Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006

) 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, [3], 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.Tvx

1 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.Tvx

1 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.Tvx

1 13:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@

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.Tvx

1 14:55, 19 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

, 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)

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)

@

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

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 [4]. 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)

I wanted to add information concerning book written by

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

:

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 [5] [6] [7] appear to be the diffs that have started this, and considering the text appears to be the same, this raises large
  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: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

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

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)

Jahmalm and Ahmedo Semsurî

Asking for advice to avoid being accused of edit warring

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: [52], [53]. 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."[54] I'm sure he didn't read the book or do a thorough search for sources on the topic, as explained at

, 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.[58]

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."[59] (1RR)

At 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I warned EllenCT on their talk page.[60]

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.[61] (1RR)

At 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I deleted the edited cut and paste of my comment.[62] (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[63] 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.[64] (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."[65]

(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

to get more eyes.

Answer 2 Don't use the {{

}}.

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 [66] and [67] 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)

• 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[68] (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.[69]

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.[70]] 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

) 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: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)

• 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: [71], my revert [72], their re-revert (edit summary: You find it) [73]. 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 [74]. Three minutes later we have deletion of two references at Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young discography [75]. At 13:56 there's a deletion of one old reference at Cross-linked polyethylene [76], and one minute later a deleted reference at Crossfire (Brandon Flowers song) [77]. 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)

• 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

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)

) 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

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

) 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 [81] 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 [82] [83] 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)

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

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)

Sockpuppetry continues

The socking case was filed, reviewed, and closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So, this is an continuation of a closed case[96]. I'll admit that the name-calling has ended but the user is still pushing for his "POV" with "OR".[97] "Used other vocabulary" basically means "this doesn't fit my worldview" despite references. I've tried to make him use the talk page with no avail[98]. --

talk

) 13:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a lot of disruption and sockpuppetry going around Ezidi topics (and there are some IPs I block on sight for a certain typre ofedits), but it looks to me that a CU is needed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A CU comparing what users?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ths link[99] is from yesterday, and you can see the accounts which admins blocked (one user and two IPs) for sockpuppetry. Now it seems that the person has returned with at least two new accounts (User:Zeitgest89 and User:Perous).

"Jahmalm", "58.79.24.120", "132.230.50.2", "Zeitgeist89", "Perous" --

talk

) 14:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Zeitgest89 is unregistered. Regardless, if you believe there is socking, file a report at

WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk

) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it was

talk

) 14:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting a guy who is a sheer example of Vandalism

OP is an LTA, blocked and handled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This message is for reporting disruptive editing and clear negligence of wikipedia rules by RegentsPark and Lugnuts. But my main focus is on RegentsPark as just 1 or 2 month ago, He was subject to disruptive editing and I also reported it here with the same Subject/Headline. For this i have Ritchie333 as a witness who was took the control of that dispute. RegentsPark was accused by me of continuous revert of a sourced and reliable content and without giving appropriate reason and he has appeared to repeat identical things in very short span of time as reported in the following text.

A day ago, I added a ranking of Pearl Jam in a reader's poll by Rolling Stone whose citation was derived from Rolling Stones' official site here Special:diff/889044457, thus prooving the reliability. The only thing I did was to add it in the lead and according to StarScream1007, there is no rule against it. But some administrators like Lugnuts and the RegentsPark reverted it continuously as one can see here Special:diff/888800482, here Special:diff/888930921, hereSpecial:diff/888946449, and here Special:diff/889079281, thus breaking the three-revert rule of Wikipedia. Also, Lugnuts removed a sourced content which was referenced with reliable source here Special:diff/889092793 saying that being at 93rd in all time list of artists of all genres isn't significant. One should notice the fact that the list didn't contain bands like Iron maiden, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Grateful Dead. And since VH1 is a big platform, one cannot say that the ranking is insignificant. Even a person of unsound mind can judge that this is the peak of disruptive editing and vandalism by these two guys. Lugnuts should be given a last warning or maybe punishment but RegentsPark deserves to be impeached from his status of administrator because i reported a similar activity from him of continuous reverting 2 months ago. You can have Ritchie333 and Martinevans123 as a witness. He helped me a lot in that case. He is using his adminship powers as a base for taking out his revenge with me as his opinions has often clashed with me and since I have always done right editing here, he always loses the edit war which he very often does. So please don't leave this guy with a warning again because he was already warned last time but he will never stop edit warring and breaking rules. This is really serious and this case shouldn't be judged on the basis that I'm just an IP and he is an administrator. There is always an exception so it's a really kind request to consider my appeal.

Non-admin comment No, 4 reverts by 2 different editors over 3 days does not violate

WP:3RR in the slightest, nor does it qualify as vandalism. It qualifies as editing. The material has been added and then reverted, so the proper thing to do is to discuss the inclusion on the talk page and find consensus there. --Nat Gertler (talk

) 19:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP/OP is a LTA account of a user who was indef'd for socking. There's more

WP:DENY, but I'm involved. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me}

19:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick 1 week block request on edit war for User:Fcbjuvenil and User:Walter Görlitz and protect the article Marc-André ter Stegen‎‎

WP:RFPP are the correct venues for these requests.--Bbb23 (talk

) 02:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Marc-André ter Stegen‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123#Marc-André ter Stegen the related discussion

It is so lame that

WP:RFC. The footy discussion seem hard to follow, but a decade old MoS Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players seem shown an alternative "demonym": 'La Liga club". Anyway, this kind of dispute, may easily solve by RfC (or became super vote may be). Also, for the "stable" version, Walter seem did not object the "Spain" wording back to 2014....Special:Diff/621517408, Special:Diff/629467180, it seem he changed his mind and claim ownership of the article to prevent people to add it back , or prevent people to revert his undiscussed/ no consensus removal. It did not have plays for "German club Mönchengladbach" wording in lede before 2014, is because Ter Stegen‎‎ is a German footballer. Matthew hk (talk

) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC) edited on 00:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that maintaining what I understand consensus to be as lame. The only reason to avoid "Spanish" here is that it is a red flag for Barcelona fans who happen to be strong Catalan separatists. Fcbjuvenil has not made any effort to discuss either on the article's talk page or on the project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_123#Marc-André_ter_Stegen. Fcbjuvenil is also at 4 reverts now. I would rather have a project- or community-level consensus, but that's doesn't seem like it's going to happen. if the decision here (or anywhere) is to leave it as "Spanish", then I'm fine to leave it an I will not be involved with anons from getting into an edit war over it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there is only you and the mystery ip to remove it , can you stop it? You claim "no consensus", now it have a ongoing Rfc. Also, the Spanish wording was restated not only by Fcbjuvenil, but also admin Mattythewhite and Enigmaman and way many experienced editors, so could you please stop your against whole world act? Matthew hk (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joe Lawrence is a Groovy Boy

Issue resolved --Wikiemirati (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User told another user (Thegooduser) to commit suicide on their talk page.[100] --MrClog (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, all edits are vandalism. Willy on Wheels? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Or Maybe even BMX on Wheels, or something like that. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A savvy higher-up has globally locked the account. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

148.75.34.2

Blocked for 31 hours by TonyBallioni. SemiHypercube 00:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

148.75.34.2 (talk · contribs) Recently blocked, but they ought to lose TPA too. (AIV can't handle such a request, as the bot removes it as "already blocked").

PS - Some of the edits suggest they're another Jayden Chavez account. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent vandalism and block evasion on cartoon articles

IPs and account blocked. SemiHypercube 00:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2604:6000:E285:2500:3C29:1AF9:1FB6:516A (talk · contribs)
• 24.25.136.60 (talk · contribs)
• Ajnphotos (talk · contribs)

Nothing new in children vandalizing cartoon articles with false content, but blocking this user once hasn't worked, and it's possible that all the articles will benefit from protection. I've come here because AiV has been slow to respond today, and this is growing into a more expansive problem as a result. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the account, and the IPs are already blocked. If more show up, please ping me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohit Bajgain

User indeffed and files deleted by Abecedare. SemiHypercube 00:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mohit Bajgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a serial copyright violator and has been blocked twice because of it. Since the last block expired all uploads (Special:ListFiles/Mohit_Bajgain) are copyright violations taken from various online news sources. It's clear this individual has no intention of respecting Wikipedia's copyright policy. Peacock (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. A spot-check confirms that the recent uploads are copyvios. Will delete. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User trying to force edits through

Reclosing, nothing further to do. SemiHypercube 15:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Indeffed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. SemiHypercube 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell (talk

) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

For a start - it appears that their username may be a breach of

Wikipedia:PROMONAME.Nigel Ish (talk

) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name caught my attention because "Remember lads, subscribe to Pewdiepie" was a comment made in the Christchurch mosque shootings. But apparently it was simply a widespread Internet meme as a Bollywood operation threatened Pewdiepie's top position earlier in March. [101] Since this account has three edits including before and after the shooting, the apparent connection is purely a coincidence. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The feud has been happening for months, there's a live sub count for those curious. SemiHypercube 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:206.45.24.97

Legal threat

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Original report

Proposed topic ban

Proposal: Indef block for Wnt

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.

is not applicable here a there was "reasonable cause" for me to think that they are the same user.

I had initially filed a

) 07:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what USER:BhasSpeak is fighting to have removed from the Joey Allaham article:

"Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits."^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Because I've added this to the article, BhasSpeak has accused me of making violations, filed a sockpuppet investigation against me, and when this turned out negative, accused me of being a meatpuppet (plus the CIR, SYNTH, IDHT suggestions against me here, I don't know if there are any other violations left that I may have broken with this insertion!). Here's the Talk page discussion. Shannya Sabru (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

. I've chosen to open an ANI because this represents a pattern of disruptive behavior by a user who continues to hop IPs all over the place. Given the differing IPs I'm not sure what admin action can be taken, but I would like to have an admin at least comment on this and see what can be done.

Examples:

• Special:Contributions/78.54.190.20
• Special:Contributions/89.12.133.115
• Special:Contributions/77.183.29.94
• Special:Contributions/77.183.172.102
• Special:Contributions/77.183.12.176

--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

See also this diff, showing earlier inappropriate behaviour (and again pointed at me). Markussep ^Talk 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting to get a little frustrated at user Marcolacson as he keeps adding unsourced claims as well as stuff that is not in the source given: [140], [141], [142]. Despite sufficient warnings given as well as a 31-hour blocked imposed by an editor a couple of months back, the adding of unsourced/improperly sourced material is still a common occurrence from this user. If possible, I'd like this user be blocked indefinitely; there's really no helping this user be a productive contributor to this site.

) 02:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to a be a

WP:CRYSTAL issue going on here, evidenced by List_of_Philippine_films_of_2020, an unsourced and premature article which they just created and I have XfD'd. Their edits seem to show a pattern of speculating release dates for films. They may still be salvageable as an editor however, as they were at least willing to offer this, which shows they are at least willing to apologize and interact. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

07:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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. --

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)

I should do that the next time I want to call someone an idiot. "You're beginning to appear like an idiot" will surely go over much better than the more perfunctory alternative.--WaltCip (talk) 14:06, 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
  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. --

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 about the age. See the multiple RfCs on the talk page.

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
• Comment -- There seems to be a civil discussion in progress on the article's talk page. Both sides should be on notice that name-calling is not acceptable. I see no need for further action here.--agr (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Death threat

Blocked indef. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this deserves an indefinite block. There's really no way anyone can believe this is acceptable. To be clear, [...] child-molesting cannibals from Hell makes him highly suspicious of dissidence. But it's his blatant defence of information over antifa doctrine that condemns him as a heretic. Since it would be difficult to have him located and shot, a permanent ban will have to do for now. is not something that someone needs a warning against. Natureium (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: Someone removed the post, and he replaced it with Since it would be difficult to have him located and beaten to a pulp with metal rods, a permanent ban will have to do for now. This is still completely inappropriate. Natureium (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't defend or support the thinking behind it, but this is clearly hyperbole in the service of sarcasm, and the user actually supports Wnt. As such, it is not a death threat, nor is it a threat of physical violence. Now someone may or may not want to remove it anyway, but don't indef the guy for making threats when that wasn't his intent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

We indef people with no questions for legal threats, but not for violent threats? It being sarcasm doesn't make it less disturbing. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a violent threat. It's saying that people who want to block Wnt are the same as people who want to kill him or beat him up. It's not useful, and I don't care if someone wants to remove it for one of a couple of different reasons, I'm just saying he is not threatening anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't read even the updated version and be clear it is meant to be sarcastic. There's a reason we have TROUTS to slap people around with in a sarcastic manner, but suggesting physical violence given everything around it? No, I don't expect Wrt to be in any threat but its still language we do not want editors using lightly. --Masem (t) 00:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Point taken. I guess people have different ideas of what is acceptable for a public forum. Natureium (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, I've redacted the particularly over-the-top portion. An action which, I guess, Wnt would hate.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it as inappropriate. The second offense was also inappropriate. But,

WP:BITE applies. O3000 (talk

) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clear to me that the editor didn't mean the post as a death threat (especially since it was posted in an

ANI discussion). But it does highlight that legal threats are frequently handled with an immediate indefinite block while violent threats are given more nuanced consideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

00:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the implication, Liz. I've been dealing with actual violent threats for a while. I don't give actual violent threats "nuanced consideration". The violent imagery was, as someone said above, a strawman. So is implying I care less about violent threats than I do about legal threats. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a strawman it is in a sense. Problem with nuanced violent imagery, is many folks don’t ken nuance. That’s why I removed it. Still think BITE applies and a mild, unlogged warning might help the user. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Floquenbeam. I didn't mean to slight you in the least. I apologize if my words offended you, that was not my intent. It just seems like on ANI legal threats get an immediate response even if they aren't threats but an editor who is using legal language to express their frustration. But my words weren't directed at you as an editor or admin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I didn't read it as a threat at all - just a sarcastic comment on those who seek sanctions for Wnt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I volunteer to be blocked for making this [143] death threat. EEng 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Everyone knows the risk they take by visiting your talk page. Natureium (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    • EEng, are you asking for an IP address or an email address or a post office box address or a UPS Store address or a mail drop address or a street address or the street address and apartment number of somebody's significant other where they actually sleep at night? Have you ever actually strangled anyone? As for the risk of visiting your talk page, that page has killed several of my older smartphones, but how you roll is how you want to roll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I certainly don't feel threatened by that remark. In the preceding discussion I was told that "competence is required", but is competence required when it comes to trying to get people blocked? Wnt (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not a threat of violence, but certainly a rude thing to say. --Rschen7754 06:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• And the moral of the story is that irony, sarcasm etc do not always work on the Internet. A quick
  WP:TROUT is needed, and then it is time to move on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}
  07:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I have blocked the user indefinitely. I understand, as one of the users supporting an indef against Wnt, how the apparent support of Nazism is infuriating, but there is quite simply no defense for advocating in favor of acts of extreme violence and/or murder against one's fellow editors, regardless of whether one is exaggerating their sentiments, making credible threats, being serious, etc. Any sentiments that expressing the desire that an editor be "shot" or "beaten to a pulp" are beyond any basic measure of reasonable conduct, consideration, or civility. So, if we want to give this user a break for their egregiously-violent sentiments, we can do so once they demonstrate that they understand that the things they're advocating for, sarcastically or otherwise, are not acceptable. Regards, ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad close

