comments.[80]

WP:TPOC says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" and "you should stop if there is any objection".

The help page WP:TALKPAGE says: "Add your comment below the last entry in the discussion. If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it."

At 03:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I removed the edits to my comment with the edit summary "Deleted clear WP:TPOC violation. Don't edit other peoples comments."[81] (1RR)

At 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I warned EllenCT on their talk page.[82]

At 07:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT cut and pasted my comment to a new section (retaining my signature, making it look as if I had written those words in that section) and once again interspersed her comments.[83] (1RR)

At 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I deleted the edited cut and paste of my comment.[84] (2RR)

At that time I added the following advice:

Nowhere in TPOC or any other policy is there an exception to the rule against editing other people's comments just because you tacked on a {{tl|interrupt}} template, nor are you allowed to cut and past other people's comments (along with their signature) and edit the cut and pasted version. Please read WP:TPOC and follow Wikipedia's rules.

The usual way that this is handled without a WP:TPOC violation is to use this format:

In the comment above, Larson E. Whipsnade says "the moon is made of green cheese". I disagree. According to[85] the moon is made of Regolith. --~~~~'

At 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC) EllenCT ignored the above advice and once again posted the edited version of my comment.[86] (2RR)

At 18:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I reverted the edit of my comment with the edit summary "Editing other people's comments, including interspersing your own in them, is a violation of WP:TPOC."[87] (3RR)

It is incredibly annoying to write something only to discover that it now has someone interrupting it after every sentence with a rebuttal. It is also annoying to find that -- despite your objections -- a talk page now looks like you posted the exact same message to two different sections, and you are not allowed to remove the copy. Might I humbly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are annoyed that I rebutted each of your bullet points, but why do you think you have the right to delete my quoting them, along with my original replies? EllenCT (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer 1 The content is disputed and there is no consensus for it on the talk page, so don't add it back. You could leave a note at WT:SOCIOLOGY to get more eyes.

Answer 2 Don't use the {{interrupt}} template anymore; per it's documentation, it's only to be used when the in line responses can't be undone because they're too old. It makes following a conversation impossible to follow. Copying Guy's remarks again and using the {{interrupt}} tag is just as confusing. Instead, do what Guy did for your comments: Quote them, in a way that makes it clear to the reader that you're quoting him, and then respond to the quote. Most people do this by using {{green}} or italics or a {{quotebox}}.

Answer 3 I know there was no Question 3, but @Guy Macon:, while I can understand the frustration, please dial back the hostility some. It makes it that much more difficult for uninvolved editors to be able to, or to want to, participate. This will all eventually work out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you. I will do those things after a few days. I had no idea inline replies were deprecated.

I'd like to ask your advice about a related issue. I started editing these articles after reading the New Zealand mosque terrorist's manifesto, and then doing a web search on the keywords he repeats in front of it, many permutations of which (e.g. [white birth rates Europe]) lead to sites like [88] and [89] on the first page of Google search results. How can we best help impressionable researchers seeing such sites for the first time as they look for answers on such topics get a more balanced, less extremist point of view countering those organized attempts at radicalization? Is it something that is easier to do elsewhere than Wikipedia? Are there people at Google who monitor these sorts of things? EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean how do we make Google searches show better results? I suppose one step would be to have good Wikipedia articles that would take the top slot, but there's nothing WP can do to push the loony results further down the Google search results page beyond that. I know very little about Google's algorithms or their monitoring system, but my understanding is they really don't like to get involved, and prefer to let the algorithm do what it does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• EllenCT Forgive the fly-by response, but I am just out the door and wanted to respond to you quickly before doing so, since I think the issues here are easily addressed if further entrenchment by parties does not first set in: 1) the process you are looking for to resolve this stalemate is a WP:Request for comment, which should, given the topic of this article, attract a fair few community members to help resolve the deadlock. However, whoever writes up the RfC request should be careful to make sure that it is neutrally worded--if you're feeling uncertain of availing yourself of this process because of unfamiliarity, let me know and I will assist at my next earliest opportunity in opening and framing the discussion, as a neutral third party. 2) Guy is absolutely correct that it is generally not permissable to break up another editor's comments into chunks by embedding your own responses within them. This is non-standard for the project and becomes far too messy as discussions progress (and people respond to your responses) and in general. It will keep people from being able to easily track the course of the discussion and the "owner" of various statements and assertions. It really shouldn't be done in any event, and once Guy reverted and asked you not to repeat such edits, you definitely are required to stop at that juncture.

I hope this helps address your questions. In generally, this clearly a content dispute, rather than a behavioural issue, so this is not likely to be the ideal space for further debate on the underlying issues. As I said before, if you two are at a loggerheads, then RfC is your best way out--let me know if you'd like some help with it. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Thank you. I would love help with an RFC by a neutral third party. As I said, I'm going to step away for a few days so there is no hurry, but please don't let that stop you either. EllenCT (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I will wait on your return to do any work so I can be able to consult with you to be certain that I am faithfully representing your editorial stance on the issue. Of course, there is nothing barring Guy from initiating the RfC or another dispute resolution process in the meantime, but provided that he is in no hurry, I'll be happy to make an effort at rendering both your stance and his in a few days, or whenever you return--just toss me a note on my talk page or ping me, at your convenience. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "please dial back the hostility some": (Big smile, as in "you make an excellent point and I will be happy to comply") Sir yes sir! Dialing down hostility now sir! [GROUP HUG] :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "I had no idea inline replies were deprecated", might I gently suggest that when an editor repeatedly tells you that you are violating WP:TPOC you simply read TPOC and any linked help pages do what they say rather than going to ANI? The phrases "you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies", "you should stop if there is any objection", and "If you want to respond to a specific comment, you can place your response directly below it" are extremely clear. Your claim that you did not understand such crystal clear language strains AGF to the breaking point. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• For the record. I would oppose any sanctions against EllenCT at this time, and I personally would not have taken this to ANI. I would be satisfied with a commitment by EllenCT to read and follow our policies and guidelines in the future.

To bring up another example of this behavior (and trying very hard to focus on the user behavior and not the underlying content dispute) I cited one of the foremost academic experts on The Turner Diaries[90] (J.M. Berger of The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism) and EllenCT responded with her original research and interpretation about what the primary source The Turner Diaries really means.[91]

Given the pattern of behavior we are seeing, what do you think will happen when I point to the specific words in our policies regarding what reliable academic sources say about a primary source vs a Wikipedia editor reading and interpreting the primary sources? I would also mention that after posting her personal interpretation of a primary source on a talk page, she proceeded to insert the same OR into yet another article.[92]] That's another part of the behavior pattern; try to insert OR into an article, get pushback from the other editors, try to coat rack the same OR into another article. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Long story short, I have to agree with Guy here. She is ignoring what a number of editors have told her about basic policy. If she continues with this I think sanctions might be appropriate. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment Follow WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. We too often forget that it's OK if one person disagrees. Involve others and see what the consensus is.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't try to use Wikipedia to change Google search results. That amounts to soapboxing (WP:SOAP). It's supposedly a standalone encyclopedia and we'd be better off if we blocked Google from indexing it forever. Also I think everyone is trying pretty hard to ignore the contents of the shooter manifesto, which by all reports I've seen doesn't contain much of substance anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is a case where our rules (don't read and interpret the manifesto yourself, apply WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and when appropriate report what reliable independent third part sources say about it) really shine. In this case, one of the sources says:

"And now there's the guy who just slaughtered at least 49 people in two New Zealand mosques. His manifesto emerges, dripping, from the memes-and-shitposts world of 8chan, 4chan, and similar sites. Parts of the document are obvious put-ons, even as the blood in Christchurch reminds us that the killer wasn't kidding about his lethal intentions... the document isn't always so straightforward; at times the terrorist is trying to fuck with his readers... At one point in his attack, right before opening fire, the killer said, "Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.".. The words "subscribe to PewDiePie" are themselves a meme. Reciting them before you shoot people is the internet-age equivalent of murdering someone while you repeat a Saturday Night Live catchphrase. The fascist terrorist is also a fascist troll. Reading him is like seeing a Pepe meme carrying an actual gun."

