The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... the next on his list, since they were among a long list of accounts blocked the same day (21 April 2016) as the other accounts that have showed up today, but are the only ones that still have TPA enabled - Tom | Thomas.W talk11:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@CaptainEek: THank you, I will use that next time. I have been editing casually since 2005 but I am really bad navigating some parts of administration of this encyclopedia. Be well. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments11 people in discussion
Note: This request was copied from WP:AE where I mistakenly filed it. The structure was copied for convenience only, but otherwise does not apply to this request.- MrX 🖋 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sandstein: I will copy this request to ANI. For future reference, where is the enforcement process for community authorized sanctions documented? I would have thought here or here, but for some reason, it is not.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I corrected wrong tense and accepted phrasing in the article, this was reverted without explanation. I used my once per day revert with explanation. What is a problem?Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If my correction was formally uacceptable, then I am sorry. When given warning abot similar (more serious) matter in this article, I complied. If someone told me that this minor correction was also unacceptable, despite ambiguosnes about what constitutes a revert? I would have complied also. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
About temporary self revert. Is it gaming the rules? I though they were working as intended. (I did it after reciving a warning, so I self-reverted for a day) Or what then is the point of allowing one revert a day?Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I was taking this issue too casually. But if you look for example here (end of tread) you will see that some are taking to editing even small wording issues on this topic with openly less then encyclopedic motives. Given that, I used formal rights to improve (in my view) the article. Honestly? I throught my explanation in the edit comment would be enough for such a minor (and close to consensus (in my view)) issue, without creating a talk topic (at least for third-party onlookers). I was wrong in this, as it often happened with such issues. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The first two "revert 1"'s are ... in what world is copy-editing (first one) and expanding the sentence (second one) considered to be "reverting"? As to the third "revert 1" diff, yes I think that actually constitutes a "first revert". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Even if Dan wasn't a sock, replacing "regime" with "government" is without doubt an improvement to the article. I don't even know who Smeagol is, but blocking them for doing so is a pretty fucked up thing to do (so is censoring reporting them for that "violating 1RR").
@Sandstein: I distinctly recall you disregarding an AE request once because community sanctions (and I quote) "are not a matter for enforcement through the AE process". If that is the case, then will you kindly inform your colleagues (Fish and karate and RegentsPark) that they are in the wrong here? Because they sure as hell are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Having experienced the tendentious prose of the blocked user, who was also working the same issue with MrX etal. on Tulsi Gabbard, I'm very surprised to see MrX continue to try to have this editor punished for reasonable edits with the full knowledge the blocked account was an LTA. Looks like a boomerang is necessary. SashiRolls t · c22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
While I agree "Syrian government" is more neutral than "Assad regime", this is what talk pages are for. I note one of these breaches was followed by a "temporary self-revert" which was re-reverted a day later, which smacks of gaming the 1RR rule. The other two seem to be clear 1RR breaches and as a warning was previously issued, a short block is probably necessary. A look at the editing history of that article shows some tag team reverting by various editors which may warrant looking into. Fish+Karate16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps gaming was too strong a term, but making the second revert, undoing yourself, and then after a bunch of intervening edits by other editors, remaking the same edit just outside the 24 hour window for 1RR is not really conducive to collaborative editing. The one-revert-a-day rule, as with the three-reverts-a-day rule on standard articles, is not an entitlement. You don't have to make sure you get your one revert in a day. The revert rules are an arbitrary mechanism to stop edit warring, with the intent to nudge people into editing collaboratively; ideally you should be discussing, challenging, asking questions, making your case, reviewing sources, compromising, and so on - all the things that mean being a good, collaborative editor - on the article talk page. You should not be clock-watching to see when you can make another revert. I hope the short block you're likely to get gives you a chance to go read a few talk pages and learn a that there is a better, less stressful, more enjoyable way to do things. Fish+Karate11:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this Smeagol 17 has been working this particular revert (Assad ==> Syrian) for several days so any "I've been above board about my motives" arguments is disingenuous at best. A short block is in order. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Fitzcarmalan is correct that this is not an AE matter, because the sanction that is to be enforced is a community sanction. This request should have been made (and can still be moved to) WP:ANI. Sandstein 19:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This request was copied from WP:AE where I mistakenly filed it. The structure was copied for convenience only, but otherwise does not apply to this request.- MrX 🖋 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
MrX, Do you know how confused I was? I thought there was a whole new procedure for AN/I that I didn't know about! We should probably display that note more prominently if you ask me. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL‐Talk‐☖23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't see your name in a header in this request, and since you've decided to soldier on rather than just dropping the case, I wondered if you could answer three questions:
Do you have some special reason to keep Mr 17 in the lights? (Why repost to AN/I?)
@MrX. I think this could be reported at WP:3RRNB at the moment of the violation. Copying this from WP:AE was not a good idea (you could just provide a link to the old version of WP:AE). What you need to show is a repeated 1RR violation, after discounting any edits by the banned user. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I'm not aware of any requirement to show a repeated 1RR violation after discounting any edits by a banned user. Yes, I probably should have simply taken it to ANEW, but at this point I'm simply losing interest. The bureaucracy exhausts me. I think sneaky edit warring in a contentious topic area is a problem, but if other's don't, we can just move on. I've taken Douma chemical attack off my watchlist and I'm going to enjoying some gardening today. - MrX 🖋 11:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The succor of socks has been used to profit at various times in wiki-history. Here's you, MrX, back in 2016:
I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion Interestingly, I just was looking back into a case where you & Sagecandor/Cirt were lobbying for someone being ineffed off one of your topics. (source) I was doing so because it's the source of the only active sanction against me, which is that I musn't ever say anything at AE unless named (I assume) or unless prosecuting someone. That's kind of a weird topic ban, but hey, them's the breaks. 750+ days, so far. ^^
I do believe that it's not too risky to say that the topic area is made contentious by those who have historically fought battles in those areas, some while bending rules more forcefully than others, some with the tacit approval of certain players. folks like Cirt... this Dan guy (two rather long sockplays, I'd think you'd agree). EEML. I think I even saw your name on an ArbCom case once in the area, no? This section was opened to give you the opportunity to answer some questions, which would help the common reader understand how the issue raised here is a coincidence and not a pattern, or even a perceivable pattern. I am sure that you would want to distance yourself from the sources and methods of the "shunned"? The thing I least expect right now is a short essay response, though. Is there a point to asking you questions, X? (or in a less personalized manner: is there a point to asking MrX questions in the big scheme of things?) Maybe we could ask MsX (no relation)? SashiRolls t · c14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking back into this matter a few days later I see that it (or events surrounding it) seems to have had the effect of causing the retirement of one of the people who made a statement (Fitzcarmalan). This does not seem to me a positive outcome looking at some of the articles they once authored, but have since nominated for speedy deletion (including an FA). Is this just tigers churning in the night, or is it another sign of what the BHG has identified as a wiki-wildebeest syndrome? SashiRolls t · c14:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Onetwothreeip's constant personal insults and lack of civility and bad faith accusations have to stop. Please.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have had as much of Onetwothreeip's constant insults, lack of civility, accusations of being a liar, discussion away from content, purposely not responding to direct questions regarding content, bad faith accusations and so forth and I just want it to stop please. I this is a fair request. Onetwothreeip is carrying on old grudges and won't drop the stick. However it is the constant focus on me personally with their demeaning and derogatory comments that I ask to stop. I realise I've bitten back in the past, months ago, but this editor just won't stop their incivility. I don't have any other choice but to ask for help here to try and stop their lack of civility toward me. Thank you. The most recent has been a Talk:The Australian under the heading Infobox political alignment. [2][3]Merphee (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hello all, I am opening a report regarding incidents taking place from October of 2018 to present day involving Es204L. This user has repeatedly added unsourced and/or false information to articles despite having been warned by other users on numerous occasions. The user also has a tendency to create new pages without references and leave them for others to complete (the topics are notable). The user has not commented on any of the numerous notices left on his talkpage, so I am opening this as a last resort. All instances in which this has occurred will be listed below with the newest appearing first. There may be more instances, but these are all the ones I personally am aware of.
February 23
In these edits, the user created the page Typhoon Wutip (2019) (is currently a redirect) by simply copying text over from the seasonal article. The new page had minimal information and no references on it (a section for references wasn't even on the page).
In this edit, the user changed ITC Gelena's dissipation date to February 14 despite the fact that the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center continued to issue advisories on it until 18:00 UTC on that day (eighteen hours after his edit)
February 8
In this edit, the user changed the season total for damages and HU Michael's damage without providing a source to back up the new total.
January 3
In this edit, the user added "Alvin" as the strongest storm for the season in speculation that an area of convection would develop, despite the fact that nothing had formed (no advisories from the National Hurricane Center). No references were there to back up the claim and nothing ended up developing.
December 27
In these edits (minus the one from the page reviewer), the user created the page Tropical cyclones in 2014 without any references and used an incorrect timeline that violates the agreement made when it was discussed on the project talk page.
December 4
In this edit, the user added in unwarranted and false text warnings. Nobody had adjusted the storm's intensity beyond what the Central Pacific Hurricane Center had listed. His warning had completely random values (an incorrect value for C5).
November 22
In this edit, the user said that hurricane season had ended when it was still ongoing.
November 16
In these edits, the user created Tropical cyclones in 2015 without any references and a timeline that violated the agreement that was reached on the project's talkpage.
October 27
In this edit, the user added in wind gusts for Hurricane Willa. The gust speeds were both unreferenced and in violation of the consensus to round to 5 knot increments.
It's tempting. I asked them to edit no further and I protected the Typhoon Wutip page. If I block them, they cannot respond here. If they ignore my request to edit no further, than we'll need to block them. DlohCierekim(talk)03:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
My feeling here is that its more a case of we need to educate the person on how to use Wikipedia, more than block him or critcize his actions.Jason Rees (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jason Rees I agree as long as they listen. However, I see a lot of experienced editors disapprove the most basic of policies and show incivility. On that case, they should be handled tightly. Personally, I would give this user one final warning before indef block. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Jason Rees I didn't quite get how this has something to do with my remarks. Regardless, I am glad about this and these are exactly the type of reforms I aim to achieve. Again, proud to be part of this somehow. If you need recruits, I am down to join you guys. Even if I don't have any special knowledge about cyclones, I can help with maintenance. Cheers. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)22:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
This edit [4] was brought to my attention. The problem is that I didn't make it. Nor was I monitoring any discussion on ANI. I have changed my password. There is a chance that somehow I accidentally pushed the revert button but I don't see how that's possible. I'd appreciate it if a CU could ascertain if the IP for that edit is different than the rest from me today. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I checked my browser history. It shows that at the exact time of that edit I was editing the Green Book article using Visual Editor. I think this is a Visual Editor glitch, folks. Coretheapple (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC) (Not exactly. See chronology below.) Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Katie. I agree. As noted above, my browser history shows that at 2338 I was beginning an edit of the Green Book article using Visual Editor! This appears to be a weird Visual Editor issue. I was absolutely not even reading ANI at any time today, and my browser history reflects that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC) See chronolgy below. Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It may be more mysterious than I indicate above. I had flubbed the timeline a bit in my description above. Here is what my browser history shows:
6:35 pm EST I thanked an editor for an edit on Vic Morrow.
6:37 pm EST (23:37 GMT) I access Salon,com
6:38 pm EST that dang rollback!
6:40 pm EST I access Green Book (film)
At that point I entered Visual Editor, though that doesn't specifically say so on my edit history
6:48 pm EST I enter my extensive edit to Green Book via Visual Editor.
The edit to ANI was at 6:38 pm EST and my browser history shows no activity at that specific time. I haven't even been reading this page today. Coretheapple (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm just putting the above here for the record, in case this problem recurs with myself or someone else. I am not sure if it is specifically a Visual Editor problem but I do know it was definitely not something I did myself, not an accidental revert. Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to do that even without making a mistake. On several occasions I have updated my watchlist screen and attempted to click things on my watchlist, only to find that my screen has not yet refreshed and I have actually accidentally clicked on what shows on the screen after the refresh finishes. I have a very large watchlist, which likely contributes to the problem. Meters (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Even worse, it's not a one or the other situation. Refreshing the page and immediately clicking on a link gives the desired result, but wait too long and the disconnect between the page that is displayed and the page that is active shows up. Meters (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Meters: But if you accidentally clicked or activated rollback you would get an "Action Complete" message. Try it. That didn't happen for me, which is why I find this so disconcerting. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I don't think it was an accidental rollback from the watchlist. I just experimented by clicking the rollback button for my own talk page, and I got an immediate "Action Complete" screen. That didn't happen yesterday, which was why I was so shocked when I got the note on my talk page advising me of the rollback at ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: You may not necessarily see the "action complete" screen for many reasons: you may have exited the window/tab or refreshed the page immediately after clicking the rollback link. In both cases, the rollback action would still be completed but "action complete" not served since you cancelled the token instance. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I hear you. But I still have trouble finding a scenario in which I could have accidentally hit rollback. Anyway, I am glad that CU showed no compromising of my account, and then was my main worry at the outset. I appreciate the input from people on possible scenarios. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Coretheapple, the last time I recall doing this, I realized that the page on which I had inadvertently used rollback was next on my watchlist to a page I was interested in. If someone leaves a long edit summary, or has edited a section with a long heading, that can cause the rollback link to be placed directly above the link to the page below (depending on the width of the browser window). It's easy in that situation to click on rollback instead of the page you want to see. SarahSV(talk)22:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
True, but then you get the "Action Completed" screen. Now I did thank somebody for a Vic Morrow edit at about that time, but I did so not from the watchlist but from the diff. Note too that the rollback took place while I was reading a Salon article for use as a reference. (I added the time of the rollback to the chronology above). Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking for some blocks – indeffed CombatMarshmallow is active again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've given the editor a 31 hour block for disruption upon deleting comments from this thread again. Any admin is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit, if they feel a longer one is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You gave us the opportunity to have this discussion by stopping him (I assume) at his worst, and I think it was good to get additional input. I see nothing lacking on the admin side here. Samsara21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor persistently recreating unsourced/undersourced articles that have either been moved to draftspace or deleted
Vzakras has been repeatedly recreating unsourced/undersourced articles that have either been moved to draftspace or deleted in mainspace. He has been warned numerous times by other editors but ignores all warnings. On 1 March I warned him, specifically mentioning Natalya Guzeeva, which had been moved to Draft:Natalya Guzeeva.[5] It had originally been created on 21 February, moved to draft space and the cross-namespace redirect deleted. It was recreated on 25 February, 28 February and 4 March. It was gain redirected to the draft and deleted again by Fastily a short time ago, while I was posting a final warning to Vzakras' talk page. Nine minutes after the last deletion it was created again. For the sake of the numerous editors following Vzakras around, he needs to be stopped. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly a promo only account/WP:SPA and they're blocked on other projects for the exact same behavior, so I'd suggest just indeffing them until they can demonstrate an understanding of wikipedia's purpose. Praxidicae (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I indeffed them pending their response to the talk page concerns and this thread. ANy admin can unblock or change the block at their discussiondiscretion. DlohCierekim02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I came across this user on the Portal:Current events pages, where they have for weeks been adding in trivial stories directly copied from the first paragraphs of news articles (compare for example: addition vs CNN, addition vs Fox News, or addition vs ESPN). I left a warning on their talk page about copyvio yesterday, but two of their entries today are also directly copied from news articles (additions vs Fox News/CNN), and a third could probably be considered close paraphrasing. Digging a bit deeper, their contributions and talk page history seem a bit worrying. Their only two edits in any talk space have been to remove two warnings from their talk page; they have not otherwise responded to messages, nor do they seem to have taken the advice on their talk page (see for example continuedunsourcedchanges after twosets of warnings months ago by UW Dawgs and Muboshgu, the latter of which was one of the two they removed; or this message by Isanae followed by...well, the vast majority of their edits since). They've also never used edit summaries, ever, even after being reminded to in January. What would the best course of action be here given their (short) history of lack of communication? ansh66605:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)notified
The user doesn't communicate, keeps adding trivia that's actually copyvio (which I hadn't noticed) and is mostly focused on Portal:CE. I can think of nothing but a block to get their attention, hoping that they'll heed the advice on their talk page. Trivial entries are annoying, but the copyvio has to stop immediately. Isa (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've reverted my own edits. I also don't object to backing off the KNJ article for a while. However, I would also like to state that on WT:ANIME, nobody has rejected the latest sources I have provided that states KNJ as lolicon. The discussion has also gone on limbo for over a week, with no new replies. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Sk8erPrince. When you find yourself hitting undo repeatedly and are compelleted to leave long edit summaries including all caps, it's a fair sign that you need to step back for a bit. You may very well end up with consensus for the changes you'd like to see happen, but there is no deadline.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for my rashness. You're totally right - patiently waiting for consensus to emerge is a better option for all parties involved. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I will add that even if he is right at the end, it is best to let an uninvolved person handle the closure of arguments when consensus isn't clear. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A. It says at the top of this page, and on the edit page not to ask for revdel here. B. This looks like pretty normal vandalism. Natureium (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've blocked for 31 hours for edit warring against half a dozen different editors, after blanking warnings on their talk page. While I happened to see this quickly, in the future we like this kind of report to be made at WP:ANEW; not a gigantic problem it was posted here, however. Their edit summaries make it clear this is not vandalism, so the AIV report was rightly declined (or ignored, haven't checked which). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion
Unanimous consensus to impose a topic ban on Awardmaniac on subject areas related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed, and a further 1RR restriction. These will be imposed and logged in the appropriate locations. Akhiljaxxn will be warned at this time but will not be topic-banned. If Akhiljaxxn continues edit-warring or engaging in inappropriate edits, a topic ban and/or 1RR restriction is a likely follow-up. --Yamla (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Slightly related to the topic two sections above; Awardmaniac(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has just come off a one-week block for reverting, disruption, and BLP violations, all around the area of Michael Jackson. They have leapt right back into the same behavior that got them blocked; this is a dreadful edit and shows they have learned nothing from the block, and this is just as bad. I think in the short term this user needs another, longer block; if and when they return I think a topic ban might make it possible for them to edit here. Block first though, please. Pinging @Yamla:, @Dlohcierekim:, @Drmies:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, who all know this story already. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm not quite sure what to do with this editor. They've repeatedly agreed to refrain from WP:BLP violations and edit warring. I'm unsure how to proceed. Perhaps a topic ban on Michael Jackson, broadly construed? Perhaps along with a 1RR restriction, though perhaps that would be unnecessary. No, I'm tempted to say it'll be necessary. I haven't blocked yet. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I count five reverts, yesterday and today, including two to Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me. I'm not claiming any of the edits were incorrect (indeed, I'm not commenting on the contents of the edits at all), but it's not the case that you only reverted once. Special:Diff/885922883 also claims you are acting according to consensus reached on the talk page, but there does not appear to be any such consensus (at least, not at that time). In fact, there seems to be at least two people telling you to knock it off. --Yamla (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The reverts keepcoming, seemingly as long as he is able to edit. I'm not intentionally being mean when I say I really don't think the editor is able to understand what they are doing wrong. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I was invited by @Schmarrnintelligenz: to add comment here. (Schmarrnintelligenz, I put in SI as your posting was signed and it gave me a red link.) I don't have much to add since you know the situation: he systematically removes anything negative on Jackson. What bugs me especially is that my reverts of what HE was doing triggered some filter and I (and him) got blocked, although mine only lasted 3 hours. It still is a stain on my record, the only time I've ever been blocked, and I'm quite pissed about it. deisenbe (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the reverts have continued, along with uncited changes. I therefore officially suggest the following. An indefinite WP:1RR restriction plus a WP:TOPICBAN on all articles and talk pages related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed, for Awardmaniac. Either restriction could be appealed after 6 months, and I'd expect either restriction would be lifted if the user has demonstrated a meaningful history of conflict-free editing at that time. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support But @Yamla: I would also like to see Akhiljaxxn sanctioned because he is also edit warring on Leaving Neverland,[8][9] and has apparently shown inability to understand what he is editing (Talk:Leaving Neverland#Bbc). Not only this article is where he is being disruptive but he has been using Wikipedia as a forum, battleground and platform to impose his favorites for prolonged period of time.[10][11][12] One can further review his poor command over English language. Excelse (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support an indefinite topic ban on MJ pages and 1RR restriction. He evidently has a conflict of interest in this area and lets being a fan get in the way of neutrality. Edit warring is also a concern. I would also have no qualms on sanctioning Akhiljaxxn as Excelse proposes (at least giving him a topic ban on Michael Jackson would be a fine start) for similar reasons plus that user honestly shouldn't have been unblocked in the first place for past sockpuppetry and fancruft. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support infinite topic ban and/or block, plus 1RR. Unfortunately they appear to be a "man on a mission" without acceptance for collaborative and consensual editing; thus for our core principles. --SI21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per the above comments. I agree that the editor seems to be a "man on a mission" with a singular focus on promoting Jackson in a way that is not encyclopedic. --Tataral (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a topic ban. This editor has been a constant nuisance for weeks and doesn't seem able to learn from bans or conversations (example). (BTW, I'm not sure if everyday editors are allowed to comment on these things, and can't find any guidelines about it. If you're supposed to be an admin or something to weigh in, feel free to remove my comment here.) Popcornduff (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cross-wiki troll sock posting violent personal threats
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, I had just removed Coryseqed545's only edit, which was a bit edgy as I've never reverted a !vote before. But, it was a clear troll attacking everybody. O3000 (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
All the accounts seem to be blocked and locked already. I don't know who is behind these accounts, and, even if I did, I would have nothing to add beyond that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Terry Bean is a BLP about an LBTQ activist in Oregon that has been subject to repeated serious BLP-violations for years now, by what seems like a single individual using multiple IPs and accounts, and today/tonight a new user account, User:Hal9009az is repeatedly adding what I see as BLP-violations on Talk:Terry Bean (see that page), material about lawsuits filed by someone against him, sourced to gossip-rag-style newspaper stories and a blog. I reverted their first addition of the material on the talk page, and posted a message on their talk page], explaining why I removed it, but they swiftly reverted my removal of the material, and added even more of the same. It's getting late in my time zone now, and I'm more tired than I usually am at this time of day, so I would appreciate if one or more admins would take a look at it, and do whatever needs to be done, including trouting me if it is felt that I shouldn't have removed the talk page posts to begin with. - Tom | Thomas.W talk22:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and ECP'd the talk page. 1st impulse is to block Hal9009az for BLP violations and trolling. 2nd impulse is to give final warning. Leaving it to others to discuss. DlohCierekim22:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hal9009az just posted here, and on Thomas.W's talkpage, another rant which contained numerous serious BLP violations about a person who has not, as yet, been convicted of any crime. At this point, their behaviour is well past trolling and I have blocked them indefinitely and rev-deleted the two edits. Black Kite (talk)07:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago26 comments12 people in discussion
Everybody who contributed to this discussion blocked for 100 years, myself included. (Just kidding - resolved by @Edgar181: who has undone the blocks with the blessing of the blocking admin. No further action required.) GiantSnowman15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm posting to point out a problematic set of hundreds of blocks placed by User:Mattythewhite about a year ago. 297 blocks of three years duration were placed between February and April last year, on dynamically-assigned IP addresses. The application of hundreds of individual blocks instead of a single range block doesn't make any sense, and it is impossible for these blocks to have the desired effect; I have encountered two or three of them within the last several months, and within hours at most, I get assigned a different IP. Whoever they were aimed at will probably not even have noticed them.
When I have posted unblock requests, I've met some unwarranted accusations of abuse with denial that the blocks could be problematic, as well as agreement that the blocks aren't useful. To avoid such unpleasant accusations in the future, I'm posting to suggest that you lift all of these blocks, replacing if necessary with a range block of sensible duration (though I doubt very much that that is necessary). The blocks can be seen here:
A quick glance at the /20 shows a lot of vandalism. Not sure what the collateral damage would be for smaller ranges. Looking. DlohCierekim12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"82.132.217.0/24" SHowed on going vandalism w/o the user reporting here. range blocked for 31. Inclined to agree w/ the IP. It's like hunting mice w/ an elephant gun. DlohCierekim12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Persistent IP-hopping vandals are difficult to deal with, but I'm having a hard time seeing how 3-year blocks on IPs that have a low probability of being used again by the same individual is a good way to handle it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yup, long blocks on such dynamic IPs are not effective. Range blocks and edit filters should be used if necessary (by the way the relevant block is this /18, but don't look at the number of entries, read what each one says). I see quite a few of the individual blocks have been already lifted and I suggest the rest are also lifted. -- zzuuzz(talk)15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The inefficacy of these long-term blocks has been pointed out to me a couple of times over the past few months and I've since ceased making them. I have no issue with them being lifted. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a consensus to lift these blocks, so I have done so. There were a few hundred of them, so I may have missed some. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
did anyone else see this section title on their watchlist and think it was about blocks on dynamic IP's that were hundreds of years long? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what we need, EEng, more spelling pedantry. I wonder if it's possible to block for hundreds of years? Wait, I'll try. @Floquenbeam:, you have been blocked for a hundred years. Bishonen | talk21:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC).
Well, given the critical difference betweenhundreds-of-years-long blocks and hundreds of years-long blocks, I'd say a little pedantry is in order here. EEng22:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I tried. I wrote "100 years" and it was changed automatically in the log to "9 decades, 9 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 49 minutes and 12 seconds". (12 seconds? Huh?) Cool! See [15] (actually not Floquenbeam). Bishonen | talk22:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC).
What's with the lost 10 minutes and 48 seconds? Are there some leap seconds in there? Are blocks computed relative to the time on Jupiter? And decades? What's the point of that? EEng22:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago35 comments8 people in discussion
Over on 2019 Formula One World Championship we are in the midst of a...extremely lengthy and surprisingly heated debate regarding the proper way to sort our tables, in which Mclarenfan17's attitude is becoming extremely disruptive. He can't really seem to discuss anything without lying about what others are saying, especially me, which normally I don't think would merit this post, but when I've made note of this behavior his response has been to:
accuse me of "lashing out"
accuse me of being uncivil
decide by himself that "the rest of us will ignore you"
gaslight me about his actions and attemptto pin the blame solely on me for getting "worked up"
Now this is obviously a small thing that we've all gotten a little too heated about, but I think his actions clearly cross the line. I can recognize an obvious troll when I see one. Statements like this:
"You need to stop taking things so personally. You should also read WP:AGF. And until such time as you can behave in a civil manner, you should probably stay out of discussions. Lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you because they disagree with you won't achieve anything except a headache. The rest of us will ignore you and get on with the job of improving the article."
And this:
"If you choose to interpret my comments as a personal attack, that's your prerogative. It's also your mistake. So I suggest that you take a minute, stop working yourself up and think about how your attitude might make others feel about working with you. If you value contributing to Wikipedia and if you want your contributions to be valued, you might reconsider how you interact with others. Shouting at people isn't going to make them listen to you."
Are pretty blatant concern trolling. I don't believe we need administrator intervention in the debate itself - it's a silly topic to begin with, and somehow we actually seem to have a compromise on the table - but this user's actions are completely unacceptable, and not the way discourse is supposed to work on Wikipedia. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
So just to be clear, Mclarenfan17 went ahead and made an edit without consensus, Wicka wicka reverted it, and a mutual ballyhoo started? Am I missing something? Because all I see is a disagreement. SportingFlyerT·C03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer — quite. I felt that the edits were justified at the time, but admit that I made an error in judgement. I did, however, point out that Wicka wicka had been wrong to revert them without checking what he was reverting as I had also fixed some errors in the markup. He refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing and ever since then, I have felt that his behaviour has been uncivilised, particularly given that he advised me to "forget my password" or the way he referred to my post as "shocking, shameful behaviour" when I first pointed out that he was being uncivil. Or when he then declared that he did not want to address me any further. I feel that I have tried to handle the situation appropriately, and have repeatedly advised him that his behaviour is unacceptable. He has chosen to interpret these as personal attacks. If I think his behaviour is uncivil, does it beggar belief that others may, too? How does he expect others to respect him when he refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing and thinks "forget your password" is an appropriate response to a disagreement? Can you really blame other editors if they see his behaviour and decide against working with him?
Truth be told, I do not even know what he wants anymore. This little flare-up seems to have been triggered by Wicka wicka's suggestion that the discussion should be closed and my response that I felt he had not made his case. I think Wicka wicka just wants me to give up and let him have his way in the discussion, which is not how consensus works—and if you ask my opinion I think he is trying to use ANI to get an admin to punish me. He has clearly tried to portray me as a bully, but as I have demonstrated with diffs, he is hardly an innocent victim, if he is indeed a victim. Perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG or a WP:TROUT is in order. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Neither of you come off looking particularly good in this. In my mind, Wicka wicka was justified to revert the entire revision without fixing the markup since no consensus existed for the edit itself, but also displayed more of the "uncivil" behaviour on the whole. That said it doesn't seem to me at least like there's much if anything actionable here. This seems to be a disagreement over content that got a bit out of hand. Since the topic has turned contentious, I would perhaps recommend either starting a formal RfC process over the tables due to the horrible organisation of that entire conversation, or just forgetting the whole thing for now. If an RfC DOES get started, I don't want either of you responding with each other. Just post your !vote and leave it alone. SportingFlyerT·C06:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer Do you see this last comment? Do you not see what he's doing here? This blantant, obvious trolling. I would strongly ask that an administrator look into this. This is not acceptable. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to chip in here because unfortunately I have detected a wider pattern of poor behavior against other users by the reporter editors. They have the unfortunate habit of resorting to rather aggressive personal attacks whenever they feel things are not going their way in a discussion. Their most common tactics then are to either question the contributors competence/intelligence or simply trying to devaluate the other party's comments by claiming they haven't made enough contributions to the subject. Here is a selection of diffs from the recent history showing such behavior against numerous users: Klõpps [20], [21]; Me [22], [23]; Fecotank [24], [25]; Pelmeen10 [26]; Unnamelessness [27], [28]; Sabbatino [29]; Pyrope [30], 12; Speedy Question Mark [31], [32]. Note that these diffs strem for either when they were still editing under their original name, Prisonermonkeys, from when editing logged out, and most recently from editing as Mclarenfan17. I feel know that this continuous behavior finally merits some extra attention.Tvx1 17:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tvx1: this is helpful for general context - I didn't look too hard for this once I figured out Mclarenfan17 had posted under two different accounts plus IP address(es). In terms of the context of this case, and others may disagree, but I don't think that context all that helpful. It seems the primary conflict here has to do with Mclarenfan17 not accepting the reversion of their edit, and then the secondary edit came after Wicka wicka proposed to "close the discussion and maintain the table in its current format" in response to another user called them out on being "defensive" and "quite rude" (which had nothing to do with Mclarenfan17) and Mclarenfan17 called Wicka wicka out on that. I'm slightly concerned with Mclarenfan17's "give you my word" statement above because the user implies they have the upper hand in this conflict when their error led to the initial kerfluffle, but I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again and Mclarenfan17 is found out to be wrong. But I maintain neither party comes off well. Still not sure there's anything to recommend here. SportingFlyerT·C21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: — what I meant is that I can't promise that I won't be at ANI again, either as the complainant or as the subject. After all, we all make errors in judgement. But I can try to avoid being the subject of an ANI post by exercising my judgement properly. I cannot speak for Wicka wicka, though. I am sure he will end up here again at some point, not because I think little of him, but because he, too can make errors in judgement. So when I say "if you see an ANI involving myself and Wicka wicka in future, it won't be because of anything that I have done wrong", I am not implying that I have the upper hand. I am simply saying that I can only exercise my own judgement. If Wicka wicka says or does something that sees him before ANI, I won't be responsible for it because of the way I try to exercise my judgement in the situation. I think he takes everything personally, even when I tried to reason with him. My intention was to remind him that aggressive and uncivil behaviour is unlikely to get results in discussion, though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more. The solution is simple: don't engage with him. It's not worth the effort. So if you do see him at ANI again, my name won't come up. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: I appreciate the clarification. I take your statement as stating you will voluntarily not interact with Wicka wicka. I also hope you note the diffs above generally to help guide what not to do in your future interactions. I'd say this doesn't mean you can't comment in the same topic for consensus reasons, since you're clearly both interested in editing in the same space, but I would take any evidence of conflict between the two of you as blockable behaviour going forward. Wondering if anyone else not involved to this point would agree? SportingFlyerT·C02:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: The reason he is so quick to volunteer to "not engage" with me is because his entire MO is based around subtly instigating conflict with other users. He doesn't even have to directly address them to achieve this goal. This is day one trolling, and he's been doing it for a very long time, as evidenced by the examples provided by Tvx1. I can't even comprehend how you can approach his statements in good faith when he says things like, "though I now appreciate that while I had the time to recompose myself, maybe he needed more." This is explicitly intended to get under my skin, to make himself look better than me, to set the tone that I am angry but he is not. Again - day one stuff. Really, really, ridiculously obvious. It's the internet equivalent of your younger brother who breaks the TV and convinces your parents you did it. Unfortunately this is not uncommon on Wikipedia.
You say above, "I don't think it's trolling because we can back this up with sanctions if it happens again." It has happened again. This is not the first time. Far from it. If sanctions aren't applied now, we're just gonna be back here in the future. This is not an issue between myself and Mclarenfan17, and it does not get solved simply by the two of us somehow not engaging with each other. There is a clear pattern of misbehavior and he is the person involved in every example. I would strongly request input from an administrator because I cannot imagine this is behavior they want to tacitly encourage. Wicka wicka (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer — I'm quite happy to accept those terms. I would, however, like to see Wicka wicka accept the same or similar terms as a sign of good faith. After all, he has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits. As you said, "I maintain neither party comes off well". If we are equally responsible for the devolving situation, then it stands to reason that we should be held accountable under the same terms. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wicka wicka: (edit conflict) What exactly are you asking for? Mclarenfan17 agreed not to engage with you above. Their alter ego, Prisonermonkeys, has been blocked several times in the past for several different reasons for up to three months. (I note that Tvx1, the other participant in this discussion, appears to have been involved in some of those.) If they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread (though as a note I expect you could be blocked as well if you've baited them into it.) Which for you is a pretty good outcome considering this seems nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript. SportingFlyerT·C05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SporringFlyer: — I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to this resolution unless Wicka wicka and I are subject to equal terms. As you yourself said, "[Wicka wicka] also displayed more of the 'uncivil' behaviour on the whole". It is, as you pointed out, "nothing more than a heated edit conflict from reading the transcript". I think Wicka wicka came here anticipating—and maybe even expecting—that I would be on the receiving end of some kind of punishment. When he did not get it, he immediately started lobbying you to reverse your decision. I believe that he would treat any kind of sanctions against me as a personal victory in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. As I pointed out, has clearly stated that he does not assume good faith in my edits and so I simply do not with him the power to refer back to this discussion thread for sanctions in future. Now, I am willing to enter into some kind of agreement here, but it must be a two-way street. This dispute might be between myself and Wicka wicka, but his attitude towards others in the past has been poor as well:
What makes you think there's a resolution here for you both to agree on? You clearly stated above the "solution is simple: don't engage with him." Whatever they do or do not do shouldn't impact what you've clearly identified as a solution: for you not to interact with them. Considering this conflict started because of your refusal to accept they had the right to revert your edit because no consensus for it existed, considering you've already identified your own best solution, and considering your own block history, you're hardly in a position here to dictate terms. So which is it? Do you want to turn this ANI thread into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, or do you want to solve this conflict and move on with the solution you've identified? SportingFlyerT·C08:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer — I'm not trying to dictate terms, just find a mutually-agreeable solution. Yes, not engaging with Wicka wicka is the obvious solution, but I think the most effective solution is if he agrees not to engage with me. That way, neither of us runs the risk of accidentally setting things off again. I also think my concern about his openly declaring that he won't assume good faith should be addressed—what's to stop him from opening another ANI a week from now over some perceived slight? Wicka wicka's above post makes it clear that he does not think my agreement will have any effect, so how can I have any confidence that he won't try something? As you said, "if they engage in conflict with you again, there's probably certainly a block coming, all you have to do is cite this thread". How on earth does it benefit anyone if I'm held accountable to him when he has made it pretty clear he wants me to face a block? Some of his comments suggest he wants a permanent block and I have have every reason to believe that he will try to get me blocked at every opportunity. I'm not looking to turn this into a battleground. I'm looking for a solution where both of us are held equally accountable. If I am to face a block for engaging in conflict with him, then Wicka wicka should face a block for engaging in conflict with me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
From my point of view, if this conflict were limited to the discussion at hand, abiding by your statement would have the impact you need. You're both here to build an encyclopedia, and you both need to assume good faith even though that's gone out the window for the time being. If you don't engage with Wicka wicka, and I clearly mean don't engage to mean anything which could even be considered as perceived engagement, and they drag you back to ANI, what do you have to worry about? That would take a dedicated and continuing lack of good faith. That being said, Wicka wicka (talk·contribs) has said this issue a larger one and has asked for an administrative review of conduct, but has only provided diffs for this current issue, which has in my opinion confused things. A read of Talk:2019_World_Rally_Championship and Talk:2018_World_Rally_Championship mentioned by Tvx1 (talk·contribs) are some of the more contentious talk pages I've had the pleasure of reviewing. (The other diffs mentioned were older.) There's also a contentious talk page here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World_Rally which ended up in despute resolution. There's definitely an editing problem here beyond the diffs that were reported showing a pattern around edit wars and not accepting consensus, and the initial revert issue fits into that larger pattern. However, Wicka wicka wasn't directly involved in any of those disputes and hasn't had much interaction with either Prisonermonkeys or Mclarenfan17 if the analyser is to be believed (though the dynamic IP used to edit for a bit does leave a gap.) I think a voluntary interaction ban would solve the particular problem Wicka wicka brought to ANI, but I'm not sure it would solve the larger issue here. SportingFlyerT·C11:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer I don't know why you are so insistent upon narrowing your scope to this one incident. As Tvx1 (talk·contribs) has shown, this is only the latest in a series of incidents with this user, and no action that's been taken to date has had any long-term effect on his behavior. I can restate my original report and include Tvx1's diffs, if that helps? Again, you keep saying "come back if he does it again," but that's what we're doing right now. This is us coming back for the nth time. And please don't pretend that the two of us ignoring each other somehow solves anything. It doesn't. He's had conflicts with several other users. This is not about me. Wicka wicka (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wicka wicka: Because I'm trying to figure out the problem you want solved. Prisonermonkey/dynamic IP/Mclarenfan17's actions on those talk pages above greatly concern me, mostly as a result of being quick to edit war instead of trying to build consensus around changes to pictures/tables on these pages. I didn't see anyone report it to ANI, though it did go to dispute resolution at one point. But in terms of trying to solve this conflict, Mclarenfan17 wasn't the only user you got into a heated content dispute with on that page, nor do I see anything particularly egregious, apart from the conflict regarding the initial revert continuing a pattern of behaviour. I've searched the ANI records and there have been a few blocks for edit warring and a few odd ANI conversations over the past few years, but I don't see anything which supports "coming back for the nth time" as if this little dispute is somehow the last straw you seem to be making it out to be. If I'm wrong on that, please provide better diffs. SportingFlyerT·C20:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: I'm not going to give you more diffs when 1. we've provided a wealth of evidence as it is, and 2. he's trolling in this very discussion and you're completely oblivious to it. This is precisely why an admin needs to be involved. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer — I will not stand for these constant accusations of trolling. Everything that I have said and done in this discussion has been said and done in good faith. I value what Wikipedia represents and have made tens of thousands of positive contributions to it. I occasionally have an error in judgement, but we all do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: The problem from my end is that the contentious editing practices shown on Talk:2018 World Rally Championship, Talk:2019 World Rally Championship, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally, and the page you've been reported for are more than just an "occasional error in judgment" but rather a "continual error in judgment" that started this conflict in the first place. Your argument with Klõps on the World Rally page concerns me the most, because even if this were resolved in a mutual voluntary interaction ban with Wicka wicka as discussed above and you both respected it, some other user would probably drag you back to ANI because of this. I would support some sort of sanction, perhaps a 1RR sanction on motorsport pages and a general behavioural warning to stop making edits without consensus when a discussion continues on the talk page and no consensus has been reached. I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages. I don't think that will be a problem, though - I'm just noting it because it did make sorting through these things confusing. Wicka wicka (talk·contribs) I've assumed good faith at every point in this discussion and as such don't see the "obvious trolling." I don't know why I'm the only one moderating this discussion, or why no admins have posted in this thread since the outset, but I still don't know exactly what outcome you're asking for here, which makes it very difficult to advocate for a particular solution. Whatever happens, though, you should both strive to stay away from each other. SportingFlyerT·C02:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer — I know that you have assumed good faith throughout this discussion. If I may speak freely, I feel that most of Wicka wicka's comments here have been lobbying for administrator intervention as a form of payback for disagreeing with him. I have not seen him say anything in his comments about me that could not apply equally to him; as you opined, he displayed more of the uncivilised behaviour, and I have demonstrated with some diffs, his attitude towards other editors is questionable. Telling another editor "your edits look like garbage" is completely unacceptable. If I am to be the subject of administrator sanctions, then I feel that they should apply equally to Wicka wicka.
"I also don't want you editing under a dynamic IP again (or any sort of IP now you have a new user name) since that frustrated the process completely on those specific pages."
