Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006

Edit warring from User:Alex95-Ukraine
User:Alex95-Ukraine has made countless edits to 2019 Australian Grand Prix adding flagicons to tables (an example seen here, and here are 2 example) citing a consensus when in fact there was a consensus made a few days ago on the talk page for the opposite, (s)he has been informed of this several times but still refuses to wait for the outcome of the new discussion he has started on the talk page. On top of this he has also accused me of WP:SOCK (here) without any evidence. SSSB (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus was only about adding entry list to the article which I dont mind. There wasnt any consensus about removing flags from the tables and also at least 4 users are against removing (while only 2 want to remove them) but still you decided to change the consensual version of the article to the version which you want. Alex (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the discussion fully you would know that the main reason the entry table was added was to remove the need for 2-3 flagicons per driver, therefore there was a consensus, as for the discussion it currently stands at 2 v 2, (Alex95-Ukraine, EchoFourFour v me and Mclarenfan17, those are the only people who have contributed to the new discussion you started, there is no consensus for the reintroduction for flagicons in results tables. SSSB (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you continuing to ignore opinion of other people like Admanny who also written in that talk page that he thinks that article should be kept like in previous years? Also 2-3 flagicons per driver is not 15 like it the wrc article. There is no reason to remove them. Alex (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not ignoring I just didn't see as it was a different thread, but 3v2 after a few hours still isn't enough to declare a consensus, in response to your other comments, they should not be discussed here but on the talk page. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whereas the behavior of both Alex95-Ukraine (not constructive participation at the talk page) and SSSB (warnings of vandalism about behavior which is clearly not vandalism) is not exactly constructive, I think the problem can possibly only be solved by starting an RFC which would include other similar pages as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Call me a cynic, but overnight the talk page has flooded with responses from editors supporting the reinclusion of flags in all tables and all based on the same argument. Now I have been around a long time&mdash;I used to edit as Prisonermonkeys&mdash;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)

@ &mdash; 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, , , , , 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 . I don't know why you weren't blocked for it this time. It appears that in all those years you still haven't learned.Tvx1 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And you have been lobbying for me to be blocked at every opportunity. You have a history of misrepresenting things to the point where admins were ignoring your reports. I know that at least one admin felt that you were using ANI and 3RR to settle personal scores. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope that was you with that sentiment. The admin gave you a boomerang. You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own. The facts are the facts though and the evidence in the contributions for this article is clear. Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me. And that "every opportunity" claim is a joke. I think the last time I reported you for anything must have been over a year ago.Tvx1 02:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"Also note that this is the second time in a short period that you ended up at WP:ANI and in neither case did it involve me."
 * And we have misrepresentation. First of all, I was the subject of the first ANI (which went nowhere), while I was referenced in this ANI as someone who could attest to the initial complaint. Your comments about "ending up at ANI" imply that I was the subject of both reports, which is not true.


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


 * ''"You once again display one of your common tactics by side-tracking through focussing on someone else's behavior to try and distract from your own."
 * Maybe I am trying to throw shade on others to avoid attracting attention to myself—but that doesn't give the admins nearly enough credit. Maybe they really do feel that your habit of misrepresenting things (such as suggesting that I was the subject of this ANI) calls into question the merits of your reports. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were not the subject of this report, it’s your actions again that are the root cause of why someone got reported here. Youre edit-warring to the point of breaching WP:3RR again is what caused this sorry mess. And I’m sorry to say this but I think mishandled the situation and blamed the wrong person. It‘s very telling that the OP of the first report predicted to  that wouldn’t be long before we would return here for an incident sooner rather than later. And barely two weeks later here we are. It’s clear that these are not isolated incidents. And my comments regarding involvement did not deal with the ANI reports, but with the incidents that led to the reports being posted. What I meant to say, is that I was not directly involved with the altercations that caused these reports to be posted, and I stand by that.Tvx1 13:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to stop. It's flagrantly clear from this report and the last report you want Mclarenfan17 to meet with some kind of punishment. If they violated or gamed WP:3RR, we have a special place you can go to report them, which is where this report should be based on a look at 2019 Australian Grand Prix, but they did not. It's the correct place to file a report against the user reported here as well. I've read the entire talk page again and I can't see anything remotely sanctionable. Also, as someone with little interest in racing, I would like to remind everyone involved the article should conform with WP:MOSFLAG, which it does not currently do. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not want a sanction per se. I want Prisonermonkeys/McLarenfan17 to finally have an insight on their behavior so these sort of incidents just don’t happen anymore. Do you really believe that the Wikiproject F1 members enjoy gettin embroiled in this from time to time?? As for MOS:FLAG, there was a large discussion over there years ago and the consensus was that F1 articles do conform.Tvx1 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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)
 * 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 ✅ to each other:, , , , , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate - Oh wow... thank you. That puts things into perspective... I'm still puzzled as to what these pages are even for? Is anyone opposed to me (or someone else) deleting them per U5?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (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: . Some others:, , , , .  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)
 * it appears to be tripping 643 (written to catch a sock that as one of their MOs is editing to win/brag about prizes in contests and hence links sometimes to that in their edit summaries) because they consistently edit sections that state ..'/* Contestant Progress for Season 1 */ ...' (at a rate that trips the filter). It is a false positive in the terms of what I try to catch, and, as I said, rather annoyingly clogging the filter.  Hence my attempt to communicate (and now I am here after lack of communication) to figure out whether I should filter them out of the filter, or whether we should just 'block, delete and move on' as this is WP:NOTHERE material.  Seen this communication, I think a future block-delete is the appropriate action.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Christianloera20/sandbox. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and Sockpuppet investigations/Missedge1/Archive may be related, too. One of the socks has a "contestant progress" user page.  These accounts don't seem to be hurting anything, but it looks like a few of them have been blocked for WP:NOTHERE or sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was sure that issues surrounding articles pertaining to the show had came up before and sure enough it seems I'm right [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=RuPaul+%22Drag+Race%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&title=Special%3ASearch]. 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)

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

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

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

Then I changed the source to the following ones:
 * https://afaae.com/poland/yes-ladies-and-gentlemen-this-is-a-new-school-but-not-the-research-but-the-deception-of-the-holocaust/
 * https://www.polskieradio.pl/321/1222/Artykul/2275685,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

and my update was removed again. I asked the editor Icewhiz (talk) about what was wrong and got the answer: "Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV".
 * Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

In the same discussion I gave him many alternative sources from Polish TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and German media (newspaper Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat owned by Axel Springer SE), and asked for opinion. At this point to the discussion joined the editor Volunteer Marek (talk), they had some vivid conversation and here are the arguments that Icewhiz gave:
 * - Polish government was considering implementing law which would that supposed to end up "Polish death camp" controversy,
 * - The law was only a project and was no implemented, but for Icewhiz that case it is good enough to say that Poland tries to impose, what he calls, "Holocaust law",
 * - Because of this nonexistent "Holocaust law" Polish sources "are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history".
 * - The situation in Poland is similar to the situation in Russia - "state control or repression" and no free speech basically.

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

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

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

It feels like Icewhiz's opinion is a pure form of antipolonism and censorship based on offensive, false and biased arguments that are hard to understand (vide fantasies about made up "Holocaust law" and ban on Polish sources based on subjective and offensive opinions). Apart from that there are plenty of sources based on Polish newspaper in the Wikipedia and they are also allowed in the article I wanted to update - here are examples from the article about Jan Grabowski:
 * https://www.rp.pl/Konflikt-Polska-Izrael/180229915-Polski-historyk-Jan-Grabowski-ostrzega-Izrael-przed-dialogiem-z-Polska.html
 * https://www.biznesistyl.pl/kultura/oblicza-kultury/5829_.html
 * "Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018

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

Bluffer8 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The place to have this discussion is at the article talk page or RSN. Poland's "Holocaust Law" curtailed free speech in Polish media on the Holocaust (see article in Index on Censorship and very wide coverage on this). Adding Gontarczyk's opinions from a radio appearance to a BLP is more than questionable given that: "'Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an 'alien and harmful nation''"per academic source Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Edits to 3 articles adding Gontarczyk, reverted by a number of users, and discussions of said edits (for some odd reason on my talk page, and not on BLP/n or the article's talk). This prior edit to Jedwabne pogrom is instructive - adding a paragraph denying (the mainstream academic view in all countries) Polish responsibility for the massacre and burning of Jews in a barn - sourced to a Polish-Canadian YouTube channel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

If one submits the following sentence in Google or Duckduckgo search engine:
 * "piotr gontarczyk" "piotra gontarczyka" site:wikipedia.org

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

Bluffer8 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering these   appear to be the diffs that have started this, and considering the text appears to be the same, this raises large WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues. Reliable sourcing aside, the information does not even appear specifically related to any of the articles, apart from the fact they seem to have the opposite point of view. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain me what exactly WP:BLP and WP:NPOV issues does it raise? I could change the form of the article update.
 * This information is not just the opposite point of view - it proves serious mistakes found in the book. This information is related to the articles - it shows the controversies that authors/book raises and there are plenty of similar cases in Wikipedia (articles about authors) with proper sections which address controversies in the way I would like to do it - here are examples:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child
 * Bluffer8 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, on the Grabowski article, the controversy from Gontarczyk has already been given due weight in the diff of the article you linked under the book's heading. Splitting it out into a separate section overstates the level of the controversy. Also, the fact you're saying it "proves serious mistakes found in the book" is not a neutrao position to be taking for these edits. Removing the topic completely from the analysis, a historian published a book and received criticism from another historian in regards to the book. That's all this needs to be, especially given the contentious nature of the topic, and this has been already adequately represented in that article. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I cannot see exactly where can you see "the controversy from Gontarczyk" in the article about Grabowski - he is not mentioned there even single time (I think he was mentioned but someone "updated" the article). Could you please point it directly? How can you say that this topic "has been already adequately represented in that article" if Gontarczyk arguments are not even mentioned.
 * If you look at the article into section "Dalej jest noc":
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Grabowski_%28historian%29#Dalej_jest_noc
 * then you will find positive and subjective opinion/flattery about the book from historian Jacek Chrobaczyński. I completely cannot understand why I am banned from adding (into the same section or the new one) scientifically based criticism of the book, done by professional historian? And yes - according to Gontarczyk's word he found some serious mistakes, which are well documented and well described. In Wikipedia it is common practice to add criticism concerning books/authors - I gave examples:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Dale#Controversy
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frey#Controversy
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pearl#Controversy_over_To_Train_Up_a_Child
 * If the source is right (it does not come from totalitarian regime where there is no free speech), if the author is right (he is a professional historian employed in well known history research institute) and the topic has not been described yet then what is the problem?
 * I hope we will reach the compromise here - which could be adding the Gontarczyk's opinion into "Dalej jest noc" section of the article about Jan Grabowski and creating "Controversy" section for the article about Barbara Engelking.
 * Bluffer8 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Dalej jest noc has its own article where Gontarczyk's opinion appears. The book on Grabowski's main page links to Dalej jest noc, and has a sentence or two about the criticism it received. I would suggest not adding the Gostarczyk opinion back to any of the pages and instead focusing on Dalej jest noc, though I think what's currently on that page is good enough. In any case, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything actionable at ANI. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For me it looks like you are trying to stop adding of important Gontarczyk criticism of the book (and the fact that the book has been criticized) - because some other, older Gontarczyk's opinions are outside Wikipedia, in the book (could you please show me where exactly have you found it?). And at the same time you do not even allow to mention (in the article) that the book has been criticized in mass media and to inform why. I am not satisfied with that answer and I do not agree with this approach - I gave enough examples of the book criticism (in Wikipedia's articles) to see that double standards and censorship are applied here.
 * It looks like a group of editors usurp and owned the article, and disagrees on any changes because it ruins the point of view they try to convey through the article. One can see that to stop the article updates, Wikipedia users are flooded with arguments (sometime absurd - vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk) and that every bigger update to certain articles are immediately removed by the same editors.
 * It this is your final opinion, then I will proceed further with my doubts concerning the article update. Thank you for your time.
 * Bluffer8 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no interest in this topic at all but am trying to balance concerns with WP:UNDUE as neutrally as I possibly can. The current write up here clearly shows there has been criticism of the book. Adding more specific criticism would violate WP:UNDUE. The book also has its own Wikipedia article here Dalej jest noc in which Gontarczyk's criticism appears. I haven't looked at anything outside of Wikipedia, but I do not see any problem with "double standards" or "censorship." I do have a problem with giving the criticism undue weight. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * According to WP:UNDUE: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide COMPLETE information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean EXCLUSION of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."
 * The Gontarczyk's opinion is not a view of "distinct (and minuscule) minority" and was highly publicized in all media (what is worth mentioning on its own) - weekly magazine Sieci gave this topic a front cover:
 * https://oko.press/images/2019/03/ok%C5%82adka.png
 * Gontarczyk works for Institute of National Remembrance and his opinion is not just a tiny, unimportant voice since he represents this institute.
 * In the meantime Polish League Against Defamation has joined to this case and publicly called authors of the book to address Gontarczyk's objections:
 * http://www.anti-defamation.pl/rdiplad/aktualnosci/oswiadczenie-rdi-w-sprawie-ksiazki-dalej-jest-noc-i-recenzji-dr-piotra-gontarczyka/
 * So as you can see this is not a voice of a small minority that could get undue weight by being addressed.


 * I am not trying to dominate the whole article with extremely big section "controversies". I just want to add valuable and important information (maybe one or two sentences) that would guarantee that "all significant viewpoints that have been published".
 * Bluffer8 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lest we forget, this is a professor at the University of Ottawa (covered in mainstream press and academia). Gontarczyk is covered this way in a RS: Poland's Threatening Other: The Image of the Jew from 1880 to the Present, University of Nebraska Press, Joanna B. Michlic, page 111. As for the nature of wSieci's covers, well: Polish magazine causes outrage with cover showing white woman being sexually attacked by 'migrants', Independent, 17 Feb 2016. A number of WP:REDFLAGs here - Bluffer8's edits were reverted by 4 different experienced Wikipedia editors. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the particular piece in wSieci, it is covered here (Polish): oko.press - which notes that aside from appearing on the cover, Grabowski and Engelking do not appear in the actual text (which discusses a chapter by Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska). The piece on oko.press (a fact-checking service) notes a detailed rebuttal by Polish Academy of Sciences (with whom Swałtek-Niewińska is associated with) which oko.press endorses - saying Gontarczyk omitted or failed to notice that Swałtek-Niewińska did cover the Jewish police as well. In regards to Gontarczyk's accusations of "introducing lies", oko.press conclude with the rhetorical "Did Gontarczyk mean himself?". Now - this all being rather off-topic for Grabowski (ignoring the sensationalist cover) - it would be questionable to include cited directly to Gontarczyk on a hypothetical page on Dagmara Swałtek-Niewińska (TOOSOON). I would question whether Bluffer8 is possibly WP:NOTTHERE in regards to advocating inclusion of such material in 2 BLPs (Grabowsky and Engelking). Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The link to the book, that you gave, does not work - I get a message that some viewing limits have been reached.
 * That is ridiculous that you suggesting me being WP:NOTTHERE especially if one consider the argument that you use to stop me (and others) from updating articles (vide regime in Poland or "ethno-nationalist" Gontarczyk). The history of the deletions (that you have done in the articles) also says a lot.
 * You try to disqualify weekly magazine w Sieci based on some cover and I disqualify oko.press (the source of your information) because oko.press is highly controversial ultra left-side portal, which promotes lefties aggression and physical violence towards jurnalists:
 * https://www.tysol.pl/a28879-OKO-press-jeszcze-wczoraj-promowalo-autorki-ataku-na-Magdalene-Ogorek
 * From what I know Gontarczyk's objections have not been answered yet - this article proves this:
 * https://wpolityce.pl/historia/438334-zlapani-na-klamstwie-zamiast-powaznej-odpowiedzi-grozby


 * If you have a good source of information concerning that case (Gontarczyk's criticism of the book) then I am eager to add it to the article. The case is developmental and the new information comes every few days. That is why I suggest adding the new section "Controversies" which could be updated accordingly to the news.
 * Bluffer8 (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Jahmalm and Ahmedo Semsurî
Two separate but related reports, combined by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After a review, I've blocked both editors 48 hours for edit warring on multiple articles, while simultaneously reporting the other editor for edit warring (a pet peeve of mine). Both are also misusing the term "vandalism".  No talk page posts by either editor.  If the edit warring resumes after the block expires, the next block will be for much longer.  Discuss on article talk pages and gain consensus for disputed edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have merged another report on the same issue. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing POV-editing and vandalism by user
I was told to write here by the folks at Administrator intervention against vandalism, so here I am. I want to report for vandalism. Every single edit of his is POV-related and vandalism (I'll actually call it smart vandalism since he actually uses sources (one source (author) over and over again in tens of pages). He's ignoring my edits and demands for sources/clarifications/better sources by reverting and claim that I'm just 'an ethno-pov changer' every time (despite using various and diverse sources to support my changes (historians, linguistics, etc.). He even had the audacity to report me for vandalism, when I confronted his edits. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any edits that would be within the Vandalism policy. Can you provide Help:Diffs? Or are you actually just having a content dispute that would be best resolved in accordance with Dispute resolution? --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a 'content dispute' since it's not about supporting two contradictory academic arguments. He's just reverting my changes when it doesn't fit his point of view. I cleaned up after his mess on three articles, always academically sourced . Now instead of having a sober debate on why he adds content with blogs as a source or oeuvres by one particular historian whose views he supports, he reverts and calls me a Kurdish nationalist. And note that I've worked hard to remove pro-Kurdish vandalism on Wikipedia as well([). Concerning [[Help:Diff]]s, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I would gladly provide it. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

One example: I stated why I removed a map he added and why I added templates to various sentences., but instead of looking into them, he just reverts. It doesn't seem like he's on Wikipedia for any other reason than to force his views despite having academia against him. I'm really trying to make him argue for his changes, but he accuses me of being a nationalist.
 * Also, I'm pretty sure that he'll breach the 3RR today. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the vandalism continues as I write --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a sober debate will take place. Sadly. And the racism thing is really inappropriate. I've written on the talk pages of all three articles in question to move forward, but to no avail. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No willingness to improve any of the articles with POV/OR issues. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only account User:Ahmedo Semsurî by a Kurdish nationalist
Vandalism and POV changes by User:Ahmedo Semsurî a Kurdish nationalist in the articles Kurmanji, Ezdiki language, Ezidkhan etc. since yesterday—Jahmalm (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Serious question, is this how 'a Kurdish nationalist' works? . Seriously, it's time to stop vandalizing --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had some skepticism that this was a behavioral incident for this noticeboard until Jahmalm's report above. It is patently obvious that User:Ahmedo Semsurî is not a vandalism-only account. So,, why would you claim that? --Bsherr (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on Mission User:Ahmedo Semsurî
I have merged this report as it appears to concern the same user and the same issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Man on mission. User:Ahmedo Semsurî tries everything to destroy Yazidi articles, spreads his pov here, replaces Kurmanji with "Kurmaji Kurdish" or "Northern Kurdish"(see here) does not understand the difference between settlement areas and countries (see here), does not understand that there are Yazidis who do not call themselves Kurds. does not understand that Ezdiki or the "Yazidi language" is a recognized minority language in Armenia since 2002 and protected by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. had previously started an Editwar. had misused the term vandalism often. (see here) calls me racist because I told him that he is Kurd. But that has nothing to do with racism, because he is indeed a Kurd and it is also written on his Wikipedia page. His posts show us for dayslong what goal he pursues. for example erasing Shabak and Yazidi identity. claims that Shabaki and the Zaza language are „Kurdish“. Also Human Rights Watch had reported about this methods according to a report from November 2009 „The goal of these tactics is to push Shabak and Yazidi communities to identify as ethnic Kurds.“—58.79.24.120 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You forgot to give Ahmedo Semsurî a notice about your report. I've done so. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 03:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me point out the conduct of the reporting IP. Note this gem, which refers to the IP as "we", and includes various personal attacks. Or here, where IP says they are not surprised because you are a Kurd. Also note that both this IP, and Jahmalm both use „ to encase quotes, which I've never seen before. Jamahlm is currently blocked, so this may be a case of WP:BLOCKEVASION. I have left a note about logged out editing to both IP and account. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also this IP address which only became active after Jahmalm was blocked and continued his POV-editing. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On another note, it seems like that Jahmalm is deliberately using my ethnicity to delegitimize my criticism of the articles. But I have listed my problems and he chose to attack me instead of discussing. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Reporting IP blocked by another admin, and Jahmalm reblocked indefinitely for block evasion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA
User:Karyachadu, could someone do the necessary please? —— SerialNumber  54129  11:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * Propose short block Obviously a WP:ENGAGE problem... could be WP:COMPETENCE, might not be understanding the talk page. A block might get them to notice.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support short block per Soapfish Jim and the Catdish to get them to WP:ENGAGE. Otherwise, escalating blocks for edit warring. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had missed this ANI report and filed one at ANEW too. The editor has been blocked for 24h by, presumably in response to one of the reports. Closing both for now. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Cleisthenes2 and Toby Young - topic ban


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

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

So far, despite absolutely no support at the talk page apart from a couple of IPs and a mysterious new account which popped up, Cleisthenes2 has removed that section from the lede of the article no less than eleven times, from July 2018 up to this morning. They have been reverted by a number of other editors.

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

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


 * The summary at Talk:Toby_Young provides a useful set of diffs and links to existing consensus and discussions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All I see here is a long running content dispute with neither side willing to meet each other's concerns, why is this at ANI and not an RFC? Iffy★Chat -- 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's already been to BLPN (twice) and extensive discussion on the talk page; there is consensus for the existing version, and all Cleisthenes2 is doing now is popping up occasionally and whitewashing that sentence. It's simply disruptive, which is why it's here. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I spent some time reviewing this, but have simply run out of time before I could fill out the AE forms in triplicate. A note for any other admin that Cleisthenes2 has been notified about Gamergate discretionary sanctions on 3/9, before his latest two reverts on 3/17 and today, so any uninvolved admin could impose a topic ban if they chose to; we don't have to have a 24 hour community discussion. Before I ran out of time to study up on how to do AE sanctions, I was about to block for 48 hours for repeated edit warring against clear consensus, and impose an indefinite topic ban from Toby Young, both as AE actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Could you please inform me how to make an appeal to a higher level of administrator? I believe that NPOV is crucial to Wikipedia's mission and credibility, and this this case displays a good instance of how many editors (and administrators!) lack respect for it (or fail to understand it). I also note, again, the lack of clear consensus (a word which means that everybody agrees on something) in the discussions posted above. Many thanks. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what WP:CONSENSUS means. EEng 01:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to point out that Cleisthenes2 followed this edit by reverting the consensus lede for a twelfth time . I have reverted (the first time I have done this, though I was INVOLVED through other discussions). At this point, it would be useful if an admin could action what Floquenbeam said above, because this is becoming ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the sanctions that suggested. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Let's hope they switch to doing something productive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Seek community sanctions (indef Tban) re user Bought the farm
Seek community imposed Tban against Topic areas Climate change, Energy, US Politics, broadly construed

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

New evidence
 * Feb 1, 2019 Editing blitz adding section "Trump Administration" to United States energy independence.  Some samples
 * 02:29, February 1, 2019 POV (Trump cheerleading)
 * ''The permitting (for Keystone XL pipeline) comeing two months after Trump, only days into his presidency, signed an executive order aimed at reviving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines
 * 20:02, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on WP:Original research
 * "This proposed (Green New Deal) would effectively end U.S. energy independence gains and the benefits to the American middle class."
 * 21:05, February 1, 2019 Wikivoice statement of fact based on conservative editor's opinion at an online blog (The Morning Jolt by Jim Geraghty)


 * Feb 18 16:20, February 18, 2019 POV FRINGE
 * Identifies Trump investigations as a "notable example" of a Seditious conspiracy.... so far the entire thread is his and it sounds like tinfoil hat stuff to me


 * Feb 19 00:17, February 19, 2019 POV FRINGE
 * At Deep state in the United States this ed pushes addition of section "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration"


 * Feb 19 02:01, February 19, 2019 POV / OR
 * In DRAFT namespace, he uses Wikivoice to describe "descendants (of US slaves), who are mentally enslaved by the Democratic Party"
 * Bought on the Farm submitted this draft to AFC three times and was rejected all three times. Then he posted this article live on his own hook.


 * Feb 26, 02:32, February 26, 2019 POV/Fringe,
 * Asserts personal view that Deep state "is a very real thing" and changes lead from saying "conspiracy theory" to the far more credible "theory"


 * Mar 13 21:49, March 13, 2019 POV (democrat bashing)
 * Tells how there was clapping after Trump said something about energy and then adds "However, the democrats did not applaud." (in the next edit he adds a Wordpress blog as an RS)


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


 * Mar 20 22:15, March 20, 2019‎ POV, Launches new article The Democracy Integrity Project based on uncertain one or two sources.  Claims
 * "'The Democracy Integrity Project (TDIP), is a multimillion-dollar stealth organization'"
 * uses scarequotes "that provides daily "research" briefings "
 * asserts ulterior movites in wikivoice "'spreading lies and fake news to keep the "Trump-Russian collusion" false news narrative alive in main stream media reporting. ''"
 * I would go on, but I hate to repeat the allegations in the BLP vios.