I write the above not as a comment about this particular manifesto, (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content) but instead as a comment about how when we follow Wikipedia's rules it protects us from the mistake of not realizing what is and is not internet trolling and from conducting original research by reading and interpreting the manifesto ourselves.

Source: The Shitpost Terrorist: When a murder manifesto shows signs of irony poisoning, Reason Magazine --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass deleting broken inline citations

• Talk about confusing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm uncertain about what new user Talk about confusing is currently doing to old refnames in articles. They seem to deleting them in bot-like fashion. Example diff: [93], my revert [94], their re-revert (edit summary: You find it) [95]. Systematically removing all broken refs without checking article histories seems like a bad idea to me, because it's basically throwing away other editors' research. At a minimum, if something needed a source in 2007, it probably needs to be cited with something now. Am I missing something here? Geogene (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so to me, Geogene. Generally, the folks here want to see diffs, but in this case, the editor in question's talk paints a clear enough picture. He's been counseled by multiple editors multiple times on this subject to which he has either ignored, sidestepped or responded belligerently. TAC needs to respond here with an explanation or explain themselves in an unblock request. Enough already. According to his talk page, this isn't his first trip here in the 6 weeks he's been around. John from Idegon (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are more diffs that show what I mean by "bot-like, systematic, mass deletion" of broken references. Here we have deletion of a reference at Croatian Pure Party of Rights at 13:41 [96]. Three minutes later we have deletion of two references at Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young discography [97]. At 13:56 there's a deletion of one old reference at Cross-linked polyethylene [98], and one minute later a deleted reference at Crossfire (Brandon Flowers song) [99]. I'm not saying that broken references can't ever be deleted, but the tempo of these edits, the potential scope of the editing (which I'm assuming is large since it's being done in unrelated articles in alphabetical order), and the dismissive remark from the editor, all have me concerned about whether TAC is exercising appropriate judgement here. Lost citations can be difficult to replace. Geogene (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This is extremely alarming. The user has ignored all attempts at communication, or has responded with personal attacks. They also do appear to be operating an unauthorized bot of some type. I do not know how else someone could crawl Wikipedia and identify and remove broken refs at that speed. Even if they're not actually using bot scripts (which I doubt), it's definitely bot-like to the degree where it's inconsequential. At best, this is a CIR issue, and I have blocked the user immediately to halt their disruption. They will be instructed that they will have to fully engage with this inquiry as a start, and if they do so we can start to think about unblock conditions. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, I think I need to apologize to you. I saw he was blocked on my watchlist, went to his talk and saw the stream of conciousness soliloquy and left him (extremely nicely, for me) some advice on what it will take to get unblocked. It did not include explaining his "bot-like" editing, so you may want to weigh in there. My bad. Peace out. John from Idegon (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Talk about confusing has made about 1700 edits in the six weeks they have been here, and I suspect that a large percentage will have to be rolled back. 'Removing a dead reference' is removing evidence of a fixable problem in most cases. The removal means it will become twice as hard to restore the reference that used to be there. The campaign of mass edits is possibly intended to make a point, and the familiar usage of complex templates may indicate this is a returning editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support the current indefinite block due to the extremely unhelpful removal of old references with a complete inability to communicate in a manner required for a collaborative community. Until there is a good reason to expect a resolution of both problems, the block should stand. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• No worries John from Idegon, I appreciate you taking the time to leave a helpful message. I have also left a very thorough message explaining why the issues they've caused. It was probably excessive for a user whose disruption can be summed up as "CIR", but their response to the block deceptively betrays just how overwhelmingly excessive this user's disruption was. Frankly, they've created a massive cleanup task for us to deal with, and I think they should be responsible for undoing the damage they caused as part of any unblock consideration (which does not seem realistic at this point). ~Swarm~ {talk} 14:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Jahmalm and Ahmedo Semsurî

Two separate but related reports, combined by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism". No talk page posts by either editor. If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer. Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have merged another report on the same issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing POV-editing and vandalism by user

I was told to write here by the folks at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[100], so here I am. I want to report Jahmalm for vandalism. Every single edit of his is POV-related and vandalism (I'll actually call it smart vandalism since he actually uses sources (one source (author) over and over again in tens of pages). He's ignoring my edits and demands for sources/clarifications/better sources by reverting ([101][102][103]) and claim that I'm just 'an ethno-pov changer' every time (despite using various and diverse sources to support my changes (historians, linguistics, etc.). He even had the audacity to report me for vandalism, when I confronted his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any edits that would be within the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Can you provide Help:Diffs? Or are you actually just having a content dispute that would be best resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a 'content dispute' since it's not about supporting two contradictory academic arguments. He's just reverting my changes when it doesn't fit his point of view. I cleaned up after his mess on three articles, always academically sourced [104]. Now instead of having a sober debate on why he adds content with blogs as a source or oeuvres by one particular historian whose views he supports, he reverts and calls me a Kurdish nationalist. And note that I've worked hard to remove pro-Kurdish vandalism on Wikipedia as well([[105]). Concerning Help:Diffs, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I would gladly provide it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One example: I stated why I removed a map he added and why I added templates to various sentences.[106][107], but instead of looking into them, he just reverts [108][109]. It doesn't seem like he's on Wikipedia for any other reason than to force his views despite having academia against him. I'm really trying to make him argue for his changes, but he accuses me of being a nationalist.

Also, I'm pretty sure that he'll breach the Wikipedia:3RR today. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues as I write [110][111][112] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a sober debate will take place.[113] Sadly. And the racism thing is really inappropriate. I've written on the talk pages of all three articles in question to move forward, but to no avail. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No willingness to improve any of the articles with POV/OR issues. [114] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only account User:Ahmedo Semsurî by a Kurdish nationalist

Vandalism and POV changes by User:Ahmedo Semsurî a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday—Jahmalm (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious question, is this how 'a Kurdish nationalist' works? [115]. Seriously, it's time to stop vandalizing --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I had some skepticism that this was a behavioral incident for this noticeboard until Jahmalm's report above. It is patently obvious that User:Ahmedo Semsurî is not a vandalism-only account. So, @Jahmalm:, why would you claim that? --Bsherr (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on Mission User:Ahmedo Semsurî

I have merged this report as it appears to concern the same user and the same issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on mission. User:Ahmedo Semsurî tries everything to destroy Yazidi articles, spreads his pov here, replaces Kurmanji with "Kurmaji Kurdish" or "Northern Kurdish"(see here) does not understand the difference between settlement areas and countries (see here), does not understand that there are Yazidis who do not call themselves Kurds. does not understand that Ezdiki or the "Yazidi language" is a recognized minority language in Armenia since 2002 and protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. had previously started an Editwar. had misused the term vandalism often. (see here) calls me racist because I told him that he is Kurd. But that has nothing to do with racism, because he is indeed a Kurd and it is also written on his Wikipedia page. His posts show us for dayslong what goal he pursues.[116] for example erasing Shabak and Yazidi identity. claims that Shabaki and the Zaza language are „Kurdish“.[117] Also Human Rights Watch had reported about this methods according to a report from November 2009 „The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds.“[118]—58.79.24.120 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to give Ahmedo Semsurî a notice about your report. I've done so. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me point out the conduct of the reporting IP. Note this gem, which refers to the IP as "we", and includes various personal attacks. Or here, where IP says they are not surprised because you are a Kurd. Also note that both this IP, and Jahmalm both use „ to encase quotes, which I've never seen before. Jamahlm is currently blocked, so this may be a case of WP:BLOCKEVASION. I have left a note about logged out editing to both IP and account. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also this IP address[119] which only became active after Jahmalm was blocked and continued his POV-editing. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

On another note, it seems like that Jahmalm is deliberately using my ethnicity to delegitimize my criticism of the articles. But I have listed my problems and he chose to attack me instead of discussing.[120] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD clerking by User:SS49