I have no intention of doing that again. It was mostly because I had forgotten my password and was having problems with abuse and harrassment from another editor, GeoJoe1000. Joe went on an extended abusive rampage after I reported him to the admins. After that, he created a series of sockpuppet accounts that were intended solely for the purpose of harrassment on my talk page. When I forgot my password, I didn't create a new account straight away because I would need to declare that I was using a new account and that would just invite another abusive tirade that would spill over into articles. Joe seems to have given up—we've seen neither hide nor hair of him in six months—so I created a new account. I know that sounds like another editor I was in conflict with, but this is the sort of thing Joe was posting. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mclarenfan17: The sanctions do not need to be equal. There are two separate problems here, the first being the editing practices on the pages discussed above, the second being the way in which both of you are interacting with each other. In my mind, the first is the much bigger issue, and while you've taken responsibility for your edit on the Formula 1 World Championships page, which has been appreciated, I would prefer if you take responsibility for the edits on the pages I've identified above as well. SportingFlyerT·C04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
In order to encourage collaborative and civil consensus-building on talk pages without edit warring, I recommend Mclarenfan17 receive a 1RR sanction on any motorsport page for the next three months, and receive general warnings regarding their recent editing behaviour on the talk pages listed above and a general warning regarding editing as a dynamic IP (which, as noted above, shouldn't be an issue.) I also recommend a two-way interaction ban between Mclarenfan17 and Wicka wicka for at least a decent period of time, as Mclarenfan17 indicated they would do so voluntarily, Wicka wicka has stated this "isn't about me" so avoiding interaction with Mclarenfan17 shouldn't be a problem for them, and the ongoing difficulty with WP:AGF between the two users which could lead to ongoing conflict. SportingFlyerT·C04:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think that it is necessary or appropriate to warn Mclarenfan17 about editing as a dynamic IP. They were editing as an IP for several months because (1) they lost the password to User:Prisonermonkeys and couldn't recover it; (2) had some obsession with avoiding harassment by some banned user and so said that they had to edit as a dynamic IP. That was a problem, and is why the first filing at DRN was dismissed. However, now that they have created a new account, there is no need to warn them about using an IP address. They have already been warned, and, if they do it again, which they won't, they can be blocked. No need to pile on. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - As an outsider to this particular dispute here. I would still like to see an administrator's take on this matter before closing. Based on everything reported above I would at the very least propose a formal warning to Mclaren17 that resorting to commenting on the contributors when a discussion is not going their way will not be tolerated anymore and will attract a block in future. Hopefully that ensures constructive discussions focused on the content in future.Tvx1 14:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's lame. I think one should. After all, this is an adminstrators' noticeboard. It's really that big an ask?Tvx1 13:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
MJL recommended I try ANI as no one is responding at SPI. Below is an SPI I filed for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod. I've been following this user's edits/vandalism for a while (see User:EvergreenFir/socks#Camilod). I'm asking for some sort of recognition that this range is being used by Camilod, primarily so that if I report to AIV I can point somewhere and say "sock". Otherwise, admins decline the AIV reports.
Below is what I reported it SPI:
I dream of horses suggested at WP:AIV that I bring block requests here for this IP. This is rather frustrating given that I was told a rangeblock and SPI couldn't help. However, I'm hoping I can show that a rangeblock is warranted.
I'd like to request a rangeblock for Special:Contributions/181.161.0.0/16. I requested the same back in July but it was declined because the range is /16. Evidence that Camilod is the user of this range is presented in the July filing and back in March.
Special:Contributions/181.161.0.0/16 appears to be used almost exclusively by Camilod. Of the past 100 edits (3 months worth), I see only 9 that are not animation-related. A 91% usage rate suggests minimal collateral damage.
Egregious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case. Back in late January, User:E.M.Gregory tried to insert a list of crimes committed by U.S. illegal immigrants onto the page Illegal immigration to the United States, despite the academic consensus that such crime rates is lower than that of U.S. citizens. When regulars to that page reverted their addition citing POV and SYNTH issues, they won't hesitate to go against 3RR and trollishly declared the scholarly consensus as POV. A few weeks later in Feburary, EMG created the page Illegal immigration to the United States and crime with virtually the same content, although their POV list was quickly removed by other editors and the article thus survived an AfD as a notabe independent topic. This hasn't stopped them, who churned out an RfC to propose that the same list be added back. When the consensus on the RfC didn't appear to go their way, here we are, List of crimes committed in the United_States by illegal aliens was created by EMG with the same contested material. The editor has demonstrated that they're highly opinionated against both the subject and the scholarly consensus, and pages of other editors' input hasn't convinced them to cease such evasive POV-pushing behavior. On another note, this is not the first time I've seen this editor introducing POV editorializing with clear factual inaccuracies. Actions may be required for such egregious waste of other editors' time. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
My apologies as I didn't intend to be tendentious. I have retracted striked my pings. I've added a notice to the RfC as well. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you can technically undo pings, or talk user talk posts (you can undo, but the user still gets a ping+email - twice), or reverts (got reverted today, revertedr self reverted a few moments later - still got a bell). Anyways - best to be upfront here who was alerted, which is why I noted it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree this is looking like a crusade to ram a list into the encyclopedia that has been judged inappropriate repeatedly and by many people. This "circling back and try it under a new name" stuff is a time sink and should stop. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been concerned about this, as well (as I expressed in the list AfD). E.M.Gregory has
(a) created a string of articles about crimes committed by illegal immigrants to the US and/or alleged perpetrators, with language that seems to emphasize that connection (a POV-push we see frequently, creating a narrative that runs contrary to research);
(b) secondary, but supporting that (a) is a trend, leaving a beer for someone for creating this (an article with a lead starting "[person] is a Mexican illegal immigrant to the United States who is suspected of murdering five men in Kansas and Missouri in March 2016.");
(c) added a list of notable crimes to Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. When it was removed and consensus formed against it (or, at very least, not in support of it), he created a WP:POVFORK at List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens. The list is problematic for a number of reasons that I won't duplicate here, as they're articulated by multiple people in the AfD of that list (which I started, for disclosure, I guess). It's noteworthy that EMG is the primary contributor to half of the entries on the list (at least at the time I checked).
(d) added to that list the names of alleged perpetrators who had not yet been convicted, even after the obvious BLP issues were pointed out.
All in all, it's a disturbing trend. EMG is not the only one doing so, it should be noted, and I know that EMG does some good work in other areas, but it seems he is among the more prolific of the editors whose actions indicate interest in creating the false impression of a trend between illegal immigration and crime. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Woah, 2016 Kansas-Missouri murder spree has serious WP:BLPCRIME issues. We're supposed to think hard before using the name of an otherwise low-profile suspect in a case when a conviction has not been secured; yet that article is entirely about him (it's basically a bio under another title.) I don't see any indication that the suspect in that case is a public figure, so that page needs serious redactions, at least until / unless he's convicted. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That page was created in 2016 by Rossbawse. It went on to have 14 distinct editors before you edited it today. Improving it today is commendable. Following EMG’s edits, two distinct editors edited the page and did not make the extensive fixes you have done today; they evidently did not perceive any issues as severely as you perceived them. It should be highlighted that whatever the weaknesses of that page as it stood before you improved it today, it would be tendentious to blame EMG for them (not that I am implying in any way you are blaming EMG for anything). XavierItzm (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe we should be watchful of tendentious editing. I'd like to give E.M.Gregory the benefit of the doubt, but this follows a pattern we see and hear everyday on the news. Politicians and their cronies using social media to flood the internet with false or misleading information. Does E.M.Gregory plan to create an article about crimes committed AGAINST undocumented immigrants by employees of the United States government? Anything and everything, real or invented, for their POV. That's exactly what this looks like to me. E.M.Gregory is pushing a point of view. We should not let Wikipedia become a tool in the hands of any country's politics. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
EMG is a solid contributor. But, should probably take a vacation from AP2 articles. Also, these articles haven’t been marked with AP2 DS warnings and should be in IMNSO (in my not so humble opinion). O3000 (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you referring to WP:AP2? Until you just mentioned it, I was not even aware of it. I wasn't that involved on the admin end in 2015. Agree that E.M.Gregory should step back from the subject matter. As noted above by EEng there is enough on the other side of the scale, that maybe we should nip this in the bud (if possible). — Maile (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please also look at their insertions earlier this week within the Adrienne Shelly article; they introduced bluelinks of these articles into that actress's BLP with zero consensus and any good sense about what her death involved, and why those links are wholly inappropriate to place within a deceased subject's BLP as a heading bluelink or 'see also' topic of interest. Also, the word 'spree' is beyond inappropriate for any article title unless it's prefixed by the word 'shopping'; how they're able to do this is very troubling. Nate•(chatter)02:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that the 2006 Murder of Adrienne Shelly was committed by an illegal immigrant. The convicted murderer was a construction worker. His "original version of what happened was that when Shelly asked if the noise could be kept down, he threw a hammer at her and, afraid she would make a complaint that might result in his deportation," so he killed her. A lawsuit was brought by the bereaved family, the complaint stated that: "'Pillco was an undocumented immigrant...' as were his co-workers, and that "it was in Bradford General Contractors' interest not to have 'police and immigration officials [called] to the job site' because that would have ground their work to a halt". The killer is said to have owed $12,000 to the smugglers who brought him to the U.S. With all of this, was on the page and well-sourced. I am accused of adding links, not copy, just links [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
EMG's contribs seem a well of POV-pushing. Even when not an obvious BLP issue, articles like Murder of Casey Chadwick make it clear what a priority is, starting "On June 15, 2015 Casey Chadwick was stabbed to death in her Norwich, Connecticut home by an illegal immigrant" .. and only then giving the name of that person. Under the section "perpetrator" the first full paragraph is "Jacques is an illegal alien." Over at Murder of the Zhuo family, which by the way like some others is a BLPCRIME issue with a different title, even having the perpetrator's name as the sole bold text in the lead, there's "[person] is an illegal immigrant to the United States who murdered his cousin's wife and four children in their Brooklyn" (again, illegal immigrant is made to be the most important part). And of course when adding his articles to List of murdered American children, "illegal immigrant" is again a central point of information. Almost all of his recent edits seem focused on connecting crime and illegal immigration. More: removing criticism of an anti-immigration group, adding immigration material to yet another crime-related article, etc. Then of course there's the category he was adding these articles to, Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Once it was deleted at MfD, he began adding simply Category:Illegal immigration to the United States in its place. (e.g.).... and it only took looking through part of the first page of user contribs to find this stuff. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
To put this in perspective a bit on whether E.M.Gregory's current activity is encyclopedic (as opposed to, say, "True Crime"). I keep wondering how the community would react if we had an editor who was doing a series of articles, categories, etc., on crimes committed by black men. How about a series of articles on crimes committed by Jews, or Muslims, or pick your category. Perhaps a series of articles on individual menopausal women who have committed crimes, and then a separate list for the links to these gone-nuts women? — Maile (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, but I've noticed this behavior from E.M. Gregory as well. It's especially concerning that they've continued to add BLP claims about individuals who have been accused, but not convicted, of crimes. Murder of the Zhuo family is one of several articles that this editor has moved from the name of the suspect to the name of the crime in an attempt to avoid BLP issues. –dlthewave☎03:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Moving to avoid BLP issues is actually an improvement, and according to page history, was done without anyone even prompting such an improvement. Has anyone here ever improved one's own work to better match policy, and then had that diff cited as if it were a negative? XavierItzm (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I would've suggested illegal immigration in particular. I don't think we have much evidence here of BLP violations outside of that area. On the other hand we do have a bunch of edits trying to connect illegal immigration and crime even when there isn't a clear BLP violation. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 04:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Whoa, this is inconceivably disruptive. The part about removing criticism to a hate group is pure malice. And I don't think any past merit can alleviate all those thinly veiled BLP violations. A long term or indef TBAN from BLP and American Politics block may be in order, as illegal immigration isn't the only part of AP where they attempted POV editing. At this point it might be appropriate to cite WP:NORACISTS as well. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉04:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The examples cited by Rhododendrites are mere content disputes, or worse yet, cases of not liking the encyclopaedic material being added. EMG created the article Murder of Casey Chadwick with 18 sources. The article was then edited by two separate editors who did not remove that which Rhododendrites finds personally objectionable. Following Rhododendrites's complaint above, a third (and for now final editor), Galobtter, removed 35 bytes on an 11,500 byte article, and nothing removed is of any substance. It is all cosmetic. Why drag this innocuous article here? If anyone does not like anything about it, edit it, like the three people who edited it did. EMG created the article Murder of the Zhuo family with 20 sources. This article has since been edited by two people who did not find its content as objectionable as Rhododendrites does. Can the article be improved? Sure! Is the lead para defective? Sure it is! I just figured out the lead is defective because the title was changed, by EMG, apparently unprompted, to better fit WP:BLP policy. He should have changed the lead once he figured the article title was incorrect. Should he be crucified for this? WP:DEADLINE. Who's going to cast the first stone? Next Rhododendrites questions the description of an add to List of murdered American children because it mentions the murderer was an illegal immigrant. But this page has since been edited by others, and no-one batted an eye. These are all content disputes, with no edit warring. The next one is interesting: “removing criticism of an anti-immigration group”. EMG removed a WP:PRIMARY from the lead para (but left it in the content) and trimmed a rather wordy citation of why the SPLC issued its classification, but left the classification and its sources standing in the article (even though also PRIMARY). He was swiftly reverted by Beyond My Ken. Isn’t this a typical content dispute? The next complaint is quite egregious: adding immigration material to yet another crime-related article. EMG actually added valuable content, using as sources, I kid you not, The Washington Post and The New York Times. For adding well-sourced content from the W. Post and the NYT we now ban people? . The final complaint is that EMG added the category Category:Illegal immigration to the United States to a number of articles. But (a) the category exists, and (b) similar articles have had the category for a long time, without EMG’s adding it to the article at all! How is this a valid complaint about EMG? It is a list of dislikes. To summarize, it is all a content dispute. XavierItzm (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, a block is procedurally viable. If you're TBanned from two or more broad topics, a block would obliviously and definitely be a better choice just to save everyone's time. (I forgot the exact quote) Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉04:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
As usual, I wouldn't support something as severe as an indef block, but at a minimum, I think a restriction on new page creation outside of AfC would help limit the disruption. These new pages have unnecessarily taken up a great deal of editors' time. Levivich04:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I note that for a few years E.M.Gregory has been given numerous Barnstars / Thanks on his User page by many different editors for a large number of articles, many of them not connected to politics. He's been praised for tireless work, exemplary efforts, expanding and improving many articles. Therefore, shouldn't we firstly assume a bit of good faith on his part, before jumping down his throat to condemn him. Secondly, I was previously told by another Admin not to request a block for disruptive editing unless the user has been given enough warnings relating to the disruptive editing. There doesn't seem to be many warnings on E.M.Gregory's talk page for disruptive editing. He provides reliable sources that adhere to guidelines. Thirdly, some topics concerning immigration can be controversial and disliked by some editors. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and guidelines state that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
A dismissal by reduction to DONTLIKEIT/NOTCENSORED is not usually a good sign, but I agree with one of the underlying points. An indef, if that's what's been floated here, seems too much. I suppose someone should propose something. It's not like this hasn't all been talked about in depth over many talk pages. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I wonder if a non-standard topic ban ("illegal immigration") is difficult to implement. AP2 & BLP would cover the relevant use cases: immigrants; minorities; crime victims / alleged perpetrators; political topics, etc. Here's, for example, a prior ANI discussion that resulted in one-month topic ban in 2016:
I'm logging out for the night, but don't mind if someone closes the section I opened in favor of an alternative if it's too atypical. Trying to be more precise is all. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 06:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on EM Gregory's comment below, where they appear to argue that once someone is accused of a crime, that BLP protection does not apply, I would argue that at the least they should be topic banned from all BLPs and all crime articles, any anything related..Nigel Ish (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I wrote:"If wikipedia has a different standard in re: individuals accused of crime in the U.S. than than American law, I am happy to abide by that standard."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
While I can't speak for Nigel Ish, for me, as I think for others based on the comments below, the reason this is so concerning is it should be obvious it's true even if you don't properly understand our standards. A key part of BLP is that our standards differ from those of American law. This doesn't change for those accused of crimes. If you don't quite understand what our standards are about any certain thing e.g. names or private vs public figures and seek clarification general before adding the info to articles, that's a good thing. When you don't seem to appreciate even after all this time and involvement in the area that our standards for BLP do differ from US law, that's when it gets concerning, no matter what you are willing to do as a result of this ANI case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC) 17:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Just because we are allowed to do something by US law doesn't mean we should - Wikipedia articles have the potential to do a great deal of harm to individuals, which is why out BLP policies are so important, and why they continue to be important when someone has been accused of a crime (and accusing someone of being an illegal immigrant is also potentially also accusing them of being a criminal, so we need to be doubly careful when giving the impression that we are trying to make links between someone's immigration status and violent crime.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME specifies, exactly as does American law, that persons who are WP:WELLKNOWN can be written about, even negatively. Persons are determined to be WELLKNOWN by the fact that " there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many editors here appear certain that an indicted but not yet convicted criminal is protected form being written up. To me this looks like a very grey area, one arguable crossed by suspects in notable crimes who have had their names an d biographical details splashed across the front page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be pretty firm consensus that E.M. Gregory should be indefinitely topic banned from pages and content related to illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration. Although there were some opposed to the proposal, there were also others that felt it didn't go far enough. For now, this is probably a happy medium. If the problematic behaviour continues in other areas, then the matter can be brought back here. Number5717:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on the above discussion and the evidence provided, E.M. Gregory is indefinitely topic banned from pages and content related to illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration. If enacted, this can be appealed to the community after 6 months.
Support - As proposer, and per my comments above. I think there's a clear issue with POV when it comes to these subjects, but I think a block is unnecessary and that EMG makes plenty of positive edits on other kinds of topics such that this topic ban doesn't need to be overly broad (e.g. American politics). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 05:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Second thought: If consensus is that the TB should be widened, as suggested by Bishonen, KEC and others below, I can 'support that as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. The evidence above is clear that this is a problem area for EMG, but I've seen EMG be consistently constructive in other unrelated topics, so I think this is preferable to a block. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. A good case for this has been made. There are already too many editors who fill immigration-and-crime areas of Wikipedia with these kinds of articles (in Europe as well as the US), and E.M. Gregory will likely do good work outside this area. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong support. I also frankly would have been in complete support of a block, given the rather profound refusal to accept consensus, general gamesmanship, and WP:IDHT just in terms of the behaviour diffed and elucidated upon above; they add up to a pretty substantial WP:CIR case. Frankly, if they are willing to keep creating WP:COATRACK after WP:POVFORK after WP:COATRACK in the manner demonstrated in the record above, in defiance of consensus in one given area they happen to feel passionate about, in order to enforce their idiosyncratic view of one group of people, I rather suspect they are more than happy to do it in other similar circumstances unrelated to immigration. So I have a hard time believing we won't be back here again before long, if the root issue is't addressed. But that said, I suppose this is the usual first stop, so I can endorse giving the topic ban a try instead. So long as it is scrupulously abided by--this contributor has demonstrated they are a liability to the neutrality of our outward facing content in a very contentious area. Snowlet's rap08:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support I hate writing this as I like some of the work Gregory does. The topic ban should be probably "E.M. Gregory is indefinitely banned from contributing or discussing anything related to immigration on the English Wikipedia, broadly construed."Lourdes08:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree with ban on illegal immigration - Obviously a contentious area, but disagreeing with content added by an editor should not be grounds for banning. Content disputes should be addressed via the regular procedure, not by muting disagreeable voices. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no content dispute, just an editor trying to promulgate the false narrative of illegal immigrants being a source of crime, against scholarly consensus/reality - the bedrock of WP:NPOV. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, no such narrative exists nor has been promulgated. Editors have tried to add content as they best saw fit and such content sometimes has been included following proper discussion, sometimes has not been included, and sometimes it is under active discussion, which ought to be prima facie evidence that this is simply a contentious issue about which some opponents and some proponents feel strongly. Diversity of opinion ought to be encouraged and we should strive for inclusiveness. XavierItzm (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a content dispute. EMG creates quite a bit of content - and in particular he creates notable crime articles (regardless of the identity of the suspects/deceased). We don't ban based on disliking the alleged POV of editors (which in this case - hasn't been proven). Illegal immigration, as well as crime and illegal immigration, are obviously hot-button political topics in the US (personally I think much of the political debate in the US is very ugly - but that's my personal opinion) - which for Wikipedia purposes only adds to notability, does not detract. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support I had suggested a BLP TBan broadly construed because the articles and edits are not BLP violations in isolation; but look to me as they are in toto, particularly with the persistence displayed in inserting the illegal immigrant crimes trope against consensus (and RS). But, considering other contributions, I’m OK with trying a more limited approach. O3000 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Too narrow to prevent disruptions. The appropriate topic ban would be an indefinite topic ban from anything related to immigration, broadly construed, if not a full AP topic ban that is far more enforceable. This is a broad conduct issue per Snow Rise, and we might going to have similar discussions in the foreseeable future. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉12:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Too narrow. Like Lourdes and Tsumikiria, I think the ban as proposed is unnecessarily narrow, and had better be widened to ""anything related to immigration, broadly construed". I know it's illegal immigration that's EMG's special bugbear, but a slightly broader ban would better avoid borderline problems IMO. However, if the consensus tends towards the ban as formulated by Beyond my Ken, then count me in, too, per "second choice". Bishonen | talk13:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC).
Comment - As per the comments above, perhaps those who would prefer to see a broader tban could voice as much in this section, and the closer can take that into account. Although I would be fine with that wording, too, I say this just because I've seen other similar discussions get overly complicated once proposals start getting reworded or when parallel, but very similar, proposals start opening. As BLP is not at all addressed here specifically, that could perhaps be a separate proposal if people feel strongly enough that the BLP issues would reach beyond these topics. Or we could just start with this and see what happens. Perhaps "anything related to immigration, broadly construed" would've been simpler, but EMG strikes me as someone who would want to get this lifted in the future rather than someone who would poke at the boundaries. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm still in endorsement of a block as suggested by Beyond My Ken per standard practice for egregious POV pushers. But as ANI filer I cannot propose it. The only thing that hinders it would be EMG's past deeds, but those are volatile in the face of rigorous, gaming disruption, and an apparent rejection to recognize it as such per EMG's statements below, which suggested that such disruptive conduct will be carried over to other topic areas, thus voiding the prospective from a topic ban Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉14:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree about "sides". Editing by E.M.Gregory indeed follows the pattern of pushing one specific political position and not a good one, i.e. that the "illegal immigrants are bad". As about all other contributors who commented above, they do not represent any "side". Also, they have not been involved in prolonged content disputes with E.M.Gregory; they happened to disagree with him in several community discussions, such as the RfC he started. Therefore, no, this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND posting. Yes, one can make a point that E.M.Gregory does not make an effort to follow WP:NPOV. Does he deserve a broad topic ban? I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong support given his wikilawyering statement below. If people accused of crimes are public figures by virtue of having been accused of a crime, then the statement in WP:BLPCRIME that it "applies to individuals who are not public figures" would be meaningless. If EMG really doesn't know that "wikipedia has a different standard...than American law" he probably shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Certainly the intersection between immigration, American politics, and BLP need to be covered in the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support I didn't really want to get involved in this mess, but I have to say I agree that whatever the flaws in BLPCRIME etc, it's unacceptable that after all this time someone doesn't appreciate that wikipedia does indeed have different standards than that of US law, since it's such a fundamental part of BLP. Frankly I'd support an entire topic ban from BLP, but it seems like just the proposed ban may be enough. I don't have a problem with an expanded one covering anything related to immigration broadly construed although my primary concern is anything relation to immigration which touches on BLP issues for obvious reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support in light of EMG's statement below that does not show awareness of the BLP issues at the core here. -- Masem17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per EMG's comments below. Clear that they do not understand that these lists endorse an unsupportable POV that one's immigration status is a determinant of increased criminal activity. Whether that's ignorance or a deliberate POV push is irrelevant - Wikipedia cannot publish this political opinion as fact. I suggest a dual ban from immigration broadly construed, and from crimes committed by persons currently living or recently deceased, broadly construed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support, especially after the strange wikilawyering below. BLP policy allows the mention of suspects not yet convicted in an article about a notable crime as long as it is clear that no trial has yet taken place. But to place such an article into a list article about crimes "committed" by members of group X is an obvious and blatant BLP violation. EMG's failure to see that means that this topic ban is necessary. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I must say that I also found this editor's explanation below rather disingenuous. He has been around long enough to know that the standards of WP:BLP are much stronger than US law. That statement shows that the people commenting above that a ban should include all BLPs, rather than just immigration, have a point. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support There's been a pattern of multiple escalating problems related to EMG's comportment in the BLP Crime area. These include but are not limited to:
Citing hate groups as sources.
Promising to recreate content under slightly modified frames of reference if AfDs don't go the way they like.
Insistence that WP:COATRACK edits are a legitimate expression of WP:HEY
Disregard for the basis of WP:BLPCRIME including an insistence that capitalizing the word "common" somehow absolves them of any need to adhere to those requirements.
Defending near-WP:LIBEL breaching violations of WP:BLPCRIME with a defense that boils down to WP:OSE.
Near complete and total disregard for consensus.
Honestly, considering the extremity of the situation, a t-ban is, if anything, the restrained option. That said, I do believe it's the most expedient and appropriate way of resolving this specific problem, although what is most disconcerting here has been what appears to be a pattern of escalation. While EMG and I have never seen eye-to-eye on much of anything, had you asked me six months ago if I expected to end up here with them, I'd have said no. EMG may have been frustrating to work with at times, but they seemed to understand the boundaries that a collaborative and consensus-based project impose. I am worried this seems to no longer be the case. So while I am not calling for anything beyond a t-ban, I would suggest EMG might be well-served to take a break from Wikipedia and consider why this pattern has started to emerge in their editing behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
[34] In this dif you can see both EMG providing a source at AfD from a hate group and me identifying the group as a hate group and asking them to strike through the citation. They ignored the request. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223 and Tsumikiria are being less than accurate. My clearly stated concerns were UNDUE and PRIMARY. A highly regarded NGO, the SPLC made an assertion about an NGO that I was unfamiliar with, but to put that assertion in the lede and fill a large subhead with it should not, I think, be done unless there is news coverage of the assertion. Without deleting any sources, I took the assertion out of the lede and reduced the text in the subhead.[35], [36]. I wish editors had added sources instead of simply reverting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to cite in full Simonm223's request, for the avoidance of doubt: «The Federation for American Immigration Reform is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre I would, in the spirit of WP:NONAZIS, ask that you strike-through reference to them as a source for discussion here.» XavierItzm (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support proposal but as a 2nd choice, being too narrow. 1st choice is tban from AP2 & BLP which would cover the relevant use cases: immigrants; minorities; crime victims / alleged perpetrators; political topics, etc. Here's, for example, a prior ANI discussion that resulted in a one-month topic ban in 2016, in part due to BLP violations: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#E.M.Gregory. I prefer a wider topic ban due to multiple, long-standing issues: WP:TEND, WP:OR, use of unreliable sources, political advocacy, etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, immigration issues go beyond American politics, so I would believe restricting the ban to AP2 again would be quite narrow and we would probably end up back here in the future. Lourdes02:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Too narrow. As several others above, I also think the topic ban should cover "immigration" generally and not just "illegal immigration". If we go with the narrower ban, instead of adding "illegal immigrant" wherever possible on crime-related pages, are we instead going to get just "immigrant"? I support the proposed ban from "illegal immigration" as my second choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote above to Ke coffman, immigration issues go beyond American politics, so I would believe restricting the ban to AP2 again would be quite narrow and we would probably end up back here in the future. Lourdes02:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point too, maybe Immigration, AP2 & BLP? Anyway, this should be taken as a support for whatever tban has the best consensus - and hopefully we won't have to revisit it again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note, however, that when I was made aware of the BLP issues last week, I immediately began to remove the suspect's name form article, and that I did not attempt to re-add articles about crimes where trial is pending to list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment The WP:BLPCRIME issue is definitely not clear-cut. At 2019 Nevada killing spree's AfD a lot of people are claiming it should be deleted because it violates BLPCRIME by mentioning the suspect. However, the New York Times has a run an article on the crime, mentioning the suspect name and including his photo: [37] If multiple reliable sources mention the suspect name before conviction, is he really a "relatively unknown person"? --Pudeo (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This whole area is a mess of incivility and if E.M.Gregory should be topic banned, so should all of the regulars, as they exhibit similar behavior. Natureium (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The problems being discussed here are nothing to do with incivility. I think nearly everyone would agree that E.M.Gregory always treats other Wikipedia editors in a civil manner. This is about completely different issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment – By my count, there are 17 editors who would support a wider ban. I think we need a new proposal, and the proposer is open to this. Question is, how much wider. IMO, the quicker the better as I think EMG’s responses are serving to dig a deeper hole. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support, and I agree with others that the scope of the proposed tban is rather narrow. This level of repeated violation of NPOV and BLP is unusual in its severity and must be squashed. To take just one example from EMG's own list, Palagonia double homicide is about a murder and the arrest of a suspect. No trial is mentioned in the article, let alone a guilty verdict. Here, EMG added Category:Crimes committed by asylum seekers, which is a category that EMG created, thereby declaring the suspect guilty. That category was deleted despite EMG's opposition, during which discussion he called the suspect "the Palagonia murderer" (WP:BLP applies to all pages, not just to articles). Here he changed "migrant" to "illegal immigrant", despite calling him an asylum seeker during the CfD and again shortly afterwards. (It is not illegal to enter another country in order to seek asylum; actually it is a right protected under international law. Deliberately conflating the two is unacceptable.) Here EMG added Category:Crimes committed by illegal immigrants, again declaring the suspect to be guilty. This was another category that EMG created, in contempt of the earlier community decision to delete Category:Crimes_committed_by_asylum_seekers. (The new category has now also been deleted.) We can't allow this type of blatant pov-pushing, and the fact that it involves living people makes it all the worse. Zerotalk03:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I create a lot of categories, and participate in an enormous number of Deletion discussions, I had forgotten that it had been created before.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll also note that EMG's offer to omit the names of suspects should be treated with disdain. It is obvious that the immigration status of the suspects is what EMG seeks to emphasise, not their names. Zerotalk00:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment - re: E.M. Gregory's statement below. Words matter, especially when it comes to those accused of crimes. The key word here is "accused." It is true that news reporters cover crimes where suspects are named, typically because law enforcement identifies the suspects. But it is risky to create Wikipedia articles based on accusations when a final adjudication has not been rendered. When an accused person is ultimately found not guilty, do you then do an AfD to remove the article, or remove that person from a list of so-called criminals? Calling an accused person not only an "illegal alien" (which is a slur), but also a killer or robber or rapist before a conviction can lead to defamation lawsuits, including against Wikipedia, admins, and contributing editors because an un-convicted person's reputation can still be damaged by that accusation. Adding "alleged" or even "police said" that Joe Blow committed a crime does not let the person writing it off the hook and may still imply that Joe Blow committed the crime, thus the risk of a defamation suit. Also, if someone is accused for the first time of committing burglary, as EMG used as an example, and that person and crime become news, that accused person does not automatically become a public person. It is one event, today's news, and a new crime and new suspect will replace that front-page story the next day. It does not make that person notable, and an editor is not free to put that person on an online public stage like Wikipedia and claim that that person was already public, or notable. It is a slippery slope. Just sayin'. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
With regard to the accusation of slur, it might be useful to cite Wikipedia: "In the U.S., the term illegal alien is used in many statutes[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders)." XavierItzm (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"But it's used by the United States government" is categorically not a defense against the statement that calling somebody a dehumanizing term like, "illegal alien" is a slur. As has been repeatedly explained to you Wikipedia is not the United States. Furthermore, the US government is often super-racist. And I don't just mean historically with that whole segregation thing, I mean currently. Right now. The American head of state routinely says deeply, deeply bigoted things. In short, what's going on here is that you're saying, "we believe this phrase is OK because the government of our country uses it," and the community is saying, "no, that's racist and therefore violates WP:NPOV." And on Wikipedia, WP:NPOV is more important than the US government on this issue.Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
With regard to the example "accused for the first time of committing burglary, as EMG used as an example", would it be possible to indicate where was this example used? Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It is in the "Statement by E.M. Gregory" below, which starts with burglary but goes further: "In other words, If someone is accused of entering a series of homes, murdering the inhabitants, and stealing their valuables, multiple news sources take deep dives into his life, and the crimes he am accused of committing, (Cf. 2019 Nevada killing spree, he is no longer regarded as a private individual with regard to what can be published about him, even though he has not yet been tried." -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
However, I made the statement in the process of attempting to explain why and how I had misunderstood our policy, after which I wrote, Now that I understand the the Wikipedia policy is to omit names of suspects from articles about notable crimes, I will scrupulously follow that policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment "despite the academic consensus that such crime rates is lower than that of U.S. citizens." How is that relevant? A lower crime rate is not equivalent to saying that such crimes do not exist, it means that they are relatively infrequent. E.M. Gregory may have an axe to grind, but there are sources on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Addendum to my prior !vote based on the comments here, I support a tban, broadly construed from BLP Crime and immigration, rather than one narrowly focused on illegal immigration. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban of any scope, although regretfully, because I think EMG is an overall good editor. Unfortunately, it is just taking up way too much time for the community to "police" these new articles, lists and categories. The serial attempts to add embedded lists and create stand-alone articles, lists, and categories, all of the same "flavor", after multiple AfDs and a lot of community feedback, is becoming a timesink. It's like playing whack-a-mole. And when they are BLP-related, we have to vigilantly patrol each one of these new creations while they're up for AfD. EMG's comments below show that, on a fundamental level, they do not understand the policies (specifically about notability and NPOV) and continue to view editing through the prism of American law (which is really irrelevant). EMG is just too out of synch with the community right now on this issue, and doesn't seem to want to slow down or stop creating new pages in this area, which in turn creates a lot of work for the rest of us, particularly at AfD. I would support a topic ban of any breadth, with the understanding that nothing is permanent and any tban can be appealed once EMG can demonstrate that he can create pages that don't get deleted and otherwise edit in this topic area within policy. Levivich16:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
As someone who actually spends many hours every week discussion articles at AfD, I am puzzled by your statement that the articles I write are "becoming a timesink". I have created 541 articles of which 14 have been deleted, the most recent deletion was 2 years ago. Hardly a "time sink."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
EMG's response that of the 541 articles he has created not a single one has been deleted in the last 2 years looks to be accurate. Of the three links Levivich cites, none is technically accurate, since two are current AfD articles of which the result is unknown at this time and one is a category which did not survive AfD. XavierItzm (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a broader ban covering BLP, crime and immigration at a minimum. I agree that E.M. Gregory can be a productive editor in other areas, but the topic ban needs to be broad enough to prevent them from dancing around the edges of these problematic areas. –dlthewave☎17:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as written at a minimum, would also support a broader ban on all immigration topics, broadly construed as possible. His behavior has shown he intends to steer the text of Wikipedia articles regarding immigration to his own personally preferred narrative rather than follow existing scholarship or consensus. --Jayron3217:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Predominantly a content dispute, though I would accept that E.M.Gregory has made some mistakes with his editing. Nobody is perfect. As Jesus once said: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...." Other editors may not have "sinned" in terms of introducing the sensitive political hot potato topic of immigration into articles, but I dare say some other editors who have become enraged with E.M.Gregory have nevertheless displayed the odd flaw or two from time to time with their own editing on Wikipedia. If E.M.Gregory had instead introduced articles with titles such as "List of serious crimes by Philadelphians" or "List of serious crimes in Miami" or "List of serious crimes in Glasgow, Scotland" then I doubt very much that it would have created this big controversy. It's immigration and illegal immigration that some people are very sensitive about in relation to crimes. That's at the heart of this content dispute in my humble opinion. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a broad ban I agree with others that the editor has done good work on Wikipedia. But that does not negate the editor's repeated BLP issues. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a broad topic ban (such as the one proposed by dlthewave: covering crime, immigration and BLP). I realize that is considerably restrictive but some of the lacunae here give me concern a narrow ban might quickly lead us back here and onward to a block, and I'd very much prefer we establish really clear parameters so we can continue benefiting from E.M. Gregory's contributions to the encyclopedia as much as possible. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. While E.M. Gregory took things a bit too far, essentially we are debating a content dispute. As can be understood from his response, EMG has taken note of the change he has been asked to make. We should leave it that. Absolutely no bans needed. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. It's not a content dispute. The user has repeatedly (as evidenced by multiple users) exhibited reprehensible behavior on topics concerning migration. The user acknowledging a blatant BLP "oopsie" here and there does not merit discarding the topic ban proposal, because the key issue is unresolved. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for xenophobes and not a forum of hate speech. I further would argue that the user's Wikipedia:Autopatrolled permission be suspended.--MarshalN20✉🕊03:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support, and support broader ban. Obviously not a "content dispute," as many keep trying to frame it, but an ongoing pattern of tendentious editing to push a particular (and particularly noxious) POV. Grandpallama (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose: This is another example of editors with a different apparent point of view trying to shut up an editor they disagree with in what really is just a content dispute. This ANI thread resembles two threads nearly six months ago in which certain editors (unsuccessfully) tried to topic-ban me and another editor from a certain topic simply because we didn't "toe the ideological line" on that particuar topic. E.M.Gregory obviously has a large interest in the topic of illegal immigration, but his edits have aligned with WP policy -- for example, he's only cited instances of crimes with blue-linked articles and has used many reliable/mainstream sources to back up his content additions. He shouldn't be topic-banned for that, and the editors trying to ban him should learn the ability to tolerate editors with differing perspectives. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Once you enact his topic ban he will almost certainly return to seeking to use Wikipedia in the same fashion to smear and demean Palestinians (an old habit of his that appears to have been superseded by a more generalized hatred for brown immigrants to the US).Dan Murphy (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Sigh, I fear this is true. In a way it is surprising (a happy surprise, I might add!) seeing the community reacting so strongly against E.M.Gregory's campaign agains immigrant, when he has been been conducting a similar campaign against Palestinians for years...without anyone (outside the "regulars" in the I/P area) caring. I suggested that he could start an article about a Palestinian mother of 8 who was stoned to death by Israel settlers link, as he has started many articles about similar Jewish victims. Alas, that went "down the memory hole" without being answered...Huldra (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not really germane. If EMG switches from POV pushing in articles related to immigration to POV pushing in articles related to Israel / Palestine, well, that area of Wikipedia has some of the strictest Arbcom enforcement on the entire project. Also just as Wikipedia doesn't predict the future we should not attempt to predict what EMG may do in the event of a t-ban in this area. Frankly, even if this were a legitimate concern, WP:ROPE would apply. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment It is germane. Yes, the I/P area has (thankfully) strict Arbcom enforcement; alas, that doesn't stop editors (like E.M.Gregory) from starting an article about each and every Jewish Israeli victim, while at the very same time voting "delete"/ignoring all articles on Palestinian victims. There are more than 10 times civilian Palestinian victims of the conflict that there are Israeli victims. Reading Wikipedia gives you the complete opposite impression: there are more than 10 times articles on Israeli victims than on Palestinian victims. Huldra (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt to vote an opponent off the island. Should we perhaps consider TBANing editors who mainly edit depopulated Palestinian villages or insert content on 1948 depopulations into modern-day cities? Who focus on documenting Palestinian / Islamic-era aspects while ignoring other eras? Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to say that one of the interesting aspects of this discussion and the AfD discussions that preceded it is the eager presence of several editors active in I/P who very rarely attend AfD discussions about domestic American politics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note As I linked above, EMG tried to insert contentious POV phrases "Anti-Israel" and "calls for elimination of Israel" onto the DSA page. An A-I conflict topic ban for EMG might need to happen in a separate discussion or subsection of this discussion, but I will be in favor of it, just to prevent further disruptions. The statements below reads too disingenuous to me as it doesn't address real issues discussed here. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉22:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose: - I see no issues here. This is nonsense in my opinion. At a stretch this is a content dispute that need to be resolved through discussion and consensus. Secondly, E.M Gregory seem to agree to refrain from "the behaviour" in question in his statement. BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised a couple editors have described this as a "content dispute". I wonder if those folks have looked a Gregory's edit history, and the strong nativist lean to most of his edits. NickCT (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1.) Lists exist to help readers find the information they seek. This list has a tight definition" blue-linked crimes committed by persons in the United States illegally. When some editors discussing deleting the category of such crimes, and other editors discussing whether it should be included as an embedded list at Illegal immigration to the United States and crime suggested a standalone list, I started one.
3.) If wikipedia has a different standard in re: individuals accused of crime in the U.S. than than American law, I am happy to abide by that standard. But it needs to be spelled out more clearly than it now is at WP:BLPCRIME. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
5.WP:BLPCRIME specifies, exactly as does American law, that persons who are WP:WELLKNOWN can be written about, even negatively. Persons are determined to be WELLKNOWN by the fact that " there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Many editors here appear certain that an indicted but not yet convicted criminal is protected form being written up. To me this looks like a very grey area, one arguably crossed by suspects in notable crimes who have had their names an d biographical details splashed across the front page.
6. I reiterate: Now that I understand the the Wikipedia policy is to omit names of suspects from articles about notable crimes, I will scrupulously follow that policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear with regards to your comment about, WP:BLPCRIME, it refers to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which is ultimately spelled out in detail in WP:LOWPROFILE. That policy is far more restrictive than the examples you're giving here. Being known only for one crime is not enough - generally speaking, people only become 'public figures' and lose the protections of WP:LOWPROFILE when they intentionally seek fame. (People under the protection of WP:LOWPROFILE can still be named sometimes, but it requires passing the more stringent protections of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME; they don't automatically lose the protection of those policies just for being in the news for a few cycles for one crime, since that's exactly the sort of person those policies exist to protect, ie. someone who is in the news because they're accused of a crime and gets written up in a few op-eds as an example of all of society's problems or somesuch. If a "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" accusation was sufficient to eliminate the protections of WP:LOWPROFILE, those protections wouldn't have any meaning at all - the whole point is that that alone is not necessarily sufficient.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I still think behavioral evidence is quite conclusive, but I'm not going to waste more time over it if they make constructive edits. --Muhandes (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Shlaykira, Muhandes did what Ivanvector suggested and went into more detail on the talk page about certifications and stuff. Now the ball is in your court: read it carefully and edit in accordance with our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed image-placement topic ban for Beyond My Ken
Latest comment: 5 years ago214 comments49 people in discussion
There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:
BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Beyond My Ken(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) keeps "slow-editwarring" (spaced apart enough to avoid WP:3RR and WP:ANEW) to re-arrange and sometimes re-size images on articles in an WP:OWNish way, against MOS:IMAGE, in ways that divorce the images from the text related to it, over the objections of multiple editors, and with clear incivility toward all who disagree with him as being, as a class, editors without "any credibility" [40]. The edit-warring is tendentious and clearly will not stop, since BMK ignores or dismisses all disagreement without providing a valid rationale. The editor was warned [41] that a request for a topic-ban would be made if the behavior didn't stop.