I would have liked to leave this open for Swarm to comment if he wanted to, but (a) consensus is very clear, and (b) people are starting to add the same type of pointless ad hominems against Swarm and against Drilou that plagued the original Wnt thread. So, closing as "Unblocked". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the above discussion I see a call for an indefinite block from the original poster, which was answered by one possible positive from User:Liz, three calls for "trouts" (not a block) from User:Masem, User:Ianmacm, and User:Rschen7754, a call not to "BITE" from User:Objective3000, a humorous and probably negative response from User:EEng, and three clear NOs from User:Floquenbeam, User:Boing!SaidZebedee, and myself -- and I am the alleged victim of this remark which neither literally called for violence (saying it would NOT be done) nor was taken to be intended in any way threatening by me. Is there any way that the admin supervote closing this section and its accompanying block can be undone? Wnt (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

And no, I didn't need the redaction either. I saw the original posting, but if I hadn't, and if it had been as serious a matter as Swarm pretends, how the hell would it make me safer to have someone saying on Wikipedia I should be beaten to a pulp and for me not to know about it?! Also pinging User:Boing! said Zebedee right this time. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Try harder not to say dumb things. The redaction wasn't for your benefit, and wasn't making you safer; if there was a 0.0001% chance it was real, Swarm wouldn't have been able to block because I already would have. It was to reduce the amount of disruption the comment caused. At least put some effort into your straw men. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree it was a bad close, and there was certainly no consensus for an indef block. I really don't think the editor was threatening Wnt at all, I think they were sarcastically criticizing the community's over-reaction to Wnt's comments. The sarcasm seems most obvious in the "his refusal to unequivocally condemn them as nothing less than child-molesting cannibals from Hell" bit, which is clearly not a literal criticism of Wnt. I say Unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock - Boing said it well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Bad block -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• I've unblocked; not only was there no consensus for a block, there was consensus against a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that preferable, Wnt wants some rope and for the conversation to continue. Let's have that conversation.cygnis insignis 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW as a completely neutral admin I support Floquenbeam's decision and reasoning. WaggersTALK 15:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Here's what this looks like to me: Swarm saw an opportunity to silence a supporter of Wnt and he took it by issuing a punitive block on questionable-at-best pretenses. Wnt's concerns about censorship are not so unreasonable. Maybe that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to everyone else, but that's what I am seeing. Also, Swarm needs to knock it off with the personal attacks against Wnt, the latest being the claim that Wnt apparently supports nazism. Also, Drilou should tone the sarcasm down.
  Lepricavark (talk
  ) 17:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

" :… concerns about censorship are not so unreasonable." A discussion on the censorship of needless linking of nazi propaganda and the limits of freeze peach would not be new, but it is worth reviving when it intersects with wikipedia's censorious ways. cygnis insignis 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we stop with the censorship claims? The article where this started was about the slaughter of 50 Muslims at prayer. The linked article, by an uninvolved writer, said that they were: “slaughtered like the feral animals they are, by the first force in the Western world willing to properly fumigate that sort of vermin.” How can anyone, for one second, think that to be appropriate in such an article? I’ve argued against memorializing the dead in that article; and I also don’t think spitting on their graves makes sense. Neither is censorship. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Censorship was probably not the right word, but what Swarm did is awfully fishy. I think he was very well aware that he was blocking an editor who agreed with Wnt while Swarm was himself embroiled in a dispute with Wnt. But he tried to frame it as something different and that's concerning. As for the issue with the grossly offensive article, I certainly don't mean to imply that it could somehow have been useful.

Lepricavark (talk

) 20:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Bad block. But sarcasm is dangerous here (unfortunately, because I think I could be pretty good at it). It was especially not a good idea to use it in a debate that was already very contentious involving matters that many people find emotionally difficult to deal with. But that's not blockable, just poor judgment. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC) .
• @Wnt:, I just realized Swarm was never pinged or notified that this section was opened. You need to do that. This time, I've already done it for you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeeze. "Won't somebody please think of the poor neo-nazis opinions"; seriously? Bad block. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I misread this one. My bad! That dude (Drilou) is a complete dipshit - maybe he deserves a block, maybe not, but I don't think I'm qualified to say so based on my misreading. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

This block was due to a straightforward misunderstanding on my part, and I owe the blocked user an apology, and I thank Floq for quickly resolving this. While I understood their messages were hyperbolic and not meant to be taken literally, I failed to pick up on the sarcasm there. They were sarcastically defending Wnt, but I perceived them as hyperbolically attacking them. So, while I saw the users advocating against a block above because "it's not meant to be taken seriously", I misunderstood that as a defense against egregious personal attacks, simply because the advocacy for violence was meant to be humorous. Obviously the sarcasm here was not blockable, and the intent of the words is important, and the only reason I blocked was because I took apparent personal attacks at face value. It's not exactly an unprecedented concept that sarcasm can fail to land when written on the internet. Regarding Lepricavark's false flag conspiracy theory, I have my flaws, and I apologize for my error in this situation, but if anyone wants to investigate whether I have ever given anyone the slightest reason to believe that I would engage in the kind of abusive, petty, vindictive, underhanded,

evidence, and I will reinstate my deprecated recall process just for the occasion. Anyway, just wanted to make clear for the record that the block was in error, any subsequent feedback is welcome on my talk page, and this can be re-closed. ~Swarm~ {talk}

21:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, how dare someone question your motives when do you something that looks very suspicious? I should have assumed that you just blocked without reading the thread in which other users pointed out the sarcasm, because that also totally reflects well on you. I obviously should have known that you fell for the sarcasm even though it had already been pointed out, because I am supposed to assume that when an admin blocks, he or she never reads the associated thread first. And yes, since it probably has to be pointed out, I am also being sarcastic. Thankfully, you won't have to worry about me anymore because I've had enough of this foolishness.

Lepricavark (talk

) 21:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RealScienceGeek

Account blocked indefinitely as

not here. (non-admin closure) GirthSummit _(blether)

14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

WP:SIGNATURE. --Guy Macon (talk

) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

First edits of this user being to the acupuncture article, as well as their username "RealScienceGeek", leads me to believe that this user is

WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk

) 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evlekis: extension of range blocks and removal of TPA requested

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

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

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

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

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. [144] 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
   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.
  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 [145].) 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[146] 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 (${\displaystyle \approx 40.000}$ bytes) by [A145GI15I95] and 6 edits (${\displaystyle \approx -9.000}$ 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)

dispute resolution protocol. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

03:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(

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)

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

User:Mnpie1789

single purpose account, is it the view here that some action should be taken against that editor? Ghmyrtle (talk

) 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

These comments essentially repeat those made previously by this editor, and it seems to me that they fail to identify or resolve the matters of concern. The fundamental issue is one of judgement and balance, but I have not seen any other editor sharing the view that the edits made by

MOS:OPENPARABIO for a balanced approach. No-one is trying to unduly "vilify Beausoleil", but the fact that he is notable as a murderer rather than as an artist needs to be accepted. In my view the article lead must focus on the reasons for the subject's notability - that is, as a murderer rather than as an artist (as in the current version) - and the citations derived from the subject's own site should be removed (or, at the very least, minimised) along with the material they support (currently at least 19 of the 49 references derive from that personal website). Ghmyrtle (talk

) 08:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Watch32619

Account blocked indefinitely. (non-admin closure) EclipseDude (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is clearly a sock of someone. Some of their first edits are to tag themself as a checkuser [147] and copy Bbb23's talk page to their talk page [148]. Home Lander (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harrassment on and off the site

arbCom has apparently taken over my block, so we're all done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Per

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

) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(

Orangemoody style scam. Firm notices some spammy editing to an article -> emails target from their info on their (the subject's) official website, claims to be someone in power -> subject/representative jumps to the logical conclusion it's the person reverting (or the scammer says they are that person) -> tries to extort them. Praxidicae (talk

) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identity Evropa

Article given 30/500 protection.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🌹🌉

03:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

[Personal attack by SamSamuel11 removed] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the invocation of

30/500 protection would be prudent on this article. It will be an ongoing issue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs

) 03:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You and your friends seemed to be desperate to get me removed from this article. What's so wrong about an antifascist movement? Serious question.

🌹🌉

17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing?

On going discussion about this already happening at AN. (non-admin closure) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lucifer article and categories (including Sub-Categories)

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

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

• Largely irrelevant. The article Lucifer is not about Satan, but the mythological god/figure from Greek and Roman religion. As the article already states:
• In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often
  Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.^[1]
• The second century Roman mythographer
  Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:^[3]

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

• Ovid, in his first century epic Metamorphoses, describes Lucifer as ordering the heavens:^[4]

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

• "In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths,^[1] though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."^[5]
• Phosphorus (morning star) is not a distinct deity, but the Greek version of the same mythological figure, the son of Eos/Aurora (mythology).
• VenusFeuerFalle claims OR, despite both the article on Lucifer and his parents and offspring already having sources on the genealogy of this deity. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you both might get better results with

Dispute Resolution. Schazjmd (talk

) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

@

WP:3RR, but I see this so far as a pure and honest content dispute between two experienced editors. SportingFlyer T·C

19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} "Lucifer" in Encyclopaedia Britannica]
2. ISBN 978-9-00412668-8
   .
3. ^ Astronomica 2. 4 (trans. Grant)
4. ^ Metamorphoses 2. 112 ff (trans. Melville)
5. ^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3. 19

Repeated addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced pages

I recently rewrote[149] the article "Mirza Khizr Sultan" due to it being almost entirely unsourced and barely comprehensible.[150] User:Nafeessiddique, who had previously contributed to the article, quickly restored their own, unsourced content under the sub-headings "Family" and "Ancestors" (since corrected to "Descendants").[151] I asked them on their Talk Page if they could provide references for their additions,[152] and when they did not respond, I reverted.[153] They then restored their content, and responded on their Talk Page that if I wanted sources, I should "go To Rampur Raza library or Istanbul Museum" to prove it for myself.[154] They followed by complaning that "the deep state" was trying to restrict information [155] (these responses were written under separate sub-headings).

They have since created two more, closely related articles in the same vein, with the two references between them not actually mentioning the subjects.[156][157] I have not been able to find any coverage of either of these individuals and I don't think they can be considered notable, even if they did exist.

Also note that the content they added went far beyond the scope of the article, including descendents born all the way up to the 1990s. The fact that Nafeessiddique mentioned that their "jewellery" was all the historical evidence they need for their content,[158] leads me to believe that they are basing their info off their own family traditions and family members, possibly posing a conflict of interest. They have since stopped responding in the Talk Page, ignoring my continued requests for sources.[159]
Alivardi (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Linda Gottfredson

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

Randy, the correct venue would be

WP:DS per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Remedies. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

22:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

(Actually there's two anon IP addresses being used here, though they geolocate to different places, given the history of Race & Intelligence articles it's not presumption to think it's coordinate. One of the IPs has been indef'd under

WP:NONAZIS [160], and the page has been semi-protected).Volunteer Marek (talk

) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible advertising

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

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

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

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

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

On the basis that blocks are preventative not punitive, and

WP:NOTHERE / possibly compromised account. WaggersTALK

15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

This article was created under the title Jimmy Ouyang and moved to its current title after the actor changed his name.

Reliable sources used in the article refer to him by the surname/last name 'Yang': Yang's own website, the Hollywood Reporter, SFGate.com, and Deadline.com

.

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

Here 73.71.130.157 changed his name and was reverted by CrispyCream27, who asked them not to add unsourced material to a BLP. For some reason, the IP posted on TonyBallioni's talk page about it; it doesn't look like he had anything to do with them or the article. They changed the name again, which I reverted. I posted on the talk page with links to

WP:RS used in the article, and asked the IP to stop; they responded with their different view of reality. A different IP, 221.186.4.154, changed an infobox link, and was reverted by Materialscientist. Again, 73.71.130.157 changed to their preferred (unsourced) version. I reverted them and warned them about edit warring. They said they would stop and await consensus. Another IP, 2601:645:c000:e881:a108:3fc1:20f7:bd8, expressed their opinion that his name is O. Yang

.

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

A strange case of

NOTHERE

Cullen328 has indefinitely blocked Tim198 and Tim198NY and Koolguy105 accounts are dormant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A couple months ago, I came across this user while patrolling recent changes. It appears that, since 2011, Tim198 has focused almost solely on editing and using their userpage to

host what appears to be various television-related content (see their editing breakdown

). I also noticed a similar pattern of editing with Tim198NY (which was linked in the editing breakdown tool), though that account has been inactive for nearly four years.

A sole focus on editing within one's userspace and using it to host non-encyclopedic content runs contrary to

WP:WEBHOST, so when I first came across this, I mentioned this on the #wikipedia-en IRC to seek advice. As a result, DragonflySixtyseven left a message

on Tim's talk page pointing them to an alternative outlet for this sort of activity, and I left things at that to see if they would change. I became busy with real life commitments and forgot about this until I recently came across Tim again in the recent changes feed. It appears that they ignored Dragonfly's message, and the same pattern of editing has continued in the months since then.

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

CSD U5? Or is something else appropriate? EclipseDude (talk

) 04:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do they have two accounts? Regardless, I say indeff for

WP:NOTHERE, as of their over 16,000 contribs, more than 14,000 have been to user space. They haven't meaningfully contributed to main space articles since 2010. They're clearly just using WP as a webhost. Edit: Oh and yes I think the pages qualify for U5. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not the only one wondering about this editor. I've been noticing him for years, and user:Sro23 directly asked what was up more than two years ago [161]. The post was immediately blanked, as were all talk page posts since 2010, when he was still making article space edits and last responded to talk page post. The last article space edit I can see was almost five years ago, and since then thousands of userspace editsand nothing else. It's weird because most of his userspace work looks like it might actually be intended to be article space edits, but it never gets moved to article space (and wouldn't be useful in articlespace if it did).