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

---

In the last 3 months, SS49 has been repeatedly given advice, warnings and direction to stop improperly clerking AFDs, specifically as it pertains to relisting per WP:NOQUORUM and WP:RELISTBIAS. Today after asking SS49 a final time to stop clerking, TonyBallioni also reached out and SS49 declined both of our advice and stated that he would continue to relist no vote/discussion AFDs. Also worth noting that 572 of their last 1000 edits are related to AFD maintenance. Anyway, tl;dr here are the bullet points of why this is a problem:

• Response to TonyBallioni after removal of my request, stating that AFD with no participation should be relisted. See below for multiple explanations of why they are incorrect. I did not include the numerous relists where NQ/soft delete should have applied due to no participation, but here are some of the most recent:
  • HSC Medical Center twice relisted by SS, no discussion at any point
  • Glenn Taranto no comments at relist by SS49 on 3/13, two keeps at relist by SS49 on 3/20
  • Meiling Melancon one week keep prior to relist on 3/20, though I suspect an admin would have made a judgement call to delete given the only response was actually not based within any sort of policy, that aside, the point is that he's not just relisting "no comment/vote" AFDs
  • Nathan Gorman two keeps prior to first relist (not by SS) no comments between that relist and 3/20 relist by SS
  • Committee_for_the_Abolition_of_Illegitimate_Debt relisted originally by NA1K and then by SS on 3/18 with no discussion or votes between, nor a rationale for a second relist
  • Kitty Crimes two keeps prior to SS relisting, even the nom is unsure
  • Jennifer Wright relisted originally by NA1K after a few comments and one keep, then again by SS with no discussion in the week between first list and no rationale for relist
  • Bedros Kapamajian relisted twice in a row by SS, the first following 2 keeps, 1 delete and the second with no discussion between what so ever.

• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation 3 from J947
• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation 2 from J947
• Timing of AfD relistings Amorymeltzer
• Relisting AfDs with minimal participation from J947
• follow up discussion on my talk page in which SS49 asks to be blocked and essentially trolls myself and Amorymeltzer after he was asked to stop erroneously relisting AFDs that hadn't reached the 168 hour mark yet
• Relisting AfD for 3rd time without rationale from Bakazaka
• Delsort spacing from Bakazaka
• deletion sorting
• FYI, Artist sort is only for visual artists, Artists deletion sort 3 threads with in depth warnings and detail from Montreal IP about incorrect deletion sorting
• multi issue warning about general disruption WBG

I'm requesting a topic ban for SS49 from clerking AFD (deletion sorting, relisting, closing.) As noted above, several editors have tried to discuss this with them, only to be met with hostility or immediate archiving of the concern. This is not conducive behavior to a collaborative environment, it's a time sink and disruptive. I intend to respect their wishes that I refrain from editing their talk page but as per ANI policy, my final edit there is this notification. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban given the history here, which I was unaware of when I talked to them, and their response to Praxidicae on her talk page, I don't think talking will do much good. To be fair to them, yes, there are many admins who will relist low discussion AfDs (even though community consensus and policy has been that this should be the exception rather than the rule for the last two years-- PROD is the default for expired AfDs), the community is broadly on board with the ideas behind RELISTBIAS and typically non-admins should be relisting discussions where delete is a valid option under policy since they are unable to implement it. To address the double standard argument that I'm sure is going to be raised: one of the reasons that soft delete isn't used more often by admins likely is that there is a pretty continuous group of non-admin AfD relisters who it seems just wait to relist. The membership changes over time, but when one stops a new user appears to do it. We need to actually enforce the policy rather than just accept a status quo that the community as a whole has rejected and that people complain about every time it is raised.
  Also, I'll take this opportunity to encourage admins to follow the RfC that was held on this and evaluate expired AfDs as PRODs rather than just relist. This is what the policy is, and non-admins follow our example. It is difficult to explain to users that they should not be the ones interpreting the deletion policy when they don't have the ability to select the default outcome called for by the policy when some admins seem to be ignoring the policy themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support formal warning per Bsherr and Serial Number 54129's comments after I made this, and the message on my talk, I'm fine with no TBAN for now, because the ANI thread itself seems to have done the point. At the same time, given how they've reacted to Praxidicae and other's comments in the past, a warning from ANI should document this in case the behaviour does not stop. Trust but verify/document and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. SS49 has not edited at AfD subsequent to the most recent discussion at SS49's talk page mentioned above, and has now (subsequent to the above comments) posted this message that suggests SS49 will be showing improved behavior. I think a wait-and-see approach is justified for now; hopefully the message has sunk in. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, oppose per WP:ROPE, mainly because—as Bsherr's diff suggests—there is a possibility (however belated) that "the penny's dropped" and they finally realise the degree of their disruption. However, two caveats. One, that it is emphasised that this piece of rope is so short and tenuous, they couldn't tie their laces with it. Secondly, that they realise that this is without any prejudice—if they touch another XfD—to an admin blocking on the basis of Praxidicae's diffs. No trip to ANI; no discussion; no promises. I note, too, that in their comment they says they will hardly relist AfDs; this is less reassuring, and they should either make their topic voluntarily, or the community will do it for them. ——SerialNumber54129 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support formal warning per Tony et al; also respectfully suggest that SS49 apologise for the snark/dismissive attitude towards Praxidicae, who took the time to offer constructive advice several times before this ended up here. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Full disclosure - I !voted on one of the AfDs listed above that was relisted. I wasn't that bothered by the relisting, and that hasn't influenced my support for the warning, but noting for transparency.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your support. Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs. ~SS49~ {talk} 18:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SS49 Can you clarify on what you mean by "hardly relist"? Are you going to address your combative WP:IDHT approach to editors addressing your behavior? Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae, OK I understood I won't do relisting. If sorting is also a problem, I won't sorting too. From now I won't relist any discussions. Thanks ~SS49~ {talk} 23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• I was typing a response about coming around to potentially withdrawing my TB request given the support for a formal warning here, however SS49 has continued to edit at AFD, although not relisting, I find it somewhat problematic that he is still doing maintenance tasks despite this lengthy discussion and with no acknowledgement or assurances that there won't be further disruption. His request on Tony's talk, combined with this edit on mine and this ani comment does not leave me with much hope that rope will prevent further disruption. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per WP:COMPETENCE. I have no confidence that SS49 has understood the nature of the problem here. He/she should not be clerking AFD if he/she does not understand policy and procedures. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeees; "I've got a bad feeling about this"—specifically that it's the penny has not dropped. @SS49:, much as I appreciate your thanking me for my post above, it would be very wrong to read into it any kind of support for your position. Quite the opposite; I was speaking against a topc ban on account of you—at that point—having seemingly stopped from clerking AfD, and on condition that you ceased all activity at XfD. Which, it now apears, has not happened. ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129:, I won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• There seem to be some major WP:CIR issues here. As WBG's last warning may indicate, a topic ban on AfDs may not be enough, but I think that's the best course of action for now. (On a side note - I didn't see your reply to me on your talk page until now, Praxidicae, and you're right. Sorry.) ansh666 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. SS49's "Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs" really doesn't give me any confidence that the problems are understood, and that is reinforced by the comments linked above by Praxidicae. I'm seeing problems with comprehension and competence here, and I think this is someone who just isn't suited to clerking activities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'll just add that SS49's various comments suggest they are not a native speaker of English. And while a native command of English is perhaps not necessary for understanding and performing clerking tasks on the English language Wikipedia, I'm not seeing sufficient competence in our post-Norman tongue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Anyone who doesn't follow advice given to them on their talk page basically by definition lacks the competence to be relisting discussions or doing other similar work. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support tban. The large percentage of their overall work spent clerking, given the issues well documented here, is concerning. Even more concerning is that they couldn't accurately discern that doing nothing in AfD in the near future was the right course given the comments that were being offered here. I feel like they used up what little ROPE might have been extended during this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Formal warning. What's this editor's offense, departure from a guideline and dismissing others' advice? What percentage of the community is guilty of the same crime, 25%? More? The concern that this editor's actions was biasing AfDs was a legitimate one, but generally speaking we don't sanction editors simply for departing from the rules. This editor has a proven interest in AfDs and should be commended for that. They just have to learn how to do it right. Some editors with listening problems just need a kick in the pants. If they continue not to listen, that's another story. R2 (bleep) 21:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. There are masssive CIR issues at play here regarding the relisting and AFDs in general. It either shows a clear lack of understanding of policy or a refusal to abide by policy and community established norms. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support relisting discussions is almost always a lazy action that helps nothing. Instead of relisting exercise some judgement and !vote. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Non-admins should be discouraged from relisting discussions, especially the ones with no / low participation. Let an admin relist it or (better) close as a soft-delete. AfD needs more voters, not clerks. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on AfD clerking. SS49's recent responses suggest a basic misunderstanding of clerking's purpose, which is to reduce demand on the valuable time and attention of editors. A topic ban on AfD clerking will leave SS49 free to apply their own time and attention as a participant in AfD discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - clearly warranted. In fact, this feels like a fairly modest gesture in recognition of obvious CIR issues, troubling responses, refusal to communicate, and refusal to respond to legitimate feedback. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on AfD clerking -- long-standing issues, coupled with a lack of communication. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• I thought there were no problems with deletion sorting so I sorted again. If you all want me to leave AfDs, it's ok. I won't harm Wikipedia. I won't do sorting too. ~SS49~ {talk} 23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I accept my mistakes and apologize for that. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• As both the writer of WP:Relist bias and the person who pushed for the current version of WP:NOQUORUM, I think there is enough to warrant a topic ban here. This isn't the first time these issues have been raised, nor the second. It seems like this editor has struggled to either listen to or understand the feedback they've received. If that's the case, they shouldn't be closing discussions – an activity that heavily relies on their ability to comprehend and weigh the arguments made by everyone in a discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Formal warning I don't see a huge issue with the diffs that have been posted - relisting discussions for a first or second time really isn't that much of an issue in my opinion. Based on the history here, I do think a formal warning is necessary, since I think the goal should be to expose the behaviour is not welcome on the behalf of the community. I know this is against consensus at this point, but I think a topic ban is an overreach so far. We should be encouraging SS49 to communicate properly and learn when a relist is proper - I'm not a relister, but I would have relisted myself in some of these situations. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban First that say thay they "will hardly relist AfDs", and later that they "won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now". I don't have confidence based on their earlier "I want to be blocked. Please block me. Haha" comment A topic ban effectively just formalizes their pledge to not relist anymore, which is (unfortunately) necessary based on persistent concerns about their competence (WP:CIR).—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban – non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and easily subject to bias. SS49 has demonstrated a failure to follow community norms in this admin area, and has consistently resisted attempts to hold them accountable. A topic ban is both appropriate and necessary. Bradv🍁 13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Sanctions aside, it seems like there might be consensus to change the rule to explicitly prohibit non-admins from relisting AfDs. R2 (bleep) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum for that, but I am strongly in favor of banning editors who are not sysops from doing any closes at AfD that are not procedural closes (e.g. article was speedy deleted or it's been withdrawn by the nom with all other participating editors favoring it being kept). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this idea and nominate you to propose this. :) Natureium (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