BMK should be topic-banned from a) changing the position or size of images in articles, or b) adding images to articles in positions or sizing that contravene the relevant guidelines. While guidelines certainly can have exceptions (even many of our policies can), subjective personal preference is not a rationale and would not justify years of edit-warring and incivility even if it were. There is no WP:IAR to be found in a personal assertion that one's preference is "superior" [42], nor in a personalizing, "wiki-political" stance against "MOS hardliners" [43] (cf. WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). WP is not a place to "campaign" against site-wide guidelines (WP:CONLEVEL), and BMK has completely failed to establish anything like a "local consensus" in favor of his strange layout changes at any such article anyway. If BMK wants to make an argument to change or even remove part of a guideline, the place is the guideline's talk page or at WP:VPPOL.
I've not gone deep-digging for diffs, so I have no idea how many pages this has affected.
For several years, BMK has been fighting with registered users and anon editors to move images away from the content that relates to them at St. Francis Dam and presumably various other articles; just one example from 2015 [44]; I won't trawl through years of diffs even at that page to re-prove the same point).
Recently, Reywas92 put the images back into the sections they relate to [45] (on the basis that they relate).
BMK re-reveted, with a "better" claim, and invective that "MOS is not policy, it is not mandatory" (an IAR claim).
Reywas92 objected on the basis that no indication why something would be an improvement is not an IAR rationale.
BMK re-reverted again, with another claim of just "better", and a bogus WP:STATUSQUO claim, and a demand for discussion (there cannot be a status quo when multiple editors have been undoing BMK's layout changes since at least 2015; lack of a very strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to apply WP:IAR for a clear reason at a particular article necessarily default to "follow the guidelines").
Reywas92 left the page in BMK's version, and opened that discussion [47] in article talk. BMK refused to respond.
BMK uses WP:MOS and WP:BRD only when it suits his own argument; at the same article but about different matters he reverted on the basis of MoS here, and made other BRD demands here of those who disagreed with his preferences (also MoS-related, MOS:NUM in that case).
Reywas92 opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#IAR for MOS:IM. Zero respondents supported BMK's position (either for his particular layout choices or that IAR was even a factor). BMK did not participate.
I got involved at the article, and put the image placements back in compliance with the guidelines [48], with a detailed explanation.
BMK simply moved his edit-war to another page, and changed the layout at Daniel Burnham in the same nonsensical ways, without any explanation, in a long series of twiddling edits: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. This is an obvious WP:POINT and WP:TE action.
Rather than participate in this high-level discussion, BMK posted a user essay about his general layout hypotheses at the article talk page, where it is off-topic; the gist of it boils down to "it looks better that way", lots of anti-MoS ranting, and the old WP:VESTED / WP:OWN chestnut that no one is permitted to apply a guideline or policy at an article unless they are already a long-term editor of the article, an argument no one has accepted at Wikipedia since the site opened.
I reversed him on the basis that multiple editors have objected to such changes at multiple pages, and it's against our guidelines.
BMK re-reverted, with no reason given other than a belief that his layout choices are "superior", which is objectively false.
I undid that, noting again that multiple editors objected to his changes.
BMK re-re-reverted, on the "basis" that he would be challenged only by "MOS hardliners, not by any editors with any credibility". Reywas92 is not a regular editor at any MoS-related pages, so this is patent nonsense and an attempt to hide the fact that editors local to the article topics in question disagree with him (not that this is a real factor anyway, per WP:OWN and WP:CONLEVEL). It was also a personal attack against all editors who follow the guidelines, as not being "editors with any credibility".
I opened this ANI request, leaving the layout in its "wrong version" current state.
There are some other MoS-related problem patterns, like BMK converting citation-related headings into pseudo-headings, but as I don't see an edit-warring pattern in the material I looked at so far, that need not be addressed here and now.
This personal "One True Layout" campaign simply has to stop. Trying to track down every place BMK may pursue this windmill-tilting would be exhausting, and we have much better things to do. Wikipedia has no interest whatsoever in separating images from closely related text – in ways that result in non sequitur readability challenges, cause the WP:SANDWICHING problem of headings wrapping to the side of images, and other issues – just to suit BMK's personal ideas about layout aesthetics (which I would surmise must have something to do with appearance on a particular device he uses). We have guidelines against this sort of thing for a reason. More to the point, it is not permissible to WP:EDITWAR about it or to WP:GAME the system by demanding discussion, then ignoring it and doing whateverTF you feel like despite no one agreeing with you, then attacking them as "editors with[out] credibility". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Nasty edit summaries by the OP don't help. [59] BMK often has very good ideas about layout. Seems like an overreaction to his article layout improvements. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Warning people before dragging them to a noticeboard is a courtesy, not "nasty". I could have done this in user talk, but BMK's a big fan of WP:REVTALKing, so I went with his usual mode of communication. Speaking of the 'boards: while I did know there was a non-committal ANEW under way involving BMK, I did not notice the thread above this, or I might have waited; this being "a bad day to be BMK" isn't my intent, and I imagine that's a bit frustrating. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose sanction. Your first diffs are about whether images should be placed just above or just below the section title. Comparing this with the version by BMK, the BMK version is superior. In the other version, the title (analysis) is placed above the image, with the text to the right: in BMKs version, the title "analysis" is placed right above the text, with the image to the side of both title and text. This is a much better layout. The reason for the other version (" images in sections, not in the sections above") may sound good, but for anyone actually reading the article, it is obvious that the image sbelong with the sections they are placed alongside to, even if in edit mode they are not put below the title. You then make claims like "Reywas92 opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#IAR for MOS:IM. Zero respondents supported BMK's position (either for his particular layout choices or that IAR was even a factor). BMK did not participate."[60]One participant supported Reywas92, you. EEng said "MOS is to be applied with common sense, which may override rigidly stated rules." Using this discussion as if it showed overwhelming support for your preferred result seems wrong. Next: "BMK simply moved his edit-war to another page, and changed the layout at Daniel Burnham in the same nonsensical ways, without any explanation, in a long series of twiddling edits: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178]. This is an obvious WP:POINT and WP:TE action." So, BMK starts layouting an article neither you nor Reywas92 was involved with previously, and you both follow him there, and then come here to accuse them of WP:POINT and WP:TE? Comparing this with the layout preferred by BMK[61] shows again that BMKs layout is in general better (e.g. less whitespace beneath the "Memorials" section), and that in any case the changes are not important enough to start following someone around for it or to then propose a topic ban here. "I reversed him on the basis that multiple editors have objected to such changes at multiple pages, and it's against our guidelines." Those "multiple editors", that's just you and Reywas92, right? So we have one editor getting reverted by two editors based on MOS, we have that editor being followed to another page by the same two editors, and then one of them proposes a TBan based on this? Perhaps not Boomerang territory, but certainly WP:LAME. Fram (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah, that's all just WP:ILIKEIT and unresponsive to any of the policy issues raised. BMK's been slow-editwarring this exact same thing at the same article against all comers, including anonymous readers who object and try to reverse him, since at least 2015. "Fram shares BMK's personal layout aesthetics" cannot be a justification for edit-warring and incivility. When the guidelines and virtually every editor to ever comment on the matter (Fram excluded) at any page signal to BMK that he's wrong and various of us are doing so directly to him, but he just moves to another article and does it again and hopes no one will notice, that's the very definition of tendentiousness. (One other editor, EEng, not having a firm opinion on the matter, doesn't change that.) Repeat: If you and BMK want to change the guideline, you know how to open an RfC. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Following someone around to an article you never edited to start edit warring to get your preferred layout, when the layout changes by the other editor don't break anything (leaving aside which one you think is marginally better or worse), representing a discussion with marginal input where only you and the other editor opposing BMK agreed, and asking for a topic ban after two episodes, is a lot worse than what BMK did. You are making a mountain out of a molehill (starting from the MOS, which is not policy of course). You now claim "BMK's been slow-editwarring this exact same thing at the same article against all comers, including anonymous readers who object and try to reverse him, since at least 2015. ", and in the original report you stated "BMK re-reverted again, with another claim of just "better", and a bogus WP:STATUSQUO claim, and a demand for discussion (there cannot be a status quo when multiple editors have been undoing BMK's layout changes since at least 2015;"; care to provide any evidence for this? I don't see such reverts before the very recent ones that prompted your report here. There were other edits by BMK, including reverts, but at first glance none of these was about the image placements. The one "example" of edit warring you give in your original post, is BMK placing the image at the position they claim is now the Status Quo. That was an edit they made on 7 October 2015; it had not been reverted by the time they edited the article again, in December 2015[62], nor by January 2016, nor by July 2016. By February 2017, the image was still where they had placed it, as it was in October 2017... And it still was there, uncontested, when Reywas92 changed it in February 2019. So, the evidence you presented that he was edit warring about this since 2015 is patently false, and BMKs claim that he reverted to the status quo version was correct. Fram (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"the BMK version is superior. "
Well I'm not seeing it. I see a couple of changes here, where the image is (per BMK) preceding the section heading. That pushes the heading into the middle and is against MOS:IMAGES. Now I might readily breach the guideline if there was some sort of improvement, but I can't see one here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to rebut Fram further here, but this discussion has already moved way beyond this into additional evidence, so it's a moot point. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"Further"? You haven't rebutted anything, you have made false claims which you refuse to retract, which is a terrible way to conduct yourself. You start by clailing that BMK has been edit warring over the image placement in that article since 2015, but the truth is that he made one edit, which stood from 2015 until 2019, and only then did the edit war start. This makes quite a big difference when considering a topic ban, and as it is the very first piece of "evidence" you present, it thoroughly poisons the well and creates unwarranted bias against BMK. Either show that your allegations are correct after all, or retract them. Fram (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You can diff, too. ANI is primarily concerned with recent disruption; I only mentioned 2015 at all to indicate how long this rearrange-it-my-way-for-no-real-reason stuff has been going on. It actually goes back further at this article alone. BMK's messing about with the image sizing to suit his preferences goes back to at least 2013 there [63], and his moving of the image we still have in the "Aftermath" section to be above that section began in 2010 if not earlier (I won't go back further); another one in same edit has since been moved to the more relevant "Remains" section which at that time did not exist (but this is the relevance connection that BMK broke in the diffed 2015 diff – it was definitely relevant). From 2015 forward to the recent diffs, BMK messed with image sizing again [64] (I think this was a twiddle to one of BMK's own previous twiddles, ca. 2012); someone later started replacing at least some of these size-hardcodings (which weren't justified by our material on when to use a fixed image size) with upright code [65], about which some diffs already provided above indicate some delayed reversion by BMK to his hard-coding ideas), and that party also moved some images without divorcing them from the sections they relate to, without incident [66]. Some were already in that divorced state due to BMK's much earlier moving of them, when Reywas92 began bringing them into compliance with MOS:IMAGES in 2018 [67], which began BMK's round of resistance in earnest (at that page). I've probably missed a few things; disaster articles like this attract a lot of editing. The issue I presented is of recent editwarring, over something subjective that BMK has been pushing against guidelines, without an IAR rationale or even a local consensus, for much longer. There is was no valid status quo at the page; doing something anti-guideline and it not being corrected for a few years does not manufacture a consensus and can't be used to auto-thwart guideline compliance edits. No discussion anywhere supports BMK's guidelines-defying layout decisions of this particular sort, at that article or any other. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yuo can diff too"? I presented quite a few links to show that BMKs changes had not been reverted. No idea why you felt the need to start with that link. As for your diffs: this doesn't show edit warring, it shows an editor making many changes to an article, including changes to images. This as well. This is just an attemmpt by you to have many diffs. And this and this simply shows another editor tinkering with the images as well. So none of your links show any evidence for BMK edit warring at that page since 2015 (or 2010 or any other date prior to february 2019). Fram (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll repeat that this is a moot matter; other diffs below show the issue going back further than just-now, e.g. 2018 at the Cobble Hill article. I'm not sure why you're telling me above what I said about my own diffs. Repeat: The 2015 (and now earlier, and intervening) diff material at the same page is only included to show that BMK has been making against-the-guidelines changes to image placements without any rationale beyond personal preference for a long time. The editwarring ANI will care about is immediately recent, and the 2018 diffs show it has been ongoing (as editwarring, no question) across multiple articles before either recent "opponent" of BMK got involved, but has the same basis as the earlier changes-for-no-real-reason. Why are we still talking about this? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I haven't extensively co-edited on the same articles as BMK except on one single article (Success Academy Charter Schools), and when I did there I came across the same behavior: The image placement that he had instituted [68] violated WP:SANDWICH, and when I took it to articletalk I got the following responses: "If you do [conform the image placements to MOS], I will revert you. MOS is not policy, it's not mandatory, and edit warring to enforce it has been ruled by ArbCom to be out of bounds. The article is fine, it looks fine, there is no problem. Do not make problems where there are none, please." and "Please stop this remarkably silly discussion and return to improving the article." [69]. BMK's bullying around image placement has got to stop, just like his bullying behaviors in other areas that have been much-discussed in the past. Softlavender (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
BMK referenced an ArbCom decision both in the quote posted above and in this one from the Daniel Burnham talk page: Needless to say, an online document does not present as many restrictions as a printed one, but there are still concerns which pop up which make shoving an image directly under a section header less desirable than putting it to the side of the section header. This is the reason that MOS is a guidleine and not a mandatory policy, to allow us as editors to make those editorial choices balancing visual integrity with the presentation of information. When one enforces MOS as if it was a mandatory policy -- an action which, BTW, has been ruled as unwarranted by ArbCom on several occasions -- one in effect makes the guideline a de facto policy, without ever going through the community approval process required to do so. This is thus a "back-door" to making MOS mandatory, a result which is expressly not what MOS is meant to be.
Does anyone know what specific ArbCom decision(s) BMK is referencing? Are those statements accurate? - PaulT+/C 04:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC) (Re-stated below.) - PaulT+/C19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Eh? If that were blurry, I wouldn't be able to read the text on the clock. Hazy, I'll grant you, but otherwise, it seems to be to be a much better representation of the building. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment in that image place per MOS is there for a reason, because it assures that we aren't breaking the way a page is viewed on multiple devices including mobile phones/tiny screens. The MOS:IMAGE is a balance between usability of images across all devices, and some degree of "nice looking pages", but we cannot be pixel perfect as I've seen some want to do. --Masem (t) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support restriction. I've encountered this behavior with BMK repeatedly, on multiple articles. It's intensely frustrating. Here's three examples of unproductive talk page discussion: Talk:High_Line#Image_sizes, Talk:Dearborn Station#Recent changes, and Talk:Glenwood station (Metro-North)#Formatting changes. These were just ones which I remembered off the top of my head. This is a constant source of disruption and a recurrent topic on this noticeboard. I'm on the record stating that he should stop doing this; see for example my extensive comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive928#Beyond My Ken, where I proposed that he be placed on a 1RR restriction. I think the closer's message, [BMK]'s smart enough to read this and get the gist of what people are saying, has not been borne out by subsequent events. I think BMK is a good editor and I respect his contributions, but his heterodox views on the manual of style cause repeated conflict with other editors and it's obvious at this point that he's not going to change on his own. Mackensen(talk)15:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Once again, I really like BMK and don't want to do this; but probably required. The topic ban mentioned is too narrow and would result in us coming back here again. I would prefer something like "BMK is topic banned from editing images in articles; this restriction does not cover talk page discussions."Lourdes16:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Here is another recent example of the conflict caused by BMK’s behavior regarding layout styles. The MoS layout style is developed by consensus of editors, so BMK’s anti-MoS crusade is also against consensus. He doesn’t like it, but he cannot say why his peculiar layout is “superior,” though there are clear substantive reasons why it is not (like putting an image in the pertinent section when there is room). The linked discussion also illustrates how it is BRD for everyone else, IAR for BMK – whatever keeps his version in place. At that discussion admin NeilN refers to BMK’s “annual block for edit warring” (above it says 12 blocks in 9 years, so it is actually more than annual), making clear that he does not improve his behavior over time, and there is no reason to think that he will. So, NeilN, you said you would be waiting for a ‘told you so’ note about this, so here it is. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that I have no objection against a topic ban if it is brought here with enough correct evidence. I oppose the topic ban as proposed here initially, as it was presented with false evidence (BMK did not edit war on that article since 2015, but since February 2019 only: like he said, his preferred version had been the stable, uncontested version at that article since 2015) which would have been rather flimsy even if it had been true. Solving a true problem (judging from what others brought here) by presenting untrue claims is not something I can in good faith support. Fram (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so we know your rationale for why you initially opposed, but now that people have provided an F-load more evidence, simply telling us why you initally opposed is off-point. Please address the substance of the community report to date. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
No. You first either substantiate or retract your initial evidence, which appears from looking at the actual edit history to be totally false. Trying to get someone topic banned by presenting false evidence and refusing to retract it is a blockable offense, no matter how many people may have afterwards presented other evidence. People should be judged on what they have actually done, not on what an opponent invented to strengthen their point. Fram (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Boomarang filing a misleading report, evidence they followed BMK around to pick a fight. Raising a WP:LAME issue at ANi. Saying User:EEng's respected opinions are not important. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not say EEng's views aren't important or that he's not respected; I said a neutral position is irrelevant in such a discussion. To spell it out (like anyone actually needs it spelled out), it's an aside swaying neither for nor against. Your personal dislike of layout disputes doesn't make them lame, especially when so many other editors are coming forward to say this is problematic behavior on BMK's part, and a long-term, wide-spread pattern. My report was not misleading, but well diffed (and there are intermediate edits between 2015 and now, at that page, showing that it's a slow-editwar, but we need not go there, because I already included evidence of current editwarring at two pages, and others here have provided a whole lot more. Given that you're engaged in defending BMK in another editwar, over at WP:ANI (also apparently on ILIKEIT grounds rather than addressing whether it's editwarring), I find your comment here disingenuous and over-involved. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose We don't topic-ban people on the basis of their previous block log, unless those blocks were directly related to the topic in hand. Black Kite (talk)19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Do you have any views on the appropriateness of BMK's conduct? Multiple editors have outlined a long history of edit-warring. Usually he gets off with a warning, and some vague bromides about how he'll take the advice onboard. Saying we won't sanction him because we haven't sanctioned him feels rather circular, and it's the reason we're here in the first place. Also, he's definitely been blocked for MOS-warring before, under either this account or his previous account. Mackensen(talk)20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
If he has been blocked for the same thing before then that's a separate issue (and in which case I would like to see the evidence), I was more responding to the suggestion that a topic-ban was appropriate purely on the basis of his block log. If people have a history of edit-warring the usual sanction is blocking, not topic-banning, unless the edit-warring is always on the same issue. Black Kite (talk)20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a myth created by someone eventually topic banned and finally indeffed for nationalism-based, MoS-related disruption. In their case, they were much early blocked for tendentious editwarring, and happened to be editwarring about dashes. WP doesn't care what you're editwarring over, it just shouldn't happen. Said person tried to spin this into "I got blocked for disagreeing with MoS", and fortunately pretty much no one bought it, because it's a fabrication. Same kind of myth-making is going on here (fantasy: freedom and liberty versus evil MoS fascists; reality: project-wide editwarring and incivility by a single-minded editor in furtherance of a personal nit-pick.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I will not vote as an involved editor but I have not appreciated BMK's personal attack or threats on my talk page [71][72] to report me for supposed "harassment". The first was after reverting incorrect removal and addition of commas in an article, which he apparently didn't take very well. My edits have been consistent with the MOS, as I believe it looks much better to keep images within the relevant section rather than at the bottom of the one above it, and below the header rather than breaking the horizontal line. I apologize for being involved in these revert wars, but it was disappointing that BMK told me to go to the talk page at St Francis Dam but then ignored my post and that he had never given an explanation for the edits other than that "MOS is a guideline, not policy", or another time, just a rude "No", keeping a thumbnail image running into the next section rather than part of the gallery. He appears to have an attitude that the MOS isn't worth the screen space it's printed on, with another example at Talk:One_Madison#Infobox_capitalization following edit warring there (including a personal attack). I had no idea he's been blocked so many times! But I will try to refrain from editing articles he's previously edited. Reywas92Talk20:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe telling an editor who is following you from article to article that they may be guilty of WP:Harassment can possible be construed as a "personal attack." I learned long ago on Wikipedia that if you do not take steps to nip these kinds of activities in the bud, and create a "paper trail", there's almost no possibility at all that anything will be done about it. Thus, I have become proactive in warning editors about following me for no good reason -- and following me to enforce MOS is most certainly not a good reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, I oppose the proposed topic ban.
In my 13+ years here, [73] I have improved a large number of articles visually by replacing poor images with better ones, adding images when needed, and altering the article's layout to provide both visual cohesion and variety. The vast majority of these changes were completely MOS-compliant, but there are times when the amount of text, the number of warranted images, or other factors, makes it necessary to institute changes which improve the visual aspects of the article, but do not hew to the letter of MOS.
Just about the only times these changes become controversial is when an editor who was not previously involved with the article parachutes in and attempts to enforce MOS as if it were a mandatory policy and not an editing guideline subject to the collaborative give-and-take which is normal to the Wikipedia process. (As it says at the top of every single page of MOS: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If MOS were intended to be mandatory and inviolate, these words would not be attached to it.)
There are several problems inherent in this. First, by trying to enforce MOS as if it were mandatory, these editors are, in effect, raising it to the level of a de facto policy, without actually going through the process of getting community approval to do so. The second reason is more mundane: their efforts to enforce MOS in the instances I speak of are generally not beneficial to the visual balance of the article involved, an element that I am always very concerned to try to get right.
My feeling is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, to give to our readers the best possible information, properly verified, in a way that's well written and presented in the best possible way. Getting the visual balance of the article right is part of a well-presented article. The bottom line is that we're not here to follow editing guidelines slavishly – we're editors, not robots – if doing so does a disservice to our articles and thus to our readers. (This is essentially why we have WP:IAR, one of the most basic of our policies.) Improving articles by providing new referenced information, supporting old information with references, or deleting it if none can be found, working to make our articles easier to read, both in text and images – all these are our paramount purpose here. These are the things I've tried my best to do in my 240,000+ edits.
Obviously, I'm human and flawed, I admit to a tendency toward edit warring when what seems obviously correct to me is repeatedly reverted. It's a tendency that I fight against, and which I am able to control more often than not – my block log shows my failures, but is irrelevant to the question of whether the edits I was blocked over were best for the article or not, since the act of edit warring is not mitigated by the correctness of the action. In my own opinion, looking back will show that I was more often right than wrong. Not that that is an excuse of edit-warring, of course; I offer no excuses, and when I'm blocked, I accept that my actions were wrong and sit out the block.
But when I return, I continue doing what I believe I've been doing for over a decade: improving Wikipedia by improving its articles. (Over 70% of the edits of my combined IDs are to articles; I'd prefer that number be closer to 75%, which is my ideal.) Instituting this topic ban would make that much more difficult for me, since when I approach an article I prefer to look at all parts of it, most definitiely including image placement. It would inhibit me from the extensive expansions of articles that I often do, since it would effectively remove the visual element entirely. It is my opinion – obviously, others may disagree – that this would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia. It is a fact that it would make my work here more difficult and substantially less rewarding than it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
One reason why the MOS is important is that its guidelines incorporate accessibility concerns. Your preferred mode of visual display often creates accessibility problems. I and other editors have raised this issue with you, but you refuse to engage. This doesn't help the project. Your statement doesn't provide a way forward, except to declare that there's a BMK section of Wikipedia where these issues aren't addressed. As you say, it's about the readers. Sometimes that means it's not about you. Mackensen(talk)21:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The accessibility issues are the main reason I give a damn, besides the general principle that editwarring because you sure you're right isn't magically permissible because of your personal certainty about your WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS cause. That BMK is pursuing what amounts to one, against real accessibility concerns, in furtherance of nothing but his aesthetic preferences is a serious problem. Being generally productive isn't a free pass to do what you like when something in particular that you're doing is not productive and many people have been telling you why for a very long time. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - BMK should not edit war, and if they revert changes to an article they don't consider an improvement they should explain why. But the proposed restriction would be impossible to enforce, and seems to be an overreach for what could be solved with a report to ANEW. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Not when the editor sculpts his edit-warring to avoid ANEW. And there's nothing difficult in abiding by such a restriction: don't screw around with image placement. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I may be a minority in this, but I often block editors for revert-warring in ways apparently intended to evade 3RR enforcement. Per the policy, 3RR is a bright line, but you can be edit warring contra the policy without technically stepping over that line. I see some points raised below about this being a matter of accessibility and am reconsidering. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If only that were common in admins, Ivanvector. In 13+ years, I cannot think of a single time I've successfully gotten ANEW or admins around it to act against editwarring, without that bright line being crossed (and once it resulted in a boomerang action; when the same editor resumed the EW stuff later and I took the matter to AE, then it was dealt with as I'd actually expected). Maybe this is just blind coincidence, I dunno. Maybe others get good results. But I have little trust in ANEW in particular dealing with an EW issue when 3RR hasn't been directly transgressed. Several times bitten, very shy. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ad hominem is unbecoming. Given the rarity with which I raise ANI reports (and my success rate at it), it's pretty obvious I mean them when I do them and they are not petty. The last one has gone to ArbCom, BTW. I was certainly not wrong in opening it, though taking it directly to ArbCom might have been more efficient. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no lack of clarity. It's a fallacious tactic to try to distract from the ANI and its subject by suggesting that its opener isn't fit to be opening ANI requests. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll ask that you strike that comment then. WP:BOOMERANG is very real and should definitely be considered given your recent propensity for inserting yourself into multiple situations that originally did not involve you. Nihlus08:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
That comment doesn't appear to relate to any recent ANI (I'm not sure if it relates to any I've filed). I brought this here because I was revert-warred against by someone non-responsive to concerns about revertwarring. Your premise is faulty twice over: ANI doesn't require involvement; for example, if you see two editors calling each other nasty names over the history of cheeseburgers and being unresponsive to other editors' requests to stop, you're perfectly fine to open an ANI about the both of them, even if you've never edited a word here about cheeseburgers, because shitty behavior affects the entire editing environment for everyone. Even ANI cases can be opened by neutral third parties. Second, you're simply echoing BMK's bogus "You have no right to contradict me if you have fewer edits at this page than I do" OWN/VESTED position, just in different wording. The community has never accepted that viewpoint and never will. Third, Legacypac already pointedly suggested a "boomarang" and no one took up that call. We don't do WP:BOOMERANG except when the filer is clearly acting in bad faith; there is nothing bad faith about this ANI report, even if some people disagree with it. You don't get to ban people from ANI because you have a personal axe to grind against them over a recent matter of socio-politically charged disputation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have an axe to grind really with any person, let alone you of all people. I simply am not invested enough in the drama surrounding you at this current moment. I've seen you propose sanctions against multiple editors recently, and felt my comment was a friendly suggestion for you to take an obviously needed break from the site. But alas, you continued to bludgeon this discussion and have failed to listen to what anyone has to say (and before you call it a personal attack, you have 20 comments in this thread at the time I am posting this). I will not reply anymore here as I have made my point. Nihlus10:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nihlus: I'll take that at face value, but am still unclear what reports you object to. The recent one has gone to ArbCom where people apparently believe it belongs (and where some Arbs are voting to take the case). The last "dramaboard" stuff opened by me before that, that I recall, is a successful SPI report in January, and an ANI in December (archive 997) resulting in a warning and a self-imposed restriction in response to the report. Maybe take the concern to my user talk with some details? It sounds almost like you're confusing me with someone who's made a bunch of recent reports, not one report prior to this one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. Among other reasons, placing images in their logical sections is important for accessibility reasons. If BMK can't abide by our MOS as it is, and can't muster consensus to change it, he must be made to keep away from this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support - I don't usually get involved in these discussions, and I have a very high tolerance for people experimenting with style and layout, but the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Images are a hard-line for me which no one should ever edit to cross. The pertinent parts are Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, implementing fixed image sizes and Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading nor at the end of the previous section, otherwise screen readers would read the image (and its textual alternative) in a different section. Anyone edit-warring for purely aesthetic reasons in a way which screws over non-visual readers needs to be prevented from doing so. I prefer Lourdes' much more concise and clear sanction. -- Netoholic@21:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Opposing the request, then opposing it again and requesting a boomerang, and opposing it a third time is exactly what I said it is. I don't care if you do it, mind you, I just want to the closer to notice, if it comes to a formal close (I think this will end without a consensus for action at this time, but that's moot – I'm not Nostradamus and someone may choose to pore over this and consensus-assess it in detail). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And you double down on your lie. If my comments are !votes than so are yours and you have a whole lot more !votes than me in this thread. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - As image choice and placement is largely cosmetic and subjective, the "Is Alberta rat free edit war" was probably a better use for editors' time. That said, some of BMK's changes above are construable as improvements (replacing an overexposed cloudy train station picture with a sunny, bright train station picture, etc) and their judgments are understandable. The main problem about BMK is their uncollegial practice on this very narrow aspect of editing spanning past few years. Procedurally, they should have demonstrated a degree of respect for established consensus at MOS and respective pages and request and discuss changes to MOS properly, instead of plain warring. BMK should at the very least be admonished, but an indef topic ban from image placements might be too harsh. If this continue, then we can talk about a longer or indefinite topic ban. Tsumikiria⧸🌹🌉21:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
BMK was admonished in similar terms for this behavior at the link I posted above. He was “sentenced” to not reverting on the article in question for a week, and admin NeilN detailed points of his behavior that are not acceptable. BMK responded, “Undoubtedly good advice, NeilN, let's hope for everyone's sake that I can follow it,” speaking as though he isn’t in control of his behavior. So what do you suggest next? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, at least as written - This proposal misses its mark IMO. The issue isn't CIR. BYK knows the MOS and knows how to edit. He frequently makes stylistic edits that do improve the page, so I don't think a blanket prohibition on simply making edits concerning this or that stylistic detail (image placement, for example) is appropriate or beneficial to the project (none of these edits is particularly egregious in terms of their content, it should be said, and some are arguably improvements). The real issue is what happens after those stylistic choices are challenged (e.g. long-term edit warring, reverts without an edit summary, unconstructive discussions, etc.).
As such, if anything should be proposed, it should not be a restriction on how BYK styles the articles he chooses to improve, but some sort of restriction on reinstating preferred versions when those versions have been challenged based on the MOS, without finding consensus to do so first. After all, the MOS is the outcome of a whole lot of consensus-building processes, and while the material in it can be difficult to deal with, imprecise, etc. it's nonetheless there for a reason. Accessibility it something brought up above that will escape most users who just want the page to look good on their monitor (I've fallen into this myself).
I'm not saying I'd support such a proposal, just that if anything would be worth considering, it would be something along those lines. I'm sympathetic to BYK's position in some of these matters, if not his approach. It's well established that image placement in MediaWiki can be particularly obnoxious (case in point the existence of things like {{stack}}). I, too, have found that I've spent time wrestling with placement just to find that the one that looks best conflicts with this or that MOS guideline. It can also be frustrating when serious thought has been put into an occasional MOS exception just to have someone with no interest in the content insist on the letter of MOS. Importantly, even if someone is right about MOS, that's not an excuse to edit war or ignore standard editing practices themselves.
TL;DR - A restriction on image placement doesn't really address the issues being raised. A restriction related to what happens after an MOS exception is challenged is the only thing that might make sense. People should realize that a drive-by "because MOS" layout edit might be controversial. MOS is not absolute. But at the same time, MOS should be the default. If someone challenges you on such an exception, the burden is on you to justify it, and you shouldn't just reintroduce it without finding consensus to do so. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
As I read this more carefuly, the more this makes sense to me. The primary problem lies in knee-jerk reverts when contravening the MoS and the resulting fallout (sometimes small, sometimes large) when any additional pushback is applied. The only additional caveat that currently comes to mind is around consensus when BMK is the primary contributor to an article. I have personally seen BMK use the percentage of content contributed to a particular article as a yardstick to determine if an opinion is valid. This often results in the chilling and/or stalling of any discussion that is against his view because when he makes this argument he is generally the primary contributor to the article in question. Just because BMK has contributed the majority of the content to a particular article does not mean he can just ignore valid arguments about MoS issues there. Conversely, BMK's opinion should also be considered. However, if there is no reasonable, objective reason to flaunt the MoS in that case, the MoS should apply even if it is against BMK's opinion.Essentially, your TL;DR but I would change "consensus" to "broad consensus" to indicate that it can't just be BMK unilaterally deciding to flout the MoS. I also think it should apply more broadly in the MoS than just image layout issues, but that is probably a bridge too far at this point. - PaulT+/C05:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The proposal was written as it was because the evidence to date was that the issue was confined to image layout matters. There's since then been suggestion and evidence of a broader issue with this editor, so I have no objection to a broader solution being drafted. However, any time an editor shows a problematic pattern that most strongly affects one narrow subject or activity, as is the case here, a narrow topic ban (or analogous behavioral restriction) is generally the solution we apply, and then broaden it as needed if the disruption shifts to side-step that restriction. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 08:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment – The accessibility and mobile site problem seems like a compelling reason for the image to be in the section to which it is related. Do we need an RfC to make this policy instead of "just" MoS? If made policy, will BMK agree to abide by it? If so, no block needed (prevention, not punishment), right? —[AlanM1(talk)]—22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Accessibility and mobile are two compelling reasons why images should be inside their sections, and I would support a policy change to that effect. Levivich00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far; this doesn't rise to policy level, because we have stubs, and poorly developed sections. For example, we might have several great images that definitely improve the article, but insufficient pertinent text with which to frame them. There's a reason it's in a guideline not a policy; common-sense exceptions are expected to apply. "Do it my way or I'll slow-editwar until you give up, or I'll move to another page I act proprietary about and do it there instead, and either way will demean you the entire time" isn't a common-sense exception and is why this ANI is open. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I will not !vote as a "quasi"-involved editor. I was hesitant to respond at all since I thought I was making progress at the One Madison section linked earlier, but since that discussion was directly referenced (and BMK hasn't responded there in a while) I am going to attempt to positively contribute to this discussion. (If I miss the mark, I apologize. I am not trying to cause trouble.)
I can attest that the vast, vast majority of the article content BMK contributes is a net positive to the project. However, that does not preclude an honest review of the accusations that SMcC is raising, specifically with regard to BMK's tone and approach when disagreeing with other editors (principally when dealing with MoS-issues but also otherwise on occasion). My first interaction with BMK (at Cobble Hill, Brooklyn in April 2018) was about precisely this issue of closely following the MoS/image placement and it did not leave a me with a good impression of BMK's intentions. It eventually led to discussions at WP:3RR and WP:ANI (both closed with no official action taken - either against me or BMK, though I have to admit I am embarrassed when looking back at some of those discussions).
While I have since come to better understand where he is coming from, trying to engage BMK productively when in disagreement can be maddening and exhausting. I agree with it is BRD for everyone else, IAR for BMK above. The MoS guidelines are not policy, but there are parts of it (including parts of image layout placement) that are extremely uncontroversial and necessary for accessibility. BMK often has opinions that are contrary to the consensus that has been reached on these guidelines and enforces those opinions on articles where he has made a substantial contribution, of which there are many.
The main reason this has become a problem is because of how prolific BMK's edits and contributions to the project are, which are frankly awe-inspiring and on balance A Good Thing™. My edits tend toward gnoming, which I'd guess BMK thinks is less important (but I agree is in some ways easier) than the kind of editing (principly content-creation) that he does. I feel like every other article I come across and happen to see a reason to edit/improve, BMK has a vested interest in keeping certain formatting just so, often against MoS guidelines as discussed above. It has gotten to the point where I have started to preemptively double-check when I come across an article I want to edit to see if BMK has previously edited it just so I can tailor my editing style to preempt any (potential and unintentional) needless provocation of him. - PaulT+/C23:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Paul: Just wanted to correct one thing; I do not in any way look down on "gnoming". In fact, a significant portion of my editing could be described that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. I deliberately chose "less important" instead of any kind of derisive term because I do think you see a value to it, but I can see that easily getting lost in what I wrote. - PaulT+/C02:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps a practical measure to take would be to require BMK to provide a reason for deviating from the MoS on image placement and sizing on a given page. Something beyond his typical claim that his version is "superior". Because the times that I have clashed with him over placement, he put images in a section other than the one it pertained to, when there was plenty of room in the proper section, and he could provide no explanation for why his version was preferable. Is that so much to ask? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose A guideline is not a policy and anyone quoting MOS needs to explain why it is better to follow it rather than merely quoting from the text of the guideline. Also, do note that a decision to not follow a guideline is not a WP:IAR claim as the OP states. Finally, looking at the article history, BMK has not reverted since about the time the talk page discussion was initiated so what's the "BMK refused to respond" even doing in OPs post? In other words, no issues with St Francis Dam. Then, following BMK to another page is bad form and both the editors who did that should be made aware of WP:HOUNDING. BMK is not at fault here. --regentspark (comment) 23:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: Many editors, before you made your comment, cited accessibility issues as a major concern and frequent sticking point with BMK. Digital accessibility is important, a developing legal requirement in many jurisdictions, and the right thing to do. It's a good reason to follow the MOS, and I think easier to justify than ignoring the MOS because in the view of one editor it "looks better". Do you have any views on the accessibility question? Mackensen(talk)03:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mackensen: I'm not commenting on the image placement (my aesthetic sense is legendary for all the wrong reasons!). Rather, my point is that the complaint, as formulated, is not actionable because you can't enforce MOS without providing adequate reasons, you cannot complain about an editor not responding to a talk page comment when they are no longer insisting on their viewpoint, and you cannot complain about an editor doing something on another page when you've followed them there (and are, possibly, tag teaming on that page as well). --regentspark (comment) 15:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they certainly cite accessibility issues as a major concern, but fail entirely to explain why. "Accesibility" is in grave danger of becoming simply a buzz word, and needs to be grounded in actual difficulties that need to be overcome. So far, the talk here of "accesibility: has been of the buzzword "this'll get him blocked" variety, and not of the "this will make him understand" variety. It's right up there with "extensive block log" as a relatively meaningless piece of scurrilous data without much applicability to the pending problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is littered with examples; there's a veritable seminar on digital accessibility taking place further down. Let me remind you of Talk:High Line#Accessibility of pseudoheadings, where I did my level best to make you and another editor understand why your preferred version was a problem. My reward was that you simply walked away from that discussion. There were no threats of blocks or any other nastiness there. Mackensen(talk)12:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per my comment far above, because the bullying and un-collaborative behavior has got to stop, and it seems this behavior has spanned many articles/instances. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Another case: It also happened at Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. This isn't a one-off or two-off issue. [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. Note the dismissal of WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns with "you cl;earlyknow nothing about article layout" [sic] (i.e. another incivility and an assertion that BMK's version is subjectively somehow better without any actual rationale). This is editwarring against another editor not mentioned in the OP. The fantasy above that this is BMK being picked on by an MoS regular and his pal is just, well, a fantasy. BMK does not have a right to force every article he thinks is his to look how he likes, at all costs, when unconnected editors at unrelated articles disagree with him and ask him to stop. As I said in another recent ANI, I don't expect that a first-time-report ANI will result in action; almost any time a long-term editor who is generally constructive is involved in something unconstructive, it takes multiple reports. This evidence won't go away and can simply be re-used later when he does again it to someone else; the editwar-to-get-my-way is strong with this one. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I think it might be instructive to take a look at the scope of what's involved here. Although MOS hardliners may see my work on Daniel Burnham by focusing totally on whether an image should be under a section header, and not beside it, what I actually do when I approach an article I intend to work on is something completely different. In this case, I had briefly contributed to the article back in 2010 and 2011 [82] – unlike Reywas92 [83] who had never edited the article before and went to it because he saw my edits in my contrib list, and SMcCandlish [84] who also had never edited it before, and went to it because he was essentially WP:CANVASSED by Reywas92 – so when I saw something about Burnham in a book I was reading that I thought would be an interesting addition to the article, I went there to add it. What I saw was an article that needed expansion, and was also not well laid out. Knowing that Burnham was a major influence in American architecture, I pulled out another book from my library which had extensive information about him, and went to work expanding the article and fixing the visual aspects of it. (It was at this point that the dispute with Reywas92 and SmC took place.)So, when I talk about the scope and context of what I do, and how the visual layout is an essential part of it, but not the only element of it, I'm talking about taking an article from this to this. I'm focused on the big picture, the improvement of an article from an OK 28,449 byte one to a pretty good 42,804 one. In many of the instances brought up here, a similar level of improvement took place. For instance, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, went from this to this in my four days of editing it in February 2015, from 10,206 bytes to 23,167 bytes.So I would suggest that looking at this in terms of a handful of edits without considering the context in which they occured is not the best way to evaluate my contributions to the project, or to any particular article I've wor4ked extensively on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this is an important point. I made a comment above where I went into my experiences with BMK at length, but I don't think there is any question that on balance BMK is an asset to the project and has greatly expanded many articles. The dispute is about comparatively minor formatting disputes that are also important, especially with regard to direct interactions with other editors. Whatever action is taken (if any), the former point should not be lost or diminished by the latter. - PaulT+/C03:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
No opinion about whether BMK should be topic-banned, but this comment from someone above warrants attention from @Graham87:, who uses a screenreader:
Your first diffs are about whether images should be placed just above or just below the section title. Comparing this with the version by BMK, the BMK version is superior.