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

99.17.5.70

IP blocked for 48 hours by Ad Orientem. SemiHypercube 17:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

99.17.5.70 (talk · contribs)

IP continues to make edits that are disruptive and vandalism after being warned (by me) not to do so. I am not the only user reverting their edits. --

talk

) 03:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defamatory content at Charles Hope (American football)

Will need rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Already done, but please see the header when you post to ANI: "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. That's my mistake. Much appreciated, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

SPA persistently adds copyvios despite warnings

Blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Requesting indef block of

WP:SPA User:Elintner27 who has only [162] [163] added copyvios and removed content from the article Stephen Cloobeck [164] [165] despite reverts, suppressions of copyvio edits, and warning [166]. Despite the edit summaries emphasizing updates and sources, the persistence indicates definite intent to deceive. Ribbet32 (talk

) 20:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked him indef and revision deleted the offending content. If he can convince another admin that he won't repete the problematic behavior I have no objection to someone unblocking. ~

problem solving

20:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this account

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Confirming both account are mine. Gangster8192 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting that User:SwagGangster (alt) to be indefinetly blocked as well. Gangster8192 02:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to strip the permissions from your old alternate account, really. I've granted the same permissions to your new alt. You've made conflicting requests to both rename your old alt and to not rename it. If you really and truly want to rename this account, please contact a global renamer – but I think this is probably a waste of time. And, finally, I've blocked the old alt as requested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Organized disruptive editing of Aleksandr Khanzhonkov page in recent days

The article is now protected. This is a content dispute which should be discussed on the article's talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page name, lead and person's details including transliteration have been persistently changed by four different users during the last five days to one particular template: [167] [168] [169] [170]. I was told it's not vandalism but POV-pushing and redirected here, even though the edits are obviously organized. Users

October revolution fled to Crimea which became part of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic only in 1954, then fled to Europe, then returned to work in Moscow. AveTory (talk

) 16:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

No he wasn't. He was born in the

WP:RS. AveTory (talk

) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Let me also remark that

WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk

) 18:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• User:AveTory Hello. I believe that it is your edits of a citizen of a foreign state (a country that really loves to sink into someone else's affairs and embody other people's actions) can be interpreted as vandalism and the war of edits. You repeatedly canceled the editing of various users, which raised the neutrality of the article. It is not clear from your version that Khanzhonkov had some kind of relationship with Ukraine. So all 4 users who have restored the neutral version came from Ukraine, as well as Khanzhonkov in contrast to you. You say that he has nothing in common with Ukraine, but he was born in Khanzhonkovka,
  Odessa, Kyiv and Kharkiv ets it is also Ukraine. Ukraine entered the Russian Empire on a federal basis in 1654, and for the first time this name was mentioned in the 12th century, so it's not up to you to tell when Ukraine appeared. My grandfather was seven years younger than Hanzhonkov, and he lived in the same street as me, and you say that he didn`t live in Ukraine? --Yasnodark (talk
  ) 15:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved into nationalistic offtopic about "citizen of a country that loves to sink into affairs" etc. and I advise you to read

WP:RS first and foremost. At the very least you should've started a discussion on the talk page before renaming the whole article and changing personal details based on a single Ukrainian publication when there are academic references presented which clearly calls him "Aleksandr Alekseevich" and "Russian filmmaker". I would've also suggested to do Google and Google Books search and compare the results. Either way, all four users ignored the sources and reverted to your version, one by one. I never encountered such behavior at other "controversial" pages like Nikolai Gogol. That's why it was reported here. AveTory (talk

) 16:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Enigmaman Hello. Your decision in the article about a person from Ukraine to protect the version of a user from Russia, contrary to the opinion of 4 users from Ukraine, in my opinion is completely biased, contradicts logic and has nothing to do with the concept of neutrality.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Hello. I would like to hear your opinion on this one-sided decision.--Yasnodark (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

So basically, you tag-teamed with others to revert the edits, and you are not interested in respecting

most common English name of Khanzhonkov who did not even speak Ukrainian. Tokhtamysh was also born in a place which 700 years later become Ukraine, should he be listed as Ukrainian?--Ymblanter (talk

) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yasnodark, I presume that what you call a "one-sided decision" is Enigmaman's protection of the page. That protection is a good call under protection policy, to stop the edit war on the page; I spotted it when I went there to protect it myself.

Frankly, I could not care less whether any of you are from Russia, Ukraine, Tahiti, Mars or some undiscovered

RFC

.

Meanwhile, stop tag-teaming. And I you ever repeat any comment like that disgraceful remark above criticising an editor for "your edits of a citizen of a foreign state", I won't hesitate to indefblock you immediately and without warning. No matter how bad relations may be between Russia and Ukraine, Wikipedia is not a battleground on which you can fight out your differences. This place works on collaboration and consensus, and I see precious little of that from the editors here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Hello! You say that this protection is a good challenge under the protection policy to stop the war of editing on the page; but why was the version of the user who started the war selected to protect? You say that the content of articles is determined by the balance of reliable sources and now I do not see any balance sheet in the article. Why in the article about Ukraine reliable are sources from Russia? Why have all the references to Ukraine and the seized alternative source been removed? And you and your colleague do not care who is from where, then why is the initiator of this discussion given preference and the opinions of other participants in the discussion are completely ignored?

I did not delete the Russian categories in the article and did not delete the place of birth and death at the time of these events. I just added Ukrainian categories and place of birth and death for today.

I will refrain from unacceptable comments, but I note that it is this circumstance that explains the position of my opponent, who completely rejected my and subsequent edits aimed at improving the neutrality of the article.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yasnodark, ANI is place for dealing with the conduct of editors. It does not resolve content disputes. Page protection is to stop editwarring, and it is usually applied to the current version, regardless of which side likes it.

Please discuss the content issues on the article's talk page. Try to reach a consensus, and if you can't, then open an RFC to get wider community input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If reaching a consensus was possible, my opponent would not cancel all of my and subsequent edits or start the discussion on the article’s discussion page, and not here, I moved the discussion to the appropriate page, but this is unlikely to lead to anything.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the

Jewish". Most recent example is [171]. Past IP edit examples: [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]

.

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

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

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

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

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

It possibly didn't help that the first example was simply changing transatlantic to Jewish while preserving the British and American bit. The other examples more clearly illustrate the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I lack the technical familiarity to evaluate whether the test filter is working, but provided it only provides a list of edits for humans to scrutinize (rather than warning editors not to say "Jewish", of course!) then this is a rare case where an edit filter actually seems warranted. This seems like a classic anti-Semitic focus (compare

(((echo)))) and the distortion done to articles, including by the incidental removal of adjectives replaced, is significant. Of course, Wikipedia articles should always welcome sourced information about persons' religion and ethnicity, properly added by human editors. Wnt (talk

) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the edits aren't intended in a positive way; this same editor is also interested in making it clear that Kurds are also not "real" Swedes (e.g. here). This edit clarifies why the editor makes these edits; it also shows that the editor edits from other IP ranges (in this case Special:Contributions/130.238.98.89), and that they've been at it for years, and seem unlikely to stop. If an edit filter can stop this, it seems like the best solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the edit filter as a means to flag possible problematic edits, but not as a means to disallow or warn for such edits. Users may legitimately be adding information on someone's Jewish religion or ethnicity to a lead sentence, for example a person who is a noted Jewish theologian or rabbi or something like that, and I'm not sure the edit filter could distinguish between such appropriate, good-faith edits and this sort of pointy flagging of Jewish people that our Swedish friend seems to be bent on doing. If we flag the edits, and have a place that collects the flagged edits for review, we have something that helps real humans solve the problem. --Jayron32 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A raft of nonsense additions to DAB pages

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

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

They seem to be correct. The most of recent of them are related to

The Protector (U.S. TV series) and the redirects. Older edits are about Barney & Friends episode names.--Auric talk

21:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorism

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

This user created

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).

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[179], 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[180][181][182][183][184] 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 [185] (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

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
  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."[1] demons.[10] In January 2017, he stated that gay men should be disqualified from teaching positions because of "their immorality."[11] brainwash children into accepting homosexuality through public schools.[13] imprecatory prayer, praying for God to kill President Barack Obama, who he claimed needed to "turn his life around."[14] 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.[15][16] 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".[17] interpret the Quran in its literal context,[20] that Islam "tears at the fabric of democracy,"[21][22] and that World history classes dishonestly portray Islam in a positive light by providing an "airbrushed" portrait of the religion itself.[23] 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.[24] References ^ Minor, Jack (August 9, 2010). "Second General backs Lakin, says President should produce birth certificate". Greeley Gazette. ^ "Colorado candidate claims Rep. Jared Polis wants to execute Christians". The Spot. Retrieved November 7, 2014. ^ Jesse Paul (June 26, 2014). "El Paso County GOP candidate Klingenschmitt compares Obama to demon". Denver Post. ^ "Longmont 911 tape shows woman pleading for help after baby cut from womb". denverpost.com. Retrieved March 27, 2015. ^ "GOP aghast at Klingenschmitt's act-of-God comment in baby's death". denverpost.com. Retrieved March 27, 2015. ^ "Klingenschmitt apologizes". youtube.com. Retrieved March 23, 2017. ^ "Klingenschmitt loses committee post, suspends ministry for six weeks". denverpost.com. Retrieved July 29, 2015. ^ "Colo. GOP asked to denounce Klingenschmitt for saying gay Scout leaders will molest children". 7NEWS. Retrieved July 29, 2015. ^ GOP comdemns Klingenschmitt's comments about gay boy scout, denverpost.com; accessed August 25, 2015. ^ "Klingenschmitt speech on gays and pedophiles on YouTube". Retrieved August 24, 2015. ^ Wong, Curtis M. "Ex-Lawmaker Wants 'Immoral' Gay People Disqualified From Teaching". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2017. ^ Fritz Cropp, Cynthia M. Frisby, Dean Mills, Journalism across cultures, Wiley-Blackwell, 2003, p. 89 [1] ^ Cynthia Burack, Jyl J. Josephson, Fundamental differences: feminists talk back to social conservatives, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, p. 177 [2] ^ http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4131&Itemid=53 ^ "As the furor over President's speech subsides, ministers continue to pray for his death". Southern Baptist Examiner. 2009-09-08. ^ Matt Coker (2009-06-09). "Reverend Wiley Drake Prays for Obama's Death". Orange County Weekly. ^ Michael Mello (2009-12-23). "Pastor says 'God will punish Rick Warren'". Orange County Register. ^ "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda". Southern Poverty Law Center, Splcenter.org. Winter 2010. Archived from the original on May 17, 2012. Retrieved May 21, 2012. ^ a b Thompson, Krissah (November 24, 2010). "'Hate group' designation angers same-sex marriage opponents". Washington Post. Retrieved May 21, 2012. ^ Parker Spitzer. CNN. Retrieved December 3, 2014. ^ Tashman, Brian (September 12, 2014). "Tony Perkins: US Constitution Doesn't Protect Muslims". Retrieved December 3, 2014. ^ Perkins, Tony (September 11, 2014). "Washington Watch". Retrieved December 3, 2014. ^ Perkins, Tony (September 18, 2014). "America Will Perish Without a Vision to Defeat ISIS". Retrieved December 3, 2014. ^ Coates, Ta-Nehisi. "My President Was Black: A history of the first African American White House--and of what came next". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 15, 2016.

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)

• (
  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.

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: [187] [188] [189] - 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
  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

Blocked. I'm seeing a consensus here, especially since the editor has continue with similar edits rather than address the discussion here, making the arguments of those who favour a warning first somewhat weaker. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• " 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)

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

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)

@

value-laden label. And besides that, the page that the Bissonnette redirect redirects to is not a member of that category. If the category should be anywhere, it's there. The real issue is that it should be discussed, but Ck4829 is just continuing the same behaviour that they were blocked for just a few days ago. And even though you reached out and did get a response, they obviously haven't actually heard anything, or they don't care. This is indef territory either way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support indef I was trying to avoid "voting", but if we're still waiting for a clearer message, then yes they should be blocked for the BLP violations and the extremely bad-faith reaction "I meant to disrupt" to it. Similar to the WP:CIR concerns mentioned above, they've just added a sub-category as a category for the main topic[191] (Donald Trump isn't a Trump administration controversy). So I don't think they currently have the competence required for mass categorizations, which is bad since that's really the only thing they are doing, and then there's the disruption and attitude part. Obviously they could be unblocked if they demonstrate they can communicate with others, understand cateogorization better and drop the "I meant to disrupt". --Pudeo (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef, The user continues adding inappropriate categories without discussion and apparently does not care about this topic. I was considering blocking them indef for some time, and decided not to, since I have blocked them for the first time and posted in this thread defending my actions, so that some users could consider me involved. However, this just can not continue, and also the additions of categories by this user need to be rolled back.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

  If a category

  original research, an in relation to BLP articles also BLP violations. Strategy "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles" is absolutely unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable if we are talking about BLP articles (the main interest of this user). So far, they had enough chances (were given enough rope) to listen to this to know better.--Ymblanter (talk

  ) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

{@

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

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. [192]; 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

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)

Massive amount of users with promotional names in Chinese being created

I've noticed that there have been a ton of users being created with names that are promotional, but in Chinese. With the speed at which they are being created, I'm pretty sure they're bots. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that we need a Chinese speaking admin?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links: 高仿菲拉格慕 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 广州高仿奢侈品货源在哪里 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (just the most recent two; if you look at user creation log you'll easily see many more. This is clearly a bot, so we might need a checkuser to shut down the underlying IPs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking, but there's a lot of them. You can see from this list of new users how fast it's growing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I blocked a few random ones but new ones are still being created at the same pace, so autoblocks seem not to catch them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this doing some patrolling and I flagged down @MusikAnimal: on IRC. I believe they are working on this issue along with Amorymeltzer --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

fix ping --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

[2,3} This search link] may also be helpful for cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

could we get the IP via checkuser and ban the ip that creates them? Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 17:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It should be under control now with Special:AbuseFilter/978. CheckUser didn't seem to help, from the limited research I did. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of ranges involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have slowed down or stopped. Feel free to ping me if you see more accounts rapidly being created (many per minute). If you know what you're doing feel free to update Special:AbuseFilter/978, too. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a CAPTCHA for new account creation? If this is clearly a bot, how is it rapidly creating accounts? Deli nk (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) "高仿" = fake but look very similar to the genuine product. Except as a humour, it should not exist in the username (just like other offensive word) . Did we have an edit filter in the process of account creation? Despite tracking material those accounts inserted would be the next problem if they choose other combination of username. Matthew hk (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, another related keyword: Chinese: 精仿. All of them so far in the new user list seem blocked already. Matthew hk (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another, Chinese: 一比一. It just so humorous to call fake product as 1:1 [luxury good model]. And another potential keyword would be Chinese: 奢侈品; lit. 'luxury good', despite it can be legit username in a humorous way. Matthew hk (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• (NAC) All of these usernames are written in simplified Chinese and contain phrases for various counterfeit luxury goods. "微信"(
  🌹🌉
  19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some other keywords: "海淀" (

🌹🌉

19:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, as far as I can tell none of them have touched the Chinese-language Wikipedia, so something tells me they may be making them here because they can't do so on their native Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of socks with usernames starting with something like "fdsfdsd" in Chinese

发的萨法的311的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的312的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的31撒2的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的3撒2的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的3撒的的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的撒的 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
发的萨法的撒的的2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Discovered from here. "发的萨法的" is what you get when inputting "fdsfd" in a

🌹🌉

20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

All blocked by FPS. Lourdes 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first two just have the nonsense phrase FD范德萨脚后跟范德萨很高打开睡觉啊后付款哈市的机会市的机会; 'FD van der Sar's heel Van der Sar is very open to sleep', 'then pay the chance of the city of Harbin' repeated on their userpage.--Auric talk 20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Auric:That name is the pinyin equivalent of FDSJHGFDSHGDKSJAHFFHSDJHSDJH. Obvious mashing of the second row of keys on the keyboard. --Blackmane (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a solicitation to me.--Auric talk 12:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:EDITORIAL

by User:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan

Bbb23 has indefinitely blocked AGreatPhoenixSunsFan with a CU block and AGPSF has posted a lengthy unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

fan blog noting every NOTNEWS speculative report). The earliest warnings appear to go back as far as 2012, and has continued to their recent block in in December 2018 for more unverified content editing

.