How about instead we talk about it at a proper forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC).

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

Repeated personal attacks by Purgy Purgatorio

I have tried to stay off of ANI for as long as possible but this has become resort for unacceptable behavior. Purgy Purgatorio (talk · contribs) has made repeated personal attacks after repeated requests to stop. In particular, he has acknowledged the past attacks and been made aware of the corresponding policies at WP:PERSONAL. This has become harmful, disruptive, and repeated after several warnings. I have run the gamut of other dispute resolution methods, have repeatedly tried to de-escalate the issue, and have tried to resolve this as calmly as possible. It does not seem like there are many other options now, so I seek your help with this issue.

The relevant incidents with diffs:

1. 18:17, 24 February 2019 – 12:13, 25 February 2019 (AN/I Discussion, see section "Legal threat by User:Purgy_Purgatorio")

   Purgy was indefinitely banned for an issue about saying Next time I will... use the means provided for libel. This was later unblocked upon further review as Purgy clarified that no legal threat was intended. No issue.

2. 09:22, 26 February 2019 (Purgy's comment on a TfD)

   Purgy: Do you still like your creation that much, is it worth this all?

   (I don't see this as a personal attack, but he implies that I am causing him problems due to some kind of ownership of the template)

3. 13:51, 26 February 2019 (Purgy's comment to me on his talk page)

   Purgy: Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.

   1. 06:00, 27 February 2019 (My comment to Purgy on his talk page)

      Me: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop.

      (This is an explicit link to WP:PERSONAL)

   2. 20:12, 27 February 2019 (Purgy's comment to me on his talk page)

      Purgy: OK, my turn to apologize to you. I am sorry for my remarks about you feeling as a mathematician. It should not have happened and I have stricken this.

      Struck out the quote about troubles with thinking and apologized.

4. 11:10, 26 February 2019 (Purgy's new section on Gerda Arendt's talk page)

   Describes Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (and RexxS (talk · contribs)) as a militant pro-boxer and aggressor to my mistakable summary.

   1. 11:44, 26 February 2019 (Gerda Arendt's edit summary to Purgy on her talk page)

      Gerda Arendt:Purgy, calling someone a militant boxer is not the kindest way to talk about a colleague.

   2. 12:51, 26 February 2019 (Purgy's edit to comment 4 on her talk page)

      (Struck out militant pro-boxer and replaced with infobox-activist, rarely offering flowers)

5. 09:44, 28 February 2019 (Purgy's comment on his talk page about RexxS (talk · contribs))

   Purgy: "The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes" and "RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me".

   1. 16:07, 2 March 2019 (RexxS's comment on Purgy's talk page)

      Identifies the above personal attacks and wrote I am now asking you politely to remove them from your talk page: WP:TPNO expressly forbids personal attacks.

   2. 18:34, 2 March 2019 (Purgy's comment on his talk page}}

      Purgy disputes that those were personal attacks but struck out the respective passages for courtesy.

6. 09:36, 11 March 2019 (Purgy's new section on my talk page)

   Purgy: I apologized already once for impeaching your qualification as a self-appointed mathematician, and won't do this again, and then accuses me falsely of canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP, exclaims that I am blockheadedly exploiting some WP-eternal feud for your toy?, and declares this is his Last flare-up on this matter.

   1. 18:30, 11 March 2019 (My comment to Purgy on my talk page)

      I address his canvassing accusation and other outbursts without trying to provoke anything, point out WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL, and declare that I’m glad this is your "last flare-up", enough. Finally, and least importantly, stop referring to me as a "self-appointed mathematician".

   2. 19:45, 11 March 2019 (Purgy's edit to comment 6 on my talk page)

      Points out the mathematician user box on my page, emphasizes that he is accusing me of WP-approved canvassing (although it is not WP-approved by definition in the second sentence of WP:CANVAS).

      (Demonstrates his reading of my comment)

   3. 20:01, 11 March 2019 (My edit to comment 6.1 on my talk page)

      Point out that his baseless canvassing accusation and "blockheadedly exploits" outburst are both personal attacks by WP:WIAPA.

7. 20:01, 15 March 2019 (My comment to him and RexxS on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page)

   I called for a de-escalation and defended him when he was being criticized by another editor.

8. 13:22, 20 March 2019 (Purgy's comment to me on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page)

   Purgy: I can't help but explicitly outing self-appointed wannabe mathematician MarkH21 as the author of this template under discussion, certainly planning for adoption of this IB at any math statement looking out of WP.

   (An explicit personal attack and claim of "outing" – which might be another misuse of English similar to the "libel" case, as this is not WP:OUTING)

   • This is in response to me opening an RfC after counting that there were only 3 opposes and 5 supports in the previous discussion (note that I was in support so I was not opening an RfC because I was in the minority) and per the recommendation of arbitrator Worm That Turned (talk · contribs).
   • Note: Purgy characterizes me as one of three manifest IB-promoters, although this is the only infobox that I have created and this is the only infobox discussion that I have ever been involved with.