If that is what BMK is doing, I do hope he will stop. The reasoning behind the MOS guidelines about image placement has to do with people who use screenreaders; unless something has changed since I resigned as FAC delegate, and when I relied on Graham87 for accessibility advice, it was important NOT to do that sort of thing for accessibility reasons. It's not about IDONTLIKEIT; it's about making Wikipedia accessible to people who use screenreaders, or at least it was a few years back. Has anyone alerted @Graham87:, as he uses a screenreader and is the editor who best understands this stuff and could answer whether this still creates the kind of problem it used to create. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope Graham87 can weigh in with practical experience on this. From what I have seen though, that is what BMK is doing, with a caveat. It isn't as if BMK is applying this change uniformly just to be disruptive or go against the MoS. It is generally (and genuinely) for asthetic reasons to make the article in question "look better". I think the problem arises because, from what I have seen, that "look better" opinion is only in the context of the average reader that is viewing the article in similar ways as BMK. His opinion doesn't take into account readers that can't see or need extra accommodations. - PaulT+/C03:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Your comment gets to the heart of matter, and I hope those editors blindly dismissing this as some kind of witch hunt will pause and consider it. The MOS, in these matters anyway, bundles a set of design principles which ensures that Wikipedia is usable by the broadest number of people. That's in line with Wikipedia's mission. BMK's personal MOS would probably be fine if we were a print publication, but we're not. Digital accessibility requires different design choices. Those choices don't compromise the quality of the article. Mackensen(talk)03:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Graham87: Could you please explain to me why this is a problem? I truly do not understand. The dispute here is about the difference between:
Example A
1. section header
2. image
3. text
and
Example B
1. image
2. section header
3. text
Now, to a sighted reader, the difference between these two examples is that in the first one, Example A, which is the one that MOS recommends, the reader will see a section header, then the image directly underneath it (assuming that the image is placed on the left margin), with the text wrapped around the image to the right of it. In the second one, Example B, the sighted reader will see the image, and then (again assuming the image has been formatted to the left) the section header and the text at the right side of the image.
What I don't understand is how screen readers present this aurally to the non-sighted reader. What would the screen reader do with these two examples, and why is what it does so bad that it makes the article inaccessible? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
A screenreader will put the alt and caption in place of the image. Which means you are presenting the image before the header that image applies to, which may mean it is conflated with the previous section. --Masem (t) 06:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. A screen reader reads things in the exact order they appear in the HTML (or wiki-markup, in this case). Graham8706:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And? I fail to see what's wrong with that. The proximity of the image to the section header, and the content of the caption or the alt text will tell the user what subject matter the images are connected to. That's pretty much the same thing that happens to the sighted reader who -- for instance -- looks at a photo in an image gallery, which can be at a substantial distance from the relevant text.Or, consider the analogy of reading a printed book. The majority of printed non-fiction books which have glossy photographs put those images together in a section at the center of the book, for reasons which have to do with the mechanics of making printed books. That's a mild inconvenience, but it's not fatal. If the image is referenced in the text, I have to flip forward (or back) to the image section to look at it. If it's not been mentioned, I might have to flip forward (or back) from the image section to the part of the book which describes the person or event shown in the photo. Again, a minor inconvenience, it doesn't make the book in any way unreadable, and I don't understand why it should be considered that hearing the photo's information immediately before the section it pertains to is any different, or why it makes the article less accessible to the non-sighted user. It certainly doesn't prevent them from understanding the relationship between the photo information and the section header and text which is to follow once they have heard both.Consider another analogy: a television program. Many start in a traditional way, with a theme song and cast names, and then move on to the program content, but other start with a "cold open", in which nothing is said or written on the screen about what the program is, it just goes "cold" into the program content, often a "teaser". Then after a short amount of time, the themes song and credit come in. The viewer watching the program -- if they don't already know what they're watching -- derives no information from the cold open except what it explicitly gives them, which is program content only. If the viewer doesn't recognize the program from what they see, they have to wait for the intro to come on.But that;s OK, we can do that. As humans we can hold onto the information we were previously given and tie it to the new information, and make the connection. The same thing happens with an image presented "out of order" - oh, here's an image that says it's about someone's education, but this section hasn't been about their education up to now. Oh, now here's a section header telling me I'm now going to hear about the person's education, and text about it, so everything ties together. This is how our minds -- blind or sighted or deaf -- make sense of the information we take in, and we're pretty flexible about it. (In fact, we can make connections even when they don't actually exist.)So, Graham87, given this, please help me to understand why this matter is so very, very important that people are impugning my morals for not following the guideline, because I clearly am not understanding the severity of the problem at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You've done a very good job describing how a sighted person contextualizes information. It's very easy to look at a page, whether on the web or in a book, and understand how the text and image are related to each other. The key insight you need to have is that non-sighted people cannot and do not contextualize information in that way, and that a major advantage the web has over print is that we have ways to convey semantic information that doesn't depend on visual cues. We do this with semantic markup: headings instead of bold text. We do this with alt text: a textual description, separate from the caption, explaining what the image is and how it supports the text. Here's another thing to consider: as a sighted person, I see I've got a big book of a certain length. With a screen reader, you don't necessarily know how much content there is. You're relying on those semantic headings to find what you're looking for. You can't just glance down and see where the relevant section is, and the images, having no intrinsic semantic markup, can't pull you toward different parts of the text. Mackensen(talk)12:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the issues that comes up here is out-of-order information which is fine in a produced work, even a spoken-text one, but that's because we as humans can help prepare for the segue from one topic to the next by the use of adequate pauses, shifts in bg music, or the like. Screenreaders do not have that intelligence - they relay on the HTML header markup to know where a shift is coming. --Masem (t) 14:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, have you tried using a screenreader and having it read both options out (like in your sandbox)? When I did that, it was eye-opening, and I quickly understood about that and the importance of alt=. One (short) answer is: if the person with a screen reader jumps directly to a section, they won't "see" the picture at all, because it's outside (technically, above) the section. They won't even know it's there. Conversely, a person reading the prior section will then read the alt= information for the image that's in the next section, without knowing that it's connected to the next section, because they can't "see" that there's a next section or read the section heading (yet, not until after they've moved past the image). If none of this makes sense to you, I strongly encourage you to just try it out for yourself, because sometimes not having a picture is worth a thousand words. :-) Though not as important, same goes for mobile. Levivich06:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
1st image, BMK's version after analysis section opened up.2nd image, BMK's version after previous section also opened up and scrolled to the analysis section. Ultimately it's fairly simple. When people tell you this does cause a variety of accessibility problems and you so you shouldn't do it then you shouldn't do it. Especially when your changes are simply stylistic choices which you may prefer, but other users just using whatever devices and whatever browsers without anything particularly uncommon don't find better.It's fine to try to understand why what you're doing causes problems if you don't understand it, but even if you still can't understand the problems after seeking clarification, then it doesn't matter. You should still follow the guidelines which were developed for good reason by those who understand the problems. The fact that for you, someone who if I understand you correctly, has never ever used screen reader and I'm assuming is not sufficiently vision impaired to need one doesn't understand the problem is neither here nor there. You shouldn't be ignoring the problem just because in your mind, it's no real problem. Note that AFAICT, no one is suggesting this makes the article completely and utterly inaccessible. But for that section, it does make it less usable then it should be, for let me repeat once more, a reason that has no real clear benefit. Also, as Levivich has said, this isn't something even unique to screen readers. This is how the page shows on my mobile device by default after I opened up the "Analysis" section to read it (the other sections are all hidden by default): (first image) Yes I'm aware some people hate the mobile site, but it's still something the WMF is actively promoting and is generally the default. And I personally find it useful sometimes. Especially when reading on a small screen lower end phone.Sure this doesn't make that section useless, but it does mean I may never see the image someone has thought would be useful to my understanding of the section. And sure, if I open up the previous section I see this: (second image) but how am I supposed to know that there happens to be an image for the section I'm reading in the previous section because BMK wants to get their own way in something which they personally think looks better, but plenty of people disagree, and either way the benefit is minor?P.S. I've made the images thumbnails but anyone is free to modify and adjust them such as turn them such as re-positioning or turning them into wikilinks as they feel is best.Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry, Nil, i cannot agree with you. The rubric "If you don;t understand, follow it anyway" might make some kind of sense if we were talking about a mandatory policy, but it makes absolutely no sense when we're discussion a non-mandatory editing guideline. Accepting something simply because people tell you it's true, without explaining whyit's true, or harmful, is the height of authoritarianism, which reduces people to sheep, unwilling to question anything. That's simply not me. I need to be convinced, and there just has not been any convincing explanation posted here. People keep saying that it's a problem, that it reduces accessibilty, but when push comes to shove, they haven't offered any explanation, simply continued assertions. It appears that they (and you) wish me to accept what they say face value, with no evidence, and no clear explanation why that's the case.Despite your slagging off of me below, I'm quite a reasonable guy, my job entails getting things done with a minimum of conflict between various parties with somewhat different priorities. I've been in the middle of any number of disputes, and have been able to diffuse them by asking for clear and cogent explanations, and then using them to bring everyone around to a position they can all accept, or at least one they can live with. I do this regularly, but even I can be stymied if someone simply refuses to provide the necessary information and digs in their heels.I don't want to be that person, I want to find a common ground, I desire not to be in conflict with others, but AGF only goes so far, at some point you have to actually "show me the money" and get down to it.You seem bent on portraying me in the worst possible light -- well, maybe that's your opinion of me, I can' help that, but I don't think it's a fair one, and I'm at a loss as to how to move forward if someone doesn't provide clear and convincing information to me to convince me that I'm wrong. If that happens, I promise I'll back off immediately and support the solution that the folks who wrote up MOS have come up with, but the argument from authority is simply not gong to do it.I fully and totally agree that Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible for differently-abled persons, but I really, really require the information on how the non-MOS formatting makes an article less accessible to them. The one sentence "explanations" floated above simply don't make sense to me, and I tried to explain why, but your reaction to that was to double down on your support for the topic ban, so I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed. I want information, and people aren't providing it. Is it expected that I kowtow to the superior intellect of the MOS crew and not ask questions? If thats the case, maybe I've misunderstood what Wikipedia is about all along, which makes me sad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
BMK, I'm trying to understand how you can write I need to be convinced, and there just has not been any convincing explanation posted here, when a dozen people have written long explanations, for your benefit alone, about how and why your edits create accessibility issues. Graham87, one of our longest-tenured users, who users a screen reader, has confirmed that this is so. What more information would you like at this point? Mackensen(talk)12:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, see how BMK wrote The rubric "If you don;t understand, follow it anyway" might make some kind of sense if we were talking about a mandatory policy, but it makes absolutely no sense when we're discussion a non-mandatory editing guideline.? That's why accessibility issues should be policies, not guidelines. (I wouldn't say all of MOS should be policy, just the accessibility stuff.) Levivich15:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a principled argument against that, I can just say it's a hard sell. The community's not willing to have anything in actual policy that's a style matter. The closest we've come is elevating WP:AT to policy, but it's general principles, and the style related material in early drafts of it was spun out into naming-conventions guidelines (not policies). This is, incidentally, one of the reason's various people's claims that WP:UCRN is a style policy is not true and never will be; the community is entirely dead-set against style matters being policy. Another example is that we have an image use policy, and the style stuff about image split off into MOS:IMAGES guideline. Similarly, we have WP:BLP policy, but style matters about bios, even of living people, broken out into MOS:BIO. If you attempted to merge these things for the ostensibly sensible purpose of consolidation, people would want you hung by the thumbs. For the accessibility stuff, it's probably just better to make the guidelines clearer about why certain things are objectively important, not really subjective. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For the moment, I am persuaded by your argument that we need not change any policy or guideline if the problem is just one editor... Levivich16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought of it in terms of the image being in an unexpected location, but @Levivich:, your point about jumping between headings and therefore missing images makes the whole situation even worse. And thanks, @Nil Einne:, for clearly explaining the situation on mobile ... which IMO is just as bad. Graham8708:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
BMK, idk what system you're running, but screenreaders are free and easy to get. Macs come with VoiceOver built in, just press CMD+F5 to turn it on (user guide). On Windows, it's a free download called NVDA (download here). There are other free readers available. I highly recommend before you judge, you walk a mile in the other person's shoes. Before you decide whether these issues are or are not important, turn on the screen reader, close your eyes, and see how far you get. When I tried it, I gained a new appreciation for image placement, ALT=, and the other stuff in MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Pinging Fram and Legacypac in case they want to try it, too. Levivich16:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Uh, if the image in that example goes with the text and is part of the section denoted by the heading, it should go after the heading. Putting it in a different section from the associated text seems bizarre and breaks things (various themes, styling, accessibility, looking at the section in a DOM inspector, seeing it when jumping to a section from TOC, etc etc). If you don't like where it ends up visually, can't you just poke it around with CSS to where you want it? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per everyone above - I fail to see how this could be enforcable, I personally don't like the image layouts (and infact I've always changed these assuming I was correct so I've certainly learned something today!), Anyway we can't ban people from improving articles. –Davey2010Talk03:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong supportStrongest possible support I've been seeing this for the past day or two and ignoring it since it was a case of 'meh, don't care'. But then I read some of the latest comments, and they made me read the discussion more carefully and I realise now this isn't just some pointless dispute over what looks marginally better, but actually touches on far more fundamental issues. There's clearly something majorly wrong when someone thinks it's acceptable to edit war over something they think looks slightly better to them, completely ignoring accessibility concerns raised with them. Wikipedia can and should do better in serving all possible users. Editors who don't respect such concerns and do damage to this goal can and should be required in no uncertain terms to stop doing so. I'm fine with any other topic ban dealing with BMK and image placements as well. Anything we can do to stop BMK (or anyone else) making wikipedia hard to use for people with vision or other problems with no real gain to everyone else, is a good thing. P.S. I AGF that the accessibility issues have been mentioned to BMK before as others have suggested as I didn't see any diffs.It's clear from BMK's responses that they don't really care that their changes which offer no real improvement do cause genuine and clear negatives for others so AGF is no longer needed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)07:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see how your two notes about WP:AGF relate to each other. Regardless, while I have my own issues with BMK, I don't think it is fair to suggest he is deliberately trying to make a worse experience for readers/hearers. I think his intent is clearly to build a better encyclopedia, if misguided at times (which I'm sure has been/is true of everyone here at one time or another). Yes, BMK was informed of how images being in their related sections is important for accessibility reasons, but not fully understanding the impact of not following this guideline does not mean he is some kind of monster that should be vilified, especially if he is interested in learning about the issue and changing. Nor should his other contributions (of which there are many) that have greatly improved the project for all readers/hearers be ignored or dismissed. Editwarring and WP:IDHT behavior is different though and obviously should be addressed. No one is perfect, but getting outraged on a dime won't help the situation for anyone and will just further inflame things with everyone (though, this also includes being a crybully, BMK). - PaulT+/C08:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose it's safe to say that myself and BMK have clashed in the past, but I'm not sure what this would achieve. Would a topic ban here be be a net-gain for the project? I'm not too sure on that. Maybe there is some edit-warring going on, but this cluster-hunt isn't going to help. And for some reason, I really want a sandwich.... LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I've always been an opponent of editors WP:BLUDGEONing discussions, and I think I'm coming close to that point, so I'm gong to attempt to back off if I can. I will contiue to ignore comments and !votes on the order of "MOS says to do it, so you have to do it", or "A number of editors have told you to do it, so you must do it" since these depends totally on the authority of MOS, which -- as I have shown -- does not have blanket authority of that kind.. However, for those who attempt to describe why the alternate formatting is a problem, providing information that one can sink one's teeth into, I will be properly grateful and promise to evaluate that data in as neutral and unbiased a way as possible. Hopefully, this will lead to a consensus that everyone can live with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This is difficult to distinguish from a declaration that you consider no guideline you don't like to ever apply to you unless and until a new consensus discussion is opened to re-establish consensus for it, and in a way that personally satisfies you as to the veracity of the rationales other editors accepted in coming to that consensus. If you think the guideline material should change or should not exist, you know where to open an RfC/proposal about it (WP:CCC, after all). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Despite my better judgement (and past fruitless discussions/fear of WP:IDHT), I'm going to take a stab at this. Please keep in mind that this is an example and will require some amount of assumptions.I randomly looked through Wikipedia:That Wikipedia List and came across a WP:Featured Article that might be a good example, at least for a first attempt at this: Pigeon photography.In the WW2 section there are a bunch of images at the very beginning of the section. Now, assume those images did not follow the MoS and instead came at the end of the previous section, which happens to be about WW1. Someone using a screen reader would not know if those images are about WW1 or WW2. Having proper descriptions of these images would help to mitigate this, but the fact remains that keeping the images in the relevant section is the best way to immediately know which war the images relate to and limiting ambiguity about the images. This is especially true because they can't see the actual picture and the image may be vauge or not properly annotated. Furthermore, if you assume someone using a screen reader skipped directly to the WW2 section from the table of contents and the images were placed in WW1, they would completely miss this information and have no idea the images even exist, similar to the mobile image examples Nil Einne gave above.This is the basic argument. Having the information presented in a predictable fashion makes it much easier to make the information more widely available. And if you agree that Wikipedia should be as accessible as possible for differently-abled persons, then presenting information predictably so it is easy to access in multiple ways should be a priority for you. Simply following the MoS guideline about image placement is one step towards this, but making sure images have accurate and comprehensive filenames, alt descriptions, and captions would also be helpful. There are a bunch of other things that can be done to improve accessibility of images and articles in general. Now, will you need each MoS guideline on this topic proven/explained to you individually or does there need to be a similar amount of commotion around each MoS guideline for you to take them seriously? - PaulT+/C10:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Accessibility is a red herring. Very rarely is an image so specific it has to be in Section B not Section C and a blind reader can't see the image anyway. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The screenreader reads the caption, and if lucky, reads the alt text which describes the image. And the point is that the placement of the image affects reading the article text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support (a remedy): As follows:
On the specific issue of images, perLourdes, I would support a broader remedy than that proposed by the OP.
The WP image guideline and and policy are closely aligned. Some of the issues impinged upon relate to accessibility (which I understand to be a matter of policy) while others are of a technical nature - ie don't do that because it doesn't work for all of the platforms we want to support. Previous comments in support of BMK (including BMK) distinguish that a guideline is not inviolable. True, however; ...
A local consensus may be arrived at contrary to a guideline. The question here (as indicated above), is whether this falls to consensus by bullying?
BMK has reportedly made similar edits to images across multiple articles. This might be described as White anting, to the extent that it ignores the broader community consensus that is represented by guidelines. As an example, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions gives weight to the broader community consensus.
See further evidence at ANI (also here). BMK has edited several article to reduce infobox image size on the basis that they "glorified" the subject. IMO, this is clearly a POV, where the default image size (without other objective considerations such as resolution) is NPOV. I noted at ANI: per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes."
Softlavenderobserves, BMK's bullying around image placement has got to stop, just like his bullying behaviors in other areas that have been much-discussed in the past. Per this (and others), there is an underpinning issue of BMK's conduct and, more specifically, how they "enforce" their opinion in a way (IMO) that is contrary to the principles of collaboration and achieving consensus. These would be matters of policy. My own interactions with BMK have been limited (essentially - in my recollection) to Talk:Erwin Rommel (see here and here, in particular). I have percieved their conduct as falling to "bullying" and certainly not in the spirit of collaboration.
I would support a remedy that more directly addresses this systemic issue. Perhaps, as a principle, it might restrict their capacity to make multiple reverts without discussion and obtaining support for their own position.
Support ... something. Clearly, BMK (who I generally get along with) has some issues with images. I've run into it in terms of his views on headings... where I generally have decided its not worth fighting over, but I've seen the image issues as well. Clearly, they are longstanding and spread across a large range of topics. Would a ban on reverting to his preferred version when two editors have changed an image work? that would show some consensus (i.e. two editors making images align with the accessiblity issues) while still keeping things from being subject to trolling. I'd like to thank all the above who spent time explaining the issues with image placement - that makes the issue much more important in my mind - and thus of the opinion something needs done besides the usual "BMK is warned to behave better in the future" admonishment they've gotten before. Like I said, I generally get along with BMK - and I don't want to impede them unduly, but they need to take on board that the accessability issues ARE important and that it isn't possible to micromanage the article layout to the degree you would in print. You have to let some things just ... go. And WP:ACCESS is important, not just for the sight impaired, but for mobile users (which includes many in areas of the world where libraries are thin on the ground and wikipedia may be the only resource for information that's easy to get to). Ealdgyth - Talk14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a remedy that somehow keeps BMK away from images, and encourages him to learn more about developing content. Although this is only a MOS issue, it is one where we see the tendency and a pattern with BMK.
Admin Graham87 is blind and uses a screen reader. BMK went off on a TLDR post after it was clearly explained to him that his actions affect people who use screen readers, and disrespectfully piled on another TLDR wall of text for a screenreader-user.
The pattern is that BMK has a bad case of disrespectful IDHT, and demonstrates little knowledge of content editing. He is the top editor at C. K. G. Billings by a long stretch (70% of content and 70% of edits), where in April 2018, he removed a copyvio tag without correcting the copyvio (he did not originally insert the copyvio). Later Moonriddengirl had to scrub the article thoroughly, and even then, the article continues to use blatantly non-reliable sources. I cannot diff all of this; diffs are not available because most of the article history was oversighted for copyvio, but the history is: a copyvio tag was placed, BMK removed it with no discussion, it was placed again, BMK removed it again, claiming he had rewritten the article and removed the copyvio, but he had not removed the copyvio (and even if he had, the history still needed scrubbing, so the tag should have stayed until addressed.) So, his editing is sloppy and disrespectful of core policies (WP:COPYVIOWP:V and WP:RS) that are much more serious than WP:MOS. Disrespect of COPYVIO policy is bad enough; but sheesh, copyvio from a non-reliable source even.
I am, to say the least, as underimpressed by BMK's editing skills as I am by his lack of respect for Graham87 and other readers for whom accessibility is important. Seeing the way BMK responded to Graham87, and a continuation of a disrespectful IDHT trend, I believe some editing restriction should be put in place, and that he probably needs to be under the tutelage of an experienced content mentor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Warn both - I struck my "oppose" comment above, and for rationale behind this comment, see my comment in the boomerang proposal below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a remedy. I've read everything above. This wouldn't be a problem at all if BMK were willing to accept the problem, but BMK seems intractable even after the rationale behind the MOS been clearly explained. SportingFlyerT·C20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose a sanction (or "remedy") because the self-imposed proposal by BMK is better, and also so I can hold this vote over him in the future. Levivich04:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I thank you for your !vote, Levivich, and I'm glad you find this situation humorous, but I'm afraid I can't seem to do the same; in fact I find this whole situation tremendously depressing. I take my involvement with Wikipedia seriously, and my mission to improve articles and share the information I have available to me as important on a societal level, Wikipedia being the primary initial source of information online. The same goes for protecting articles from vandalism and POV edits. So, really -- and I'm sorry that this is the case -- I'm not laughing about very much right now, since I'm looking at the strong possibility that I may have to significantly rethink my level of involvement here, especially when considering the untruths and personal attacks which have been leveled at me in this discussion. Anyone reading this withpout prior knowledge of my editing history is likely to assume that I'm a selfish, pigheaded, immoral bastard who deliberately screws up accessibility and probably hates differently-abled people, as that is the picture that's been painted of me in this section. I don't believe that portrait is true, and I don't think that the people in RL who know me would recognize that description as being in the same universe as I am.Be that as it may, I'm not taking the situation lightly, not in any way, shape, or form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Nowhere in this discussion have you shown empathy for people who need accommodations, not even in your proposed self-restriction which would have seemed the natural place to do it. It's always about you, and what you need, and how you're improving the encyclopedia. No one doubts your commitment to improving Wikipedia. Otherwise, would so many people, to whom you've just now assigned hateful views which they have not espouse, spend so much time educating you about accessibility? If they really thought the things you claim they think, they'd just call for you to be blocked. It would be simpler for everyone. Mackensen(talk)11:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
What Mack said, basically. BMK, if it was the same exact ANI report, but naming me instead of you, it would have been, "Levivich, follow consensus and the MOS or you're done." This long discussion is a sign of the community's respect for and admiration of you. I know you've had a rough week and it must be very stressful; I was hoping a little levity would make you smile but I'm sorry if it made you feel worse instead of better. I do hope you remember the feeling, though, the next time you're tempted to support a ban or a block of another editor at ANI. For my part–and I think many editors feel the same way, though clearly not all–all I think is needed here is for you to say "OK, I'll follow MOS:ACCESS unless I have consensus not to." Your proposal below doesn't go that far but I support it anyway because you've been here 13 years and are a WikiTitan of Old. Still, you're demonstrating "not hearing" behavior in this thread that is impossible to ignore. Earlier in this thread, you argued with an editor who uses a screenreader about what's best for editors who use screenreaders, while also admitting that you, yourself, have never used one. That's a lot of chutzpah, my friend. So I do feel like you've brought this upon yourself somewhat, but also that it's a minor enough issue and you're in good enough standing that you can dig yourself out of the hole you're in right now fairly easily–I think–by essentially doing what you would expect me to do if I were in your shoes. (Capitulate. Completely.) Levivich18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Lugnuts and others. BMK is a highly respected and productive member of the community, and I'm distressed that this seems like the latest in a series of ANI reports that target some of the best on WP and result in their being driven from the project. Grandpallama (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The central premises in that are faulty. The entire point of topic bans is that they do not remove the editor from the project, but keep them on-board and just isolated from slivers of it in which they cause/get into trouble. If we thought that topic-bans predictably led to editorial resignations (they obviously do not, given the number of editors with current or now-expired topic bans), then we wouldn't use them. Second, being a generally respected and productive editor has never been a rationale against a topic-ban, and is often the main rationale for imposing one instead of stronger sanctions. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Question: I posted about this above, but it got lost in all the back-and-forth. BMK has referenced (an) ArbCom ruling(s) multiple times about the MOS not being mandatory or enforcable.See this quote from Talk:Success Academy Charter Schools "MOS is not policy, it's not mandatory, and edit warring to enforce it has been ruled by ArbCom to be out of bounds" and this quote from Talk:Daniel Burnham "When one enforces MOS as if it was a mandatory policy -- an action which, BTW, has been ruled as unwarranted by ArbCom on several occasions -- one in effect makes the guideline a de facto policy, without ever going through the community approval process required to do so. This is thus a "back-door" to making MOS mandatory, a result which is expressly not what MOS is meant to be".Does anyone know what specific ArbCom ruling(s) BMK is referencing? Are those statements accurate? I'm sure they are but I'd like to read them to get additional context. - PaulT+/C19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Psantora: Yes; they are WP:ARBATC and WP:ARBINFOBOX, primarily (two others are WP:ARBDATE, which is too old-news to have much relevance, and WP:ARBINFOBOX2, which is just an extension of the prior one on the same topic). What's being missed here is that these cases, mostly about civility but also some editwarring, apply across-the-board. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card for being incivil and editwarring over these matters while accusing others of violating these ArbCom decisions in the same way ("I shot your dog because you're an animal abuser" kind of pseudo-reasoning). ArbCom didn't take a side in these cases, and perhaps most importantly in all of that made it clear that individuals or small clumps of them (e.g. wikiprojects trying to "ban" infoboxes from categories of articles they feel proprietary toward) don't have the authority under WP:CONLEVEL policy to ignore guidelines they don't like; you don't get to make up your own rules. Nothing ArbCom has said or done undermines the community principle that WP:IAR is properly invoked only when ignoring a rule will objectively result in an improvement to the encyclopedia. For this ANI in particular, it's probably all moot because we know the subject frequently cites MoS, for things he agrees with, in the same way others cite it to him about things he doesn't want to to do. BMK hasn't been taking a principled IAR stand we need to debate about, but simply making an argument of convenience that reverses any time it needs to. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish has started this discussion against Beyond My Ken with
"For several years, BMK has been fighting with registered users and anon editors to move images away from the content that relates to them at St. Francis Dam and presumably various other articles; just one example from 2015 [135]"
and
"BMK re-reverted again, with another claim of just "better", and a bogus WP:STATUSQUO claim, and a demand for discussion (there cannot be a status quo when multiple editors have been undoing BMK's layout changes since at least 2015"
They reiterated the claim multiple times during this discussion/
" BMK's been slow-editwarring this exact same thing at the same article against all comers, including anonymous readers who object and try to reverse him, since at least 2015"
"ANI is primarily concerned with recent disruption; I only mentioned 2015 at all to indicate how long this rearrange-it-my-way-for-no-real-reason stuff has been going on. It actually goes back further at this article alone."
"My report was not misleading, but well diffed (and there are intermediate edits between 2015 and now, at that page, showing that it's a slow-editwar, but we need not go there"
Their attempt to provide evidence for their claims (after initial refusal to do so) here shows no evidence at all of edit warring by BMK at that article before February 2019.
Can we please have an admonishment against SMcCandlish that presenting false evidence is a personal attack? Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." His "evidence" is not some offhand remark, it is the very start of his case against BMK, and should be supported by actual diffs of edit warring (not of editing and tinkering with images, but actual edit warring), or retracted. I asked this repeatedly above, but to no avail.
Note that this boomerang is not intended to close the above discussion, others have presented additional evidence, and an interesting discussion about accessibility is ongoing. But starting a discussion about a real problem doesn't excuse presenting false evidence to win. Fram (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I already provided evidence of identical editwarring (no question, editwarring) at a different article in 2018. The point of the 2015 diff was demonstrating that the "my layout just because I say so, never mind the guidelines" behavior dated to at least 2015 (since shown to go back to 2010 with diffs I added later). Whether there has been a non-stop editwar since 2015 is irrelevant (wouldn't we hope not?!). More evidence is being provided all the time of the same behavior at other pages as more editors come forward about it. And even one editwar is one too many. ANI is concerned primarily with on-going issues, not old history. There's no boomerang grounds for having provided some history to demonstrate that the my-way-because-I-say-so issue is long-term, but it was not necessary to have provided any non-recent diffs at all; the diffs from 2019 alone are sufficient to establish the problem. Changing layout in anti-guideline ways in 2010 then again in 2015 and again later at the same page, all on the same non-rationale, is slow-editwarring, and we need not actually care when there's 2018 and 2019 full-speed editwarring, without question, on record. This boomerang stuff is predicated on nothing but imprecise wording in the OP, and is a hand-wave to distract from the multi-page editwarring that is clearly proven (2 pages in 2019, one in 2018, so far). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it's "imprecise wording" now? Then why didn't you retract or correct it when this was pointed out, and instead continued to claim that it was correct and let these false claims stand at the very start and throughout your attempted topic ban placement? "Whether there has been a non-stop editwar since 2015 is irrelevant (wouldn't we hope not?!). " It is relevant enough for you to make it the foundation stone of your evidence and to continue using it and defending it throughout the proceedings, but it suddenly isn't relevant or actually true when you are confronted with a request for a boomerang? Fram (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Already been over what the relevance is of the 2015 material, and now how it ties all the way back to the 2010 material. That you don't want to hear it doesn't compel me to re-re-re-cover this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It is very relevant, but the claims you make about it are false. The statement about "is irrelevant" is a quote from your post right above. Fram (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And I just went over this again: It's not relevant to whether there's an actionable level of editwarring happening now; it's tangentially related, in showing that the "rationale" (ILIKEIT) for BMK's actions, for the same image-moving stuff, dates back years. Shall I just put it into a template so I can easily repost it every time you pretend you haven't heard this? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Update my boomerang proposal to 24 hour block for knowingly and repeatedly presenting false evidence even after it had been pointed out that the claims were not supported by the actual article history. I only asked for an admonishment in the hope that so far, it was just a stubborn belief that their claims were true and some inability to match their own claims with their own diffs. Now it turns out that this hope was in vain, and that they knew all along that what they claimed was not true, but still defend it as "imprecise wording". Such tactics are not acceptable. Fram (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
At this point I rather wish the 24-hour block had been imposed, since it would now be over and this subthread would be closed, instead of you and Legacypac continuing to argue ad nauseam. [sigh] Every time I look here there's additional circular re-re-re-argument from one or both of you. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem unclear on the slow-editwar concept. It's a form of WP:GAMING the system; we cover this primarily at WP:CIVILPOV, though BMK's crossed the civility line on this, too. That this has recently exploded into full-tilt "fast editwarring" at two articles, on the heels of at least one other last year, is a good reason to bring it to ANI, especially since it doesn't quite qualify for ANEW, and it's not entirely about reverting, but about an anti-guidelines viewpoint problem, too. That my interpretation of slow editwarring as, well, editwarring doesn't suit your preferences doesn't mean I'm lying. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
In this case, it does. An edit from 2015 (which was not even an undo of the IP edit right before it, which added two images to a gallery), which doesn't get challenged or repeated until 2019, is not an edit war, and a revert to the situation which existed from 2015 to 2019 is not a bogus statusquo claim. Claiming that this is a slow edit war is complete nonsense. The edit war only started in 2019, before this there was an edit in 2015. Fram (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Show me a consensus discussion establishing a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at any of these pages for WP:IAR (with any kind real reason) to not comply with the applicable WP:P&G. If there's not one, then there's no status quo argument; there's simply a messy page anyone is free to clean up to comply with the P&G. Been over this already, too. Your idea that whatever disarray the page happens to be in for more than [insert whatever time frame you're imagining], without any consensus for it to be in that state, constitutes a status quo no one can touch, would make it impossible for any gnoming or other cleanup of any kind to happen without something like an RfC for every single twiddle. AWB and most of our bots would have to be shut down right this instant. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's examine the diff and statement at issue, the one I opened with for chronological perspective: For several years, BMK has been fighting with registered users and anon editors to move images away from the content that relates to them at St. Francis Dam and presumably various other articles; just one example from 2015 [135]; I won't trawl through years of diffs even at that page to re-prove the same point). It provides a diff of BMK disputing an anon's image placement (I'm not sure if the anon's original addition of the images was clear; it's here), to move to a "BMK-approved", counter-guideline place. The next diff and then onward shows him doing this in 2019 (over and over again, against opposition). So, one might have a "does two different years qualify as 'several'?" semantic point to make, countered by "a range of more than two years does, and who cares anyway?" This is all made moot by 2018 diffs showing the exact same thing happening in an intervening year, just at a different page. Even the semantic nitpick would no longer have any meaning. I did end up trawling through the diffs, after all, and found the same move-the-image-out-of-its-section-because-I-wanna behavior going back to at least 2010.
The entire premise of this boomerang suggestion appears to be that BMK's being unfairly railroaded by how I presented this, but in point of fact other editors have proved that the problem is more widespread that I surmised, and expressed particular concern about the accessibility aspect, not the editwarring aspect I focused on. BMK's actually not likely to be sanctioned in this ANI in any way, though should take the hint and stop doing this, especially for a rationale that seems to amount to nothing but "you can't stop me". Your lobbying on behalf of BMK has simply resulted in me digging up evidence that the problem goes back at least 5 years earlier than previous reported. What next? Shall we see if it goes back to 2005? Or if it also happened at another page in (exactly) 2016 and 2017 to fill in missing "diff space"? Jeebus. If you were my wikilawyer, I'd fire you. And I doubt BMK asked to be your client, heh. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Making one edit in 2015 to move an image from below to above a section header is not an edit war, nor is it the start of an edit war if the second such edit only happened in 2019. That's not a semantic point, that's basic editing policy. The edit war started in 2019. BMK has not been "fighting" this for several years. You claimed "including anonymous readers who object and try to reverse him", but haven't shown any such reader to object. You claimed that he made "a bogus WP:STATUSQUO claim", when an edit that stood from 2015 until 2019 is the status quo, and his claim wasn't bogus at all. "The entire premise of this boomerang suggestion appears to be that BMK's being unfairly railroaded by how I presented this". Uh, the premise of the boomerang is that you presented false claims, which you refused to retract but instead supported with diffs not supporting your claims at all. Whether the problem you highlight is real or not is the subject of the discussion above: this discussion is about whether the evidence you presented is correct, or not (in which case it is a personal attack, and blockable). Fram (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
He flat out lied about my contributions calling my first two comments !votes. When I called him out he doubled down. If my comments are all "!votes" than so are his many more comments to the thread. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I already addressed this; repeating yourself after your claim has already been addressed is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU and proof by assertion. "Doesn't agree with me" != "lying". "Doesn't agree with me" != "doubling down" (a phrase you use way too often, and which doesn't mean what you seem to think it means). When you post three messages that simply call for a result (respectively: reject this request, reject this request and boomerang, reject this request), and they are not not substantively presenting new arguments or clarifying your previous ones or seeking clarification about or disputing someone else's previous ones, they're duplicate !votes. As I said before, I don't care at all if you make them; the closer should just be made aware of them. How you can turn that into some kind of grievous offense to rant about is unclear, and I'm kind of beyond seeing a way to mollify you at this point. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You addressed "Legacypac has already !voted in this discussion, above, twice [165], [166]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)" by not admitting it is a lie but by justifying your fiction. I have zero tolerance for that. You deserve your own ANi thread for posting such fabricated nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you perhaps address the points raised and explain why you have this opinion, instead of being flippant and dismissive? Such posts are rarely helpful. Fram (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you've just invented the basics for WP:DIDGERIDOO; what happens when someone gets offended by an ANI complaint, files a "boomerang" section, and it falls straight out of the sky with nothing but a low moaning noise. Like throwing a didgeridoo. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a comment, I don't think there's anyone left who visits this page who doesn't know that SMcCandlish and I are not to be seen skipping hand-in-hand through a sunny meadow any time soon, to put it lightly. But I think this request is overreaching just a bit. "Falsifying evidence" is a strong claim, and I don't think it's inaccurate but I also think this could be reasonably construed as "exaggerating a truthful claim" in the (AGF) interest of highlighting an issue, which, if true, is a serious one (repeatedly moving images in ways which counter manuals of style and standards of accessibility, if I've interpreted correctly). But, the statement that "BMK's being unfairly railroaded by how [SMcC] presented this" is accurate. More to the point, a sanction resulting from an unfair presentation is easily overturned on appeal. SMcCandlish I think probably knows that readers of this forum do not always evaluate issues for themselves but more often than not accept incidents as initially described and pile on to predetermined outcomes, and so one could deliberately misrepresent a truthfully disruptive situation in order to drive home an enforcement result. Not that I'm saying this is an example of that being done deliberately, but it certainly occurs.
A justifiable reading of these discussions could productively result in a close warning BMK to respect sitewide style guides and guidelines on accessibility (which are based on international standards and, in many places, legal requirements) and a parallel warning to SMcCandlish to not exaggerate misbehaviour and to provide diffs when asked in disciplinary forums. But that's just my very heavily tainted opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have provided diffs when asked. This is about interpretation of diffs and the pattern they form, not whether any exist or have been given. As for BMK, I don't expect anything other than a warning to come out of this, anyway, as I've said since very early on. ANI almost never implements an actual restriction against long-term editors the first time an issue is raised here, only when it's come up several times. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I am no fan of SMcCandlish's constant MOS warrioring. I am sure I have come up against it in the past, but can't remember where. But, in this case, they are right. I was willing to not support sanctions for BMK until I saw his response to Graham87; that intransigent response, combined with BMK's lack of knowledge or respect for copyvio and reliable sources, mean that I see that BMK is the problem here, and I am willing to grant SMcCanlish's MOS fixation as valid in this case. I hope they will understand that constant MOS warrioring undermines their case when it is important, like here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
This section is not about "SMcCandlish's constant MOS warrioring". This section is also not about whether they are right about the general issue of BMK edit warring against the MOS. This section is about the evidence SmcC presented to make his case, but which is blatantly incorrect. Like I said, discussion about BMK is the subsection right above this one. Supporting sanctions against BMK doesn't necessarily mean opposing a boomerang for SmcC or vice versa. Fram (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
As this long, sad thread is in response to SMcCandlish's response to problematic behavior of BMK's, it is not only right but necessary to discuss BMK in responding in this thread. Concerns have been voiced/affirmed by others with BMK's behavior, and a closure proposal is now before us. There is no need for some sort of action against SMcCandlish for bringing the matter to the attention of the community, and such could be viewed as retaliatory and viewed as having a chilling affect on users bringing valid concerns before the community. Certainly neither user is perfect or a candidate for Wiki canonization. Perfection is not required here. A certain tolerance for one another's foibles among highly concerned individuals who may at times be a bit high strung is required in a creative milieu like this one. Oppose Boomerang, bury the hatchet, and listen to some Didgeridoo music. We've all earned that.DlohCierekim21:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I have no trouble agreeing to be more precise in any future ANI report, of course. Being unclear enough to attract accusations of "lying" isn't exactly ideal, even if the accusations can't be sustained. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose boomerang, bury the hatchet, drop the stick, throw the didgeridoo. The report raised a bona fide issue. If we admonished editors for how they describe diffs, wouldn't we be here all day? As a general rule, I'm not in favor of chastising editors for being overly prosecutorial when raising legitimate issues; leeway should be allowed so as not to create a chilling effect. Levivich04:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Opposed and trout Fram—The idea of opening a subsection in an ANI report to demand a block in retribution for the ANI report made is frankly a terrible idea that reeks of emotion-motivated revenge rather than any good for the project, and Fram should feel bad they even suggested it. If there's a problem with SMC's behavior, it should get another thread and not one specifically framed around getting back at another user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)14:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
? Most people disagree with my analysis of SMcCandlish' evidence vs. reality, fine. But raising an issue with the way an ANI report is presented is always done as a subsection of that report. Opposing my boomerang demand, trouting me if you think my reasoning is flawed, farfetched, whatever, also fine. But trouting me because I put this here instead of in another thread is just ridiculous. This is not "emotion-motivated revenge", and you might have noticed that I haven't replied to anyone else supporting some action against BMK. This is me caring about a ANI thread started with (in my view) completely incorrect pieces of evidence, which is something which should never be accepted, no matter who posts it and no matter about who it is. If I were to start a section about, let's say, VoteX, and I included claims of wrongdoing which were simply not true, I would expect people to call me out on it, and if I refused to correct it, to start a boomerang subsection. The very basis of reports at ANI (or ArbCom or wherever else) is that you present only correct information, that that information gets checked by others, and that incorrect information (deliberate or by mistake) gets corrected, retracted, ... If this is no longer allowed and "The idea of opening a subsection in an ANI report to demand a block in retribution for the ANI report made is frankly a terrible idea" is the new normal here, then we have a serious problem with how things are handled here. Fram (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed this is the right place for it (contra Legacypac also making a suggestion otherwise). If you split it out, others will just merge it back into the original ANI's section anyway, as happened just above on this page recently to multiple threads about the Signpost matter. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That I voluntarily pledge to -- except in relation to image galleries -- put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
In regard to the above, that when another editor disputes my judgment whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, I will give way and accept their judgment.
