Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Iranian opposition articles

Merged three ANI reports Three ANI reports were merged concerning BLP, BMP and BDPs in Category:Iranian activists, Category:Iranian revolutionaries, Category:Iranian prisoners and detainees, Category:People murdered in Iran, Category:Fugitives wanted by Iran, etc. ^Leviv_ich 05:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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. ^Leviv_ich 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

POV pushing by Saff_V

Saff_V. is marking articles of prominent Iranian political prisoners that are part of current events on AfD (One Two) and tries to call sources that talk about these people unreliable. (Special:PermaLink/880859969#Radio Farda and some other sources). This behavior is concerning to me. Ladsgroup^overleg 23:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just ask user: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)

Can I remove the AfD labels he has put on Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati articles yet? How much longer are you humoring this guy? Fredrick eagles (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No the AfD's should run their courses. If the nominations are baseless, the community will pint that out. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(Both closed as "keep" User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

Proposal: WP:TBAN Saff_V from Iran related subjects

• 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)
• Support - it would be a breath of fresh air to ease-down on the POV-pushing against political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:24, 6 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)
• Neutral I reported Saff_V for POV pushing, just acknowledging that such thing has happaned and a warning is enough for me. Ladsgroup^overleg 13:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see enough concerns to warrant a topic ban from entire area. Kraose (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

* Neutral Yes, the POV is difficult to work through, but at least there has been a Talk page discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think there is enough disruption to warrant a topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:34, 11 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)

Note: Saff_V nominated some of my article about Iranian political prisoners like Ali Nejati for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoo.Amini (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have participated on this Talk page together with Saff V., which is how I got involved here. Alex-h (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the user is open to discussion. He's now targeted after opening AFDs. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support What Nikoo said. Enough with the IRI pov pushing, it has been going on for too long. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Saff V. is a thoughtful editor who is willing to make changes based on consensus. It is Unbelievable user who gain Editor of the Week award, has been nominated for TBAN. M1nhm (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

Pahlevun has been blanket-removing text from articles concerning political oppositions to the Iranian government:

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [1],[2], [3], [4], [5]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [6], [7], [8]

• Peykar: [9], [10], [11], [12]

• Zahra Merrikhi: [13], [14]

• Mohammad-Reza Kolahi: [15], [16]

• Maryam Rajavi: [17]

• Massoud Rajavi: [18]

Several editors including user:Jeff5102, user:HistoryofIran, and others have reverted Pahlevun’s edits; and I have warned him on his TP, but he’s continuing to blanket-remove text:

• People's Mujahedin of Iran: [19]

• Organization of Iranian American Communities: [20]

• List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran: [21]

• Massoud Rajavi: [22]

These are all political oppositions to the current Iran government, which links to the report above by Ladsgroup concerning political POV-pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:21, 30 January 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):

1. 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".
2. 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)

This is a baseless accusation against me. In fact, was trying to contain the ensuing disruption, which is in my opinion still ongoing. If necessary, I can show that my edits on any of these articles are complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pahlevun (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Pahlevun, this is the time and the place. I could block you right now for disruptive editing, considering your wholesale additions and removals on People's Mujahedin of Iran that are unaccompanied by edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for seven years now and I was never blocked. I did the same thing here on KIA Football Academy, and unaccompanied by edit summaries. Do you consider it disruptive editing? Pahlevun (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • 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)

Response by Pahlevun

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'

I was sort of bold to restore the content, but now that User:Stefka Bulgaria has reverted all my edits, it would be more evident that which content I was exactly restoring in the article People's Mujahedin of Iran. I want you to precisely look at the edits, for example:

• In the |ideology= parameter of Infobox political party, all the content was removed, while it was supported by these reliable sources:

• Mehrzad Boroujerdi (1996). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0433-4.
• Fred Reinhard Dallmayr (1999). Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0043-1.
• Bashiriyeh, Hossein. The State and Revolution in Iran (RLE Iran D). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-82089-2.

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, ISBN 1317045904, 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. ISBN 1-317-06361-9.) 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, ISBN 9781137517159). 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{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))
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)
• "France lashes out at Iranian opposition group", Associated Press, 27 June 2014, retrieved 1 June 2018 – via The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Mehdi Semati (2007), Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State, Iranian Studies, vol. 5, Routledge, pp. 99–100, ISBN 978-1-135-98156-3
• "Part 4: The Middle East, Africa, and Latin America", Summary of World Broadcasts (SWB), British Broadcasting Corporation. Monitoring Service, 1993, p. E-1
• #Iranvotes: Political Discourse on Iranian Twitter During the 2016 Parliamentary Elections, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, June 2016, pp. 27–33 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "Diary Of An MKO Rent-A-Crowd Demonstrator", RFE/RL, 30 June 2013, retrieved 24 November 2016
• Arron Merat and Julian Borger (30 June 2018). "Rudy Giuliani calls for Iran regime change at rally linked to extreme group". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 June 2018.
• Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Birth of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race?, Praeger Security International Series, ABC-LIO, 2009, p. 334, ISBN 978-0-313-38088-4 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• The Politics and Practice of Religious Diversity: National Contexts, Global Issues, Routledge Advances in Sociology, Routledge, 2016, pp. 162–163, ISBN 978-1-317-64864-2 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
• "For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.", The New York Times, 26 November 2011, retrieved 1 December 2016 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

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.

Last words

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.

Best Regards, Pahlevun (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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? Leviv ich 14:38, 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)

@Hijiri88: Looking at that list, I do see モジャヘディネ・ハルグ listed under "ma" - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC); @Icewhiz:, I think that would be sufficient sourcing for the Japanese Government currently designating MEK as a terrorist organisation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:58, 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. Leviv ich 20:49, 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)

Response to Response by Pahlevun

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."

• The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon: See "another attempt at Richard Nixon?"

Original name	Notes
Anti-American campaign	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).
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)
Forgery	The first part of this was deemed a primary source, and the second part was moved to United States section
Scholarly views	See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult As I see it, this section does not require further sub-sections derived from the information that's already there

References
References

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

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. Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK. Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.

• 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. 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."

• 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.">

• 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." 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."

• 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.

• 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. 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.

• 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.”

• 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.

• 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. 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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. 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."

• This led to two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities. 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. Later during the Iranian revolution, Peykar merged with some Maoist groups. From 1973 to 1979, the Muslim MEK survived partly in the provinces but mainly in prisons, particularly Qasr Prison where Massoud Rajavi was held.

• 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." 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."

• 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.

• 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.

• Khomeini's government identified secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, as the perpetrator. 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.

• 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: "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

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. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:35, 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!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As shown on Alex-h's diffs, the edits were being discussed, and Saff V., Icewhiz, and Alex-h had been contributing helping to build consensus, and you blanket-removed all of it with and edit summary that said "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". That speaks for itself despite your WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:50, 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? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 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.".

Anyways, this section is about Pahlevun, so I'll stop here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:45, 18 February 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? Leviv ich 20:52, 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 - per disruptive editing and shared conclusion with other editors here including HistoryofIran, Jeff5102, and Poya-P. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per the comments above and the fact that he has had more than enough chances to stop but yet kept going. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time you're canvassing Jeff5102. Be careful about it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:23, 6 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)
• Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 15:11, 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 strategy changed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support For blanket reverting spree without discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 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)
• Support Per their POV-like behavior here and their nonsensical, oblivious responses to Drmies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:44, 14 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. Leviv ich 00:46, 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)

  @Icewhiz: I responded above re: why I don't see hoax in that edit. Leviv ich 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  If Iran is not currently listed by Japan - this is an hoax - a bad one.Icewhiz (talk) 17:11, 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)

No there's no source saying it was removed from the list by Japan. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 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)

Adding Mhhossein (talk · contribs) to this discussion

Mhhossein (talk · contribs) should be added to this list of editors POV-pushing against Iranian political activists. Mhhossein was recently warned about making controversial page name changes of recent Iran protests, and this. All three editors (Pahlevun, Saff V., and Mhhossein) are also heavily involved in POV-pushing at the People's Mujahedin of Iran page.Alex-h (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• 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):

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by this group)
3. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government." (no RS found confirming that this group is involved in the Syria conflict)

On the same article, Pahlevun has recently blanket reverted month's of TP discussions, ignoring consensus and RfCs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&action=history

Is it just me, or is this disruptive to say the least? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [23] 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 [24]? 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)

References

• 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)

I think you need to see WP:ASPERSION because this is what you are doing here.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 16 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)

Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

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 me to 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 [25], [26] and [27]).

• He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([28], [29], [30]) 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!

• He has made personal attacks against me notably by repeatedly accusing me of "POV pushing" numerous times ([31], [32], [33]), despite my warning ([34], [35]). In another place he commented on me by accusing me of "smearing a political group". It should be added that I had warned him in the past against commenting on the editors. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the nominator: He's harassed me numerous times and admin actions need to be taken for the above behavioral issues.--Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 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 ([36][37],[38], [39], 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?

Beyond the already mentioned, your POV edits have also included claims that Black people in a picture were "MEK Rent a Crowd", a claim based on your own conclusions, which some would argue is trying to turn Wiki articles into attack articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#%22Non-Iranian_rent-a-crowd%22_image

You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[40] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[41] 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.

I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

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. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:53, 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 [57] 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 [58]? 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes they do indeed, which is why I'm opposing. Also dodging my comment is not gonna work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So, a good editor is the one who hounds you globally and ...? come on! --Mhhossein ^talk 17:47, 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)

Saff supporting this, who would have thought. Also, you might wanna ping @Icewhiz: when you make such accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 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? --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:29, 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)

• Oppose Per User:Icewhiz Ladsgroup^overleg 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support He slandered pushing POV, without showing clues. He made WP:Harrassment. Hounding to the Commons isn't acceptable. Benyamin-ln (talk) 12:54, 9 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)

• Oppose This is nothing in this diffs that support any kind of sanction --Shrike (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Wikihounding around Wikipedia and even on Commons speaks a lot. Removing content by adding a misleading edit summary on People's Mujahedin of Iran further shows that the editor is editing with a WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Kraose (talk) 17:58, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:52, 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 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)

• Oppose Also per User:Icewhiz. Poya-P (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No violation, just content dispute with lengthy Talk page discussions. Alex-h (talk) 14:11, 10 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 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 [59] and [60]). It's interesting!!! --Mhhossein ^talk 10:47, 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)

• 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. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 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)

This is a response to Mhhossein's admin note (which Saff V. removed, while leaving Mhhossein's note)Alex-h (talk) 06:42, 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 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)

• Support Too much evidence to ignore. I don't understand why there was a need to wikihound at commons. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:35, 14 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)
• Support Wikihounding+improper edits are evident enough for me to say that this behavior is not constructive. desmay (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmains

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

I am concerned about some contributions from Hmains (talk · contribs) that seem to be placing speed of operation over accuracy and quality. My attention was drawn to this on his talk page at User talk:Hmains#For the last time, where EEng and Headbomb complained about Hmains' AWB editing, suggesting that his privileges be revoked. The principal complaint is "The problem is that many of Hmain's edits either have nothing to do with MOS (e.g. changing {{Quote}} to {{quote}} or inserting or deleting whitespace in the source text) or actively introduce violations of MOS (inserting hyphen-hyphen as a dash). Plus, even where Hmains seems to be trying to do something that's appropriate and useful, he doesn't know how to formulate regular expressions to make the changes correctly in edge cases, so that he introduces new errors.". Hmains' original response was "There is nothing wrong with my edits" which raises an immediate red flag. At the time, I declined to revoke Hmains' AWB priviliges, believing he deserved a last chance now he knew what the problems were. Now, I have discovered BrownHairedGirl, who has previously blocked Hmains for disruptive editing, has complained about him at User talk:Hmains#Category:Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland, linking to categories that do not exist, and a further suggestion that we should take sanctions.

As I don't really know much about Hmains' editing patterns too well, I thought the best thing to do would be to come here and let the interested parties make their case and see what sort of sanctions, if any, we should make. I appreciate I haven't come here armed with much in the way of diffs - I just want to start a discussion here instead of taking admin action unilaterally, and I'm hoping the people making the original complaints will be able to supply them in due course. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to @Ritchie333 for opening this discussion.

I'll try write a longer post later today, but for now I just want to note that Hmains is a prolific editor whose good intent to me to be seems beyond question. He's always civil, and I have seen no sign of any intentional disruption.