Please add to the above if I have mischaracterized any of the above events or if I have forgotten any. I believe there is a missing earlier one, given my Feb 27 comment This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. I apologize for not having it here now, but I will continue to look for it.

I don't know if this counts as WP:HARASS in addition to multiple and repeated blatant violations of conduct, but there is a clear trend of repeatedly making personal attacks (points 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and potentially the missing earlier one) and striking them out after they are pointed out as so (3, 4, 5, 6). In particular, 3 & 6 were clear explicit warnings that were understood by him. I hesitated from directing this towards ANI multiple times, but this is absolutely unreasonable. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to read and action this myself, but just a drive-by notification to any passing admin who does have time that Purgy is on a final warning from myself that "Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia", and if he's continued to be disruptive on the topic of infoboxes he's also undoubtedly aware of the discretionary sanctions in place (as he threw a monumental tantrum at being notified of them so definitely read them), so if he's continued to do so, don't feel he needs to be warned again before taking action. Per my previous comments, I get the strong impression that this is someone with a very poor grasp of English who doesn't appreciate how poor his grasp of English is and consequently misunderstands the comments of others and unintentionally makes inappropriate comments himself, as opposed to someone acting in bad faith, but the net result in terms of disruption is the same. ‑ Iridescent 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up that warning. The personal attacks and unevidenced canvassing claim from that incident may have been what I was forgetting.
There may be some language issue, but using blockheadedly exploits, self-appointed wannabe mathematician (the third such instance after explicit requests to stop), etc. and multiple unevidenced canvassing accusations after being directed at the relevant policies is beyond language issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I was notified about this on my TP at 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC), this came to my awareness roughly 10 hours later (I live at UTC+1, and I expect to have my plea finished within three days updated 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC). User:Purgy Purgatorio (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I do not consider the matter worth the efforts. The cause will cease to have any effects, besides a to my measures degraded WP-article, as soon as the running RfC is closed to the wishes of the help seeker (There is no peace without an IB there, and I prophecy several such depreciations to come).

Second, I do not agree that the accuser needs any help, except, perhaps, for a hint to more tolerance for not welcoming his template, and in the capability to stay off WP:ANI longer. I am, for my part, seriously disinterested in personally interacting with the accuser (or equally with Iridescent).

For the above numbered items:

1. Irrelevant, already because of the explicit qualification by the accuser. (This charge required a very specific interpretation of my unabbreviated statement. Please, refer to here for details.)
2. Yes, I perceived the accuser pursuing his (legal!) interests on this IB as predominantly deteriorating math articles (I am not alone with this opinion), and causing me being (legally, but disproportionately) templated and indef'd. The latter I perceive as unfair efforts to silence an exponent of this opinion.
3. Guilty; given the mentioned, undeserved consequences I had and have to bear, I was temporarily upset, but struck and apologized as mentioned. The whole quarrel started with the accuser imputing an opinion to me, which I still consider libelous, and this without any sensible reason. Not to mention that he did not correct this sufficiently. However, I do not want to warm up another petitesse.
4. I do not consider "militant pro-boxer and aggressor to my mistakable summary" as personal attacks in the given situation. Nevertheless, I converted these classifications for politeness to an other editor on her TP.
5. Am I accused of courtesy, a second time? Is "feeling intimitated" really a personal attack, as claimed by RexxS? The suppressed remark by RexxS is: "I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed", which makes it perfectly reasonable to me to feel intimidated, especially considering the recent, inappropriate block, still and for ever in my logs.
6. I consider the use of "to canvass" in the sense as defined under WP:CANVAS as sanctionable in WP, however "to canvass" in Merriam&Webster is for "to talk about (an issue) usually from various points of view and for the purpose of arriving at a decision or opinion". To avoid the insinuated use of the condemnable doings I precautiously added "WP-approved" and in parentheses "in a fully legal way". I do neither consider the use of "blockheadedly", nor of "exploit" as slanderous, not even as attacking, maybe as not the most amiable way; but in no case as a cause for running to WP:ANI for WP:NPA. Certainly, I had read the accuser's comments, but cannot perceive a necessity to react on imho wrong interpretations of an English word with appended explanations.
7. I acknowledge the defense of my person, proving that I was under attack in the context there. I hope to be able to handle causes like these myself.
8. (a)I insist to be allowed using words (Merriam&Webster: "to out" for "to become known") without others prefixing them with "WP:", imputing sanctionable behavior to me. (b)The reason for writing the comment, igniting this WP:ANI report here, was the accusers remark of "only 3 opposes (which I hope isn't most of the experienced math editors?)" I did not post the comment immediately, because I wanted to respect the initiated informal arbitration by WTT (already pinged) for some period, but the start of the RfC against the opinion of "reputable math editors" triggered my angry comment. (c)The accuser fails to mention that already beforehand there was a discussion on WT:MATH (linked above), that expressed clear reservation against even creating this template. (d)It is not true that I would identify the accuser as one of three "manifest IB-promoters", there are other three, easily identifiable ones.

This for the unnumbered points above:

1. Construing a "repeated, offensive behavior" on my side to possible subdue me to still more sanctionability for another WP:-sin, like harassment, when I solely react to actions on the accusers side, misses a point in coherent argumentation, in my estimation.
2. I want to give a proof of the truth for the epitheta "self-appointed" and "wannabe" to "mathematician": (a)- The accuser appointed himself as mathematician here. (b)- Considering the edited topics, the created template, and the sensitive reaction of the accuser, this wish is obvious to me. For illustration purposes: I also always wanted to be a mathematician, but I never appointed myself as one, as a contrast, there are appointed mathematicians as reputable editors in WP.
3. The "drive-by" by Iridescent and the "thanks" for it are in my valuations inappropriate pile-ons: Iridescent lacked any serious reason for defaming me already in his thread title (Sept. 2017, follow the above link, if desired), and inappropriately construed WP:-sins of mine.

I want to spend the least amount of time possible at this place, but I am prepared to answer any pertinent questions. User:Purgy Purgatorio (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry--User:Iridescent "defamed" you? Bad, bad Iridescent. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would have preferred not to spend time here, despite the unpleasantness directed at me by Purgy Purgatorio on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem, but I'm not going to let them repeat the nonsense they are peddling here about me by name without even the courtesy of a ping. They reacted very badly to my placing a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page to notify them that discussions of infoboxes are subject to DS. Despite having this explained to them, they deliberately ignore the fact that when you post an alert, you have to check the logs and talk page archives to ensure you're not giving a duplicate alert. I am sick of Purgy Purgatorio calling that "intimidation", and if they are unable to accept a notice that explicitly states "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" (see Template:Ds/alert), without accusing the editor who placed the notice of causing them to "feel intimidated", then I don't think they have sufficient competence to be editing any sensitive topic on Wikipedia. I accept that they don't like infoboxes on their articles (although for reasons that are patently weak), but I don't believe that their many contributions to the debate are conducive to a collegial discussion. I believe they should be restricted to either one or two comments in any infobox debate. (cf. this ArbCom sanction). --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Great, I put a mathematician user box on my page because I am literally an academic mathematician by profession. But that's not the point. Purgy's continued emphasis on "self-appointed wannabe mathematician" based on Purgy's misguided belief is a personal attack (point 2 of WP:WIAPA) and it has come after I have explicitly asked Purgy to stop. I don't care if Purgy or anyone else doesn't think that I am a mathematician, but Purgy's tone, propensity to put others down, and public spreading of his public paranoia about "warrior", "militant", "fundamentalist", and "activist" editors is beyond disrespectful; it is disruptive. Here are recent instances across 5 different user, article, and project talk pages (point 4 + "insulting or disparaging" from WP:WIAPA):
  1. 12:51, 26 February 2019: militant pro-boxer infobox-activist
  2. 20:02, 28 February 2019: RexxS and Pigsonthewings (you too, Bruta?) are full of good faith that it is best for WP to keep any voice against broad application of IBs, e.g. me, silent, if not silence it at all (I did not read at length the link you provided, is Pigs on the warpath again?). + Pigs in revenge + they impress inextinguishable stigmata on me
  3. 13:04, 1 March 2019: Does the end really justify the means, should there be a Jesuit reduction of the IB-opposers?
  4. 13:33, 2 March 2019: it may appear useful for pro-IB-warriors to put as many IB-antagonists as possible under supervision + Just for me arguing strictly against this template on that article I was put at risk by some pro-IB warriors.
  5. 13:33, 4 March 2019: gathering impressions from activists (who else chimes in?)
  6. 11:48, 5 March 2019: an absolutely unfounded, but widespread hostility under the mask of conserving a valuable encyclopedia against a horde of uncivilized apes, unable to believe in the eternal good announced by those of good will.
  7. 09:36, 11 March 2019 canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP to this case
  8. 13:51, 20 March 2019: a less-aggressive lament about Infoboxers seem to be after the ultimate IB: the recursive one! The whole WP is to be turned into one, clearly laid out IB, making it easy for third parties, superficial readers, common-sense afficionados, ... This is to where indiscriminate use of IBs will lead.