Note: The wording of the above section has been altered from the original.
That this voluntary pledge be logged at WP:Editing restrictions and be enforceable by blocks.
@Legacypac, Ivanvector, Psantora, and Dlohcierekim: Please note that in response to Ivanvector's comment below, I have changed the wording of the second point of the proposal to better represent what I intended to write. Please check to be sure your !vote below still respresents your view of the proposal in light of fhis change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, I don't see it as largely workable that you commit to accede to an opposing viewpoint every time one is presented. If that's what you want then fine, but I'd be happy with a commitment to discuss rather than reverting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear. My intention was not to give way to the judgments of other editors in general, only to do so in the specific instance of disputes about whether it was possible to put an image into the relevant section. in other words, point 2 is not a new subject, it pertains only to situations presented in point 1. I'll update it to make that clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And with closure comes healing. May we all heal in our own way(s). Blessed be. DlohCierekim 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Support (at least in concept). This seems very similar, though slightly less broad, to what @Rhododendrites: proposed above, which I thought was a better option than the originally proposed TBAN. Whatever is decided, I hope BMK can find a way to continue to edit productively. - PaulT+/C 21:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC) My view is still pretty much the same after BMK's minor revision 3.5 hours later as I figured that was the way he originally meant it. Though, technically, it is even less broad than it was initally and I still think it could be expanded (particularly with WP:ACCESS) as I mentioned in my comment way above on Rhododendrites's initial post. - PaulT+/C00:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
0RR suggestion to BMK with respect to images With respect to your second point above, if you accept to adhere to 0RR with respect to image edits, I'll support this. Lourdes01:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
No, sorry, I will not accept that voluntarily, editing image layout involves a lot of trial and error, much of which takes place in preview but, of necessity, sometimes in live edits. Also, as an article is expanded, the ideal placement of images alters as well, so 0RR would be unnecessarily inhibiting. If you wish to impose a 0RR sanction, please open a proposal of your own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Responding since mentioned above. I didn't actually propose anything previously, but rather explained why I thought the original proposal missed the mark. If the image edits hadn't been accompanied by edit wars, missing edit summaries, dismissive and/or counterproductive approaches to discussion, etc. this would all be a relatively minor issue. It's only because of the edit warring and arguments to reinstate these changes that we're here.
It's image placement this time, but BMK's battles over stylistic preferences have been an ANI (or MOS/RFCU/wherever else) mainstay for what, a decade? My point was that the only sort of restriction worth considering (and whether I'd support it would take additional digging before making up my mind) would be one that required simply respecting the MOS as the default -- that if someone challenges a decision not to follow MOS (which is allowed!), then it's on whoever wants the exception to find consensus for it. MOS isn't absolute, but it's the default, and we're learning of one reason why in this discussion. I say this as someone who really appreciates a lot of BMK's editing. He's made a huge number of improvements to NYC-area articles, for example, that I benefit from regularly. But he's frustrating to argue with, because his edit summary % is about as low as any experienced editor I've ever seen, comments are often dismissive, and the BMKMOS > everyone else's MOS. That was my point above. As such I wouldn't support this proposal, nor the proposal to topic ban above, because I don't think either of them address the actual issue here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I share Rhododendrites' concerns. Normally one would say that respecting a guideline is the default behavior, and that departing from it requires special justification. Offering to "voluntarily" do what we would expect of all other editors isn't much of an offer. It's clear that the patient explanations of accessibility issues above by numerous editors made no impression on him. Mackensen(talk)03:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Support but I'd rather have a promise not to edit war over accessibility issues (and to vote the same way as Levivich at all XfDs and RfCs). Levivich05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. As to above cross-concerns, I don't seen a pattern of "edit war[ring] over accessibility issues", unless I'm missing something. The edit-warring was over layout, and accessibility concerns arose in relation to it. Addressing all potential problems isn't what we usually do here, just the ones that the evidence is convincing about; not every concern raised above is agreed to be an issue by most people responding here. Long-term editors should generally be given the good-faith treatment in response to a negotiated close like this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I only think it's a big deal if there's edit warring over MOS:ACCESS, not the entire MOS. MOS is a style/layout/aesthetics/foofy issue. MOS:ACCESS is a non-discrimination i.e. human rights issue. When we're talking about WP, the world's source of reliable information, I think it's extremely important that we make sure that it is accessible to all humans, not just those who can see. Levivich22:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair point; I don't mean to belittle the distinction or just dismiss everything in MoS as "foof"; I too often argue the opposite myself to hold such a view. Plenty of MoS stuff is about accessibility, technical needs, comprehensibility, etc., not subjective matters (and even the more subjective stuff is based on rather excruciating consensus negotiations over a long period of time – people are often unreasonably impassioned about even the most trivial style matters, so WP having a play-book to end cyclic in-fighting over them is important). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Support, is reasonable and frankly more than he should be required to do under the circumstances of the complaint made. Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I offer this as a counter-proposal to BMK's voluntary undertaking above because I don't think it addresses the actual problem. The dynamic we've all seen for years goes something like this (and there are plenty of diffs above which bear it out):
BMK introduces non-standard stylistic changes which contravene the manual of style. This could be pseudoheadings for sections, or forced thumbnail sizes, or images outside sections, etc. Some of these create accessibility problems; some of them degrade the experience on mobile. Some just look odd to people who aren't BMK, like the thumbnail size changes.
A well-meaning editor happens upon the article, sees this non-standard formatting, and makes some edits. Perhaps they're motivated by accessibility or perhaps they just think our articles should hew to a standard presentation.
BMK reverts. Maybe he's polite about it or maybe he's not.
There's a talk page discussion in which BMK will insist his changes are "better" and that the user needs to gain consensus for their changes. In the course of this discussion BMK may or may not ban said user from his talk page (which is his right, but he does seem to do it more often than most).
Optionally there's a related discussion here at ANI, or on the edit-warring noticeboard, if said user was particularly motivated or BMK was particularly rude. There will be much heat and little light, though BMK does collect about one block a year under his current account.
This is an unhealthy dynamic for a collaborative project and we as a community have endured it for too long. I understand skepticism about the MOS, but guidelines have consensus and in general they should be followed. Occasional exceptions may apply, yes, but if your default position is to ignore all rules when formatting articles, then (a) that's not an occasional exception and (b) you're probably not a good judge of when it is and is not appropriate to be ignoring all rules. I've always found IAR to be best invoked sparingly, when all other options have failed.
I propose the following restriction in the hope that it breaks the cycle: BMK may not reinstate a challenged stylistic edit to an article if that edit contravenes one or more guidelines or policies unless he can demonstrate that there is consensus on the article talk page for his preferred version. Like all editing restrictions this would be open to interpretation, but the intention is I think clear. If there's truly a need to ignore all rules when formatting an article, then it should be possible to persuade others of that need and to gain consensus for that view. This is especially true for situations where the challenged edits create accessibility problems. BMK has demonstrated above that he doesn't understand digital accessibility. Until he does, he shouldn't be the one deciding when it's okay to depart from guidelines, when those guidelines are (in part) designed to ensure that our articles are accessible to as many readers as possible. Thank you for your consideration, Mackensen(talk)04:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Support, since BMK has been given a slap on the wrist over and over again. It's super tedious for all those involved, per the wall of text above. Cards84664(talk)04:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment, this is better than BMK's proposal, so my first choice so far, but still not there. When he removed a copyvio tag, the reasoning seemed to be nothing more than his article should be exempt. This editor needs tutelage, and shouldn't be allowed any leeway on editing restrictions that waste other editors' time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
In his defense, his point is that he has a vested interest in the article because he has spent a lot of time on it and as such his opinion shouldn't be ignored (I'm sure there is additional nuance I'm missing, too). Practically, I think that makes sense and I could agree with it, but it becomes a problem when youone brings it up repeatedly and ignores/dismisses reasonable arguments just because youone disagrees. - PaulT+/C19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am going to assume that last comment was not directed at me, you may want to be careful when pointing fingers like that. ANd you defended someone saying "my oppinion matters more than yours because I wrote more" MPJ-DK (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ah, sorry! Yes. Somehow I switched subjects. I changed "you" to "one" above. And I'm not saying the opinion matters more, just that it shouldn't be ignored. (Though BMK may agree that it should matter more.) - PaulT+/C20:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose MOS is a guideline, one that conflicts with itself and is not always clear or desirable to follow. This just sets up an unreasonable trap that someone will quickly say BMK fell into. If you want to have him blocked, propose that directly right now. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
If I wanted him blocked I would say so. It would certainly take fewer words than explaining accessibility. Blocking BMK would be a net loss for the project and a last recourse when all other options have failed. I do think the intransigence of BMK and some of his defenders make such an outcome more likely in the long run, but I would be sad to see it happen. All I want is to have BMK play by the same rules as everyone else. If someone uses this restriction to bait BMK then we can deal with that. If there are undesirable guidelines then BMK should state how they are undesirable and gain consensus for those changes. That's how these processes work. As I've indicated above I do not think he understands digital accessibility well enough, or at all, to do so, and his views on layout are too parochial to be appropriate for a project of this scale and complexity. Mackensen(talk)11:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per my opposition to the original proposal - this is too difficult to fairly enforce. Was a challenged edit stylistic? Does the edit contravene a guideline? Is there consensus or has consensus changed? Too many variables. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I would have to oppose at this time, as over-broad. While it's true that an unusual number of BMK's disputes seem to involve MoS stuff, that's probably going to be true for anyone who does a lot of copyediting and other cleanup and is abrasive enough to attract criticism. He frequently enough cites MoS as a justification for edits that it doesn't seem to be genuine anti-guideline activism when he bucks the same guidelines. If it's "opportunistic" use of or opposition to guidelines, back and forth on a per-dispute basis, this ANI going as it has gone surely sends a signal that this technique isn't going to work. So, give the self-proposed remedy a try, shall we? I also tend to agree that the wording is vague ("stylistic"?). If it ever came to this, we should borrow language directly from previous MoS topic-bans (general or more specific, as the situation seems to require). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment - After taking a look at some past threads, I'm still of the mind that something along these lines is the only thing that makes any sense at all. Even a cursory look shows that the issue of image placement is just one iteration of the same old discussion. It's a good point that the nature of the MOS makes such a thing difficult to enforce, though, and would likely make for a lot more people's time spent at ANI sorting out a large gray area. So I'm still not supporting. Still, I can't help thinking that we're trying to propose something that just asks BMK to treat the MOS the same way almost everyone else does, not to edit war to preferred versions, and to make an effort at respectful discussion when challenged by people looking to improve an article according to MOS standards (even if it's open to interpretation). That doesn't seem like a big ask. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. BMK's self-drafted imposition seems to be going beyond that (at least on image placement), with "when another editor disputes my judgment ... I will give way and accept their judgment." If BMK were back here for exactly the same thing but with regard to headings or punctuation or use of icons, the same principle would just get broadened beyond image placement. I'm almost uncomfortable accepting the language of that self-restriction rather than it being something like "... I will take it to the talk page and abide by the consensus reached there". (I say "almost" because just doing what our guidelines say is the default thing to do anyway; there needs to be a non-ILIKEIT reason to go against one, and we don't need to have an RfC on every page about every quibble in order for guidelines to be applied to our content. It's one of those WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY things.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, this very recent (newer than his above proposal) diff at Talk:One Madison shows BMK disagreeing with (I added emphasis in bold) "Wikipedia policies describe what is absolutely essential for the organization to function. Guidelines are what are needed for it to function smoothly. It is true that it is not absolutely needed to follow guidelines. However, when all things are equal – i.e.: when there is no substantive reason not to – guidelines should be followed. Guidelines represent an existing consensus. Arbitrarily deviating from guidelines is not defendable. It may initially be excusable as there are myriad guidelines and no volunteer editor can be familiar with them all while making bold edits. But when an edit is contested and a guideline is pointed out, the guideline should not be willfully ignored" (but mainly the bolded part), which is basically what you are saying above. It is pretty clear that BMK doesn't agree that the guidelines [are] the default thing to do because they are "not required". The discusion above was originally about capitalization in infoboxes and it was like pulling teeth to get him to agree that there was consensus (that he explicitly disagreed with, but still, agreed consensus). I'm concerned about the amount of effort it would take in a more complex case. - PaulT+/C18:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The sentence in which you highlighted a passage is almost word-for-word something I've said many times (close enough to trigger a déjà vu twinge), so I get what you're getting at. On effort: that just tends to be how it goes with longer-term and generally productive editors, even if it takes a lot of wrangling at multiple noticeboards. I'm skeptical we want to make the process more expedient, since then the countervailing concerns much further above about "chasing off good editors" would start to have some veracity. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per others as this, to me, seems like an effective 0RR restriction on "stylistic" edits, which I think is too hard/inflexible in the 0RR part, and too vague/difficult-to-interpret-or-enforce on the "stylistic" part. We already have rules like 3RR, BRD, BURDEN and MOS:ACCESS. I don't know that I see the wisdom of creating a "new rule" for one editor. Levivich22:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago130 comments38 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last month, his actions were so aberrant that his account was locked because of suspected compromise. After getting his account unblocked, he did not learn his lesson and made a strange edit that he then reverted with the summary "Absolute false claim done by my sister in law"
Other unhelpful edits include sniping at arbs trying to give advice on how to avoid being blocked
Spamming a survey on other users talk pages, which brought admins telling him that this is the last straw
And adding 700,000 bytes of nonsense characters to his talk page (not going to link to that diff; you're welcome), and making an announcement for administrators.
Note. I just want to point out that they sign talk pages as "THE NEW ImmortalWizard." I think that is rather funny (always figured that they had been blocked before).–MJL‐Talk‐☖19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay,
I apologized for my actions and also for the "joke", after my block, didn't take edit summary seriously.
If you consider those unhelpful advice, then so many people did the same to me and I was singled out.
Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning.
Today, I did not absolutely get how that was a troll.
700,000 bytes was my own thing in my personal userspace.
I had to give attention to admins because they kept on wikihounding me and telling me not to GA review, even though I know how to. And they don't take into account my several useful edits. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)19:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Spamming was unfortunate and I did not know it was inappropriate. Stopped after warning. That's misleading. Your subsequent argument over that survey takes up more than one screen on my 24" monitor. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I will state the case for ImmortalWizard, that though they may have a WP:CIR problem, I find no action should be required at this time. I find their contributions to be of value to the project and suggest we drop the matter here. There has been no discussion on User talk:ImmortalWizard concerning this specific matter. Also, Wizard, what was the block for in your view? (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖19:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The block was initially because of account compromised because they detected me doing some unusual vandals (after the unblock, my made that, one edit summary compromise joke, which I regret). It was quicky proven wrong. However, in my unblock request, I clearly explained why I did those vandals (which I was because I "snapped" after some talk page dispute), but apparently the admin declined immaturely and I got really upset and though it was unfair (since I was blocked because of compromised-behavior vandal after dispute, but still not unblocked even though I was never warned prior). Luckily, the unblock was reduced to two weeks by UTRS. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You forgot where their contributions to a recent Marne of an ANI thread—which they inserted themselves into, having had no prior interactions with either party—were summarised by Legacypac, when the Wizard had helpfully just proposed a block of TRM: "Support the Wizard staying off ANi where they are making a fool of themselves.They've also begun working with Featured Articles, although this is with more mixed results: on the one hand, Iridescent has had to explain precisely what FAR's are for, but, on the other, The Rambling Man has welcomed Wizard's injection's at Alf Ramsay FAC, telling him "your comments here seem to have come out of the blue, but are very much appreciated".It might (would?) also be wrong to treat Wizard as the ~five-year-old editor they appear to be; a closer look shows he made a bunch of edits in early 2016, but the vast majority have been since December last year. There may well be an element of assuming experience on their part which they do not (clearly) possess.Having said all that; Natureium's very rarely wrong in these matters, I think, and that's a pretty solid wall of diffs up there. ——SerialNumber5412919:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I've given ImmortalWizard multiple warnings and strongly worded pieces of advice in the past couple of days[87][88][89] and I'm certainly not alone in it (see User talk:MelanieN#Invitation to User surevey 1 for instance), but I wouldn't consider him a straightforward WP:NOTHERE case. This appears to be someone who clearly wants to help, but seems intent in blundering into technical areas where they don't have the requisite competence, and becomes angry and defensive when it's pointed out that he doesn't have the required competence. Hopefully, a "stay away from the WP: namespace unless you're sure you know what you're doing, if anyone tells you to stop participating on any given page then stop participating on that page, and don't try to tell other people what to do" warning will be enough. Paging MelanieN and Floquenbeam, both of whom have tried and failed to talk IW off his apparent crash course. ‑ Iridescent20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I never understood why I you asked me to not review FA and you didn't explain me properly. I should of course be unwelcomed when you reply to other user's page and bringing other matter about ANI and not reviewing FA. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)20:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
IW, you're sniping and bitching on the discussion about whether you're disruptive. Do you actually grasp that this is an academic project, not a chatroom, that we could all be doing something more useful with our time than playing whatever game you're playing, and that the ability to communicate civilly with other editors even when one disagrees with them and to comply with consensus are all non-negotiable prerequisites to editing Wikipedia? ‑ Iridescent20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose any ban or block. The most I would support is an admonishment. Maybe AN/I has a hostile view of them, but that is not the only place they have edited. For example, they have made constructive nominations here and provided decent insight here. I can get that a newer user can be frustrating to deal with, but this seems like a bit Bite-y to me. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Iri. I'd echo a lot of what Iridescent says. I don't think NOTHERE applies, but I do think he is soaking up a lot of other editors' time, to the point where I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the cost. I've seen this with several different editors before: an inexperienced editor jumps into one area after another headfirst, and for some reason refuses to listen to advice from more experienced editors until they realize they might get blocked. Then they find a new area to "explore". The main pattern here seems to be a lack of consideration for other editors' time and effort. My main concern was when he started participating at ANI unproductively, making things worse, but he seems to have agreed to stop doing that. But it is just one thing after another, though. My own plan was to keep an eye on him and block if he did something else really outrageous. I don't necessarily support or oppose doing something before then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Given this, I now support an indef block/site ban. This comes a few days after accusing MelanieN of "assuming his gender", "forgetting" that he had identified his gender on-wiki(twice!) himself, on his user page and in his preferences. This is either incompetence or trolling. We need to assign more value to the time spent by good faith editors continuously cleaning up after someone who shows no interest in learning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Most of this stuff is pretty concerning. This was not okay to do at all, after a lot of admins have been trying to mentor and help this user get along with the community. They seem to refuse to listen to any concerns or suggestions anyone has. My main concern is this user doing WP: GAR and WP: FAR, when as others have said this user is fairly new. As can be seen on their talk page multiple users have taken concern over them doing GAR or FAR. I request, that at the least the three GAR and one FAR in my Wikiproject, that were started by IW are closed. This is because WP: GAR and WP: FAR say that individual assessment can not be done if considered controversial. Obviously it is here. StaticVapormessage me!20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And they don't take into account my several useful edits. Can you specify which several of your edits are useful and not related to drama? Natureium (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Another Comment. Given this, can we please stop pinging every single admin under the sun? They are willing to drop the stick. Users are welcome to suggest further action on my talk page, but I really believe that this doesn't require action by AN/I beyond an admonishment. This user is not beyond saving as many have suggested. I will take the blame if they mess up again. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Not as NOTHERE (I don't believe that) but under WP:COMPETENCE. They repeatedly demonstrate an inability to behave acceptably towards others; whether by deliberate act or incapacity is getting to be moot. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support NOTHERE indef: I'm finding a pattern here. The user makes disruptive edits and tries to waste users' time, but when he is confronted in the slightest, suddenly the edit was made for humor or its purpose wasn't what you think. No biting is going on, the user has been here since 2014 and you would expect at least a slightly better understanding of Wikipedia good edit/bad edit rules. Giving the user yet another final warning would be a waste of time and reversions. (Non-administrator comment) GN-z11☎★20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
GN-z11, they have edited in 2014, but they really have only been consistently editing since December 2018. Also, they do actually edit outside of project space. I just wanted to put that in there. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: That's correct, however, I can't see a WP:HERE editor causing all the issues that different users reported above. Actually, the more I look into it, the more I see it as a WP:CIR, but I'm just not sold. I would supremely like to give them a chance, but it's way too late IMO. GN-z11☎★21:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't particularly want IW to end up blocked, I just want him to stop saying odd shit and maybe focus on basic content work for awhile. I could charitably believe that it's more of a language competence issue compounded by a strong desire to be helpful than an intentional effort at trolling/being condescending, but unfortunately, it has the same frustrating effect on others overall. The attitude problem is compounded by his absolute refusal to consider that other users might have something of value to say, no matter how polite they are. It's nice that he's agreed on his talk page not to comment on this thread again, but given his history, I don't think it'll last. I dunno. I don't support a block at this stage, but I would support a TBAN from at least ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk)21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a topic ban from Wikipedia space, but he seems to keep finding more creative ways to act in a ridiculous manner. Topic banning him from Jimbo's userpage, Jimbo's talk page, everyone else's talk page, ... actually banning him from posting on anyone else's talk page or commenting on other people on his own talk page could work, but also make collaboration difficult. Natureium (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If people are pinging every administrator under the sun, that’s because every administrator under the sun seems to have become involved with him - because of his many adventures in many different areas. For myself, I thought at first he had promise, and volunteered to mentor him. However, he made it clear he wasn’t willing to take advice so I bowed out. He then doubled down on his declaration of unwillingness to learn or be guided. I see that MJL seems to be stepping up now as his defender and mentor, and I wish him luck. Personally I feel certain that some point IW will become so disruptive that he will get indeffed. I don’t know if he’s quite there yet, but as I am INVOLVED with him I will leave that decision to others. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support NOTHERE CIR block - Given they were mentored by Melanie I really did hope this would make a difference ... instead it appears to have done nothing and without any disrepect to Mel she's simply wasted her time as has everyone else on this editor, This seals the deal for me, The editor clearly doesn't have the competence to edit here and I don't think further mentoring will help in the end,
Time, effort and patience inverested in this editor could be better spent on articles,
Ofcourse indef doesn't mean forever and they can come back in 5-10 years when hopefully they've gained the sufficient competence. –Davey2010Talk21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of every administrator having become involved with him, I had this dispiriting exchange a short while ago. I don't think this is a NOTHERE situation. I examined some of his content-related edits: they suggest that he needs to be a little less zealous in sending things to GAR and FAR (and possibly AfD: he's active there, though I haven't checked his nominations), and that he needs to spend more time reading the policy pages he cites, but I think there's also a genuine desire to help. I think his biggest problem is that he's unable or unwilling to listen when people advise him not to blunder about somewhere where he doesn't have experience; Ritchie333, MelanieN, and I (and probably several other admins) all told him to stay off of ANI, and he reacted poorly. Really the only solution to this is for him to "get it", and beyond a point we can't help with that; but, to minimize the timesink, I wonder if a "meta discussion" topic ban would be useful. I'll try and formulate something shortly. Vanamonde (Talk)21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
IW's behaviour is reminiscent of Barts1a/Twitbookspacetube who had this obsessive need to police the admins. That's not an accusation of sockpuppetry but an observation of editors who deviate from editing and begin to spend more and more of their time on the noticeboards, without the experience or thick skin, where it usually ends badly. Blackmane (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
And that was the last straw for me. I was unsure what to do about IW. Sometimes he seems reasonable and polite and productive, and other times he's a pain. There comes a time when incompetence cannot be told apart from trolling. Whichever this is, we don't need it here. I believe an indefinite community block is needed until IW can convincingly explain to the community that they're sufficiently mature and stable enough to edit here. At this point, I don;t think that's the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
…and he immediately added another version of the tag. Interestingly, he had asked for advice at my talk page about this tag. But while I was was reviewing his edits so I could give him a detailed answer, he went ahead and replaced the tag BMK had removed with another, slightly gentler version of it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Demonstrates a lack of understanding of certain Wikipedia basics, tagging this article is CLEARLY wrong, yet argues that his "mistake" was the wrong tag, nothing more. A tendency to talk around all issues brought up in a constructive manner is a clear "I didn't hear that" mentality. It's not just user space. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
ImmortalWizard, If you want to "redeem yourself" and show the community that you can contribute productively without causing problems, there are 183,000 pages in Category:All articles lacking sources. Finding sources for unsourced articles is very helpful, and doesn't require posting on anyone's talk page or in wikipedia space. Natureium (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support a block of up to at least three months in length. There's definitely some juvenile and potentially WP:CIR-relevant and definitely WP:IDHT behaviour going on here. But there's enough of a question about how disruptive they are intending to be that I'm not keen on jumping straight to an indef. (Nevermind, before I even hit the send button, I found this extra context). However, clearly something needs to be done get their attention. I'd support an indef, but I'd also be willing to see them blocked for a decent little chunk of time significant enough to make the point of how non-constructive their behaviour is found to be, followed by an extension of a last little bit of WP:ROPE. I can't say that I am super confident they are going to come back as a more focused and less problematic contributor, but the case is just close enough that I'm willing to support something short of an indef. Snowlet's rap00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support CIR block, which is unfortunate as I think IW means well. The ideas of banning him from Wikipedia space and/or trying to confine him mostly to mainspace were floated above, but IW has also been disruptive in mainspace. And regarding Natureium's suggestion that IW work on the articles that are completely devoid of sources, I don't have much confidence in IW's ability to find reliable sources and properly integrate them into articles. The community has been patient, as we should be given that IW seems to have good intentions, but we've reached the limit. Lepricavark (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support indef block per Beyond My Ken, and I'm going to call it per WP:CIR. What it really is is this: Wikipedia is not a game for you to play; we're not here for anyone's entertainment or to be the subjects of a social experiment in how many different ways you can goof off before you're shown the door. Most of the editors here are actually interested in a serious project to construct an encyclopedia, and stupid crap like this is just a pointless distraction and destructive timesink. Block them until they can convince someone they're going to take it seriously. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support indef per CIR. It's too bad, but IW has been an annoyance for many editors. I recall him calling for a two-month block of The Rambling Man about a week or so ago- ridiculous. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support I no longer think a topic ban from wikipedia space would be a solution, as much of his CIR issues are on user talk pages. His retirement when things are getting sticky for him and immediate return is another example of his disruption. Natureium (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: User:ImmortalWizard is topic-banned from participating in discussions in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces, unless they are the subject of the discussion, or the discussion is related to a specific content issue.
Support as proposer. I think what we have here is a genuinely well-intentioned user who needs to stop making such an effort to make an impression, and instead knuckle down and learn the ropes of building an encyclopedia. Consider this a last chance before a community-imposed site-ban, because I do think there's potential here. His approach here has been needlessly slapdash, but some of the issues has identified are quite genuine, and do require attention. If he can learn to critique articles in a slightly more constructive manner, he could be a genuine asset. Vanamonde (Talk)22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Indef block per WP:CIR. Read current talk page. I'm gonna AGF the Hell out of this and assume user really is having memory/mental health/compes problems that cause all these lapses. SO after 6 months if they can address these issues. Maybe it's all just a breaching experiment. But please. DlohCierekim21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
*Oppose - One can only be given so much rope before they end up hanging themselves, IMHO discussions are a small part of the problem, He seems to be a problem whereever he goes, I'm opposing this in lieu of an indef block. –Davey2010Talk23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely understand where you're coming from, but my reading of the situation is that there doesn't seem to be enough support for an indef block, at least not yet, and I'd rather try something than have us do nothing at all. Perhaps you might reconsider and change to "support" under that reasoning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree something is better than nothing, Given there's more of a consensus for TBANning than there is for blocking I guess I've have to support this, Not happy about it but as you and I have said something's better than nothing. –Davey2010Talk00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment This doesn't really address the problem. He isn't just a problem in WP-space. (And BTW you should make clear that this is what you are talking about; "the project namespace" is jargon that may not be clear to him.) He is also a problem at article talk pages and user talk pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I agree about jargon, I've tweaked the proposal, feel free to clarify it further. As to the rest; I agree that he has been disruptive elsewhere, but I think a lot of that has stemmed from his cluelessness about project-space discussions. He's definitely not the worst we have with respect to GAR/FARs, and I think some of the disruption stemmed from an inability to see that we would actually sanction him for causing trouble. I'm struggling to see any other alternative short of an indefinite block, which I don't think is quite justified yet. A somewhat unorthodox alternative might be to authorize community general sanctions that are user-specific rather than topic-specific; that is, authorize any admin to impose any sanction on him they feel to be necessary to contain disruption. That also seems like the community wouldn't be behind it, though. Vanamonde (Talk)23:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 What is the intent behind "specific content issue"? Would that allow him to continue to do GAR, for instance? Would suggest maybe a tweak to or the discussion is relatedis replying to a specific content issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: (and also @Snow Rise:, because this is relevant to your objections, even if it doesn't satisfy you); the intent is simply that he not be locked out of evaluating content, because a lot of content is evaluated in the project namespace, including at FAC/FAR, PR, and AfD. This is as close as I can come to formalizing what I would informally summarize as "mind your own business and work on content". It removes him from all the drama boards, as well as from maintenance-space discussions about broader issues that necessarily require more experience to participate in constructively. Vanamonde (Talk)03:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
They should be locked out of GAR and FAR, someone "new", that we are trying to teach how to be a good Wikipedian, should not be given the confidence to reassess major articles on their content. When as has been stated, this user needs to focus on building content in the encyclopedia. StaticVapormessage me!03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as solving part of the problem but it does nothing about his stupid comments on usertalk pages or his latest article tagging game. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support, as a way station on the way to an (I fear) CIR/NOTHERE indef block. I've been concerned about their recent, non-productive posts on the dramahboards; I'll help a newbie until the cows come home, but life is too short for a timesink like this. Miniapolis23:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support I don’t want him to be indeffed just yet, although that may be inevitable if he doesn’t slow down and listen to those who are trying to help him. I advised him here to avoid drama and just write some content but it seems a formal restriction is needed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support per Minapolis and Legacypac. I really don't think that this will turn out to be sufficient, but maybe it'll be enough of a kick in the behind to get IW thinking straight and on the right track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If this proposal passes, I think it would be a good idea if the closer pointed out to IW that there was significant support for an indef block, and that a number of editors !voted for this with reservations that it would be sufficient. In other words, that his sanction (if this is it for now) wasn't a clean bill of health in editing other areas of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Like Pawnkingthree I don't think I'm at the stage of hitting the block button just yet because of the constructive work he did on the Alf Ramsey FAC today. However, he needs to give the maintenance areas of the project (including AfD, reassessments, tagging, discussions) a wide berth and stick solely to mainspace and improving content. I'm sceptical he'll be able to see March out with getting blocked by somebody, but we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt. Update : Having read through the discussion on Alex Ferguson, I've given him a serious shot across the bows - he needs to stop now before he gets blocked. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The suggested sanction is too broad, to vaguely framed to avoid gaming, and too unworkable even if construed and enforced strictly. We really can't have editors who are allowed to have a half a foot on the project but are unable to contribute to basic community processes. That kind of situation does not prevent drama, it magnifies it several times over. It was clearly a good-faith suggestion, but honestly, it's a worst-of-all-worlds scenario that requires too much community supervision and mediation when problem editors are put into that situation. We should either come to the conclusion that the editor is prepared to contribute in a mature and productive fashion and comport themselves properly in community processes, or we should bite the bullet and place a sanction, temporary or otherwise. Going for a half measure only increases the amount of community time that will be consumed in shepherding their conduct and resolving disputes they may become involved in. Snowlet's rap00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
IW commented on this proposal here. I think he feels unable to comment here because it is ANI and he was told to stay away from ANI. Sounds like he would actually be OK with it but he needs a little clarification what we are talking about. He may also need to have "topic ban" explained to him. Anybody? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This could work, but a lot of the disruption is also to user talk and article talk pages. I can't think of a suitable way to prevent him from causing nonsense in these areas without preventing him from working collaboratively with others, because he is constantly coming up with new ways to cause nonsense and his creativity far outshines mines. Natureium (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Close only this TBAN section I've explained the TBAN in plain English and the user has agreed to it on his talkpage. An Admin can log it now. This is a long term wider problem though [94]Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I oppose any sort of TBAN (in favour of an overall block). The problem is that this editor is a time-sink for others, with no evident prospect of improvement, all such efforts having so far failed. This won't be improved by focussing them into one un-TBANned area. Even if that does improve the state of mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Although I was neutral above, I now support this topic ban from WP space. Mainly because he has a mentor he is willing to listen to, and as long as he continues doing that I think he has a chance here. I am not putting down any money on whether he will able to keep that up, but he has agreed to this limitation and this approach, and I think he and Matt should be given a chance to make it work. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I withdraw my support for this proposal. It is based on the hope that with support and mentoring he will learn what to do and what not to do, and become a productive editor. Unfortunately that experiment lasted less than 24 hours; strong kudos to Matt for trying. But I now fear IW will never be a functioning member of the WP community. IMO he is too mercurial, too unpredictable, too easily offended, too resistant to counsel, and too lacking in judgment to be any kind of asset to the project. And I concur with Vanamonde that it would be a mistake to accept his "retirement" at face value and close this discussion as if his retirement has solved the problem. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Support topic ban, oppose block Impose the TB, but I've seen more rage-quits than I can count. They're annoying (and bode ill for the future), but not block-worthy. Miniapolis00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that he should be blocked BECAUSE of the rage-quit. The discussion here about various blocks and bans is based on his activity before his resignation. The only reason people mention his resignation is to urge that we shouldn't drop this discussion and do nothing on the assumption that the issue is moot and he will never come back. After all most "retirements" here turn out to be temporary. So it seems like this discussion should reach some kind of consensus or conclusion based on what has been brought up about his editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban and block It seems that the editor was triggered or trolled and has lost his/her nerve and that's totally understandable. The editor has made a lot of good and positive edits I have been seeing him around and I never found any bad faith edit by him/her. I would support a respectful warning.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Please point to the alleged trolling or triggering. If you can't see any bad faith editing by Wizard you either did not look or can't identify a bad faith edit. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Support concur with Vanamonde93. User has retired but may decide to come back in the future. Not block worthy, a TBAN seems fair. Wikiemirati (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Support - I wasn't going to particiate, but his latest "I didn't do anything wrong" comment (post-retirement notice) makes me believe something needs to be in place when IW returns to ensure a more contstructive approach to his time on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Indef TBAN from WP/T space with the exception of GA reviews, appealable in six months. This would be the last bit of rope or last chance for me before an indef CIR block. Levivich17:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Even his retirement message is troll like. If you want to close this up as an Indef to match the retirement, go for it. 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
I think we need to proceed as though he's still around w.r.t. the sanction. Everything he has done so far suggests his actions are driven by impulse rather than careful thought; he could be back tomorrow, and we'd be back to square one (and the kitten god killed when this thread was opened would have died in vain). Vanamonde (Talk)18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I say the most equitable solution would be to impose the topic ban since there seems to be consensus and issue a temporary one-month block for now citing "self-imposed retirement" or the like. I say that as a !voter against indef. –MJL‐Talk‐☖18:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
He retired, so just to ensure that this isn't a cheeky attempt to close any block/ban discussions, I strongly support an indef. GN-z11☎★09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
And the retirement message clearly shows that he cannot handle even minimal heat in discussions, so I don't think he will come back constructively in the future. GN-z11☎★09:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Support per Matt, Lpac and Melanie, out of deference to the recommendations of the editors who have taken the time to help/mentor IW. Levivich07:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support - I wasn't going to particiate, but his latest "I didn't do anything wrong" comment (post-retirement notice) makes me believe something needs to be in place when IW returns to ensure a more contstructive approach to his time on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich and MPJ-DK: What are you supporting? This section does not make a proposal, it is merely about how to handle his retirement. Are you supporting the the "Meta-discussion topic ban", and should your comment be moved to that section? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: I support placing a sanction despite the retirement notice. As for a specific sanction, I'd support any block/ban that other editors agreed upon. (I believe IW has already agreed to a tban from WP/T space.) Also strong support for an admin closing this and memorializing the tban/block. Levivich23:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked ImmortalWizard for a period of 7 days whilst this discussion is wrapped up. I would close this now as having consensus for an indefinite block per CIR/NOTHERE, but I would like to give participants time to review their decisions and comments based on their retirement and rapid return to editing, which could possibly be perceived as an attempt to avoid sanctions. Nick (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
support indef Given the above shenanigans, it is time that people leaned that retirement is not a way to get out of (or cover up) blocks, it is gaming the system and shows they are not going to change.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick, I'm not sure I agree with this block. His intent during his recent barrage of edits was to show himself editing constructively - This is so disappointing to get blocked even though I am making good edits. :(. Maybe he should be given WP:ROPE enough to show us what he regards as editing constructively? Or maybe this brief sample was enough. During the interval before you blocked him he did give us some idea of what he regards as good edits. Some are helpful, like this improvement of references, and this withdrawal of a bad AfD. Some are tagging things with cn or unsourced - not particularly helpful, such as this cn tag on a single sentence of an otherwise well sourced article. Some are just confused: for example here and here he changed the title External Links to References in an otherwise unsourced BLP, so that it now has a References section, but here an identical article that had external links was tagged as an unreferenced BLP. Here he attempted to add a reference to an unsourced article; good intentions and he could be taught how to do it right. I'm not advising any particular action, but I do think that these recent "look how helpful an editor I can be!" edits give us additional data points to evaluate his competence and overall helpfulness to the 'pedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I don't think his resignation should be seen as an attempt to game the system or avoid sanctions. IMO he's not that sophisticated. I think it was an impulse, an angry reaction to the things that were being said about him here. Lots of people, including many still in good standing here, have made that kind of impulsive/angry retirement but have come back after cooling down. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a slightly unusual set of circumstances - there's already consensus to indefinitely block ImmortalWizard, the closure of that discussion and enactment of the indefinite block was interrupted (rendered irrelevant) by ImmortalWizard's retirement, so allowing their return to editing whilst this ANI thread was still open seemed inappropriate, but similarly, jumping straight to an indefinite block (with suitable log entry) without allowing the type of input (particularly when we are dealing with a good faith editor) from experienced editors like MelanieM also seemed inappropriate as it would make any further discussion here largely pointless (since it would be enacting a community sanction/ban). I believe a finite block for the duration of this discussion was the most appropriate way forward for the time being, particularly as it allows a further three outcomes - (i) the block expires because there's no consensus on a formal sanction, (ii) the block is replaced by a formal sanction block (noting community consensus and the appeal mechanism etc) or (iii) the block is lifted (being an admin block rather than a community sanction, my block can be lifted by any other admin) enabling ImmortalWizard to resume editing. I hope that explains my decision process. Nick (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there really a consensus for indef? I haven't been tallying. But thanks for your explanation; that makes sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Still support indef. I tried to help him and he just kept finding new ways to troll. Acts too immature to edit here. Treats disruption as a game. His short lived retirement was just the latest game. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Not trying to double vote, just noting that earlier today I changed my opinion in the first section above, and think an indef is in order; I suspect I should have commented in a newer section, as that might get lost in the sea of old comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the comments, and it looks like (sorry if I missed anything) 13 people are in favor of an indefinite block; 3 are opposed, with Vanamode and Miniapolis thinking a topic ban is more appropriate, and SharabSalam arguing that ImmortalWizard was "triggered" and thus not at fault; and 2 editors, Ritchie333 and Iridescent are in the "not yet" camp. I did not tally the topic ban conversation, but that looks to have broad support as well. Unless the not yet-ers have any thoughts to add about events from the past few days, I think this is ready for someone to close it. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My thinking is similar to that of MelanieN. My impression is that IW is a good faith editor who's vastly overestimated his own abilities and consequently keeps doing things wrong and getting upset when people point it out to him, as opposed to a true troll. Given that there have been numerous instances of editors in similar situations who then go on to become productive editors once it's hammered home to them at indef-point that following consensus even when one disagrees with it isn't an optional extra (WBG immediately springs to mind), I still oppose indef at this stage.