They have also been warned multiple times about adding

non-neutral tone in their edits. A long discussion took place about their contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 35#Phoenix Suns and WP:EDITORIAL. They were invited to discuss

, but chose not to and were then blocked in November 2018 for further NPOV violations.

They also have a very bad habit of editing from multiple IPs.

Their edits are definitely on the disruptive side as it takes several editors to fix what ever additions the user makes, even when they are correct due to the un-encyclopedic style used. Despite all warnings and editing style constructive criticism, they have not changed their editing habits and at least appears to

not be listening. Not sure the best path forward with this editor, so looking for suggestions. Yosemiter (talk

) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 blocked AGreatPhoenixSunsFan before I could. I'm pretty sure this is A Great Catholic Person (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I blocked AGPSF because of egregious abusive editing while logged out, but they are not AGCP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was the name that got me. A "Great" person who edits abusively while logged out and likes sports articles? Oh well, I'm allowed to be wrong once per year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(smiling) Be careful. It's early in the year to say something like that. AGCP does edit sports articles, but they also edit lots of other kinds of articles. And they don't only use IPs; particularly in the beginning, they used other accounts. Finally, their editing as IPs is blatantly nasty. AGPSF is comletely new to me, no doubt because of my lack of interest in sports. I've dealt with AGCP for soooo long.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Without casting any aspersions, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of a link based on the similarity of the username and some of the statements on the user pages of blocked sockpuppets of AGCP. SportingFlyer T·C 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

In their current unblock request, they go into length that they are not AGCP. I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. The user name for AGPSF has actually been around longer and AGCP knew how to use citation templates with better grammar. The mannerisms and writing seem very different from a brief look over. Yosemiter (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not impossible they're different since a lot of the hits were for very notable basketball players, but the Editor Interaction Analyser brings up some curious results - PhoenixSunsFan says AGCP wouldn't edit

XXXtentacion, but they did edit on that article once, and the edits on Michael Sweetney within six days of each other (it was the only two edits either user made to that article, long after Sweetney had done anything of note) are really odd in my opinion. Also, the only edits to Dillon Brooks either editor made all-time were within seven hours of each other. Bronson Koenig also strikes me as curious. None of these players ever played for the Suns. I'm distrustful. SportingFlyer T·C

05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Common pages aside, Phoenix has a specific editing style with which I am familiar, but have not seen yet in a few random spot checks of Catholic.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mr.Mani Raj Paul

No action. It appears that a talk page warning has gotten this editor's attention. Feel free to return to ANI if copyright problem persists for reconsideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but a good faith editor User:Mr.Mani Raj Paul has been making problematic edits across Wikipedia for a while now. It appears their English is pretty bad due to which other editors need to spend a considerable amount of time cleaning up after their mess. Here are some of their edits:

• "On behalf of Rishabh Pant played a magnificent innings of 78 runs."

• "Chennai had an easy target and Chennai did without any Held this goal of interruption and won by 7 wickets in the first match of the IPL."

• "Initially the Bengaluru team comes to bat. But the Bangalore team could not do much more." "In response, Chennai won this target very easily and defeated to Bangalore by 7 Wickets."

• "On 24 March Mumbai lost by 70 runs, Mumbai first won the toss and decided to bowl first, before batting, the Delhi team played a massive innings of 213 runs. It was a huge target for Mumbai to win this Match."

• "when Kolkata team came to bat, he had a big goal in front of them and he needed a good start but Chris Lynn was out early at 7 runs."

• "Kallis will couch the team"

• "2019 Indian Premiere League will play next year"

• "Semi protection is required,because some IP user the modified the data & Statics section, I not want IP user gives fall information"

• If you think,the problem in season summary,you will wright yourself.now I will revert back season summery.please don't remove Anything otherwise you will block from editing, thanks

It appears broken English is not the only issue with their edits. They have been copy-pasting sentences from news sources on various articles:

• 2018 Indian Premier League Final: this edit is copy-pasted from various sources such as [193] [194]
• 2018 Asia Cup Final: this edit is lifted from [195]
• Chennai Super Kings in 2019: this edit is copy-pasted from [196] [197]
• Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2019: this edit is copied from [198] [199] among others

The user has also been creating several unnecessary templates which are either unused or used in a single article:

• Template:INDvsAUS-21Nov18 - unused
• Template:2018 IPL-SRH-Batting - used in a single article - unnecessarily created
• Template:RCB Highest Totals - unused

You will find many more issues if you look through their contributions. 2402:3A80:CE3:55B9:DB75:C867:ECB9:37BE (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Helpful note; The subject is cricket. The insane madness surrounding cricket is the Indian equivalent of Wrestling in Merkia. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that a

WP:CIR. On that note however, this user has made some 8,000 edits and made numerous pages, so clearly they have some grasp of English and the Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

16:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is the copyvio stuff. But judging by this post on their talkpage, they are now aware of it, and have stopped doing it. I assume they weren't aware it was an issue before hand. Maybe the IP who started this thread would want to coach them on better prose? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Dispute resolved by removing birth year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly what Abecedare says. A fashion model directory is akin to other database sites such as IMDb and does not meet the stringent sourcing requirements of

WP:DOB, especially if the date is disputed. I've removed the date per our policy regarding dates of birth. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}

18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm no fan of original research, but I took a look at the Minnesota Birth Index at

Familysearch.org and it confirmed the April 22, 1988 date of birth. Until then, one of these days a Vogue, Elle, or Harper's Bazaar will inevitably reveal the truth. *dun dun dun* Trillfendi (talk

) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

They're not likely to, since ageism is rampant in the fashion modelling industry. It's not uncommon for models to claim they're younger than they really are because it makes it that much less likely they'll be passed over for a gig in favour of some younger talent. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Article subjects disputing their birthdates is one of the few gray areas in which we actually do have hard precedent, as there was some unpleasantness in the early days of Wikipedia when it was pointed out that a certain J Wales was giving himself a different age to every biography of him. Unless there's a strong reason to include the date of birth, just leave it out if there's any dispute. (Even when the d.o.b. isn't disputed, it's not unusual for subjects to object to our including them, on grounds ranging from concerns about identity theft, to not wanting to be perceived as old. Since it's rarely of particular encyclopedic significance as to exactly when someone was born, if there's an objection the onus is on us to demonstrate that it's significant enough to include.) ‑ 

Iridescent

20:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

afd renewed a 3rd time by

WP:CONSENSUS

I think the continued discussion has settled things, and we've seen a link to the relist explanation. All good faith, and I think the best people can do now is offer their thoughts at the AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In addition to the forum-shopping noted below, the OP, who authored the article, has been tendentious at the AfD. Given their obvious

WP:BOOMERANG may be in order.--Bbb23 (talk

) 16:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia guidelines regarding

Relist

}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." There was a clear consensus: Keep Passes

WP:ANYBIO

– "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

talk

) 15:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as

asking the other parent. A week more of discussion isn't going to kill anything, and I think the rationale for relisting is sufficiently self-evident from the discussion itself that an explanation would be unnecessary verbiage. Also, since there isn't a link above, the AfD in question is here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I am a bit put off by all the snarky comments from administrators. Wikipedia states: "Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." Indeed I am not
  talk
  ) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Mooning the jury isn't helping your own cause. I have no stake in this discussion, but getting an answer you don't like isn't the same as getting no answer at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

  ) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Administrators are not being mooned. The answer above was to accuse me of things I have not done, and to lock the discussion. I do not want to "moon the jury". If I am off base in my request or on the facts about Wikipedia policy it is easy to state that: no need to use hyperbole and then lock the category on this page. "Assume good fath" and I will do the same.
  talk
  ) 16:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I provided a more detailed rationale upon request. --Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• So looking at the time stamps, Lubbad85 had an explanation before they filed this report and made no attempt to further engage Randykitty. This action joins their behavior at that AfD as outside general community expectations. I would suggest Lubbad to heed BBB's warning as it does appear that a BOOMERANG is a real possibility. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(

talk

) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85 Keeping quiet isn't necessary. Discussion is. Taking someone to ANI is one of the strongest actions we have and so if you didn't understand or disagreed with Randykitty, after posing the question further discussion with him would have been the right next step. If you felt you needed fresh eyes, asking questions of a respected editor who could explain things would have been another option. Your passion for Mill is clear but there are ways that are in keeping with community norms and ways the community does not generally find OK to express that passion. If you don't know which is which, again finding a respected long time editor who you trust to explain would likely be helpful for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Lubbad85, I did not watchlist the debate, but your remark above made me curious, so I had a look. I'm sorry, but I really don't care for the aspersions that you cast on my motives to relist. For somebody who asks for AGF for their own actions, you're pretty fast to forget AGF when it concerns others. --Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 17:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from my talk page when this item here was closed, thinking the matter was closed but not foreseeing that you'd continue here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As an outsider who simply hasn't de-watchlisted this page yet, if I may give my two cents here? Lubbad, if I came across this article at BLP/N or somewhere, I would strongly suggest it be put up for deletion. The sourcing is poor and self-aggrandizing. The style is narrative instead of expository, meaning it reads like a story about a character rather than an article about a subject. And within that, its tone is clearly that of someone truly enamored with this subject. (It's very difficult to hide your emotions when writing. Rather, they come off to the readers as exaggerated.) I'm sorry to say, but you should really take what everyone is telling you as advice and constructive criticism rather than snarkiness, because that's really a defense mechanism to deflect the real issues. And AGF doesn't mean continue to AGF once bad faith is demonstrated, so it's important to remember that others who are trying to help also deserve AGF. I see no evidence of anyone trying to be rude, snarky or mean to you. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read through that stuff, or I wouldn't have bothered commenting. I think you're taking these expressions a wee bit too literally. When someone says you are "mooning the jury", they mean you are not going to get any positive results from calling people snarky or similar things. Good advice. Sometimes discussions are closed by admins around here without any warning. One of the benefits of being an admin I guess, but when an argument spirals into

logical fallacies sometimes that's reason enough. Zaereth (talk

) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 19:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• See also this AN thread following the first relist, which is how I came to know of the article/AFD. Lubbad85's enthusiasm and investment in the article, coupled with their inexperience with the AFD process, is IMO driving them to assume bad-faith bordering on conspiratorial-thinking towards others involved with the AFD (fwiw, they have been polite in their interactions with me even though I voted for redirection). I'd again advice them to step back from the AFD-related discussions; focus, if they wish, to improve the sourcing/writing of the article; and let the process take its course. Meantime, everyone will be better off if this thread is closed without creating more bad blood. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Abi25gail05 - Lack of understanding of policy; threats on user page

Along with other suppressible information, the so-called threat has been removed, not that it was credible in any case. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been making numerous unsourced edits, based on rationales such as "Added highly vital information DO NOT REMOVE!!!!!!!" and "Received by a reliable source you can trust". I tried to explain the verifiability policy but got nowhere. The user has since edited their user page, addressing people who revert these edits, with the message "I WILL COME FOR YOU!!!!!!" and a list of friends, with the claim that "they WILL come for you too!!" Anyone willing to step in and try to explain WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:THREATEN? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The threats in and of themselves should be reason enough to indef. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The purported "threats" are obviously a joke, and they don't appear to have made a single edit since your warning other than what appears to be a good-faith attempt to engage with you on your talkpage. (Her assertion that her claim that Bastion Booger withdrew in 1994 owing to food poisoning is a direct copy from an existing Wikipedia article is entirely correct, incidentally.) We shouldn't even be considering blocking here, and this certainly doesn't constitute an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. ‑ 
  Iridescent
  21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indef based on the threats - we cannot give the impression that we don't take threats seriously.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent

21:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As the former possession of a small terrier, I’m not sure that is as..toothless?...as it might seem at first glance. Qwirkle (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defamatory edits at Katie Lee (chef)

Handled--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All taken care of. Just a friendly reminder if you see an edit in need of a revdel you can also reach out to

an admin directly to do so too. RickinBaltimore (talk

) 19:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--I'd never seen that before. Not that I'll remember.... 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISOCS Wiki issue with editor

BOOMERANG

We're done here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report a concern with an editor who´s user name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 claiming to be an "Anti Vandalic Agent" from Canada. I am trying to update verified information about a school in Switzerland (International School of Central Switzerland)in Wiki and he keeps re-editing the information. I would require him to stop acting without solid reasons and under absolutely no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickhamoxford (talk • contribs) 09:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone misplace a sock? Three editors have already been blocked for adding promotional content like this. Users are ISOCS MANAGER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SCHOOL MANAGER CHAM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cham Educator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: those were soft blocks for username violations. It's not sock puppetry, which means 3RR applies – unless there's something else that I missed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTHERE. I also want to point out this is the first time any of these users have tried to communicate with me at all despite be leaving messages on almost all of their pages. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk

) 09:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, but I don't see any discussion on Talk:International School of Central Switzerland. I don't understand what's so promotional about the last edit; it just says the school almost closed but didn't. Maybe you could explain your reasoning on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, he removed it. Yeah, that's kind of promotional. But that should still be resolved without edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's just a little hard when someone makes 4 accounts in rapid succession. I'm not doing this tonight, it's 5:30am now, but if they really want a constructive discussion about how to improve the school article I am more than happy to engage in that. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Wait, they didn't just remove it. Do you not see what they replaced it with? ".....led by José Antonio Parra, who has proven track record and extensive experience in running premium International Schools mainly in Spain. As a member of the Almira International Schools Group, ISOCS will enter a new phase of its development and growth. Almira Group have a strong commitment towards academic excellence and the holistic development of each child." That is super promotional in my book. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, absolutely; but unfortunately it's also not covered by