Purgy might have been treated unfairly in some situations in the past – I don't know and I was not really involved – but that does not excuse the fact that Purgy has repeatedly violated points 2, 4, and 5 of WP:WIAPA after being asked to stop and repeatedly made "insulting or disparaging" remarks about multiple editors afterwards in several venues. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Seek community sanctions (indef Tban) re user Bought the farm

Seek community imposed Tban against Bought the farm (talk · contribs)
Topic areas Climate change, Energy, US Politics, broadly construed

First TBAN

• 22:21, October 6, 2018? Power~enwiki issues DS Alert US politics
• 03:42, October 12, 2018? Drmies imposes 3 month topic ban on US politics
• 04:23, October 30, 2018 Cullen328 Imposed block for Tban violations
• 18:44, October 30, 2018 Cullen328 Unblocked him, on AGF acceptance that user made an honest mistake
• Later, October 30, 2019 Multiple admins endorsing Tban
• Jan 12, 2018 approximate date Tban expired

New evidence

• Feb 1, 2019 Editing blitz adding section "Trump Administration" to United States energy independence. Some samples

• 02:29, February 1, 2019 POV (Trump cheerleading)

The permitting (for Keystone XL pipeline) comeing two months after Trump, only days into his presidency, signed an executive order aimed at reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines

• 20:02, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on WP:Original research

"This proposed (Green New Deal) would effectively end U.S. energy independence gains and the benefits to the American middle class."

• 21:05, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on conservative editor's opinion at an online blog (The Morning Jolt by Jim Geraghty)
  

• Feb 18 16:20, February 18, 2019 POV FRINGE

Identifies Trump investigations as a "notable example" of a Seditious conspiracy.... so far the entire thread is his and it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff to me

• Feb 19 00:17, February 19, 2019 POV FRINGE

At Deep state in the United States this ed pushes addition of section "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration"

• Feb 19 02:01, February 19, 2019 POV / OR

In DRAFT namespace, he uses Wikivoice to describe "descendants (of US slaves), who are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party"

Bought on the Farm submitted this draft to AFC three times and was rejected all three times. Then he posted this article live on his own hook.

• Feb 26, 02:32, February 26, 2019 POV/Fringe,

Asserts personal view that Deep state "is a very real thing" and changes lead from saying "conspiracy theory" to the far more credible "theory"

• Mar 13 21:49, March 13, 2019 POV (democrat bashing)

Tells how there was clapping after Trump said something about energy and then adds "However, the democrats did not applaud." (in the next edit he adds a Wordpress blog as an RS)

• Mar 19 POV/Fringe at Global warming

• 19:19 and 19:30 BTF added copy vio content to Global warming that has since been RevDeleted by Diannaa
• 19:27 I issued BTF a DS Alert for climate change
• 19:30 I left BTF a noted cautioning about POV editing and reminding BTF about the prior Tban and DS Alert for US Politics
• 19:37 at article talk BTF pushes new section "History of ongoing fearmongering"
• 20:21, March 19, 2019 BTF admits his confirmation bias saying derisively, "I read the source as the beginning of the continual revisionist theory regarding this subject - Human existence on planet earth on the continual brink of disaster, due to our mere existence here."
• I told Bought the Farm that per TPG section headings must be neutral and I deleted the word "fear-mongering" from the section (see edit summary this edit). No matter, after Dave souza collapsed the thread, Bought the farm simply started over, with a new thread simply titled "fear-mongering"

• Mar 20 22:15, March 20, 2019‎ POV, Launches new article The Democracy Integrity Project based on uncertain one or two sources. Claims

• "'The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP), is a multimillion-dollar stealth organization'"
• uses scarequotes "that provides daily "research" briefings "
• asserts ulterior movites in wikivoice "'spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting. "
• I would go on, but I hate to repeat the allegations in the BLP vios.