The problem I see is long-term patterns of Hmains introducing plentiful errors which other have to clean up, and Hmains showing little sign of learning from these issues. It's the lack of learning which concerns me. Every editor has a non-zero error rate, but most editors learn how to avoid particular types of errors, or at least to check their own work and clean up after themselves. That doesn't seem to happen with Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Given both the number of bots and editors which do nothing but change the sort of thing discussed here, it seems that there isn’t actually a problem for the reader. If some wikiteur is incensed because someone made a long dash by putting two short dashes together, even though the content associated is good, it may not be the writer who is the problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't speak to active errors at all, not having reviewed Hmains' edit history to see what's going on — but what I do want to point out is that AWB automatically applies its own "general fixes" (inserting missing whitespace where it's needed, deleting extraneous whitespace where it isn't, converting template links from redirect-title to direct-title, etc.) independently of the job that the user actually coded for. For instance, if I use AWB to do a tagging run on articles in a maintenance queue, AWB will also apply all of those same fixes at the same time as it's making the changes I actually planned for. Not because I coded for that, but because AWB is preprogrammed to automatically apply those changes separately from what I coded for. So it's not fair to criticize Hmains for that, because AWB simply does that automatically as a side dish to the job the user is actually trying to do.
  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff, then that's a different matter — but please keep the discussion on focus, because criticizing Hmains for AWB's automatic genfixes isn't productive or helpful. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff – Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Those in a hurry might start at [61] and read forward as necessary, and backwards according to taste. I want to echo BHG's sentiment that there's no question Hmains is sincerely trying to help. EEng 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be more impressed by seeing examples of him breaking stuff, not being told he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read through the relevant threads on Hmains' talk page and also the diffs contained therein, and I agree there appears to be some kind of competency issue, I think some diffs would help here. Hmains seem like a very nice person, which is probably why they still somehow have managed to retain their AWB privileges (and please note if this changes that both Hmains and Hmainsbot are on the checklist). All that being said, doing this gnoming work is a thankless task, Hmains' intentions are 100% good, and we need to be kind, please. Fish+Karate 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to be honest and say that I don't personally understand what the issue is with Hmains, probably because I don't go anywhere the MOS or AWB so these edits never turn up on my watchlist (or if they do, they don't trigger sufficient interest for me to notice). However, while EEng can be .... an "acquired taste" to some, I find it very uncharacteristic that he would ask me to drop Hmains' AWB rights for no reason whatsoever - so there must be something going on here that I don't get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to mention that I'm offering free tastings all this week and next. EEng 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder to folks - spit, don't swallow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that they're applying custom fixes, which work 90% of the time, but don't review their edits and they break stuff 10% of the time. An example is changing ... to _..._ (where _ is a space). That may be fine in prose in most situations, but it will break things like Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. There are other example, but the point is repeated WP:AWBRULES violations and they edit in a broken-WP:MEATBOT-like fashion. Revoke AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Even after requests, I see no DIFFS being offered, just opinionns. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Or you know, you could just have followed up on many of the several links that were offered here. Like User talk:Hmains#For the last time. Or User talk:Hmains#Bibcodes, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Question: Would a removal of AWB (and a ban from it) resolve the issue, or are there further/deeper competency issues? If a removal of, and ban from, AWB would resolve the matter, then I Support that. I've seen all too many things get messed up at best, and broken at worst, by AWB use, especially at speed. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  See my !vote below. EEng 07:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the concerns with some of my edits. It was never my intent to be anything other than helpful to WP. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Please believe that we really do understand that. EEng 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Revoke AWB rights

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

---

From what I have seen on this thread and on Hmains' talkpage, this is well and truly needed, and overdue. Pinging EEng, Headbomb, BrownHairedGirl, Ritchie333. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite revocation of AWB rights. Hmains can go back to regular, careful editing, of things he understands. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per User_talk:Hmains#Request_that_AWB_access_be_revoked seems like a good idea for a while. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support plus... the problem's broader than just AWB use. Per BHG's suggestion at User_talk:Hmains, in addition to no AWB we really need something along the lines of a topic ban from systematic/repetitious stylistic and formattimg edits. EEng 07:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support we can revisit the situation in a few months. Don't see the need to remove access to other tools however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, 6-month AWB ban This user is here in good heart but misused AWB, so I think a brief break from it is good enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: the discussion on Hmains' talkpage—linked to by EEng—raises sufficient concerns which, combined with the disruption (low level, but still) evidenced here, indicates that this particular use of AWB is...over excited, perhaps. A break is called for. It's merely a break; nothing punitive, and no-one is being sat on—it's just a (six month) pause for breath in which Hmains recalibrates their approach. ——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• support as per EEng's outline and clear approach to this situation, well supported by similar comments. I doubt the user is benefiting from this method of contribution either, although it is not my business to speculate on compulsion to act and aversion to scrutiny (which describes virtually everyone, in some way), and they may also reflect on this as a good outcome. cygnis insignis 13:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, plus a ban on systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits as I suggested at User_talk:Hmains, and as noted above by EEng. The problem is that Hmains doesn't take sufficient care over what they do, and while this is exacerbated by tools such as AWB, it is not limited to AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • PS Note that back in January, in a discussion at User_talk:Hmains, I opposed @EEng & @EEng's proposed revocation of AWB rights and proposed instead a 6-month suspension.[62] Since then, I have changed my mind on that.

In hindsight, I think I was reacting to Hmains's undoubted niceness and goodwill, and trying to be gentle. However, having reviewed the long history I don't think there is any reason to assume that the problems of working outside their skill zone will be resolved in 6 months. So it seems to me that a 6-month suspension is unhelpful to everyone, because promising Hmains reinstatement without any test of whether the competence issues have been resolved just invites a re-run of this discussion shortly after the 6 month ban expires. So now I think it's better for everyone to make the revocation indefinite, and leave Hmains free to reapply at any time if and when they can demonstrate that they have gained a better understanding of the problems which have arisen, and demonstrate that they now have ability to avoid them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support temporary revocation - Hmain has contributed very well to Wikipedia for a very long time, but his AWB use is very concerning. Plus, the lack of response to the ANI threat and the user's talk page (as of 2/14/19) sends a red-flag to me. However, I think the user can learn from his/her mistakes. I think a temporary revocation is necessary, perhaps around three to six months. A permanent revocation is a bit too much for a punishment. INeedSupport ^:3 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  threat ==> thread? Not permanent, but indefinite in the way a block can be indefinite. He can ask for it back when he can explain why things will go better than they have. In the meantime there're plenty of other ways to contribute. EEng 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support revoking AWB rights indefinitely. This user has consistently failed to comply with both WP:AWBRULES and WP:COSMETICBOT, despite multiple warnings [63][64][65]. What is perhaps even more concerning is that they refuse to take proper care in checking every edit before they save, often leading to broken categories and MOS violations, with these edits going back as far as May 2017 [66][67][68][69]. While I don't doubt that these changes are made in good faith, until Hmains can learn to be more careful in using semi-automated tools, a removal of rights is in order. Omni Flames (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:MetricSupporter89

Basically all of this user's edits have been edit warring over variations of American versus British spelling or edit warring over which unit (imperial vs. metric) comes first in an article. As hinted by their username, I think that this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Any thoughts? --Rschen7754 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a very young editor who needs to gain a little more maturity before they can be a productive editor. Their personal goals are a bit at odds with the encyclopedia's. That said, I'm not prepared to say they're not here to help the project, but, having interacted with them a little bit, there is a certain absence of cluefulness. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now it seems that they are logging out to edit: [70] I will be blocking both for 24 hours in the meantime. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note He's been here before, for the same issue. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hm, seems I missed that. @Cullen328 and ViperSnake151: from the previous discussion. --Rschen7754 19:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I thought I had seen this issue before, and in fact I see I warned them about it already, just a day before the discussion linked above. See this discussion. I think that's enough warnings, and given their unusual user page (they're on a campaign to fully metricate the United States, they speak American English but "learned Canadian English", calling Spanish "stupid") the situation is not promising.

Proposal: MetricSupporter89 is topic banned from directly changing any unit of measure or any English variant spelling. They may propose changes on an article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Seems reasonable and might give them a chance to learn our ways. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. As linked above, the editor has been warned multiple times. The username makes this sound like it's going to end poorly, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Rschen7754 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. The alternative is to waste time trying to persuade them to change their ways, but I've never seen that work yet with such a single-minded young person and it almost always ends in an indef block. Hopefully they can direct their energy in more productive directions, while maturing a little. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Although I worry that leaving the door open for talk page discussion is just inviting disruption of another sort. I have to say, with such a strongly evident WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW/WP:SPA focus. I'm doubtful there is a general purpose editor to be salvaged from this, and fear this approach will only allow gamesmanship, but if they become disruptive in their talk page interactions in advocating for particular spelling or metric idiosyncrasies, I suppose they can always be brought back here then--and in the meantime it is possible this approach will restrain their edit warring while allowing some useful changes relating to their fixation to filter through. It's worth a shot in any event. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Iban violations: read what I actually wrote

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

---

I have just blocked Godsy due to a series of very recent violations of their interaction ban with Legacypac (logged at WP:EDR). This is the latest in a series of actions between the two editors which resulted in the interaction ban (discussed here) and due to Godsy repeatedly testing the edges of the original restriction it was refined here. Legacypac posted an admin request for review on his talk page, and after reviewing both editors' recent contribs I found that Godsy has been repeatedly editing drafts on which Legacypac is the next-to-most-recent contributor, and not much else (not just incidental while commenting on many drafts, for example). It's pretty clear to me Godsy has specifically targeted Legacypac's contribs, so this is a clear Iban violation.

Since this has been an intermittently active issue for two years and Godsy seems to be testing the limits of the refined restriction this week, I have blocked indefinitely expecting that the block will not be lifted without some kind of assurance that this will be the last time we need to discuss it here.

To that end, and owing to the scope of the hounding, I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.

If there is consensus here in any direction, any admin is free to modify Godsy's block as I may be unavailable for some time today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Good block. Godsy was clearly—albeit subtly—continuing their feud with LP with draftspace the theatre, presumably as being further off the radar than mainspace. If this was a recent "thing" then it could probably be resolved, as there's usually the potential for self-education: but after two years, self-education would appear to be lacking. I daresay an appeal might succeed in the future; I wouldn't advocate one for much less than six months, though. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban from MfD, if unblocked. MfD is a high profile forum not amenable to subtle harassment. No sign of problems there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly sure editing after him is a violation. In fact, the I-ban page says "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other." I haven't seen any direct interactions. The specific terms of the I-ban also don't seem to have been violated. That aside, I'm really having a hard time understanding why Godsy feels the need to edit these minor drafts, and can't stay as far as possible away from Legacypac. While this seems to circumvent the interaction ban, this is definitely continuing the feud. I also have another minor issue with admins dropping indef blocks and then coming to the community for reinforcement. This in effect community bans the editor and makes a successful appeal much more difficult. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Remember this isn't simply a normal interaction ban. The wording was modified as part of this discussion Special:PermanentLink/800239899#So unhappy to post this as a result of community concerns. While the issues highlight above aren't direct violations of XfC limitation, they reflect the communities concerns about the two editing the same pages. Editors expressed concern about their fringe interaction in other places e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#IBAN violation?. I think there have been more but I admit I couldn't find them. Either way the editors should have understood the greater need to take care surrounding any edits which seem to relate to the other editor. Anyway more importantly, the whole point of interaction bans whatever their wording is to cut out interactions between editors when they aren't seen as productive. Editors are supposed to understand they need to stay away from each other as much as possible, not follow them around. If Godsy is mysteriously appearing on each page edited by LegacyPac, and often does not appear on other pages, this is a very strong indication they aren't obeying the iban. I haven't looked at the evidence, but if Ivanvector's assessment is true, it seems a very likely iban violation and would demand some sort of block for violation unless they can offer some reasonable explanation which doesn't involve them following the ibanned editor's contribs and then editing just after. (The only time I can see it justified looking the the contribs of someone your ibanned with would be when you're looking into filing a complain about a violation. And when you do so, you should never edit any page you saw in your investigation, even if you think you would have discovered it independently. Likewise, if you see the editor's name your watch list, you should likely ignore the page. I mean if it's had multiple edits it may occasionally be justified to check it out, but this should be done with great care.) Frankly the history means it's unlikely that Godsy has any reasonable explanation, and also means an indef is IMO justified. (And of course any block can be appealed, so if Godsy really does have a good explanation, they can still offer it.) Remember also this could easily be considered WP:Hounding even without an iban. This doesn't mean an editor just happening to edit a page not long after an editor they are ibanned with would always be a violation, since it's reasonable that may happen by accident especially if there is a good reason why both editors would have independently been interested in that page (e.g. it concerns something in the news, by which I don't mean ITN recently, it's TFA, it was listed on some noticeboard etc) but too many 'coincidences' give reasonable cause for concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite /= permanent. I see problematic behaviour and my two options are: do nothing, or block entirely. A more refined sanction is definitely apporopriate here but admins don't have the authority to unilaterally dole out limited bans in situations like this. So what should we do?