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


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


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


 * Reluctant support I feel like this editor is probably trying to improve what they see as a liberal bias in Wikipedia and, absent guidance from someone who agrees with them politically but better understands how WP works, is struggling. I'd be much more happy with an indef tban if someone who shares Btf's basic political stance (not the whole conspiracy theory thing but just conservatism in general and a feeling that WP could improve neutrality re: politics) would try to help them, with a goal of eventually once again being able to edit what clearly is their main area of interest. Draft:Democratic Plantation isn't actually a bad start. --valereee (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:NEOLOGISM. There are 10 cited references.   Nine of them show people using the term.  Only one of them is about the term itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I meant as a draft, I could see it being possible for them to improve it with some guidance. --valereee (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support indef - A leopard can't change their spots. Ultimately the goal is to get this editor to stop behaving in this particular manner, yes? Even if topic banned in this particular area, chances are they'll just go cause disruption somewhere else on the site. Just go straight to the indef and let the editor make their case as to why they should be unblocked.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indef block per WP:NOTHERE and don't waste time with topic bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR given this sort of thing. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block WP:CIR etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support either topic ban or indef. This editor pointlessly insulted me as an AFC reviewer on Democratic Plantation.  The draft said that this was a neoterism, and I took issue with using that term in a lede, and was told that a dictionary would have helped.  Yes, but the lede shouldn't contain words that send the reader to a dictionary.  The point is that this is a tendentious editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - IDHT POV-pushing on multiple topic areas means the community would save more time from a block than multiple topic bans. Tsumikiria⧸  🌹🌉 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both - "Seditious conspiracy and Attempted Bureaucratic Coup against the Trump Administration" is all I needed to hear from this guy to know they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thunderchunder (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block This editor has been given enough rope. He/she is clearly not interested in building this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both -- Editor is clearly a SPA  caknuck ° needs to be running more often  19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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


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

I'm requesting a topic ban for from clerking AFD (deletion sorting, relisting, closing.) As noted above, several editors have tried to discuss this with them, only to be met with hostility or immediate archiving of the concern. This is not conducive behavior to a collaborative environment, it's a time sink and disruptive. I intend to respect their wishes that I refrain from editing their talk page but as per ANI policy, my final edit there is this notification. Praxidicae (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban given the history here, which I was unaware of when I talked to them, and their response to Praxidicae on her talk page, I don't think talking will do much good. To be fair to them, yes, there are many admins who will relist low discussion AfDs (even though community consensus and policy has been that this should be the exception rather than the rule for the last two years-- PROD is the default for expired AfDs), the community is broadly on board with the ideas behind RELISTBIAS and typically non-admins should be relisting discussions where delete is a valid option under policy since they are unable to implement it. To address the double standard argument that I'm sure is going to be raised: one of the reasons that soft delete isn't used more often by admins likely is that there is a pretty continuous group of non-admin AfD relisters who it seems just wait to relist. The membership changes over time, but when one stops a new user appears to do it. We need to actually enforce the policy rather than just accept a status quo that the community as a whole has rejected and that people complain about every time it is raised.Also, I'll take this opportunity to encourage admins to follow the RfC that was held on this and evaluate expired AfDs as PRODs rather than just relist. This is what the policy is, and non-admins follow our example. It is difficult to explain to users that they should not be the ones interpreting the deletion policy when they don't have the ability to select the default outcome called for by the policy when some admins seem to be ignoring the policy themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support formal warning per Bsherr and 's comments after I made this, and the message on my talk, I'm fine with no TBAN for now, because the ANI thread itself seems to have done the point. At the same time, given how they've reacted to Praxidicae and other's comments in the past, a warning from ANI should document this in case the behaviour does not stop. Trust but verify/document and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. SS49 has not edited at AfD subsequent to the most recent discussion at SS49's talk page mentioned above, and has now (subsequent to the above comments) posted this message that suggests SS49 will be showing improved behavior. I think a wait-and-see approach is justified for now; hopefully the message has sunk in. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, oppose per WP:ROPE, mainly because—as Bsherr's diff suggests—there is a possibility (however belated) that "the penny's dropped" and they finally realise the degree of their disruption. However, two caveats. One, that it is emphasised that this piece of rope is so short and tenuous, they couldn't tie their laces with it. Secondly, that they realise that this is without any prejudice—if they touch another XfD—to an admin blocking on the basis of Praxidicae's diffs. No trip to ANI; no discussion; no promises. I note, too, that in their comment they says they will hardly relist AfDs; this is less reassuring, and they should either make their topic voluntarily, or the community will do it for them. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support formal warning per Tony et al; also respectfully suggest that SS49 apologise for the snark/dismissive attitude towards Praxidicae, who took the time to offer constructive advice several times before this ended up here. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Full disclosure - I !voted on one of the AfDs listed above that was relisted. I wasn't that bothered by the relisting, and that hasn't influenced my support for the warning, but noting for transparency. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your support. Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs. ~SS49~   {talk}  18:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify on what you mean by "hardly relist"? Are you going to address your combative WP:IDHT approach to editors addressing your behavior? Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK I understood I won't do relisting. If sorting is also a problem, I won't sorting too. From now I won't relist any discussions. Thanks ~SS49~   {talk}  23:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I was typing a response about coming around to potentially withdrawing my TB request given the support for a formal warning here, however SS49 has continued to edit at AFD, although not relisting, I find it somewhat problematic that he is still doing maintenance tasks despite this lengthy discussion and with no acknowledgement or assurances that there won't be further disruption. His request on Tony's talk, combined with this edit on mine and this ani comment does not leave me with much hope that rope will prevent further disruption. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban as per WP:COMPETENCE. I have no confidence that SS49 has understood the nature of the problem here. He/she should not be clerking AFD if he/she does not understand policy and procedures.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  18:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeees; "I've got a bad feeling about this"—specifically that it's the penny has not dropped., much as I appreciate your thanking me for my post above, it would be very wrong to read into it any kind of support for your position. Quite the opposite; I was speaking against a topc ban on account of you—at that point—having seemingly stopped from clerking AfD, and on condition that you ceased all activity at XfD. Which, it now apears, has not happened. ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now. ~SS49~   {talk}  23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There seem to be some major WP:CIR issues here. As WBG's last warning may indicate, a topic ban on AfDs may not be enough, but I think that's the best course of action for now. (On a side note - I didn't see your reply to me on your talk page until now, Praxidicae, and you're right. Sorry.) ansh 666 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. SS49's "Deletion sorting is fine. I will hardly relist AfDs" really doesn't give me any confidence that the problems are understood, and that is reinforced by the comments linked above by Praxidicae. I'm seeing problems with comprehension and competence here, and I think this is someone who just isn't suited to clerking activities. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that SS49's various comments suggest they are not a native speaker of English. And while a native command of English is perhaps not necessary for understanding and performing clerking tasks on the English language Wikipedia, I'm not seeing sufficient competence in our post-Norman tongue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone who doesn't follow advice given to them on their talk page basically by definition lacks the competence to be relisting discussions or doing other similar work. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support tban. The large percentage of their overall work spent clerking, given the issues well documented here, is concerning. Even more concerning is that they couldn't accurately discern that doing nothing in AfD in the near future was the right course given the comments that were being offered here. I feel like they used up what little ROPE might have been extended during this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Formal warning. What's this editor's offense, departure from a guideline and dismissing others' advice? What percentage of the community is guilty of the same crime, 25%? More? The concern that this editor's actions was biasing AfDs was a legitimate one, but generally speaking we don't sanction editors simply for departing from the rules. This editor has a proven interest in AfDs and should be commended for that. They just have to learn how to do it right. Some editors with listening problems just need a kick in the pants. If they continue not to listen, that's another story. R2 (bleep) 21:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban. There are masssive CIR issues at play here regarding the relisting and AFDs in general. It either shows a clear lack of understanding of policy or a refusal to abide by policy and community established norms. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support relisting discussions is almost always a lazy action that helps nothing. Instead of relisting exercise some judgement and !vote. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Non-admins should be discouraged from relisting discussions, especially the ones with no / low participation. Let an admin relist it or (better) close as a soft-delete. AfD needs more voters, not clerks. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban on AfD clerking. SS49's recent responses suggest a basic misunderstanding of clerking's purpose, which is to reduce demand on the valuable time and attention of editors. A topic ban on AfD clerking will leave SS49 free to apply their own time and attention as a participant in AfD discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban - clearly warranted. In fact, this feels like a fairly modest gesture in recognition of obvious CIR issues, troubling responses, refusal to communicate, and refusal to respond to legitimate feedback. ~Swarm~   {talk}  22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban on AfD clerking -- long-standing issues, coupled with a lack of communication. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought there were no problems with deletion sorting so I sorted again. If you all want me to leave AfDs, it's ok. I won't harm Wikipedia. I won't do sorting too. ~SS49~   {talk}  23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I accept my mistakes and apologize for that. ~SS49~   {talk}  00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As both the writer of WP:Relist bias and the person who pushed for the current version of WP:NOQUORUM, I think there is enough to warrant a topic ban here. This isn't the first time these issues have been raised, nor the second. It seems like this editor has struggled to either listen to or understand the feedback they've received. If that's the case, they shouldn't be closing discussions – an activity that heavily relies on their ability to comprehend and weigh the arguments made by everyone in a discussion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Formal warning I don't see a huge issue with the diffs that have been posted - relisting discussions for a first or second time really isn't that much of an issue in my opinion. Based on the history here, I do think a formal warning is necessary, since I think the goal should be to expose the behaviour is not welcome on the behalf of the community. I know this is against consensus at this point, but I think a topic ban is an overreach so far. We should be encouraging SS49 to communicate properly and learn when a relist is proper - I'm not a relister, but I would have relisted myself in some of these situations. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban First that say thay they "will hardly relist AfDs", and later that they "won't do deletion sorting and relisting from now". I don't have confidence based on their earlier "I want to be blocked. Please block me. Haha" comment A topic ban effectively just formalizes their pledge to not relist anymore, which is (unfortunately) necessary based on persistent concerns about their competence (WP:CIR).—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban – non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and easily subject to bias. SS49 has demonstrated a failure to follow community norms in this admin area, and has consistently resisted attempts to hold them accountable. A topic ban is both appropriate and necessary. Bradv 🍁  13:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sanctions aside, it seems like there might be consensus to change the rule to explicitly prohibit non-admins from relisting AfDs. R2 (bleep) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum for that, but I am strongly in favor of banning editors who are not sysops from doing any closes at AfD that are not procedural closes (e.g. article was speedy deleted or it's been withdrawn by the nom with all other participating editors favoring it being kept). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea and nominate you to propose this. :) Natureium (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about instead we talk about it at a proper forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


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

Asking for advice to avoid being accused of edit warring
and I are embroiled in a dispute involving White genocide conspiracy theory, Population decline, The Turner Diaries, the ORN and NPOVN noticeboards, WP:JIMBOTALK (where I complained because there was a related discussion ongoing and I felt like I was being stalked and bullied -- but that only escalated the problem), and WT:OR, 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 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, which he has now deleted twice; diffs:,. 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." I'm sure he didn't read the book or do a thorough search for sources on the topic, as explained at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory which I copied to the book's talk page to support the correct claim there. He has repeatedly been deleting my replies to him on that and other topics at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; diffs:, ,. He thinks he is allowed to delete my interspersed replies to his several bullet points even after I restored his original comment to its precise initial state. Does he have the right to delete my interspersed comments just because I quoted his subsequently? WP:TPO appears to say just the opposite. Question 2: If I tried to replace my reply to his several bullet points for a third time in Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, 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) edited one of my comments.


 * 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." (1RR)


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


 * 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. (1RR)


 * At 11:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC) I deleted the edited cut and paste of my comment. (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 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 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. (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." (3RR)


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


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

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

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

Answer 3 I know there was no Question 3, but, 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)


 * 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 and  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)


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


 * I hope this helps address your questions. In generally, this clearly a content dispute, rather than a behavioural issue, so this is not likely to be the ideal space for further debate on the underlying issues. As I said before, if you two are at a loggerheads, then RfC is your best way out--let me know if you'd like some help with it. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 20:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 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 (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.


 * 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.] That's another part of the behavior pattern; try to insert OR into an article, get pushback from the other editors, try to coat rack the same OR into another article. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


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

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


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


 * This is a case where our rules (don't read and interpret the manifesto yourself, apply WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY and when appropriate report what reliable independent third part sources say about it) really shine. In this case, one of the sources says:
 * "And now there's the guy who just slaughtered at least 49 people in two New Zealand mosques. His manifesto emerges, dripping, from the memes-and-shitposts world of 8chan, 4chan, and similar sites. Parts of the document are obvious put-ons, even as the blood in Christchurch reminds us that the killer wasn't kidding about his lethal intentions... the document isn't always so straightforward; at times the terrorist is trying to fuck with his readers... At one point in his attack, right before opening fire, the killer said, "Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.".. The words "subscribe to PewDiePie" are themselves a meme. Reciting them before you shoot people is the internet-age equivalent of murdering someone while you repeat a Saturday Night Live catchphrase. The fascist terrorist is also a fascist troll. Reading him is like seeing a Pepe meme carrying an actual gun."
 * I write the above not as a comment about this particular manifesto, (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content) but instead as a comment about how when we follow Wikipedia's rules it protects us from the mistake of not realizing what is and is not internet trolling and from conducting original research by reading and interpreting the manifesto ourselves.
 * Source: The Shitpost Terrorist: When a murder manifesto shows signs of irony poisoning, Reason Magazine --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass deleting broken inline citations


I'm uncertain about what new user is currently doing to old refnames in articles. They seem to deleting them in bot-like fashion. Example diff:, my revert , their re-revert (edit summary: You find it). 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, . 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 . Three minutes later we have deletion of two references at Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young discography . At 13:56 there's a deletion of one old reference at Cross-linked polyethylene, and one minute later a deleted reference at Crossfire (Brandon Flowers song) . 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)
 * , 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, 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)

POV pusher


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 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 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 that I am not going to edit in any slavery related articles and I did my promise BTW I am not topic banned or something I am by myself choose not to contribute in that area any time soon yet I can't actually stand this behaviour so I decided to ask you guys to help me..--SharabSalam (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history of the articles that you both have edited, I see a lot of edit warring and disruption between the two of you. You both are equally responsible and can be held accountable for resorting to edit warring instead of following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and working things out. I saw that Balolay added an image from this topic area (Arab / Islamic slavery) onto the Photograph and Photography articles; I removed the image added to the photograph article, as it clearly isn't necessary at all. This unnecessary addition of images from this topic (as well as Balolay's edit history which looks to be almost exclusively within this topic area) shows that Balolay might have a single-purpose point-of-view and hence be a single-purpose account in regards to this topic area. Edit warring doesn't make anything better, however. If Balolay starts repeatedly reverting your edits to an article, you should stop reverting things back and instead file a report at 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)

, there is no way in which this was a revert of "possible vandalism". And please see WP:TOPPOST on organizing posts. You had four separate paragraphs at two levels of indenting: very confusing. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm beginning to think there is something to the complaint. Take this edit, which is also, really, this edit. Balolay adds images of the enslavement of Africans by Arabs, and that such enslavement happens is clear and not part of the discussion, but why that image (which is heartbreaking, of course--looking at all those images, ah humanity...) ought to be in Photography or Abolitionism is entirely unclear. It is true that photography was helpful for some abolitionist, but the sources make that case for Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, not for abolitionism (some of which preceded the invention of photography) as a whole, and certainly not for the slavery that this photo illustrate. One can say that one image can stand for all, but if it is true that the editor also likes to add "Muslim" or "Islamic" or whatever to "Arab slave trade" (we will need to see evidence of that), or that otherwise the editor seems to have an anti-Islam POV, then the selection can be seen as part of POV-editing. And even without that evidence, I just do not see evidence for Balolay's claims that these images are inherently applicable to these articles. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for tagging you. Here the addition of Islam/Muslim to Arab slave trade. Special:MobileDiff/885936221 here he added "Arab Islamic world" here I reverted Special:MobileDiff/885945047 here he readded it Special:MobileDiff/885965956 I reverted again Special:MobileDiff/886041705 with the edit summary that you can see. notice that this is 17 days ago. one day ago he added it no edit summary whatsoever Special:MobileDiff/888475680. 10 mins ago his edit was reverted.
 * now for the Slavery article I will explain what was happening he had an edit war with a user called Musicfan about an image in the body of the article again they were arguing about the image in the body of the article while they are arguing he added an image to the lead that is mainly about Arab slavery I objected that edit and started discussing that in the talk page and as you can see at the end of the discussion that I explained why the lead should not contain that image per MOS:LEADIMAGE. he asked me what is my position on the image of the body(that he was arguing with Musicfan) I said I don't have any problem with it(and I have said that before in the discussion) he readded the image of the body to the article saying (per TP) although he didn't make any consensus with Musicfan about the image in the body. This whole problem that is about the lead image started 2 weeks ago. 2 days ago he readded the image of the lead saying (Restored image in the lead after no response from Musicfan122 for more than 7 days on talk page.) and I was like: WTFFFFFF that's was between me and him and he didn't make any reply to my argument!! he totally dismissed me and that edit summary was IMO pure trolling. same as calling other edits possible vandalism. This behaviour is totally toxic to me. The conclusion that I have reached from his contributions that this user is actually pushing a POV and that the talk page are worthless to him. he says that he has commited and discussed with other edits in another articles then why doesnt he do that with me why did he totally dismiss what I said in the talk page of slavery and went and readded the image to the lead? Also tagging who might have an opinion about his edits. also I want to clarify that I made a promise that I am not going to edit in the slavery article again because it is a sensitive issue and I don't want to say or do things that could be considered offensive. I didn't edit any slavery article since I had that problem with him. However, yesterday I reverted his edit in Photography or Photograph and Slavery because I saw that no one noticing what he is doing. (Forgive me for using he/his/him but it's hard for me to not use them)  --SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * I want also to add something to what Wikiemirati said. The user has added a passage into the Criticism of Muhammad and it was removed here 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)
 * @ 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  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)
 * , the problem is, and I don't understand why you don't see this, that "The sources I have provided clearly mention that powerful images like these were used as a tool to end slavery" is simply incorrect. The sources talk about specific images used by specific abolitionists in specific historic circumstances. You are talking about a different image, in a different historic circumstances in another part of the world, and there is no clarity on which abolitist(s) used your image; in fact there is no proof whatsoever that this image was used in what you provided. I don't care what the description on Commons says--anyone can go in and edit that. What you are doing is definition of WP:SYNTH. Now the question for ANI is whether you know this or not, whether you do this on purpose from your POV or not. That you're doing it is undeniable. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right. I've had my share of questioning SharahSalam edits. Both of you were edit warring and both of you were blocked. Now, regarding your edits you seem to disagree with him by adding an image based on some sense of "time" that its been on wikipedia. Clearly, the image was added by you and contested by at least two other users. The dispute arose by your contribution adding the image and not by their edits of removing it. Status quo has been restored in Slavery article by an admin, and then again by me, but the edit warring resumed when you have re-added the image. You need to follow WP:BRD and discuss your changes with those who do not agree with you. I agree with both Drmies and Oshwah on their opinion of your edits and honestly I don't find any good reasoning or anyone else supporting you either which makes me question your motive of such unnecessary edits. With that said, you need to stop reverting users who do not agree with you and present your reasoning in well formed manner compliant with Wikipedia policies of WP:OR,WP:VER and WP:NPOV. I have not seen any of that and therefore object your contributions which in my opinion are highly unnecessary and only questions your motive, which to me sounds non-neutral. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mountain157
is pushing their POV onto the article on Tartary, attempting to pass a fringe theory that claims Tartary to have been a historical country whose existence was suppressed after its demise as undisputed fact wrong section, please see here instead. In Talk:Tartary they have constantly levelled personal attacks against me, accusing me of violating various Wikipedia policies when I attempted to revert the article to a Neutral POV in an attempt to discredit me even after an administrator ruled that "many of Mountain157's accusations are unsupported and constitute personal attacks" above. (Though I have previously opened a content dispute, I believe it to no longer applies and have requested it be closed) Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This user did not try to revert to a Neutral POV. He removed various sources, and maps that had to do with Tartary possibly being a country[] back to a version that had no sources at all. I am not pushing any "fringe theory" despite this user claiming that I do. That itself actually constitutes a personal attack because WP:FRINGENOT says that accusing others of Fringe theories is often cited in discussions and edit summaries to demonized viewpoints which contradict their own, for which this user has exhibited on multiple occasions such as comparing the existence of Tartary to "Glester John"[] and claiming the sources I added were "outdated by centuries".I cited a CIA document [] that talks about the re-writing of Tatar history by the Soviet Union, so I am pretty sure this is a reliable source. []. Mountain157 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like this user has opened up another another notice against me so I am moving this here[]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main source I see you used was this book, published before 1832. Its no wonder that Midnight-Blue766 reverted the edits based on it. I think part of the problem here is that the source is using outdated terminology. It refers to Tamerlane as emperor of the Tartars, when he was in fact emperor of the Timurid Empire. Newer, more reliable sources are needed. Even if the CIA source claims that the Soviets rewrote history, the Soviet empire has been dead for decades. Should Tartary be a real place, then modern scholarship should be able to confirm that fact. This boils down to a content dispute, one which should be handled in a civil manner, using reliable sources. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Here are all the sources that I did use to base my argument that Tartary was a country aside from the document above,[|website=digital.nls.uk|access-date=2019-02-12}}],[],[],[],[],[].
 * Thanks for sharing those. Again the issue here is that these sources are centuries old. We need modern scholarship that confirms the existence of Tartary as a country, and not just a region of the world. For instance, the title of one source, writing in the 1650s, refers to a Tartar conquest of China. But other sources hold that at that time China was conquered by the Manchu in the Manchu conquest of China. I believe that the word Tartar in these conquests has wide application to any number of central Asian peoples, such as the Manchu, the Mongols, the Timurids and the like. The Tartar disambig page says that a Tartar is Someone from Tartary, the historical central Asian landmass populated by Turks, Mongols, Manchus and others. There remains no reason to believe that Tartary was an organized nation-state with an established Tartar government. I think it boils down to four-century old Europeans not knowing the difference between eastern peoples and labeling them all "Tartars" and ascribing the deeds of many nations to one. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 12:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but why then as recently as 1865 is Tartary listed as a country and having a a flag?Mountain157 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Read this source, which seems to eloquently cover the European misconception of the supposed country. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks by Mountain157, aside from the content of the previous ANI involving yourself and M157? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already provided the diffs to Talk:Tartary; the majority of the statements I construe as personal attacks should still be up there. My own talk page also has some of his vandalism accusations. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article Tartary is in terrible shape and is a perfect opportunity for a competent editor who understands Central Asian history to do some good work. A poorly refererenced article on an obscure topic is fertile ground for fringe editing. There is a serious underlying problem because this topic is a subset of a fringe disinformation theory called New Chronology (Fomenko) which is one of the most sweeping and disruptive and bizarre conspiracy theories of the last 50 years. Wikipedia editors simply cannot allow this delusion to infect our articles, although we must describe the theory itself in neutral terms. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick googling reveals that Tartary is the subject of a great deal of kooky fringe theories (such as the Russians and CIA conspired to hide its existence, or it was a perfect civilization built using the Ark of the Covenant). Its resurgence does appear to be concurrent with New Chronology, (as evidenced by the fact that Vladimir Putin gifted a supposed map of Tartary to Tatarstan in 2017 (note that this article concludes that Tartary may have been just a misinterpretation of the Golden Horde). This is an article that needs some attention for sure, lest folks push some wild POV.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Just a small note which may be unrelated to this discussion, there is currently an AE notice filed against User:Mountain157 at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Just wanted to point this out here. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mountian157 has been indeffed as a normal Admin action. I agree with User:Thunderchunder's identification of User:Thegman87 as a possible sock puppet. Do we have to file an SPI or can some Admin look into this based on this thread? Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no technical evidence that these accounts are related.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! Thunderchunder (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The relevant incidents with diffs:
 * 1) (AN/I Discussion, see section "Legal threat by User:Purgy_Purgatorio")
 * Purgy was indefinitely banned for an issue about saying Next time I will... use the means provided for libel. This was later unblocked upon further review as Purgy clarified that no legal threat was intended. No issue.
 * 1) (Purgy's comment on a TfD)
 * Purgy: Do you still like your creation that much, is it worth this all?
 * (I don't see this as a personal attack, but he implies that I am causing him problems due to some kind of ownership of the template)
 * 1) (Purgy's comment to me on his talk page)
 * Purgy: Considering your troubles with thinking these clauses, I suggest you remove the recently added "mathematician"-(info-)box from your UP.
 * 1) (My comment to Purgy on his talk page)
 * Me: Please refrain from making personal attacks. This is a not the first occurrence of your commenting on the contributor as opposed to the content. Stop.
 * (This is an explicit link to WP:PERSONAL)
 * 1) (Purgy's comment to me on his talk page)
 * Purgy: OK, my turn to apologize to you. I am sorry for my remarks about you feeling as a mathematician. It should not have happened and I have stricken this.
 * Struck out the quote about troubles with thinking and apologized.
 * 1) (Purgy's new section on Gerda Arendt's talk page)
 * Describes (and ) as a militant pro-boxer and aggressor to my mistakable summary.
 * 1) (Gerda Arendt's edit summary to Purgy on her talk page)
 * Gerda Arendt:Purgy, calling someone a militant boxer is not the kindest way to talk about a colleague.
 * 1) (Purgy's edit to comment 4 on her talk page)
 * (Struck out militant pro-boxer and replaced with infobox-activist, rarely offering flowers)
 * 1) (Purgy's comment on his talk page about )
 * Purgy: "The template ... appears to me to have been applied for intimidating purposes" and "RexxS' remark ... makes it obvious to me that he intends to intimidate me".
 * 1) (RexxS's comment on Purgy's talk page)
 * Identifies the above personal attacks and wrote I am now asking you politely to remove them from your talk page: WP:TPNO expressly forbids personal attacks.
 * 1) (Purgy's comment on his talk page}}
 * Purgy disputes that those were personal attacks but struck out the respective passages for courtesy.
 * 1) (Purgy's new section on my talk page)
 * Purgy: I apologized already once for impeaching your qualification as a self-appointed mathematician, and won't do this again, and then accuses me falsely of canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP, exclaims that I am blockheadedly exploiting some WP-eternal feud for your toy?, and declares this is his Last flare-up on this matter.
 * 1) (My comment to Purgy on my talk page)
 * I address his canvassing accusation and other outbursts without trying to provoke anything, point out WP:GOODFAITH and WP:PERSONAL, and declare that I’m glad this is your "last flare-up", enough. Finally, and least importantly, stop referring to me as a "self-appointed mathematician".
 * 1) (Purgy's edit to comment 6 on my talk page)
 * Points out the mathematician user box on my page, emphasizes that he is accusing me of WP-approved canvassing (although it is not WP-approved by definition in the second sentence of WP:CANVAS).
 * (Demonstrates his reading of my comment)
 * 1) (My edit to comment 6.1 on my talk page)
 * Point out that his baseless canvassing accusation and "blockheadedly exploits" outburst are both personal attacks by WP:WIAPA.
 * 1) (My comment to him and RexxS on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page)
 * I called for a de-escalation and defended him when he was being criticized by another editor.
 * 1) (Purgy's comment to me on the Fermat's Last Theorem talk page)
 * Purgy: I can't help but explicitly outing self-appointed wannabe mathematician MarkH21 as the author of this template under discussion, certainly planning for adoption of this IB at any math statement looking out of WP.
 * (An explicit personal attack and claim of "outing" – which might be another misuse of English similar to the "libel" case, as this is not WP:OUTING)
 * This is in response to me after counting that there were only 3 opposes and 5 supports in the previous discussion (note that I was in support so I was not opening an RfC because I was in the minority) and per the recommendation of arbitrator.
 * Note: Purgy characterizes me as one of three manifest IB-promoters, although this is the only infobox that I have created and this is the only infobox discussion that I have ever been involved with.