Topic ban

Having just come off of a 3-month Topic ban, here we are. This editor is incorrigible and is now producing low quality high controversial articles (Democratic plantation and The Democracy Integrity Project. Seems to me this editor should be community topic banned from energy, climate change, and US politics. They are on notice about DS for the last two subjects. Thanks for reading NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef Tban, as proposer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. All of that is correct, as evidenced by the constant WP:IDHT. Combine POV pushing with taking dozens of edits to make a single substantial addition, and it is still subpar. As an alternative, I'd support requiring them to cite a source for every statement they write (because that's where the problem lies), and a topic ban if they misrepresent sources. wumbolo ^^^ 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note that the March 13 edit probably isn't "Democrat bashing". It is factual and of significance. Reliable sources often report on Democrats not clapping. That the edit wasn't supported by a reliable source is a separate issue. wumbolo ^^^ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Exactly, there was several times during that speech when the Democrats did not clap after Trump made what most would consider to be uncontroversial statements. One that sticks out in my mind is when he announced that African-American unemployment was at an all-time low.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • But User:Wumbolo, are we really going to include every single time that the opposing party didn't applaud for one particular bit in every SOTU? That's cray cray. Such things only become encyclopedic when reliable secondary sources spend significant attention on it. We can't make that call, though we can discuss when the sources make it encyclopedic. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • A fact can be accurate and RS supported and still wielded as a POV club, and this is a textbook example. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • The lack of applause has been covered by reliable sources: [121] [122] [123]--Rusf10 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or indef
  • I've deleted The Democracy Integrity Project as a G10, with a dose of IAR, with the deletion summary "We're not your blog".
  • As for Democratic plantation it needs to go the same way, but I'm unsure how to proceed with this. I have, however, edited the ridiculous - and racist - opening sentence which talked about this racist slur in Wikipedia's voice EDIT: I've pushed it back to Draft, as I note that the Draft was rejected 3 times at AFC but he created it in mainspace anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see that this editor is here to provide the encyclopedia with anything useful. A TBAN is the least that will suffice here. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose- This is mostly a content dispute. Although the editor needs to do a better job attributing opinions. I understand the term "Democratic Plantation" may be offensive, but it is a term used in reliable sources, so that page should not be deleted as per WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't know what was in the Democracy Integrity Project article, but a quick search shows it is a real organization.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Shall we just say that it was a very short unsourced article, and one of the sentences read "(TDIP) is essentially a "Trump-Russia 2.0: Dossier-Tied Firm Pitching Journalists Daily news on Collusion" spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting" Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • perhaps deletion was appropriate then, but that doesn't change my overall view on the matter. The diffs above either contain no problems or minor ones due to poor sourcing or lack of attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Do you not think that someone who's just come off a AP TBAN and is creating articles in mainspace like that probably shouldn't be editing in that realm at all? By the way, their reaction to this ANI is, er, this. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. And the problems signaled here make me wonder if the user understands anything about Wikipedia. Rusf10, if you think that this merely indicates something about attribution or poor sourcing, I can't help but wonder... NewsAndEventsGuy, I had no idea it was this bad, but it is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • seeking community acceptance and a desire to contribute relevant info here. ~ Bought the farm (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • What does that comment mean? And what is this? Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: All I see here is a repost of something the President tweeted in which the President expresses his belief that there was a conspiracy by those within the government to remove him from office. I am almost certain that you personally do not agree with that, but you want to sanction someone for posting the president's tweets? That's really extreme.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Wait, you don't see that they were proposing to have Wikipedia categorize something as a "seditious conspiracy" based on a crazy tweet sketching a ridiculous conspiracy? When we say "notable case" on Wikipedia, in article space, what do you think we mean? And why do you say that I'd ban someone based on the president's tweets? Has he tweeted about this user? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I'll try to answer your questions. 1. Yes, I understand exactly what's being proposed here. Perhaps President Trump does think (rightly or wrongly) that it was a "seditious conspiracy". Wouldn't it be notable if the President (or any president) thought there was a conspiracy against him? After posting the tweets to the talk page, he then provided reliable sources that reported that these type of allegations have been made and that Senator Lindsey Graham wants to investigate them. All the editor did was try to start a discussion about whether it should be included or not. 2. Again, a discussion with other editors would determine the appropriate section of the article to include this in (if at all) 3. Because you're using this as an example of why he should be banned. Starting a discussion like he did is actually the right way to approach this, rather than just changing the article. 4. I don't know what you asking.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm inclined to see this as a WP:CIR issue, coupled with very strongly-held political beliefs. It's especially difficult to learn policy when you're working in a contentious area. Guettarda (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Supplemental ... now thinking site ban to be clear, I started this thread. If there were the slightest hope of reform or being able to work in any area, we would be seeing at least an iota of dialogue. Instead there is user talk ranting and NPA vios. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • he called you the "wiki-police"? that's a rather weak personal attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Guess I place a high value on desirable things like team work, collaboration, learning from mistakes, being willing to calmly discuss even the possibility of mistakes, resisting the urge to quibble with everyone in a discussion...... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • And here I thought I was the only one [124]. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on energy, climate change, BLPs and post 1932 US politics, broadly construed. This editor is a dedicated POV pusher with zero understanding of and no interest in understanding the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Doesn't appear to understand our policies. If you don't understand our policies, you can't comply with them. If you can't comply with our policies, you can't edit in those topics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban on energy, climate, and post-1932 US politics – broadly construed. Clearly some major issues here about understanding Wiki-policy, especially in the areas of POV and sourcing. We'll see if they can learn the ropes by editing in other areas. As a side note, Bought the Farm's response to this ANI (see here for a totally wacky edit, and see above) do not inspire confidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support broad indef topic ban. It's been explained to user more than once what is wrong with his contributions to these areas. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care. There is no reason to force other editors to put up with this. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, obviously, though I don't understand why this isn't simply an indef or site ban per WP:BATSHITCRAZY. EEng 03:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support a site ban. I'm not sure if a topic ban is gonna solve the whole issue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban on energy, climate, and post-1932 US politics. NOTHERE, ADVOCACY, and COMPETENCE also apply. We are not a free webhosting service for batshit crazy stuff. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support broad indef topic ban is from energy, climate and post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, although I egree with User:EEng that a site ban or an indef would e more appropropriate. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support broad indef topic ban The diffs above show attempts to introduce OR and unattributed analysis and syntheses, obviously in order to push an agenda - totally contrary to what we are supposed to be here for. Also happy to lend support to a site ban if that's the way the community leans. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support broad indef topic ban leaning to indef block Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support until the user follows the policies. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support broad indef topic ban as a minimum. Other people have to waste time cleaning up. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support broad indef topic ban or an indef block – in my limited interaction, the user explicitly tried to ignore core policies "to descricribe the democratic fear-mongering on this subject. It's out there and real"[125] purely on their own synthesis from a primary source which said no such thing. . . dave souza, talk 11:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I feel like this editor is probably trying to improve what they see as a liberal bias in Wikipedia and, absent guidance from someone who agrees with them politically but better understands how WP works, is struggling. I'd be much more happy with an indef tban if someone who shares Btf's basic political stance (not the whole conspiracy theory thing but just conservatism in general and a feeling that WP could improve neutrality re: politics) would try to help them, with a goal of eventually once again being able to edit what clearly is their main area of interest. Draft:Democratic Plantation isn't actually a bad start. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NEOLOGISM. There are 10 cited references. Nine of them show people using the term. Only one of them is about the term itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I meant as a draft, I could see it being possible for them to improve it with some guidance. --valereee (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef - A leopard can't change their spots. Ultimately the goal is to get this editor to stop behaving in this particular manner, yes? Even if topic banned in this particular area, chances are they'll just go cause disruption somewhere else on the site. Just go straight to the indef and let the editor make their case as to why they should be unblocked.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Indef block per WP:NOTHERE and don't waste time with topic bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR given this sort of thing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block WP:CIR etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support either topic ban or indef. This editor pointlessly insulted me as an AFC reviewer on Democratic Plantation. The draft said that this was a neoterism, and I took issue with using that term in a lede, and was told that a dictionary would have helped. Yes, but the lede shouldn't contain words that send the reader to a dictionary. The point is that this is a tendentious editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block - IDHT POV-pushing on multiple topic areas means the community would save more time from a block than multiple topic bans. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:209.221.91.108 on talk page

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

---

Personal attacks against other users on own talk page while blocked, request talk page editing acces removed. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

While I`m not usualy in for bumping threads this is getting a little out of hand. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Problematic user at Mary Kay Letourneau

Mary Kay Letourneau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Firstly, I'm requesting an immediate block for gross WP:NPA here, particularly this: You're a creep! And now you, creep, say you're some kind of authority over me? You're trash!, directed at me. There's no way we can ever tolerate that.

There is much more, but I'm on my phone and pulling diffs is difficult at best on a mobile device. I'll add more later, and ping Bullrangifer and Flyer 22 Reborn, two other editors who've been having difficulties with this user at MKL and also COIN and BLPN. I think we're minimally looking at a topic ban from MKL, more likely a topic ban from BLP, and possibly an indeff for CIR/NOTHERE.