As for not violating "the specific terms" of the ban, that's kind of a side point here: the history of this dispute has several examples of Godsy clearly following Legacypac but not quite violating the specific terms of the ban, which is how I read the conclusion of the second discussion I linked to. As Legacypac pointed out in today's talk page request, the drafts which Godsy edited after Legacypac this week were all obscure pages in idle userspaces which Legacypac moved to the draft namespace, which Godsy then commented on less than a day later, during a time when Godsy was not doing anything else. All 14 of the drafts that Godsy edited today (15 Feb, UTC) were recently edited by Legacypac, all but one of those on 13 Feb. The last time before that that Godsy edited a draft was on 3 Feb, which was also the next edit after one by Legacypac a few days earlier. I am open to there being an innocent explanation for that pattern, but with Godsy being known to have some kind of grudge against Legacypac it seems doubtful. To me it suggests that Godsy was specifically going to pages appearing in Legacypac's recent contributions, not just going around flagging new promising drafts as part of their regular activity and incidentally overlapping with drafts Legacypac had edited. And that is a continuation of the hounding behaviour referred to in the second discussion, so additional action is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My view on this is that if you think a block you have just made needs to be reviewed on AN/ANI, you should probably bring the matter to AN/ANI for discussion before a block is placed, not afterwards. I don't think Godsy necessarily needs to be restricted from all draft space, just from editing drafts that Legacypac has edited, as that appears to be the issue. Fish+Karate 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the block to be reviewed. I'm very comfortable with this block. If there's not consensus to do something else here I'm quite happy to just leave Godsy blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If you are not asking for the block to be reviewed, then what are you asking for? Note the title of this section is "Iban violations: request review". Paul August ☎ 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think the point is that if there is consensus for any other action, then hopefully someone will enact this consensus. This would I assume include a consensus for an unblock or reduction of term of the block, since a community consensus shouldn't be ignored. (I'm assuming it's following our policies and guidelines since otherwise it isn't really a consensus.) Ivanvector has specifically proposed an alternative which would allow an unblock, but it's the communities decision if they want to endorse that proposal, suggest something else, or just leave things as they are. If there's no consensus for any other action, then the block will stand, although of course since it's also a simple administrative block and not a site ban, it may be lifted with by a suitable appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For editors to review Godsy's I-ban violations, I assume? ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment this is clearly an IBAN violation; I don't think it justifies an infinite block (a week may be enough IMO), but indef != infinite. The reason for the interaction is clear; Legacypac has been moving a lot of {{Userspace draft}} tagged draft-like pages from user space to draft space recently (where they would be eligible for WP:G13 deletion). Draft:Marin_Kristo_Frasheri-Gjoca, for example, was created in 2011 by an editor with 3 edits and has been ignored since then. I'd support in principle a restriction along the lines of "Godsy may only edit articles in draft-space by adding referenced content to them to improve them so they may be moved to mainspace", but from experience that will result in at least two more ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• From the description, it sounds to me like an IBAN violation. Maybe a week or two for reflection. Their unblock request is most unpromising. It is a shame that this goes on. Such a waste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I think the TBAN is not good. I agree with GoldenRing that cautioning Godsy (which I did on his talk page earlier) to check more carefully about avoiding the appearance of violating the IBAN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• An iban is an iban, I guess. However, it is not possible for someone who cares about drafts (whether in draftspace or userspace) to engage with that area without interacting with Legacypac. An iban with legacypac goes a long way towards a de facto tban on drafts. I don't think it's controversial to say that legacypac's approach to drafts can be, well, controversial. He is the one (in my perhaps limited experience, anyway) far and away most likely to push the envelope with regard to deletion of drafts, with apparent willingness to take actions or !vote in ways that test the procedural gray area or subvert deletion-related PAGs/conventions. As consistent as he is with this, it makes sense to me that someone who cares about what happens in draftspace/userspace may likely take issue with Legacypac's methods. In other words, if one is looking for particular issues or actions that come up regarding drafts, it's not unlikely that legacypac will be the one that pops up as responsible. The reality is that if one person is best known for a pattern of controversial actions in an area, there will be corresponding patterns of people addressing those actions, and that could be framed as hounding rather than more straightforward maintenance/editing. I'm not trying to turn this into a case against legacypac here, to be clear (I also don't want to give the impression that I don't think legacypac doesn't do some good work around here), but rather trying to frame the nature of such an iban/tban in such a space. We'll see if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I guess, though. I don't think I know anything about their history, hadn't seen the past threads, and haven't read gone through them with any real thoroughness, so there might be more to the story than I realize. Ultimately, an iban is an iban, I suppose, and so a block seems merited. Indef + tban definitely seems like overkill for this situation though. Without knowledge of the past, I wouldn't formally weigh in on the block, but Oppose tban. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I am a little uncomfortable with this block. Editing pages that have been edited by the other user is not a violation of the letter of an interaction ban (so long as the edit is not a revert). And while Godsy's contributions could be explained by him following Legacypac's edits, the explanation he has offered also seems very plausible to me, when combined with the insight from Rhododendrites above. I'm not saying Ivanvector acted wrongly - I would almost certainly have done the same - but I think, given the explanation, that Godsy ought to be unblocked with a ticking-off for not checking which user has moved pages to draft space. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing are you aware he flooded my watchlist to let me know he is watching me twice before? Once it was a series of meaningless edits to random pages and another time a series of opposes to a bunch of MfDs I started.

His current unblock request is an attack on my editing that violates the IBAN.

While I work to delete a lot of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log I also regularly move AfC pages and old userpages into mainspace that meet our N and V criteria. I operate well within policy and practice. I've even helped write some of the policy and guidelines such as the current G13 wording. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is a violation of the IBAN but not clear/disruptive enough to justify the indefinite block. Reduce the block to 3 days or a week. -- Flooded w/them 100s 09:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think t-bans should imposed unless there's any evidence of actual problematic edits in the area. And of the two editors concerned, it's not Godsy the one who's been engaged in draft-related activities that they know the community disapporoves of. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a very good and serious point. Legacypac does a massive amount of abandoned draft rescue, but he has a small error rate that multiplied by the number results in a fair number of individual problem actions. I don’t review Legacypac’s work, there is no way I could keep up. Godsy reviewing legacypac’s work is in principle a good thing. What was not ok was Godsy doing massive numbers of pointless edits to pages in Legacypac’s wake, thus filling Legacypacs watchlist with Godsy links. Godsy should be allowed, encouraged, to bring to a forum actual problems, but he should not be doing trivial edits specific to Legacypac’s recently edited pages. Follow Legacypac’s edit history to review, for sure, but do not make a noise doing it for pages where there is no substantive problem, and if there is, bring it to some talk page for others to review. I suggest WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. A clear cut rule for Godsy would this be: Do not edit drafts edited by Legacypac, instead raise problems for others to review at WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. MfD should not be part of this, as MfD is already an active well-watched forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Are you suggestion we remove the iban? Because if not, sorry but Godsy reviewing Legacypac's work is not a good thing as long as the iban is in place. Godsy should not be following or reviewing Legacypac's contributions or work, and they should not be bringing any problems relating to Legacypac anywhere except iban violations to ANI or somewhere else appropriate. If Godsy is actually doing anything you suggest, then the the indef is a good thing, and should stay until they can convince us or at least an admin they will stop it. But I think Godsy understands this though, since in their appeal they appear to be denying they are in any way intending to review Legacypac's contributions, they are just reviewing an area of interest without paying attention to who made said contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I read the Iban differently perhaps. There is nothing wrong with Godsy reviewing legacypac contributions, as long as he does it silently. The trivial edits were harassing. I think there should be no issue with Godsy lodging a complaint about Legacypac, as long as the complaint is upheld. The following and editing of pages is what is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I won't say it's okay for Godsy to review Legacypac contribs silently since it misses the purpose of iban i.e. that Godsy needs to stay away from Legacypac (which is ultimately the over-reaching goal of any iban, the community no longer trusts them to interact so they are required to stay away from each other). But it's technically not sanctionable if Godsy does nothing about what they review. Of course it's likely to destroy any chance of the iban being lifted if we become aware it's happening. I'd note if Godsy really is reviewing Legacypac's contributions, then they have no excuse for what happened here. They clearly knew it was Legacypac. As for complaints being upheld, it depends what you mean about complaints. Complaints to arbcom would generally be fine. Complaints ANs may occasionally be okay, but if Godsy keeps opening them, they're likely to find at least some of them aren't upheld. And even if many of them were, there's going to be very low tolerance of someone with an i-ban opening complaints which aren't upheld. Notably, when these complaints aren't to do with iban violations, I think people are going to question why Godsy is the one who keeps bringing complaints and even potentially ignore them or simply say no because it was Godsy who opened them. (Also realistically, if complaints against Legacypac in ANs keep getting upheld, it's unlikely Legacypac will still be around to complain about.) Starting discussions about anything Legacypac did anywhere else are not on, whether WT:AfC, WT:Drafts or whatever. Note that I don't use the word "complaint", since a discussion at WT:AfC, WT:Drafts shouldn't generally deal with user behaviour anyway AFAIK. It would be disagreement with something Legacypac did and discussion over the best way to handle whatever it is, not a complaint about behaviour. Godsy shouldn't be doing that as long as they are ibanned, they lost that privilege. Other people can deal with it independently. If they don't tough. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think the block was harsh and that Godsy was not in violation of his i-ban. I also believe more attention should be paid to the action that was taken by Godsy and whether or not it was appropriate. If it can be demonstrated that the action itself was inappropriate, that would raise a more legitimate concern regarding a potential violation of the iBan. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Unblock and remove i-ban. This is a perfect example of an i-ban itself being more harmful then any harm it was meant to avoid. In short: I don't see anything wrong with Godsy's edits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tavix it is not the substance of the edits we are dealing with. This is textbook WP:HOUND and remember that Hound is why I tried multiple times to get this IBAN instated and that at least twice before HOUND has been breached by them after the IBAN was imposed. At times hounding me is pretyy much their only activity on site. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You are very messy editor and I am grateful that Godsy is willing to clean up your messes. We should be encouraging this clean-up effort instead of blocking him for it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Remove your baseless personal attack. 2. Following me to a series of obscure draft pages is not cleanup any more than when he followed me to a bunch of random pages (including ones up for deletion) to make whitespace and other meaningless edits or the time he followed me to a bunch of MfDs to oppose my nominations while doing nothing with any other MfDs or anything else on the site. I ran a friendly demonstration for User:SmokeyJoe] so he cound understand the problem. I'd be happy to run one for you with your permission. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I regret and apologize that you took my observation as a personal attack. It seems we have different opinions on what constitutes clean-up and/or hounding, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support tban, good block, per Ivanvector, SmokeyJoe and Nil Einne. Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another. Four reasons I support:

1. When the original iban was imposed, Godsy changed his userpage to a countdown clock for the 12 months until he could appeal the iban, with the edit summary "It is important to note that there is a great deal of hope. No, no?". Unfortunately, that obsessive behavior continues to this day.
2. It has been suggested in this thread and in Godsy's unblock request that if you threw a dart at draftspace, you're likely to hit an edit by Legacypac. Somehow, none of Godsy's edits in 2019 have been to pages edited by Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) until February 15, when every edit Godsy made was one or two edits after Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff), including gems like these:
   • at Draft:Lake 'n Sea – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
   • at Draft:Jesus Northwest – Lpac edit followed by Godsy adding promising tag, removing promising tag
3. This is not a new thing. When ArbCom denied Godsy's case request against Lpac, he was advised both gently ("...there are lots and lots of articles to 'unambiguously improve' on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Legacypac, and those other articles are where you should be investing your content efforts...") and directly ("Don't modify Legacypac's edits."). In his unblock request, Godsy more or less says he will continue this behavior.
4. The revised iban obviously isn't working, and a stronger community sanction should be in place when Godsy is unblocked. When Godsy's behavior led to a revision of the iban, the closer wrote "...editors have been community banned from Wikipedia for considerably less disruptive activity than that demonstrated here." The ban proposed by Ivanvector seems like a sensible intermediate step to try. If Godsy can't keep away from Lpac's edits in draftspace, then Godsy shouldn't edit draftspace (and related areas). Leviv ich 04:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the considerable effort taken User:Levivich to pull that all together. This response [71] gives me no comfort that they will abide by the IBAN for it critiques my editing and suggests wrongly I'm the only user moving WP:STALE userpages. If I'm the allegedly the only person doing something why exactly is he "monitoring" with a view to "remedy" my actions when he is IBANed from me? Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per broad consensus vide most of the comments above, I have unblocked Godsy and told him to use common sense in not undertaking edits that seem to be gaming the i'ban terms. Lourdes 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Yurikanger

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

---

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

Hi. Some strange edits going on with this user. They have been warned by several users about making null edits, or adding un-needed spaces in the category section on articles (example). However, despite this, they are continuing with this (one, two). Maybe it's linked to the countless declined drafts listed on their talkpage. I don't know if this crap-flooding of watchlists is disruptive, but they don't appear to be communicating about this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They don't seem to notice toned down messages about their behaviour and the need to stop it. I've given them a warning that should be more effective in getting their attention.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped editing (for now). File this under close and keep an eye on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:MarkDice Off site canvasing

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

---

MarkDice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I make a habit of occasionally reading article listed in Wikipedia:Press coverage as I find it useful to keep an eye on what others think of Wikipedia as my experiance is that it can affect both content and policy pages and also create storms in a teacup.

At the time of reading (an writing this) the most recent article listed is:

• Ernst, Douglas (February 14, 2019). "Mark Dice battles Wikipedia: Conservative YouTube pundit blocked from debate on his biography". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Wikipedia blocked him this week over a years-long debate on what his biography page should contain.

As I have never heard of the person (I'm a Brit) I had a look at the talk page of the article Mark Dice and saw that the first, entry on the talk page is a section titled "YouTube subscriber count" started by User:Jimbo Wales on 30 January 2019.

The first reply is by a new user user:MarkDice who claims to be the subject of the biography. No one has questioned this so I assume that the account is being used by the subject of the artilce. I started to read the very long page (currently 206,461 bytes long and all written since 30-01-2019). I may add a comment to that talk page, but as yet I am totally uninvolved. I noticed that the last comment made by user:MarkDice was 7 Feb 2019 (diff) and that user:MarkDice has only edited that talk page (contributions).

On User talk:MarkDice the most recent section states:

== Off wiki canvasing ==

Is unacceptable and really against out best practice, this [[[72] has lost you any sympathy I may have had for all, all it has done is caused a raft of childish vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Curious what Jimmy Wales has to say about this development after getting involved in the BLP talk page in the first place...? - wolf 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Notifying the blocked user can be read to mean that "It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video" (posted within the same minute as the block with no follow up on the blocked user's talk page) fulfils the policy I personally would never be as terse. Where is the usual Template:Uw-block or similar with an explanation of how to appeal the block?