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

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


 * I don't have time to read and action this myself, but just a drive-by notification to any passing admin who does have time that Purgy is on a final warning from myself that "Regarding your personal attacks on other editors and your making accusations of misconduct against other editors without providing evidence, if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia", and if he's continued to be disruptive on the topic of infoboxes he's also undoubtedly aware of the discretionary sanctions in place (as he threw a monumental tantrum at being notified of them so definitely read them), so if he's continued to do so, don't feel he needs to be warned again before taking action. Per my previous comments, I get the strong impression that this is someone with a very poor grasp of English who doesn't appreciate how poor his grasp of English is and consequently misunderstands the comments of others and unintentionally makes inappropriate comments himself, as opposed to someone acting in bad faith, but the net result in terms of disruption is the same. &#8209; Iridescent 23:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up that warning. The personal attacks and unevidenced canvassing claim from that incident may have been what I was forgetting. There may be some language issue, but using blockheadedly exploits, self-appointed wannabe mathematician (the third such instance after explicit requests to stop), etc. and multiple unevidenced canvassing accusations after being directed at the relevant policies is beyond language issues. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

For the above numbered items: This for the unnumbered points above:
 * 1) Irrelevant, already because of the explicit qualification by the accuser. (This charge required a very specific interpretation of my unabbreviated statement. Please, refer to here for details.)
 * 2) Yes, I perceived the accuser pursuing his (legal!) interests on this IB as predominantly deteriorating math articles (I am not alone with this opinion), and causing me being (legally, but disproportionately) templated and indef'd. The latter I perceive as unfair efforts to silence an exponent of this opinion.
 * 3) Guilty; given the mentioned, undeserved consequences I had and have to bear, I was temporarily upset, but struck and apologized as mentioned. The whole quarrel started with the accuser imputing an opinion to me, which I still consider libelous, and this without any sensible reason. Not to mention that he did not correct this sufficiently. However, I do not want to warm up another petitesse.
 * 4) I do not consider "militant pro-boxer and aggressor to my mistakable summary" as personal attacks in the given situation. Nevertheless, I converted these classifications for politeness to an other editor on her TP.
 * 5) Am I accused of courtesy, a second time? Is "feeling intimitated" really a personal attack, as claimed by RexxS? The suppressed remark by RexxS is: "I took considerable care to check the guidance and the logs, etc. before slapping, so it was not quite as unconsidered as it may have seemed", which makes it perfectly reasonable to me to feel intimidated, especially considering the recent, inappropriate block, still and for ever in my logs.
 * 6) I consider the use of "to canvass" in the sense as defined under WP:CANVAS as sanctionable in WP, however "to canvass" in Merriam&Webster is for "to talk about (an issue) usually from various points of view and for the purpose of arriving at a decision or opinion". To avoid the insinuated use of the condemnable doings I precautiously added "WP-approved" and in parentheses "in a fully legal way". I do neither consider the use of "blockheadedly", nor of "exploit" as slanderous, not even as attacking, maybe as not the most amiable way; but in no case as a cause for running to WP:ANI for WP:NPA. Certainly, I had read the accuser's comments, but cannot perceive a necessity to react on imho wrong interpretations of an English word with appended explanations.
 * 7) I acknowledge the defense of my person, proving that I was under attack in the context there. I hope to be able to handle causes like these myself.
 * 8) (a)I insist to be allowed using words (Merriam&Webster: "to out" for "to become known") without others prefixing them with "WP:", imputing sanctionable behavior to me. (b)The reason for writing the comment, igniting this WP:ANI report here, was the accusers remark of "only 3 opposes (which I hope isn't most of the experienced math editors?)"  I did not post the comment immediately, because I wanted to respect the initiated informal arbitration by WTT (already pinged) for some period, but the start of the RfC against the opinion of "reputable math editors" triggered my angry comment. (c)The accuser fails to mention that already beforehand there was a discussion on WT:MATH (linked above), that expressed clear reservation against even creating this template. (d)It is not true that I would identify the accuser as one of three "manifest IB-promoters", there are other three, easily identifiable ones.
 * 1) Construing a "repeated, offensive behavior" on my side to possible subdue me to still more sanctionability for another WP:-sin, like harassment, when I solely react to actions on the accusers side, misses a point in coherent argumentation, in my estimation.
 * 2) I want to give a proof of the truth for the epitheta "self-appointed" and "wannabe" to "mathematician": (a)- The accuser appointed himself as mathematician here. (b)- Considering the edited topics, the created template, and the sensitive reaction of the accuser, this wish is obvious to me. For illustration purposes: I also always wanted to be a mathematician, but I never appointed myself as one, as a contrast, there are appointed mathematicians as reputable editors in WP.
 * 3) The "drive-by" by Iridescent and the "thanks" for it are in my valuations inappropriate pile-ons: Iridescent lacked any serious reason for defaming me already in his thread title (Sept. 2017, follow the above link, if desired), and inappropriately construed WP:-sins of mine.

I want to spend the least amount of time possible at this place, but I am prepared to answer any pertinent questions. User:Purgy Purgatorio (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry--User:Iridescent "defamed" you? Bad, bad Iridescent. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have preferred not to spend time here, despite the unpleasantness directed at me by Purgy Purgatorio on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem, but I'm not going to let them repeat the nonsense they are peddling here about me by name without even the courtesy of a ping. They reacted very badly to my placing a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page to notify them that discussions of infoboxes are subject to DS. Despite having this explained to them, they deliberately ignore the fact that when you post an alert, you have to check the logs and talk page archives to ensure you're not giving a duplicate alert. I am sick of Purgy Purgatorio calling that "intimidation", and if they are unable to accept a notice that explicitly states "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" (see Template:Ds/alert), without accusing the editor who placed the notice of causing them to "feel intimidated", then I don't think they have sufficient competence to be editing any sensitive topic on Wikipedia. I accept that they don't like infoboxes on their articles (although for reasons that are patently weak), but I don't believe that their many contributions to the debate are conducive to a collegial discussion. I believe they should be restricted to either one or two comments in any infobox debate. (cf. this ArbCom sanction). --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, I put a mathematician user box on my page because I am literally an academic mathematician by profession. But that's not the point. Purgy's continued emphasis on "self-appointed wannabe mathematician" based on Purgy's misguided belief is a personal attack (point 2 of WP:WIAPA) and it has come after I have explicitly asked Purgy to stop. I don't care if Purgy or anyone else doesn't think that I am a mathematician, but Purgy's tone, propensity to put others down, and public spreading of his public paranoia about "warrior", "militant", "fundamentalist", and "activist" editors is beyond disrespectful; it is disruptive. Here are recent instances across 5 different user, article, and project talk pages (point 4 + "insulting or disparaging" from WP:WIAPA):
 * militant pro-boxer infobox-activist
 * RexxS and Pigsonthewings (you too, Bruta?) are full of good faith that it is best for WP to keep any voice against broad application of IBs, e.g. me, silent, if not silence it at all (I did not read at length the link you provided, is Pigs on the warpath again?). + Pigs in revenge + they impress inextinguishable stigmata on me
 * Does the end really justify the means, should there be a Jesuit reduction of the IB-opposers?
 * it may appear useful for pro-IB-warriors to put as many IB-antagonists as possible under supervision + Just for me arguing strictly against this template on that article I was put at risk by some pro-IB warriors.
 * gathering impressions from activists (who else chimes in?)
 * an absolutely unfounded, but widespread hostility under the mask of conserving a valuable encyclopedia against a horde of uncivilized apes, unable to believe in the eternal good announced by those of good will.
 * canvassing (in a fully legal way) fundamentalist infoboxers of WP to this case
 * a less-aggressive lament about Infoboxers seem to be after the ultimate IB: the recursive one! The whole WP is to be turned into one, clearly laid out IB, making it easy for third parties, superficial readers, common-sense afficionados, ... This is to where indiscriminate use of IBs will lead.
 * Purgy might have been treated unfairly in some situations in the past – I don't know and I was not really involved – but that does not excuse the fact that Purgy has repeatedly violated points 2, 4, and 5 of WP:WIAPA after being asked to stop and repeatedly made "insulting or disparaging" remarks about multiple editors afterwards in several venues. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In defense against the second accusational wave
 * - The original accuser now sniffed in chats with other editors to find words that might be proposed for amendment in a list of forbidden words to the taste of the contenders of being the most vulnerable around, but to my measures are a necessary means to express oneself in a clear manner (I won't whine that as a non-native speaker I have no other words as substitutes). I am strictly indisposed to learn(where!) and use hypocritical constructions like intellectually challenged, when meaning capable below average. BTW, I used the words in chatting with a pro-boxer, to exchange our opinions in a manner as grown ups do. She found it nice that I struck some notions, but I could not recognize the slightest intention that she estimated not striking them to be worth appealing to WP:ANI. Yes, and I also know that sarcasm is not accessible to some (I refer to the recursive IB). It is a pity that the second wave contains no (dis-)acknowledgement or other statements about my refutations of almost all points of the first wave of accusations.
 * - For the other accuser, I report the fact that I contributed roughly 11,000 bytes (~ 12 × 1000 on average), whereas he contributed roughly 26,000 bytes (~ 20 × 1300 on average) to the relevant TP (I did not check the TfD with an -estimated- identical ratio). I doubt that this is a hint to restrict me. On occasion, I want to mention that I already asked to be addressed as male, since it is hard on my non-native language comprehension to process singular they. In a similar, but defensive vein, I state that I intentionally did not ping for knowing of a preceding ping, and not for lack of politeness. I apologize, if I took this the wrong way. Furthermore, I am sufficiently grown up, not to insist on pointing to the many occasions where this second accuser used verbiage like "peddling nonsense" referring to me, even when I consider these uses as by far more "repeatedly violating points 2, 4, and 5 of WP:WIAPA" than my comments. I think about such matters as hostile petitesses, not worth to bother others with. Regarding the DS-alert, I repeat that I am perfectly aware of my status of being formally "under monitoring for a period of one year", and, yes!, this intimitates me. BTW, checking whether I am alerted, does not necessarily include checking my guidance and logs, ..., and telling this to others, who wonder about the reason for slapping me, checking my TP (I have no archives) would have sufficed, imho. Thus my intimidation did not decrease.
 * In the interest of the afforded time resources of all, I humbly ask to decide this case on the only unrefuted item, whether a repeated classification of "self-appointed, wannabe mathematician" is just a reasonable opinion about an editor, that grown up editors may hold dear and utter in discussions, or is an unreasonable offense, exploiting vulnerability of sensitive editors, deserving withdrawal of privileges (I am aware of not having rights) from an offending editor. As announced, for the future, I will try not to get involved with the accusers, I know now about them. I also promise for the future not to use the incriminated epitheta "self-appointed" and "wannabe" in the context of "mathematician" and the original accuser. May I also humbly ask for mercy in advance, should I unknowingly have violated some rules around here. Believe me, please, that I strive for a behaviour, maybe not the most pleasant, but strictly de rigeur.  User:Purgy Purgatorio (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between chat sniffing and seeing these comments when they were made because I was actively involved in discussions on 4 of the 5 pages (and therefore had them on a watchlist) and because you were discussing three other editors and myself by name. It's different from how you noticed that I added a user box to my own user page and proceeded to remark about it disparagingly on my user talk page twice and on an article talk page once after being asked to stop twice. This case involves all of your past actions, not the "only unrefuted item" because your refutations are not valid. What you said does not do anything to the fact that you were made aware that you have made at least 7 separate personal attacks by other editors (3, 4, 5, 6, 8 of my first post + the two instances that Iridescent warned you about, this is not even counting the comparisons made of other editors to "warriors", "militants", "fundamentalists", and "activists"). You were explicitly linked to WP:PERSONAL at least 4 times. Even if you do not consider one or two of them to be personal attacks, you were explicitly asked to stop a particular personal attack that you then repeated twice! At minimum, this is WP:CIR! But the words in WP:WIAPA literally classify at least several of these incidents (if not all) as personal attacks. You were told to stop making personal attacks again and again. You made personal attacks again and again. You were even told to stop making a particular personal attack. You promised a "last flare-up". Yet, somehow you never stopped. Several times! This is behavior that is not acceptable. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if we're being trolled by someone using a refrigerator-poetry kit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. I don't know why we waste so much time on these cases. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry continues
So, this is an continuation of a closed case. I'll admit that the name-calling has ended but the user is still pushing for his "POV" with "OR". "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. --Ahmedo Semsurî (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 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" --Ahmedo Semsurî (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 User:Zeitgeist89. I will look into it, thanks. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reporting a guy who is a sheer example of Vandalism
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 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, 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  and  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 here. I'd close this as WP:DENY, but I'm involved.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick 1 week block request on edit war for User:Fcbjuvenil and User:Walter Görlitz and protect the article Marc-André ter Stegen‎‎
It is so lame that prevent anyone to call FC Barcelona a "Spanish club" in the lede. Such removal was once team up by an ip from unknown origins that end up concluded as someone joejabbing Walter Görlitz (see the SPI). (and may be related or not related, someone impersonating me as User:mathew hk, but may be also due to my guru (edit: after checking dictionary it seem i learned the wrong spelling or i just got the wrong meaning of guru. I mean conflict) with other editor such as the paid editors) Since both user are experienced user, they should know where Requests for page protection is and what is WP:RFC. The footy discussion seem hard to follow, but a decade old MoS 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)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123 the related discussion
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123 the related discussion
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123 the related discussion
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123 the related discussion
 * 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. 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 and  and way many experienced editors, so could you please stop your against whole world act? Matthew hk (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Joe Lawrence is a Groovy Boy
User told another user (Thegooduser) to commit suicide on their talk page. --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)

148.75.34.2
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)

Persistent vandalism and block evasion on cartoon articles


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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Mohit Bajgain
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)

User trying to force edits through
is trying to force through their edits on the article GeoFS, despite being told that their edits are in violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. Eik Corell (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For a start - it appears that their username may be a breach of PROMONAME.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.   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. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><i style="color:#099">Hyper</i><u style="color:#009">cube 00:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:206.45.24.97
continues to edit-war on Spyro: Year of the Dragon with every other editor who has stopped by to remove his assertion that a trolling line in the recent NZ shooter's manifesto means there has to be a line in the lead about it. He refuses to actually engage on the talk page per WP:BRD about it, and his contribution history is frankly entirely disruptive edits, from changing people's edits into personal attacks to templating the regulars. He was already blocked earlier for some of this behavior, but frankly I fail to see what benefits he's bringing to the encyclopedia with his threats to other editors, misunderstanding of Wikipedia norms and guidelines, and refusal to engage outside of edit warring. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Page protected the Spyro article for a week. Try using templated messages WP:UTM to get their attention next time.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  14:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat
In continuation from my earlier post, Nafeessiddique posted a message on my Talk page (edited into the Teahouse post) a couple of hours ago. After suggesting some sources (and apparently travel tips), they culminated by threatening to take me to court. I'm not sure how seriously I'm supposed to take this, but I still find it kinda concerning. Alivardi (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder
This page has gone through a couple of protections, but as soon as it gets unprotected the disruption resumes.

(Also see the edit warring that led up to the protection.)

The root cause of this appears to be the media in India and Pakistan fanning the flames, which in turn attracts a steady stream of political POV pushers into what really should be a dry, technical article about an aircraft type.

Not sure what to do about it, but the article needs help. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ECP'ed for a year since this aircraft has clearly become a subject of the Indo-Pak conflict. Abecedare (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Original report
Revisiting a case that was closed as I believe that there was no long term solution to resolve this case. An explanation of this situation is provided on the previous report that I have linked. The user that I have concerns with is, as they have been making persistent disruptive edits on certain NHL articles. Yowashi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific examples? SportingFlyer  T · C  07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Don't expect people to wade through the wall of text from the previous ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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

Some information I add in to the GAA average for Goaltender Statistics comes from the NHL Teams 2018-19 regular season stats. An example is I changed Anthony Stolaz's GAA average to 3.43 because I saw it from the Edmonton Oilers regular season stats. But even though I put it to 3.43 GAA average, Sabbatino informed me that the information Yowashi gets is from http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=goaliesummary&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&playerPlayedFor=team.22&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=wins. I even said that on my edit summary from the Edmonton Oilers 2018-19 season page history. NicholasHui (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasHui (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the issues raised by OP, I am concerned by edits like this (possible sock?) and this (CIR). GiantSnowman 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a large part of the problem is that NicholasHui (evidenced by their own statement above and by the last ANi report) is not using reliable sources. As far as I could tell, NicholasHui was coming up with numbers on their own (failing WP:OR), taking them from live TV broadcasts of the games, or using unreliable sources (a fact which they warned about by Sabbatino here). I'll note that the last ANI was closed with this warning about about WP:V and WP:OR (as well as not socking). Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article . I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that I admit to calculating the playing time for Ottawa Senators goaltender statistics incorrectly was because the game was not totally finalized yet. That was why. Also, stop complaining how my updates are like when they are correct. Note that when you updated the Calgary Flames 2018-19 season player statistics when they lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, you forgot to add in the Games played for Garnet Hathaway and it was on your behalf. So that was partially on you. You look at the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season stats and you find that another IP User editing the Ottawa Senators page does it similar to how my edit strategy is because I was following that user's example on the Ottawa Senators season page since. NicholasHui (talk)
 * I didn't forget. In my defense, for whatever reason, NHL.com had Hathaway's GP listed at 61. Every other player on the Flames roster had been updated so I assumed that Hathaway's was updated as well. My mistakes are different from yours, as mine are not intentional, yours are, because you intentionally provide incorrect information. If you want me to stop complaining about your edits, then listen to what myself and other people have been trying to tell you this entire time. Other than that, I'm gonna keep complaining until you learn how to edit the proper way. Yowashi (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I'm being accused on my talk page for not updating the stats correctly even though I explained the situation in my comment above. Honestly, in my opinion, this individual is not here to build an encyclopedia. Yowashi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm unclear what you were trying to achieve by making accusations on Yowashi's talk page as well as here at this ANI discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe NicholasHui uses this as their reference. However, there is a waiting period until it gets updated. The only other possible source I can think of is this one, but this one doesn't display the player's stats for the entire season. So, my guess is that they calculate the new stats by adding on or subtracting any of the numbers from a player's previous game. For goaltenders, they definitely calculate the stats, considering a goaltender's stats for the entire season are not displayed anywhere on the game recaps. The recaps only show their statistics for that specific game only. Yowashi (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NicholasHui might be using this (or any other teams' website) as his source, which does not get updated immediately. I must also note that teams' websites tend to list different information than the main NHL stats website. Seeing that stats differ, I assume that some teams calculate the stats differently than the NHL. In addition, teams' stats websites tend to list only current players and omit any player who was sent to another league (two-way players), traded, bought out, etc., which just shows that you cannot get a full list and correct stats from the teams' websites. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps NicholasHui does use the team's website as their source. For example, when they changed Anthony Stolarz's GAA to 3.43, the only source that I found that had that information was from the Oilers' official website. I initially thought that 3.43 could have been his GAA with the Flyers and Oilers, but I realized that the stats only reflect time on a player's current team. I still believe that NicholasHui calculates the stats, as there is no source that has all this information updated immediately after a game has concluded. They also update the stats section very quickly after every game, so that would eliminate the usage of sources besides the ones that I mentioned previously. I do believe that they had mentioned getting their information from the recaps sometime in the past. Yowashi (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Recent contributions by NicholasHui. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season, 2018–19 Calgary Flames season , 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season ) My contributions from March 16 that are corrections to NicholasHui's edits. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season, 2018–19 Calgary Flames season , 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season ). I used this website as my source. NicholasHui needs to be stopped from editing these articles, as it is clear that they don't use official sources to obtain their information from, and for refusing to rearrange the position of players based on total points. Yowashi (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. However, I would suggest we remain focused on 2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season for now, and not get too sidetracked with potentially too many open issues. I do notice that your source URL is diffrent from what is cited at 2018–19_Toronto_Maple_Leafs_season. Is there any prior consensus among the WikiProject on 1) what source to use, 2) when it is reliable to update?—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We use this source instead of this one, as the latter does not show information on players that have been traded, sent down to other leagues (generally a team's American Hockey League team), their contract being terminated mid season, etc. Occasionally there may be some discrepancies between the two sources. For example, the first source that I listed from NHL.com has Frederik Andersen's GAA listed at 2.75, while the team's website has it listed at 2.74. We're not sure why there is a discrepancy, but considering that the team's website doesn't show information on players that are currently not with the organization, we have deemed the team's website as an unreliable source. Perhaps the sources provided on the team's article shall be changed to the other source, maybe during the 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs, as we still have to do statistics for teams that participate in the playoffs, or change it when articles for next season are created. NHL.com usually has the information updated 30-40 minutes after a game has concluded, but some information gets re-evaluated. It is recommended to update the stats section on articles hours or even a day later. Yowashi (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a current discussion in regards to this topic over on the Wikiproject Ice Hockey talk page. Yowashi (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to digress from the issue at hand but Andersen's GAA is 2.744970798183. Shouldn't it be rounded down to 2.74? I didn't even know there could ever be inconsistencies between the league website and a team's website. When I'm updating the GAA leader in the infobox for the Lightning I always just plug in the numbers to this website after a game is over, unless the game ends in overtime. <b style="color:#00205B">Tampa</b><b style="color:#0077C0">bay</b><b style="color:#00205B">721</b> (<b style="color:#0077C0">talk</b>) 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that when you told me that Mike Smith's saves in total he had in that game against Winnipeg Jets, I checked my work and I added in the information correctly. So the mistake was on Yowashi's behalf as he forgot to add one more save in total in the game against Arizona Coyotes. I admit the mistake was part of mine because I assumed that Yowashi's edits where done correctly. Also, when I update the statistics for Canadian Teams, I add or subtract the players numbers from the recap game. That might be why I may be at fault for the mistakes if I was not using the official team stats source. But Yowashi has to be part of the blame too if he was not checking his own work as well. NicholasHui (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For Mike Smith's SA, 919 was literally what I obtained from the source. So please tell me, how am I supposed to double check that, when these sources are supposed to give accurate information? Also, SA stands for (shots against), not saves. Yowashi (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC) How you double check the work is you also look at the recap games for the total amount of shots against he had in the teams stats for the recap game only. It can be added in to the stats on wikipedia. Mike Smith's total amount of shots against should have been 920 since he faced 26 shots against. Not 25 shots against.NicholasHui (talk)