WP:3RRNO  :) ——SerialNumber54129

09:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

No I know but NRP said "Oh, he removed it. Yeah, that's kind of promotional." I am just pointing out he didn't just remove it and it's more than kind of promotional. Sorry, I'm just tired of dealing with UPE.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they're clearly

only here to push their preferred institution and should be hard blocked on that account; even if they shouldn't have been previously, they certainly shold be by now. ——SerialNumber54129

09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Which, by the way, shouldn't be taken as criticism of

WP:PERENNIAL, so... ——SerialNumber54129

10:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said above. I absolutely see where NRP is coming from and I know how beneficial communication is on Wikipedia (I want to make that clear) and I also agree with your comments about UPEs. The user is now blocked but I will take NPRs comments into consideration when working on improving my conflict resolution skills. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I missed the blatant promotion. I think I misread this edit as adding the disputed content and got confused about who was doing what. I indefinitely blocked Wickhamoxford for promotion. We can unblock the editor if Wickhamoxford agrees to stop adding promotional content and blanking sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless you think further action needs to be taken, can this thread be closed now as OP is blocked? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conduct dispute - Thefreeencyclopediauser

Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I am not sure if this is the right place to do this, but it seems to be to me. There is a Wikipedia user, Thefreeencyclopediamember, who has consistently acted obnoxiously and unproductively on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries toward me, David O. Johnson, MrX, BrendonTheWizard, and others. You can see their bolded comments on that talk page, especially in the sections Mike Gravel and Candidates' portraits. Despite several users urging them to change their behavior, they have remained steadfast. Is there any way we can prevent this? Thanks SCC California (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'd support a
  WP:NOTHERE block based off their contribution log. SportingFlyer T·C
  00:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pushing outdated or irrelevant sources at "Equinox"

In this series of edits

AstroLynx. Edit histories make it obvious that the editor is the same one who used 81.139.160.225 (talk · contribs). The editor was warnedon March 22 and notices of this discussion will be provided momentarily. Jc3s5h (talk

) 11:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• A UK-based IP address that edit wars extensively with Jc3s5h over minutiae in time-related articles. Does anyone else hear
  quacking? Someone please tell me why I'm wrong... --Jayron32
  15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, I think they are quacking indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  In this series of edits 81.139.163.204 (talk · contribs) trots out the editors misinformation about Greenwich Mean Time]. I consider this prove positive the user is a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. I will suggest an administrator hat the talk page discussion, and suggest administrators take other appropriate action. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Quacked loud enough to draw my attention. All the tells are there, even though the editor seems to have left the big town for the weekend. Blocked for a bit. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks, POV-pushing, refspamming and attempts to unilaterally override AfD consensus by 91.169.1.118 and probable socks

A cluster of IP anons, potentially socks of a single individual (going by their indistinguishable editing habits and geolocation) has been trying to

WP:BRD

says not to do.

I should note that they actually titled a Talk-page section "Special for XOR'easter", signaling that they have a problem with me personally, that they "quote" me while changing the words I typed, that they've been weirdly condescending (Repear after me : C-R-I-S-I-S, as though I were a child), and that they have cast aspersions upon my mental state, or tried to (The only crisis lays in the head of XOR'Easter). The only participant who isn't an anonymous IP editor has been @Headbomb, who said the proposed 'expansion' is a not an improvement and that The AFD was right here.

IPs that I strongly suspect resolve to the same individual:

• 145.242.20.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.214.73.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.215.96.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bagneux, Hauts-de-Seine
• 80.215.97.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 80.215.224.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 2A04:CEC0:1052:2832:4259:8326:B8E:44AE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris
• 194.206.71.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Fresnes, Val-de-Marne
• 91.169.1.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Paris (warned, not by me, about edit warring, and replied to a template that I left with IDC. Thank you. Have a nice dayyy).

A diligent page patroller duly cautioned me that I went over the 3RR line in trying to handle this, while also

talk

) 16:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to remark that the article has been protected two days ago by Dlohcierekim (the protection expires tonight), and the talk page discussion is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth an

b

} 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought about asking for am

talk

) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Well if you want something to chuckle at, my favourite piece of vandalism on Wikipedia was this.

b

} 18:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a minor point, the notion that editing under different IP addresses is "sockpuppetry" gets more and more outdated with each passing day. This isn't 2008 anymore, and most people access the internet through a variety of IP addresses over the course of a day. I would not be surprised if, looking at the underlying IP addresses to my username, if a dozen or more unique IP addresses showed up every day. That's just the modern world we live in, people don't usually access the internet through a single desk-top computer via a single ethernet cable with a stable IP address. When a person's IP address changes, it is not happening because the person in question is trying to mask their identity or avoid scrutiny or anything like that. The use of different IP addresses by the same person in a short time period is essentially meaningless with regards to our understanding of "sockpuppetry", which requires intent to deceive. The mere fact that someone's IP address changes means essentially nothing in this context. --Jayron32 18:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• In principle, I agree. However, in this particular case, one IP is addressing the other as if they are a separate person, e.g., 194.206.71.161 saying, I think 91.169.1.118 has correctly asserted [200]. To me, this looks like one person trying to create the illusion of multiplicity. In other words, I think there is intent to deceive.
  talk
  ) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Since 91.169.1.118 rolled right past @

talk

) 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Lectonar has extended the protection of the page until 8 April. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• While @Jayon32:'s point is spot on generally (and we need to be more careful about applying it), in this particular case I think @XOR'easter: is onto something. The referral to other IPs definitely looks like an attempt to make use of multiple IPs/addresses. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by T0mpr1c3

On 27 March, T0mpr1c3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started mass-adding postnominals, at bot-like speeds, to scientist articles. In addition, the reported user opened discussions at two talkpages where he was told that this postnominal issue has been discussed before and the decision was not to add postnominals at the lead. When reverted, the user edit-wars and then tags articles for cleanup on the basis that they are missing the postnominals. Please see the recent history of Claude Shannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an indicative sample of this disruption. Seeing this massive disruption, I warned the user that I will report him at ANI if he continued this disruption. He subsequently removed my message by archiving his talkpage. Soon after, he added a postnominal to another article, thus signaling that he will continue the disruption. I suggest a block if he shows no indication that he will stop this disruption. Thank you. Dr. K. 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• A good discussion showing the silliness of the edits is at Talk:Claude Shannon#Claude Shannon ForMemRS. Four editors explain why ForMemRS does not belong in the lead of that article yet T0mpr1c3 persists, including "Please do not remove the cleanup tag until the discussion is resolved." and adds {{cleanup|reason=postnominals required|date=March 2019}} to the top of the article (diff) to make their point. A block is needed if the behavior continues. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• As already discussed at the old [[WP:PORNBIO], there are awards that created the notoriety of the awardee, and there are awards that only try to use the awardee's notoriety to increase the notoriety of the awarding body. Everything else is editorial discretion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW, do porn stars use postnomnals? If so I think we should have an article on that very topic, with examples. EEng 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

EEng#s, is "MILF" a postnominal? Before you answer boldly, be aware that my wife is a grandmother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be a genre, wouldn't it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Thanks
    talk
    ) 11:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with JBL here.
  talk
  ) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your input. What I am concerned with in this case is the signal to disruption ratio in the communication of this user which is abysmally low. The POV-push here manifested by the very fast-paced insertion of the postnominals in a large number of articles, the edit-warring, the subsequent disruptive tagging of the articles for cleanup for the single purpose of pushing the postnominals is one (bad) thing. The other is the complete absence of communication regarding this disruption, other than the
  WP:IDHT exhibited by this user at the talkpage of two articles. It is normally expected that after this sort of disruption, the user should address these concerns by making some type of statement either here or on their talkpage. I see no communication of this kind. The only indirect response this user has engaged in after my warning on his talkpage, was to add a postnominal at yet another article, clearly indicating that he has learned nothing. I am concerned about that. Dr. K.
  21:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading this discussion and the associated talk page discussions, and observing this editor's stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge consensus, I have given an indefinite block to T0mpr1c3. Indefinite does not mean forever. If this editor posts an unblock request promising convincingly to abandon the disruptive behavior, then I will not object to any adminstrator unblocking this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

The user has been removing declined unblocked request. Under the user talk page guideline such requests should not be removed while the block is still in place. May be time to remove their talk page access. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Should this be moved back?

(non-admin closure)  Resolved. Moved back by Swarm. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Structured Discussions. I have asked them about this on their talk page but I am wondering of the page should be moved back in the meantime. IMO the new name has very little to do with the old one and it could be confusing to readers. Others may think differently thus my question here. MarnetteD|Talk

16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Now the editor has created Wikipedia:SDis and redirected it to the same page the they redirected Flow to. MarnetteD|Talk 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the term "structured discussions tools" was introduced into the article a year and a half ago, so it's not new. See diff:[201] And the term

talk

) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Flow was technically renamed to Structured Discussions, so I understand the intent here (it's not an April Fools prank), but Structured discussions does not exist on Wikipedia. That is just a preserved historical page from when Flow was used on English Wikipedia. It doesn't exist on this project, which is why WP:Flow is retained as an obsolete historical page that is not and need not be updated. ~Swarm~ 🐝 {sting · hive} 17:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lionfound

Indeff blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. The Duke 19:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC). (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lionfound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously blocked for repeatedly changing sourced statistics in articles without changing the source. They're now at it again, with the addition of a misleading edit summary too. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm indeffing now. Never responded, and the edit summary is clearly an attempt at deception. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could you shut down RonBot for a while

Resolved

GoldenRing (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This bot

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding broken image tag to a lot of articles that doesn't need it. Could you shut it down until this problem be fixed. thanks--SharabSalam (talk

) 13:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked - pinging @Ronhjones: to address issue raised. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Something has filled Category:Articles with missing files - here's 1400 entries at present. I'll think I'll add a cat count before run and hold fast if suddenly very high. Any additions will be removed when run again. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Category appears to be de-populating. I'll run when there is a correct stable situation Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing these pages have in common is a {{Portal bar}} - for some pages this is the only images on the page. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, the issue was caused by the deletion of File:Samsung Galaxy S5 Vector.svg that affected a portal used on thousands of pages (~3.5K I think) - I got the issue fixed (see Template_talk:Portal#Template-protected_edit_request_on_31_March_2019). I assume the bot gets a list up front but does not check a page is still in Category:Articles with missing files before adding the template, so it continued to wrongly add {{broken image}} after the portal had been fixed. I've been running a null edit sweep on the list to re-clear Category:Articles with missing files. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

update the null-edit sweep has completed so it should be safe to re-enable the bot. Maybe it would be sensible to set a max number of additions in can make in a pass to stop this type of issue in the future. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: Ah, it had to be something like that. Category de-population is not quick - about 800 pages were removed in 1 hour, so checking each page would not work, it would still add too many - I'll go for a check cat increase function at start. File:Blank.png got deleted the other week by accident on commons, also caused issues - we now have a local copy as well - this might be also an answer for these highly used files. Category is stable now, so I'll clean up. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent false information/changes to religion demographics by dynamic IP editor

A range has been blocked for widespread vandalism of religion articles. The IP editor was making unsourced changes of numbers of believers, seemingly at random. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and many previous dynamic IPs, see this range for example: Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E/44

Only makes a few edits on any given IP number. Numerous warnings have been given to previous IPs in the same range, for the same types of edits.

Arbitrary small changes to demographics figures in many articles related to religion, that contradict the existing sources. Often obviously falsified by changing an existing number. Hard to tell what the motivation is, whether vandalism, POV of some sort, competence issue, or what. I haven't really found examples of correct/helpful edits. The majority of their edits have already been reverted at the time, but many are still current, I'm trying to clean them up.

Examples:

Current IP 2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E:

• [202] - I confirmed that the source says "28.7 percent Sunni, 28.4 percent Shia [...] 36.2 percent of the population is Christian." These were changed to 27.7, 24.4, and 38.2 respectively. Obviously-fabricated numbers, since they were changed by full integers without changing the decimal parts.
• [203] - Changes in contradiction to the sources. Reduces Evangelical Protestants and inflates the number of Orthodox.
• [204] - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by adding/subtracting 50%, contradicts the source.
• [205] - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by exactly 100,000.

Previous IPs:

• [206] - Changes to percentages without changing the absolute figures, contradicts the source ([207]).
• [208] - Obviously-falsified changes to numbers.
• [209] - Unexplained changes in demographics that contradict the source.
• [210] - changes percentage of Muslims from 50% to 48%, contradicting the source.
• [211] - inflates the number of Orthodox from 1 to 3 million, contradicts the source.
• [212] - reduces the number of Evangelical Protestants, contradicts the source.

There are dozens of more examples... --IamNotU (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me somewhat of a now-blocked editor. I don't know if it's OK to say who though, since it would be hypothetically connecting an account to an IP, if they're the same. Would that be allowed, and if so, would it be helpful? —{{u|

T/C

20:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

So long as you have some public evidence for the connection (that is, visible Wikipedia edits, and no data from off Wikipedia) and you are not a checkuser there shouldn't be a problem in you stating your conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyway, what I noticed is that it seems somewhat similar to the behavior of

T/C

23:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It does seem like the examples given above are increasing Christianity, though, while it seems like Kitutia generally increased Islam. Maybe just a coincidence... —{{u|

T/C

00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The IPs above geolocate to Greece, and a number of the edits do seem to relate to Greek Orthodox or Catholic demographics, while Kitutia was exclusively editing on the topic of Tanzania. So I think it's not likely they're the same, but thanks for pointing it out. There are a surprising number of people who go around only making fake changes to statistics, not sure what they expect to accomplish...? I did look for named accounts with similar patterns in the same articles, but didn't find any, so it's possible that this person only edits as an IP. --IamNotU (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Since the IP edits documented above by User:IamNotU appear to be vandalism, I'm going ahead with a one-month block of Special:Contributions/2A02:587:5509:8700:3D9F:379C:7C18:EE8E/44. Please let me know if you see any more IPs showing the same pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ah cool, didn't realize this was such a common form of disruption. Sorry for the noise, and sorry to Kitutia for the false suspicion :) —{{u|

T/C

20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

racist admins

(

civil if you decide to start a discussion there. Amaury (talk | contribs

) 00:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui

the irony is not lost. immediately after the christchurch attacks, admins sought to delete a perfectly fine article on the basis that it used sources from foreign media. allegations were made that it was biased, on the basis that they could not read French. As they could not read French, they could not assess notability and therefor it was not a notable article. A 2017 BBC article lists the top news agencies in france.^[1] and the topic was mentioned in all the top news sources listed by the BBC.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

No specific criticisms were made. if you have any particular questions I can answer them but I dont really feel like writing a PhD length reply to explain each point. Retired but just came back to answer questions.

also wow, if you thought the article was biased, check out english language news articles. ^[10][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299010
2. ^ https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2017/02/21/a-toulouse-l-ecole-musulmane-hors-contrat-al-badr-n-a-pas-repris-les-cours_5083094_3224.html
3. ^ https://www.liberation.fr/france/2017/02/26/a-toulouse-rideau-sur-l-ecole-musulmane_1551206
4. ^ http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/10/04/01016-20161004ARTFIG00270--toulouse-le-directeur-d-une-ecole-musulmane-renvoye-devant-la-justice.php
5. ^ https://www.ouest-france.fr/education/ecole/toulouse-la-fermeture-d-une-ecole-musulmane-validee-par-le-conseil-constitutionnel-5797172
6. ^ https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/toulouse-la-justice-ordonne-la-fermeture-d-une-ecole-musulmane_1860879.html
7. ^ https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/toulouse-le-directeur-d-une-ecole-privee-musulmane-place-en-garde-a-vue-14-10-2018-2262870_23.php
8. ^ https://www.20minutes.fr/toulouse/2124475-20170831-toulouse-tribunal-administratif-annule-interdiction-ouverture-ecole-musulmane-al-badr
9. ^ https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/occitanie/haute-garonne/toulouse/toulouse-directeur-ecole-musulmane-al-badr-relaxe-sa-condamnation-enseignement-non-conforme-1595921.html
10. ^ https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/744314/islamic-school-closed-down-koran-france-national-curriculum
11. ^ https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/lifting-the-veil-who-is-behind-the-very-honorable-fight-against-islamophobia-in-france/

WP:DRV is the place to go, but without the accusations of racism and bad faith. Stop that now. Right now you're just calling attention to your own conduct. Acroterion (talk)

00:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

bad faith closure of topic

User is blocked, so things look done here. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

admin user:Acroterion believes it is evil to call someone racist for pointing out admins have deleted a topic using French references because those admins believe French is an insignificant language. I dont think he knows what racist means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.21.145 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason to open a new main heading for this so I've moved to be a subheading of the original topic. It seems to me you're running a strong risk of a

WP:NPA applies to admins too but it's your funeral. BTW why are you editing logged out? Nil Einne (talk

) 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually are you @

User:Beeblebrox who closed the discussion mostly ignore that !vote since it wasn't well grounded in policy and wikipedia norms so it's irrelevant to the deletion.