I was going to post a message to User talk:Ian.thomson to disuss the block (per WP:RAAA) and saw the section User talk:Ian.thomson#Mark Dice. There were comments in that section that that made me decide that such a converstaion would be fruitless:

Extended content

== Mark Dice == Background: I have sided with Dice exactly 0 times in that discussion and I am explicitly mocked at the 2:20 mark in that video. Not that I get a say in such things but I think blocking someone because they post off-site criticism of Wikipedia is not great. While it was meat puppetry I think this is a case where discretion would have been the better part of valor. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @Barkeep49: If it was just criticism, I wouldn't have blocked. He knows he has a following and he's using it in bad faith to get what he wants without regard to our policies. I recommend reporting the video (and his comment linking to the talk page) for harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Well in my case it might have started, should be fun times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @Slatersteven: If I'm on and I see further incidents (on your page and a few other), I'll semi-protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) No need, it does not overly worry me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Ok then. It looks like it's just a few folks going to random pages because they don't know what they're doing (...I mean, if they did, they'd be taking a different approach). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC) You are obviously biased or at least WP:INVOLVED on the topic of Mark Dice's biography and his off-wiki canvassing. However, that does not allow you to indiscriminately indef new accounts. Please notify WP:AN or something because these blocks are not uncontroversial. wumbolo ^^^ 16:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Most of those accountants (being very generous) have just posted rants about how unfair Wikipedia is, and snide comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC) And all of them were unaware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Were they, all the blocked accounts, even the ones who have been here for years? Even after I posted this [[73]], which tells any one who read it the talk page is for discussing the article, not a soapbox?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC) If Dice was a far-left conspiracy theorist, would you be complaining about me blocking accounts who posted stuff that had to be revdelled? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll. Calling his fans here on Twitter was a cry for attention. Calling Jimbo on Twitter was a cry for attention. Coming on here was just gathering material for yet another cry for attention. Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) None of you asked but the recent batch of accounts are  Unrelated to User:MarkDice and  Unlikely to each other. But, as someone who had to look up just who Mark Dice is (and also an accountant fwiw) I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). Please copy this comment if anyone feels the need to escalate the issue to one of the admin noticeboards. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Yeah, I figured they were unrelated, which is why I didn't bother filing an SPI, tagging, and opening a category page of suspected sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) The whole "reactivating old accounts" thing is a big red flag for me, and I'm not saying I saw nothing, but nothing that suggests any more useful action at this time. I will likely check again later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand user:Ian.thomson's concerns when (s)he writes "Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll.", but if this was part of the reason for imposing the indefinate block then the inference is that perhapse user:Ian.thomson would have acted differently if the video had been posted by a none "professional troll", that was seen by few people.

I pondered on this and re-read WP:WHEEL and decided to reverse the block because we usually do not bite newbees and there is no reason why this new editor should have been aware that such a prohibition existed, when he made and published the YT video. Assuming good faith as an alternative a warning could have been given not to do it again, as blocks are not supposed to be impose as a punisment.

I have ended the indefinate block because while I think that the publication of the video is a clear case of off site canvasing, it should be discussed here and a consensus formed over what to do at WP:ANI. My ending of the indefinate block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. I will however reserve the right of reply if anyone questions my actions in ending the block, or makes a personal attack.

I hope that a clear consensus will emerge from this discussion and perhapse the place to start would be if other editors can add links to similar discussions in the ANI archives about off site canvasing so that we can be informed about those previous discussions and decisions about what to do in such situations.

-- PBS (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bad unblock. PBS, did you see this AN thread where there was an unanimous consensus approving the blocks in totality ? ∯WBG^converse 12:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah you really should have looked for the current discussions for this. This isn't good and will add fuel to the fire. spryde | talk 12:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agree this was a bad unblock, even if intentions were good faith. There's a long history here and a recent AN thread. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock in the absence of any appeal from the user, as that at least would indicate to the slightest degree whether they intended to adapt to community expectations. ——SerialNumber54129 13:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Bad unblock. Against consensus. Huge serving of trout for PBS. Either you've made a serious accusation without due diligence (there's no excuse for unlocking without talking to the blocking admin, no excuse for not being aware of the existing consensus supporting it), or you are in fact Wheelwarring. Someone needs to reblock, and now. Good faith or bad, this is just a crap action. John from Idegon (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, the re-blocking would be wheel-warring I think, but I totally agree that PBS shold be reminded that unilaterally overturning a community consensus has surely got to be mainline to arbcom... ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's a terrible cowboy unblock, against community consensus (there's already been an AN thread about this) and without contacting the blocking admin, which should result in a swift trip to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• My ending of the indefinate [sic] block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. So you reversed an admin action without consulting the admin involved, didn't research the background, created a mess, and now you're simply going to walk away? And by the way, yeah, unblocking Mark Dice is a de facto approval for his canvassing. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• I'm disappointed PBS felt the need to reread WP:WHEEL on the assumption that they'd be reversed - and especially to say so above as a chilling effect - but not WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking, the policy that would cover their own action. —Cryptic 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Cryptic, that's the point I too failed to understand. He should have been reading the latter instead of the former:-)∯WBG^converse 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ambivalent I supported (and indeed more or less asked) for the block, but an idef may have been to far. Every user (even Mr Dice) deserves a chance to show they can learn from their mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Reblocking

Since having a single admin reversing this action would count as wheel-warring, I propose that the block be reimposed by immediate consent. If PBS wants it reversed, he can argue for it first. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest PBS reverse it or consensus here is obtained within 24 hours (or whatever the customary time period is these days). Don't let any technicalities get in the way of this one. spryde | talk 13:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No need for a separate sub-section. If there's a consensus that it was a bad unblock;any un-involved admin can re-impose it. ∯WBG^converse 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There already exists a community consensus to block at AN. Although this hasn't ran 24 hours, there is consensus here that PBS's actions were improper. IMO, the only way this doesn't end up with a desysop action at Arbcom is for PBS to reverse himself sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the unblock, support a reblock, but let's calm down a bit here. I wish everyone on all sides would take on board the suggestion that MarkDice be treated like any other editor (that goes for Jimbo, PBS, and everyone else). The community has faced these sorts of issues before and there are existing practices and procedures and policies that should be followed. It's not proper for an admin to reverse another admin's action without discussion first; nor to take action directly against community consensus (e.g., the AN thread on this subject). If the consensus to block is reaffirmed here, it seems proper for an uninvolved admin to re-block. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a "block on sight" policy for suspected canvassed accounts, and talk of ArbCom seems over the top to me. I could do that thing and provide a shitload of diffs of admins undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, against consensus, and nobody taking them to ArbCom over it, or ArbCom denying a case request. Y'all know there've been some recent well-known examples of this. I say reaffirm consensus, reblock the account, and follow our usual procedures. This is a trout not a de-bit situation. Us getting hysterical about Mark Dice is what Mark Dice wants. Leviv ich 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No-one's getting hysterical about Dice; the situation regarding him was completely under control before PBS decided he knew better than everyone else. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

^+1 ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, Talk:Mark Dice contains a bunch of hysteria about Dice, from top to bottom. Leviv ich 15:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussions on user pages are ususally reactive to the user themselves, and MD's page is neither exception nor exaggeration. The discussions BK was referring to that haven't' involved MD, however—here and at AN—have been qoutecompletely under controlunquote. The environment of a discussion moulds the discussion, you see. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, it would have been better if any of the following happened: 1) Jimbo hadn't brought attention to it in the first place; 2) editors ignored Jimbo instead of rushing to the article; 3) other editors ignored the whole thing instead of rushing to police the article; 4) Dice's canvassing was ignored instead of him being blocked; 5) Dice's followers were ignored instead of being blocked; and, 6) Dice wasn't unblocked without him making an unblock request, leaving good enough alone. Just my opinion. Leviv ich 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly consensus is against you on that. And why, may I ask, did you reply to me when it was Black Kite who responded to your remark about "hysteria" to which you were then responding? ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What does ^+1 mean? I intended to reply to both of you, but I must have misunderstood your comment. Please accept my apologies. Leviv ich 17:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Be careful about using words like hysteria, Levivich. It was using hysterical that caused me to be banned from Jimbo's talk page. Gendered overtones, apparently, although I thought that was ancient Greek usage. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the reblock Everyone deserves a second change, this was (whilst egregious) a one off.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Have you learned nothing from the talk page, where it has been noted that this is not in fact a one-off? He's done it in the past. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did miss that on the talk page, care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You missed something you replied to? I know you more often than not seem to get it wrong but ... Here's example. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no mention here of canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CIR. I am getting very fed up of it: numerous examples of your incompetence/slapdashery at that one article talk page alone and your speciousness beggars belief. Re-read the entire talk page if you must. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

All I can see is something about his ranting about his article, that is not canvasing (any more then this is). What I need to see is clear evidence he has done this sort of thing (saying "go over" to my page and edit it) before. Because if it is a lot of users who discuss articles off Wikipedia are canvasing, is that the criteria we have?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There's [74] ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Mmm I would point out this is part of the same incident, just on another platform, that does not really go far to establish he has done this "before", or that he will do so again. Blocks are not punetive. I supported the block for this current round of canvasing, but all users deserve to show they have learned their lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Consensus already exists that it was a bad unblock. Any passing admin can reblock based on that consensus without this subthread, and should do so and close this entire section immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reblock. It'll mean more if someone besides me blocks at this point. Dice continued to canvass after being blocked for it. He clearly doesn't care about what the article says, he's just wants another platform to rally his fans around. WP:RBI is the standard procedure for dealing with trolls. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  The editor has been reblocked. [75] Leviv ich 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Reblock What the ever loving fuck good does anyone in their right mind expect to come from inviting that guy to edit this site? Seriously! If you want to argue this point, you need to present a coherent case that unblocking was a good idea, not a vague case that the original block was not perfect. WE ARE NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Claiming that this block was wrong due to some technicality is essentially the same as admitting this was a good block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose reblock for much the same reasons as the !vote above, though in rather more civil language. WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. On a side note, I am having real difficulty seeing how Drmies reblock is not wheel-warring; linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists is rather different to consensus actually existing, especially when a section on reblocking has one !vote in favour and another !vote against. GoldenRing (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. What part of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy did you find difficult to comprehend, and why did you think my comments mentioned if, as you have just implied, my reasoning had nothing to do with it?

And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. That is the single most ignorant statement I've read on this site in at least a week. Congrats, I guess. To answer the silly questions in it; it prevents Dice from disrupting the project himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question is Arbcom. Unless you think another consensus is going to emerge, overturning the previous one (yeah, right), then there is nothing more you or anyone can do here. If there are issues with it, then that is the next venue. And moaning about the result doesn't get the guys back on the pitch. But, you go ahead, feed the drama, I'm sure there isn't enough of it! ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: The account was already reblocked by Drmies a couple of hours ago. —DoRD (talk)​ 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment User:MarkDice is WP:NOTHERE to develop the project, he is using Wikipedia to create controversy and gove him material to rant about. He knows full well he should not be canvassing his viewers to edit the page, but he did it to create controversy which gets him more views. It's working because I'd never heard of him but now I've watched his view. Keep him blocked and block any acct that crosses the line into trolling. Be sure the option to file an appeal of his block is available. Then ignore him to the extent possible for attention is what he seeks Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I was about to reblock the account given the opinions expressed in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mark_Dice_related_blocks, but I see that user:Drmies has breached policy and already done so. Before I took the decision to unblock, I had searched for a block discussion both here and at WP:AN, however I searched for MarkDice as that is the user name under discussion, and as no one mentioned the account name in the AN section or posted a heads up to the account's talk page that a discussion was taking place or the outcome of the discussion I failed to see that section. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• PBS, I wasn't aware that I was breaching policy--in all honesty, I thought that you were doing that, by unblocking without consulting with the previous admin. But policy or not, I thought that was a pretty unwise decision, and that you didn't fully consider what kind of shitstorm this would raise--I suppose I'm glad you saw that your unblock was challenged to this extent, and yet I wonder how you got to it in the first place (yes, I read your original post). As for "linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists" remark by GoldenRing--GoldenRing, I'm sure you understand that the diff isn't so much to link to Tony's comment (though he's frequently right, and I an not aware he was "involved") but to the situation as I found it at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: As I am sure you are perfectly aware, according to our banning policy, a community discussion of an indef block is a ban discussion and a ban discussion must remain open for at least 24 hours (emphasis in the original). You re-blocked when the discussion had been open for five hours and five minutes. I'm not after your bit, but your action here was clearly wheel-warring. You ought to self-revert and let the discussion reach a consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think I was that wrong, go ahead and unblock. You have my blessing. I gotta go teach. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understood it (and it is the basis of my vote) that AN thread was about the blocks of other accounts (for meat puppetry), not Mr Dice for canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I also thought we were discussing meatpuppets as Dice himself was already blocked and no one was seeking to review that. The path to an unblock is usually admission of wrong in an appeal (or tweet Jimbo) Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Drmies didn't wheel war. It's not necessary to refer to the AN discussion; at the time Drmies reblocked, there was a strong consensus above that PBS's unblock was bad. There was no need to start a new section "Reblocking", still less to wait for that section to gain yet another consensus for the block — how many consensuses do we need? I agree with Tony Ballioni here, and I obviously disagree with Golden Ring. I'll quote WP:WHEEL: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. I've bolded the references to consensus in there. Drmies reblocked after a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". Bishonen | talk 20:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC).
• I've been highly critical of admin actions on the talk page. So have Jimbo and Larry Sanger [76]. However, Mark Dice has shown blatant disregard for WP:COI. If he is to return, I support a topic ban from the article about him. Unlike new editors who've been indeffed for not knowing the ropes, Dice knows exactly what he's doing and is being completely transparent. This unblock is out of place. Dice may not fully understand why he's been blocked, but he knows that it can only be because of one thing. Not to mention that it's all explained in the links in the block notifications. wumbolo ^^^ 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(break #1)