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

Edits to standings by NicholasHui earlier today incorrectly indicating an eliminated team. <b style="color:#00205B">Tampa</b><b style="color:#0077C0">bay</b><b style="color:#00205B">721</b> (<b style="color:#0077C0">talk</b>) 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Recent contribution by NicholasHui incorrectly calculating Andrei Vasilevskiy's GAA . It is 2.26 according to NHL.com. How many more examples do we need, to prove that this guy shouldn't be updating these articles? The fact that no action has been made against NicholasHui just blows my mind. Yowashi (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Warning from previous ANI In light of the blanking reported in subsection below, it seems that an earlier warning by admin to NicholasHui after the last ANI got lost in the shuffle in this current ANI discussion.  The previous post advise: If you wish to discuss the issue of when player statistics should be updated and what sources can be used for the purpose, you should do so at WT:HOCKEY and establish consensus that is compliant with wikipedia's content policies. A clear consensus was never established, yet the editor continues editing in the disputed area, even as this new ANI is active.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

''NicholasHui is topic banned from updating sports statistics in articles for a period of 1 year, at which time they may appeal their ban at AN. Lifting of the topic ban will be contingent on NicholasHui's edits and behavior showing that they fully understand WP:V and WP:OR''.
 * Support indeff  as proposer. Addendum: NicholasHui's conduct in this ANI makes me lean to indeff NicholasHui, per Bagumba's reasoning below. Failing an indeff, I think that a topic ban is a must. NicholasHui was warned at the closure of the last ANI involving them and hockey to follow WP:V and WP:OR. They continue to show disregard for reliable sources. Perahps some time away from sports articles will give them time to fully understand what reliable sourcing means. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum added. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: NicholasHui just blanked this section after I posted it . Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a warning on his user talk page asking him not to do that, which he promptly deleted. Oh well... so long as he understands and he doesn't continue the behavior, that's the important part... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, this might be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, too. He's certainly not heeding any advice. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, it's hard to assume good faith at this point, especially given the several instances of comment removals. <b style="color:#00205B">Tampa</b><b style="color:#0077C0">bay</b><b style="color:#00205B">721</b> (<b style="color:#0077C0">talk</b>) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, NicholasHui needs to be punished for their actions, as they have continued to refuse countless messages and warnings in regards to this situation. They continue to display odd behavior when it comes to editing NHL related articles, despite being told the proper procedure of updating statistics.  Yowashi (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bans are not meant to punish, but rather to prevent further disruption. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Current block NicholasHui has been blocked for 60 hours. See details above.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * After the block expires, would we still be able to discuss this proposed topic ban? Yowashi (talk) 04:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignore my comment above. I posted my previous comment before reading the details in regards to NicholasHui's block. Yowashi (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the blocked editor is now editing signed out. Suggest we be on the look out for possible socks as well. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GoodDay - Where? Under what IP?  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At his talkpage, but I'm mistaken. It's just an IP, helping him with his 'unblock' request. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem; this IP user seems legitimate, so I agree that he/she appears to just be helping... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like they needed similar help on their unblock request in February as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thus my concerns about his competency on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment What are the other areas outside of hockey statistics has the the user made positive contributions?—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm checking their contribs reveals that Hockey is really their only area of editing. The only other area they seem to have contributed to has been rev-deled (at Ariel Castro kidnappings). Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The revdel reason shows COPYVIO.—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, well that doesn't inspire confidence. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment First off, I want to thank the admins and the others that participated in this for assisting with this situation. I think this situation would have dragged out even further if it weren't for the community. So, thank you all for that. Back to the proposal of the topic ban, I think that a topic ban would be the best solution for this. It's clear that NicholasHui didn't get the memo from their first block on February 28, and I don't think anything would change when their current block expires. For me, I'm pretty exhausted about having to argue about something like this, and I don't want to have the same thing happen again in the future. I'm open to any thoughts or suggestions from anyone. Yowashi (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My 'pedia experience tells me that NicholasHui, will merely continue his disruptive habits, the moment his 60-hr block is up. We'll likely be back here, seeking a full ban. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's why I think we should make a final decision on the topic ban within these 60 hours, rather than discussing it after the 60 hours are over. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, there's weird stuff going on at NicholasHui's user talkpage, that heightens my WP:COMPETENCE concerns about him. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is concerning. He has all of his IP accounts listed on his user page. The weird one on his talk page doesn't match with any of the ones listed. We should still keep an eye out though. Yowashi (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Something weird's happening. He claims to be the IP that corrected his unblock request & then reverts that very IP's correction of his unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt that the IP was actually him. Perhaps this needs more than just a topic ban, on WP:CIR grounds? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly a competency issue, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this indeff territory tho? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If he keeps being disruptive (after the 60 hrs block), then it's indef territory. After all, blocks/bans are for preventative purposes. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Be prepared come Thursday night. A lot of NHL games scheduled. Five Canadian teams are set to play that night. Be prepared to be discussing here, because he is going to be editing those articles as soon as his block expires. Yowashi (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion It seems that it might be as or more productive to drive consensus on stats source usage at the relevant WikiProject Ice Hockey thread than to rubberneck on users' talk pages or speculate on what one may or may not do after a block.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my previous comments. However, I just don't feel confident that things will change after NicholasHui's current block expires. I have since left some suggestions in regards to updating statistics on the WikiProject page for other users to take a look at. Yowashi (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we seriously need to consider a topic ban for NicholasHui. I just found this edit made by him. The GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate. I calculated both of their GAA's, which are totally different from what NicholasHui got. I didn't publish the changes in case my calculations were off, but I'm pretty sure my calculations are more accurate than his (update: my calculations were correct). The other contributions of his that I discovered that were inaccurate, were on the Calgary Flames, and Montreal Canadiens articles. I'll admit, on the Flames article, I accidentally put in the wrong link for the recap in the game log. NicholasHui corrected it, but his edit summary read, "Wow, a mistake I found. How surprising!!". I'll admit, I wrote a similar message in one of my edit summaries a while back when I had to correct one of his edits. I was tired and frustrated that one night, but that is no excuse for me to leave a message like that. However, I do believe that what he did was a new level of low. Yowashi (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

One more thing of the GAA Average was that when I calculated the GAA Average for Connor Hellebuyck and Laurrent Brossoit's GAA Average, I did not change Laurent Brossoit's GAA Average team leaders in case my calculations are off. I knew my calculations were off. Also, note that the recent player stats edits to Calgary Flames page, I do admit getting at least two errors for Travis Hammonic and Michael Frolik since I did not check my work hard enough. Note that when Yowashi has said that the GAA's for both Connor Hellebuyck and Laurent Brossoit are both inaccurate, I changed the GAA Average according to the Winnipeg Jets official stats website. NicholasHui (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily "indef-blocked" for their resumed problematic editing and WP:IDHT conduct immediately after the previous block expired. I have no objections to the block being lifted once this topic-ban discussion is concluded, or if the user can believably commit to not edit hockey stats without first establishing a consensus-based standard for how to do so. Abecedare (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No ban, keep indef block, otherwise ban WP:CIR is the main concern with their editing in general, and they have not been editing in any other areas besides sports stats either. Given the close of their last block that there was no consensus yet on whether their stats calculations were WP:OR or WP:CALC, and they were told to get consensus at the ongoing WikiProject talk thread, it's unfathomable why they would make the exact same types of edits fresh off their last block. There is either a WP:LISTEN problem or plain inability to comprehend WP:CONSENSUS. Then there is the buildup of minor issues, like inability to format a proper unblock request still (third block now), or problems signing their posts e.g. manually typing (incorrect) timestamps.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, an inability to grasp WP:INDENT & apply it to his posts. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another example: saying they were editing as an IP to change their unblock request ("The IP reformatting my request is me"), then days later deniying it ("Were you thinking that I claimed to be the other IP user? No, I definitely was not that IP User.")—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment User has requested an unblock, so this should remain open in the interim.—Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvurta - again again.
Straight out of his latest block, is adding the exact same contended material that caused his last two blocks. Also still not using edit summaries. IT seems clear at this point that there will be no change in his behaviour.


 * Edit to Lord Voldemort to add contested occupation
 * Changing Snape's name to include "Professor"

Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reblocked the account for making the same edits that led to the previous blocks. They can be unblocked when they agree to follow our policies and guidelines with regard to sourcing, consensus, and communication.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeff Clearly Tvurta is unwilling to learn or change their behavior, making them WP:NOTHERE. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A mention on WP:LAME seems appropriate too. Wow. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As one of the previous blocking administrators, I endorse this indefinite block. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA account's userpage
Could someone please remove the "CU" category from this account's userpage? Obviously they're not a check-user. Thanks. 45.72.222.149 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing links to The Daily Stormer from article talk pages
Yesterday, made a post on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings which purported to suggest that we use The Daily Stormer as a source for (false) claims that the mosque was linked to al-Qaida. I (and others) protested that The Daily Stormer is patently and irrefutably unusable as a source on Wikipedia because it's a literal white supremacist neo-Nazi website, and then removed the link and suggested that the user should review our policies on sourcing before attempting to further contribute.

Today, put The Daily Stormer link back on the page, declaring in the edit summary that he was "de-censoring the talk page" and telling me Do not censor other people's comments. There is no basis in policy to do this and there is every basis in policy not to do this.

Wikipedia is not a free speech platform. Article talk pages are not forums for general discussion. There is absolutely no reason we should host links to virulently-racist, anti-Semitic white supremacist nonsense — much less even *consider* their use as a reliable source in an article about a white supremacist terrorist mass murder. It is not "censorship" to remove such links. So I removed the link again, and I believe there's an opportunity here for the community to make clear that The Daily Stormer is never an acceptable source for anything and that removing it is not only not against policy, but in fact, policy demands that we do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems more appropriate for WP:RSN, but seeing as the lead reads The Daily Stormer is an American neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews., it also this seems like the kind of thing that is so obvious that there doesn't need to be a rule for us to know that it is not a reliable source for anything. Natureium (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong forum to ask for a ruling on article or talk page content. Surely there is broad support for the proposed action, but that should be handled at the RS noticeboard. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that even agreed that the source was not credible, their reinsertion of the link to an article calling for the death of all Muslims was pretty pointy. I hope they don't do so again. There are other venues on wikipedia to discuss the general issues of free-speech vs censorship vs editorial judgment. The talk page of the Christchurch mosque shootings‎ article is not one of them. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

When The Daily Stormer and its related sites have come up at WP:RSN, consensus is that these are not reliable sources. Allowing them in talk pages will not be productive. I think an edit filter is merited here. 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caknuck (talk • contribs)

Talk pages are different from mainspace. It is 100% completely fair to include a link to a source deemed normally unreliable to ask about inclusion; the only case where we'd be more careful if we're talking flat out lies and accusations made towards BLP being propagated by that source. Talk pages do not require the same type of "cleanliness" from bad sources as mainspace does. It doesn't mean we're going to use that source at all, but there may be appropriate discussion around the source. --M asem (t) 05:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely inappropriate to have posted and then restored the link once it was removed. This is not about censorship but about basic decency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Stormer is completely unreliable garbage, but I disagree with the removal of the link on the talk page - there is no justification in WP:TPO for it. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVOCACY applies to article talk pages as well, if someone needs a justification. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - we need to be careful in endorsing blanket removals of the Daily Stormer from talk pages. Yes - it is a completely inappropriate garbage source for anything in main space. However it might contain links to sources, and more importantly sometimes is an indication that a certain source is bad (e.g. if some source is little used in an academic setting, but is discussed in a positive fashion on DS - that is a huge red flag regarding the source). I don't quite see how it is useful in this particular instance - but I have seen the DS elsewehre used to point out that a certain source was mainly popular in neo-Nazi circles. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Icewhiz: Daily Stormer shouldn't be automatically removed from talk pages. But it should never, ever be used as a reliable source nor purported to be one. The real problem here is the Streisand effect: folks made a big fuss about it and deleted it, which attracted even more attention (clearly the opposite of what was intended). The content was manually redacted, but that is somewhat irrelevant because the content still exists and hasn't been rev-deled. The only time DS links should be removed should be when they meet the regular criteria for RevDel, such as being grossly insulting. And of course, anytime a DS link is added, it should be pointed out that it is absolutely not a reliable source. I think editors should strongly avoid ever using or mentioning the DS. If they do however, I say: keep the DS in talk pages. Why? If someone has to invoke the DS to support their point, it should be an immediate red-flag! If someone is using a DS source to support discussion or a claim, they should be examined very closely for serious NPOV problems, and may not be suitable for inclusion at all. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum I do think that the user that posted the original link should be warned about using reliable sources, and chastised to not use the DS. In fact, I think any user that posts a DS link ought be strongly warned of the same. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Absolutely ridiculous. There is quite literally no reason for this project to host links to a neo-nazi website, and deleting such links is not "censorship", and attempting to revert such deletions is inexcusable. It has no place here, and if neo-nazis somehow see that we're deleting links to neo-nazi content, and complain about being persecuted and censored, no one here should give a shit. This is a serious academic project, not some experiment in radical free speech where we debate the merits of hosting vs removing extremist ideology. Jfc, I can't believe we're even discussing this. Is this really the hill you want to die on? ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an experiment in free speech. Otherwise, how can people collaborate to make an encyclopedia?  Radical doctrines like "neutral point of view" don't make sense when there are points of view that contributors dare not let each other read.  When proclamations of political and ideological loyalty take priority over letting Wikipedians research what is actually being said by the people in question - even when those people are repellent - you are not writing articles, you are writing propaganda.  And when you reduce yourself to that, there is no reason why the racists cannot, or even should not, win an argument against you, because you have reduced yourself to a straw man.
 * I should note that I was very much in favor of Wikipedia linking to ISIS videos and their other propaganda when that organization is active. And while my few efforts on this one site were insignificant, in total, that group's love of exposing its true nature has led, this very day, to its final defeat in combat -- because there was no nation that would dare cozy up to it, and people didn't forget what they saw.  Meanwhile, things like the atrocities in Rakhine State and South Sudan go unremarked and unattenuated.  When people push to censor content like this, they are basically trying to make the underlying problem go on unresolved.  There is no dividing line between censorship, falsehood, and evil. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's literally not. Not only is it not an "exercise" in free speech, but it's not even a platform for free speech, as a matter of policy. There is no pretense of "free speech". Speech is regulated here. Not in the way where we suppress controversial/offensive speech. Censorship for that reason is prohibited. Of course we encourage discourse regarding the most controversial sources and views, when there is an academic reason to do so. That does not mean anything offensive is automatically protected from regulation. We can and will suppress even the most innocuous discourse, if it does not relate to the project itself. So, this notion that we're jumping to suppress something simply because it is controversial and offensive is incorrect. If there is an academic reason to link to and examine neo-nazi blog posts, then literally no one will care. But that's not what happened here. Here, a user claimed they were presenting news sources, and provided a neo-nazi blog post as one of those sources. That is not a reasonable, academic reason to link to highly offensive and extremist commentary, and linking to such unhinged, extremist shock-content under the false pretense of providing reliable news sources is something that is never going to be tolerated. This is not something that should ever be controversial. If you think we should refrain from regulating such content even in those situations, for nuanced ideological/free speech/anti-censorship reasons, then that's really too bad, because Wikipedia does not care about your ideology, nor your advocacy for free speech. It's an encyclopedia. You can go anywhere else to exercise your right to free speech, but if you're editing here, you're expected to check your high ideals at the door. ~Swarm~   {talk}  02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Particularly in the last several years, there has been a trend of editors - experienced ones at that - not wanting to discuss the broader state of sources on certain topics, creating this ivory tower approach which is a major source of contention for newer editors that are legitimately interested in helping expand WP but having the door slammed in their face. (granted, there are probably many more times the number of newer editors that simply instead we much include far-right nonsense too, and are not here to help build the work.) This is absolutely not a healthy or helpful situation to be operating the site, as it is sometimes necessary to have a discourse on talk pages about what we know we cannot include but be aware of what's out there. For example, were the Daily Stormer publish a brand new wacky conspiracy theory about a BLP, I would think it wise to alert the editors on that BLP's talk page and other relevant pages to be aware of this potential nonsense. Other cases, I have seen unreliable sites have an article that does include content that has the ring of truth that would be useful to include on an article but not directly from that source. Posting that article may help point editors to find better RSes that include that material. And there still remains the potential of RSOPINION being met, if BLP isn't outright violated./ So there are good reasons on WP that one would want to link to the Daily Stormer, and the attitude that we should never touch it on a talk page (or other sites like it) is not helpful at all. Delete Stormer links that are clear and outright BLP violations, but overall removal is not appropriate. --M asem (t) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, were the Daily Stormer publish a brand new wacky conspiracy theory about a BLP, I would think it wise to alert the editors on that BLP's talk page and other relevant pages to be aware of this potential nonsense – This is the correct analysis. I'm pretty sure an edit filter can be made to selectively apply to, say, everything other than article talk pages. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth would Wikipedia, a crowdsourced encyclopedia which apparently has no shortage of people eager to remove Daily Stormer links, have any use for a Master-Robot to tell people what they aren't allowed to do for political reasons? There is some kind of contagious lunacy going on around that New Zealand incident -- editors turning up whose main concern is that we write about an evil act of white supremacism without saying who did it, where to find his video, or his manifesto, or having a map of the locations, or pointing to any site representing his ideology, or naming the people he killed or telling their stories.  When an encyclopedia is written by people whose main concern is to not pass on information, it's not much of an encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we need an edit filter (yet) in the case of this source, simply pointed out that if we get to that point there's some tweaking available. We o use edit filters when there's a chronic problem of insertion of sources that essentially never should appear in articles. (In most cases an admin can edit through the filter if there's a bona fide justification for insertion of the source.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just making a neutral comment. But if you're mischaracterizing my view as "the attitude that we should never touch [offensive sources like DS] on a talk page", then you didn't properly read my comment. A good portion of it was to acknowledge the fact that there can absolutely be legitimate reasons to dive into such sources without being censored, but there are inappropriate and appropriate contexts for linking to extremely offensive material, and that "free speech" is not factor. You cannot credibly argue that linking to a neo-nazi blog post under the false premise of providing news coverage for a mosque shooting is a reasonable academic instance of examining extremist ideology. That's ridiculous, even if you wouldn't have personally removed it. ~Swarm~   {talk}  03:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more this part of your comment From what I can tell of the user in question NikitaSadkov is "new" and trying to contributed honest. Instead, the first think I'm seeing editors do is immediately strip out the source they brought forward and get in a panic about its inclusion. Yes, it is a bad source, but we should be explaining that to new editors. If the user continued to add in more Stormer links after being told they were never going to be used, then I could see their action, but AGF on the user, it was a fully honest suggestion. That's not a reason to remove the link. --M asem  (t) 03:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone who is arguing that we should host or link to white supremacist content - for any reason, whatsofuckingever - needs to step back and take a very fucking deep look at themselves and their motivations as to how human they actually are. There are exactly zero reasons to include this kind of content that are not also in the service of furthering white supremacy ideologies.  I'm not saying that the people think it's okay to include this are white supremacists, but I am very specifically saying that arguing for its inclusion aids and abets the cause of white supremacy.  Think about why you want this.--Jorm (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, calm down. Read Masem's post just above. And I do believe Masem is human. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely unacceptable to link to neo-Nazi websites anywhere on Wikimedia projects, and it is particularly condemnable to post such link on high-traffic articles and talk pages such as Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings. Nazism actively hurts our community and paradox of tolerance apply. Other than academic, administrative, or genuine ignorance reasons, linking to Nazi websites on talk pages should be aggressively purged and any editor who revert such removal or who attempt to add such link to article namespace should be awarded a summary block. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A babushka with a walking stick enters a public bus, but all seats are occupied. Will you give up your place to a babushka? If your answer is "yes, I will give up", then you are a communist. If your answer is "depending on the babushka", then you are a Nazi. If your answer is "no, I wont give up", then you are an egoist anarchist. If you can afford a personal car and don't ride public buses, then you're a capitalist. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable What the hell? If you believe the only case where we'd be more careful if we're talking flat out lies and accusations made towards BLP being propagated by that source, why would you not immediately object to its inclusion as an attempt to specifically allege the Christchurch mosque was al-Qaida? The hypocrisy and blindness there is dumbfounding. And I cannot believe all the other editors here contorting themselves to create situations in which the use of a site which advocates genocide would be potentially acceptable, even on a talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need to contort oneself to point out that Wikipedia links to their website in more than one place on The Daily Stormer article and has done so since the very first revision of that page. Not to mention that it's used as a source, currently, on a handful of articles: . Nobody needs to create these situations, they already exist, . This is technically a dual response, since it applies as much to 's comment, specifically the incorrect assertion that [i]t is absolutely unacceptable to link to neo-Nazi websites anywhere on Wikimedia projects, as it does yours. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think you're proving, other than that there are other places on Wikipedia (except, perhaps, for the article on DS itself) where links should be removed. Grandpallama (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am currently censoring my opinion of users equivocating about this, adding toxic links to talk pages is very unlikely to be related to improvements of the article. The only profit in this discussion is to the DS, with the perhaps unsolicited testimonial "well-written and occasionally witty" by the user who thinks it better to perpetuate discussion and continue promoting the site here. It is cunning in a ugly way. cygnis insignis 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Wnt
WP:TALK permits certain deletions of "prohibited material". I was a bit concerned about WP:BLP so I glanced over the target article but saw nothing particularly atrocious at the personal level -- statements about a mosque in general are not made about a living person, and besides, it really said little that the sources it and the OP cited didn't say; it just says it in a more offensive way with some gratuitous cheerleading tossed in. Removing the Daily Stormer link greatly strengthens the OP's position, and I didn't want to see it strengthened.

There are at least two ways, both of which I oppose, by which NorthBySouthBaranof could have deleted the content that would have been harder to argue. He could have explicitly pursued the BLP angle, which as I said I was at least worried about, or he could have deleted the entire section as "trolling", which is possibly true but also wrong. (I don't think that "trolling" is really separate from politics, and this was a point I found worth discussing if only to emphasize how weak the 'case' against the mosque - including in the mainstream sources - really is) Instead, he chose to delete the link without leaving a note, as WP:TALK advises, and based only on the idea that the link is awful, as largely distinguished from what it says. That cannot pass.

Those concerned about the Stormer should reconsider how they act on that concern. The site is well-written and occasionally witty, but the inherent dumbness of racism will outweigh this provided that the site is not repeatedly ennobled by persecution and publicized by censorship attempts. At the moment a significant fraction of the content on the site actually gets a favorable reception from me, not to suggest I believe in racism, but because given their circumstances they complain bitterly about censorship around the world. But if people would just play things by the book and accept the author's right to speak, then there would be little call in this world for a Nazi site that moonlights in standing up for civil liberties.