Which means, there's actually a good reason for a block of Verify references and whoever is behind the IP if the personal attack isn't withdrawn immediately.

Nil Einne (talk

) 04:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Verify references has been to ANI several times for various wild claims. The most recent ANI ended here after Verify references "retired". (Verify posted this ANI, but it quickly boomeranged on Verify after they made repeated use of slurs and refused to acknowledge their incivility and offensiveness). @

WP:NOTHERE. I do have an edit conflict in this issue, having been involved in the last two ANI's with Verify as well as a strange content dispute on Talk:Black-throated finch (for which Verify tried to snipe me at in a totally unrelated ANI??), so take my opinion for what its worth. But I think the links alone tell the tale. Also note this wild ANI which Verify posted, in which they accused a long gone editor of sockpuppetry; the resulting conversation devolved quickly. Moral of the story: I support an indeff for Verify references. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP, who is obviously just looking for somebody to fight with, and indef-blocked Verify references, who is also looking to pick fights. I don't think the appearance of the IP is a coincidence, and their method of spewing accusations in all directions speaks for itself. Verify references appears to be unable to assume good faith on several fronts, and prefers to see racism behind everything. The bogus French reference complaint is a Verify references thing. (I've written dozens of articles using French references, by the way). I see no chance that this will change. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive administrator (April Fools joke)

All users who commented in this thread have been indef blocked, myself included. GiantSnowman 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to complain about a very abusive admin called CambridgeBayWeather. He abuses me on a constant basis and refuses to let me edit, just look at my contributions. I demand that something be done about him right away. I would notify him on his talk page but I'm too scared to. Airport Manager, Talk, Contributions 13:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's ok about the notification, your ping above will have alerted CambridgeBayWeather who will probably be here soon. IMHO btw, I believe that you are totally wrong in your assessment of CBW's behaviour, and it is you who is at fault. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support boomerang block. Someone ban this sock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actually, I have discovewred that CBW is an arsehole too. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

+ + + Flames the snowman + + + -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Snow melts and extinguishes the flames. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

(April Fools joke)

(

WP:NPA. Amaury (talk | contribs

) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am here to report that this user has a "narrow self-interested or promotional activity in article writing" when it comes to Wikipedia. Some of the edits include: "Look at me I am the best encyclopedia ever!", and "JIMBO RULZ". I strongly recommend that "Mr. Wikipedia" be shut down before the internet explodes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to view this as anything but trolling. Knowledgekid87, he only edited for one day FIFTEEN years ago. What's your point? John from Idegon (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: this thread actually goes to the trouble of labelling itself an April Fool's joke in the section heading, and you still fell for it . Must have hit its target then...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yup... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

<weeps quietly> EEng 15:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, "AF" usually means something else. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

True, but seeing what day it is I wanted to label this right. Happy April Fools everyone! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia really is

WP:NOTHERE af. Leviv ich

15:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Are any of us here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see this is going to be a long day. EEng 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• What a bunch of fucking children. Seriously. And yes, I did interpret (af) as "as fuck". This is not the place for your childish not funny attempts at humor. Pull that crap on your six year old and chortle in delight all you want. We are here to work on a reference work. Trolling becomes not trolling because of the callander? Talk about situational ethics. Geez. John from Idegon (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  fucking children – Ahem. Please review Wikipedia:Child_protection. EEng 16:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Zingarese talk · contribs 16:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  Maybe you should just stick to article space for the day... Natureium (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm guessing the FBI got him! (af) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)\

Quick call James Bond to go rescue him! (Plot twist?) (af) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why its called "April fools day". Now I suppose for some everyday is April fools.... but for today its a chance for us editors to have some harmless funz. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent addition of unsourced content and non notable persons, with an occasional dash of vandalism as leavening

Blocked x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dodo elmoghazy (talk · contribs)

Blocks don't seem to deter. No communication, no edit summaries, just plows ahead. JNW (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. I have serious NOTHERE concerns about this one and left a note making it clear that any further disruption will result in an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. JNW (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CopyVio RevDel Request

Handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is anyone available to do a CopyVio RevDel request? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13 on April 3, 2019 (UTC)

 Done I believed I've handled this request on my talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You did. Just coming to remove and/or close this. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:42 on April 3, 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Icewhiz

Curvy-stick applied. --Jayron32 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

A gentle reminder to Jayron that Arbcom has authorized indefinite blocks for editors repeatedly using coy circumlocutions for boomerangs. EEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is openly distorting biographical note. He's openly a political activist associated with a Jewish organisation ADL and hides crucial information about the nationality of WW2 criminal Salomon_Morel. Icewhiz presents factually incorrect information and given his background a conflict of interest is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcheeks (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"Associated with the ADL" - you're "accusing" someone of being connected to an organization which opposes anti-Semitism and bigotry. It is unclear why you would find that objectionable or concerning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you prefaced the ADL as "Jewish" shows you may have a political agenda.

💸

14:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that whoever this is, they aren't going to be a useful contributor - given "Both when Jews were victims and when they were perpetrators committing genocide on Germans" the "interesting" take on historical matters. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

35 edits, and only the first one (to Income tax threshold) doesn't try and white wash Nazi Germany. Can somebody block this NFer please. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated

Reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeated warnings about adding unsourced material to articles here. There also appears to be a violation of WP:Username policy as the name suggests that it is a shared account on behalf of a community. Blue Riband► 23:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for the username and the edits. Any unblock will have to address both. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard Wright (author)

The article content has been reverted and the involved user blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Help's needed here. I'm attempting to restore a stable version to the lede, and can no longer do so without warring. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I rolled back the problematic edits. Hopefully this causes the editor to stop. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jip Orlando. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad faith editing at Howrah

User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are continuously making disruptive edits on the article Howrah. Myself (User:Master Of Ninja) and User:Jeet Dev have been frustrated by this. We have tried to reach out to the users, as can be seen on their talk pages, as well as inviting them to discuss the issues on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. However there has been no indication of discussion nor stopping of this behaviour. The problem with the edits have been discussed on Talk:Howrah#Recent changes 2019-03-26. User:Dirkbb has done a previous reversion as well. It is believed also that User:Bubun khanra and User:The king is back here are sock puppet accounts since they make the same edits. Diffs are as follows:

• [213]
• [214]
• [215]
• [216]
• [217]
• [218]
• [219]

There have been edits from an IP address with the same changes before this. I have made efforts to reach out on the Howrah talk page as noted above. Multiple messages have been left on the relevant user talk pages. However the continuing repeated edits have made both myself and User:Jeet Dev feel that these are being done in bad faith. We are hoping to get some administrator input to try and stop these edits. Could we please get some assistance how to take this from here? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• As per reporting guidelines I have put messages on the relevant users pages. Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have indeffed
    obvious sock/meatpuppet and blocked Bubun khanra (talk · contribs) for 3 days. Note too that at least some of the text being added was copied from other wikiprojects (compare description of Shibpur in this edit with the Wikivoyage page); such copyving is a copyvio unless done with proper attribution. Finally, the accounts have also been editing as 2405:204:41AA:DC51:84C9:57D5:6DA9:2750 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and may be related to Anirban9019 (talk · contribs) but I am not certain enough yet to act on the latter. Abecedare (talk
    ) 20:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should block the user for a week.. For
  not getting the point despite having it spelt out letter-to-letter. The Duke
  20:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon's hostility and generally disruptive behavior

I want to call attention to this noticeboard the

reliable sources

).

He then reverted my undo-ing of that, inciting further hostility. If his edit here isn't a blatant violation of

WP:OWN

, then Wikipedia has lost its way (i.e.: why does he get the make the unilateral decision that my sources aren't reliable? So you're telling me, the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't qualify as a RS? User:John the Idegon would likely be the only person to think that, yet somehow the onus is on me to show it otherwise???).

I took a look at his overall editing history of late, not just this high school article. Turns out, he doesn't play well in the sandbox ([220][221][222]). There is a distinct vibe of "above the

law" with him because... hold my drink... ah yes, he's in the top 1,000

of Wikipedians by edits made (golf clap).

His aggression is what allows Wikipedia to slowly die. New editors get torched by people like him.

SportsGuy789 (talk

) 02:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Those edit summaries and edits are neither hostile nor aggressive. Also, I have notified him of this thread. Nihlus 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

{{

WP:BRD policy. I see no hostility or aggression. In this time, you could have looked at the target articles and seen if there are additional or alternate sources cited for these biographical details and posted a list of diverse refs that all concur to help defend against a concern about the first source you found. DMacks (talk

) 02:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summaries are not hostile. The OP would do well to read

WP:ASPERSIONS and then take the good advice offered here about a talk page discussion. MarnetteD|Talk

02:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit summaries are mostly ok. John of Idegeon does have a habit of jumping to user warnings far too quickly though, and that does come across as overly aggressive. Maybe that could be toned down? New users are going to make mistakes, but dropping warnings on them for a reasonable error isn't the best option. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree none of the edit summaries posted are hostile, nor are they intended to show ownership. They all encourage use of the talk page in order to gain consensus. He's not making any "unilateral decision," but he disagrees with you, and now it's on you to get consensus for inclusion on the talk page. There were no warnings posted here as far as I can see, so I don't think that's an issue. I recommend a talk page discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and added reliable sources. That's all I wanted to see. I'll not be responding further here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Impersonations of admins?

User blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but is

WP:SPI investigations with a signature imitating Joe Roe's and then proceeded to comment on various AfDs. They also created the talk page for JJMC88 (talk · contribs) (now indefinitely blocked) who seems to have been impersonating JJMC89 (talk · contribs). — MarkH21 (talk

) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well it's definitely not me. Presumably a sock of User:Estup329, who did the same thing last week. @NinjaRobotPirate: who blocked that account. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This troll has been very busy for the past couple weeks, mostly vandalizing SPI cases. It's probably a bored kid who's looking for attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by TannerGoethals3 – rangeblock?

IP range has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

TannerGoethals3 was blocked fo continually putting unreferenced stuff into music articles, including violations of

WP:NOR. Tanner was interested in some schools in Utah.[223][224]

The Utah IP Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:C8BE:1EB9:690F:8D0 was blocked for the same stuff, adding unreferenced material to music articles. Other IPs in the range have been blocked.[225]

Further disruption continues from the /64 range. Can we put a block on Special:Contributions/2601:680:C500:9C92:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, everybody is blocked and tagged. Nothing more to do here. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kenmont Primary School

Resolved

That went well. GoldenRing (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I templated

Fob.schools (talk

) 13:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEdwardx&type=revision&diff=890618056&oldid=890615465

Fob.schools (talk

) 13:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please close as user has now restored the tag.

Fob.schools (talk

) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism only IP now engaging in hate

The reported IP user has been blocked for three months. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP 212.219.232.143 recently made this edit [[226]], looking at their talk page it is a list of blocks for vandalism. I think a block is not in order.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. The IP has only edited disruptively ever, but the range is registered to a Welsh county council so there's a fair chance we're either looking at a school or a public library. I don't know if there might be mileage in a note to the council involved? GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased and Improper Conduct by User:Ad Orientem (self reporting)

It looks like the consensus is that the accusations against Ad Orientem are baseless, and this thread has gone off the rails. Sanctions for Diligens are being discussed below. Natureium (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ad Orientem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I have been accused of improper conduct.[227] by

WP:NPA here. This was in response to this edit on the article The Singing Nun which in turn was the most recent edit in an edit war between Diligens and Contaldo80. Subsequently I issued warnings to both editors regarding their edit warring and locked the article for 48 hrs. There followed a discussion on User talk:Diligens which eventually migrated to User Talk:Ad Orientem

that I think may be worth reviewing in its entirety.

For background, this is merely the latest chapter in an ongoing content dispute revolving around whether and how to address allegations of homosexuality in The Singing Nun. This first popped up on my radar in early February (see link below) when Diligens sought my opinion on the issue with a question that was framed as a hypothetical.

• First contact where Diligens presented a question with relevant details omitted and asked my opinion on including allegations that "most of the world considers dispicable, like an alcoholic or thief."

There followed a brief discussion and then I found myself drawn into the discussion on Talk:The Singing Nun. I regret that the discussion is lengthy. During the course of the discussion I offered advice and opinions to an extent that I believe I became WP:INVOLVED. My participation ended on the 15th of February, approximately six weeks ago. Whether or not that is enough time to remove the taint of INVOLVED is perhaps closer than I would like. If the community believes it is too close, I am more than happy to step back entirely from this article.