Reading this makes one wonder wtf PBS was thinking when they unblocked without even bothering to consult with the blocking admin, and in light of the clear community consensus, which PBS claims to not have been aware of, and plain commen sense, which they can't claim to not be aware of if they want to be an admin. Not surprised there are multiple calls for arbcom on this. But what I find troubling is them trying to dump on Drmies and claim he acted as inappropriately as PBS did, just for making an obviously justified re-block. That's shameful shit right there. They should strike that comment and post an apology to Drmies asap. There shouldn't be a need for arbcom, PBS should save the community the time and energy of a desysop and resign their admin status. They are clearly unfit for the role. - wolf 22:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Thewolfchild, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I also think that this is a case where one should talk to the blocking admin, but I'm not going to ask for PBS's bit. We all make mistakes (well, except for Bishonen), and that's fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno about that. But it was your name so, your call. And since this didn't directly affect me, I don't have anything else add. My work is done here. - wolf 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think PBS should have unblocked, I'm not sure I see the wisdom of a reblock so fast. The original discussion last 2 hours and 53 minutes. This discussion lasted 5 hours and 5 minutes before the reblock. So this clearly does not meet the requirements for a community endorsed block. Even now, the discussion has still only been just under 17 hours so the requirements for a community endorsed block are still not met. If PBS wanted to revert their actions because they realised they made an epic mistake, then they should have, but I don't see the urgency to reblock otherwise. It's not like Mark Dice had actually done jack shit on wikipedia since they were unblocked so there was an urgent problem that needed to be dealt with. Also, while I don't think it would have made a great difference since most of the meatpuppets don't seem to have even a basic grasp of our policies or guidelines, it may have made a small difference to those who correctly felt that MarkDice hasn't been treated fairly with the reblock. (Note I'm not saying the original block was proper, and I've already said I disagree with the unblock.) This doesn't mean that I'm saying there should be a further unlock. Since PBS has already said they planned to re-block, then that would serve no purpose. Before someone brings it up, we've established several times already that this is one policy area where for better or worse, WP:IAR should never be applied and all community sanctioning decisions should be left open a minimum of 24 hours since otherwise we just get a royal mess. My read is effectively that was what the community wanted when they made the decision anyway. Note also that this is not criticism of the close of the original discussion either. There was no reason why such a block needed to be community endorsed and if an admin just wanted to make a quick check that they weren't making a major mistake that was fine. So the close of the old discussion was fine, although the block itself should not be treated as community endorsed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Odd behavior in new accounts

I apologize if this is a false flag, but i've been taking a look at some new accounts that were created. Upon looking at their user pages, all of them have the same format. They all introduce themselves, list some hobbies of theirs, and put a link to their blog. The blog links differ, and by looking at some of the urls, some of them are related to gambling. I don't feel comfortable clicking on them so I'm not entirely sure. I just thought this was a bit odd and would appreciate any insight on these accounts.

I should also add that there are a lot more accounts listed than these. CrispyCream27 • talk • user page 08:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting these. They're commonly known as spambots (although probably human). You can usually see a few each day, but weekends and especially Sunday mornings, for some reason, are a popular time for them. This lot seems to be quite rampant. I'll take these ones out. Just add any more to the list above, or you can often just report them to WP:AIV where most admins know what they are. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING by User:Binksternet

I don't edit Wikipedia nearly as much as I used to, but I've been making more edits in the last couple weeks, creating several new articles and making big expansions to existing ones. Binksternet (talk · contribs), with whom I've clashed in the past (years ago), has been engaging in WP:HOUNDING over the last 24 hours since he apparently found out I was active again.

• At Susan B. Anthony List he used Twinkle to roll back a dozen edits I made that were either extensively sourced, or potentially controversial but I was willing to address objections from other editors. Binksternet unilaterally declared that I cannot edit Susan B. Anthony List because of WP:COI. I volunteered a few hours a week for the organization about 10 years ago when I was a senior in high school trying to bolster my resume for college. As stated on his talk page and mine I was never paid, never on staff, haven't had contact with them since then, and have edited the article in the years since --including a number of back-and-forths with Binksternet himself-- without anyone finding it necessary to ban me from editing the article.

• At Artur Davis he rolled back a bunch of non-controversial copyediting. He said I was trying to make Republicans look good or Democrats look bad by removing the timing of when Davis switched from Dem to Rep, but it's clear Binksternet didn't actually read my edits. Because prior to my edits, the article redundantly repeated three times the same sentence about Davis switching to the Republican party. All I did was to remove those repetitions and make the lede more readable. But Binksternet rolled them back anyway saying in his edit summary "political activist at work".

• At Andrew Cuomo he declared that I could not use Fox News as a source for a factual sentence talking about how a liberal bill angered conservatives. He ignored that my edits cited The Buffalo News and a governors office press release.

• At Tommy Norment he rolled back two "non-neutral removals" of content. The content in question was a single source that said Norment or someone using his information was named in the Ashley Madison leak, and I removed it on WP:BLP grounds because of the accusation. Debatable perhaps but not "non-neutral". The other edit removed a single article making anonymous accusations from ThinkProgress, which is owned by Center for American Progress and not a WP:RS. According to Binksternet, Fox News is not a reliable source but a blog owned by a liberal activist group is?

• At Theodore McCarrick he rolled back an extensively sourced expansion of the lede tracing McCarrick's history as archbishop and cardinal. He objected to the fact that I characterized McCarrick as a "progressive". That characterization was sourced from The New York Times in an article written yesterday, and Bloomberg in an article written years ago. Binksternet clearly did not read the edits before edit warring to roll back my edits.

Binksternet is WP:HOUNDING me across six different articles I've recently edited ([77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]) in the last 24 hours, making wholesale reverts of sourced content he has not read and citing "political activist" in the edit summaries and abusing Twinkle by engaging in edit warring. Binksternet has a history of engaging in this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and it is one reason why his 2013 request for adminship was denied. I've clashed with Binksternet in the past but have no interest in doing so now. I admit I've made some mistakes on Wikipedia for sure and I've faced sanctions for them in the past. Binksternet is trying to drudge up old controversies that happened years ago in order to get me topic banned because of some sort of vendetta. All I want to do is contribute to the encyclopedia without being hounded. I am requesting that Binksternet be told to stop hounding my edits and instead discuss them constructively. If he does not, I request an interaction ban. Instaurare (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This request for an interaction ban should boomerang on Instaurare, who is a political activist holding goals not in alignment with Wikipedia. He carries and continually implements a non-neutral long-term agenda of promoting American conservative ideas and people while putting down American liberal ideas and people. He should be topic-banned from all American politics starting from the 1970s when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Background: Instaurare caused a big problem nine years ago when he was caught socking extensively, especially with the accounts NYyankees51 and BS24. (See the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive.) The only reason the socking was a problem was that Instaurare was continuing his politically slanted editing. I can compile an extensive list of edits showing the non-neutral slant of Instaurare/NYyankees51/BS24 but in the interest of brevity I will simply ping some active admins who have dealt with this guy: Mojoworker, HJ Mitchell, Jpgordon, JamesBWatson, Carrite, NuclearWarfare, EdJohnston, SarekOfVulcan, Black Kite, and Nakon (who just retired). In January 2012, NYyankees51 was banned from abortion topics for three months.[83] Later the same year, NYyankees51 was topic-banned from all LGBT-related articles. At that discussion, Carrite said, "NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet."

In April 2011, I wrote up a report about how Instaurare held a conflict of interest with regard to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List, but only he and I took part in the discussion. The point was that he had edited from an IP address registered to the activist organization, and that he continually removed negative text and added positive text. Yesterday, Instaurare resumed the same behavior, adding positive text and deleting well-cited negative text. That last bit is why we are here today. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How is adding factual references from the New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post "adding positive text"? How is a reduction of weight in a lede where a topic is given 25% of the lede but constitutes a fraction of the article body? Binksternet does not adhere to WP:AGF.

Again, Binksternet is trying to rehash stuff that happened 7-8 years ago. If Binksternet wants to play that game, I can point to his own extensive block log for edit warring on various political and abortion articles, and the previously linked failed request for adminship. I was sanctioned years ago for the dumb stuff I did. I regained the trust of the community to be able to edit again. Binksternet is acting as if any edit to a political article is unacceptable, regardless of how neutral and well-sourced it is, because of stuff I paid the price for nearly a decade ago. I've changed my behavior and I'm ready to move forward without being hounded. Instaurare (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

But Instaurare, has your editing style really changed since then? Have you completely re-earned the trust of the community just by disappearing for a couple of years, after all your early disruptive time here? You still seem to be the poster child for WP:CPUSH, and your POV still shows in many of your edits, despite numerous attempts by many different editors over the years to offer advice to you to try and bring about a change in your behavior, you never seem to take it to heart – all we ever get are apologies, your disappearance for a while, then your return to editing in the same manner without any resultant changes. Have you forgotten your promises? I'll note you were indeffed, considered for a site ban, and ultimately topic banned four days after I offered that advice. I'll quote some more advice from long ago when I warned you for electioneering on the Terry McAuliffe article: Instaurare, I would advise you to reread the advice that HJ Mitchell gave you when he removed his restrictions on your editing: "...if you start making edits that don't abide by both the letter and the spirit of policy (and relevant guidelines, ArbCom rulings, etc), I suspect it won't be long before you're in an even worse position than you were with the restrictions." I'll reassert the admonition from WP:CPUSH: "Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing." That has been your main problem all along – and your sanctions only the most obvious results of it. This editor has narrowly avoided additional sanctions several times in the past. Perhaps it's time for a larger boomerang, maybe restriction from articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 broadly construed. Nothing else seems to get through to this guy. Mojoworker (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker, can you point to specific examples of advocacy? I'm not citing Breitbart with my edits. I strive to only made edits that are extensively sourced from reliable sources. I often put multiple references behind a sentence. Instaurare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Here you are citing Glenn Beck's The Blaze and an anti-abortion group known for deceptively edited Planned Parenthood videos to suggest that Planned Parenthood doctors boasted about killing newborns.[84] Here you created a long list of Catholic figures condemning Andrew Cuomo and going into great detail on their thoughts on whether he ought to be excommunicated or whether he's just bad Catholic for being in favor of abortion rights.[85] I've seen numerous problematic edits by you, in particular on abortion-related topics, but these are only ones I can recall right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think The Blaze was not a reliable source in that instance, that can be discussed. If you think the New York Times, AOL, New York Daily News, Fox News, Syracuse.com, Associated Press, etc are not reliable sources for the Cuomo article then make your case. Does WP:BRD not apply anymore, and we're just accusing anyone who adds extensively sourced content to pages of politicians of acting with an agenda? Instaurare (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You were boasting about not adding Breitbart-level sources, yet in that instance you were adding Glenn Beck's The Blaze (which is absolute garbage) and a video by an organization known for publishing deceptively edited videos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody would bat an eye if I cited left-wing equivalents (BuzzFeed, Huffington Post) as long as it advanced a pro-liberal viewpoint. But one citation of The Blaze warrants a topic ban? And Live Action's videos were determined by a federal appeals court to have not been deceptively edited. But they make you uncomfortable and go against your POV. Instaurare (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Instaurare, what I'm saying is basically what HJ Mitchell advised you when he "stuck his neck out" and unblocked you: "Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles." You made a lot of promises to him that you never followed through with, and seemed, to me, to have taken advantage of his AGF in you. I'll reiterate what I advised you: "If you can't make an edit without your strongly held beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article – at least not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. That's a whole lot different than pushing every guideline and policy to the limit, which, ultimately, is only going to get you into more trouble." But apparently you can't restrain yourself, so perhaps it's finally time for the community to do so. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mojo, you and I both know that if we were really applying the "nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits" rule, we would probably take out 80% of editors involved with US politics articles, including Binksternet. (How about this hugely problematic edit where he added the words "engaged in extramarital sex with a female lobbyist" to a BLP and cited two sources that say no such thing?) I do my best to contstrain myself by making edits that are extensively sourced with a variety of reliable sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, New York Daily News, Associated Press, and all sorts of regional newspapers and TV stations. You're acting as if I'm citing Breitbart or not citing anything at all. Instaurare (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Without bias towards the discussion below, both Instaurare and Binksternet should be blocked for the ongoing edit war on the SBAL article. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will stop reverting Instaurare. I saw it as reverting non-neutral edits from an editor with a proven conflict of interest, but I'll stop simply reverting him and discuss the changes. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the classic Binksternet head fake: Edit war until someone threatens you with sanctions, then remorsefully propose 0RR for yourself to get out of the penalty, and resume the behavior when nobody is looking. Instaurare (talk) 07:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-term political activist edits by Instaurare

Instaurare has been engaging in non-neutral editing for many years on the topic of abortion, demonstrating a conflict of interest and a persistent inability to view the topic objectively. He defends the Susan B. Anthony List by deleting facts and wording that make the political action committee look bad, and emphasizing positive aspects. His removal yesterday was just one more example in a long string going back ten years, for instance this similar removal from March 2011. Instaurare's first SBA List edit I know about is this misrepresentation and promotion from April 2009, following which the views of SBA List were given a voice here and here in October 2009. This example is relevant to the recent conflict – Instaurare again misrrepresents Susan B. Anthony's legacy by spouting the SBA List fabricated story about how Anthony held "anti-abortion views" and advocated against abortion (she did no such thing, ever.) It's this false co-opting of Anthony's legacy as a fighter for women's right to vote that drives me to correct the problems caused by Instaurare and fellow travelers. This removal wasn't neutral, and this addition was a promotional misrepresentation of the source. This promotional addition inserts an unnecessary pro-religion quote: "God knows what he's doing." This edit changed an appropriate qualifier to a blatant falsehood about Susan B. Anthony, who never signed a document with the letter "A". In July 2010, a sock of Instaurare edit-warred with me to retain the false depiction of Anthony.[86][87][88][89] The ideological battle grew beyond any one article, so Instaurare sock BS24 (rightly) started the article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute, giving more credence to the recent false/political views than to scholarly conclusions. I greatly reworked the article over time, to better represent the conclusions of the world's most respected authority on Susan B. Anthony, which is Rutgers historian Ann D. Gordon, a biography I started. Instaurare persistently fought against my changes, removing an establishing description of Gordon, for instance, to try to bring doubt to her scholarship. Instaurare persistently tried to reduce the level of scholarly opposition to the SBA List claims about Anthony.