The freak-out going on here reminds me of a joyful summer week in my childhood vacationing on Nag's Head, where the first day I paddled my little bodyboard into a rip tide. Alarmed by my sudden departure from shore, I stayed calm and reasoned that it must be a narrow river that could not flow against the ocean forever, and staked it out for the rest of the week as my conveyor to pull me back out to ride another wave. Toward the end I was warned that rip tides are very dangerous! And indeed they are dangerous - to people who think rip tides are dangerous and exhaust themselves in a futile effort to swim directly toward shore! That is what some here propose to do. Wnt (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is wrong with you?--Jorm (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a "freak out", Wnt. This is many editors telling you they disagree with you and your apparently neutral stance towards racism and anti-Semitism and your inexplicable desire to want to defend the Daily Stormer when other editors are telling you that it is in no way a reliable source. Instead of trying to present a wall-of-text saying how the Daily Stormer really isn't so bad and racism isn't wrong because it is evil but because it is "dumb"--as if there might be grounds to argue FOR racism if you could make a smart argument--try to read what other editors are saying and take their views seriously. Editors are telling you, "NO!" and it's like you're saying, "But, they really aren't THAT bad, guys! Give them a chance!" That might not be what you're trying to say but that is how you are coming across. There is no one forcing you to be the devil's advocate here. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how he's coming across at all to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension.Drilou (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The removal of the link was entirely appropriate, and we should not host links to such sites under any circumstances. If someone really wants to find the site, they can use Google and find it.  We frequently remove all links to sites, even on talk pages, which are far less abhorrent (for example, copyvio sites) and I can find no reason why even a talk pages link to the Daily Stormer should stand.  It was a good removal. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly linking to a neo-nazi blog under the guise of providing news sources is not an easy mistake to make, and if the user in question ever pulls this shit again, I'm blocking them indefinitely. ~Swarm~   {talk}  03:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 's most recent, albeit almost a day old, post on the article talkpage doesn't make it likely that the linking to DS was an innocent act born of ignorance. I have issued a warning for now. Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Give a break! It's not like he burnt a hamster alive or anything. Oh. Never mind. Mister Trilobite (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I guess you know who I'm and what I'm planning to do, so accusing me of being a Nazi is a nonsense. I don't belong to any nation or a race. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So should we mark WP:NPOV historical, or try to explain that Wikipedia is only neutral toward some points of view? To threaten to totally throw an editor off the project because they mention a site on a talk page for discussion with "the wrong" ideology is a new low for Wikipedia.  How is that any different than purging Gulenists in the name of stopping 'terrorism'?  If racism is an ideology that militates against our heartfelt beliefs and core principles, surely censorship should be even more so. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The chances of DS being used as a source in a Wikipedia article are as close to zero as you can get. Anyone who posts a link to a DS article should be told this. However, unless the link contains material that is likely to be illegal in some jurisdictions, it isn't a big deal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As much as I think Jorm should receive a warning – honestly, a block – for stating that anyone who doesn't lose the plot at the sight of a Nazi is inhuman or insane, what you're writing here Wnt is ... questionable. How is that any different than purging Gulenists in the name of stopping 'terrorism' <- These Gülenists? Are you seriously equivocating moderate Muslims to Neo-Nazis. Moreover, are you seriously equivocating mass imprisonment with losing your editing privileges? You don't lose your liberty by being blocked for god's sake. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "I agree with the thing I think you should be blocked for saying". ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Jorm (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree with what you said . I don't think anything is the fuck wrong with Wnt, let alone do I think that anyone who is arguing that we should host or link to white supremacist content - for any reason, whatsofuckingever needs to reassess their own humanity. What I think is questionable in Wnt's statement is the false equivocation – also their understanding of NPOV – but not their sanity. I'll concede that the block comment was a step to far here, and have struck it accordingly. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV is clear about not affording equal weight to every point of view. Fringe and extremist POVs are not, and should not be, considered to be neutral and we have no reason to take them into account, except by acknowledging that they exist and describing them in appropriate places without using their own propaganda channels as sources. That's how NPOV is supposed to work. --bonadea contributions talk 07:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Further on Mr rnddude's point, I find it extremely bizarre, and beyond belief, that you're invoking NPOV. You seem to be suggesting that it is non-neutral to exclude the neo-nazi point of view here. Sure, we acknowledge and balance different views, but that only applies to mainstream views. An essential component of NPOV is WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE: we give points of view the only weight they're due, relative to mainstream sourcing. We give extremist, fringe points of view no weight, and when we do need to discuss them, we discuss them though the lens of mainstream sources. It is truly bizarre that you view this as a problem, and that you apparently think that Wikipedia should balance the views of mainstream sources with extremist, fringe views. By your standards, we would acknowledge Holocaust denial as a fair point of view, and would have to put "allegedly" next to every claim in The Holocaust, in order to maintain neutrality. Your views are, frankly, out of line with everything Wikipedia stands for, and it is appalling that you are seriously arguing this as an established editor. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know full well that Daily Stormer is not a reliable news source, and I was never proposing it to use it in the article. Not even the IP proposed to use it in the article.  Furthermore, what some people here omit is that I spoke quite clearly against the argument the IP was making, telling him at some length that the "link" claimed by the neo-Nazi source and the mainstream sources it cited that one of two men later droned by the U.S. went to a local mosque to convert to Islam before going to join his brother meant absolutely nothing.  But deleting the Daily Stormer link did nothing to weaken the IP's argument; if anything it made it seem stronger.  So why do it?
 * The reason why this impinges NPOV is that when editors are afraid to link sources based on ideology, there is a "chilling effect" on all discussion. If they cannot link to the Daily Stormer, can they link to the strongly anti-immigrant commentary of Trump supporters?  You are pushing for an environment in which a broad group of people - exactly the sort of people Wikipedia should be educating about racism -- are able to say, quite truthfully, that their input will get them banned on the site.  This will nix our credibility, not improve it. Wnt (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly this. There's a trend that has no clear end-point and makes WP turn into thought police (evident by some of the comments against Wnt below). --M asem (t) 14:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the thought police. We're not even saying we won't allow people to discuss the Daily Stormer on Wikipedia.  What we're saying is that there is a difference between discussing it, and generating traffic from the Wikipedia domain to the Daily Stormer domain through a direct link.  People that want the link removed are not saying that the speech about the Daily Stormer is to be censored.  Not one person has said "We shall not discuss the Daily Stormer, and we shall take action against the words themselves".  What people have said is there is a difference between discussions of the Daily Stormer, and creating a link between the two websites via a clickable link.  Whether or not you agree that should or should not be allowed can be argued, but to deliberately mischaracterize the argument as censorship, or as you have put it "thought police", is a terrible way to argue, and does your own position no service.  Argue the merits of the link itself, don't create a false narrative of your opponents position and then argue against your own imagination.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thought police" is not the whole argument, but it is a significant part of it, and apparent from some of the discussion above and below, which stops just short of an NPA-type accusation. I get it that people hate the far-right and would love to have WP have nothing to do with it at all, but if we're trying to discuss the academic nature of how to present articles, we're going to have to know and walk in that minefield of bad sourcing. Just because an editor suggests that we should look over there to a source like the DS in no way should be turned into an attack on the editor for that suggestion, which is almost what is happening in this thread. It's clear Wnt has zero interest in promoting the DS, they only reverted the removal of the DS link because there's no policy-based reason for modifying talk pages like that (After reviewing the link themselves). --M asem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a more fair assessment, though your statement "because there's no policy-based reason for modifying talk pages like that" is not entirely correct. What you probably should have said is "because they in good faith thought that there's no policy-based reason for modifying talk pages like that"  because that's what we're discussing here now.  It may have been Wnt's personal, good faith, feeling that policy did not support removing the link, and that's why I've argued below that he's done nothing wrong per se, in trying to see it returned.  However, the question over whether policy does or doesn't support removing the link is an open question.  It is not binary and automatic that policy demands any specific course of action.  Any particular interpretation of policy, and any particular interpretation of the appropriateness of any action against the background of policy, is open to interpretation and where there is good-faith disagreement over those interpretations, we have a discussion about what the correct course of action is to arrive at a consensus.  That's what this is all about.  To say, unequivocally, that the removal was not supported by policy, is not evident because consensus has not yet established that it was evident.  We'll find that our at the conclusion of this discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, we have no direct policy about removing content from talk pages, but we do have policy via the way of WP:NOT that says we shouldn't delete links that has material we may consider offensive but otherwise does not directly violate BLP or copyright violations. On the other side, we have WP:NOT, in that editors should be staying on target with the links they post on talk pages. Randomly pulling DS links just to talk about a topic is not acceptable. The thing of the original OP (The one now blocked) is that they were bringing up a reasonable but very unlikely scenario related to the mosques which the DS article was asking rhetorical questions about. The OP's original concern is a valid talk page consideration (that is it doesn't quickfail NOT#FORUM), so just removing the DS link because its the DS while leaving the rest of the first OP post in place is effectively censoring based on ideology, which we better not at all get into the business of (eg the "thought police" problem). There's also the larger situation that if we say it is accepted to strip out DS links from talk pages, where does that stop? Breitbart links? Fox News links? WSJ links? I understand that DS produces content that may editors are offended over, but if we start stripping links because the site normally produces content they think is offensive, that leads to a potential slippery slope of eliminating the mention of many sites on talk pages. This is an academic work, we should not be insulating ourselves source-wise, and be able to discuss these problematic sources and how to make sure what nonsense they spew is appropriately dealt with in mainspace, but that still requires acknowledging they exist in talk space, and that means we do need to link them. --M asem (t) 14:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , how do you discuss a source if you can't link to it on a talk page? If anyone can find it just as easy via a Google search, then what harm does linking to it on the talk page do? I mean, if I want to discuss DS article X, and I say, "google DS X to find the article", that's really the exact same thing as linking to it, isn't it? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we all, even you, nearly universally accept there is nothing printed in the Daily Stormer, nor is there likely to ever be in the foreseeable future, anything ever we would want to use as a source for a Wikipedia article. Given that, what is the use in linking it?  We can, of course, discuss things all we want, and we can tell people how to find the source if by some bizarre quirk it becomes relevant to a discussion (my imagination is not that good, but I posit that someone, somewhere, sometime may come up with some convoluted and yet still good faith reason why...) then just tell people what to google.  If other sources, like say the NY Times, discusses something in the Daily Stormer, link the NY Times article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We have editors removing links to the Daily Mail and Gatestone Institute and yet the Daily Stormer is somehow supposed to be OK so as to not fall into their hands and play their game? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is links on talk pages, not mainspace. I would expect any reasonable editor to remove DS links on any mainspace page outside the page about DS itself. But talk pages do not have the same restrictions. --M asem (t) 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if you need to use the Daily Stormer in any way shape or form to get your point across, then it's time to rethink. If it's a valid opinion, I'm 100% positive that there is another site out there to use. We should not be giving them the traffic at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I voted against the stigmatization of Daily Mail. Worse, I should say, I actually posted a link to The Sun on the talk page about the shootings.   I wasn't very optimistic about putting a link like that in the article, and indeed was deterred by the usual protests of resistance to my suggestion of treating the people shot as if they were important, but I think bad sources of all kinds could still be a useful starting point for research, if you were going to create a free encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the link Some sources are so poor we should simple be ignoring them. White supremacy sites are one of them. It should never be used in an article so no need to have it on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Free speech is important, but talk pages aren't for free speech, they're for improving articles. Adding a link to a site that can never be used as a source is inappropriate. Wnt's re-addition of the link is an inappropriate use of a talk page, and when he scolds NorthBySouthBaranof in his edit, he's being a jerk. Not good, but people are (as we say in Trinidad) "wrong and strong" all the time. No big deal. Except, of course, that what Wnt is a big deal. As a non-white person who's the son of a white woman and a non-white man, a group like Stormfront is diametrically opposed to my existence. People who add links like that to Wikipedia, and people who restore links like that, even calling the site well-written and occasionally witty, are people I can't trust. It's not about differences in political opinion, it's about opposition to my very existence. Wnt might be a great Wikipedian, but as a human being, my trust in him is completely eroded. And that makes it harder to edit constructively alongside him. I'm not saying he should be banned, or blocked, or even reprimanded. But henceforth, I am forced to view him as someone who sees the safety of people like me as less important than links to a "witty" hate site. And that's corrosive in a community that depends on a collaborative, collegial environment. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block for Wnt
Given that Wnt decided to explicitly praise Daily Stormer as "The site is well-written and occasionally witty", trivialize racism as mere "dumbness", and completely misconstrue WP:NPOV, there need to be not another second for Wikipedia to be a platform for such vile horseshit. I am proposing an indef block for Wnt, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZIS/NOPLATFORM. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

starship.paint ~  KO   09:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, no. Wnt is just too against censorship. He wasn't arguing to use TDS as a source. Though some of his above comments are perplexing, that doesn't mean that he's "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". It doesn't mean he's a Nazi either. He's created 79 pages on this project. Let's all calm down on this matter, and not rush to block.
 * Honestly, support. Wnt is not just against censorship, but has stated that he feels neo-nazi ideology is a valuable point of view that should be included in the interest of NPOV. Any newbie this brazen would be indeffed without hesitation. At the very least, a TBAN from fringe sources/ideology is definitely warranted here. ~Swarm~   {talk}  09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - where exactly did he say neo-nazi ideology is a valuable point of view that should be included in the interest of NPOV ? I don't see it at all. What he did say was To threaten to totally throw an editor off the project because they mention a site on a talk page for discussion with "the wrong" ideology is a new low for Wikipedia. That's totally different from what you are alleging. starship.paint ~  KO   09:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Across his small handful of comments above, he has established that he is a reader of the neo-nazi blog in question, that he supports much of it, and that attempts to remove it are in violation of NPOV, and he has suggested that anti-nazi sentiments are due to “political reasons” and “contagious lunacy”. Not sure how you missed all of that. ~Swarm~   {talk}  09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has read the blog, he is against censoring them, but he is also against their racism. I'm not sure why he invoked WP:NPOV, he doesn't actually explain. He should be given a chance to explain. He certainly never said we should use TDS as source to satisfy WP:NPOV. He's anti-censorship, that's what he is. starship.paint ~  KO   09:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting Wnt's position, Swarm. Also, we don't block people for reading whatever they want in their private time, or for holding any beliefs they hold, as long as their actions on WP do not violate official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  10:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By "political reasons" I mean that there are a wide range of political factors influencing this discussion here other than neo-Nazis planning to take over New Zealand - for example there are large internet providers working together to assert new powers to censor internet connections and exert influence on other firms and controversial action by government censors to block access to material based on ideology.   That's not even getting into the gun debate.  By "contagious lunacy" I mean that locally on Wikipedia there are people saying that we shouldn't name the killer in an article about a mass murder, removing links based on their ideology, and resisting inclusion of various other information based on non-encyclopedic concerns. Wnt (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Swarm, you say "Not sure how you missed all of that." I'm not sure how you deduced any of it from what Wnt actually wrote. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to deduce in the context of the situation. Replied at length below. ~Swarm~   {talk}  20:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:COMPETENCE Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll support this. Wnt seems to view wikipedia as a personal platform to spout his bizarre WP:RGW nonsense ad nauseam. His odd 'crusade' has gone on for far too long, and User talk:Jimbo Wales will survive without him. -- Begoon 11:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - you allege a history but do not provide any evidence only link to a talk page with one post by Wnt - that is far from a history. starship.paint ~  KO   11:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with my comment. Thanks for your concern, and the 'ping'. -- Begoon 12:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Most disturbing. I really don’t want to read a neo-Nazi site’s witty remarks on a TP of another article on a mass shooting of a class of folks considered lesser under Nazi philosophy. And, freedom of speech is not relevant. I’d be OK with a broad vacation from AP2 and BLP. WP:CIR O3000 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it? Isn't it enough to recognize that they are utterly wrong, without pretending that they can't occasionally write well, or providing any explanation for how they attract a readership?  Would you truly condemn Wikipedia editors even just for looking at a site to see what people with a certain belief are saying?  Please understand that this sort of overbearing "political correctness" is not actually useful to your cause, but has actively contributed to the sort of right-wing political phenomena, such as the rise of Trump, which the New Zealand shooter praises and which I have opposed.  I have been trying here, not to "right great wrongs", but simply to keep Wikipedia on track with its own core principles, just as I have urged with a whole slew of other issues over the years ranging from linking ISIS videos to citing the diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning.  Yet this is the first time I recall being proposed for a ban simply for advocating the right of Wikipedians to evaluate the source material!  Also note that I said in my first statement above that the initial IP's comment was probably trolling, and you would have had a better case simply deleting the whole section as trolling, yet your preferred fix is to turn on me and to continue the argument that individual source links (or even readership) are now intolerable based on ideology.  Who is really "righting great wrongs" here? Wnt (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * QED. Thank you. -- Begoon 12:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fear if I respond, I’ll simply be handing you another shovel. O3000 (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No For many years, I have found Wnt's opinions frequently idiosyncratic, but I'm not sure that's blockable. It's a bridge too far to block him for what he's expressed so far.  Writing an opinion should not, of itself, be blockable.  Instead, we should only block him if he persists in re-adding the link once it has been removed.  If we have consensus to remove the link, and then he persists in re-adding it after we've established that, then we can block him.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "idiosyncratic"? "In cloud cuckoo land" seems a better analysis to me. -- Begoon 13:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have your synonyms, I have mine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mostly per Jayron32.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Jayron32. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia is not a platform to discuss the "good and bad" of explicitly neo-Nazi writings and beliefs. Support indef block for too, for this race-baiting garbage. If you find yourself at any point confusing WP:NPOV with "let's try to listen to what the Nazis have to say", you should not edit this website. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Because sharing any common ideas with Nazis is wrong and plainly evil. A permanent ban will make him/her reconsider his/her despicable views. --NikitaSadkov (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, noting that I may change my mind if I can be shown one actual instance of unequivocal soapboxing for Nazis, or disruption to an article, both of which I am yet to see. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not going to jump on the "Indef block Wnt" bandwagon on the basis of this one incident, but would ask him to bear in mind policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. It's pretty obvious that The Daily Stormer is not a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. Wnt's main redeeming point here is that some people have blown this incident out of proportion.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. Nothing in Wikipedia's policy provides for blocking for having an opinion that people disagree with. This is an excessive emotional response.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose / content dispute per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:ELMAYBE. An external link may be justified if it contains valuable information, even though its accuracy may be worse than a stormtrooper's. For example, the article Hassan Ngeze contains a link to his personal website, which may have contained coded messages in support of genocide according to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. A self-published reference can both pass WP:ABOUTSELF and advocate for genocide. For example, Media of Rwanda contains references to genocidal radio stations and TV channels. w umbolo   ^^^  17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wnt is not advocating for using Daily Stormer as a source and is not in any way supporting its ideals, but is opposing those who wish to forbid even talking about it on talk pages. Much as I dislike giving nazis, racists, bigots any platform, I find the "You're not even allowed to look at it or talk about it to make up your own mind" approach pernicious. Wnt has an oft idiosyncratic take on things (sometimes even bizarre in my view), but those who have mistaken that, in this case, as anything like support for the odious site's political position are badly wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support especially after reading this, "Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it? " Sir Joseph (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has indeed been blown completely out of proportion. Wnt's position is not what some users here have claimed. It's simply firmly against any sort of censorship. I disagree with their position, but we are not banning someone with a non-neutral point of view who is using Wikipedia to push their own specific agenda, it's that we should consider our actions before removing any material, even contentious material. A ban here would be a really frustrating thing to see, since we'd be using consensus to effectively shout down someone with a critical viewpoint. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of the users above seem to be failing to fully understand the situation here. No one's trying to punish Wnt for thinking that we should be able to academically examine and employ offensive sources as needed, without getting offended and emotional and rushing to censor them. That's not even a point of contention, and it never was. Framing this as some blind, irrational, emotional backlash to censor a user who has purely academic interests in a neo-Nazi source is nothing but a false narrative spun by the user. The actual context of the situation is that a user linked to a neo-Nazi blog under the guise of providing news sources. The link in this context had no academic interest, and absolutely no redeeming encyclopedic/academic qualities whatsoever. There was no reason to defend the source, indeed there was no reason not to block the user who posted it&mdash;and the user who posted it is now blocked as a racist troll. However, when it was deleted, Wnt became irrationally hostile, and everything you see above is his subsequent crusade against the deletion of a link to a neo-Nazi blog that should never have been posted in the first place. Crusading against the removal of a neo-Nazi blog for academic reasons is highly dubious when there never were any academic reasons the whole time, and even more dubious when the same user claims that they are a reader of the neo-Nazi blog in question, and they have an affinity for it. The users skimming over this before drawing conclusions should not play into Wnt's "victim of outrage" act and feel the need rush defend him against some purported anti-Nazi overreaction. This behavior is seriously dubious when the context is examined from a logical perspective, and he is not being crucified out of some emotional flareup. If one feels the proposed sanction is not warranted even in this context, then fine, but many users seem to be buying into Wnt's misrepresentations of what's going on. ~Swarm~   {talk}  19:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, echoing Jayron, F+K and Boing! Blocking somebody because of what they read or what they think or what they have affinity for is Nazi-ish. (Also, suggesting that an editor has an affinity for Nazis is probably a serious personal attack.) Here's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold: we should be able to link on talk pages to the sources that we discuss, even if those sources are odious and unreliable. Reasonable people can differ on that reasonable opinion, and we can decide the matter with consensus. Exactly as Jayron said: there's no edit warring or other violation of policy; there's no grounds to block. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ’’’Oppose’’’, simply, with no hypothetical conditions asserted. Note jayron speaks about if wnt does x against some hypothetical future consensus then block. There is no such hypothetical future consensus, and no reason to limit wnt who has been perfectly reasonable. So simply there is no basis to block or ban. —Doncram (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looking at the history of the talk page in question, I think the indef block is unwarranted and founded on exaggeration or mischaracterization.  Deli nk (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as extremely excessive - support closure, clearly never going to be a consensus for this. I would be happier to block the proposer User:Tsumikiria, why propose an excessive restriction against a respected long term contributer. I will also note that one of the involved parties user:NikitaSadkov has since been indefed - Govindaharihari (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're absolutely right: Nikita, the user Wnt has been crusading in support of this entire time, is indeffed as a racist troll. What a coincidence! ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't support a block but, seriously, think twice about giving equal time to neo-Nazis. There is a time when being "balanced" means being suppotive to ethnic cleansing. Do not take being NPOV to absurd lengths. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is suggesting "giving equal time to neo-Nazis", and if you are accusing Wnt of that then you are seriously out of line. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I have mixed feelings about linking to terrible sites on the talk page if/when they're relevant to the discussion, but in the case of the Daily Stormer, I'm inclined to think there's almost never going to be a valid reason to do so. I've found Wnt's responses throughout this thread to be ... less than reassuring ... but I really can't see indeffing someone with a clean block log and 30-someodd-thousand edits before even attempting something less (a topic ban on reinstating removed links would be a specific, albeit unusual, remedy, for example -- not that I'm proposing as much). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, well, how about this as an alternative suggestion? A topic ban for not reinstating website links to neo-Nazi or white supremacy websites onto Wikipedia articles except for on pages about those organizations? How can anyone object to this? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why wow? This doesn't seem like a serious proposal, but correct me if I'm wrong. My big question is why the very first proposal is indeffing someone with no other blocks and no other proposed remedies. This is not a Wikid77 scenario, where there's considerable evidence of a long-term pattern of problematic behavior with regard to race, etc., just bad judgment (and doubling down) in this case. Maybe others have more experience with Wnt than I do and can provide additional diffs to other discussions, but I don't see this as a scenario where we should be indeffing someone as first recourse. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you have not been a reader of his posts to Jimbo Wales'talk page where he/she has defended individuals who've been censured for their sexist, racist or homophobic points of views. He frequently defends the otherwise indefensible. I have no problem with an individual who wants to give the Daily Stormer the benefit of the doubt despite their racism and anti-Semitism. But it should happen OFF of Wikipedia, not in our articles. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Without examples to review and know the details, the broad fact that Wrt is trying to make sure that editors are not punished simply for holding a specific view and otherwise are editing per all other expected decorum is exactly correct; as soon as we condemn editors only for viewpoints they have and not because of their actions, that breaks the openness of the project. I could care less if an editor is a card-carrying member of the KKK, as long as they are not pushing POVs, treat editors with respect, and otherwise edit competently, it should not matter despite that most would consider that membership repungnent. This is my thought-police concern from earlier, which is absolutely unacceptable on WP. --M asem (t) 01:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * True I do not often pay much attention to Jimbo's talk page. Perhaps if I did, I would have enough concrete examples of wildly inappropriate behavior and/or bad judgment that I'd be more sympathetic to an indef proposed as first and only option. I am basing my response on this thread, though, and the evidence presented here, and I don't think it's fair to expect people to voice an opinion about what is nearly the most severe recourse possible based on anything else. My bar for an indef is perhaps high. I feel like other, lesser sanctions can fix most things well enough while also letting the user stick around to demonstrate productive contributions in other areas (as well as, in the case of someone learning from the experience, potentially convince people something has changed down the road). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support of course. Wnt's passing mention of anything marginally positive in any way related to neo-Nazis and his refusal to unequivocally condemn them as nothing less than 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 [unnecessary violent imagery redacted by Floquenbeam], a permanent ban will have to do for now. Drilou (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here ever wanted to establish the "antifa doctrine" and personally locate and beat up Wnt for not painting Nazis as child-eating demons? This is really some graphic and grotesque strawman. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is in fact exactly the sort of thing antifa do and advocate. And I might point out that you openly admit to supporting antifa. Which is exactly what I expected to see on your user page, as it's certainly in line with demanding the ban of a user solely on the grounds of suspicion that he might be a secret "Nazi", because he dared defend another user based on the idea that discussing sources and their contents on talk pages should be allowed. Drilou (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'd expect a new batch of straw man. Why do you feel that it is imperatively necessary to highlight and expose a user's off-wiki, ideological support for an antifascist movement? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Your statement is hilariously inaccurate. Your "ideological support for an antifascist movement" is definitely on-wiki. You added the Antifa userbox to your userpage in October 2018 with the edit summary fash trash go to ash . starship.paint ~   KO   01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not pushed my personal ideology in my mainspace edits nor do I wish to strive to be so. Ergo, respectfully, what I choose to affiliate myself on my userspace is irrelevant. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I support Swarm's comment above. Both Wnt's die-on-the-hill explanations and attempts to frame this as some emotional backlash, pure content dispute, or censorship of dissent opinions are extremely disingenuous. Wnt's defence and even praise for a neo-Nazi website, and express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology, is truly appalling and fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. This is not something that could be redeemed by edit counts. Per WP:NOTHERE: Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention: Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". A sanction such as indef block or TBAN from broad AP2 topics is absolutely warranted, as alternative TBAN proposals won't restrict Wnt an inch and he will very likely continue this behavior based on his postings above. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Tsumikiria, can you please give us a link to Wnt's "express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology"? Genuine request, as I must have missed it myself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have phrased better, but "Would you truly require that Wikipedia editors condemn every aspect of a site, rather than just what is wrong with it?" is not encouraging at the very least. In addition, misconstruing our NPOV policy in defense for a Nazi website to be displayed in equal validity among other sources on a talk page section that serves to suggest a vile lie against the victims of Christchurch shooting, is inexcusable. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV has not one iota on talk page discussions, outside of guiding principles of what was to put to the mainspace page. --M asem (t) 01:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why Wnt shouldn't be citing NPOV to restore it when other editors find it gravely objectionable. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wnt didn't cite NPOV to restore it. Wnt said they were de-censoring the removal, which has nothing to do with NPOV. --M asem (t) 03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - read your own quote. A user may espouse extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". Congratulations, you've undermined your own argument. Anyway, I have seen Wnt being extremely anti-censorship, but I have not seen Nazism from Wnt. starship.paint ~  KO   01:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, I read that line erroneously. Someone trout me. Although being "extremely anti-censorship" doesn't explain why he find the Daily Stormer "well-written and occasionally witty", which suggest that he at least is a casual reader of that site and to a degreee approve its content. This in turn should draw serious questions on his intentions behind this action. He should at least be distanced from these topic fields. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The lesson from history is that the things that are seen to be offensive do not constitute the threats of the time. What has the potential to pose a real threat are ideologies based on lies, distortions that however at the time are an acceptable part of the political discourse. In the 1930s, Nazi ideology was acceptable in society, but today it is not. So, today Neo-Nazi ideology does not pose a threat, precisely because most people find it abominable. What does pose a threat are views like this. There is no way we're going to take measures against this real threat that may end up killing orders of magnitude more people than the Nazis did, because of our BLP policy. We'll not only tolerate this on talk pages, we'll even cover it favorably in our articles. The best shot we have at doing something about this real threat, is to go out of our way to promote Wikipedia as a bastion for free speech while defending our policies that leads to reliable articles. That way we prevent the modern analogues of Goebbels from arguing on the basis of liberal media, including Wikipedia, engaging in censorship. Count Iblis (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wnt has the right attitude not just for Wikipedia but for all online and real-life discussions. It's precisely the attitude taken by his opponents here that causes people like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Rodrigo Duterte etc. to get elected. While we do have the right to remove links, boot people out we don't like etc., making that choice can have negative consequences. Neo-Nazis thrive on the idea that there is a conspiracy against them. While we're not going to change the minds of any hard core Neo-Nazi, the support base of extremist politicians will contain many people who can be persuaded to change their minds. They are mostly invisible to us as most of them only watch a discussion instead of posting themselves. If they see that we have good arguments we win, if we remove posts and boot out the Neo-Nazi for anything less than a violation of our core policies, we lose the argument. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You've hit the nail on the head, . If we go down the path that mere express refusal to unequivocally condemn Nazi ideology (not that I've even seen Wnt do that) is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia and warrants an indefinite ban, then we are truly lost. We are forcing ideologies and not focusing on the core policies. starship.paint ~  KO   02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I opened this thread because I think Wnt needs to be trouted for reverting a needless link to neo-Nazi propaganda trash, and there needs to be a clear community expression that such links are unacceptabble. I don't think this single incident merits an indefinite block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose indefinite block. I think that Wnt was wrong about retaining that specific link and some of their comments are troubling. I am neither defending that link nor everything that Wnt has said. But I do not see a blockable offense. I am mostly familiar with Wnt for their nearly 3400 edits to Jimbotalk. I can't criticize that too much since I have made nearly 500 edits (one a week on average over nearly ten years) to that forum. Wnt is a free speech and anti-censorship absolutist and clearly deeply concerned about the efforts of any government or corporate entity to restrict free expression of any kind. I often find their literalism and purism to be irritating and have rarely engaged them in debate because I am confident that the chance that I could win them over to my more nuanced point of view is negligible. Somebody mentioned, another editor who used to ramble on endlessly at Jimbotalk, without any objection by Jimmy Wales. I gave that editor an indefinite block because they fell into a consistent pattern of advocating neo-Confederate glorification of slavery and racism. As I see things, Wnt has an identical attitude toward neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, Marxist terrorists, Hindu nationalists and every other kook and crank on the planet. Wnt invites us to read what these people actually write in defense of their ideologies, and refute them based on a serious analysis of the substance (or lack thereof) of their arguments. Yes, I find Wnt to be infuriating at times, but people have found many social critics in the past to be infuriating. If I saw solid evidence that Wnt was here to advocate for and promote neo-Nazi ideology, I would support a block. But I don't, at least not yet. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Date format IP
Previously raised here. IP is now back at (also in Salvador, Brazil). who assisted last time. GiantSnowman 09:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oswah has been inactive since 21 March. He might be on a wikibreak. Dimadick (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's only 4 days including a weekend, so he might just have a normal life ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oshwah? Surely you jest. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has over 400K edits doesn't have a normal life. Still, he didn't edit the (extended) weekend of March 16 either - someone needs to talk to him about his responsibility to be available 24x7.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we start a Go Fund Me to send User:Oshwah on a vacation where there is no wifi? He shouldn't be in the Top 100 admin counts so soon. He's s still a young'un for an admin. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Bbb23 has blocked the offending IP (and Oshwah was back in action earlier today). <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ktf87 and personal attacks