A review of the discussion will show that there was some heated back and forth including accusations of bad faith editing and so on. At the end of my involvement I advised Diligens that I believed they should step away from the article.[228]

Some final thoughts: I believe Diligens is well intentioned but their editing history appears tendentious. In particular I think their obvious hostility to homosexuality is coloring their editing to an unacceptable degree. That is not to say that I think their concerns are baseless. As I stated back in February the question of sexual preference is one around which the community has consistently chosen to tread very carefully. But that question is merely background to the issues I am laying before the community here. In my opinion Diligens has raised enough red flags in their editing on this article to cause me to support some kind of topic ban. Probably the most narrow would apply only to The Singing Nun. A broader one might cover the topic of homosexuality broadly construed.

If the community concludes that I have in any way erred in my own conduct, I bow to its judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• What??? EEng 02:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to say what EEng has to say but much less concisely. Having read everything, where do you think you erred? SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't (conceding that some might say six weeks is cutting it close for INVOLVED). But Diligens made accusations after being cautioned more than once about their editing and frankly I think this needs to be looked at by other experienced editors. Admins generally can't impose Tbans unilaterally (rare ACDS exceptions conceded). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I fail to see how an uninvolved admin would've handled it differently. So, a trout? Or maybe just a minnow? Regarding Diligens...there are red flags for sure, but I would err on the side of ROPE for now. The situation definitely needs an rfc/input from fresh peeps TelosCricket (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) I struck the trout/minnow as withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Appendum I'm revising my position: I fully agree there was no wrong doing on Ad Orientem's part. The trout/minnow was a jest and has been withdrawn. TelosCricket (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Here's what needs to happen, in my opinion:

1. The article needs to be unprotected immediately; we shouldn't have a wiki article with the blatantly POV header "False Rumors" (that the rumors were false is unproven and POV), not even for 48 hours.
2. The version prior to Diligens' edit war needs to be restored.
3. Diligens needs to be warned that any further personal aspersions or attacks will lead to an immediate block.
4. Diligens needs to be reported to
   WP:ANEW
   if he reverts again.
5. Discussion needs to proceed only on article talk, never usertalk.
6. If necessary, an RfC can be started.
7. An admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this.
8. If Diligens continues to be disruptive regarding the article, then a new ANI thread should be opened regarding a TBan.

--Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse, the hell, me! What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? Are you sure you want to travel down that road? Is this true for all religions? Then Jewish editors shouldn't handle Jewish-related or sensitive articles/disputes and Muslims shouldn't voice their opinion about Muslim-related articles/disputes and so forth? How do you define "practicing"? Should we believe the same about political allegiances? Democrats shouldn't negotiate disputes about Democratic candidates because they can't be impartial? Talk about casting aspersions! I'm going to edit another page now before I say something I later regret. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I did not say or imply any of that. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you say a Catholic admin shouldn't handle this dispute? I am a Catholic and have many gay Catholic friends. This isn't 50 years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Because that is my opinion, as I clearly stated, regarding this dispute. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from that reasoning being a slippery slope, how would any user prove they are or are not Catholic? And, conversely, how you could prove that was or was not true? 331dot (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think SL's point 7 is within reason. Catholics are, necessarily, pro-Catholicism and thus have a POV on Catholic subject articles. This gives, at the very least the appearance of, a COI for a pro-Catholic admin to take admin actions on Catholic subject articles. Hence, someone without a POV or COI should be handling the admin actions. What are you implying, that a Catholic editor can not edit certain articles? <- you need to re-read what SL wrote, Liz, if that's what you read from [a]n admin who is not a practicing Catholic (of any stripe) should be handling this. You're free to edit the article as much as you like within the bounds of WP policy and guideline, but I'd caution against using your tools there. To answer your counter-example: an admin that is registered to the DNC should not be using their tools in Democrat/Republican disputes because they have an apparent COI. That does not mean, and SL has not suggested that it does mean, that they can't edit the topic area or engage in dispute resolution at all. On a separate note, I kinda like the Wiki prayer ubox on your userpage – even as an atheist. I may borrow it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly object to the notion that a Catholic admin shouldn't get involved in perform admin actions involving Catholic subjects—that seems as ludicrous a stretch as it would be to insist that LGBT admins not deal with LGBT topics. Cheers, gnu57 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Not what I said. I advised against using the tools to officiate, not against getting involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a distinction without a difference to me- and my questions above still stand. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (ec)It's interesting to see your report, Ad Orientem, because I had already read the two conversations (but not the entire article talk page) and was about to protect the article but saw that you had already done so. I think this is an obvious step to take, whether you were involved or not. This dispute has been going on for weeks and will continue to erupt until it is resolved on the talk page, probably through an RfC. I think it is admirable that you reported yourself but, in this case, I think you are not guilty of anything. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm eyerolling at how offtrack that talk page discussion kept getting. I'm also confused as to why they spent so long arguing over an interview about a book instead of discussing the book, but I guess no one had it / could read it. But I don't think you got yourself permanently involved. Maybe if you had blocked someone then and there, but you were just trying to focus the debate and telling everyone a fairly straightforward summary of policy. I don't see that interaction is permanently involving you. You were, in fact, aggressively neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe that
  The singing nun, or that any of their recent actions even deserve a trout. Their participation on the article talkpage was in the form of informing and guiding editors about the relevant wikipedia policies and did not display a bias with respect to the content of edit-dispute. Admins, if anything, should be encouraged to take this approach and not just rely on issuing warnings and blocks from the fear of being perceived as being involved. Diligens's conduct, on the other hand, does need to be reviewed. Abecedare (talk
  ) 03:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have informed Diligens of the Gamergate-related discretionary sanctions assuming that "any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" encompass sexuality (please let me know if I am wrong about that interpretation). Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• ’’’Comment’’’ as one of the editors involved in this article I do not believe that ad orientam has any reason to admonish themself. They have been nothing but courteous and professional. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry you're in this unreasonable situation,
  competence problems. They blatantly personally attacked Contaldo80, a highly-established, long-term editor in good standing, and proceeded to employ the "it's not a PA if it's true" defense, which is clearly not applicable in this situation. That sentiment, that one can engage in negative personal commentary when expressing legitimate grievances with supporting evidence, obviously only applies to formal behavioral complaints in an appropriate forum, with supporting diffs. It does not give one license to say "You are proven to be one of the biggest liars and violators" in an edit summary during a content dispute, simply because one feels they've been misrepresented on the talk page. On that note, examining the talk page, I do not see any blatant behavioral issues from Contaldo, only an experienced exasperatedly pointing out how unreasonable and unhinged Diligens is being. Therefore, AO's warning was not only entirely appropriate, but rather cut-and-dried. Diligens aggressive response to the straightforwardly-justified NPA warning brings up further CIR concerns, and both AO's block threat and Softlavender's proposed solution going forward seem to be completely in-bounds. I don't understand Liz's offense here. Requesting an admin who does not have a potentially-inherent COI (i.e. a practicing Catholic admin sorting a dispute regarding a stigmatic allegation against a Catholic nun) is not particularly unreasonable, and if one is so severely offended by that suggestion, then one is likely not the impartial admin to be dealing with the situation. While it may not happen in this thread, I would be in favor of a straight-up indef for Diligens. If that does not come to be, please submit an AE report upon the slightest continuation of disruption, now that the AE awareness criteria are satisfied, and we will not hesitate to impose AE restrictions. ~Swarm~ {talk}
  05:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you call it, Swarm, when a person double-quotes me as saying something that I didn't say (wasn't even a paraphrase) in order to make it look like I cussed him out when I did nothing of the sort? It's called an egregious lie. You make it look like you read the conversation, but you sure missed a most crucial point. --Diligens (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think that it is exemplary that Ad Orientem has requested an independent review of their use of administrative tools. I see no misuse. I have been aware of this content dispute for some time. This was an incredibly talented and unique woman who came to a tragic end. She was a complex person not a plaster saint and our biography must accurately summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about her life, per WP:,NPOV, a core content policy. Efforts to either whitewash or denounce her are disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Lourdes 07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: wut^^^ ——SerialNumber54129 15:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This here issue is supposed to be about Ad Orientem and his handling one PA, nothing else; this is not about the article in dispute. I read PA, and it clearly mentions if there is evidence it is not PA, and it must also be a repeated thing. Ad Orientem jumped the gun, and DID NOT ask for evidence, nor did he wait the patient amount of time for it to even be repeated. I merely said something once off-hand in an edit summary, and BAM! Nothing here convinces me that he didn't handle this PA issue correctly. I don't hold it against him as if this is a WP law case or something, I merely mentioned it to him for his own personal use to help him handle PA better next time. I am done with that. I also thanked Ad Orientem just previous to that and told him I would pursue RfC about the editing issue. And, I will pursue it. WP is FOREMOST about "common sense", which is said to rule even over Reliable Sources. It's absolutely against common sense to blindly stand ground upon RS against reason. RS is not simply a "ticket" to what one wants. --Diligens (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• This editor is a Master Editor IV and is entitled to display this Orichalcum Editor Star.

     User:Softlavender is a Master Editor IV, as attested by the userboxen on her user page. Therefore
    1. when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    2. when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian, this is an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
    3. if she would come saying that her previous post was rather strange, and against quite all of the letter soup, this would be an absolute truth©, don't dare to say otherwise.
  What about a self trout? Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "when she says that Ad Orientem is a Catholic" -- I never said that. "when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian" -- I never even remotely said or implied that. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wouldn't self sturgeon be more appropriate? He can't get off that easy... Dawnseeker2000 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Massive Trout for the self reporter Ad Orientem navel gazing is too fine an expression for this trivia of a text wall. An admin should well understand what this page is actually for, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems his bringing this concern here prematurely is a dereliction of his duty to resolve disputes and respond to complaints without unnecessary escalation.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Govindaharihari: if that was a joke, it wasn't funny. If you're serious, you must not have read the above or if you have just dismissed it. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have read the above, my comment is not a joke. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Uh, wow. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Alright, let's just do this: We can all choose our own fish and just have at him Private pyle style. Dawnseeker2000 20:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How about John Cleese style? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Even better, lol! 🐟 Dawnseeker2000 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Break

• Some observations and comments
  • It appears that the community has concluded my actions were not improper and were within my discretion as an administrator, for which I am very grateful.
  • A number of editors above have gone further, expressing serious concerns about Diligens editing.
  • Although I did not put much emphasis on it in my opening summary, I remain convinced that Diligens' editing has been tendentious. His two comments on this thread have only reinforced that belief.
  • While Swarm suggested an indefinite block, I am thinking that some sort of topic ban might be in order.

Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are jumping the gun. I have not yet presented my case at RfC. And the issue has not been presented well here. --Diligens (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is indef territory, though I am still very concerned about the editing patterns, and the wikilawyering to say the personal attacks (and looking at the contribution history, Diligens repeatedly called another editor a "biased troublemaker disrupter") were justified. I'm not prepared to suggest a sanction, though - I'm somewhere between warning with next strike an indef (if the tendentious editing continues during the RfC Diligens has proposed) and a topic ban. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• In my opinion the section False Rumors of lesbianism should entirely be removed. The subject of the article denied lesbianism. I feel that speculation about lesbianism does not belong in this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop, your statement belongs on the talkpage of the article. ANI is not the place to debate content -- it is for discussing user conduct. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Remember: at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 06:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• OK, Softlavender. Sorry 'bout that. (My post is already on the article Talk page.) Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile - It appears that Diligens has violated 1RR and Enhanced BRD (albeit prior to warning) at Fox News. O3000 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting Diligens' editing history:

• 406 edits between December 2005 and June 2006 – during which he was involved in ongoing disruption – see
  this archive where he declares himself "a very active traditional Catholic" (which might explain his recent behaviour) and was warned and blocked by JzG
  for edit warring.
• 35 edits in 2007
• 1 edit in July 2012
• 262 edits since January 2019 – disruption similar in style / approach as to that demonstrated in 2006

Ordinarily, such long ago edits would be ancient history, but with so few edits and similarities of style, I think it's worth noting. Diligens, I doubt anything will happen now unless you start campaigning again, but please recognise that WP functions on consensus and your approach, both back in 2006 and recently, is neither helpful nor appropriate. By all means, present source-based facts, discuss edits, persuade others... but if consensus disagrees with your view, try to accept it even if you can't respect it. EdChem (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Full support for the comment from Ed Chem. Diligens please be aware your contributions are considered by multiple users to be a bit controversial and and please back away from contoversy or I am certain you will be restricted. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Glory be to God for the Golden Pill [1] Soeur Sourire (The Singing Nun)

• contraception, called "Glory be to God for the Golden Pill".^[2] This led to an intervention by the Catholic hierarchy in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and one of her concerts was cancelled.^[3]
  Several major tour venues subsequently cancelled and the tour was effectively derailed.
  Do you really think that all these "progressive writers" will circle the wagons and make some hype around and defend the Golden Pill ? They have other things to do! Their only concern is about "what was she doing with her crucifix behind her closed curtains" ? Let us apply the duck test: who is the most probable papist secret agent, someone branded as a Traditional Catholic in 2006 (for those having difficulties with their maths, this is ${\displaystyle 2019-2006=13}$ years ago) or those that are using any speculation (probably, says page 33) to derail the article ? Glory be to all those who fight for free access to contraception, and the right to abort if one has to. Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. ^ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/131650535
2. ISBN 978-0195313956
   .
3. ^ Heneghan, Tom (29 April 2009). ""Sister Smile" film tells sad story of the Singing Nun". Blogs.reuters.com. Retrieved 18 August 2015.

.