Instaurare should be topic banned from modern American politics. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Notice how Binksternet is citing edits from eight years ago that he is apparently still holding a grudge over. How can an editor be topic banned over edits made that long ago, with thousands of intervening edits? This is little more than an example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR .Instaurare (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Instaurare, you are the editor who brought up Binksternet's unsuccessful 2013 RFA as part of your "evidence" against him, so it is a bit bizarre that you object to your whole editing history being scrutinized. I just took a look at your editing history in the last month and saw lots of problematic editing, including what appeared to be edit warring at Ralph Northam and a really bad edit at Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion when you went into excruciating detail about a current abortion related controversy involving Andrew Cuomo, completely out of proportion to the rest of the article. This is recentism and undue weight, and is indicative of your long term POV pushing regarding abortion. It is completely legitimate to look at past behavior when that same type of behavior has resumed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, as I stated, I haven't any interest in re-litigating the past but if my credibility is being attacked over edits made nearly a decade ago it seems reasonable to examine the credibility of the attacker. What are you referring to at Ralph Northam, I don't think I even made a revert there. If you think what I wrote at Andrew Cuomo was a poor edit, then discuss the content of the edit. I don't understand this idea being pushed that any debatable edit at an article is now a critical violation of policy worthy of a topic ban. Bold, revert, discuss has become revert, attack, ban. Instaurare (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I did discuss the content of that particular edit, and I think that any uninvolved editor will see it as overt anti-Cuomo POV pushing, motivated by your obvious anti-abortion POV. I am sure that you will disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • How is citing extensive sources on a notable topic widely covered by a spectrum of media somehow POV-pushing? You know that this topic ban is a concentrated effort to snuff out any material that portrays a liberal/Democratic political in a negative light. And that includes snuffing out the editors responsible. WP:NPOV never existed but at least it had a chance. Now it's been replaced by orthodoxy. Go against the hivemind, even if you cite left-leaning sources, you will be run off the site. Instaurare (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Cullen328's list: topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and all of American politics, broadly construed. This is a long-term pattern that is continuing. I supported Instaurare by opposing his community ban, and really hoped he would change his ways, but I've finally lost patience with him. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that I have not changed my ways? Have you actually looked at the edits I've made? Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from Susan B. Anthony, abortion and American politics per diffs and WP:RGW. Miniapolis 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans at Susan B. Anthony, all politics and pregnancy and sexual health-related topics. As per Cullen328. He usually knows what he's talking about and I've yet to see him wrong. - wolf 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen to stop the time sink. Leviv ich 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - topic bans per Cullen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Note the mindless !supports from people who apparently have not examined the evidence but are simply going with Cullen. Topic bans are supposed to be for disruptive editing, yet nobody here has laid out a case that I actually engage in disruptive editing and not productive editing. Instaurare (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Three weeks ago, you added text to excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion, deploying Wikipedia's voice to describe Andrew Cuomo's stance in favor of a common medical procedure as "unabashed support of abortion." You don't seem to have explained how supporting people's right to make personal medical choices can come with a word as inflammatory as "unabashed," nor why you conflated "abortion rights," which Cuomo supports, and "abortion," a distinct concept. (The sentence is cited to this New York Times article, where the word "unabashed" never appears and, because there's no such thing as "support of abortion," Cuomo is never described as a holder of that stance.)

And before you try to reach across the internet and psychically figure out how I found that edit, it wasn't because of Cullen. The above is one example of an astounding number over just over the past decade. Your edit history, including almost every time you've inserted a substantial amount of text to a political article, proves that almost anything you add to this subject area is probably going to contain something that, because of people like you, has stopped being a paradox: bog-standard extremism. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:92A:8965:B5B8:6395 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And just who might this be? Why aren't you logged in to an account? Instaurare (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Vote according to the party lines Binksternet himself is a political activist whose RfA indeed failed because of exactly that. He has also nominated the whole WikiProject Conservatism for deletion in 2011. So this is kettle calling pot black. But conservatives are less numerous, and especially anti-abortion stances are unpopular, so the opinion of the villagers is clear. Instaurare, sorry buddy, but you're out. --Pudeo (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is someone who's willing to admit the truth of what's actually going on. Can't begrudge you for that. Instaurare (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say that both of you have a pretty tenuous understanding of what "the truth" is, which happens to be exactly what it appears to be on the surface: Instaurare screwed up, and he's being sanctioned for it. BTW, don't feel too warm about Pudeo's support, he would have said the same thing about any editor he perceived as an ideological soulmate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to always be angry at someone. Instaurare (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support I have the feeling this could have been handled better, and I don't think it has anything to do with specific political leanings – the recent diffs that have been posted by Instaurare do not conform with neutral point of view and I have no problem with them being rolled back or a topic ban given the prior history. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It has everything to do with specific political leanings, and everyone here knows it. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). Instaurare's edits are problematic, they have been going on for a long time, and they continue. I am also troubled by Instaurare's behavior in this discussion, such as calling it "mindless" not to take his side, and accusing anyone not in favour of the proposed topic ban not have looked at the evidence. That kind of behaviour shows Instaurare thinks the problem is only with the "others", and thus indicate that the same behaviour would continue if no topic ban was handed out. Jeppiz (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not call it mindless to not take my side. I called it mindless to add a "support per Cullen" !vote without explaining reasoning. The problem is with the complete disregard for policy in this orchestrated effort. Instaurare (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • My reasoning was to stop the time sink, as in, to stop you from taking up the time of a bunch of other editors, as you are doing in this thread, and as you did with your recent edit warring at SBAL while this thread has been pending. It's obvious to me, at least, that you cannot edit in that area without being a time sink (unproductively taking up a bunch of other editors' time through edit warring and arguing). I'm not biased against pro-lifers or pro-choicers, I'm biased against tendencious editors. Leviv ich 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic bans as proposed, and as modified by Cullen328. I'm familiar with Instaurare's previous editing history, and repeated topic ban violations. [90][91][92]. All that has changed is the controversial topic(s) upon which Instaurare has inflicted his long-term POV pushing and poor editing conduct.- MrX 🖋 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per Cullen. And referring to myself and others who have expressed the same reason as myself as "mindless" is a violation of WP:NPA. It's a complete logic fail to say one's opinion is is "mindless" just because it is shared with another who happened to express it first. You need to strike that. FWIW, Instaurare, I too oppose abortion. You cannot tell that from any edit (save this one) I've ever made here. Why? Because I do not edit on politics. Outside of religious music, I do not edit on religion. Think about that in light of HJ Mitchell's advice quoted above. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Let's call this what it is: The culmination of an yearslong politically motivated crusade by Binksternet and many others to purge editors identified as conservative from Wikipedia. Back in the early 2010s, conservative editors were definitely a minority but could hold their ground and were allowed to make their case. The liberal editors actually had to try to build a consensus. Both sides could hash it out. There was some semblance of fairness. But most of those people providing balance are gone now -- run off the site, or just worn out from it all and gone without a trace.

Every editor in political articles has some sort of agenda. If you aren't willing to admit that you're lying to yourself. What used to make it work was the editors on all sides who were willing to put the time in to back up their edits and work through the battles that while bitter, eventually resolved themselves somehow. I've always known I've been under the microscope with Binksternet and others watching my every move and stalking my talk page. I've always striven to make my edits extensively sourced, using left-leaning outlets as much as possible. But that does not matter.

The crime I am really being charged with is, according to Binksternet, "making progressives and liberals look as bad as possible, while making conservatives and reactionaries look as good as possible." How about this direct quote from Binksternet: “I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative." -- Binksternet, 2014. The only difference between Binksternet and me is that he is a liberal and I am not. He is allowed to take that approach to articles but I am not. He will go on, probably become an admin someday, and I will go down in flames. He can commit every policy violation in the book but none will bat an eye. WP:AGF is dead for any editor blacklisted as conservative.

WP:NPOV used to be a lofty goal achievable only by hashing it out, now it's dead and buried, replaced by orthodoxy. As has been documented, 77% of Wikipedia is written by 1% of editors. Most Wikipedia editors are male. Most Wikipedia editors are white. And Wikipedia is biased.

If you want to continue building a Wikipedia that is white, male, liberal, and insular, with no diversity of viewpoints, then go right ahead with the topic ban. That's what many of you really want. You can go on and on about "muh battleground" mentality and what an awful, terrible, biased, pathetic editor I am. But it's clear that Wikipedia is an orthodox oligarchy. Dare to rock the boat, you will be punished. Instaurare (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support the topic ban as defined by Cullen, not least because of the astonishing rant just above which strengthens pretty much every point made by the topic ban supporters. ("Martyr"? Not so much.) --bonadea contributions talk 07:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. Instaurare (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Levalbert

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

Some very strange edits by user:Levalbert. Uploaded an image of male genitalia as own work and then added the picture to numerous articles (Human penis size, Human penis, Male reproductive system, Sex organ , .Foreskin, Glans penis, Body hair, Pubic hair) Arguably good faith, but all additions removed as not needed, not an improvement, or simply bad illustrations (an end-on picture is not very useful in most articles). After warning from me and comment by user:Ianmacm Levalbert redirected talk page to Wikipedia:Levalbert , blanked the page, and then redirected this to Wikipedia:DêsaasABC. Blanking warnings is allowed, but hiding them by moving them to a soon to be deleted page is not appropriate. I can't undo the moves so this will need admin (or at least someone with page mover permission) to unravel. Meters (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levalbert has been rather naughty here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI they have been blanked again. Please speedy delete them. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I did a history merge to combine the old talk page and new talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's perfect. The history is back. Meters (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument for including the image at Pubic hair, but it's a substandard example for the rest of those articles. Leviv ich 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out that taking a picture of your member and posting all around the site is not the thing we are discussing... because it technically isn't a violation the way he did it. Gosh, Wikipedia is so freaking weird sometimes.. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

...that anyone can edit... Leviv ich 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

When we say anyone can be a member here, this isn’t what we mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

New articles by Shevonsilva

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

There is a long thread at WT:NPPR about this, but the short of it is that Shevonsilva has been mass-creating geography stubs with a variety of problems. Despite multiple people trying to coach them and encourage them to slow down, they are continuing to create pages en masse. I feel some community sanction limiting their speed of creating new pages is necessary as they seem otherwise incapable of adapting their editing patterns to feedback, and they appear to intend to create hundreds more pages which may have similar issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)+

It is done. I have stopped the creation of new articles. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For the background, see this thread: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Stubs created by Shevonsilva. Shevonsilva's main activity here is to create one-line stubs on obscure administrative divisions of various countries. I know that some people do not like such new creations, but I actually find them useful, since these articles are then easier to incrementally expand than to start from scratch. They are sourced, but, as Shevonsilva is not autopatrolled, they go to the new page patrol queue, and this is how I became aware of them. The problem is that often these articles contain critical errors. I started the referenced NPPR thread with a number of examples (note that the diffs are not to Shevonshilva's edits but to the corrections): an article on an abolished department of Colombia, Fiji subdivision with a template of the Argentine province (a batch of five subdivisions all had this template), the name of the article does not match the content, a duplication of an existing article. These are just a set of examples, more examples are found in the same thread and at User talk:Shevonsilva. The reaction of Shevonsilva was to accept and to promise to correct the errors. (Sometimes they reacted defensively, for example the same NPPR thread contains a suggestion to me to stop patrolling their articles), but constructive reaction is more typical. The problem is that nothing changes. They typically come up with a reason why they screwed up (for example, caching issues when an Argentine template was added to Fiji articles), and they correct the issues, but next day something else happens, and new articles with (different) critical errors go to the main space, adding extra work to new page patrollers. Just today a couple of their articles were moved (not by me) to the draft space, because the sources did not confirm the information in the article, and there was no way to know whether the administrative divisions actually existed. They were repeatedly told to slow down and to change their workflow in such a way as to ensure that the articles do not contain critical errors, and they were responsive, but it just is not happening. Apparently, the issues were discussed at ANI before in 2014, and the user was already blocked for the same behavior by Anna Frodesiak prior to 2014. Whereas I have no doubts they have good intentions and act in goor faith, the competence issues are recurrent and are too serious so that we need to do something. May be a topic ban on article creation in the main space could help, may be we need escalating blocks, I am not sure, but we can not leave the situation like this. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I am very bad person by going to help wikipedia, and by doing so it will help to third party software tools like Grammerly by serving as a data repository, for example, to provide accessibility features too (Note: data mining is done by topics not the article content), and, these third party tools can also find a different repository too. It may be needed to understand that filling this large gap needs a heavy work which was alonely completed by me (effectively upto countries starting from letter A to M (partially inclusively) and almost African countries, and, I also appreciate the support given by reviewers. I had to create plethora of articles in order to complete this gap and some technical errors were unvoidable due to the larger number of articles. There are a few pending articles remaining and I am not bothered about those. Anyway, in the end, I really feel bad after giving much effort to complete this knowledge gap by thinking I was doing to good service to the world.Shevonsilva (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Shevonsilva, this issue has been brought to ANI not so that you will feel like a bad person but that you will listen to your fellow editors and see where there are problems with your article creations. Do you understand Ymblanter's points about problems with your article stubs? Because it's not just a matter of you saying you're sorry, you have to understand what the problems are so they won't happen in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. To be honest, the issue is there are many articles missing, there may be a chance of 1-10% error may happen due to human error (I may not notice due to consistent pattern) or machine error (unmodified versions are poping up or cursor in the wiki editor is moving without my consent) [That is another reason I did not request auto-patrol permission as I needed other reviewers eyes too to complete these missing articles.] I have already changed the flow of creating articles that I will double check the references with spelling variances with different versions of publications of place names (that may be the reason due to which they are not touched before). I can try my best to gurentee minimisation of errors in this missing articles if I am going to finish the rest. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - this has nothing to do with being a bad person or a good person, simply about paying attention to what one is doing. Having created numerous geographical stub articles, I believe in their importance to the WP project, but I also understand the necessity of accuracy. There are other editors who have made "human error" mistakes, and when they are pointed out, work diligently to avoid making the same mistakes again. That cannot be said of Shevonsilva. They continue to make the same errors over and over again: creation of pages (using dab) which already exist, faulty referencing, spelling errors in article titles, etc. It would be one thing if, after having been informed of the corrections needed this editor then showed a propensity to abiding by the correct procedure. However, this editor instead seems to show the need to simply plow through creating inaccurate stubs regardless of accuracy. They seem to pull references from other articles, without verifying the validity of those sources, or whether or not those sources exist or not. And while they are polite and civil in their interactions, the issues persist.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Ongoing problem. Shevonsilva started by creating dozens of articles on obscure units of measurement. Each was copied from a very dubious book (Imaginatorium did a source analysis here). Shevonsilva deletes talk page comments so it is not easy to link to the many discussions on their talk about the problems. My sandbox shows most of the original articles with working from five editors in the sandbox and its talk. Other editors had to do a lot of work to remove misleading information from stub articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks. I already understood the complications. As I mentioned before I already changed the flow of creations to assure minimum or very low errors. Anyway, I have stoped contributions for the moment as I got a surgery in my right hand and it is very hard to involve in contributions with a single hand. I will try to avoid future errors. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor WP:NOTHERE?