After reverting some edits by Ktf87 at Infinity and Infinity (philosophy) (see recent article history and some brief discussion on the article talk pages), I was called a racist by them, first on the second article talk page (diff). I gave them a warning on their talk page, to which they responded by doubling down (diff). I gave them a final warning after that. After I also undid an edit of theirs at Fred Moten, they've now taken to the talk page to continue to call me a racist and such like (diff). I think I've had enough at this point.

On a related note, I'll point out that I found the Fred Moten edit after seeing a whole mess of similar edits from a lot of different IPs and new users on some related pages. I don't especially think this is a big socking effort, but looks more like some sort of class assignment. Some of the additions have been okay, but quite a lot of them seem to cross the WP:POV line. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have read through Ktd87's edits and conclude, politely, that they are not improvements to the encyclopedia. The ones to infinity, in particular, I have read five or six times and still can't understand what it is they are trying to say. CIR, plus accusations of racism, probably should result in a block. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  15:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Indeffing now. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what part of
 * "1 (life) ÷ 0 (blackness) = ∞ − ∞ or ∞ / ∞: On Matter Beyond the Equation of Value": What I do in this text is activate blackness’s disruptive force, that is, its capacity to tear the veil of transparency (even if briefly) and disclose what lies at the limits of justice. With a thought experiment that I call the Equation of Value, designed to help the imagination break away from the enclosures of modern thought, this speculative exercise reaches for The Thing, which is the referent of blackness, or that which in it is exposed as the excess that justifies otherwise untenable racial violence. When taken not as a category but as a referent of another mode of existing in the world, blackness returns The Thing at the limits of modern thought. Or, put differently, when deployed as method, blackness fractures the glassy walls of universality understood as formal determination. The violence inherent in the illusion of that value is both an effect and an actualization of self-determination, or autonomy. My itinerary is simple. It begins with considerations of the role of determinacy—formal determination articulated as a kind of efficient causation—in modern thought, and closes with a proof of the Equation of Value, intended to release that which in blackness has the capacity to disclose another horizon of existence, with its attendant accounts of existence.
 * is unclear to you? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's an attempt to summon The Great Old Ones (or possibly a Cenobite). Ia! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's WP:OR, that's all. Fine for a college paper but inappropriate for Wikipedia. No need for mocking. Lots of people misunderstand what WP is for. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:40AD:D720:F067:F1E7 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, mon frère. Mockery is absolutely needful here. Imperative, in fact. Not optional. Heaven and earth cry out for it. Jesus cries out for it. Joseph and Mary the Virgin cry out for it. The Saints and Apostles cry out for it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * "Allaham has faced a number of lawsuits."


 * 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)

Pattern of abuse by IP
78.54.44.99's comments at this tfd are clear personal attacks in my opinion. There is no reason to be throwing accusations at Markussep, a very well respected and established WP:TPE. 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

-- Zack mann  (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)

User:Marcolacson
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:, ,. 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.  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 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
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 and, 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 and . Managed to screw both of them up. John from Idegon (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (S)he is really losing it. I just left a message on their talk page: "Mcfnord, you really need to disengage and stop the highly emotional ownership behavior. There is no justification for cussing us out and acting belligerent." This is an extreme case of SPS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is so much less offensive than calling them a pedophilia apologist.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do apologise, what an important distinction you raise. I'm sure you go around telling people they only appear like pedophilia apologists all the time and they think you're just wonderful.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:Legal threat regarding his comment that Wikipedia can get sued. At the WP:COI noticeboard, he wrongly accused me of having a WP:COI because I edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics and, per WP:Child protection (and the POV-pushing that usually occurs when self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors are involved), am against self-admitted pedophiles and pro-child sexual abuse editors editing Wikipedia. I did make it clear that Letourneau is not technically a pedophile. She (as Smmary) has, however, edited in a way that screams "COI." And, obviously, she has a COI. At the WP:BLP noticeboard, Mcfnord has also gone on about me supposedly editing inappropriately; Zaereth, who'd briefly weighed in before, stepped in to defend me and to respond to Mcfnord's other arguments. Mcfnord has made a few decent points, but a lot of what Mcfnord has argued doesn't align with how Wikipedia works and Mcfnord is coming across as proxy editor for Letourneau. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note....the userpage edits Bbb23 references above were all made today, all since the attack I referenced above, further justifying my request for a temporary block per the preventive purpose of blocking. And he continues editing it up to a few minutes ago. Re Flyer's comments above, his userpage screed indicates a lack of understanding of the most basic principle of Wikipedia, consensus. Despite the presence of an RfC on the page, no one is agreeing with him on any major points. And the fact that he's online and actively editing and has not responded here is also a bit problematic, no? John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits to that userpage are poorly disguised attacks, rendering it a sort of attack page and advocacy. A bit of griping can be allowed, but this isn't constructive, and definitely not collaborative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So it seems that the entire dispute is over the victim's age? Beyond ridiculous. Clearly both parties are guilty of personal attacks. Telling someone that they "sound like a pedophilia apologist" is not helpful. So to be fair, either no action or block both.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just about the age. See the multiple RfCs on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment -- It seems someone has invoked my name and summoned me forth. I'm always loathe to come here and discuss another editor's behavior, but in this case I see many a real problem. I got involved when I saw Mcfnord trying to rationalize BLP policy in a way that would justify the use of court documents in the article. Of course, this is not allowed under any circumstances, no matter how one tries to wikilawyer a loophole. In looking at the article's history, I was rather shocked to see the amount of edit warring going on. Not the revert/re-revert type war, but the kind where if one tendentious edit fails a different one pops up in its place. (Whack-a-mole war.) Mcfnord has made several comments and edit summaries that, to me at least, suggest some sort of ties to the subject, at one point suggesting he speaks for the subject. The use of legal terms (incorrectly I might add) and the desperation with which even trivial details are pushed, such as a child's exact age, seem to indicate an unusually strong attachment to the subject (emotional, financial, or other, I don't know). From the small amount I've seen, their rationalizations seem to suggest synthesis, both in interpretations of BLP policy, in facts and conclusion about the case, in evaluating sources, and even in interpreting advice given by myself and others. They seem to interpret things through their own rose-colored glasses, seeing the parts they like and missing ones they don't, and really do not appear get the concept of forming a consensus nor how to go about doing that, and in this WP:COMPENTENCE seems to apply. I think at the very least a topic ban from this article is in order, if not more. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)RR
 * 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)
 * ArnoldReinhold (agr), civil discussion in progress doesn't mean that Mcfnord won't continue to be a problem at that article or at other BLP articles. Like Zaereth stated above, Mcfnord seems "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." Similarly, BullRangifer stated to Mcfnord, "You seem to have created your own extra conservative, outside-our-rules, BLP whitewashing policy. You don't get to do that unopposed. We are defending our policy and you are not following it." But I guess this thread can go ahead and be closed since it seems that Mcfnord won't be topic-banned at this point in time. He's also already clearly been reprimanded by others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Death threat
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. --M asem (t) 00:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">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 death threat. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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)
 * , 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (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)

Bad close
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. Jauerbackdude?/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. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  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).
 * , I just realized 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)
 * 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, grudging behavior that I am being accused of, they're welcome to examine my logs and contribs for 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)

RealScienceGeek
Edit warring and removal of sourced material, promoting acupuncture. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


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


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


 * If you want to say that acupuncture does not work, you need to acutually provide data that supports that position. If anyone is promoting their own ideas, I would say it is you. CDC and NIH are our leading scientific governing bodies. They are not in line with the information you are so committed to keeping on this page - again out of date and sources from poorly designed and implement trails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealScienceGeek (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer to your problem, Geek, is to bring sources that support your position. Simples. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * RealScienceGeek, Please sign your posts. See WP:SIGNATURE. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First edits of this user being to the acupuncture article, as well as their username "RealScienceGeek", leads me to believe that this user is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Evlekis: extension of range blocks and removal of TPA requested

 * (Telefonica O2 UK; apparently Evlekis's home range)
 * (The Cloud Networks open WiFi)
 * 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 &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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) There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page,  stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
 * 2) 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
 * 3) 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
 * 4) 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Discussion

 * I looked at that archived talk page and the points of serious disagreement aren't obvious. Could we have more calmness and AGF in the discussion?  This doesn't look like a battle of entrenched viewpoints so I'd like to hope the issues can be worked out.  I could try to mediate a little bit tomorrow if that helps.  I made an edit to the article (added mention of an old science fiction story to the "fiction" section) so maybe that makes me "involved", but I hadn't really heard of the detransition concept before, and my edit was quite far from any of the controversy.  So I think I can be impartial. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of what is the actual problem here, there seems to be a lot of terms I'm not very familiar with. There seems to be disagrement between users but is it a ANI concern? I feel like this should be able to be solved some other way.★Trekker (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the diffs linked, Mooeena's complaints seem valid. I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading.
 * Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity. You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist.
 * Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable. I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere?
 * Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans). How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic?
 * Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin). This is valid. Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad.
 * So,, unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing . 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 '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)


 * , 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.
 * , 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.
 * 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 .) 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 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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Let us try to do our own home work. First of all, page Detransition was build by 480 [Edits], among them 196 edits ($$\approx 40.000 $$ bytes) by [A145GI15I95] and 6 edits ($$\approx -9.000 $$ bytes) by [Mooeena]. Among the last 6, the first two (2019-03-02) are "POV tag", the other four are suppressing citations "en masse", without detailed discussion. Saying source contains a slur, isn't noteworthy, and doesn't contribute to the article when removing [seven references], is not an honest way of proceeding. Each of them contributes, i.e. is clearly about to the topic of the article, while "contains a slur" are only weasel words: which reference among the seven contains which alleged slur ? Moreover, the question is not if you like or not what the references are saying, the question to discuss is sources or not sources, i.e. should we repeat what the references are saying with our own voice, or only quote the reference as what was said by such and such and maybe quote another reference saying otherwise ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)    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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">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? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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
 * Talk:Detransition/Archive_1
 * Talk:Detransition
 * 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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">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. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume resolution here? My recent edits have been talk-page or technical (typos, punctuation, formats, citations; not content). Your change deleted a sentence; that's not minor. Please don't call me disruptive during conflict resolution. Resurrecting settled issues (especially without new discussion) is counter-productive. Please answer my question above regarding motivation, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mooeena has changed language of the article for a third time today, without continuing this conversation here. May I please request administrative intervention until we resolve our differences? Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A145GI15I95, Mooeena - You're both engaging in edit warring on this article by reverting each other in a back-and-forth manner and can be equally held accountable for these actions. Please don't make me have to impose any admin actions or apply any blocks..... I really don't want to have to do that. Both of you need to stop making edits to the article and discuss the dispute per Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A145GI15I95, Mooeena - I had the pleasure of speaking to you both individually on your user talk pages following the warning that I left regarding the edit warring. You both responded in a logical, level-headed, civil, and understanding manner, and I appreciate that greatly... seriously. :-) For two editors who both appear to be experienced, intelligent, knowledgeable, and understanding in regards to policy, guidelines, and process.... I'm sorry see you both in such a deep and complicated dispute with one another... I hope that you two work things out and that the dispute comes to a peaceful close. I think that you both would make a great team given your similar level of intelligence and expertise. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:A145GI15I95, what would you like out of this discussion before it is resolved? You've said There's a history of suppression against the topic from parties who fear it as a political threat. Would it be fair to ask your motivation in coming to a new topic and seeking this many deletions. I don't fear detransition as a political threat. I am not one of the anti-detrans activists that you've discussed. I harbor no ill-will against people who detransition. I came here hoping that you would begin to assume good faith of me and other editors to the Detransition article and allow the WP:Cycle to proceed smoothly, but that has not been the case. What would you view as a favorable outcome? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To Mooeena re your post of 02:22, 19 March (sorry for the slow response, and also it's late for me now so I'm groggy): I looked at those three talkpage discussions and I think it's misstating things to say A145GI15I95 is resisting consensus in them. Or if by "defer to consensus made by other users" you mean refrain from contributing to the discussions but just go along with the outcome, of course A145GI15I95 is as entitled to contribute as anyone else.  So I feel like you're having trouble explaining what dissatisfies you about A145GI15I95's editing, and are instead putting up examples that miss the mark. Regarding the varying usage of "detransition" and "desist" across sources, the obvious thing is put a mention in the article noting it.  Regarding Eli Coleman's talk, maybe someone can email him and ask if a recording is publicly available.  The wording of the lede is of course something to discuss on the talk page. Detransition is apparently a novel topic though the French Wikipedia has had fr:Détransition (transidentité) since May 2016.  That article is more relaxed than ours about including useful-looking links (they are not RS, but their content is not being cited in the article) in the further reading (lectures complémentaires) section.  They look likely to be appreciated by readers trying to research the subject in more depth.  Unlike (say) a history article, this article is more of an information resource than a narrative.  And again, it's an area where readers have to use adult judgment on whatever they read, whether it is in RS or not.  From that perspective I have to see deleting stuff from the article as often more tendentious than adding stuff, even if the stuff being deleted is on the weak side compared to what we'd expect in e.g. political BLP's. Therefore I can't possibly support a topic ban of A145GI15I95, who seems to have done a lot of good work despite making some new-editor errors.  Is there anything that anyone still wants from ANI?  173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that I don't think A145GI15I95 should be topic banned (not that there are many pages for them to be banned from so far since there isn't much content about detransitioning) since they seem to be a good editor who just has gotten over their head since they're new and not 100% on all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet.★Trekker (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mooeena, consensus isn't a vote-count. I've followed WP:Cycle; please don't claim otherwise without evidence. Please don't suggest non-AGF with other editors; we're talking about you and me.
 * It's challenging to assume good faith when you say or else, call me disruptive, resurrect settled issues and revert stable content without talk, call for my ban, search for me outside Wikipedia and gather archived links of whatever you believe you found, and given your unfamiliarity with detransition and closeness to trans issues.
 * Imagine if a religious fundamentalist or hardline conservative appeared on the transgender page and declared it needed a complete rewrite, while being unfamilar with basic trans terms. It's fair to note when an editor's actions concur with activists who suppress a topic needlessly to further their own cause. I'd like your answer to the question I've asked repeatedly, please: Why such strong interest/motivation in reviving arguments and reducing content on a subject to which you're new and appear prejudiced? Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to suppress a topic. I came across an article that I believed was non-neutral, and I am discussing the article because I still believe that language in it is non-neutral. It's much better than it used to be, but there are still parts that need improvement. I could ask you the same thing. Why such strong interest/motivation in the topic? <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a section which you think has non-neutral language right now?★Trekker (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance, A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% desisted from their transgender identity before reaching the age of 29,[15] and a 2013 study found 63% desisted before age 20. in the Occurance section misrepresents the studies in question to conflate "detransition' and "desistance." They make no mention of a child's transgender identity, nor desistance before a certain age. They studied the persistence of gender dysphoria at follow-ups after/around puberty. Gender dysphoria in these studies is not defined as identifying as transgender but as discomfort with their own sex and gender roles and higher scores on the [Gender Identity Interview for Children] respectively. There are some other instances, but that discussion would be better located on the talk page.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">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
User:Mnpie1789 has repeatedly made edits at the Bobby Beausoleil article, with the clear aim of seeking to present the (living) article subject as an artist who is incarcerated, rather than as a notable murderer who has artistic interests. The edits started in December 2016 and have continued ever since, in some cases adding poorly-sourced material and, more recently, blatantly edit warring to impose their wording, particularly in the opening paragraphs. The issue has been raised at Talk:Bobby Beausoleil, and at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281, with a clear consensus among other editors that some form of action needs to be taken against the user concerned. To date, they have given no indication that they will edit according to community consensus or guidelines. As a (largely) single purpose account, is it the view here that some action should be taken against that editor? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a look and reverted the last edits the user made, shortly before 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, LindsayHello 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 and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive281.

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  meet the criteria in WP:BLP and MOS:OPENPARABIO for a balanced approach.  No-one is trying to unduly "vilify Beausoleil", but the fact that he is notable as a murderer rather than as an artist needs to be accepted.  In my view the article lead must focus on the reasons for the subject's notability - that is, as a murderer rather than as an artist (as in the current version) - and the citations derived from the subject's own site should be removed (or, at the very least, minimised) along with the material they support (currently at least 19 of the 49 references derive from that personal website).   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Watch32619
This user is clearly a sock of someone. Some of their first edits are to tag themself as a checkuser and copy Bbb23's talk page to their talk page. Home Lander (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Berean Hunter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Harrassment on and off the site
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)


 * It is unlikely that this will be resolved in the way you wish. You have been making edits to your client's page that violate our policies in at least the following ways:
 * You are paid to make them, but you do not make the paid editing declaration required by WP:PAID.
 * You have added unsourced information to the biography of a living person, in violation of our policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons.
 * You have added information backed by sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source.
 * You have now made a legal threat against another editor. Per our policy on legal threats you are free to take legal recourse, but if you do so then you will be blocked from editing here.  You have to choose between resolving disputes here or through the legal system.
 * Given the above, it seems very likely that your account will be blocked shortly, unless you start to comply with our policies. The editors you accuse of harassment are, in fact, just making sure that your client's article complies with our policies.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


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


 * I see HadleyCG has been blocked, but per WP:DOLT, I'd still like to comment here. I have no worries about User:Aspening and User:Melcous. Nothing about their behavior raises any red flags to me at all, and instead they should be thanked for helping clean up advertising.  But I'm a little curious how User:Turtle neck ninja, a declared paid editor with three clients (two of them declared on their user page, one not), has run across the two UPE/COI pages they've "cleaned up" (Dr. Panda and Tony Miller (cinematographer)).  The only thing they've done besides spam their clients' articles is identify pages that aren't clients with UPE problems.  That seems kind of Orangemoodyish to me. Are we to believe that they happened to stumble across two articles with UPE's who aren't sophisticated enough to hire someone to do it for them? Is this discussion OK here, or should it go to the COI noticeboard?  And finally, I notice no one has notified the three accused editors.  I'll go do that right after I hit "save". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to explain my actions since I was mentioned - I reverted the original edits in question on the page mentioned because of some UPE concerns while on routine UAA patrol. As part of UAA patrol, I check the contributions of any user who trips abuse filter 149, which user DenchArnold did, because almost all users who trip that filter are either in violation of the username policy or are editing with a conflict of interest. Quickly realizing that this was the name of a talent agency, I reported DenchArnold to UAA as a promotional username, and they were blocked. Aspening (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record both Tony Miller and Dr. Panda contacted me saying they found my number on a reddit. I told them I only make disclosed paid edits at which point they began threatening me with doxing, cyber attacks and legal action. I always disclose any conflict of interest and I always make sure my clients abide by the policies and guidelines laid out here. I don't like being harassed either or asked to compromise my ethical standards. After I refused to help these people they went ahead and made the edits they wanted me to make so I reverted them, cleaned the pages and tagged the pages incase any other editors wanted to see if there was anything I missed. Turtle neck ninja (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Two separate people asked you to make undisclosed edits for them, and when you said no, instead of just finding someone else, they both threatened you? With doxing, cyber attacks, and legal action? How fucking stupid do you think we are? I am blocking User:Turtle neck ninja indef for attempted undisclosed editing and harassment, and deleting the two pages they created that haven't already been deleted by others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good block, Floq. The stuff TNN deleted from Dr.Panda article was mostly added back in Jan 2017, almost two years before TNN started editing under this account. So the claim that, After I refused to help these people they went ahead and made the edits they wanted me to make so I reverted them... is provably false. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 - 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 's block as an ArbComBlock. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Identity Evropa
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)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article may be a good candidate for 30/500 protection.
 * Concur. Put this article under permanent ECP would be necessary. Recently leaked chat logs showed this neo-Nazi group has a "Wiki Project" dedicated to whitewash their coverage on this article, with one Nazi suggesting The issue is that if we have 5+ accounts that are brand new vouching for my arguments then its gonna look suspicious and admins may be less inclined to make the changes I have suggested and another replying We all should start editing on Wikipedia and beef up our accounts. Their edit campaign last summer fell apart after one of them kept "[shedding] some light on an inconvenient truth" by adding "XX is a Jew" onto various BLPs.
 * SamSamuel11, Student4N, and SheepDirectory all have just over 50 edits with the latter two registered like last week. They all appeared roughly around the same time on the Identity Evropa article, with SamSamuel11 edit warring and sealioning hard on the talk page and SheepDirectory being unusually excelled at Wikipedia skills and gadgets for a brand new editor. These may be block evasions. We definitely need administrators' eyes on that page and these "new" editors. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 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. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...but not one to be continued on ANI. That is more suitable on other talk pages.