There is no reason for anyone to have to endure that gross an insult, and a block for NPA is certainly warranted. I'll be back later today with more and thanks for your attention. John from Idegon (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to cut a user a little bit of slack when they're responding to accusations of being a "pedophilia apologist" (diff). I'm not sure of the rights and wrongs of all this, but at face value you are hardly the only one who could cry NPA. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Read it again, GoldenRing. I didn't accuse him of that, I said he was beginning to appear that way...not an attack, advice. And that was several days ago. His attack was last night. Where's his slack? John from Idegon (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Reping BullRangifer and Flyer22 Reborn. Managed to screw both of them up. John from Idegon (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(S)he is really losing it. I just left a message on their talk page: "Mcfnord, you really need to disengage and stop the highly emotional ownership behavior. There is no justification for cussing us out and acting belligerent." This is an extreme case of SPS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Because telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is so much less offensive than calling them a pedophilia apologist.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I do apologise, what an important distinction you raise. I'm sure you go around telling people they only appear like pedophilia apologists all the time and they think you're just wonderful. GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mcfnord's user page has now become a WP:POLEMIC, complete with a reference to "BullFinger". Putting aside the issue of personal attacks, Mcfnord's comments when talking to other users is several notches below par, and we could really live without the constant use of legal terms, e.g., slander and libel.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The editor simply does not understand WP:BLP (not in a fully competent way anyway), and has argued in ways that don't align with the way Wikipedia works. For example, Mcfnord keeps talking about writing conservatively in ways that are more flattering to Letourneau. We can see that with this RfC where others have thus far disagreed with Mcfnord. And I've already pointed him to WP:Legal threat regarding his comment that Wikipedia can get sued. At the WP:COI noticeboard, he wrongly accused me of having a WP:COI because I edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics and, per WP:Child protection (and the POV-pushing that usually occurs when self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors are involved), am against self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors editing Wikipedia. I did make it clear that Letourneau is not technically a pedophile. She (as Smmary) has, however, edited in a way that screams "COI." And, obviously, she has a COI. At the WP:BLP noticeboard, Mcfnord has also gone on about me supposedly editing inappropriately; Zaereth, who'd briefly weighed in before, stepped in to defend me and to respond to Mcfnord's other arguments. Mcfnord has made a few decent points, but a lot of what Mcfnord has argued doesn't align with how Wikipedia works and Mcfnord is coming across as proxy editor for Letourneau. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a note....the userpage edits Bbb23 references above were all made today, all since the attack I referenced above, further justifying my request for a temporary block per the preventive purpose of blocking. And he continues editing it up to a few minutes ago. Re Flyer's comments above, his userpage screed indicates a lack of understanding of the most basic principle of Wikipedia, consensus. Despite the presence of an RfC on the page, no one is agreeing with him on any major points. And the fact that he's online and actively editing and has not responded here is also a bit problematic, no? John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The edits to that userpage are poorly disguised attacks, rendering it a sort of attack page and advocacy. A bit of griping can be allowed, but this isn't constructive, and definitely not collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• So it seems that the entire dispute is over the victim's age? Beyond ridiculous. Clearly both parties are guilty of personal attacks. Telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is not helpful. So to be fair, either no action or block both.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not just abut the age. See the multiple RfCs on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- It seems someone has invoked my name and summoned me forth. I'm always loathe to come here and discuss another editor's behavior, but in this case I see many a real problem. I got involved when I saw Mcfnord trying to rationalize BLP policy in a way that would justify the use of court documents in the article. Of course, this is not allowed under any circumstances, no matter how one tries to wikilawyer a loophole. In looking at the article's history, I was rather shocked to see the amount of edit warring going on. Not the revert/re-revert type war, but the kind where if one tendentious edit fails a different one pops up in its place. (Whack-a-mole war.) Mcfnord has made several comments and edit summaries that, to me at least, suggest some sort of ties to the subject, at one point suggesting he speaks for the subject. The use of legal terms (incorrectly I might add) and the desperation with which even trivial details are pushed, such as a child's exact age, seem to indicate an unusually strong attachment to the subject (emotional, financial, or other, I don't know). From the small amount I've seen, their rationalizations seem to suggest synthesis, both in interpretations of BLP policy, in facts and conclusion about the case, in evaluating sources, and even in interpreting advice given by myself and others. They seem to interpret things through their own rose-colored glasses, seeing the parts they like and missing ones they don't, and really do not appear get the concept of forming a consensus nor how to go about doing that, and in this WP:COMPENTENCE seems to apply. I think at the very least a topic ban from this article is in order, if not more. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)RR

User:Cleisthenes2 and Toby Young - topic ban

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

---

• Cleisthenes2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toby Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite previous useful edits, since August 2018 (bar two edits), Cleisthenes2 has been a Single Purpose Account attempting to whitewash the article Toby Young. This article previously had COI issues, including Young himself editing it 200+ times [126]. They are trying to remove the section from the lede that states that he resigned from a position "after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts were uncovered". This sentence, whilst obviously negative in a BLP, is currently sourced to eight reliable sources (and I'm sure that more could be found very easily).

The issue has been to BLPN twice Consensus to keep that text, Consensus to allow Young's own denial to appear in the article, bt not in the lede and has been at ANI before [127]. Cleisthenes2 has also attempted to take User:Fæ to the edit-warring board - this didn't go well.

So far, despite absolutely no support at the talk page apart from a couple of IPs and a mysterious new account which popped up, Cleisthenes2 has removed that section from the lede of the article no less than eleven times ([128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]), from July 2018 up to this morning. They have been reverted by a number of other editors.

As an addition, I also note that despite being told not to do it at the ANI report linked above, Cleisthenes2 has again misgendered Fæ on the talk page today [139].

It is very clear that Cleisthenes2 has a severe issue with WP:IDHT, believing that if they make the edit enough times, eventually it will stick. It won't. Ironically the article, as it stands, could be a lot more negative than it is - Young's comments on various subjects have been covered in reliable sources, and the article skims over some of the more egregious - but in the end, Cleisthenes2 need to be topic banned from this article. To be honest, if I had not been INVOLVED here (I have edited and commented at the talk page a few times), I would probably have blocked them, but a TB from this article seems to be the least that is required. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• The summary at Talk:Toby_Young#Cleisthenes2 provides a useful set of diffs and links to existing consensus and discussions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• All I see here is a long running content dispute with neither side willing to meet each other's concerns, why is this at ANI and not an RFC? Iffy★Chat -- 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Because it's already been to BLPN (twice) and extensive discussion on the talk page; there is consensus for the existing version, and all Cleisthenes2 is doing now is popping up occasionally and whitewashing that sentence. It's simply disruptive, which is why it's here. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• I spent some time reviewing this, but have simply run out of time before I could fill out the AE forms in triplicate. A note for any other admin that Cleisthenes2 has been notified about Gamergate discretionary sanctions on 3/9, before his latest two reverts on 3/17 and today, so any uninvolved admin could impose a topic ban if they chose to; we don't have to have a 24 hour community discussion. Before I ran out of time to study up on how to do AE sanctions, I was about to block for 48 hours for repeated edit warring against clear consensus, and impose an indefinite topic ban from Toby Young, both as AE actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for this. Could you please inform me how to make an appeal to a higher level of administrator? I believe that NPOV is crucial to Wikipedia's mission and credibility, and this this case displays a good instance of how many editors (and administrators!) lack respect for it (or fail to understand it). I also note, again, the lack of clear consensus (a word which means that everybody agrees on something) in the discussions posted above. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:CONSENSUS means. EEng 01:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to point out that Cleisthenes2 followed this edit by reverting the consensus lede for a twelfth time [140]. I have reverted (the first time I have done this, though I was INVOLVED through other discussions). At this point, it would be useful if an admin could action what Floquenbeam said above, because this is becoming ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the sanctions that Floquenbeam suggested. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Let's hope they switch to doing something productive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Shannya Sabru

User:Shannya Sabru has been adding a contentious and unverified sentence to Joey Allaham: "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits". As this is a BLP, a claim like that requires solid reliable sources to back it up. The user has been providing five sources to the sentence but none of them are acceptable per policies. The first source is a WP:UGC as any reader can submit their own story and it gets published. The user-submitted article which Shannya Sabru has cited was taken down a long time ago (the links for all other user-submitted articles from that list still work) which is why the user is using a web.archive link. The remaining four sources [141] [142] [143] [144] state that Allaham was one of many people named in the same lawsuit filed three times by one Elliott Broidy. The lawsuit has been dismissed twice in court of law and the third hearing is yet to happen. The user has been combining these four sources and drawing an incorrect presumption of multiple lawsuits which falls under WP:SYNTH. I have tried engaging the user in a meaningful policy-based discussion on the article talk page but every single time the user displays signs of WP:IDHT and goes on to re-add the sentence without any valid argument. I sense WP:CIR issues.

As a side note, I want to mention that I had a strong feeling that this account could be related to a sockpuppet banned several months ago due to their identical editing pattern (blocked sockpuppet's edit, Shannya Sabru's edit 1, Shannya Sabru's edit 2) which is why I opened a SPI. The checkuser determined that the accounts are technically unrelated. The user has since then targeted this accusation of mine in their subsequent arguments. WP:ASPERSIONS is not applicable here a there was "reasonable cause" for me to think that they are the same user.

I had initially filed a WP:DR but a volunteer there closed that discussion with the suggestion that ANI would be a better place to request action on this. BhasSpeak (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Debi Prasad Misra is edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit

Hello. For the past week, User:Debi Prasad Misra has been edit warring on Help:IPA/Sanskrit. We've invited him to discuss the changes (actually there's an existing thread on the talk page of the guide) he'd like to see in the guide but he's been consistently ignoring all of that (see [145] and his user talk page).

Some of his edits are blatantly incorrect, like writing voiceless stops such as [p] or [t] with a voiced aspiration diacritic ⟨ʱ⟩. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Propose short block Obviously a WP:ENGAGE problem... could be WP:COMPETENCE, might not be understanding the talk page. A block might get them to notice. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)