To me, this is a classic WP:ROPE situation. Events of the last week have hopefully made it clear to IW that any more messing about won't be tolerated—in light of that, I'd have no problem with an unblock with a "you're not to do anything other than write articles for the next few months, and if I see your name at GAN, AFD, FAC or any other page with an alphabet-soup acronym you'll be immediately re-blocked" condition, to give him the chance to prove that he gets what Wikipedia is about. ‑ Iridescent10:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd already opposed an indef block above; I see I did not, so I oppose one now. Notwithstanding that, Nick's block was a necessity of the time. I still support a topic ban from purely administrative boards—so "Narrowly construed", say—but it's perfectly possible for him to learn to do constructive work in article review process. Indeed, his input into the Alf Ramsay FAC seems to be appreciated by the nominators, and in any case, we don't consider incompetence at reviewing grounds for topic bans until it becomes absolutely disruptive; I don't see that in IW's case, merely inexperience. And the only way to counter inexperience is to let them learn. If nominators at GAC and FAC repeatedly consider his input disruptive in future then that should be the time—after IW has demonstrably had the time to learn and failed to do so—for sanctions. Iridescent's emphasis on article creation should probably be part of the conditions though as well. ——SerialNumber5412912:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You guys really thinkthis isn't trolling, but a good faith mistake?? He replied at the ANI thread 9 minutes after the notice, so he obviously saw it. Then 4 days later claims to have "forgotten" about the notice? Days after pulling a very similar "oh, I forgot" troll on MelanieN? Bull. Shit. He is lying. Not just stupid, but lying. He's trolling in the middle of a discussion about an indef block. I really do not understand WP sometimes. If we're not going to indef, then somebody at least close this stupid thread so I'm not tempted to look at it any more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
As I have said, I have no position about the outcome here - indef vs. topic ban vs. whatever. I just want to say: I see suggestions above about letting him work on GA and FA nominations. If that is agreed to, I think it should have a caveat: he can work on nominations - either helping get them to GA, or even reviewing them - because it appears his input in those areas may be helpful. But he must NOT pull existing GA articles into GA review. In that area he has shown poor judgment and been disruptive. He could make improvements to such articles himself, or even suggest improvements at the talk page, but he does not have the judgment to tell the difference between between "this article is so seriously flawed it may not be a GA any more" (and thus needs GA review) vs. "this article is slightly short of perfection" (but GA review would be inappropriate overkill). -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN Thanks for putting that into writing. I have really only experienced them at GAR where I found what you wrote above about disruption. I had held off writing anything here (beyond trying to clarify the proposed TBAN) given the positive reaction TRM had at FA but I think your distinction here matches my limited experience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I could support a block due to all the games and trolling this user has done throughout the encyclopedia (WP:CIR). Even after given a last chance, they fake a retirement and resume to bad mouthing others on User Talk pages. If this is to be a topic ban, I echo MelanieN's points. The user must also be banned from GA reassessments and probably GA reviews. This is where some of the disruption was coming from. StaticVapormessage me!20:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't know anymore where to !vote, so changed to indef above. Per CIR. (Is this the longest ANI report ever or what?)21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC) DlohCierekim21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I know why this thread is so long and still unclosed. It's because nobody really wants to indef this guy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I ran a check to see if it was logged-out harassment. It doesn't seem to be, but all of the edits are from the same person. Since this disruption has been ongoing for a while now, I did a one-month block. I could shorten it if people seriously think this person is likely to make constructive edits, but I really don't think it's going to happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good EEng says Yes! We Have No Rice
At Wikipedia we prefer to keep things nice.
Cus here on our project
Hate we sure do reject
So for Ian D 123 an indeff block will suffice
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That 24 hours should be an indef and a talk page revocation if all they're going to do is spout supremacist slogans. They want unblocked, they can go thru UTRS. —A little blue Boriv^_^vBori!20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please apply some sort of blockhammer to this character who thinks that constructive editing to improve our home here includes replacing everything with pictures of scrotums?
They've popped up at Postman Pat and now seem to be going through Liquorice and Lavender. Cheers Lemon martini (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone take a look at Special:Contributions/2601:42:800:A9DB:7C8C:99A8:4EE9:72F1/64, it’s quite clearly one of the various race and intelligence banned users block evading or someone with an account editing on a new range in an attempt to avoid scrutiny for their views. Their recent contributions at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis are nothing short of trying to inflame tensions on this issue after MPants was blocked. As the IP range has been stable for months and /64s are normally one person, I’d recommend a longer range block. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Although it's true that IPs can voice their opinions, but I feel like he's just here to push a POV. You should encourage him to defend himself here. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me!06:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Block the range, make it a long one. Obviously hiding offline to evade a block, and judging from their actions around MjolnirPants and a certain obvious gap in their contribs, I'd wager a guess to checkusers who it is. I'd block myself but I'm on mobile. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked for three months. The combination of race and intelligence and NONAZIS is a red flag, and a registered account would be topic-banned or blocked by now. It's obvious that this is block evasion or evasion of scrutiny by someone who had an account. Acroterion(talk)13:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago106 comments31 people in discussion
See below
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have tried to be patient and assume good faith but I feel this Admin is just hiding in the bushes and waiting to jump out on me if I happen to make a mistake. Around early January after making an edit to the article Bengal famine of 1943, he went onto my talk page and threatened to "block me indefinitely", as he believed that "I don't seem to be getting the message"[[99]]. This sounds irrational,rude and intimidating for someone to threaten an "indefinite block" over 1 or 2 edits mistaken edits. And then again yesterday Black Kite went onto my talk page and threatened me again that he will "block me" just because I am reverting likely sockpuppets[[100]]. Then when I mentioned that User:Orientls also reverted obvious socks of Abhishek9779, Black Kite's response is, "Yeah. The one that Orientls reverted obviously is a sock. You've been reverting ones that might not be, or in the example I gave above, obviously isn't." In essence this is an example of "I'm right your wrong!" or "It's my way or the highway!" logic that the Admin is using. According to this Admin, all of the socks I report are "not" and if another user does it, it is because the they are "obviously a sock". I know this Admin may try to bring this up so I will mention it. When he blocked me around December 2018, when I was still new, he completely ignored potential edit-warring and even meatpuppetry(suspiciously 2 more editors jumped in to revert me)by other editors on the article Al-Qaeda. This sounds like a second double standard made in which, other editors were allowed to delete a large amount of sourced information that I contributed based on it being "fringe" but all of a sudden I do that once(that too with the concern of sockpuppetry going on) he decides to make a fuss about it. Now I will admit that some mistakes were made early on by me but Black Kite's behavior is definitely not acceptable. So based on all of this I would like for someone to please look into this Admin's abusive behavior.Mountain157 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pleased to hear that Black Kite has taken some action against your obsession with this sockmaster. Your reports at SPI are a constant mess of speculation. It's like you see socks hiding around every corner. If you continue like this, you're going to end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not denying that I have made mistakes at SPI. However this notice is also about the general behavior that Black Kite has shown specifically towards me, even before I got involved in SPI.Mountain157 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mountain157:, I suggest you withdraw this accusation, no matter how strongly you feel about the situation. I also suggest you work on some other topics, more benign for now, and gain an understanding of adding neutral facts about passionate matters. And withdraw the accusations, I will repeat that bit, and emphasise that it is important you do that! cygnis insignis19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I second Bbb23's assessment. You'll get blocked very soon if you continue edits accusing other editors of being socks, when they obviously aren't. Take a common sense approach and start being doubly cautious about accusing others of being socks. Lourdes18:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact I think it would be a good idea if you were banned from making reports at SPI. We have enough frivolous reporting at SPI from India/Pakistan editors already - if there is actually a good reason to suspect sockpuppetry, there are numerous experienced editors around the topic already who know what to look for. You can relax and do something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've had my disagreements with Black Kite, but this complaint is nonsense. It's entirely a good thing that Black Kite has been examining your obsession with reverting suspected socks as quickly as possible, and your general battleground approach to editing. Vanamonde (Talk)18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Well as I said above I have made mistakes on Wikipedia, but let me ask you this. Was it rational about a month back when Black Kite threatened an indef block over an edit?That too in his edit summary for Bengal famine of 1943, he did not even say that the death toll had been discussed extensively in the talk page already.Mountain157 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes admins threaten blocks for egregious edits given egregious histories. That being said, you're starting to stray into WP:IDHT territory: are you genuinely not seeing that sentiment is overwhelmingly against you? Ravenswing 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I see two options. We can close this as unfounded and move on, or we can WP:TBAN Mountain157 from SPI. And, Mountain157, you might want to heed the advice given already. Black Kite is not abusing you. I'm sure they feel they are being patient with you as well. And if BBB23 feels uncomfortable with your sock seeing, I'm forced to agree with BlackKite in removing them. DlohCierekim(talk)20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
So Mountain157 walks into a highly contentious area in December 2018, has < 500 edits, sees socks all around, edits in a disruptive manner, and complains when warned about the disruption. Is this a Discretioanry Sanctions area? If so, Mountain157 needs to be so advised. DlohCierekim(talk)21:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
new editors who enter contentious areas and start accusing others of being socks are socks themselves about 99% of the time. If I wasn’t on my phone I’d just block right now. But at the very least a complete topic ban would be warranted. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you look at all of Mountain157's talk page, you will see that a final warning was more than justified. Certainly warning a disruptive editor is not admin abuse. And some non admins are very quick to scream "ADMIN ABUSE!" a little too quickly. DlohCierekim(talk)21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this has turned into WP:BOOMERANG by Mountain157. That being said, what does Black Kite has to say here? I haven't (neither did others) checked whether their indefinite block threat was indeed "abuse of power" and too harsh. I suggest further investigations and if this turns out be abusive by the admin, they should warned at the very least. (Non-administrator comment) THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As Dlohcierekim pointed out, Mountain157 seems to be framing the issue and Black Kite does not seem to be abusing, they are simply giving strong final warnings. I don't agree with Floquenbeam regarding the "99%" stat, the accuser could themselves be the sock puppet (I mean look at the username, how simple and random could it be?). That being said, I am not trying to directly accuse them of sock puppetry (it's just my speculation). I would suggest Mountain157 to withdraw, like others suggested and just focus on other stuff in this community. I am sorry but you are indeed caught into WP:BOOMERANG. However, I still would like Black Kite to have their say. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)21:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mountain157: I am assuming you didn't know this, but you are not suppose to withdraw by removing the whole thing. If you want to indeed do that, state that here in the comments and a non-involved editor will close this thread. I hope you have learned something. I would suggest you to leave a withdrawal note and state whether your actions were a mistake and why shouldn't an admin block you in the future. THE NEWImmortalWizard(chat)22:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally I would support an indef tban from SPI and this should extend to "reporting people to editors talkpages" because we know it's gonna happen, Their SPIs are poor and as such they should be prevented from creating these reports - SPI is already backlogged on a daily basis as it is and these silly/useless reports certainly don't help,
Sitenote: Given they only started editing here in December 2018 I'm rather surprised they know the SPI easily..... smells fishy tbh. –Davey2010Talk21:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Davey2010, maybe a better example is I filed this (Note: I registered account in Sept. 2016, but I had only a total of 29 edits until November 2017). Either way, I wouldn't say my comment was meant to imply the user is not suspect. Their behavoir probably should be examined here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I am away this weekend and am on my mobile phone. I would suggest to Immortal Wizard to read the conversation between myself and M157 on their talk page which they conveniently deleted before they filed this ANI. Reverting other editors claiming they are socks without any evidence is never acceptable, especially when it's obvious that some of them aren't the sock that M157 claims them to be. It's simple disruption, which is why I threatened to block them. I'll be back online tomorrow. Thanks - Black Kite (talk)22:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I would support closing at this point. The boomerang is now in flight. Will await further developments. Sometimes we close threads a little too soon. DlohCierekim(talk)22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
comment I totally agree with Black Kite. I too, have been a victim by this user's stonewalling, ANI page, and AN3 notices back in December when he first started, both notices which were taken down once this user knew he was going to get boomeranged. I have argued, extensively, with him. At first, I thought he was a new user and did not know this project's rules which is why I invested time and tried to educate him. He simply deletes all my edits on his talkpage. However, it seems this is no longer the case. I have just glanced through his edits and there is a clear pattern of disruptive editing. He must be someone's sock. I've been in wikipedia for 5 years and Im not sure I know how to open a sock report yet he knew that since his first month. His actions should be scrutinized and no longer ignored. The community has decided his actions against me should be overlooked and passed since he was considered a new user, however opening this ANI against Black Kite shows that he did not learn his lesson and, in my opinion, forthrightly deserves to be sanctioned. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Surely the problem here isn't the SPI issue - though that is an issue - but the fact that they're reverting people "because I think they're socks whether they are or not"? Black Kite (talk)23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the wording can be changed to a complete TBAN on mentioning or implying sockpuppetry. I think the only alternative at this point is an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Black Kite. Some of his edits involve adding Pakistan or other countries as allies to terrorist groups in infobox and when someone disagrees, he reverts them alleging them to be sockpuppets. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
SupportTBAN on reporting anyone anywhere for socking and reverting anyone, ever if they think/say/believe/find it's useful to say it's a sock. TBAN on calling anyone a sock in any form, anywhere, anytime. DlohCierekim(talk)23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Bans from utilizing the tools necessary to edit here are always problematic, and rarely change behavior. If the editor is making malicious false reports at SPI, let's lay out the evidence and then block the user until the behavior changes. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
SPI is not really a tool. The vast majority of editors never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet. I did not even know what a sock was until someone falsely accused me of being a sock from Japan. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Please reread the entire thread. Mountain has been filing disruptive SPI cases (often only because they were reverted in editing) and not being able to do so will in no way impair their editing. Hell, I didn't now anything about SPI until I'd made 1,000's of edits. Never impaired me in the least. DlohCierekim(talk)01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I've reread the discussion, but I don't know why you asked me to. Is this about my saying we should lay out the evidence? I'm not saying it doesn't exist. (Obviously that's why I proposed the indef block below.) I'm just saying no one has yet linked to any specific SPIs here in this discussion, and usually that's what we do here. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I mean a tool in the broad, dictionary sense, not in the technical sense like AWB or a javascript. I put it that way because it's no longer enough to say that things like SPI are not "topics". Topic bans work best when they restrict a user in editing a certain subject matter because of the disruption caused. From what I have observed, so-called "topic" bans from using things like noticeboards, types of templates, discussion prcesses, etc., do not work. --Bsherr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Support If the editor suspects someone is really a sock, they are free to email me; I'll check on facts and report if required. Lourdes01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Support this seems the best course of action for now. User did demonstrate previously that he can stop some actions deemed disruptive such as edit warring. I would also advise the ban to include reverting anyone for 'thinking they're socks'. Wikiemirati (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Calling someone a sock in a revert seems like a "report anywhere" in my original proposal. If they want to revert they should explain the revert on the merits of the action not because they see a sock. Hopefully this will cure them of seeing socks all around. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It was a more general comment on various proposed amendment or clarifications of the intemt of this proposal, but yes we are on the same page. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Support - Laundering socks is an honorable secondary mission in Wikipedia that must be secondary to improving the encyclopedia, and is being dishonored by being pursued to the exclusion of common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Making accusations of serious malfeasance without evidence is a personal attack; either Mountain157 will stop making bad reports or will be blocked for NPA. Should he end up being able to identify them properly in the future, no need to make him jump through hoops or ignore the situation totally. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment Since there have been issues raised over the SPI's that I filed a while back, I will most likely stay away from the SPI,however I do not think it is appropriate to "ban"someone from there because in some cases it may be serious.Mountain157 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
ain't the river in Egypt DlohCierekim(talk)::The only thing serious is your seeing a sock around every corner and throwing out sock as an excuse to revert. You are not taking on board the advice of a number of experienced editors confirming this is necessary. This restriction will make your editing more enjoyable. Legacypac (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Legacypac:Wouldn't you define this as a genuine case of sockpuppetry?[[101]],[[102]][[103]].Because I think it does. (Mountain157)
I think the feedback from the folks at WP:SPI is that you have been over reporting and that it has become disruptive. I this here discussion emphasizes the need to stop it. DlohCierekim(talk)23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
You did not stop - you accused three IPs of socking right in the middle of a bunch of posts telling you not to call other editors socks. That this needs to be explained is amazing to me. Had hyou done that after the TBAN was imposed you would be blocked now. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Support. Narrowly tailored. "Anywhere" to include reverting ordinary edits with allegation of socking. Leave all laundry work to others. Glrx (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TBAN on Mountain157 from adding assertion that countries are allies of terrorist groups
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
support This user is heavily involved in India-Pakistan articles and certainly abuses Infoboxes by adding Pakistan as allied to terrorist organizations in controversial pages such as Taliban, Haqqani network etc.. among others. Sockpuppet accusations come forward when others revert him. Some of the links I remember can be found in my talk page User_talk:Wikiemirati#Mountain157, but certainly his contribution log can provide the bigger picture. -- Wikiemirati (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Legacypac - this is too bizarre to be effective. Make it about geo-politics in general and I might consider it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Tbans work, but certainly his contributions in India, Pakistan, Balchostan, Afganistan etc.. topics should be broadly examined by someone familiar with these kinds of sanctions. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
This is quite unenforceable. Upon closer examination of his contributions, an ARBIPA topic-ban may prove necessary, but something this woolly is a bad idea. Vanamonde (Talk)19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. It is a waste of time to try to manage this any other way. Not a forever block, but a block until the user shows an understanding of the problem. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: If the user is demonstrably causing much more disruption than they are making constructive contributions, and if their purpose on this site seems to revolve around negative POV-pushing and accusing others of sockpuppetry and other malfeasance, then they should definitely be indeffed as WP:NOTHERE. Also, a CU should probably be run on them. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Allow the block decision to be the individual decision of any admin. This is too trivial a matter to be decided by the AN corps. Lourdes01:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This is a new user, probably trying to help. To the extent that their behavior has been disruptive a topic ban should resolve the matter. However I do agree that if the disruption persists then any admin is free to block on CIR grounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
oppose per ad orientem They've been DS warned on ARBIPA. They've been told to less contentious in their approach and to not run to SPI to settle editing disputes. They may learn by doing. If we block them they will have no opportunity to teach them. If they avoid problematic behavior and learn to collaborate, we will have gained. DlohCierekim(talk)02:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per User:Dlohcierekim - If they continue after this thread then they should be blocked for an X amount of time without a new ANI thread but for now like Dlohcierekim says they'll hopefully learn and not repeat, –Davey2010Talk18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose the no sock hunting ban should do the trick. They can edit away happily but if they continue being a problem an Admin or this board will deal with it. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Abecedare: - I don't quite see why you closed a proposal for a very straightforward and non-onerous TB in which there were 16 supports and 2 opposes as a simple warning to the editor. No offense, but I do not believe that your close properly summed up the consensus of the editors participating. Would you please re-open it and allow someone else to close it? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: A narrowly tailored ban from SPI reports would be insufficient in that it would not prevent the user from improperly reverting edits that they imagined to be by sock-accounts (which is a significant part of the problem), or otherwise alleging/hinting at sock-puppetry outside of SPI space. The warning I issued for the user to stop with the "improper sockpuppetry allegations (in the form of reverts, edit-summaries, talkpage comments or SPI reports), or disregarding of feedback" covered the gamut of concerns and was IMO consistent with the views expressed above (it does not stop the user from filing a proper SPI report as a ban would but is that really an action we want to guard against?). That said, if any admin wants to replace my close with an SPI topic-ban, or any other remedy they consider an improvement, they have my ok to do so. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's only your opinion that the ban proposed by the community wouldn't work, and you really have no remit to override the community's opinion that it would be useful to try it. You reject that community's choice because you see it as flawed and ineffective at stopping specific actions, but your warning stops nothing at all.Please don't put the onus on another admin, the right thing to do here is to re-open the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I, and several others, advised the user to take a step back, and I think that happened and the initial warning would seem to have been effective. There was also the usual pile-on, just wallpaper on this page, however, the discussion above showed a clear consensus emerging about future restrictions on contribs, which should not interrupt the users will but is the will of those involved in that discussion. I would also prefer it was reopened, rather than a consensual decision be short-sheeted. cygnis insignis 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I've seen now that the closer made a clearer statement on the user's page, and that reflected the emerging consensus. cygnis insignis16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have WP:boldly reverted this closing with no fault assigned to previous closer Abecedare. Previous closing statement was: User:Mountain157 warned that continuing down the current path will lead them to being blocked.. This is now reopened. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL‐Talk‐☖13:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
He accused three IPs of being socks in the middle of the discussion, and when I said they were not he argued. That is not stopping. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't know why this is still open. IMHO, should have been closed as a TBAN on asserting other users are socks or reporting to SPI. But, I'd say that, of course. DlohCierekim20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually ANi imposes TBANs all the time. While not properly logged, the TBAN on mentioning sockpuppets anywhere or reverting because you think someone is a sock is basically in effect. If you cross the line and accuse someone of socking I would expect you will find yourself blocked. Forget about socks and go donsomething useful. Leave this area to editors that understand it. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
See, I am actually trying to acknowledge both viewpoints and admit that YES, not everything I did was right. Whereas the only thing you have had to say is that all I do is "accuse and revert others of being socks". Stop parroting the same lines over and over again.Mountain157 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RBL2000 continues WP:POLEMIC behavior on Venezuelan articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago59 comments10 people in discussion
The editor posting this thread and the responding editors have agreed to a close because RBL2000 is a new editor and, with RBL2000's agreement, I have provided on their talk page advice about how to edit constructively in the future. However, RBL2000 should be aware that if the other editors do not see improvement, they will probably bring them back to ANI and the result will probably be different.-- TFD (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summary:RBL2000 has continued disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages.
Diffs:
Pushing for controversial with WP:OR despite the lack of sources 1
Continuous digs at other users, reliable sources ("media") and bringing negative sentiments from other talk pages 1, 2, 3
Removing tags regarding their status and describing users as "trolls" 1
Background:
Venezuelan articles have always been controversial and that definitely has not changed with this new presidential crisis. RBL2000 has not been making constructive edits and it appears that previous warnings have not been sufficient. The user has continued to only be active on talk pages and harasses users working diligently at maintaining accurate information of a complicated conflict. On the talk pages, the user will continue with WP:MYWAY that does not help with genuine discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not yet caught up with today's developments, but I can say that, since the report from a week ago by MJL, nothing has changed. We spend large amounts of time responding to spurious and tendentious talk page posts from RBL and this seriously detracts from being able to add content. The real problem is that RBL just keeps coming back, over and over, with more non-reliable sources, or more sources that don't say what this editor believes they say. I do not support topic bans for first offenses. This is ongoing, and unabated; this user abuses the talk page and appears unable to understand reliable sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears SandyGeorgia is unable to understand the difference between posting sources/links in Talk Page versus the Article itself, also I am not forcing SandyGeorgia nor any other editor to respond to my comments, criticism and suggestions nor I have implemented any "unrealible sources" since February 20th as SandyGeorgia implies in the narrative, but SandyGeorgia can say that isn't the case then SandyGeorgia should admit it was wrong about "unreliable sources" claim as it involves Talk Page and not the Article, the former where there is discussion and suggestions. SandyGeorgia as is any other editor can participate in Talk Page to have a discussion as that is purpose of the talk page involving the subject of the article and what is related to it. SandyGeorgia as is ZiaLater should refrain from making false claims about me, specially later when claiming WP:SPA while ignoring, yes ignoring my edits on other topics/articles. RBL2000 (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and ZiaLater: I appreciate the pings. Dlohcierekim was the responding admin. I encourage us to get additional feedback from them before proceeding. As for my thoughts on this user, I would like to contrast them with Fenetrejones who has certainly improved immensely in working with others at the talk pages (I just gave them a barnstar for this_). I encourage RBL2000 to rethink their behavior before posting additional comments that might be considered bad conduct. –MJL‐Talk‐☖16:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Fenetrejones does seem to be trying, but they also struggle to understand the correct use of sources. There are only about six bilingual editors struggling to keep a complex and fast-moving situation updated, and we are unfortunately spending a disproportionate amount of time on trying to deal with faulty use of sources from just a few editors. I would rather be writing content, and there just isn't time to keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to sort the responses below, but I can't address anything about SPA tags, as I don't place them, and no idea what the complaint about a French source is. It is constantly dealing with this sort of thing that has bogged down the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Do nothing This looks like an attempt to remove an inconvenient dissenting voice from talk via the drama boards. I didn't see much indication of disruption at talk when I looked just now. The Venezuela articles are a mess. Considering Wikipedia's bias in favour of capitalist owned media and against publicly owned media from the southern hemisphere it never will be anything other than a WP:NPOV mess. Let's just close down this bit of unnecessary drama and leave it alone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This spurious and deeply bitey AN/I thread deeply concerns me. Has Wikipedia got to the point where political article content disputes lead to immediate calls for t-bans from whichever group has larger numbers? Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
ZiaLater claim I am pushing for controversial by doing WP:OR is inaccurate as I did not make claim and potraying my commentary on article from the UN that Fenetrejones posted the source while also mentioning at that time what is the count on Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis and continues as of time of writing this at number 52 while the UN article mentions 60. I did not claim that is the number for countries that support Maduro if that is you're implying. After all I wrote "if all sign document jointly and declare". Is it negative sentiment to point out for example with SandyGeorgia expressed having trouble with understanding what Fenetrejones requested numerous times, which was to move Ukraine and Morocco from supporting Guaido to supporting National Assembly as stated in sources, Fenetrejones repeated this several times yet SandyGeorgia asked him again for which Fenetrejones again made same request. I have explained what his request is to SandyGeorgia as it was frustrating to me read their conversation as it was frustraing to SandyGeorgia explaing to me which I acknowledge, yet depends if SandyGeorgia acknowledges that I acknowledged. What is the purpose of the SPA tag? Please tell me ZiaLater because to me it seems its there to be used as label that implies my comments/opinion should be ignored, not to mention that I made edits in other topics not related to Venezuela yet it is "single purpose" as according to ZiaLater who also asserts my actions as WP:OR in Talk page of all as if I made edits in the very article. This is my stance. RBL2000 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Do nothingRBL200,Looking at his posts, he really does not deserve a block.
Reasons to Not Block Him
A. He is not vandalizing anything
B. He actually puts something on the discussion before editing it
C. As frustrating as SandyGeorgia is probably to him, I have seen no rude responses as of yet. (I am not attacking SandyGeorgia, I am evaluating that from his responses)
D. With regards to Morocco, a French source would not unreliable. Yes, it is French, but take into context that sources for certain country positions have the possibility of being in different languages. Morocco's official languages are Berber, Arabic, and FRENCH. So, it is not crazy that Morocco's position on something would be French
However some better things to do is suggesting improvements and at worst he deserves a warning
If who ever does not want to discuss country positions, than just stay away from articles like that if it is that big of a problem.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems like this is the kind of dispute that happens when we rely on primary sources, like a statement issued by a country, or a newspaper article reporting that a country issued a statement: we end up arguing about what this primary source or that primary source means. Instead of trying to compile a list from primary sources, it seems a list of countries supporting Maduro or Guaido would be better off sourced to secondary sources, such as other lists of countries supporting X or Y, published by reliable sources, like: CNBC "Guaido vs Maduro: Who backs Venezuela's two presidents?" (already cited in the list); Reuters "Guaido vs. Maduro - Who is backing Venezuela's two presidents"; and Bloomberg "All the Countries Recognizing Guaido as Venezuela’s New President". Also, seems like there are only a handful of editors on that article's talk page, and that may be increasing frustrations all around (the "trapped in an elevator" effect). If only we had a centralized noticeboard where this sort of thing could be discussed... Levivich21:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Levivich the article was split from the main article less than two days ago because 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis had gotten huge-- to see the number of people actually contributing on talk, and the extent of the behaviors discussed in this section, you would need to access the talk page archives back at the original article. There is a note at the top of Talk:Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis explaining this. And while I generally agree with the way you (or I) might have created or not this list, that is a separate matter from the recurring behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Fenetrejones, this user has been warned many times (see "Information about previous warnings"). Separately, as much as you might appreciate RBL2000 as an editor, I really recommend avoiding commenting at ANI if that is ever possible (I probably should not have pinged you here tbh). Regardless, my suggestion is a temporary 1-3 month topic ban imposed by an uninvolved administrator. –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to llover sobre mojado, but I'd like to late the noticeboard know that RBL2000just edited in Jair Bolsonaro's talk page, an article they haven't edited until know, with a similar pattern as the one as in the Venezuelan articles. If a block is decided, I'd like to propose to broaden the topic to post-1998 South American politics.--Jamez42 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I am somewhat aghast that posting a source to talk, particularly one that would probably be considered reliable is being treated as WP:POLEMIC and sanctionable. Like much of the material at Venezuela-related talk pages, this smarts of civil POV pushing. Also of WP:BITE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223 Jamez42 has posted elsewhere today that he is editing from a phone and unable to seriously edit today. I suggest we view the post above in that context. I am reading it as if sanctions are imposed, they may need to be broader because of the chavismo element. I could be wrong, but until Jamez42 can speak better for themselves, based on limited editing expressed elsewhere ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
RL2000 should have mentioned that he wanted to add the information that Bolsonaro praised a notorious dictator, which was reported in American mainstream media. Otherwise I do not see any problem with this. What you should do is tell the editor that they should have mentioned they wanted this information added. Whether or not it meets WP:WEIGHT, it meets reliable sources and hence is worthy of discussion if not inclusion. TFD (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems more like a content dispute to me, hence no action is required. I note that RBL2000 is a new editor who has edited for less than one month. Instead of discussing the complexities of Wikipedia rules with this editor, other editors have gone straight to warnings and ANI reports. I suggest that editors read "Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers" for guidance in dealing with new editors.
I believe that SandyGeorgia's pinging of another editor who had filed an ANI report against this editor to be a violation of improper canvassing as is another editor's mention of this case on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro.[107] It is inviting editors to a discussion based on the likelihood they will agree with you.
I also question SandyGeorgia's concern about there being only six bilingual editors active on these articles. Current events in Venezuela are being covered extensively in English language media and any events or opinions they fail to cover lack weight or are questionable. Furthermore, English language sources are preferable, since many readers go to external links for further information and other editors use them for determining whether or not they are accurately reflected in articles.
I don't edit the Venezuela articles not because I can't read Spanish, nor because I can't find English sources but because I've rarely seen more POV fraught areas outside of the Falun Gong pages. That's why I'm looking so askance at requests for an editor who has expressed a pro-Maduro POV to be t-banned from such a ridiculously broad swath as "all Latin America articles post 1998" on such farcically weak grounds. I am sorry if my WP:AGF is weak here, but the truth is that if this were any less controversial article set, the presented evidence of disruption wouldn't even rise to the level of lv. 1 template warnings, let alone calls for broad-ranging topic bans. And I don't care to extend an olive branch to a user who provides such weak evidence of WP:POLEMIC just because they're editing mobile. If they had one good diff they should have provided it. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I struck out my mention of her name. But bear in mind that the more often one is pinged, the more likely one is to respond. By notifying editors who are likely to support a ban, it is more likely that a majority of the editors responding to this thread will favor one. It is much better to post the complaint and see what uninvolved editors have to say. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, here we go again. Muddying a thread when I did none of the original pinging. And interjecting the idea that anyone jumped to discussion of topic banning, when I decidedly opposed that in the first thread. Please try to read before you opine. And then more muddying with the bilingual issue: yes, we utterly prefer English-language sources, but they are often a day behind Spanish-language sources, so one has to take care with what is added. And, we have multiple instances daily of editors inserting text based on Spanish-language sources that a) is outdated or incorrect based on higher quality sources, or b) are not using reliable sources (as was the case that prompted this thread)-- it helps to be able to read those sources. You, TFD, are making the same point that I am, as to these editors using marginal sources in Spanish to cite text that is not sourceable to the citations given.
Business as usual, along with misrepresentation of the entire talk page matter, which is that no matter how many times one explains reliable sourcing on the talk page, we get more of same over and over (with the exception of MJL, who has seriously engaged to attempt to get these new editors to understand how to use talk pages, and how to use sources). Thanks, MJL. And then further muddying the waters with the notion that MJL is likely to <whatever>, when MJL has tried to help these editors avoid sanction. Sheesh, TFD, did you try to inform yourself before lobbing charges here that only muddy the picture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I considered what is presented in this discussion thread. No I did not read every talk page discussion on every article about post-1998 South American politics. Certainly you cannot expect editors to do that before replying. It is the responsibility of the editor requesting sanctions to provide evidence in the discussion thread. Incidentally I did look at User talk:RBL2000 and saw that all anyone has posted to it are templates: one welcome, two warnings, and two notices that they had been reported to ANI. I did not see any attempt to engage RBL2000 in discussion about their editing.[108]
Incidentally there is no expectation that Wikipedia articles scoop English language media on events in Venezuela. Believe me, if Maduro resigns or the U.S. and its allies invade Venezuela it will probably be picked up on CNN immediately. I assumed you pinged MJL in order to remind them to contribute to this page in support of the ban request. Correct me if I am wrong.
The endless discussions about reliable sources are in talk page archives. As explained in this thread, and the one linked in this thread to the previous discussion. You are still not understanding the English-Spanish sourcing issues, which has nothing to do with a "scoop". We have, daily, editors putting non-policy compliant information into articles using Spanish-language sources. One has to be able to read those sources to know if they are a) reliable, and b) verify the text they are sourcing. I have already explained this. In the last two days, we have had three examples of editors inserting falsified information from Spanish-language sources or sources that have nothing to do with the text being sourced. It helps to speak Spanish to be able to sort that out, and it is very time consuming. You probably aleady know what they say about assuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The selective way Americans choose to situate public media from the southern hemisphere while ignoring the explicit lies of private corporate media remains disheartening. And that's why this is a content dispute. Wikipedia should be saying nothing and using no newsmedia sources for discussing ongoing politically fraught crises. To do so is to introduce an implicit bias. To selectively ban newsmedia outlets because the bias disagrees with their own exacerbates the problem. The solution is simple. WP:TNT and wait for the historians to assess the matter academically in hindsight. But it is not to WP:BITE the newbies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, I don't believe we have crossed paths in editing, but it appears we are in a similar boat. I stopped editing Venezuela articles for years because of recurring issues about reliability of sources.
Editing Venezuela articles is difficult when we have state-owned and state-run sources like Telesur (TV channel) and Venezuelanalysis and multiple documented cases of outright falsehoods. Text from those sources is often undue and conspiracy theory, which are daily issues in the Venezuelan suite of articles.
On the other hand, we have editors on record (such as yourself) saying that "The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet", and rejecting Wikipedia's definitions of reliability. I encountered the same situation years ago (decade maybe?) with TFD when that editor faulted me for citing "biased" sources like The New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Economist, etc.
So, yes, it is hard to maintain neutrality on Venezuelan topics, when the discussion often comes down to giving due weight to a multitude of mainstream high-quality English-language reliable sources versus known documented falsehoods generated by state-owned sources. Just this week, we had an editor wanting to insert this conspriracy theory, when the photojournalist who took the picture is on record as saying it was plagiarized by Telesur and falsely used. To TFD's misunderstanding of the need for bilingual input on these articles, if you don't access the photojournalist charges in Spanish, you don't know that we have another documented Telesur falsification.
I personally spend a lot of time on talk trying to explain sourcing to new users. The complaint from TFD here seems to be that is not on editor talk pages instead of article talk pages, which makes not a lot of sense to me, since there are at least four editors on those articles who similarly misunderstand reliability of sources.
And finally, would I have brought RBL2000 to ANI for this, in either instance? Not yet, and I did not bring either of these threads. The situation in this suite of articles now is not nearly as bad as years ago, when the charges were that I was using "biased" sources like the New York Times; progress has been made, and giving due weight to high-quality, English-language sources is now respected. I learned back then that ANI was unlikely to deal with editors who don't respect reliable sourcing. I also learned that I'd end up accused here, just for weighing in, even though I didn't do the pinging, and I didn't start the threads. ANI muddy waters always assures that no action is taken to address the actual problem. This is not a content dispute; this is repeatedly having to explain the same things on talk about WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and getting back IDIDNTHEARTHAT and IDONTLIKEIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Please assume good faith and do not accuse anyone of canvassing when only the links to users were used as identifiers. I have assumed good faith on numerous occasions for RBL2000; if you did not notice, I waited an entire week to see if they had made any progress. But their behavior has not improved as they have continued to treat the talk page like a forum and a soapbox. I am thrilled to accept newcomers who can help with Venezuela articles, for example Kingsif (not pinging) has helped tremendously. But more often the users that have arrived recently only edit with poor intentions. We have dealt with continuous sockpuppets for months. I have assumed good faith and waited for improvements, but something needs to change with RBL2000.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
"Canvassing" says, "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Whether or not that was the intention, editors who support a ban of RBL2000 were invited to the discussion, which could unfairly influence the outcome of this discussion. But to return to the subject of this discussion thread, editors frequently disagree on what content should be included in controversial subjects. It is often difficult to determine whether the resulting disputes are based on genuine differences of opinion or violation of editing policy and guidelines by one or more editors. I am not seeing in the evidence presented in this thread that RBL2000 falls into the latter category. That does not mean they don't but the evidence presented is not persuasive to me. And I don't see any attempt on RBL2000's talk page to engage them in discussion. TFD (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of wrongdoing is presented but I also don't think we should be throwing boomerangs at the people who over-zealously tried to get rid of a new editor who was annoying them. This is pointless drama and I'd recommend some Admin kindly put this thread out of its misery before it stinks up the place. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
And I suggest that your pony in the race ("The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet") means you are not the person who should be calling for closure here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have just reviewed RBL2000's recent contributions, and as far as I can tell, the behavior has not repeated since this thread started. Is that because RBL2000 now understands that tendentious and repetitive talk page posts and barbs should stop, is it because the content generating most problems was moved to a sub-article and is getting less attention, or is it because of something else-- dunno. Time will tell. I do appreciate that MJL has been willing to help so that others can try to focus on keeping the article, that is on the main page, in shape. In what manner the past behaviors should be dealt with or not is for someone uninvolved to say, and "uninvolved" here does not include either TFD or Simonm223. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Struck because I missed this, posted here yesterday:[109]
Yes, lie about me as usual, unsurprising and expected. RBL2000 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not edited or even followed any Venezuela-related articles since before RBL2000 began editing so have not based my view on any experience of their editing but on what was posted to this discussion thread. However I notice that probably most of the other editors in this discussion thread could also be considered involved in some way. I do not therefore see this discussion as leading anywhere and suggest it be closed.
I have read through RBL2000's postings on the article about recent events in Venezuela and will provide I hope constructive advice on their talk page. In the best case, this will enable them to edit better. If you want to return to ANI at a future date, the fact that another editor has made an attempt to engage with RBL2000 could be taken into account.
RBL2000 agreed to hear my advice and I have posted it to their talk page. If you want to add to or correct my posting please do so. I think that their willingness to listen is positive and suggest that you agree to close this discussion thread. If they do not accept our advice then you can bring this up again and mention that they have ignored it. TFD (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That looks like a very good attempt. Since @ZiaLater: is the editor who has been most affected by RBL's edits, and the editor who started this thread, I am pinging for feedback (ZiaLater is quite a busy editor). The Four Deuces, I don't want to jump into the middle of your attempts to dialogue with RBL, but this example of how we should use talk pages to develop consensus around reliable sources may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think your posting about attendance figures is good. I look forward to hearing from ZiaLater. TFD (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Since you know that both TFD and I have been working to provide some basic mentorship to this new user perhaps you could wait more than a day before trying to get them voted off the island again. You know, in the spirit of WP:BITE which I still suggest you need to look at. Their comments weren't apropos, but I'd say that some small latitude should be made for a comment that this user may not have even considered public. (I know they would be mistaken in that assumption but, again I have to stress this, they're new to wikipedia) Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
In my advice to RBL2000, I wrote "you need to remain civil, per "No personal attacks." You should not accuse other editors of lying for example." You asked them to strike out their recent comment and they have not done so. The message to me is that they do not intend to follow policy and guidelines. However I would suggest a new thread rather than re-opening this one. TFD (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Honestly, I don't know why everyone's so down on spammers. They're very handy around the house.