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

Whitewashing?
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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 23:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and There was already a thorough AN investigation of the article here: Administrators%27_noticeboard 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). 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) 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)
 * 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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">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)

Lucifer article and categories (including Sub-Categories)
I consulted the Users talkpage regarding my objections, but the User just didn't get my point. Therefore, I am posting here. (It is the first time for me, since all disputes before could be handled on a talkpage. But the user here is making several questional edits in a short time). It is about Category:Lucifer and the sub-categories in general nad not only about different versions of one article (for that reason I do not use diffs but only links to the articles and categories). Since there are several issues I would make a list:
 * I stated that Lucifer (the fallen angel or Satan in Christianity) has no official offspring. The sub-category Category:Offspring of Lucifer‎ is undue.
 * Further, I objected the category itself, since we already have a Category:Satan. Both would be just Content fork.
 * On talkpage he answers that this category is not intented to be abuot the fallen angel Lucifer but about the Greek deity Phosphorus (morning star). Both are, although both derive from an interpretation of the Planet Venus, distinct figures. Simultaneously, he added Category Lucifer to several other Categories, which are not related to the Greek deity Phosphorus in any way, such as Bogomilism (In Bogomilism, Lucifer is only a demiurge not related to the phosphorus legend in any way, but is only Lucifer in the sense of Satan. Further he also added his new Category to Category:Fallen angels and Category:Satan, thus the Category covers two distinct ideas and merges them together.
 * I further suspect Original research, sinc creating a genealogy between a Planet, considered as a deity, who literally begets children, absent in later myths, which derives from this, could be a conclusion by the User himself/herself. As stated above, I tried to talk to the User, but the User only offered me sources, which do not even support his claims.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Largely irrelevant. The article Lucifer is not about Satan, but the mythological god/figure from Greek and Roman religion. As the article already states:
 * In classical mythology, Lucifer ("light-bringer" in Latin) was the name of the planet Venus, though it was often personified as a male figure bearing a torch. The Greek name for this planet was variously Phosphoros (also meaning "light-bringer") or Heosphoros (meaning "dawn-bringer"). Lucifer was said to be "the fabled son of Aurora and Cephalus, and father of Ceyx". He was often presented in poetry as heralding the dawn.
 * The second century Roman mythographer Pseudo-Hyginus said of the planet:
 * "The fourth star is that of Venus, Luciferus by name. Some say it is Juno's. In many tales it is recorded that it is called Hesperus, too. It seems to be the largest of all stars. Some have said it represents the son of Aurora and Cephalus, who surpassed many in beauty, so that he even vied with Venus, and, as Eratosthenes says, for this reason it is called the star of Venus. It is visible both at dawn and sunset, and so properly has been called both Luciferus and Hesperus."


 * Ovid, in his first century epic Metamorphoses, describes Lucifer as ordering the heavens:
 * "Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stellae took flight, in marshaled order set by Lucifer who left his station last."


 * "In the classical Roman period, Lucifer was not typically regarded as a deity and had few, if any, myths, though the planet was associated with various deities and often poetically personified. Cicero pointed out that "You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the Morning-Star) also and the rest of the Wandering Stars (Stellae Errantes) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Fixed Stars (Stellae Inerrantes) as well."
 * Phosphorus (morning star) is not a distinct deity, but the Greek version of the same mythological figure, the son of Eos/Aurora (mythology).
 * VenusFeuerFalle claims OR, despite both the article on Lucifer and his parents and offspring already having sources on the genealogy of this deity. Dimadick (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you both might get better results with a third opinion., I noticed that several times in your discussion on the Talk page that you said "let an admin decide", but admins don't mediate content disputes. Try the third opinion option, or Dispute Resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also try the article talk page. The diffs from the article's edit history really don't show that much of a disagreement, just some bluelinks/bible verse links added/removed. Seems to me the disagreement is whether Lucifer and Phosphorus (morning star) are separate entities or not? This is a pure content dispute and as such you need to either get more opinions or go to dispute resolution. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I used to call an Admin, since this was recommanded when someone makes several edits, which might be disruptive. It is not only the Lucifer article, but also the Category: Lucifer, there different concepts are merged together. As an ordinary user, I can not revert so many Category edits over and over again. But when I will try the talkpages.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would recommend admin oversight specific instances, especially in cases of WP:3RR, but I see this so far as a pure and honest content dispute between two experienced editors. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced pages
I recently rewrote the article "Mirza Khizr Sultan" due to it being almost entirely unsourced and barely comprehensible. 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"). I asked them on their Talk Page if they could provide references for their additions, and when they did not respond, I reverted. 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. They followed by complaning that "the deep state" was trying to restrict information (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. 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, 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. 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 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:AE as there is a violation of WP:DS per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">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, 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 &#124; 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. <b style="color:#00205B">Woshiyiwei</b><b style="color:#0077C0">zhongguo</b><b style="color:#00205B">ren</b> (<b style="color:#0077C0">🇨🇳</b>) 10:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On the basis that blocks are preventative not punitive, and User:Mmkulu hasn't actively contributed to the project since 2012, I would support an indef block on the basis of WP:NOTHERE / possibly compromised account. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

I'm not really sure what sort of approach or administrative action is appropriate here, given that this has been going on for a pretty long time apparently without any intervention, hence why I am posting here. Should Tim198 be blocked for not being here to contribute? Should their userpage (with a little over 8000 revisions) be deleted under CSD U5? Or is something else appropriate? EclipseDude (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do they have two accounts? Regardless, I say indeff for WP:NOTHERE, as of their over 16,000 contribs, more than 14,000 have been to user space. They haven't meaningfully contributed to main space articles since 2010. They're clearly just using WP as a webhost. Edit: Oh and yes I think the pages qualify for U5. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one wondering about this editor. I've been noticing him for years, and user:Sro23 directly asked what was up more than two years ago . 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

99.17.5.70
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. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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, . 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


Requesting indef block of WP:SPA User:Elintner27 who has only  added copyvios and removed content from the article Stephen Cloobeck    despite reverts, suppressions of copyvio edits, and warning. Despite the edit summaries emphasizing updates and sources, the persistence indicates definite intent to deceive. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked him indef and revision deleted the offending content. If he can convince another admin that he won't repete the problematic behavior I have no objection to someone unblocking. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

this account
After the global rename of my main account, this account became obslete. I have made a different account that is used on public computers as I heard global renames take alot of server resourses and that its recommended to make another account in the case of that account having low edits; could this account be stripped of the confirmed and extended confirmed access and renamed to something random as I know accounts cannot be deleted. If possible, transfer the user rights to User:Gangster8192 (alt). Thanks. SwagGangster (alt) (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Confirming both account are mine. <b style="color:navy;font-weight:900;">Gangster</b><b style="color:red;font-weight:900;">8192</b> 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Requesting that User:SwagGangster (alt) to be indefinetly blocked as well. <b style="color:navy;font-weight:900;">Gangster</b><b style="color:red;font-weight:900;">8192</b> 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)

Organized disruptive editing of Aleksandr Khanzhonkov page in recent days
Page name, lead and person's details including transliteration have been persistently changed by four different users during the last five days to one particular template:. I was told it's not vandalism but POV-pushing and redirected here, even though the edits are obviously organized. Users user:Гуманіст, User:Стефанко1982 and User:Visem are reverting the referenced page where Khanzhonkov is named "Russian film producer, etc." to the User:Yasnodark version where he is proclaimed "Ukrainian" with one reference to the Ukrainian The Day daily paper. All users have "Ukraine" in their description, all of them are doing same reverts. I can't tell whether they are friends or bots, or maybe something happened in Ukraine that motivated them to do so, but I see these edits as disruptive and non-natural. Apart from multiple references in the original version there are obvious facts: that Khanzhonkov never lived or worked in Ukraine (he started his business in Moscow during Imperial times, during the October revolution fled to Crimea which became part of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic only in 1954, then fled to Europe, then returned to work in Moscow. AveTory (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ″Khanzhonkov never lived or worked in Ukraine″ He was born in Ukraine)))--Гуманіст (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No he wasn't. He was born in the Don Host Oblast of the Russian Empire which was divided between Russian and Ukrainian SSR only in 1918, then between Russia and Ukraine in 1991. But even then Khanzhonkov's occupation is not defined by the place of his birth, but by the place where he worked. And even then this must be supported by WP:RS. AveTory (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the wonderful world of Russian - Ukrainian relations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think AveTory makes a good point, and, in addition, it is not uncommon for Ukrainian Wikipedia users to coordinate things off-wiki, but I am not going to dig into this shit. I have seen similar edit-warring in other articles, and dealing with it is very frustrating.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me also remark that Гуманіст, who has 6 edits in this project (which include the above edit) is at best a disruptive meatpuppet, and at worst WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the position with Oleksandr (in Ukrainian or Russian it is more easy to name, but in English it is a problem). Anyway, I may understand the position of User:AveTory, but still there is no neutral point of view in his/her edits. That is why such conflicts of editing begin. --Visem (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My edits are primarily based on reliable sources (Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Cinema by Peter Rollberg, Encyclopedia of Early Cinema by Richard Abel, Early Cinema in Russian and its Cultural Reception by Yuri Tsivian, interviews with Khanzhonkov's granddaughter). Khanzhonkov's own 1937 memoirs are named "First years of Russian cinema". Your reference is a modern-day Ukrainian daily paper. AveTory (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Fully protected. Discuss on Talk:Aleksandr Khanzhonkov. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 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, Ukraine (now in Makiivka Donetsk Oblast), died in Yalta, Ukraine (now Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine). And during the filming of the film in 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:PA. As for your edits, I already said that it's about 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 WP:RS, if I interpret your statement correctly. And, yes, you are calling "vandalism" something which is not vandalism. And of course you are casting aspersions claiming AveTory is from Russia though I do not see any evidence supporting this statement. And your arguments are extremely weak and not policy based. Whether Ukraine existed in the 12th century has whatsoever no relation to what is the 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 dwarf planet with an internet connection. The content of en.wp articles is determined by the balance of reliable sources, not by checking the passports, ancestry and DNA of editors.  If there is no consensus, open an 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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. -- Brown HairedGirl (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)

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range
Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is. Past IP edit examples:, , , , , ,.

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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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)
 * 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 '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)
 * 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A raft of nonsense additions to DAB pages


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


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


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

Seems like the only thing they have been doing for the past year has been adding POV-pushing, mostly inappropriate, categories. Category:Heresy in Christianity to some religious Trump film, 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 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 (thus so far failing the Turing test), I blocked them for 31h. I encourage users to continue discussing here, since, if the above remarks are correct (which I did not have time to check), the user should not be editing Wikipedia at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, the examples I put above (and you could find a lot more) about the category "American conspiracy theorists" had no mentions of conspiracy theories at all, yet he categorized them. However, I said "mostly inappropriate" because some articles do mention conspiracy theories like Michael Flynn. But per WP:DEFINING it's probably still not right to categorize Flynn as a one. Given that the majority are completely unsourced, this is a mass BLP violation that requires a lot of cleanup. Back in 2017 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)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block due to lack of competency and failure to communicate. The last time that they communicated with anyone on wiki was 2006. Given the warnings by Graham87 and that were ignored, this person has used up the good faith of the community.
 * 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. 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)
 * Okay, fine. See the collapse below for sections taken directly from the articles, as of Ck4829's edit:


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


 * 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. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">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)
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Copied from 's talk page by Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)


 * To be honest folks, the collective reaction to my complaint sickens me a bit. Pudeo's perfectly reasonable pointing to Ck4829's past questionable behavior over conspiracy theorists quickly led to the discussion being railroaded in an inappropriate direction. What on earth are we doing picking out one or two of the hundreds and hundreds of questionable categorizations to bicker over whether they're correct or not? It shouldn't matter. If an editor indiscriminately mass-tags 500 articles, and 250 of them end up being correct, does that mean the mass tagging was appropriate? Does it mean we now have to pick through all 500 of them, and does it mean the editor wasn't being disruptive? No of course not; if half the stuff in the Wikipedia is incorrect and inflammatory, then that stuff does FAR more damage than the good that's done by the half that's correct. Not to mention the ridiculous burden that's placed on the community by this sort of indiscriminate mass tagging. Throw in the BLP dimension, and the contention that we should pick through these categorizations one by one is flatly contrary to core policy. I mean as best as I can tell, this editor literally was taking every single white nationalism page and adding it to white nationalism terrorism. That's blatant disruption. It might even be part of an effort to game search engine results. Don't lose the forest through the trees, guys. Geesh. R2 (bleep) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are 250 out of 500 incorrect? I look at Category:White nationalist terrorism and while I haven't gone through each one of the 100+ pages, scanning the list, it all seems in order: KKK, White Patriot Party, assassination of Barack Obama plots, Emmett Till... granted, these may have already been cleaned up by others, and I can't see what it used to look like. Spot checking the contribs, I'm seeing instances of other editors edit warring to keep in his categorizations. None jump out at me as incorrect. Some are not properly diffused (or whatever you call it), but... maybe I'm just not seeing it. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * Well, when a new category is created, it needs to be populated. We have several "terrorism" subcategories within other nationalist category trees, and (as I observed above) the subject of white nationalist terrorism is being actively discussed recently, and so mass-populating the new category with articles related to white nationalist violence is a reasonable approach. Most have been fairly accurate, some are a stretch, a handful have been shown to be editorially inappropriate, but I don't think anyone so far has found one which was definitely wrong (as in, say, dropping Abraham Lincoln Alexander Hamilton into this category). Regarding Posobiec: it is a reasonable view that deliberate alt-right false news constitutes terrorist propaganda; it's not right for Wikipedia to repeat that opinion without decent sources and considering an appropriate balance, but this falls within my definition of stretching. Most of the obvious problems that I've seen while picking through these is that they are duplicates via parent categories, and so while the category is valid it's also redundant. None of this on its own should've been grounds for a block, but there were other factors.
 * A bigger question maybe is if Wikipedia can describe these incidents as terrorism, I mean I would, but if sources don't agree then the category needs to be renamed. Category:White nationalist violence would be a suitable replacement title. It would usefully narrow the category and simply definitions that way: people like Posobiec who promote nationalism through their media channels but don't themselves actually participate in violent incidents would be excluded, and it's more likely then that remaining members of the category would be defined by this aspect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If only all editors got the level of "stretching" that you're giving this editor. I mean no offense but a garden variety alt-right Twitter troll like Posobiec is in no way, shape, or form a terrorist nor a terrorist propagandist, and saying otherwise seems like a pretty clear-cut BLP vio to me. But that's just my opinion, of course. R2 (bleep) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, these sources appear to disagree:   - 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 involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute. R2 (bleep) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure I'm involved. What's your point? Unless you have a specific involved administrative action of mine that you're suggesting should be reviewed by the community, this just looks like trying to stir up shit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all. Why does my being or not being an administrator have anything to do with it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to take this to user talk, but continuing the bad-faith accusations here is disruptive. Just calm down, dude. You're a good admin. I didn't mean to get under your skin. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then maybe don't start tossing around accusations of administrative misconduct in a content dispute, if you don't want to get peoples' backs up. I'm not the one who made a bad-faith accusation in this section. If you want to move on that's fine by me. I'll start a discussion on that article's talk page about the blurb I added that you reverted, but I'll have to do it a bit later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there may be a better name for the category, and that and all other categorization discussions should be had somewhere other than ANI. Bringing it back, I still do not see diffs of activities that merit bringing this editor to ANI and blocking him without so much as a talk page warning or any other attempt to communicate at their talk page. If all we have is what's been brought here so far, I respectfully suggest the editor should be unblocked, this thread closed, and a dialogue should be opened with them on their talk page if there's any problem with how they're categorizing pages. It took me all of five seconds to open communications with the editor, so I'm not sure why others have skipped this step in this case. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * " 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.
 * 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?
 * I have a great deal of respect for you, so I'm curious as to what you mean with this comment which I might call nonsensical if it had been written by someone else. We do not restrict editors (admin or otherwise) from making comments in community discussions, with exceptions of a very small few who are subject to specific restrictions, unless I am very badly mistaken. "Editors involved in disputes hashing it out in public" could easily be a subtitle for this page. I'm just honestly confused by your comment. The statement you're referring to is not intended as an admission of involvement but a question to the accuser of why in the hell it mattered whether or not I was involved. And seeing as I was being accused of desysop-level administrative misconduct (WP:INVOLVED) pretty much out of nowhere ("admins should be aware" my ass) yeah, I was angry about it. I have no prior association with the blocked editor nor as far as I know outside of this thread with the original poster. My entire "involvement", outside of having commented here, is one edit I made to the white nationalism page today (this one), which was reverted by the OP, and which I have not (yet) challenged. I haven't taken any administrative actions here or anywhere in relation to the issue being discussed. Even if I had, going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting tool misuse had occurred. A fair question was asked "No offense to him or anyone else, but I think it's fair to ask if this edit renders Ivanvector involved? It was after his first comment here, but it certainly looks like he's thrown himself into the content dispute." 1. The correct answer is yes and he never alleged tool misuse at all. I believe that he was trying to really find out your status and whether you would be involved if you took admin action. You accused him of "trying to stir up shit". He clarified, "Take it easy there, and please assume good faith. No stirring here. You're weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved. No more, no less." Your reply was "No, you're questioning my competence to comment on this discussion at all." That is an allegation without evidence as he never accused you of administrative misconduct and I do think that he has a valid point about "weighing in on whether some administrative action should be taken, so it seems appropriate for other admins to know that you're involved." But to answer your question, "Even if I had (taken any administrative actions), going back to the comment you referred to, what the hell does it matter?" Then that would most certainly be tool abuse.
 * Comments are allowed by all editors here but they should be given appropriate weight. This should be decided based on the neutral parties. Not looking to make an case of this, but you need to realize that you are indeed involved in the dispute and are not being impartial. Someone came here because they needed to report something and you have involved yourself in the content matter which isn't something that I've seen from the other admins in this thread. I don't think that your !voting is made by an impartial admin in this case.
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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.
 * Oh, now who's wikilawyering, Berean? :-) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just countering the goofiness.
 * 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.
 * 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)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:06, 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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.
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. From the very first message, "please stop adding POV categories to pages." 1.
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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".
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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, 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


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

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 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.
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong and most everything else, too. I posted the correct diff above.
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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.
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they should be indeffed until we get our assurances. ROPE comes after.
 * Did you just say ROPE comes after an indef? :-D Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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".

Shortcuts
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef This editor is clearly gaming wikipedia by adding completely POV catagories, hoping they will go unnoticed - the user is simply attaching them to anyone with far-right views and has been doing so for years. Of the pages I watch that the editor added this category to, only one actually covered a subject that has been involved in terrorism of any kind. (For the record, I utterly despise Neo-Nazis and White supremacists with every fiber of my being, I think they are the scum of the earth, not that it matters, wikipedia is not a place for me to hate on fascists, it's meant to be an encyclopedia - I only mention this because I don't want to be called an apologist for nazism for simply expecting the user to not game wikipedia with POV catagories). The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, it's deliberate and ongoing POV vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Topic ban from categorization This is a BLP issue, but he hadn't been warned, so he didn't know this was a problem until now. Maybe a few months will help. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef it has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that the user engaged in WP:BLP violations, having unilaterally imposed contentious labels in inappropriate circumstances, via categorization. The primary defense seems to be that some of the labels were retroactively justified, but if there are any BLP violations, which there are, then good edits are not a defense, because editorial/opinion-based judgment casting from Wikipedia editors is not a valid reason to violate WP:TERRORIST. ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef. I stand by what I've said here up to this point, but this edit from today, after being blocked for this, shows an incredible willingness to ignore community advice, as well as incompetence (as in lack of understanding of how categories work). If they successfully appeal their block in the future, then they should be topic banned from categorization. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahem - . I don't suppose there are any uninvolved admins watching this? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Alexandre Bissonnette is a white nationalist terrorist, and his attack, Quebec City mosque shooting is an example of white nationalist terrorism. It says so in our article, and also The Atlantic, NYTimes, WaPo, CBC. White terrorism also seems like an appropriate page for the category? I'm curious because I would have added those same pages to that category myself–that would have been wrong? Is it because he's adding categories to redirects? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there are a number of problems. Most importantly is that they're continuing to place the category after this discussion should have been an indication to knock it off. But also: adding the "white nationalist terrorism" category to the "white terrorism" category is backwards, it's putting a parent category inside what should be a subcategory. White terrorism is not a subset of white nationalist terrorism, it should be the other way around. It's like standing on top of an umbrella and expecting to stay dry: it doesn't work. That was one of the complaints raised in this thread, that Ck4829 doesn't understand how categories work and is just tagging things blindly. As for Bissonnette, yes, it's inappropriate to categorize that way, because potentially defamatory information about living persons is required to be referenced where it appears, and besides, there is not universal agreement that Bissonnette should be described as a terrorist. Lots of outlets have repeated it, and it's probably valid, but our article also spells out that he was not charged with a terrorism-related crime, so this is a subjective value-laden label. And besides that, the page that the Bissonnette redirect redirects to is not a member of that category. If the category should be anywhere, it's there. The real issue is that it should be discussed, but Ck4829 is just continuing the same behaviour that they were blocked for just a few days ago. And even though you reached out and did get a response, they obviously haven't actually heard anything, or they don't care. This is indef territory either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To prevent the topic from being arxived--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support indef I was trying to avoid "voting", but if we're still waiting for a clearer message, then yes they should be blocked for the BLP violations and the extremely bad-faith reaction "I meant to disrupt" to it. Similar to the WP:CIR concerns mentioned above, they've just added a sub-category as a category for the main topic (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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If a category Category:Nationalist terrorism is added to the article, the article at this point must say that the subject has to do something related to Nationalist terrorism. If our only evidence is a combination of categories, this is original research, an in relation to BLP articles also BLP violations. Strategy "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles" is absolutely unacceptable, and it is particularly unacceptable if we are talking about BLP articles (the main interest of this user). So far, they had enough chances (were given enough rope) to listen to this to know better.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you wrote. What I'm saying is that Christopher Paul Hasson meets the criteria as you describe it, without it being OR. The article already says he is a white nationalist terrorist. There are 30-something references supporting that. Here is one example, The Washington Post headline "... A self-proclaimed white nationalist planned a mass terrorist attack, the government says". I think the editor's addition of the category was OK, not an example of "I am going to add categories does not matter what is written in the articles", but an example of a correct application of Category:White nationalist terrorism. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Before writing what I have written (and in fact before removing the cat) I checked all occurences of "terr" regexp in the article. None of those was coming in a combination "nationalist terrorist" or similar. Whereas the guy can likely be a nationalist terrorist, and whereas it might be possible to justify this point of view by checking the sources which are in the article (as you have done), this information must be present in the article before the category has been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another reminder to prevent automatic arxivation--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback
There's a lot of discussion here about sanctions, but meanwhile we have hundreds of miscategorizations, including BLP violations. (Isn't that the more pressing issue?) I propose a rollback of all of Ck4829's additions to Category:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 06:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The category has been removed everywhere. Fram (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * {{{yo|Ivanvector|Fram}} I'm pedantic, so for me, putting "symbols" and vague "rhetoric" and people who he decides (not sources) are "cheerleaders" into a "coat rack category" is not the proper course of action. Instead of making categories for "WNT in [country]", he messed up the format by putting the one into several country categories.
 * If I wasn't so busy, I might consider populating the main category exclusively using "events"/"attacks" (confirmed by sources, of course), and groups (that have been confirmed by sources). With lynching, you could probably make the KKK crimes category a subcat. We should also sort the events by country and put them into a "WNT in country" cat that fits. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Category is now truly empty. Fram (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would go with it being more or less a reversion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you decide to add this back, it should only be added to articles where reliable sources explicitly label it as white nationalist terrorism. Natureium (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been planning to suggest renaming the category to "White nationalist violence" (or just starting over with a new category) because "terrorist" is a fraught label, and that is at least a significant issue with the original complaint. I don't think most people would object to most articles in the former set being described as "violence". But it's also true that whether the category is "terrorism" or "violence", it's probably better off as a parent category for things like KKK crimes and lynchings and nationalist-driven racial violence, rather than being populated with specific incidents. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is there are multiple potential categories here: (1) White nationalist violence/(2) White nationalist terrorism are subcategories of (3) Racial violence and (4) Racial terrorism. "Racial terrorism" is the term I've seen used the most to describe things like Lynching in the United States (check the article, it's in there, sourced) and Klu Klux Klan. Some examples: The Smithsonian: Inspired by the film Birth of a Nation, they burned a cross and swore their loyalty to the Klan, ushering in a new era of white nationalist terrorism. ; 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)