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

---

This editor [93] User:BreakingZews strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a Pro-Trump Russian troll to edit. First focused on denial of Trump's family separation policy and now has turned their attention to whitewashing Konstantin Kilimnik. Displays knowledge of policy (BLP, deletion) far beyond what an account with so few edits usually has. Additional eyes requested. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

These days everyone has a bias. Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics generally have a strong left wing bias and very strong anti-Trump bias. I am highly informed on U.S. politics and everything that has to do with Trump, his administration and his policies. But I am not here to sabotage or to have an political influence, but to correct factually incorrect statements, and to be a tiny part of creating a better political balance on Wikipedia. The overwhelming left wing bias on many articles, often with strong misinformation, can only benefit from having an input from someone like myself who's first concern is to get those articles closer to the truth. Trump has never had any "family separation policy", his "Zero Tolerance Policy" had nothing to do with separating families on the border, on the contrary the only cause of those separations was the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement(which was a part reversal of a 2015 ruling). Unfortunately because it is a complex issue, the details quickly get lost in news articles fueled by partisan hate against the President. Regarding Kilimnik, he is a living person and unproven allegations should not be listed in wikipedia as facts. Yes, he was indicted for involvement in Manafort's financial and lobbying "crimes", but NOT for any involvement in "Russian interference" in the 2016 election. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soap box for Russian collusion conspiracies. I have had another Wikipedia account which I used for completely different subjects(Music and entertainment) and have learned some of the basics, but I am not very active here and feel like I lack a lot more knowledge on how to best manoeuvre Wikipedia editing, so I'll take your comment about my "knowledge of policy" as a compliment. BreakingZews (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from post 1932 American Politics broadly construed. This editor is clearly here with a WP:RGW agenda that is inconsistent with our policies and guidelines and I do not believe is self correctable based on their above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a plan. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Being neutral on President Trump is close to impossible, nobody with any interest in U.S. politics could be "neutral" on the President. I am slightly to the right but pretty balanced. For example I am against all gun ownership. I am against religion. I am for tax-payer funded healthcare and education. Does that make me an "pro-Trump Russian troll"? BreakingZews (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite TBan from AP2 broadly construed. Clearly here to push a POV. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not here to "push a POV", I am here to help make Wikipedia more balanced. BreakingZews (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support--esp. given their remark here, "The overwhelming left wing bias on many articles, often with strong misinformation...", which is just a fancy way of saying "fake news, folks". Drmies (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Trump has never had any "family separation policy", his "Zero Tolerance Policy" had nothing to do with separating families on the border": factually inaccurate, evident of the editor's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely and completely wrong there. I have read just about everything that I could get my hands on, on that issue. Read the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy yourself and you will see that it does not contain a word about separating families. Read the 2014 and 2016 revisions of the Flores Settlement and you will see that the 2016 revision is what forced the Trump administration to separate children from their families on the border. BreakingZews (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter that I am actually providing correct information? But yes, I get it, you guys don't like Trump and are on the left, and do absolutely not want a balanced Wikipedia. You want to throw anyone who does not share YOUR POV out... no matter how well informed and correct their editing is. BreakingZews (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are providing false information. And your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump administration family separation policy was WP:POINTY. And I'm not replying to you again. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No I am providing perfectly correct information, that you do not like, because it does not fit with your own political agenda. The rubbish Esquire article does not take THE LAW or the Flores Settlement into account. The Trump administrations policy was to FOLLOW THE LAW. Not to separate children from the parents. BreakingZews (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think this comment is your nail.--Jorm (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BreakingZews: The Washington Post leans left but is factually reliable, they have an article about how John Kelly proposed intentionally separating children from their parents at the boarder[94]. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post is extremely biased against the President, they even changed their motto to "Democracy dies in Darkness" when he won the election. They may be reliable on most other subjects but their reporting on the President is extremely biased and not reliable. But, if you look at what Kelly said in the article, "But the laws are the laws", that is what I have been saying... the Trump administration has had an policy of FOLLOWING THE LAW, and the 2016 revision of the Flores settlement made clear that while children should be released from detention as quickly as possible, the parents were not given "any affirmative right of release". Meaning the parents were prosecuted according the LAW, and the children had to be released. BreakingZews (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@BreakingZews: Why are you ignoring the fact that Kelly specifically suggested separating families as a detterent: [Wolf] Blitzer pressed him [John Kelly] on the point: Is the Department of Homeland Security going to separate children from their parents?

“Yes, I am considering, in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network, I am considering exactly that,” Kelly said. “They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.". Tornado chaser (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinate topic ban from AP2, of the broadly construed flavor. This is pretty clear.--Jorm (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban per BreakingZews' POV, which they have made no effort to hide. WP:RGW indeed. Miniapolis 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. Everyone has a bias. And yes, in this particular discussion I have been honest and made no attempt to hide my biases. But my editing of Wikipedia is primarily about correcting factually incorrect information, and perhaps trying to eliminate some of the stronger left wing bias that can be found in many articles regarding U.S. politics on Wikipedia. I guess it doesn't matter that I have been doing a good job at improving Wikipedia, that I am extremely well informed on U.S. politics, only thing that seems to matter here is that I am admittedly slightly right wing in a sea of left wing editors. There is an extremely polarized atmosphere in U.S. politics these days, nobody is neutral or balanced. And since I am not one of the editors that hate the President then it is no surprise that some of you want to stop me. Again, I am against gun ownership, I am for tax-payer funded health care and education, I am against religion, so in many ways quite far to the left, I am not some far-right extremist, but because I am not a Trump hater, because I do not have a left wing bias, then suddenly I am a "Pro-Trump Russian troll". Nothing wrong with my edits, they are factual and correct. BreakingZews (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes we all have bias but you can't tell what a good editor believes from how they edit. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you easily can. Most U.S. politics related articles suffer from this problem, that there is overwhelmingly left wing editors. But I guess it is just when those edits don't match up with your own bias that it becomes a problem. BreakingZews (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

BreakingZews, there is a lot of disagreement among Wikipedia editors, enough to keep dispute resolution, a dozen noticeboards, article talk pages and arbitration boards busy as editors try to resolve many editing disputes. BUT, we are all colleagues, despite disagreements, working to improve this project. I think you probably have good intentions but you can't start your discussions with your colleagues with accusations of left-wing bias and claims of propaganda. If you start from a position of hostility and negativity, you will be met with a backlash from editors who've devoted a great deal of their time to improving this enormous project.

I have no doubt that our political articles could be improved (as almost all articles on WP could be improved) but could you adopt a position of working with other editors instead of being adversarial? You won't agree with everyone but you have to be able to work with others in this collaborative project. Because if you can't accept that you might not always be right and that it is better to work with others rather than condemning them, your time editing on Wikipedia is likely to be short. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Look at how this whole discussion and attempt to get me booted here started, with LegacyPac calling me a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... isn't that "adversarial", isn't that a clear sign of political bias in itself? I of course understood after the first couple of "Support" here that I would be booted, so that's not even a consideration from my behalf anymore. And I have always been willing to compromise and if proven wrong I always try to learn and change my position. But I experience this as an VERY unfair attack on myself, and absolutely not deserved considering my (relative few and modest) contributions as editor on Wikipedia. BreakingZews (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please reread what I actually said. I did not call you a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll" Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, just that my editing is like that of a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... big difference? BreakingZews (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support When my conservative friend Ad Orientem supports a topic ban, I must sit up and listen. I do not believe that this person is an actual Russian troll, but rather that they have (sadly) decided to act in the interest of Russian trolls and White House trolls and their divisive disinformation operations. To deny the existence of family separation, which is not some abstract "policy" but an absolute fact which has shattered thousands of families, as verified by countless reliable sources, is particularly reprehensible. This encyclopedia must reflect what actual reliable sources say about controversial topics, not parrot anybody's disinformation operations, whether those campaigns originate in the White House, the Kremlin, or elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cullen328, I didn't know Ad Orientem was a a conservative. BreakingZews, I'm not sure if you get my point. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Eh. My politics were conservative in 1688 or 1774 on this side of the pond. Most people would label me a reactionary. But I self identify as a classical conservative. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