Blocked and unblocked. Dynamic IP and last edit was in february. /24 shows no other edits, so I guess they've stopped. Will check /22. DlohCierekim16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Somebody needs their eyeglasses adjusted as they have clearly misread "spammer" as "spanner". (rolls eyes meaningfully) DlohCierekim16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:TurokSwe's issues on the Alien and Predator hasn't changed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user TurokSwe has been in trouble several times because of his edit warring and controversial changes to the Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator franchises. He's been on the template talk page, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, spam blacklist and on had an AN/I before. On the ANI it was said that he would be forced to stop edit warring and ignoring when people told him what he was doing wrong. Since then he's edit warred again (this time on the Alien navbox), and once again just replied that he doesn't understand. I say he should be topic banned, at least temporarily.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I never said I didn't understand something, but I have merely been asking of you to properly explain why you oppose my edits, which you haven't really done. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This has been properly explained to you countless times in every conceivable arena. Other editors - especially administrators - have walked you through it in the minute detail that's appropriate for a brand new editor-- but, you're not new and you've been blocked for this multiple times. The problem is not with other editors not helping you, it's with you refusing the acknowledge consensus or the rules. If you don't like consensus, don't edit the articles that are irritating you, like everyone else has to do at times. And, for the record, consensus on all these issues were reached in January and you still are doing this. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C)20:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Where exactly did you explain it? All I can find are responses which either simply claim "Predator is not connected to Alien" (which is demonstrably false) or that I supposedly "don't understand" something, or they bring up past personal issues (which is not what I'm talking about) unrelated to the question (regarding how Predator is connected to Alien and vice versa) being discussed. Also, which "controversial" changes are you even referring to? - TurokSwe (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I never tried to remove the Predator franchise from the template, which is what I feel like you're trying to imply here. I moved it down, because as I said, it's not as connected as the Alien vs. Predator is.★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not at all what I was implying, but it's precisely the fact that you moved it down to a section that mentioned articles which were not connected to the Alien franchise, and Predator is undeniably connected to it, and there is no real differentiation between the three franchises that would warrant moving it down to the lower section. This is very vague reasoning if anything, and it honestly does seem a little silly that it would be that difficult to resolve. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion that "there is no real differentiation between the three franchises" is once again 100% your personal opinion.★Trekker (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
What are you referring to here? And if my assertion is demonstrably true then what does it matter if people oppose that fact? We're not rewriting history are we? - TurokSwe (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You're being rather vague again here, I still don't know which [relevant] "assertions" you're referring to. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not remotely vague, you know very well that you've been involved in tons of disputes on this topic and pretty much all of them have ended with people telling you to knock it off.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You are being very vague from what I can tell. I know full well that I've been involved in countless disputes on topics such as these (and certainly not limited to Wikipedia) but I have no idea what you're referring to specifically. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
So, to be clear, the previous AN/I dealt with TurokSwe edit-warring over Alien and Predator related articles, during which a large number of editors suggested some sort of sanction was requred, and also during which it was clearly stated by Jehochman that "I shouldn't block them until their next incident of edit warring. For the moment I may just tell them to behave as if they are under a 1RR restriction and if they get into another edit war, I will indef them." Now, TurokSwe is edit-warring over exactly the same subject, and at Template talk:Alien (franchise) is again a litany of WP:IDHT. I also note that TurokSwe said here that "I can see you are currently using past discussions (which were messy and troublesome to say the least, but which I've moved on from, and which are not relevant to the discussion) in order to justify your rejection of my edits" when the situation is exactly relevant to the discussion, because it's the same problem. Is that a reasonable summing-up? Black Kite (talk)21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Noting that what I was referring to was that this edit warring issue was not what I was addressing on the talk page, as I thought was made clear, and I was not the only one engaging in edit warring, and I was not without strong justification for keeping the edits I made, unlike the other individual, and thus the edit warring issue is being used to unjustly force me to comply with said individual's opinions, without the person explaining their stance. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm somewhat bemused myself. It was clearly explained by *Treker in that discussion why she considered that TurokSwe's edits were wrong, and yet they've been persistently edit-warring over the last week or so despite what the previous AN/I said. I can't see any other option but some sort of sanction here, but would welcome further comments. Black Kite (talk)21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, she technically did "clearly" explain why she thought my edits were wrong, and her reasoning was simply that Predator is not as connected to Alien as AVP is, which is very vague reasoning if you ask me and she did not care to elaborate any further. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this is going to come of as rude but the truth is that I just assumed someone with capable of logical deduction would grasp the concept that something called Alien vs Predator is more connected to AlienandPredator than Alien and Predatorare to each other. This is what I mean when I say that you're refusing to understand something, you should be able to understand it but you're willingly ignoring it to try to force your will.★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be referring to the titles alone here, in which case I would agree with you, but when looking to the actual contents of the material published under said titles it's a very different story. It's like arguing that Alien: Covenant is more connected to Alien than Prometheus and therefore the latter should be moved down a section dealing with articles that are not connected to the Alien franchise. It's silly. - TurokSwe (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
It may not have started off that way, but after the first movie it sure became one, and this has only been further established and embraced in the following decades (and thank you for at least admitting it). - TurokSwe (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you did disregard the remainder of the franchise past the first Predator and said "then yeah sure" so I just assumed. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Assumed what based on what? Are you for real so close minded that you're just projecting your opinion onto what I write?★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand you due to my aspergers (in which case I apologize), and I'm not trying to be in any way arrogant or disrespectful, but the way you phrased your response made it seem as though you were silently agreeing with me in regards to Predator being connected to Alien. - TurokSwe (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
In my point of view I think a topic ban would be much better than any block. Turok seems to be a decent editor, just blinded by his fandom of this franchise.★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@TurokSwe: you are hereby topic banned from any page related to Alien or Predator for a period of six months. You are free to edit the other 99.999% of pages on Wikipedia. Should you violate this restriction, you may be blocked, and the blocks will escalate with each violation. Anybody who wants another admin to enforce this should log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. JehochmanTalk21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that there is a topic ban, acknowledged by TurokSwe, there is no need for further discussion between @TurokSwe: and @*Treker: above. Sorry for all that bolding, but the long back and forth between you two is really, really annoying for everyone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are required to inform editors when you raise a case against them here - there's a yellow banner telling you that when you edit the page. I've put a notification on the user's page for you.GirthSummit (blether)18:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, he made one edit on that page, reverting you just the one time. I can't see anywhere that could be called "harassment". You're going to have to come up with some more comprehensive evidence than that. I can find no other time he reverted you. Reverting one edit, one time, on one article is not stalking or harassment. --Jayron3218:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, this ANI edit is the first contribution by the IP in over a year. It's not clear how LightandDark2000 could be stalking someone with a dynamic IP (if I knew how to do that, it would make anti-vandalism work a lot easier)... GirthSummit (blether)19:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
simple, (thank you). You need to see the edit history of the ip address he has reverted at Bonyad (as indicated above)...
Can you indicate other examples of where he harrassed or stalked you. He made one edit to that article. One edit is not harassment. Please provide evidence or else stop making accusations. --Jayron3219:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I must say I 've seen wp:admin LIE on simple facts alone (exactly: attribution of edits to wrong ip addresses willfully/repeatedly). So forgive me but i will keep my report at the above. Peace.66.87.84.225 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These two users are repeatedly reverting each overs edits without much discussion of the problem. Both editors are being very uncivil in this article, but Jmorrison230582 in particular is refusing to cooperate civilly, even telling me to "piss off" when giving a warning about WP:AGF[110]. He repeatedly removed edit warring discussions from his talk page [111]. As for Dolfinz1972, he misued rollback to undo non-vandal edits to continue the edit war. funplussmart (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I reverted those edits to the Scotland at the World Cup article because they appeared to be vandalism (unexplained deletion of sourced content). You accuse me of edit warring and not assuming good faith when I am faced with apparent vandalism - why should I? I also have the right to edit my talk page as I please. The issue is now being discussed at WP:FOOTY and there is a clear consensus against the deletion of the content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not misuse rollback. The lead should be only about the country at the World Cup. The qualifying and the tournament overall have nothing to do about it.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It was explained (I.E. " not even relevant ") and it is hard to see it as vandalism. I would say that is far too detailed for the lede (especially as it does not seem to reflect anything in the body). I would have deleted it myself.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't really care, to be honest, but if you want to work on it be my guest, I'm going to lift the protection. Dolfinz1972 reverted four times in a matter of minutes, and did so using rollback more than once. That's a bright line WP:3RR violation with abuse of rollback to boot. Jmorrison230582 chased them to a different article to revert after hitting three reverts on this one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait until blocks expire While I do believe some kind of ban may be nessesary in the future, we can only know once the blocks expire and the users begin editing again. funplussmart (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think an iban is the right approach, personally. This doesn't seem to be a personality conflict but a content dispute affecting a large number of articles. An iban here would seriously impair both editors' ability to edit. I'm reserving confidence that both editors will behave in a more collaborative fashion when their blocks expire. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oppose for now—while they're blocked they've had one imposed on them, so the better strategy is to wait until the blocks are up and see if they have encouraged a change of approach. If the blocks teach them anything—to cooperate collegially—the Iban would be unnecessary. Indeed, it's probably overkill for what seems to be quite a short-term dispute. ——SerialNumber5412915:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose ibans (ironically, before seeing this I've just performed an almost identical revert on the related England at the FIFA World Cup). I don't think the content in question should have been removed—and it was a total abuse of rollback to use it in a content dispute—but I can see a good faith argument on both sides. The argument for removal is that readers can see the parent article if they need this information and that it clutters articles up with text which the majority of readers already know; the arguments for keeping is that because of the World Cup's prominence it attracts an audience who aren't usually familiar with football and consequently won't be familiar with the context the WP:FOOTY regulars take for granted, and that articles are reused elsewhere without their interwiki links and consequently need to include enough context to stand alone ("would this make sense to a bright 14-year-old reading a printout of the page?" is always a good thought experiment). Unless there's evidence of a pattern rather than a one-off flare up I don't see what purpose an iban would solve. ‑ Iridescent07:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Colonestarrice (talk·contribs) has a tendency not to use edit summaries. If you look at all of their contributions, you'll notice that very few of them have explanations. It's at least the seventh time now that this user has been warned to use edit summaries, and according to this archived message in their talk page, users can be blocked if they don't use edit summaries. At some point, some form of action will need to be taken because that's just way too many warnings. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit summaries are optional and no guideline obliges you to use them. The majority of all edits on Wikipedia do not have an edit summary. I'm not not using edit summaries to provoke other editors, I just simply don't know what to write in them most of the time and I do think that the reasons for my changes are obvious anyways.
I only mentioned that because I’ve seen it happen. It’s pretty dang rude to the rest of the community when you’re too lazy to type a few word to explain your changes. Corky16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Colonestarrice: To clarify – when you provide an edit summary, it gives a user who has watchlisted the page the option of trusting that your edit summary is accurate and not having to look at the diff; this makes a huge difference in the time required (allowing the user to keep an eye on more pages, improving the quality of the whole project) and shows collegiality and respect for your fellow volunteer editors and their time. —[AlanM1(talk)]—22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the argument that Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary is not a policy page is not a good defense, because the underlying idea itself is rooted in policy. Per WP:UNRESPONSIVE: "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." You are not required to explain your edits via edit summary, but you are required to explain them. Communication is required, and ignoring repeated requests from others to be more communicative strikes me as fairly tendentious. It's especially concerning to see a lack of edit summaries even when reverting. From WP:EW, another policy page: "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page."~Swarm~{talk}03:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Pardon but this is inaccurate; I may not have used edit summaries for regular edits, but I always stated an edit summary for reverts (expect if the reverted version contained obvious vandalism or misinformation). But I apologize for not having used them most of the time and will try my best to routinely use them from now on. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Colonestarrice, the best way to use them is to set the preference in the "Editing" tab of the Preferences page ~ it just reminds you if you forget to give that basic communication before saving your edit. Happy days, LindsayHello11:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It need only be a word or two-- "added source", "added content about (insert noun here)". Sometimes I just copy a portion of the text I added. DlohCierekim12:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments10 people in discussion
I'd like to ask for some help in resolving a disagreement with User:Born2cycle. It's something I've tried to work through one-on-one on their talk page, but unsuccessfully. (Others have seemingly done the same recently with a similar result.) Put simply, I'm concerned about B2C performing non-admin closures (NACs) of requested moves for the reasons below, and have asked that he please refrain from them in the interests of avoiding disputes.
Per our instructions, it's important to avoid even the appearance of partiality in closures, and to err on the side of caution in who performs them — and I think history and evidence suggests that Born2cycle is not suited to this task. The reasons can be found in previous threads here at ANI (e.g.) and elsewhere, but in brief: Born2cycle has a lengthy history of disruptive behavior overwhelmingly related to RMs and title policy, which has led to a number of disputes and sanctions. From March to June of last year he was blocked for tendentiousness, refusal to drop the stick, and failure to consider views contrary to his own in a dispute over an RM and related title policies. Per the ANI originator: "He has consistent[ly] shown the very attitude that the committee warned him about years ago: he is unable to see why people might view the article naming policies and guidelines different than him." For any editor with this kind of history regarding RMs and title policy to then start ruling on RMs is I think a cause for concern.
My attempt to resolve this with B2C led only to claims that I was harassing him for personal reasons, that his sanctioned behavior was unrelated to RMs, and that he would not agree to refrain from more NACs. To be clear, I believe that B2C operates for what he believes to be the betterment of the project, and regardless of whether I disagree with his interpretations (I often do), I see nothing wrong with him voicing his opinions or advocating for his views so long as he does so without disruption. My concern is just that it's problematic and disruptive for any editor with this history to be undertaking RM NACs, and problematic that he refuses to consider editors' concerns about it. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, so thanks for any thoughts/input/guidance. ╠╣uw[talk]14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I should clarify that this request is not about questioning or arguing the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs; it's simply about whether Born2cycle should be closing any move requests. ╠╣uw[talk]14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
What 'inciting incident', I think it is said at the outset it concerns no particular issue. I can go into the follow up to the above thread, how the user continued to champion their own behaviour and attempt to repeat the action that saw the above thread opened. Not interesting, five-four-one-two-nine-uh, this thread is as inevitable as the last. cygnis insignis14:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
that you are listening-uh, to the band that other bands must be judged by …uh? I truly don't know, or what the connection actually, I like mysteries, SN54129 cygnis insignis15:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
wow, exactly … "very clev-uh" I was paraphrasing John Peel. Please don't explain what the name means tho', the song is perfect without context. cygnis insignis15:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Recent diffs or boomerang. Let's see recent diffs of bad closures or other disruptive activity. If recent diffs of wrongdoing cannot be provided, then the filer should withdraw or a boomerang sanction should be applied to discourage editors from casting aspersions or making ANI filings without evidence. Levivich14:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus at the last two ANIs was that moving on to other topics would be more productive.
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. — WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
@Huwmanbeing: You're saying there is a chronic problem but you don't want to talk about any individual instance of the problem? That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to argue the rightness/wrongness of specific RMs, then please provide recent diffs of the "disruption" of which you accuse this editor. You're basically proposing a TBAN from RMs. This was proposed at ANI last month and rejected by community. I don't think it's proper for you to take up the community's time by raising the subject again unless you have diffs showing that there is a problem since the last time this suggestion was rejected. If you want to TBAN someone from something, you should provide evidence of a problem. BTW I heard WP used to have this thing called WP:RfC/U but did away with it years ago. Levivich16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
How is asking for evidence censorious? Nobody is stopping you or anyone else doing that, so the second half of your comment doesn't make sense either. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
New user is crying boomerang! and placing demands for particular incidents, to pick apart in a faux wikilawyering analysis and announce 'they are done here!', yet preaches "defending to the death" the imagined right of 'anyone' to say and do as please—in this case for over a decade—and all others must plead their case to undo their actions. I am, unashamedly and openly, censorious, Levivich is using noisy means to disrupt, distract, turn tables, and muddy discussion that is in effect censorious. As far they are concerned the matter was resolved by them, and seem annoyed that was not the end of it, me too. B2C continues to harp on and reopen the very discussion that saw many users try and fail to find a middle ground: between doing nothing until the next time or blocking. I asked B2C to own it, stop moving and closing, rather than being made to walk around in a hair shirt for things he simply cannot see. cygnis insignis18:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Why not, instead of providing us with such evidence-free ranting, just link to a couple of move discussions that this editor has closed incorrectly? Then we could all base our opinions on the facts. I have no idea who is "right", if anyone, in this matter because nobody has provided any evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Because I have already done that. Pointing out disruption is not a rant, and I am not the one playing sides or opening posts here or voting on solutions or interjecting with nitpicks and demands for an personal executive summary of information that is readily available and linked on an exceptionally well known contributor. cygnis insignis20:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Levivich: Again, unlike others I'm not addressing any specific RMs; the concern I'm sharing is about NACs being performed by an editor with perennial problems directly related to RMs and title policy discussions — which per the evidence is not AFAIK in question. As I said, I'm just looking for guidance on how to proceed, given that I tried to resolve my concerns directly with B2C and was unsuccessful. If the consensus is simply to close, I'll certainly abide by that. ╠╣uw[talk]17:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The way I see this, you went to b2c's talk page with some rather patronizing suggestions that are patently not your remit and didn't get much traction. What exactly did you expect? That b2c would say "Wow, you're right. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks a lot!"? Clearly, you've been reading Bishonen's Optimist's guide to Wikipedia. I suggest that someone close this before boomerangs begin to fly. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There may be some misunderstanding about what I'm asking for guidance on here — that's my fault and I'll try to clarify. I wasn't involved in the previous ANI regarding B2C but had understood that it concerned the rightness/wrongness of moves to certain articles such as MMR vaccine and autism. To be clear: my concern is not about that and does not relate to whether any particular move he's made is technically correct or incorrect. This is why I felt it would be acceptable to raise my own question here in order to get input on if/how to proceed (since direct talks failed). If the consensus is that this is materially the same question as before, then closure is fine and I'm happy to abide by that.
What I'm seeking input on is this:
Does an editor who's demonstrated repeated difficulty accepting the validity of others' views specifically in RMs and title policy discussions create a problem when he then begins NAC'ing RMs? Evidence cited in the block discussion as linked, and many of the previous ANIs as also cited, put B2C in this category, so put simply: are NACs under such circumstances problematic? Is B2C doing so problematic?
I'm not calling for a specific action to be taken either over the NACs or B2C's unwillingness to consider refraining despite requests from editors to do so. I'm just uncertain if/how to proceed. (And again, if consensus is that there's no need to proceed at all, that's fine.) ╠╣uw[talk]20:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
No, probably more like six months based on multi-year averages.[114]
Once again: the fact that B2C is performing closures is not in question. The question is whether it's appropriate for him to perform them given his lengthy history of sanctioned and disputed behavior in RMs and title discussions. ╠╣uw[talk]21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
If B2c isn't subject to an extant move-ban then whether they've been doing RM closures is irrelevant. The question is whether there's a pattern of mischief or negligence in those closures, and you're not establishing one. When someone has a history of issues in an area and isn't subject to a ban from it, the gist is they're learning from past mistakes (or are presumed to be, absent proof to the contrary). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
B2C likes to act and then discuss that ad nauseam, he is addicted to that, like a long distance runner (or cyclist). He is not going anywhere, he is looking for internal chemical high that only comes when others begin to be exhausted. Feels good [so he can't be wrong] man. B2C is barely aware of the grey bits below the title, this is unrelated to his pursuits, but this is what we are actually supposed to be doing here. cygnis insignis10:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm well aware of B2c's excessive focus on RM (which I say as an RM regular and PageMover), and I've noticeboarded him myself for disruption in that area, but it was a long time ago. He's gotten much better. Last year-ish, he was railroaded (mostly over WP:BLUDGEON) with some accusations that were not actually true (I did a detailed analysis of them at his talk page). And he was ANIed about a month ago, unsuccessfully. There's really just a camp who want to nail him to the wall, seemingly over old personality disputes, and it's getting a little tedious. If someone doesn't have a solid diff pile that clearly demonstrates a pattern of disruption, they shouldn't open an ANI (not about a long-term editor). This isn't "WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Vague misgivings and hand-waving". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I know he was at AN/I a month ago, and that he is still trying to redo the move that saw the thread opened two days ago, because he belives that the result was a ringing endorsement of his compelling others to pay attention to him. diff! — cygnis insignis19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You have no idea what B2C nor any other editor for that matter is thinking about anything. Such comments are an unwarranted PA and should be struck. Discussion here should be about editor behaviour, supported by diffs, we are not the thought police. This diff shows nothing other than a perfectly normal and acceptable discussion about how to proceed in an RM. Frankly, I am getting very tired of seeing B2C being brought here by the same old parties, raising the same old unsupported claims, apparently trying to settle some ancient dispute these people have had with them. Time to grow up people and drop this particular stick. - Nick Thornetalk23:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not striking that because I believe B2C when he says he sees no error in what he did, he was 'helping'. The smart thing to do after ignoring those objections to his time-consuming behaviour [by those who are obviously biased and have some ancient axe to grind, according to you, so obvi you can make that accusation] would have been to move on to the next move and see what discussion will be generated from that. What he did was ill-considered, it created a shitstorm, he resumed compelling the admin moderating the discussion to re-engage with him. B2c is the only one with an axe to grind. cygnis insignis05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That diff doesn't show anyone "trying to redo the move" (or moving anything), nor anyone claiming there was a "ringing endorsement" of anything. That diff is an editor posting on an article talk page discussing options for achieving consensus. The horror! The horror!Levivich19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user User:Jayscott253 is creating a lot of one line articles like this Texas State Highway Loop 564. I've been moving them to drafts and a few editors also posted messages asking him to complete the article first before submitting. But this user doesn't respond to that at all and keeps creating more articles. Daiyusha (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago193 comments38 people in discussion
This thread, the result of a merger of three separate discussions initiated here, is a horrible mess. Despite (because of?) having been open for considerably more than a month, the heat-to-light ratio is abysmal. Very much of this discussion has consisted of involved parties engaging in mudslinging, with precious little input from outside observers, and administrators in particular. In the final analysis, I see no consensus for any sanction. Consensus for a sanction is unlikely to develop, because the length of this discourages anyone who might otherwise provide insight from participating. That said, it is clear that several users in the general topic of contemporary Iranian politics, and specifically the relationship between the Iranian government and its opposition, are on very thin ice. I am therefore going to close this with a strong warning to users Pahlevun, Saff_V., Stefka Bulgaria, and Mhhossein to avoid making personal attacks, to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground, to seek consensus rather than edit-warring over contentious material, and to be mindful of our policies about maintaining a neutral point of view. Further failures to edit within policy and in a collaborative manner may be met with immediate blocks or topic bans. I recognize that many, indeed probably all, of the participants in this thread are going to be unhappy with this result. The nature and degree of misconduct here isn't uniform, and I am not exculpating any of the editors who were not the subject of specific discussions here but are obviously participating in the battleground behavior. Pahlevun in particular avoided a topic-ban very narrowly; I am not placing one solely because input from involved users was largely unhelpful, and that from uninvolved users was sparse. I am not going to track down precisely which categories of misconduct were committed by which individuals, so I will close with some general advice. WP:BLP is not to be treated lightly; coverage of living people not only needs to be sourced to reliable sources, it needs to reflect all major viewpoints among reliable sources. Making page moves that are going to be contentious without first discussing them is disruptive. Taking content-based disagreement across Wikimedia projects, especially without attempting to address behavioral issues at an appropriate forum, is disruptive. We have a policy against making legal threats: tossing around accusations of libel isn't acceptable. It is patently obvious that many of you have strong personal feelings about this political situation. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but if you are unable to separate your position from what Wikipedia considers a balanced presentation of material, a topic-ban is inevitable. Vanamonde (Talk)06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarifying that I had merged Thread #3 with the already-merged Threads #1 and #2. Another user had previously merged Threads #1 and #2. Yet another user added Thread #4 to the previously-merged Threads #1 through #3. Thereafter, yet another user unmerged Thread #2. Somehow, this has caused confusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The explanatory note I left erroneously suggested that I had singlehandedly merged the first three threads; my apologies for being unclear. Levivich19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just askuser:Ladsgroup more RS but he accused me to support Iranian politic.Interesting reason! I nominated Radio Farda as a disputed source and here it was proven I am right because of propagandistic mission.Saff V. (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not see anyone agree with you that Radio Farda is a disputed source and as such should not be used, quite the opposite. How did the link you provide "prove" any of your points? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes there is not any exact confirmation to using it because of propagandistic mission. Any way I did not remove any material sourced by Radio Farda in mentioned articles (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) unless the radio Farda news did not cover the material. Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In your own words not any exact confirmation - How does that lead to the conclusion it was proven I am right? If you mis-represent something that badly it's hard to have any faith in your interpretation of the other events. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to be a lot more critical of the way certain WP:RS/N users treat leftist state sources vs. American funded sources WRT propaganda vs news than most people on the board, but even I wouldn't suggest that brief discussion proved anything beyond that Radio Farda has been connected to propaganda in the past. Whether they can be a reliable source in context doesn't appear to have been exhaustively discussed in that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. For obvious POV pushing and disruptive editing, as well as not showing any signs here of willing to change their behaviour. Poya-P (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Yes, there is POV pushing. However sources in Iran (and Radio Farda outside of Iran) do require discussion. Some of the AfDs were ill-advised (but the canvassing to the AfDs (by the "other camp") was worse). As suggested this is overly broad as based mainly on an assertion of POV and not on disruptive behavior. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Support The behavior just in this mess of ANI reports suggests an editor who is unable to work objectively in this topic and is quick to assume bad faith on the part of others. The entire filing here has been disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Changing my vote to support based on the disruptive nature of this ANI report, including unfounded accusations by the user. Per Grandpallama's vote, it is apparent their POV does not allow them to work with objectivity even here.Alex-h (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray report below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If You and Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then you both should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with you. Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Support There is a fact that there is no freedom speech in Iran. A free encyclopedia like Wikipedia should give this opportunity to those who believe in this principle.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Note:This is the first edit by Nikoo.Amini in ANI. Just like, Alex-h and Poya-P. All of them are Fa wiki users and I have never dealt with them or talked to them. I had no conflicts with them in any of the articles.Saff V. (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose at this time due to insufficient evidence of disruption. The AfDs were WP:TROUT-worthy, and there appears to be PoV bias behind them, but it's hard to be certain at this stage. Either present more evidence or maybe we'll be back here again later if the issue is real and continues (or maybe there has been an issue and the user will see that it's not going to work out for them if they persist, so they'll stop). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment – Not !voting here because I'm involved in a content dispute with this editor at United States support for ISIS over edits like:
[115] "According to Guardian the US and its allies were going to create some sort of Islamic state." sourced to this opinion piece that says "That doesn’t mean the US created Isis".
[116] "Mike Flynn admitted that the US government was willfully coordinating arms transfers to the Salafists" sourced to this interview where the interviewer said that, not Flynn
[117] "...ISIS forces use a numbers of weapons, provided by Saudi Arabia and the United States..." when the source (Al Jazeera) says "About 90 percent of weapons and ammunition used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) originated in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, with Russian-made weapons outnumbering those of any other country."
Comment Levivich's comment show that PoV editing by Saff V. is still ongoing, in spite of this ANI report (which Saff V. mostly used to make accusations against other editors). When we misinterpret sources (seen on Levivich's content dispute list), or advance inclusion of unreliable sources in political delicate articles to support PoV statements, it becomes a danger of turning Wikipedia into fake news site. TBAN, WARN, whatever is needed to stop this. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I think they has made a lot of contributions that are really helpful while some of their edits might be pushing POV I don't think they deserves a topic ban, I don't see any/many differences between them and some other editors who are calling for topic ban to him. warning would be enough--SharabSalam (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
STOP accusing people who are partaking in this conversation of hounding you, or implying that people who have few posts elsewhere in Wikipedia are not allowed to partake in this conversation. ANI reports are open to every editor to comment on, and you are under discussion. If you want to defend yourself, that's fine, but continuing to cast aspersions by claiming that people are hounding you by participating in this conversation or that their participation is inappropriate is not acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm paying perfect attention. People looking into your editing and bringing examples of it to ANI is not hounding. Stop accusing people who are discussing your edits here of hounding you. Grandpallama (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it's starting to ridiculous now. Even when this user is "expanding" articles, he stealthily removes/changes information that clashes with his POV. There has generally been a lot of political pov-pushing going on in articles of peoples/groups/protests that criticize/oppose the clerical rule in Iran, a country with poor human rights, where people aren't allowed to criticize the regime cough cough. See a pattern here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be used in this way. This seems to be a coordinated POV effort by these users against political oppositions to the Iranian clerical rule. This needs admin attention.Poya-P (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree; At best, I can say that Pahlevun is a bit too solistic. At worst, Pahlevun is transforming articles into attack-pages, which is frustrating to see. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not going accuse any user here, because it is not the right place and the right time. However, in order to clarify the situation, I should shed light upon these two points first (Please note that all of the articles mentioned are all somehow linked to the MEK):
Since (at least) 2016, there has been coordinated efforts to purge anything unfavorable about the MEK here on English Wikipedia. It has been technically proven that multiple sockpuppets are involved in the campaign (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive for more details) and as User:EdJohnston has pointed out recently, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK".
Based on various reports by different media outlets, we also know that the MEK spends lots of money to manipulate information about itself on the internet and even maintains a "troll farm" whose "online soldiers" are tasked to do that on a daily basis. (for instance, please read the reports by Al-Jazeera and The Guardian)
Do you think that edits to some soccer thingy are in any way comparable to those on the MEK? I mean, what are the politics of the soccer thingy, the POVs? So I can consider the one disruptive because of the subject matter, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Pahlevun, so, according to your own statement, your blanket reverts ignoring numerous RfCs and Talk Page discussions is the fault of other editors and/or are within guidelines? Poya-P (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes everything is not what it seems. I want Drmies and others making decisions on this, to kindly take the time to read the following thorouly:
It really hurts to read something like "disruptive editing" about your work, when you are here to build an encyclopedia. Contributed to Wikipedia since 2012, I made more than 21,000 edits and created more than 600 articles during these years. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, and I pledge that I am complying and here to uphold Wikipedia's values, however, that does not mean that I make no mistakes. So, I encourage everyone to assume good faith about my edits.
Explaining my edits on the article 'People's Mujahedin of Iran'
Is it disruptive to restore these well-sourced content removed from the article?
In the Infobox war faction, in front of |leaders= parameter, a strange typographical error occurs that creates a malfunction leading to hiding sourced content, without removing it (See how this minor correction makes a difference on the content sown). Is it a coincidence? Considering the fact that confirmed sockpuppets were determined to remove the same content, makes me suspicious. (See Saleh Hamedi, Carpe765 and NickRovinsky for example). Note that Iran hostage crisis is also being removed from the list while it was also supported by reliable sources (Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalid", in David Gold (ed.), Microeconomics, Routledge, pp. 66–67, ISBN978-1317045908, Following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, the MEEK participated physically at the site by assisting in defending it from attack. The MEK also offered strong political support for the hostage-taking action.) Is it a coincidence that confirmed sockpuppets also wanted to remove this (links are available in case requested)? I restored the content and I'm sure it was constructive.
A whole table sourced by a book published by an academic press (Masoud Banisadr (2016). "The Metamorphosis of MEK (Mujahedin e Khalq)". In Eileen Barker (ed.). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. ISBN978-1-317-06361-2.) is totally removed and I restored it. I do consider it a constructive edit.
The fact that the government of Japan designated the MEK as a terrorist organization and froze its assets was removed from the article and I restored it (Japanese foreign ministry). Is it disruptive?
The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon in his trip to Iran was completely removed while it was backed by a a book published by an academic press (Gibson, Bryan R. (2016), Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War, Facts on File Crime Library, Springer, p. 136, ISBN9781137517159). I restored it, do you consider it disruptive?
Just take a look at the names of the following sections and the changes that was made:
Original name
Altered name
Notes
Anti-American campaign
Totally removed
The section is supported by multiple reliable sources and plays an important role in the group's history. Maybe it was removed to blend into irrelevant content?
Fraud and money laundering
Alleged fund raising
Is really being prosecuted for these two financial crimes in at least five Western countries an "Alleged fund raising"? What about those huge amount of reliable sources saying so?
Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)
Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)
The word "Armed" was removed. Why?
1998 FIFA World sabotage plan
1998 FIFA World political banner plan → Totally removed
It is one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned and documentaries have been made on the event. Why it was removed and was blend with irrelevant text?
Forgery
Totally removed
The section was supported by multiple reliable sources and is now removed. Look at the first sentence that is not in the article now:
An annual report by California Department of Justice in 2004, asserts that "[m]embers of the MEK were arrested for operating a Los Angeles-based immigration and visa fraud ring, which enabled members of the group to enter the United States illegally... By using forged documents and fictitious stories of political persecution, the ring was able to assist hundreds of individuals entering the United States." (Source: Patrick N. Lunney; Rick Oules; Wilfredo Cid; Ed Manavian; Allen Benitez (2004), Bill Lockyer (ed.), "Organized Crime in California: Annual Report to the California Legislature"(PDF), California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Criminal Intelligence Bureau, pp. 23–24)
Scholarly views
Allegations of Indoctrination
The section was modeled after Hezbollah#Scholarly_views (an article rated good). Why it was wholly removed, while it contained a list of scholars that worked on the subject and it was supported by reliable sources?
Was restoring back these sections disruptive?
Whole section entitled "Propaganda campaign" is now reduced to a paragraph. Look at some of the sources removed:
Ivan Sascha Sheehan (Fall 2013), "Challenging a Terrorist Tag in the Media: Framing the Politics of Resistance and an Iranian Opposition Group", Digest of Middle East Studies, 22 (2), Policy Studies Organization, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.: 229–261, doi:10.1111/dome.12033{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Mehdi Semati (2007), Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, Iranian Studies, vol. 5, Routledge, pp. 99–100, ISBN978-1-135-98156-3
"Part 4: The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America", Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB), British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service, 1993, p. E-1
Anthony H. Cordesman; Adam C. Seitz (2009), Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, p. 334, ISBN978-0-313-38088-4
Andrew Dawson (2016), The Politics and Practice of Religious Diversity: National Contexts, Global Issues, Routledge Advances in Sociology, Routledge, pp. 162–163, ISBN978-1-317-64864-2
I restored the well-sourced content removed from the section and I think it was constructive. What is very interesting, is the fact that technically-proved sockpuppets were also very sensitive to the section and determined to remove it from the beginning. For example:
Citieslife, NickRovinsky, London Hall.
For my contributions on the article discussed above, I have been blatantly attacked and harassed by users who are proved to be coordinated sockpuppets/meatpuppets here to purge this article (links available in case required). One of the reasons that I became interested in the subject and improving this article was the sense that I am safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it and use it as a means to advocate an organization.
I believe that block, topic ban, or any other restriction on my account would be unfair. If if you maintain that my edits were "disruptive", I think that would be unnecessary to enforce any restrictions on me, I'll tell you why. I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent.
I removed, 26 Sep 2018 removed the Japanese alleged terrorist designation since": "Primary source - freezing of assets of "terrorists and the like" from 2002. Unlcear this was a terrorist designation in 2002 - and even less clear this is in force today. Notably, the Japanese wiki doesn't seem to think they've been designated by Japan."). We discussed formatting on the talk page afterwards, though not the removal which hsd a rather clear reason. And yes - I consider resotration of rather dubious info (also for 2002, moreso for present day) without discussion or even an edit summary - highly disruptive - I am not sure of the 2002 status (seems to be a financial designation) - but saying Japan currently (2019) designates MEK as terrorist seems to be in WP:HOAX turf.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I'm not seeing hoax in that edit. I mean, it's true that citation doesn't support the statement that MEK was currently designated as a terrorist organization by Japan, but the citation does support the statement that it was so designated in 2002. I would have copyedited rather than reverted, but either way, I don't see how that edit is violation of policy or otherwise suggests the editor should be TBANed? Levivich14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: Is Japan 1 of 3 countries (Iran, Iraq, Japan) currently designating MEK as terrorist? If not it is a HOAX - very simple. Prior to removing it I tried looking for any reasonable non-wikiclone saying this - did not find any (MEK was delisted by most countries since 2003). I also failed to find a secondary source discussing this - and it is unclear to me if the mofa announcement is just for money laundering (financial transactions) or a stronger domestic designation. Pahlevun above justifying reinserting what looks to be a hoax - only has me more convinced of the problem here. The MEK article has been edited and heavily discussed (including a few RFCs) since September - it appears Pahlevun took some old version (pre September) and reinstated text that was changed and discussed (e.g. removed for failing WP:V) - removed with a clear rationale - reinstated willy-nilly without even a reason. Pahlevun is not even acknowledging inserting what appears to be a hoax is a problem - he is justifying it above! WP:IDHT.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Just FTR, I did a fairly thorough search for all .go.jp websites mentioning either "ムジャヒディン・ハルク" or "モジャーヘディーネ・ハルグ"; there weren't a whole lot of results, indicating that the Japanese government is not that concerned about them, and so demanding an up-to-date source specifically claiming that they have removed them from a list of terrorist organizations whose assets they froze at one point in 2002 (a list they do not appear to maintain in any consistent manner) seems fairly unreasonable. The most prominent instance I found was this, which specifies that the US took them off a list of terrorist organizations, but does not mention any such Japanese policy one way or the other; presumably Japan, whose primary motivation for freezing the assets in the first place, as outlined in the cited source, was the 9/11 attacks on America, would have followed suit if they actually maintained an official list of terrorist organizations that had ever actually included the group. I did, however, locate this list, which doesn't mention either Japanese variant of the name under the "ma-column"; this of course is not a reliable source for the specific claim that they were removed from the list of terrorist organizations, but it is a very reliable source for the talk page argument that we should not be engaging in original research based on that one announcement from a few months after 9/11 a few months before the Iraq War. If anyone involved in this dispute ever needs help tracking down (or translating passages from) Japanese sources in the future, please feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Shit, Ryk's right. I shoulda been more thorough. At least this gives me the chance to again discredit the somewhat scurrilous rumour that I never apologize or admit I was wrong. Also the even more ridiculous idea that ja.wiki isn't much worse at this kinda thing than we are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I did some more research, because I think you raise a couple of valid points. Firstly though, categorisations on ja.Wiki aren't great; Al-Qaeda is not included in that cat. The link discussed is to the official website of the Ministry of Justice's Public Security Intelligence Agency (equivalent w.r.t. counter terrorism to the US CIA or FBI), and the web document linked is an official publication of that agency. If any article text were written to cleave strongly to this, I'd suggest that the link is supportive. Though I agree that the site does seem to include any organisation engaged in any "armed insurgency". However, if we were to consider "designated as a terrorist organisation", to mean "under laws & regulations that were created to comply with UNSCR 1373" (which I now think would be the more appropriate course), then the link would not be supportive. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2002 press release, however, would support such a designation - it is delightfully succinct - but it is official. That said, I did, when searching for "ムジャヒディン ハルク site:.go.jp" (ク not グ), find evidence that MEK was officially removed from the list of designated terrorist organisations on March 24, 2013 (平成25年5月24日).[143] from [144] (Scroll down to テロリスト等に対する措置.) MEK is certainly not on the current list. (テロリスト等) The designation (aligned to UNSCR 1373) is therefore around 6 years out of date; but given the opacity of the Japanese official websites & press releases to non-Japanese and that MEK was verifiably listed, does not, imho, rise to the level of a WP:HOAX. I make no representation on anything else in this ANI section. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'15:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Propaganda - WP:BLP vio and editing against previous discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 5#Hamilton and Rendell. Pahlevun restored a rather bad BLP violation (stating in our voice American BLPs were paid by MEK to support MEK - a possibly criminal charge (designated terror organization at the time) - and not quite what the sources say). This was discussed on the talk page at length. Introducing a libelous BLP vio is disruptive - doing so after a prior discussion on the issue - is disruptive. Justifying it here (and not saying - "sorry, I was wrong") - means such disruptive behavior is likely to continue.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
To be specific in this diff which names several BLPs, Pahlevun restored libel unsupported by the cited source (and the specific langauge here is important - paid to give a speech by an Iranian-American group vs. paid by MEK to support MEK (a designated terrorist org at the time) - and previously removed and discussed in the article talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The talk page consensus you linked to you is you and one other editor working out an issue about one passage four months ago. Easy for an editor to miss that. I agree with you completely that this one passage is complicated, and it needs very precise wording to maintain accuracy to the source and neutrality. But to me this means it's the kind of passage that any of us could draft or edit in a less-than-ideal way; it's not clear black-and-white what is neutral and what is not neutral when talking about those payments and who made them, so AGF leads me to believe it's an innocent mistake. A "hoax" is a deliberate attempt to introduce completely false information; a POV error isn't the same thing as a hoax in my mind. Please see my further comment on this below to Stefka's analysis. Levivich20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Reinstating, in parts, a six-month old version is not innocent editing. In this specific edit - Pahlevun asserted (in wiki voice) that a whole list of named BLPs commited a Federal crime (receiving a payment for a service from a designated terror organization). If you make that sort of edit you better have iron clad sourcing - and you definitely should not misrepresent a source. This sort of edit is insta-blockable under the BLP policy. AGF is out of the window when the user does not use edit summaries, rolls back in a six month old version (after multiple discussions and a few RfCs), ignores talk page discussions, and the kicker -justifies this gross BLP violation as a constructive edit in their reaponse above. I do not see a sorry, an "I was wrong". I do see WP:ASPERSIONS of socking in Pahlevun's response above. This behaviour is beyond the pale.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a response to the Response by Pahlevun (the points I was able to make sense of):
Iran hostage crisis: The MEK's support of the Iran Hostage crisis is disputed: "The Mojahein attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists... and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."[1]
There isn't a single RS in the article that backs up the claim that the MEK ever launched an "Anti-American campaign"
Fraud and money laundering
This section contained a large amount of repetitive and ambiguous information. Sources and backed up information were kept (see article's TP for discussions there)
Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988)
The word "Armed" was removed because the 1981 conflict between the clerics and the MEK began through a peaceful demonstration by the MEK (and MEK sympathisers).[2][3]
1998 FIFA World sabotage plan
According to Pahlevun, this is "one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned", and therefore required its own subheading. Rather, this is an allegation that the MEK tried to disrupt a football match by bringing banners to the game. These are the two sources backing up this claim:1, 2 (this is still included in the article)
As I see it, this section does not require further sub-sections derived from the information that's already there
References
References
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 208. ISBN978-1-85043-077-3.
^Svensson, Isak (2013). Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars. ISBN978-0702249563. On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,00 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the area around Tehran University
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 24. ISBN978-0615783840. (from Abrahamian, 1989) "On 19 June 1981, the Mojahedin and Bani-Sadr called upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next day to express their opposition to the IRP 'monopolists' who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d'etat" - "The regime banned all future MEK demonstrations. The MEK wrote an open letter to President Banisadr asking the government to protect the citizens' "right to demonstrate peacefully".