 * Precedent for "white terrorism" is here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This particular subdiscussion should probably continue at Category talk:White nationalist terrorism. R2 (bleep) 20:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Which editors are watching an esoteric category talk page, exactly? ~Swarm~   {talk}  07:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most likely everyone who has commented here, at least. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. It's just that I genuinely don't think I've ever even seen a link to a Category talk space, ever. I, personally, would never even have considered checking out the talk page. It's never crossed my mind that people actually use Category talk pages. I did not mean to be rude, R2's idea just genuinely struck me as absurd. In fairness, I have never been involved with Cat meta-maintenance. If my response was rooted in ignorance, I apologize. ~Swarm~   {talk}  21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was my suggestion, really, but way up the thread, and I didn't interpret your comment as rude. It's a good point. My logic is: here's not the right place for content discussions, so might as well use the page-in-question's talk page. Category talks are quite rare, but not unheard of. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm not a category person either, but it seems that if there's a discussion to be had about a specific category's scope or inclusion criteria, that discussion would live most appropriately on the category's talk page. R2 (bleep) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

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:, (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 on IRC. I believe they are working on this issue along with  --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

fix ping --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * } 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. &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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)


 * "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: . All of them so far in the new user list seem blocked already. Matthew hk (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet another, . It just so humorous to call fake product as 1:1 [luxury good model]. And another potential keyword would be, 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"(WeChat), "淘宝"(Taobao) and "广州"(Guangzhou) are also high-hit keywords. My guess is that these are intended for spam links. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other keywords: "海淀" (Haidian District), "奢侈品" (luxury goods), "包"/"包包" (handbag), "代理" (proxy), "哪" (what, where), "品牌" (brand), "价格" (price). <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 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. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 02:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of socks with usernames starting with something like "fdsfdsd" in Chinese
Discovered from here. "发的萨法的" is what you get when inputting "fdsfd" in a pinyin input method. All registered a few hours ago with no other edit than their own page. Likely block evasion or sleeper socks. Related to above? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All blocked by . Lourdes   20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two just have the nonsense phrase repeated on their userpage.--  Auric   talk  20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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:RSBREAKING and WP:EDITORIAL by User:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan
User:AGreatPhoenixSunsFan has a long history of of adding unverified breaking news to basketball related players, teams, and season articles. The user has received multitudes of warnings about WP:OR and WP:NOTCRYSTAL when it comes to player transactions and other team related scenarios (especially in relation to the Phoenix Suns, where the user has a tendency to treat the team season page as a 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 WP:EDITORIAL phrases to all of the above pages as well as just generally non-neutral tone in their edits. A long discussion took place about their contributions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 35. 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 . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

User:Mr.Mani Raj Paul
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
 * 2018 Asia Cup Final: this edit is lifted from
 * Chennai Super Kings in 2019: this edit is copy-pasted from
 * Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2019: this edit is copied from  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 Wicket is not in fact gibberish, as I thought it might be (sports, where crickets play with wickets and everyone wants tickets). But yes, there does appear to an English language problem here, per 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)

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

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, 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> 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. 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.) &#8209; Iridescent 20:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

afd renewed a 3rd time by Randykitty on Jean Mill article without explanation after clear WP:CONSENSUS
Wikipedia guidelines regarding WP:CONSENSUS are being ignored for some reason. "Editors who choose to re-list an article's deletion discussion should make sure that they are doing so when consensus is not clear". Per WP:RELIST: "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, 'in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the Relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." There was a clear consensus: Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO – "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Lubbad85 (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)


 * 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 asking the other parent. I am asking that administrators to follow wikipedia policy and explain why WP:CONSENSUS is ignored and why WP:RELIST is ignored. So far I have experienced, hyperbole, and snarkiness from administrators. It is very discouraging as an editor. The afd was relisted without posting a reason why consensus is ignored in favor of continued debate. Lubbad85 (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. Lubbad85 (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)
 * Randykitty "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the Relist template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient." Perhaps my mistake is in thinking the explanation was to be posted in this manner. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So looking at the time stamps, 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) Please assume WP:AGF. Procedural errors out born of ignorance should not be cause to assume bad intentions on my part. I thought there was a genuine Wikipedia policy question, and I see that keeping quiet is the best course. Lubbad85 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Barkeep49 The explanation seemed to go against policy (not posted with the third afd), and the procedure seemed against policy. I was unaware that there would be such a swarm of administrators to chastise me and threaten sanctions. It also appears that the Jean Mill afd will now go in another direction because of this swarm. I will move on. Lubbad85 (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * Randykitty I understand. You removed the item from your talk page... An administrator locked my posted discussion here after accusing me of things I did not do, and the following comments accused me of all manner of things. It is likely outside the norm to go against Wikipedia policy and so I had concerns. I came to you with the question and found your answer dismissive and against Wikipedia procedure. I think that we have gone round and round enough on this page, and I have been sufficiently warned against questioning the admins or the procedure, so I am moving on. Lubbad85 (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)


 * Zaereth Thank you for the response. It is hard to take when my topic posted here is immediately closed and locked above (The admin who locked it refuses to explain why and warns me to not post on his talk page in my "misguided crusade")...and I am accused of "forum shopping?" (I never did) Some other user put the article on a forum because they considered it worthy of saving. I was accused of arguing with every voter? (I did not) Please see the afd page for my posts. I was accused of Mooning the jury? I posted the article here in response to a fourth week in afd because an admin seemed to go against wikipedia procedure. ... and now as we go into a fourth week in afd, the article is swarmed with deletes and redirects. It is a shame that an editor must be accused of things, and threatened with sanctions, ...and have their topic immediately locked. If the article is poorly written or sources are poor that is a call to improve the article. It is quite discouraging as an editor. this appears to me to be constant relisting until one gets a different result. It is best if I post no more here. I am out of my depth for sure. Lubbad85 (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 circulus in probando or other logical fallacies sometimes that's reason enough. Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Zaereth Indeed: "One of the benefits of being an admin I guess" No argument happened, there was no discussion. It seems that there was immediate outrage (locked topic) and then admins turned to me WP:BOOMERANG. I have received the message. Lubbad85 (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. '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)
 * Abecedare Thank you for your comments. I did take your advice and deleted that AN right away. My inexperience caused me to assume the second relist found consensus. You have been very helpful and professional and i thank you for that. Lubbad85 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Abi25gail05 - Lack of understanding of policy; threats on user page
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. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> 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. &#8209; 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)
 * Nigel Ish, have you actually read the 'threat'? It reads, in full, I joined wikipedia on 3rd November 2016 I live with my mom and dad and my beautiful 1 year old Boston Terrier, Poppy. She is my baby. I make a lot of important and highly useful edits which always get removed so if you are one of them I WILL COME FOR YOU!!!!!!. No sane person could consider that a credible threat. &#8209; 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)

Defamatory edits at Katie Lee (chef)
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)

ISOCS Wiki issue with editor
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, and . HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sorry I mistook the blocks but removing promotional content and disruptive edits like this which just removed categories....clearly this user is 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)
 * 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 :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  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. ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which, by the way, shouldn't be taken as criticism of 's comments or approach, merely that the UncoolScoolman has by now demonstrated their true colours. On a more meta issue, I would certainly agree that, on principle, since UPE is a breach of the terms of use it should certainly be a 3RR exemption. It would be easier to rebutt and demnstrate that we actually have faith in our own terms of use—like every other organsiation in the world! But I imagine that's WP:PERENNIAL, so... ——  SerialNumber  54129  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  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)

Conduct dispute - Thefreeencyclopediauser
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)

Pushing outdated or irrelevant sources at "Equinox"
In this series of edits reinstated for at least the 3rd time an old source from the 1930s and concepts from articles that were not about the equinox. I detailed the problems with these sources and concepts at Talk:Equinox beginning on March 22. The material was reverted both by me and by AstroLynx. Edit histories make it obvious that the editor is the same one who used. 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... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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 trots out the editors misinformation about Greenwich Mean Time]. I consider this prove positive the user is a sock of 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:OWN the article bimetric gravity in order to promote a fringe cosmological theory. Back in January, an AfD had to decide whether the article could be salvaged from their promotionalism. The consensus was to revert to an earlier version, since the topic was notable; I'm the one who carried that reversion out, but I wasn't even the first to propose doing so. A couple days ago, an IP editor announced their intent to unilaterally override the AfD consensus. I replied, trying to strike a firm note without being confrontational, though my impatience doubtless showed through. The anon IP came back with a demand, which I tried in good faith to meet, despite being pretty confident it would be pointless. And indeed, despite my evaluating a whole heap of spurious sources, they claimed in an edit summary that I don't want to discuss on Talk page. I requested community input from WikiProject Physics, but the anon IP kept pushing their edits before a discussion could even begin. They edited, with a misleading edit summary; I reverted; they went on to revert again. That is, in a nutshell, what 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, 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:
 * , Paris
 * , Paris
 * , Bagneux, Hauts-de-Seine
 * , Paris
 * , Paris
 * , Paris
 * , Fresnes, Val-de-Marne
 * , 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 warning 91.169.1.118. I think that holding back disruptive edits from somebody who has announced their intention to bypass consensus (and who ignored the D step of WP:BRD) is a decent reason to revert quickly, but I regret crossing that line. I'd really rather someone else get involved in handling this. The page bimetric gravity is currently semi-protected, but that will expire soon, and I'm quite confident that the person or persons behind this IP swarm will be back at it as soon as they can. XOR&#39;easter (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 WP:SPI here. But yes, those are all effectively the same people, or collection of people, and are all likely to be Petit, or people affiliated with Petit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought about asking for am WP:SPI, but their behavior was wide-ranging enough that I wasn't sure that specific board was suitable. I don't really mind the amateur-hour insults, but they do serve to convince me that the talk-page discussion won't go anywhere useful. On the plus side, it did remind me of the "protons are really black holes" guy, and that's always good for a chuckle. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well if you want something to chuckle at, my favourite piece of vandalism on Wikipedia was this. Headbomb {t · c · p · 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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 . To me, this looks like one person trying to create the illusion of multiplicity. In other words, I think there is intent to deceive. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

closed one discussion, and 91.169.1.118 just opened another, pretty clearly Googling "cosmology" and "crisis" and taking whatever sensationalist headline or flap copy they can find as evidence to support their position. I don't think anything productive will come out of this. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since 91.169.1.118 rolled right past 's closure of the discussion, maybe the page protection should be extended? I'm not hopeful that the Gish gallop of using pop-science dust jackets as evidence will burn itself out, but they did leave the page alone for a few months before, so who knows? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * has extended the protection of the page until 8 April. Paul August &#9742; 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While 's point is spot on generally (and we need to be more careful about applying it), in this particular case I think 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, 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 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. 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  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 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , is "MILF" a postnominal? Before you answer boldly, be aware that my wife is a grandmother. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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 for starting this discussion.  From what I can tell,  is a generally positive and productive editor.  However, his edits here became disruptive and pointy (for example, he added a "Foreign Member of the Royal Society" postnominal to Paul Erdos, where consensus had twice rejected it, and to Albert Einstein, among 100 other bot-like edits) when he couldn't get others to agree with him, and that's a potential problem.  If he would agree to recognize the significance of the limitation "with which the subject has been closely associated" in the MOS going forward then I don't see why any administrative action should be necessary.  Obviously if he continues the kinds of edits he was making yesterday, a block would be appropriate.  --JBL (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBL here. XOR&#39;easter (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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  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?
has moved the page Flow to 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&#124;Talk 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now the editor has created SDis and redirected it to the same page the they redirected Flow to. MarnetteD&#124;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: And the term Flow does redirect there, so no one will get their links lost. Nomopbs (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)

User:Lionfound
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)

Could you shut down RonBot for a while
This bot 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 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. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Category appears to be de-populating. I'll run when there is a correct stable situation <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(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. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(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). 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 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)
 * 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. <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 15:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * - 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.
 * - Changes in contradiction to the sources. Reduces Evangelical Protestants and inflates the number of Orthodox.
 * - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by adding/subtracting 50%, contradicts the source.
 * - Obviously-fabricated changes to numbers by exactly 100,000.

Previous IPs:


 * - Changes to percentages without changing the absolute figures, contradicts the source.
 * - Obviously-falsified changes to numbers.
 * - Unexplained changes in demographics that contradict the source.
 * - changes percentage of Muslims from 50% to 48%, contradicting the source.
 * - inflates the number of Orthodox from 1 to 3 million, contradicts the source.
 * - 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? —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜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 User:Kitutia / Special:Contributions/Kitutia: mobile edits changing relative amounts of Islamic/Christian adherents. That said, the account used the visual editor rather than the mobile Web editor, and was only focused on Tanzania rather than these IPs' geographically dispersed changes. Anyway, it just struck me as similar, so thought I'd mention it. Hope this helps! (Should I put the ANI-discussion-notice template on that user's talk?) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 23:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Just went ahead and added the notification, since it seems like it's required even though since they're blocked they can't really write back I guess...?? Anyway, seems right to let them know even so. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜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... —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜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)


 * 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 :) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

racist admins
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. and the topic was mentioned in all the top news sources listed by the BBC.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verify references (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

bad faith closure of topic
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:BOOMERANG by not just dropping it since 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 or not? I assumed you were but reading your comment more carefully, I'm not sure if you are or are just someone else interfering.  Anyway while Acroterion did make a comment on the inappropriateness of what Verify references said, Acroterion was not the one who closed the topic. That was User:Amaury who I AGF from their closing statement is not an administrator.  Also only two admins were involved in the deletion discussion,  User:Liz and User:Miniapolis. Neither of them said anything about any problem with references being in French, let alone French being an insignificant language. I'm not counting the closer/deleter, Beeblebrox as they were only involved in an administrative capacity and so I assume have no personal opinion on whether the article should be deleted and are simply going by the consensus they read in the discussion at Articles for deletion/AbdelFattah Rahhaoui.  User:Peter303x is the only one who said anything about the references being in French although still nothing about French being an insignificant language. Special:UserRights/Peter303x is not even extended confirmed! They are probably not aware of WP:NONENG as they are a relatively inexperienced editor. (The account has existed since 2013 but they still have less than 500 edits.) Provided they're willing to listen and learn and take care, this is fine, they will learn over time. The "significance" of a language is of course irrelevant to NONENG concerns anyway, as it should be. I'm assuming 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). ended that ANI by asking for an indeff of Verify, considering that they retired. The ANI was closed before an indeff materialized. But it seems that such "retirement" was disingenuous. I am of the opinion that Verify references is 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)

Abusive administrator (April Fools joke)
I want to complain about a very abusive admin called. 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 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)


 * 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)

User:WIKIPEDIA is WP:NOTHERE (April Fools joke)


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., he only edited for one day FIFTEEN years ago. What's your point? John from Idegon (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 smiley.png. Must have hit its target then... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup...smiley.png - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "AF" usually means something else. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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 Child_protection. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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)
 * 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)

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


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)

CopyVio RevDel Request
Is anyone available to do a CopyVio RevDel request? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:13 on April 3, 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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! :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:42 on April 3, 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz
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. <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 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. ——  SerialNumber  54129  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)

User:Vaishbaniyacommunity. updated
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)

Richard Wright (author)
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, . 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

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. However there has been no indication of discussion nor stopping of this behaviour. The problem with the edits have been discussed on Talk:Howrah. 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: 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 as an obvious sock/meatpuppet and blocked  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  and may be related to  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 extremely hostile edit summary from a supposedly-experienced editor, User:John the Idegon. It was an out of the line, bullying attempt to own the Evansville Central High School article, despite my vast and uncontroversial addition to the article (I added notable alumni, all referenced with 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. 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)


 * ec Whenever there is a content dispute, talk-page discussion is a (some would say the) first place to go to hammer it out. There, you can make your case that the source(s) are reliable and others can weigh in to get WP:CONSENSUS. No matter how convinced you are that you are right (and regardless of how right you may actually be), nothing is lost by talking it out and repeating your same edit that is disputed is not the way forward. JfI's summaries are formal in tone and explicitly advise to you follow that 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&#124;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?
Correct me if I am wrong, but is impersonating ? This new user (with a fake checkuser category / topicon on their user page) "closed" several 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 (now indefinitely blocked) who seems to have been impersonating. — 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. who blocked that account. –&#8239;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)

Block evasion by TannerGoethals3 – rangeblock?
was blocked fo continually putting unreferenced stuff into music articles, including violations of WP:NOR. Tanner was interested in some schools in Utah.

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.

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)

Kenmont Primary School
Hi. I templated Kenmont Primary School this morning with a merge school suggesting it should be merged to Kensal Green, its locale. I opened an initial open discussion at Talk:Kensal Green, asking for comments. reverted my template quoting WP:GEOFEAT as his rationale for why the school is notable, I presume because the school building is Grade II Listed. I have suggested to him that this is not a given because the section says "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", restored the template and added a comment on his own talk page suggesting we discuss it where the template suggests - at the talk of the proposed merge destination. This is the destination linked from the template and makes a lot of sense as the locale article is likely to busier than a very small primary school article so will invite a greater variety of opinions. Edward has now reverted my restoration of the template again suggesting that the school building is an Artificial Geographical Feature as per the first bullet of WP:GEOFEAT. I have asked him to revert his reversion as I dont want to get into 3RR argument. Can someone please restore the template, as it is the only pointer on the article to the appropriate discussion page. And if anyone wants to share their opinion I'd be happy to engage with it. 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)

Vandalism only IP now engaging in hate
IP 212.219.232.143 recently made this edit [], 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)

Biased and Improper Conduct by User:Ad Orientem (self reporting)
I have been accused of improper conduct. by and I place my actions before the community for review. The immediate issue stems from warnings I gave to Diligens for violation of 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. 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.

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??? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">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, gnu 57 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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 is involved with respect to the dispute at 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. '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,, it's never fun. Reviewing the situation, it seems the root of the problem is quite clearly that Diligens is a tendentious editor with baseline competence problems. They blatantly personally attacked , 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 '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,, 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. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  06:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lourdes  07:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * wut^^^ ——  SerialNumber  54129  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)
 * 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&copy;, don't dare to say otherwise.   2. when she says that The Singing Nun was a lesbian, this is an absolute truth&copy;, 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&copy;, 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 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)
 * 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)

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 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)
 * , 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, . 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 ' editing history: 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) 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 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)
 * 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 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
 * Full support for the comment from Ed Chem. 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)
 * The Singing Nun article says: Increasingly frustrated at what she perceived to be the Catholic Church's failure to fully implement the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, she released a song in 1967 defending the use of contraception, called "Glory be to God for the Golden Pill". This led to an intervention by the Catholic hierarchy in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and one of her concerts was cancelled. 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 $$2019-2006=13$$ 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).
 * , this is not the page to discuss article content, though I am sure multiple perspectives would be welcomed at the article talk page. As for here, if you can't see why someone who identifies as a 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 . I am not discussing the content of any article, I am discussing policy. We are supposed to write an Encyclopedia. This implies ACTSC: Any Conspiracy Theory has to be Self-Coherent. In April 1967, Soeur Sourire said the Beatles are better known than Christ in the world today. And also the already quoted Glory be to God for the Golden Pill. This backfired into the Traditionalist Catholic equation women=devil=lesbian=witches=burn_them_all and an horrible harassment campaign with cancelled concerts, undue back taxes recovering, forfeiture of their own stage name and so on, campaign that largely contributed to their final decision of taking their lives. That was the Traditionalist Catholic way of doing. Therefore describing someone who substantially says "don't be a part of this lynching mob and don't add your stone to this killing" as a part of 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)
 * , 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.
 * Dear, 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
New user Ald81 made a legal threat against me here. I advised Ald81 that per WP:LEGAL, that simply is not allowed and that he should remove the legal threat; see here. In response, Ald81, rather than remove the legal threat, or clarify that he was not actually making a legal threat, simply added ranting comments to his talk page. See User_talk:Ald81. Per the advice at WP:LEGAL ("Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator") I am reporting this here. I leave administrators to deal with the issue in a way they consider appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Putting aside Italy, what behavioral evidence is their linking the new account with that case?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

User:Lucaspipet
Vandalism only account. He/She only added grossly insulting nicknames to Argentine football club's pages.---Darius (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This requires referral to the WP:BOOMERANG department. Four of Lucaspipet's edits are 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.---Darius (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No he didn't he removed it. You re-added it . ---Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am only restored "Riber" by accident (as yourself have acknowledged).---Darius (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:CIVIL (and sign up your comments)...Darius (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?--Darius (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , 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?---Darius (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: . 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...Darius (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * S/D: BTW, yahoo answers in Spanish is far from being a reliable source...Darius (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.---Darius (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.---Darius (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.--Darius (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun
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" : "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" ).


 * Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : ), here are some examples :, , ,

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : . ---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. Also please see this archived 3RR report for more details about him and comments by other editors; . --Wario-Man (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He is indeed quite fond of fabricating sources to suit his pov-pushing  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, with this new IP that only posted once, in the same page that he was edit-warring in before, immediately after he was banned for edit-warring. Qahramani44 (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Users user:Wikaviani User:Qahramani44, User:Wario-Man User:HistoryofIran
Note: Ted Hamiltun opened this new thread. Since it is the same issue, I am merging it here to centralize consensus building. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)
 * What ideas do you believe those editors are unfairly pushing? Can you provide more diffs? Bold claims require appropriate evidence. My advice to you: instead of leveling personal attacks on editors like Wario-Man, or reporting those who reported you, you should be examining your own conduct and responding to the valid concerns brought up about you at this noticeboard. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * taking advantage of wiki rules Boy I sure hate it when folks follow the rules around here... Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 11:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ted hamiltun just posted this on my talk page. I think the real highlight is this personal attack: It's so simple these guys all are Iranian with racist agenda attack individuals. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely a big WP:BATTLEGROUND problem here. For instance, reporting the users who reported them, repeatedly using personal attacks about race and ethnicity, and POV pushing. At any rate, I think there is also a serious WP:CIR issue. I don't use CIR lightly, but I think that this is such a case. While I understand that English is not everyone's first language, this is the English Wikipedia. CIR presumes that users have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively as well as the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. Ted's talk page messages are cryptic to the point of unreadable, their edits to Persian Gulf and the subsequent talk page conversations show that they are unable to effectively communicate, are unwilling to follow sources, and can't be bothered by consensus. Combined with their generally uncivil handling of this ANI, I think Ted is WP:NOTHERE and needs a sharp tap of the sysop mop. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


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

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


 * Support per above comments and provided evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per my above comment. I do however see that this user only has 130 edits, so I don't necessarily want to bite a newbie here. Note that I have slightly reformatted the proposal to remove excessive bolding. If anyone believes that to be an inappropriate refactor, please revert me and let me know :) Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's only 130 edits, but he has been editing here for about 1 year, so, he's not really a newby IMO. Also, thanks very much for removing excessive bolding of my proposal. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone who has 100+ edits, joined since 2017-12-10, and is active on other WPs is not a newbie or inexperienced user. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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  I Need Support  :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.  Uninvited Company 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 . 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. ——  SerialNumber  54129  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 trouting with the clear message that further disruption will result in a time out. <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*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)

Odd IP edits


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,.

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)
 * Filter, 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: 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)
 * 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 Succession to Muhammad. There was a quote from a book by Wilferd Madelung on the page, but the word "supposedly" had been inserted to the quote (despite it not being there, in that place, in Madelung's book). I removed the word "supposedly," but AhmadLX undid that edit, re-adding the word "supposedly" into the quote despite it not being there in the original text. This clearly violates WP:QUOTE, which states that a quote should be "unedited, exact reproduction of the original source".
 * 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

 * 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  and  (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)

Saoirse fírrin and POV / TROUBLES
A handful of edits and they're all seriously failing WP:NPOV, in the territory of 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)