Traditionalist Catholic (rejecting Vatican II, etc) might hold views that end up causing disruption relating to that page and to The Singing Nun article – and thus could benefit from advice to respect consensus – then I have serious doubts about you having anything useful to contribute to this discussion. EdChem (talk

) 12:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear

Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy is not only against the Assume Good Faith motto. This is also against ACTSC. Why is there a women gap ? Perhaps a simple question of decency. Pldx1 (talk

) 09:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If that's a discussion of policy, it's completely incoherent, except for the apparent suggestion that EdChem is lacking in decency (and therefore driving away women editors), which seems like a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pldx1, I did not intend to suggest or imply any grand conspiracy, and am very surprised to read your line of reasoning. I am not the one who described Diligens as a traditional Catholic (in the traditionalist Catholicism sense), that was a disclosure that Diligens made in the talk page archive I linked to earlier. Diligens' style in that archive struck me as very similar to in the present case and since that was from the last time Diligens made a substantive WP contribution, I saw that as potentially relevant to note here – even with the large time gap. Perhaps naively, I also thought that opposing the inclusion of the alleged sexuality of a Nun in a WP article might be motivated by a desire to avoid negative reflections / perceptions of the church. I was not advancing a conspiracy theory. I was noting the problematic behaviour of an editor with a personal belief that appeared to produce bias in the past and seeing similar behaviour, wondering in that same personal belief was in play. We all know that anyone is free to edit WP so long as they edit within policy. You and Diligens are free to contribute to the article or contribute to the talk page, to discuss and help to improve WP content in line with reliable sources, etc. This woman's personal story is tragic in parts, she was certainly treated very unfairly at times, and her WP bio should reflect her experiences... but that is not a topic for this page.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I believe my WP editing history shows my respect for policy. I do not accept as fair or reasonable the suggestion that I am responsible for the gender gap on WP – and for the record, I am totally in favour of decreasing the gender gap and increasing the diversity in the WP editor population. I do make mistakes, as do we all, and I am quite comfortable admitting to my mistakes when I become aware of them and taking appropriate corrective action. However, I don't see why my advice to Diligens was inappropriate or out of line. Finally, if you are suggesting, as Grandpallama has suggested you are, and as it appears to me is the case, that I lack decency then I ask you substantiate that claim or withdraw it. I find it an offensive and unjustified suggestion, not to mention a failure on your part to assume my good faith. EdChem (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear EdChem, your Perhaps naively, I also thought that opposing the inclusion of the alleged sexuality of a Nun in a WP article might be motivated by a desire to avoid negative reflections / perceptions of the church is an exact summary of what I was criticizing in your previous statement: not understanding the situation. In 1967 and after, Soeur Sourire was rather not the rank and file nun and the church was in open fight against her. Therefore, I don't understand how you can figure that User:Diligens asking "stop throwing stones at her" could be a case of "protecting the church". Concerning privacy, I stand to the rule that what occurs ---or doesn't occur--- behind private walls is exactly that:private. While asking "what was she doing with her crucifix behind their closed curtains", as done ad nauseam in the talk page, is exactly that: a lack of decency. In the rest of your message, you are acknowledging that this woman's personal story is tragic in parts, she was certainly treated very unfairly at times, and her WP bio should reflect her experiences..., and asserting that woman's gap matters. Me too. That's great indeed ! Pldx1 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It still looks to me like you are making a personal attack against EdChem, on top of which you are now putting in quotation marks statements that it does not appear to me people made. Seriously, where did EdChem say anything about a crucifix behind the curtains? Where did Diligens say anything about stone-throwing? Putting words into editors' mouths and then using those words to level accusations is not okay. It's also a pretty clear lack of decency, ironically. Grandpallama (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Time to close? I think this discussion has reached a point where it is a bit past its shelf life. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would consider closing it? See also point 3 here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm pretty amazed at the whole thing. Just too much over-action, in my opinion. Ad Orientem originally exited help with the article because he was afraid he was getting "involved". This was his self-evaluation, which is why I mentioned "bias" because that is what getting "involved" implies, conflict of interest, which is a bias. Next, I was in a revert war, though at the time I didn't think I was the one who was warring. I was reprimanded, and I instantly complied (and plan to do an RfC on the content). Lastly, the only thing I said to AO was that I think he handled PA in this instance by not asking for evidence from me. Simple as that. And I didn't make any issue out of it other than to simply let him know on his page. --Diligens (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat from Ald81

Reported user has been indefinitely blocked per

WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New user Ald81 made a legal threat against me here. I advised Ald81 that per

talk

) 09:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats. Someone takes their philosophy very seriously. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• It may seem like ranting to you, but remember these are phenomenologists we're dealing with. EEng 10:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The account requested unblocking (which I declined), however on a check through the talk page I found a claim of isp editing which when checked resolves to Milan, Italy. Combined with the poor English I wonder if if this account could be related to one of these. Is there enough evidence to check? TomStar81 (Talk) 13:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @TomStar81: Putting aside Italy, what behavioral evidence is their linking the new account with that case?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Relatively new account (suggestive of a sock), a notice for adding copyrighted or closely paraphrased information to Wikipedia, quasi questionably English, and lastly almost 20 hours of being up which can occasionally make veteran editors )like me) see things that look compelling up close but not really when you step away to take a shower and come back to it half an hour or so later. I think perhaps I was correlating a few things that may not have actually been there, in which case I'll go back to the bathroom and yell at myself again about checking twice and publishing once. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lucaspipet

Issue has been dealt with. Closing this before heat quotient increases. --Blackmane (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Vandalism only account. He/She only added grossly insulting nicknames to Argentine football club's pages.---

talk

) 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This requires referral to the

good faith reversions of apparent vandalism by the filer. An obvious example is DagosNavy's repeated change of 'River Plate' to 'Riber Plate' repeatedly reverted to the correct 'River Plate' by Lucaspipet. The remaining two are good faith additions to Boca Juniors, the first of which was incorrectly performed, but correctly done at the second attempt (mistakes can be expected from a four edit old new account). 81.129.194.138 (talk

) 17:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he corrected "Riber", but in the same edits he added the grossly insulting "los mas chorros y putos" (I will not translate) as a club nickname. Same for the Boca Juniors infobox changes.---

talk

) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No he didn't he removed it. You re-added it [229]. ---Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am only restored "Riber" by accident (as yourself have acknowledged).---

talk

) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@

DagosNavy: Are you really that incapable of reading a diff, even when someone has given you the hint that you're reading it wrong? A vandal added it, not Lucaspipet. Lucaspipet removed it. You re-added it (see diff I actually provided above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs

)

He reverted one vandal only to intentionally vandalize the page himself. And please, keep an eye on

talk

) 18:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Being simultaneously smug and incompetent is not a good look for you. I hope this is not your normal state. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't you stop insulting fellow Wikipedians? Or should I report you for incivility?--

talk

) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @
  DagosNavy:, you are in the wrong here, and owe Lucaspipet an apology. Please look at your edits again. You are accidentally restoring vandalism, while Lucaspipet is removing it. --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider this one (still unreverted) a constructive edit by Lucaspipet?---

talk

) 17:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it a while ago, and it may or may not be correct; he needs to add a source. But by that same logic, should I block you for your "vandalism" as well? Why are we supposed to assume bad faith for them, and good faith for you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Lucaspipet is right: [230]. That isn't a reliable source, but it shows that he's not just vandalizing. Now are you going to apologize? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Cebollitas subcampeón" is a taunting nickname in Argentine football, generally used to degrade runner-ups. Not to mention the racial slur "Bolitas" for Bolivians. It's quite difficult to assume good faith in this case if you speak Spanish...

talk

) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

S/D: BTW, yahoo answers in Spanish is far from being a reliable source...

talk

) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No shit. I literally just said that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Then don't use it here in WP, please.---

talk

) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, by that logic I should assume you are a vandal too; you called them putos, not Lucaspipet. I'm leaving, you appear to be a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know, quotation marks are used to mark the "repetition of one expression as part of another one". So the expression "putos" is clearly not mine.---

talk

) 18:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I blocked the vandal who actually vandalized the page (User talk:Dddcooooo), I've removed the incorrect warning at User talk:Lucaspipet and thanked them for removing the vandalism, I've reverted Lucaspipet's addition of other nicknames pending a reliable source (if any, I don't know) to back them up, and I've given up on trying to educate DagosNavy on diff reading, assuming good faith, and not being a dick. So an uninvolved admin could probably close this; if desired, with a reminder to me to remain polite and not lose patience with idiots so quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Bravo! Plaudite, amici! Remedium frustra est contra stultum quarere!. Talk (specially in the internet) is obviously cheap...y tuve mucho mejores maestros que vos, asi que lavate la boca (y otras partes) antes de hablar de educación, volve a tu montaña y sentate en el pico.--

talk

) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE

editing by User:Ted hamiltun

NO ACTION TAKEN

(

NAC)This discussion has long since died out. There's no obvious support for an indef block as the user has ceased editing since 3/18. Obviously should they restart disruptive editing the appropriate course of action will take place. Doing a block now would be purely punitive. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}

06:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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" : [231] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [232]).

• Constantly
  WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [233]), here are some examples : [234], [235], [236], [237]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to

WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : [238].---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.[239] Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; @

talk

) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing [240] [241] 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 [242], 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: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 removed that phrase, with so much anger you can see they have highly an Anti-Semitism view to the topics that they engage [245]

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)

@

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.

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)

@

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:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, i forgot to mention his

WP:CIR issues (inability to speak and comprehend English properly). Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)}

15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Proposal: As numerous editors pointed out with their above remarks, it appears quite obvious that Ted hamiltun is

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

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

Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --

talk

) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I know for myself that I was certainly a newbie editor at 130 edits. Even though I'd been on the project for years, at 130 edits I just didn't know much about policy and mainly just fixed typos. It wasn't until I got several hundreds edits and started editing regularly that I got familiar with how stuff works around here. And English WP policy obviously differs from that of other projects. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Note to administrators : Please review this report, it's 12 days old and has been archived two times while there is a clear consensus for its outcome. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see anything in the recent editing history that would make me comfortable blocking this individual. UninvitedCompany 19:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the said user has stopped his disruptive editing since this report was filed, but they'll come at it again as soon as we will close it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps we just give them a warning for now, and the next time they are disruptive a block is highly likely. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Time for a warning not a block. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per 209.152.44.201. If you feel you really need to block the user, maybe block for a month or so? Not indefinite. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as a slight over-reaction at this point, although if it re-occurs this discussion will be Exhibit A. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a block since he's clearly stopped the disruptive behavior since this (rather long and stale) discussion has been going but I Support a strongly worded
  time out. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}
  11:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment : You all might take a look at this. This editor was already warned to stop disruption at AN3 by Martin (an admin) and blocked 48 hours for edit warring. And now this case, i'm wondering how many times we should keep this kind of clearly
  WP:NOTHERE user who made some 130 edits in 1 year without a single constructive contrubution to this project ? If one of you is able to find some constructive contributions from this editor, then please go ahead, warn him and close this case. Good luck. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)}
  16:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd IP edits

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

I'm not sure whether or not this requires action; posting here to be on the safe side. Relocation to a more suitable venue would be welcome

A few hours ago User:80.116.234.171 made a number of edits to archived talk pages, doing no more than tweaking white space. For example, this.

Three questions:

• Should such edits be made?
• Should they be rolled back en-masse?
• It's possible that this masks a single or small number of significant changes to relatively unwatched talk page archives; does anyone have any tool for checking?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Filter 973 (hist · log), though it wasn't created in response to this user, may be useful here. I've given it a more meaningful name; perhaps it should start tagging edits as well. I have no idea what this IP is doing, either. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified the IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Repeated reversions by "AhmadLX"

For the past few weeks, a Wikipedia user going by the name "AhmadLX" has been going through my edits and undoing several of my valid edits for no proper reason. Following are some examples of this:

• On March 16, 2019, I made an edit on the page Fadak. The article basically describes an issue between two people, Fatimah and Abu Bakr. However, the issue was (partially) described using a quote from a book that read: "There was no denying the populist appeal of the message Abu Bakr sent by denying Fatima's claim". This was quite obvious POV, so I removed that quote. However, that edit was reverted by AhmadLX the same day, claiming that it was not POV.
• On March 26, 2019, I made a series of edits on the page Ali. The edits fixed a grammatical mistake (missing the word "the"), standardized the spelling of the word "Kaaba" (at least two different spelling variations had been used), and grammatically changed part of a paragraph, among other issues. In addition, my edits cleared up a rather confusing, hard-to-read paragraph. My cleaning included the addition some content that was supported by multiple sources; while some content in the messy paragraph was deleted, any deletion was un-sourced or unneeded. However, AhmadLX summarily reverted all of my edits to the page that day -- the grammar fixes as well as the cleanup.
• Some time ago, there was an IP edit that removed some information from the page Uthman. Previously, a sentence on that page read, "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to both Shia and Sunni sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." That sentence included both Shia and Sunni sources at the end. That IP, edit, however, removed the fact that Sunni sources attested to that (despite the Sunni references) -- it was changed to "Uthman was also present at the event of Ghadir Khumm, where, according to Shia sources, he was among those who pledged allegiance to Ali." I undid the IP edit, as there were multiple Sunni references at the end of that sentence and to remove such a statement is misleading, but AhmadLX once again reverted my edit.
• Perhaps the most telling occurrence happened today, on the page
  WP:QUOTE
  , which states that a quote should be "unedited, exact reproduction of the original source".

If only one -- or maybe even two -- of these edit reversals had been done by AhmadLX, then it could be assumed to be good faith reversals. However, it appears that AhmadLX is specifically targeting me/my edits. His constant reverts violate

WP:QUO, which states that "reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." The edits that I described do not fit that description, and thus the repeated targeting of my edits by AhmadLX is unjustified. Like all of you, I am trying to help to improve Wikipedia, but as you can probably imagine, this can be difficult when edits are reverted for no good reason. I would really appreciate your help in sorting out this matter. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk

) 17:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AhmadLX has been notified of this discussion. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fadak edit is this. It was a properly attributed quote from a book on the topic, presented as quote. To Snowksy Mountain it appeared POV because it presented views which he perhaps doesn’t agree with. So he removed that quote attributed to author as POV.

Edit that I reverted on Ali is this. Here Snowsky Mountain replaced RS like Wilfered Madelung & Encyclopedia Iranica with questionable sources like “A Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims”. It should be noted that he was warned not to use this source, and other sources like this, in his previous ANI report.

My revert on Uthman is this. Again, based on either questionable sources, including Al-Islam.org, and other unverifiable refs. Furhter discussion about this can be seen on his talk page.

My revert on Sucession to Muhammad is this. In this case, Snowsky Mountain is right. I failed to see that it was a quote.

This user has long record of POV pushing on Islam related articles. His editing has been contested by several editors in past, and continues to be (see his activities on article talk pages for example). Details can be seen from his talk page history. As mentioned above, he was reported, by somebody else, for his tendentious editing, and later, after another report -made by me- was blocked for the same reason. Since his return, he has continued editing in similar manner. Apart from above, a few more examples of his insistence on promoting certain viewpoints can be seen here, here, here or here. Again see sources used: Website like “Islamic Moral Stories”, and “Al-Burhan Fi Tafsir al-Quran”. If further info/elaboration is required, feel free to ping me. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User: Πυό

The reported username is not a violation of Wikipedia's

sock puppetry, file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so that it can be investigated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

06:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Πυό (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) Violation of user name policy as disruptive/offensive. I ran the Greek "Πυό" by Google translate and it returned "Pus". I suspect this editor is also a sock for Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) and Marwadi_community (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) (both with indefinate blocks) but that's a seperate issue. Blue Riband► 02:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pus is a bit gross, but I don't see how it's a disruptive/offensive username. Natureium (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saoirse fírrin and POV / TROUBLES

The user has been notified of the

discretionary sanctions authorized on articles under the topic that they're editing. If problematic edits continue, a report should be filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement so that the appropriate actions and sanctions can be authorized and applied. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

06:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Saoirse fírrin (talk · contribs)

A handful of edits and they're all seriously failing

WP:TROUBLES. Andy Dingley (talk

) 14:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've left a DS notification; if they continue, AE is probably the right venue. GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.