Trying not to overwhelm this report, so I'll focus on a single blanket edit (of several brought to this report) done by Pahlevun. With this edit alone, Pahlevun removed all of the following information without discussion from the People's Mujahedin of Iran article:
In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International.[1] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[2] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.[3]
In 1982, the Islamic Republic cracked down MEK operations within Iran. This pre-emptive measure on the part of the regime provoked the MEK into escalating its paramilitary programs as a form of opposition.[4] By June 1982, Iraqi forces had ceased military occupation of Iranian territories. Massoud Rajavi stated that "there was no longer any reason to continue the war and called for an immediate truce, launching a campaign for peace inside and outside of Iran."[5]
According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."[6][7]>
In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." According to James Piazza, this peace initiative became the NCRI´s first diplomatic act as a "true government in exile."[8][9] During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."[10]
The foundation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the MEK´s participation in it allowed Rajavi to assume the position of chairman of the resistance to the Islamic Republic. Because other opposition groups were banned from legal political process and forced underground, the MEK´s coalition build among these movements allowed for the construction of a legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic.[11]
A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. On July 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Rouhollah Khomeini, “used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa” ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. [12][13] The Amnesty report has itself been criticized for whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein. It also failed to mention that thousands of MEK members were killed during Operation Mersad and not in prison. [14]
In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK’s armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which “had been under consideration for several years.” Iranian authorities have dismissed the incident as “nothing but propaganda”, presenting the executions as a lawful response to a small group of incarcerated individuals who had colluded with the MEK to support its July 25 1988 incursion. According to Amnesty International, this narrative fails to “explain how thousands of prisoners from across the country could have communicated and co-ordinated from inside Iran’s high-security prisons with an armed group outside the country.”[12][15]
SAVAK had severely shattered MeK’s organizational structure, and the surviving leadership and key members of the organization were kept in prisons until three weeks before the revolution, at which time political prisoners were released.[16]
Some surviving members restructured the group by replacing the central cadre with a three-man central committee. Each of the three central committee members led a separate branch of the organization with their cells independently storing their own weapons and recruiting new members.[17] Two of the original central committee members were replaced in 1972 and 1973, and the replacing members were in charge of leading the organization until the internal purge of 1975.[18]
By August 1971, the MEK’s Central Committee included Reza Rezai, Kazem Zolanvar, and Brahram Aram. Up until the death of the then leader of the MEK in June 1973, Reza Rezai, there was no doubt about the group’s Islamic identity.[19]
Although the Muslim MEK had rejected recruiting Marxists, the death and imprisonment of its leaders from 1971 to 1973 led to the inclusion of Marxist members to its Central Committee. In 1972, Zolanvar’s arrest led to the inclusion of Majid Sharif Vaquefi; and in 1973, Taqi Sahram replaced Rezai after his death. Reforms within the group started at this time, with Taghi Shahram, Hossein Rohani, and Torab Haqshenas playing key roles in creating the Marxist-Leninist MEK that would later become Peykar. By early 1972, Shah security forces had shattered the MEK, with most members being executed, killed, or imprisoned. The organization’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, was also held in prison until January 1979.[20]
By 1973, the members of the Marxist-Leninist MEK launched an “internal ideological struggle”. Members that did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[21] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. These members appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy."[22]
This led to two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities.[23] The new group was known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (Marxist-Lenninist). A few months before the Iranian Revolution the majority of the Marxist Mujahedin renamed themselves "Peykar" (Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class) on 7 December 1978 (16 Azar, 1357). This name derived from the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was a left-wing group in Saint Petersburg, founded by Vladimir Lenin in the autumn of 1895.[24] Later during the Iranian revolution, Peykar merged with some Maoist groups[which?].[25] From 1973 to 1979, the Muslim MEK survived partly in the provinces but mainly in prisons, particularly Qasr Prison where Massoud Rajavi was held.[26]
In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran."[27] Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."[28][29]
The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK.[30]
In 1981, a mass execution of political prisoners was carried out by the Islamic Republic, and the MEK fled splitting into four groups. One of the groups went underground remaining in Iran, the second group left to Kurdistan, the third group left to other countries abroad, and the remaining member were arrested, imprisoned or executed. Thereafter, the MEK took armed opposition against Khomeini's Islamic Republic.[31]
Khomeini's government identified secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, as the perpetrator.[32] although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.[33]
In 1981, Massoud Rajavi issued a statement shortly after it went into exile. This statement, according to James Piazza, identified the MEK not as a rival for power but rather a vanguard of popular struggle:[8] "Our struggle against Khomeini is not the conflict between two vengeful tribes. It is the struggle of a revolutionary organisation against a totalitarian regime... This struggle, as I said, is the conflict for liberating a people; for informing and mobilizing a people in order to overthrow the usurping reaction and to build its own glorious future with its own hands".
References
References
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 17. ISBN978-0615783840.
^Arash Reisinezhad (2018). The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 8. ASINB07FBB6L8Y.
^Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
^Manshour Varasteh (2013). Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine. Troubador Publishers. p. 88. ISBN978-1780885575.
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 208. ISBN978-1-85043-077-3.
^Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
^ abPiazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
^Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 13–14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
^Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. pp. 15–16. ISBN978-0615783840.
^Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 152. ISBN978-1-85043-077-3.
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 19. ISBN978-0615783840.
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 18–9. ISBN978-0615783840.
^Bernard, Cheryl (2015). Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition. Basic Books. p. 109. ISBN978-0692399378.
^Michael Newton (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executed in reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
^Kenneth Katzman (2001). "Iran: The organization of Iran". In Albert V. Benliot (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Science Publishers. p. 101. ISBN978-1-56072-954-9.
Make of it what you will. To me, the removal of this text alone without any discussion constitutes disruptive editing. Considering that there is an ongoing misinformation campaign by the Iran clerical rule against the MEK, I find this level of POV pushing to be an issue. Pahlevun was also warned to stop their blanket removal of text, but they continued. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you did the same disruptive editing here where, despite what you claimed to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, you mass removed some sections without discussing them with others. You did this, despite the objections and warnings. --Mhhosseintalk18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I guess you missed Alex-h's reply to you about this in the discussion below? In case you did, here it is: "Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, you were mass removing without discussion until I objected and the discussion began. I guess you need to know that discussion is so much different from consensus!!! --Mhhosseintalk06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
First you mass removed (with not prior discussions), then there was objections and then your edit warring despite the objections. And I repeat, "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". But discussion does not guarantee action. Discussion should lead to consensus based on which one needs to act, while in your case there was no consensus over doing mass removals. --Mhhosseintalk10:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Diffs of discussion and consensus building (1, 2). If I may conclude (again) with CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others."Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Then I should repeat, you were mass removing without having discussed the removals. My objection came after your mass removals! It was me who started the dispute resolution process, as in many other cases. By the way, should I quote sentences by others describing your editing style, too? --Mhhosseintalk18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: the recent TP discussions started with a revert concerning an alleged charity involving four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members. Then you objected to this and this edit, which were all explained in my edit summaries and then discussed on the TP discussions, but you've been fighting consensus each step of the way.
In your own words at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go your way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board.".
A step forward! So, you were mass removing without prior discussion (you don't to say yes or no since it's already shown by the diffs). By the way, Please don't use my words out of context and consider that "fighting consensus" is another PA you need to avoid repeating. --Mhhosseintalk13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
While the "don't think any consensus here should be respected" wasn't phrased well, wikiprojects often do present WP:CONLEVEL problems, both in defying site-wide norms in a "special exceptionalism" manner for their topic of interest, and in the opposite direction, to try to force conformity on an article it claims within its scope (few articles are within the scope of only a single project, and wikiprojects have no authority to dictate content, layout, etc.). So, it's not invalid to raise CONLEVEL concerns. When one arises, a site-wide venue (like WP:RSN, if there's a sourcing dispute, as suggested) is a better choice than the article talk page, which is even more likely to represent an overly narrow view. If the matter's contentious and non-trivial, an RfC in article talk is often effective, however, especially if it doesn't rise to noticeboard level. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No doubt there were many problems with the edits to that article, but that was Jan. 30, and after being reverted, the editor didn't edit war there–though I see they did at least a little bit elsewhere, but it was also Jan 30 or earlier. What's happened in the last two weeks? Are there more recent diffs of problems, or did this ANI report and discussion lead to a change? Levivich20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I don't know how much you've been following this, but perhaps a brief background is in order: On January 27, Pahlevun was warned by HistoryofIran to stop "huge removals of information". Pahlevun continued blanket changing text in different articles (1, 2, 3), so on January 28 I warned them to stop too. Pahlevun continued blanket removing text (1, 2, 3, etc. - including all the overview presented above), so on January 30th HistoryofIran warned them again, which led me to file this report.
From looking at Pahlevun's editing history, they seem to have only become active twice since this report was initiated (on February 1 and 15). Does that mean that they won't be disruptive when they do become active again? Unless I've misunderstood, Pahlevun justified their edits (such as the mass removal of information presented above in green text) by saying they're "safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it". I think that speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: WP:TBAN Pahlevun from Iran-related subjects matter, excluding soccer
Support. For disruptive editing that includes blanket reverting and POV pushing, ignoring RfCs and Talk Page consensus, as well as for not assuming any responsibility as shown by his/her response here.Poya-P (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose If TopicBan is true for Pahlevun who have tried to edit a vast number of articles by using RS and representing logical reason, respecting to discussing , also it should be done for Stefka Bulgaria, consider that most of his edits are related to MEK or it's member, between 10 top articles and main edits, 6 of 10 is awesome!After getting the report his strategychanged.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm opposing though Pahlevun had reverted some of my edits. I think the user is accurate and open to discussion. I don't think there should be a ban, or something like this. --Mhhosseintalk05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think that he should be banned right now. This must be first time ever he has been reported. He needs to take a strong message regarding his mass removals but topic ban is not yet warranted. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Although I agreed with other editors' criticism of Pahlevun's initial response here, including to Drmies, their detailed response above persuades me that a sanction is not warranted here. Of course, it would be better if everyone used edit summaries, but they are not required, and the reversions, when explained, make sense to me. Levivich00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: - read my response - I examined one bit he restored (a present day Japanese terrorist designation) - which seems to be in WP:HOAX turf (as well as an undicussed rollback some 4 months back in editing history).Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Japan designations but in every country I've looked at around ISIL a designation as a terroist org stays in force until lifted. Is there a source saying thos designation was rescinded? If supported by a source as happening it is not a hoax absent proof otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not clear they were ever on a domestic Japanese list. This was a Ministry Of Foreign Affairs announcement of an asset freeze - while terrorist designations are done by National Public Safety Commission (Japan). A Japanese fluent editor to check this out would be a great help, however one would expect the Japanese Wikipdia to know how to source their own terrorist list - Designated terrorist at jawiki - MEK isn't on there. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Already replied above, but the closest thing I found was a long list of international terrorist organizations that doesn't appear to include MEK. This is not an acceptable source for the mainspace claim that "Japan has removed them from the list", but it is a good talk page source for the argument that the claim that their having ever been on a list except as a result of a US effort to trump up charges against Saddam-backed groups in the leadup to the Iraq War is highly dubious and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you ever need me to help out with Japanese stuff again, even in bullshit drahma threads, feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Support but "would limit to [Iran and] geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football)", as Icewhiz put it. This kind of programmatic "nuking" of vast swathes of content, after numerous objections, is both unacceptable and clearly political-PoV motivated. While I agree with the editor that the table he laid out shows PoV pushing (some of it patently ridiculous) on the other side (and all that bears some independent examination), two wrongs don't make a right, and a perceived wrong is not an excuse to escalate beyond all bounds. It's just a sad fact that some people who do fine as editors of, say, football articles become problematic when they wander into content disputes about religio-socio-political matters about which they feel strongly (and there are probably editors who can dispassionately edit political topics but just lose it when it comes to sports; I'm not picking on politics-focused editors). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
References
References
^Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. pp. 141–142. ISBN978-1-85043-077-3. In 1973 they fought two street battles with the Tehran police, and bombed ten major buildings including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, Radio City Cinema, and an export company owned by a prominent Baha'i businessman.
^Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. pp. 15–18. ISBN978-0615783840. By the time the killing of Americans in Iran began in 1973 – indeed, more than a year before – many members of the original MEK including all of the founding MEK leadership had been executed or killed by the Shah's security forces, and Massoud Rajavi was in prison where he would remain until January 1979... The killings of Americans in Iran in the early-to-mi 1970s were the work not of people associated with the MEK, but rather their rivals among dissident elements opposing the Shah... The identities of the assassins of American military advisors and contractors in Tehran are known. The Washington Post story on May 11, 1976 reported (p.A9) that in January of that year, "nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed by firing squad. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh, told a Westerner allowed to see him shortly before his execution that… he personally killed col. Lewis Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner after stopping their … car in 1975." A UPI story dated November 16, 1976, carried the following day in the Post, reported that the Tehran police had shot and killed Bahram Aram, "the man who masterminded the August slayings" of three Americans working for Rockwell International... The real assassins of Americans in Iran, including Vaid Afrakhteh and Bahram Aram, were part of a faction that emerged from the remnants of the MEK following the execution and imprisonment of many leading MEK members in 1972, and ultimately split away entirely (and violently) in 1975. This group adopted a more secular, extremist and doctrinaire leftist identity; they were not committed to Islam as a defining interest. Known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (for "Marxist-Leninist") and later as the "Iranian People's Strugglers for the Working Class (Peykar)"...In 2005, the Department of State correctly attributed the murders of Americans in Iran to this breakaway secular group, the Country Reports for that year, issued on April 28, 2006, said: "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah's US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution…. (figure 3.).
^Mahnaz Shirali (2014). The Mystery of Contemporary Iran. Transaction Publishers. ISBN9781351479134. The most notable actions of the Marxist Mojahedin [Peykar] were the assassinations of the Savak general, of two American military advisers, and a failed attempt against an American diplomat
^Pike, John. "Mujahedin-e Khalq". CFR. The MEK denies any involvement with these incidents, asserting that they were the work of a breakaway Marxist-Leninist faction, known as Peykar, which hijacked the movement after the arrest of Rajavi. Some analysts support this. "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience," said Patrick Clawson, director of research at the Washington Institute, in a CFR interview.
Er, no. 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot seems the best name for this article - out of the two that are being edit-warred over - as whilst it is undisputable that it was an assassination plot, the article uses the word "allegedly" throughout on whether the Iranian leadership were involved. There's an "Alleged responsibility" section. Nowhere does the article state as a fact that the plot was orchestrated by Iran, because as the US Govt admitted, they can't prove that it was. It probably does need to go to RM, but mainly because both of the titles that are being edit-warred over are unsatisfactory. Why is it not simply called Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, and then both of those could redirect to it? Black Kite (talk)23:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Yes, “alleged” may be a better way of describing it considering the points made. I don’t think all edits made by these editors are questionable, but they do seem to have an agenda that makes it very difficult to aim for neutrality on these articles concerning political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule.
For instance, Mhhossein has pushed to have the following inserted on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (one of the main opposition groups to the Iran clerical rule):
AlexH is correct that randomly moving pages around in a controversial topic area is not how we do things; WP:RM exists for a reason. It doesn't matter whether we today, after-the-fact, decide that the title picked is okay; if people object, and can predicted to object, then continuing to manually move stuff in that topic area shouldn't happen any longer. That's what leads to move-bans. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, randomly moving pages is not good, but did I do "randomly moving pages"? As you said "one perceived wrong is not an excuse to escalate beyond all bounds". --Mhhosseintalk13:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Support - Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [145] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [146]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - yes, there is POV pushing. Yes, some of the behavior is concerning. And yes - some of the past complaints by Mhhossein to AN/I were baseless. However, Mhhossein has also been attempting to discuss and his behavior has not risen to the level we should impose a harsh ban for. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Support For the way he has handled himself in this ANI report, including making baseless libelous accusations and constant "I don't want to hear it". I don't know if a Tban has formerly been proposed here, but this is what I would support based on his disruptive POV (evident in this report alone). Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
How am I casting aspersions? Mhhossein (and you) are accusing me of being "active on the Fa wiki" and being "involved" here, while at the same time saying this report has "nothing to do with you!", nevermind that I've been participating on one of the pages discussed here. Wouldn't this be casting aspersions? Alex-h (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Warning is enough. I'm not sure what the "support" and "oppose" stuff above is supposed to be in reference to, since I don't see a specific proposed remedy. I'll propose one then: a warning should suffice. It's not okay to do disruptive page moves (especially when objections to them are predictable ahead of time). Nor is it okay to use ANI for lashing out or for talk-to-the-hand antics; if you don't have diffs to prove what you're saying, don't make accusations, and this is a venue for examining and discussing user behavior (often including that of other parties in the dispute); this requires open participation, not refusal to engage, or it just makes your own involvement look more and more suspect. I already see pretty strong evidence of non-neutrality, that seems to at least border on character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute, and this cannot continue. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
SMcCandlish: Hey, thanks for the comment. But just a second; a warning for what? The dispute is not over page moves, as far as I know. See this '23:43, 31 January 2019' comment by Black Kite; my move was well justified and is in effect now! Can you elaborate on "character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute" please? --Mhhosseintalk13:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If you play WP:IDHT games like this, people (including me) are apt to recommend more than a warning. In an earlier post, I explicitly addressed Black Kite's post hoc excuse-making for you ("It doesn't matter whether we today, after-the-fact, decide that the title picked is okay ..."); we know for a fact (because of previous ANIs instituting move bans) that being arguably right about what a title should probably be cannot excuse disruptive use of moves; it's about people, not wording in URLs. And move-related disruption is obviously just an example of disruption, not anything on which this discussion hinges in particular.
Second, "a warning for what?" is even more obviously answered by the very post you are replying to: "non-neutrality, that seems to at least border on character-assassination and potential fabrication regarding one side in an Iran-related real-world dispute". You should read through some closed ANIs, and you'll find that apparent inability to discern why people are objecting to what you are doing, and denialism of doing anything wrong, in a thread like this all about what you've done wrong is often treated as a WP:CIR problem, which can simply lead to an indefinite block or a community ban. If you are either honestly not getting it or are trying to WP:GAME the system, it will not end well (either real soon now, or when you end up back here again later for similar issues to those reported this time). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
SMcCandlish Asking for elaboration should not be mistaken for "denialism"...anyway, thanks for the notes, notably for "it's about people, not wording in URLs". Yes I did mistakes, but we all do mistakes (not an excuse for making mistakes). I don't say that I don't need advice from others (not needing advice is a concerning symptom), but I know how to treat others and how to build consensus, hence I could create dozens of GAs (not possible without having competence) and DYKs, though I'm not perfect. That said, the bad thing here is that the user could successfully achieve his point by mentioning those old ANI cases in his 4th (5th?) attempt and in a harassing manner. Another thing, I would be banned or blocked, if I meant to GAME anything here during almost 5 yeas of editing. No, I don't GAME a system I belong to. --Mhhosseintalk03:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Yes indeed, he is removing evidence against him [147] and now has send me a warning on commons for apparently being 'uncivil', yet he was the one who accused me of 'revenge nomination'. Mind you, this is not the first time he has removed someones comment because he didn't like it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Another user hounding me globally. You described my argument as "silly", which is certainly uncivil...Can you stop harassing me right now? --Mhhosseintalk17:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, anyone who doesn't agree with your POV is hounding you / a disruptive editor etc etc. What do you call someone randomly accusing another user of "revenge nomination" then? Constructive? I don't think so. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion or other censoring of people's talk posts can always be reverted per WP:TPG; you simply don't have a right to do that with others' posts. If the subject of such a comment is convinced that what was posted was an attack, outing, or other material that should be suppressed, they should take it to an admin, or to WP:OVERSIGHT if it's something that needs to be suppressed even from page history. Just editwarring to hide people's comments about you isn't going to fly. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Putting this here as well as it seems the appropriate place for it:
Mhhossein has made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[148] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[149] for my inclusion of a quote from RS.
WP:IDHT at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go Mhhossein's way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board."
Come on...!: "If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP" [the most related place to the sources in question] "or at RSN board" [the place broadest views can be seen on sources] "not here" [Wikiproject Iran]. Btw, no, your edits were not backed by the sources.--Mhhosseintalk13:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: About your claim concerning my edits, which according to you were "not backed by the sources", this is what I wrote:
In 1994, the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad. The bombing killed 25 and wounded at least 70 people. The Iranian regime blamed the MEK. In a trial in November 1999, interior minister Abdullah Nouri admitted that the Iranian regime had carried out the attack in order to confront the MEK and tarnish its image.[1]
And this is what the source says:
The Ministry of Intelligence and Security planned and carried out a bombing at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashad... After the bombing, which killed at leas 24 and wounded at least 70, the regime announced that the MEK was the culprit. Later on, Abdullah Nouri, the first interior minister under President Khatami, admitted in a trial in November 1999 that the regime carried out the attack in order to confront the Mujahedin and tarnish its image.
Even if you don't agree with the statement/author/publisher, these were not "my words", which you claimed I crammed "into Wikipedia's mouth", but this is what you asserted, then you defended, and keep defending here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you were "asserting" the words of Alireza Jafarzadeh, who is reportedly a MEK member, in Wikipedia's voice. Bombing by Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security seems like a conspiracy theory created by MEK propaganda machine. Wikipedia should not propagate these claims without attribution. If you have more questions in this regard, I will respond to them on the article talk page.--Mhhosseintalk18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Besides what SMcCandlish proposed, I'd also request that Mhhossein be warned for making baseless accusations against other editors. For instance, see this TP discussion about Mhhossein omitting a sentence from the article's lede based on a "violation" of "extensive quotation of copyrighted text", even though the sentence had been admitted into the article via RfC consensus. When I offered to fix this by rewording other quotes in the lede instead, Mhhossein reported me here. There have also been other instances, and, apparent in this report alone, I'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of similar behavior. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose I have never found anyone who has helped to make articles more neutral than him. Adding him is an obvious "mistake". I have seen tons of pushing POV/s by some editors, who are commenting here saying he should added to the list. Mhhossein has done a lot of help for articles related to Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam, instead of casting aspersions, how about commenting on the points raised against Mhhossein? In the 2017–18 Iranian protests page, for example, where Mhhossein consistently edit-wars to confirm that the protests were not ongoing, despite the ongoing unrest. Here are the edits with summaries, note particularly numbers 7 to 10:
Bad example - for many (or possibly all) of these Mhhossein was acting per talk page consensus - which you should check. Our initial article covered only the late Dec/early Jan large wave of protests. We had separate articles for subsequent notable protests. It was only much later, after RSes started treating 2018 as one continuing set of events - that talk page consensus changed.Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Icewhiz, had missed them as many were archived. Still find the last couple of reverts dubious: On August 3, for example, where Mhhossein inserts that the protests had concluded on January 7th even though the article already includes protests in August (backed by reliable sources). Then, when consensus is reached about combining protests that took place throughout 2018 (where Mhhossein is the only opposing editor), on December 30 he removes "present" leaving a single date for the protests (28 December 2017), which gives the misleading impression that the protests happened on 28 December 2017. Alex-h (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with SMcCandlish, there's not clear consensus on any action here nor is there any proposed course of action. A warning will be sufficient. Wikiemirati (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Support TBAN. Already warned for political POV pushing and WP:IDHT. Recent edits don't show any signs of acknowledging or stopping. Poya-P (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not willing to put energy on this discussion and were inclined to use it (the energy) elsewhere on editing the articles, given my limited time. However, now that there's an ongoing ANI discussion opened by Stefka Bulgaria, I think there are things I should share with others for the sake of the project and I don't care if it will lead to the result I'm seeking:
Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded meto my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [151], [152] and [153]).
He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([154], [155], [156]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.
This is the third or fourth time that the reporting user is harassing me by mentioning my viewpoints notably for my inserting "hypocrite" into the lead, despite the fact that, after the insertion was contested by others, I actively discussed my viewpoint with others and I even asked for more comments by opening an RFC in this regard!
Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhosseintalk07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:, I didn't propose the TBAN above, someone else did, I just reported what's been happening.
Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([162][163],[164], [165], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?
You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[166] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[167] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.
Your global hounding is never acceptable. Btw, You're using "POV pushing" against me although you're warned/advised not to attack others. I suggest you stop digging your self deeper by bludgeoning the process. Wait for the admins comments, instead. --Mhhosseintalk10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [183] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [184]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria's edits speak for themselves. If you have issues regarding Commons, take them to my Commons talk page or, as you did, talk to other admins. Here, we're talking about Stefka Bulgaria's misconducts including personal attacks, hounding and harassment. --Mhhosseintalk17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Support: What is it proven by this contribution as well as it have been seen some anti Iran subject in contribution of Icewhiz and Stefka Bulgaria, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written ‘’collaboratively’’ by the people who use it. Consider People's Mujahedin of Iran and review TP (as an instance) , most of discussion were began by me or Mhhosein or all of our edit (affixing facts) were supported by RS. Which of them is the sign of POV? Do you believe in pov issue if users follow exact subject?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Much of this complaint is meritless rehashing of old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action. Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner (most of the time) on the relevant talk pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz: So you endorse his global hounding and repeated personal attacks? Also, the problem is exactly Stefka Bulgaria's mentioning of those "old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action". Up to when should this harassment continue? --Mhhosseintalk05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I do not endorse behavior on either side - note my oppose above to Stefka's proposal. How about we focus on reaching agreement on content (something there has been some progress on) - as opposed to an ANI discussìon?Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No, this is not a content dispute and I'm talking about a repeated behavioral issue which need to stop somewhere. That said, I'll address content disputes on the article talk pages, but not here. --Mhhosseintalk08:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
One more thing, you opposed because you believed "Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner". What does it have to do with my Boomerang proposal focusing on Stefka Bulgaria's hounding, harassment and personal attacks? I suggest you disambiguate your defending comment or others get the impression that you were endorsing his repeated use of "POV pushing" against others and his harassment. --Mhhosseintalk08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Much of the enwiki stuff seems to be mutual interest in Iranian articles. The comments at the commons RFA, on the other hand, I agree were ill-advised. However (at least on enwiki) - RfA is an open process for comment - and often partisan rivals will show up (and, as happend here, are often shouted down as partisan commentary).Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I did provide diffs for my claims of POV pushing. If I may add CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others."Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Stefka's edit summary is fairly accurate - he reverted Pahlevun's edit chain (which AFAICT contained many edits that were against talk page consensus).Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've pointed to some of those, let's say, misleading edit summaries on the article talk page. However, this one is a clear and fresh example, where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. I can provide more examples at the request of the admins. That said, Stefka Bulgaria's behavioral issues should be considered along with his editing pattern. --Mhhosseintalk18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Mhhossein, I suppose you mean this and this discussion, and this undiscussed blanket revert by you which ignored my, Saff V.'s, and Stefka's contributions, before you requesting the page to be protected and accusing me of being involved even though I had only edited the article once. The edits were being discussed, and you blanked reverted them. If anything, your edit summary was misleading, and Stefka restored the article to the point of Talk page disucussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I mean this one where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. No, there was no consensus over the mass removals by Stefka Bulgaria he needs to get warnings for blanket removals. You were/are truly involved. Let's not dig it deeper. --Mhhosseintalk19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were. You keep accusing me of being "truly involved" (whatever that means), please do "dig it deeper", otherwise you're casting aspersions.Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No content dispute but actionable behavioral issues. He already promised not monitor me and you say no violation! If you say no violation, it does not mean there was no violation, since those hounding and harassment diffs I provided are clear enough. --Mhhosseintalk18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
What's clear enough is that you have a POV and seem to report those who disagree with it, and seem to be fine with disruption as long as it supports your POV.Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note to the admins: It should be noted that Alex-h and Poya-P, both active in Fa wiki, are editing ANI for the first time (See [185] and [186]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhosseintalk10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is that "interesting!!!"? Unlike what you have proposed, I have been active on English WP for a while now. Is this the reason you've accused me of being "truly involved" here? For a year or so I worked in Fa wiki as eliminator . In the course of these activities I have often referred to Wikipedia English including Administrators’ Noticeboard. Poya-P (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The interesting point is that I never said Poya-P was "truly involved" anywhere, while I did for Alex-h. Referring to ANI is something, suddenly jumping into an ANI discussion is something else. --Mhhosseintalk03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
To Admns: This is a clear example that Mhhossein tries to Open a deviant subject to escape answering for his POV and to make the above less important. What is so interesting with working in two wikis? My main activities are in WP- English and I don’t see anything wrong with working in fa wiki as well. Could you please make sure Mhhossein stops harassing me and stops WP:Libel?It’s the second time.Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It's dubious that your first edit in ANI was editing against me in a topic which had nothing to do with you! It's dubious that you're doing your best to transform my report against Stefka Bulgaria's well documented behavioral issues into a completely different scenario. You may want to tell us how you appeared here. You've already opened a topic against me, as your first edits in ANI, and saw the result. So, this is you who is Harassing me by hounding me. You can have this message as warning against harassing and hounding me. --Mhhosseintalk18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
With all the baseless libellous accusations you've made here, I think it's time someone placed a Boomerang on your Boomerang. Alex-h (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then he should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with him.Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Icewhiz and others. This seems like a largely retaliatory proposal here by an editor who's upset their own behavior has suddenly been put under scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Support: There are evidences of harassment. Links show that Stefka Bulgaria has used the administrator's noticeboard links against the user many times to discredit him and hounded him even to commons. I think it is not good and constructive to accuse others of 'POV pushing' such many times. Going after the user and harassing him is even worse. The user should stop this behavior.M1nhm (talk)
Oppose, but a warning is in order. It does seem to be the case that this sub-report is rehashing old news. However, it's a common pattern for problems to not quite rise to action level here the first or second time around; that doesn't magically erase the evidence from those earlier ANIs, and we consider those diffs when looking for patterns. There may be a retaliatory whiff in the air, but that's largely irrelevant; someone's subjective reasons for pointing to problems has nothing to do with whether the problems are real. Hounding people all the way to Commons and back is actually a problem. I concur with Desmay, et al., that this isn't constructive. But I'm not sure it's worth a T-ban or whatever at this stage. It just needs to stop and not recur. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Despite my concerns at commons (which, as HistoryofIran has pointed out, may not be completely subjective), this won't recur. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Stefka Bulgaria: Sounds good. Just as word to the wise, I was once "pursued" in a content dispute (by someone pushing a nationalistic and OR-based PoV, which relates strongly to the criticism raised above in this case) across multiple namespaces and then into Wiktionary. That person got topic-banned, interaction-banned, and eventually indefinitely blocked (and was not just some noob troll, either). I've seen similar results transpire in other cases (I've only had this happen to me the one time, but an ArbCom case, I think relating to WP:GGTF, seems to come to mind). If you're convinced that some other party is advancing a PoV and doing it programmatically across not just swathes of articles and multiple WP namespaces but multiple WMF projects, the best approach is probably to raise the issue here, and also bring it up at the roughly equivalent administrative noticeboard at the other project(s). Let the editorial and administrative pools of the projects examine the matter, rather than edit-war across projects. WMF doesn't need a Caped Crusader to singlehandedly right all wrongs. :-) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thank you for the advice - when you explain it like that, I get it. My !vote at Mhhossein's RfA at commons derived from (founded) concern towards the project rather than an attempt to troll or harass. I see that I should have brought concerns to relevant noticeboards instead. Best, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: providing context to your points (in order), all of which you had only quoted a small fraction of the conversation:
1) Your edit summary: "The reliable sources explicitly say this, don't censor this well sourced material". My edit summary: "Mhhossein is deliverately stating false summaries. The previous edits were all properly described (moved to its section), and undone here disruptively". My reply to you when you asked me about this on my TP:
"Your edit summary was 'false' as I did not 'censor well sourced material', I categorized it in its own section. In any case, if you did not do this knowingly, then I take it back and apologize..."
2) When I asked you for evidence to confirm that Black people in a photograph were "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd", you replied "Where ever they come from, It's pretty clear they're not Iranian. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue." My response to this was "What's pretty clear is that you don't have any evidence to support this statement (comparing it to "the sky is blue" is just ludicrous)". Btw, Ludicrous = "extremely silly."
3) This is already mentioned on the report against you above, but since you've asked, here's the statement I made:
"*Mhhossein: ... Beyond your argument in the discussion below that we should label Black people in an image as "non-Iranian rent-a-crowd" based on your own personal assessment and an attack piece by a fringe political opposition site, you've tried to include the following smearing POV into the article:
I was not planning on posting in this discussion, but I find it questionable that Mhhossein has already put in a request for this RfC to be closed after only 2 weeks of discussion. That very much concerns me especially when there are individuals still actively commenting on this subject (including with !votes). I recommend that the request be pulled from WP:ANRFC. Thank you. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Upon review, it is just one individual who was recently active on this proposal (SMcCandlish, but I still find the motives for putting the request for closure for such a sensitive matter in this soon to be of questionable intent. –MJL‐Talk‐☖20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, a request to do something isn't questionable, it's just a request. Actually closing it too soon would be questionable (I know from experience, having been railroaded twice in the middle of negotiated resolutions by bone-to-pick admins intent on sticking it to me personally rather than following a community consensus or even allowing it to develop (because it was going in a direction they didn't like); in one case the admin did it after agreeing to recuse for WP:INVOLVED reasons). When a closure is premature and/or biased, this is usually pretty obvious, so I wouldn't worry about it.
PS: Oh, I think you mean a content-related actual RfC in article talk; I thought you were referring this this discussion or part of it being closed. RfCs run for an entire month by default, and should remain open unless they WP:SNOWBALL or are withdrawn (and people do not object to them being rescinded; you can't withdraw your own RfC just because you're not getting an answer you like, ha ha). They run for this long for good reasons, mostly the amount of times it takes for editors to notice them (even WP:FRS is randomized, and may not inform someone looking for relevant RfCs of that particular RfC until weeks after it was opened, which is actually rather annoying). Still, just requesting an early closure isn't some kind of actionable offense. (I've done it a few times myself when the outcome seemed likely and there was a large WP:ANRFC backlog, on the theory that it would likely be past the 30 days before anyone actually acted on it, and if they did close it a bit early, the consensus was already clear enough to do so.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have looked at this proposal and have come to the conclusion that this case is hugely complicated, with a massive number of internal links, and involvement of multiple editors. Additionally, there seems to be significant opposition to every single proposed solution. I see no good solution myself, except bringing this problem to the attention of a group that is possibly better equipped to handle hugely complicated situations like these - the Arbitration Committee.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
We appear to not be having any problem sorting through it, as the extensive commentary above on a per-reported-editor basis demonstrates. "It's not dirt-simple" doesn't equate to "only ArbCom can understand it". I would suggest that sending something like this to ArbCom is actually a poor idea, because it will probably do only one of two things: result in nothing really being done, or generate a thick forest for bureaucracy, like complicated remedies, discretionary sanctions people have a hard time keeping track of, and "whack everyone involved on the head just for being involved" remedies in one of ArbCom's typical desperate attempts to appear more impartial than they really are. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Opinions to the effect that only Arbcom can handle something should come from editors who have been part of attempts to handle it here. EEng03:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He has been redirecting many Bollywood song articles without opening any consensus. Some of them may be reviewed before being potentially restored. --Kailash29792(talk)05:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kailash29792, SEE WP:NMG and which one of the song that I redirected should reviewed ?? Please note that on an average each Bollywood movie has about 4-5 songs and check List of Bollywood films of 2018 this means a hell lot of articles and never ending discussions just on some none notable Bollywood songs. I think there are many more important topics that are left out without an article. Eatcha (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I too feel it's not necessary to post everything on Administrators' noticeboard as they have many more important things to do. Eatcha (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I have restored some of the song articles because they were particularly famous and comprehensive. But Eatcha, in the future please remember to go for AFD rather than boldly redirecting articles. --Kailash29792(talk)06:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems to be the "page preview" hover-over, as I'm getting it in Chrome when I hover the mouse button over the link that is provided. 94.196.202.213 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it was crafty ! apparently not all the pages where this model is transcluded displayed the vandalism on the app.--Kimdime (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
While not a blatantly promotional username, Jugrla70 has posted using the plural pronoun "us" and confirmed that the account is a "PR and management team" here. Obviously in conflict about shared accounts and using Wikipedia for promotion and should be blocked accordingly. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Willsome429, can you please link the guideline that you're referencing? I'm in no way trying to break wikipedia guidelines and only one person has access to the email address associated with this account. At the end of the day, I made edits to the page based on third party reliable/official NASCAR sources because the page was outdated (therefore inaccurate)...additionally, the information you tried to revert back to was also outdated therefore a misrepresentation. Jugrla70 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This individual has been persistently making these types of edits since at least last year, with wide IP ranges that are also used by constructive editors. Unfortunately, finding range blocks that will be effective may be difficult and finding ones that will also have an acceptable level of collateral damage will be even more difficult. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an IP user that makes live updates on this sports article before the team's match has reached a conclusion. The match concluded at 21:42 EST according to this link. I will provide diffs as evidence that this IP user is updating while a match is still in progress. (e.g. [190],[191], [192]) Please look into this. Yowashi (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't really seem to be something that needed to be brought here, as the game is over and the IP has stopped editing, so there's not really anything that needs to be done. But do we have guidelines anywhere on live score updates? WP:LIVESCORES appears to be specific to Wikiproject Snooker. Fish+Karate10:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS(1), (2), and (4) all seem relevant. Looking at the /64, it's been going on for over a year: 2607:FEA8:E2E0:7C2:0:0:0:0/64(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RBLs·block user·block log). I'd be happy to see a mandatory delay (end of season or tournament) before updating player/team stats. Aviation (flights, equipment, destinations, etc.) suffers a similar problem. I wonder what percentage of editor and computing resource is wasted by contribution and review of this sort of thing, seemingly against fundamental principles. —[AlanM1(talk)]—11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I see similar behavior in American football articles and also on some railroading articles with the movement of heritage units. NOTNEWS governs here, but it's a losing battle to enforce it (see for example the edit history of Super Bowl LIII, with score updates while the game was played). It's not best practice, but as with any live event it's going to happen, and there's probably not much which can be done to stop it. Also, I suspect that we gain new editors this way. Mackensen(talk)12:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
At what expense, though? And what good are those editors if that's all (or most of what) they do? If we agree that it's against NOTNEWS, shouldn't it be dealt with in the same way as with any other disruptive editing? —[AlanM1(talk)]—23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't semi-protect stuff. People probably shouldn't waste their time live-updating articles about sporting events in progress, however, it is even a BIGGER waste of resources and a more onerous problem for us to do anything about it. Think about 1) the number of manhours we would waste patrolling, chasing down, chastising, warning, discussing, and trying to stop people from doing this and 2) the amount of good-faith work we block by protecting the articles. Just don't. I would advise people against editing articles about events in progress but I also don't think we should stop them. People making good-faith accurate additions to Wikipedia should be welcomed, not shooed away. --Jayron3213:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Completely agree with Jayron32. I don't really think this implicates WP:NOTNEWS, either. It's an article that would be updated either way. I don't encourage live updating of it either, but I really don't see this as a big problem unless it's vandalism. SportingFlyerT·C19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I know in the past at the hockey project we did suggest people follow the same idea that LIVESCORES indicates. But we also tell people not to worry about fighting with people who insist on editing before the game is done because it just isn't worth it. As long as they aren't adding fake information it really isn't that big a deal. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
IP appears to be an SPA, as its contributes show it to be focused near exclusively on the Ottawa Senators. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose this case can be closed, considering most of the participants in this discussion agree that this isn't a serious issue. Yowashi (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Persistent re-introduction of mass copyright violation from multiple sources. See also related crime syndicate articles:
I believe that rather than deleting entire sections of text it is a much better idea to rewrite any paragraphs that may have been copied, however simply removing all of it without any discussion is never the way things should be done! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Our policy is to remove copyright violation content when found; there is no requirement for the editor who removes it to then rewrite the content in acceptable form, nor is discussion necessary prior to removal. Vif12vf restored the content in question at least three times, and at least twice warned me that I would be blocked. He also dismissed the copyright violation warning I posted as irrelevant [194]. There's a resistance demonstrated to respecting Wikipedia policy re: copied content. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I should probably point out that some of the information you changed or removed were details that themselves dont have anything to do with copyrighted text. This includes years active, countries where active, allies and even some sources from these sections. If you feel the need to remove information that might be direct copies of other peoples works then feel free, but dont remove other types of information that might be sourced! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
There was a mass of copyright violation edits over the last few days by several accounts. It is standard to revert to the last stable version, even if that means removing small amounts of legitimate content. Until Vif12vf is willing to grasp the intent of copyright policy, and understand why the warnings given me were inappropriate, we now have multiple issues at this article: the initial additions of unacceptable text, the argument defending restoration of that text, and, hopefully, rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Any restricted user names ? please provide information. I want to user name on my name and upload my personal photo , can I do this ?
To make it easier for you, this is a direct link to the relevant section. What you are suggesting (your real name, photograph, etc.) is permitted, but you are cautioned to think carefully about whether you really want it up there. GirthSummit (blether)18:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You're only supposed to have one account, and you have a perfectly acceptable username at this moment. I would just go forward with that if I were you. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
User:331dot Thanq for reply , my doubt is... can I change my present account name to my favorable god name "Jesus" if the user name is available?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Username blocked on Netherlands Wikipedia prior to Unified Login - Not sure what I should do.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It looks like it's technically possible to apply here nl:Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok but I assume that The Navigators can't actually edit that page, unless nl.wikipedia blocks somehow allow it. (But I thought that was a fixed part of the Mediawiki, at least until the more limited blocks are implemented.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC) I don't really see that it matters when you were blocked provided the accounts were merged successfully. They may have changed their policy as a result of SUL, but even if they did it may have only been to parts of the policy which weren't compatible with SUL e.g. those requiring latin characters. As EdJohnston said, they must have some way of appealing the block, but that will need to be over there. If they still consider your username a violation, you'd either need to change your username (Wikipedia:Changing username) or I guess make a new one which you only use for Nl if they allow that (I don't see any reason why they wouldn't). It would probably be best to declare your other name too in case you accidentally edit with it. (The same would apply to anyone who wants to edit here who is active on Nl or wherever else with a name they allow but we don't.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try the appeal via that web form that User:SQL posted. I can't use the page that User:Nil Einne suggested, as I'm also blocked from editing it. I'm just kind of surprised this got missed during login unification. Is there a way, short of visiting every single project and trying to edit a page, to check if my username has any bans against it on the other projects? Thanks for the help everyone.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Microsoft Azure service mis-used as block evasion proxy (update, now need global lock?)
Long story short. There were at least two sockmasters on edit war on Italian IPA (and extended to other languages), which was discussed in ANI and the SPIs page (Ragaricus and ZenZung) and my talk page. Suddenly, an ip emerged in my zh-wiki talk page: zh:Special:Contributions/23.99.115.89 as apparent cross-wiki block evasion. Despite the exact ip did not have any edit in en-wiki, it looks strange in the same range there is a stale ip unblock request that ranting to one of our en-wiki admin, Zzuuzz . So, it looks unusual for a range attributed to Microsoft. Is there something we don't know, so that we need to block that range as open proxy? Matthew hk (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, the recent non-stale edit from the ip range, seem not that constructive (adding red link person to notable people list, may be constructive or entirely self-promotion), which, that David Mahon (b.1985) the ip was concerned , was different from David Mahon (46) who killed partner's son. Matthew hk (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
At least one of those IPA sockers is a proxy-hopper. I have no idea who was ranting at me, but I think you can guarantee that it was also one of our proxy-hopping regulars. User:SQL previously blocked all the Azure ranges, so I'd pass that on. I'm a bit wary of pre-emptively blocking whole swathes of the Internet, as sometimes these services can be used legitimately. This particular range is 23.99.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but I think it's certain they'll have moved on by now. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Matthew hk, 43.240.30.160 belongs to SonderCloud... A colocation webhost. I've used the rangefinder to go ahead and block every ip range that they use for hosting. I'll get to work on Azure in a little bit (it's a lot of ranges however), after I'm done dealing the IP's on my talkpage. SQLQuery me!04:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Range blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
DlohCierekim 13:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
DlohCierekim 16:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