...discussion on things...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just following orders. EEng Of course the family separations are a fact. But that there was an "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy", as is the title of the wikipedia page, is completely false. They had a Zero Tolerance Policy which simply ment that all illegal attempts at crossing border would be prosecuted according to the law, no exceptions. But the ONLY reason children were separated from their families was because of the 2016 revision of the Flores law, which demanded that accompanied children be quickly released from detention while the same did not apply for their parents. This was misrepresented in all the mainstream media, who largely ignored that these separations were demanded by the law, and instead put the blame on an non-existing Trump "Family Separation Policy", which now has it's own wikipedia page(Which is absurd). When Trump signed the executive order that stopped the family separations he did not change ANY of his own policies, only thing he changed was that he ordered the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings". So the only thing that was changed was the Flores Settlement and that stopped the separations of families. These are the facts, but much of the U.S. media has become so polarized that they don't stick to the facts, they omit vital information when it fits their agenda. Luckily all the relevant information in this case is available directly from the sources, the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy is available, the Flores settlement from the original 1997 version to the latest 2015 and 2016 revisions are available on the net, the Executive Order is available, so just reading those documents without relying on the media at all is enough to get the facts in this case. Unfortunately it seems most of the editors of the "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy" page have not read those documents, or are ignoring them for political reasons. BreakingZews (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Your repeated insistence that the law requires that refugee families be wrenched apart and destroyed, and large numbers of children dispersed to who knows where without any tracking or opportunities for reunification with their parents is rock solid evidence that you are unfit to edit this encyclopedia. Repeating the spurious Whire House talking points over and over and over again does not help your case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC) And what exactly is that based on? And no, I said nothing about tracking or how the families have been dispersed. The only reason for the family separations was the Flores law, that is a fact. Without the Flores law there would have been no reason to separate families. The Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with that specifically, it only clarified that all who broke the law and entered or attempted to enter the country illegally should be prosecuted according to the law. I am not repeating White House talking points, but explaining what I have understood about this issue after studying it very thoroughly. The Trump administration simply had a policy of following the LAWS, both regarding illegal border crossings and regarding the detaining of children and their parents as described in the Flores settlement. And you can easily find the evidence yourself by reading the documents I already mentioned. BreakingZews (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) There is no such thing as the "Flores law" as Congress passed no such law and you seem instead to be referring to the legally binding settlement of a lawsuit filed by Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15 year old refugee from the civil war in El Salvador who was arrested, handcuffed and strip searched when she tried to seek asylum during the Reagan administration in 1985. According to CNN, that settlement "requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to their parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs." To twist that settlement into justification for shattering thousands of families is a grotesque distortion of reality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) The Flores Settlement is often referred to as the "Flores Law" and as you said is considered legally binding. But what you seem to ignore is that while the 2015 revision of the settlement called for the release of both the accompanied child and the mother/parents of the child, the 2016 revision partly reversed that so that only the child should be released, not the mother/parents. That 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement was the only reason for the family separations. From the Wikipedia article on Reno v. Flores: "In 2016, in Flores v. Lynch, Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, joined by Judges Michael J. Melloy and Ronald M. Gould, reversed in part, finding that the Agreement applied to all detained children but that it did not give their parents any affirmative right of release" BreakingZews (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Wikilawyering here to try to support an obviously catastrophic and failed policy, as reported by countless reliable sources, is counterproductive for your future as an editor here. I recommend that you stop, but keep trying if you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I have never supported the separation of children from their families. I am simply pointing out the FACTS, which have been completely ignored in that article... even the title of the article is a lie in itself. There never was any "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy", that is simply a lie. That article is an example of Wikipedia being used for political propaganda purposes. BreakingZews (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support to stop the battleground timesink. Wagging my finger, though, at calling any editor a Russian troll in an ANI report or any other circumstance. While it might be convenient shorthand, it lowers us into the trollish muck, and encourages other editors to make those kinds of attacks in their ANI reports, and then the next you know everyone is calling everyone names and it doesn't stop no matter how many haikus you write. Leviv ich 03:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Except I did not call them a Russian troll. Anyway this editor is moving into block worthy territory per WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Saying "strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a fucking asshole to edit" is the same thing as calling someone a fucking asshole but with more words. Anyway I agree and point out that there's unanimous support here and the problematic behavior continues. Leviv ich 06:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary to call out their nationality, what would our Russian editors think of that? It would certainly be offensive to them. Wikipedia is not a platform to make political remarks. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, if there was a misunderstanding, I am not Russian. BreakingZews (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - per this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I think Trump is an asshole, therefore I don't touch his articles as I consider myself to be too biased. If you can't do this off your own bat, the community will need to do it for you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So you think Trump is an asshole, but you don't think your bias plays in when you vote "support" for banning me here? BreakingZews (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: I'm sure you know that this page is not exempt from WP:BLPTALK or WP:NPA, please tweak that comment. Fish+Karate 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Being an opinion, his comment has fuck-all to do with BLP, so unless you're suggesting Donald Trump is editing here, your finger-wagging is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh come off it. If I said "I think X is a great big meddling know-it-all cunt", that wouldn't be a personal attack because I prefaced it with "I think"? And whether or not someone edits here is irrelevant to whether or not personal attacks are acceptable. Fish+Karate 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with you that I think doesn't excuse any and all BLP vios. But saying someone you think is an asshole is a minor BLP violation. Being an "asshole" is not really a clear accusation of some wrong doing or malfeasance, just that you don't like them. I don't think we should tolerate it when it serves limited purpose, especially when it keeps getting repeated. But this case it seems to serve sufficient purpose IMO we should just allow it. Personal attacks aren't the same thing, since they are directed at people were are intended to collaborate with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support only Trump family separation article ban, oppose indef or politics ban, and weak support trouting nom. The editor was indeed POV-pushing when they were exclusively using political talking points instead of making other arguments based on WP:CRITERIA. Just because I agree with the editor on the subject matter's political substance (which is actually supported by some good reliable sources that the editor did not cite) won't make me defend this kind of editing. There are many POV pushers on the archives of that talk page from both sides (and none were punished interestingly, except for socking) and I've watchlisted user talk pages of some of those that seemed SPA-ish to me. With regards to Konstantin Kilimnik, it is inappropriate for OP to completely revert an edit purely because it contains a grammatical error, if the edit had changed the meaning of the text. BreakingZews was accurately summarizing the article, and if anyone was POV-pushing/edit-warring/OWN-pushing it was Legacypac though this is not nearly enough for a serious boomerang ban. Last but not least, if there is evidence of socking, it belongs to WP:SPI, otherwise WP:ROPE never hurt especially when we have a net-positive editor. wumbolo ^^^ 10:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Wumbolo, we're not talking about a "net-positive editor". About half of this users' edits have been on this AN/I thread. The other half have been trying to delete an article on a clearly notable subject, and some POV-pushing edits on democratic socialism, MS-13, and Konstantin Kilimnik. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  Recognizing that my voice will be lost in the foregone conclusion here, I agree with Wumbolo. On display in this thread is the sort of tribalism that makes AN/I reek. If only AN/I would seriously deal with left-leaning POV pushers the same way they deal with those they perceive to be pushing to the right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  In agreement with Sandy and Wumbolo. Maybe the family separate policy thing was a bit of a push (though on a first blush through the AFD and move discussion the point about not being a neutral title has high relevance) but the other edits, while possibly seen as pro-right, doesn't look like the typical sock-puppet or similar right-wing pusher. Disappointed that editors above want to bury their heads in sand to eliminate a seeming constructive voice from discussion rather than try to work at compromise. --Masem (t) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you guys(Wumbolo, SandyGeorgia, Masem) for daring to speak up against the consensus. I am very disappointed in the treatment I am getting here, I am pretty new to editing politics related issues on Wikipedia, and obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia customs and regulations, but instead of starting a vote to block me from commenting, Legacypac could at least have just sent me a message and discussed this with me first. BreakingZews (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What you are seeing here is a *fairly recent* trend (that from someone who has been editing more than a decade) on ANI, that was started when the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard gained power as a central point for using topic bans as a way to promote or prevent points of view that differed from those who frequented that board. Any sort of discretion or reasoning in applying these topic bans has been long lost, as they have become a blunt instrument of power rather than a last resort to be applied against truly problematic editors. I am bemused to see an editor responding on this thread, in support of the topic ban, who gives zero reasoning for his position, but who recently removed a COPYVIO tag from an article, while leaving his COPYVIO in place such that an admin had to scrub the article (no one yet has called that editor for his behavior). So, any idiot can pile on here, even if their own editing shows zero respect for important Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban until editor learn to restrain his axe-grinding impulses. --Calton | Talk 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on politics as well as a ban on replying to ANI comments. Seriously, this editor seems to be trying to kill this thread with a lead pipe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban I personally can't stand Trump, but the obvious pitchfork mentally here is disheartening. Paul August ☎ 00:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive image replacements

Please see his contribs.

I have been reverting, so am involved, so will leave this to other admins.

After multiple warnings by a number of other editors, this user simply reverts the usertalk posts and carries on. The problem is generally replacing good lead images with objectively worse ones.

Recent examples:

• At Chicken noodle soup, user swapped in File:Samgye-tang 2.jpg to replace File:Chicken Noodle Soup.jpg. This new image shows a whole chicken in soup with no noodles replacing an image showing actual chicken noodle soup.

• At Birthday cake, his choice replaced this previous image. This new image is a top view which makes the cake appear two dimensional, and has no ubiquitous candles.

• At Fruit cake, this image of fruit cake actually shows the fruit cake. He replaced it with an iced birthday cake. The icing obscures the fruit cake, and the fact that it is a birthday cake, covered with fresh fruit and words, really makes it unrepresentative of a fruit cake. He also added the caption "birthday furit cake", misspelled and with "birthday" lower case "b".

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think you forgot to notify him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're right. I seldom post here so I forgot. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I seldom post here so I forgot: obviously smarter than the rest of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

According to tests, I am marginally smarter than a lemur, so not sure what that says about you lot. (However, I "...can harvest vegetables...and do domestic work...", so there's that.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anna, the editor hasn't posted since you left your notice on their talk page. I don't think immediate action is called for here on ANI. Let's see how they respond to your message (and whether they respond to it) before taking additional action. Let's hear from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz. Good plan. I really just want a few more eyeballs on their contribs. Taking things slowly is a good idea. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree that these image edits are suboptimal and I have added those articles to my watchlist, as well as the user talk page. On the other hand, those articles ought to have a worldwide perspective. We have no Chicken noodle soup article, and that is a redirect to Chicken soup. Adding noodles to chicken soup is commonplace in the United States and Canada, but less so in the rest of the world. So, it is not inherently wrong to add a photo of a whole chicken in chicken broth to an article about chicken soup that discusses that broad topic worldwide. I just served chicken soup to my wife who is not feeling well, and it was more of a broth and had no noodles in it. But this editor needs to discuss these images and the ones that they have tried to replace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For me (with my Asian connections) there's a big difference between chicken soup and chicken noodle soup. But putting that aside, a whole chicken in a bowl of broth is not a good infobox illustration of chicken soup - I've never been served a bowl of soup (anywhere in the world) with a whole chicken in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Boing! said Zebedee. Had you been served that, it would have been on the menu as "whole chicken in soup" rather than "chicken soup with a whole chicken sitting in it". This seems to be something I want the editor to understand: the main element in the infobox photo should match the article title. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just glad I didn't order beef soup! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I'm not sure how I didn't notice that. It was early here and my coffee level was low. Anyhow, yes, the article is about soup. The replacement image's main element is a whole chicken. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And just to point something out, what I think about an image is not so important. Many editors are reverting most image replacements. That is a problem. Ideally, the editor will communicate back and forth on their talk page take our advice. They seem to ignore guidance on images as well as BRD. I think they mean well, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we don't have an article on this type of chicken. 14:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrary section break

I've noticed the user seems to be aware of this thread but continues to make edits replacing photographs in articles. @Geoffreyrabbit: You're at risk of a block if you keep this up without saying anything. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, this activity has been going on for quite a while. Proposal: I suggest a topic ban from replacing images in any Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Cristina neagu

Cristina neagu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last warning at [95] (13 February 2019). Then Tgeorgescu is a very difficult person it seems, not just a reporter, but also a Christian interested in Masturbation, pornography and is supporting some of the sins of the Decalogue. Basically a freak, but that's just my opinion. at [96] (18 February 2019). And Yes, you are poisoned by some non-biblical ideologies but your hatred is gonna bring you down. at [97] (same date, for some reason misspelled as 16 February 2019). A problem of WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to be sure: in at least one of the messages she discussed the TBAN she just received. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, User:Cristina neagu received a 6-months topic ban from Romania and Romanians at AE just yesterday (see here.) I would characterize the two comments cited above as WP:NPA violations. I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have blocked for personal attacks. My block is strictly regarding the personal attack, and is unrelated to any topic ban, lack thereof, or for any other reason. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Huh, I didn't even really notice this among all the other ranting, even though it was on my talk page. I also believe a NPA block would be appropriate. Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Was just reading over this, and I endorse the block too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content and promotional edits by COI accounts

• Sambo (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Berzaev Rustam (talk · contribs)
• Countercombatclub (talk · contribs)

The current account began editing after Countercombatclub was blocked for username violation, with a promotional history. The primary aim appears to be promotion of a fight club and Mr. Sudoczki. An explanation was offered here, but the sources are pretty thin [98]. Yesterday I requested a block, and the page has mercifully been protected, but I take some issue with the characterization of edit warring--I was intent on removing unsourced COI content. More attention will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Jessewaugh canvassing editors who have edited Talk:Mark Dice asking them to look at the AfD for Jesse Waugh

"Please excuse any potential canvassing, but I read your comments on the Mark Dice talk page, and I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the second AfD of the article about me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Waugh, which I feel was the subject of a deliberate take-down by Wikipedia editing group "Art + Feminism" because my gender and race do not serve their quotas of representation on Wikipedia. The two most notable sources for the article in question had already been vetted in a previous AfD as having satisfied the notability requirement before the second AfD.

Jesse" [99]

Doug Weller talk 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious canvassing and COI, but since the AfD was closed nearly a year ago, and isn't going to be overturned even if it goes to DRV, I'm not sure what they're hoping to achieve. I'm guessing the obvious action is to TBAN Mr Waugh about anything related to his own article. Incidentally, is anyone else mildly amused by the irony of someone claiming an article was deleted because it's about a white male? Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jesse Waugh has been deleted, recreated, and salted repeatedly since 2013. Somewhat confused as to why they're canvassing, as the last AFD closed in March of 2018? But clearly, based on "excuse any potential canvassing", they know that its against policy.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • You guys are so horrible. The person who got the article about me deleted canvassed an army of people to vote delete on the AfD, but when I canvas it’s suddenly against policy. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jessewaugh Can you find/provide evidence of that claim? Please attach diffs. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • It’s in the AfD discussion record. The pot calling the kettle black when he solicited WikiBigWigs to vote delete. It really was a politically motivated takedown. Jessewaugh (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Of course they're canvassing — they're a painter! *ba dum tsch* —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lol 😂 Jessewaugh (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I may not know the whole story here, but it seems to me that there are two separate issues:

1. Is the artist known as Jesse Waugh notable enough to have a Wikipedia page? I would say "Possibly", whilst concurring that the version that was deleted didn't demonstrate notability and was borderline promotional.
2. A user knowingly created/edited an article about himself, can't see what was wrong with doing that, and is now seeking support to get it restored. It seems to me that the most effective way to deal with that issue is to block the user for a lengthy period (if not permanently). At the same time, there may be someone who is prepared to do the work to create a decent article on this artist - people can, after all, become notable over time. So let's just make sure members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts (or whatever group is most appropriate) are aware of the controversy. Deb (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • I did not create the article and please don’t block me. Jessewaugh (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ooh, several users were canvassed after a long period of inactivity after a block threat from two different admins, and as pointed out above the user knew it was canvassing: Special:Contributions/Jessewaugh. DRV would have been the proper channel and it would have been easily endorsed there. I'm satisfied with a WP:NOTHERE block. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• @Jessewaugh: What happened here was not canvassing. Theredproject contacted a single person, and asked for impartial advice on how to proceed. In fact, Theredproject said posting there on that talk page...and not the AfD...was fine. This isn't canvassing. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification to gain a better understanding of what canvassing is here. I don't see any "army of people" being canvassed. If you have diffs to show otherwise, please provide them. Second, rather than attacking the motives of people "behind the deletion", you should be finding reliable, secondary sources attesting to your fame. The more sources such as this that you have the more impossible it is for us not to have an article about you. If those sources can't be found, we're back to square one and the AfD stands. I remind you you are already on a final warning for personal attacks. If you're not clear about what a personal attack is considered to be here, then please read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?. Calm, rational discussion is needed here. Not speculations about the political motivations of editors here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments in this ANI complaint but I'm not sure what is being called for here. There are claims of an infraction by Jessewaugh who is asking not to be blocked and there is an ongoing discussion with this editor. It seems like there is no urgent or immediate need for action as Jessewaugh is being caught up to be speed on standard Wikipedia policies and practices. Needlesstosay, there is no conspiracy or expose required for standard operating procedure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP impersonation

On 14 February, I reverted in good faith an edit by 125.178.201.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to then-TFA Chains of Love (TV series), citing its lack of sources and vague language. I left a standard warning on their talk page. They proceeded to edit my user talk page comments. I reverted and warned them about talk page refactoring. They then impersonated me on User talk:ChamithN and attempted to reset my password with Special:PasswordReset. I think these two actions cross the line from good-faith editing to disruptive editing, and need an explanation. – Teratix ₵ 23:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The filter log also shows that the IP attempted to make a small edit to your userpage. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)