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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.") Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source" I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much. I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [1] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[2][3][4] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ... I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots). Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin. Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [5] [6][7][8][9]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[10][11][12] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [13], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[14][15][16] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

DK: "Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."

Continuing to make this claim even after I've highlighted it here suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are right here for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out." As I stated above, I later ammended this to "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT." At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You have provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" explicitly that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

"based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence multiple times on this very page: first in my initial statement, and here again today. You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have responded to this before but frankly I was feeling a little unheard. SWL36 explained to you why google searches are not evidence here. I explained that we were looking for reliable sources here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

When the ratio is greater than 100:1, comparisons of google hits are taken very seriously—we even have this at WP:COMMONNAME: "generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". And of course I provided News results, not web results.

You very carefully avoid responding to the question of how a term that appears in less than 1% of newssources is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and what would a violation of WP:WEIGHT be if that's not already the threshold? I fully expect you will not hear the question—or will respond with "but CNN!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response is that 1) Using Google Searches in this way is problematic for the reasons SWL36 explained. 2) I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term. This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun and using terms like "SNC-Lavalin controversy" or "Lavalin scandal" which will catch other scandals SNC-Lavalin is involved in besides this one. There have been many others besides this one affair; none of those are known as LavScam. Others have pointed out to you before the problems caused by comparing the unique term "LavScam" and less unique terms. 3) The results have changed since you did this tally. It looks more like 8% on my math now (not that that is the defining issue). 4) While we rely on reliable sources, news articles are not the only form of reliable sources. Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public. While we need to avoid WP:OR, we should not ignore the fact that use of a term in other spheres is relevant to whether it is a WP:COMMONNAME. You were provided this WP:RS concerning the prevalence of the term on Twitter. 5) MOS:LEADALT 6) CNN! 7) Washington Post 8) The many other sources listed on the talk page here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term."—the onus is on you to provide counterevidence.

"This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun"—no, the results include the Toronto Sun. Are you saying you haven't actually clicked through the links?

"It looks more like 8% on my math now"—No search I do returns anything like it. The links above certainly don't. Where's the evidence? And how would 8% satisfy WEIGHT regardless?

"Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public."—neither do your "gut feelings".

"6) CNN!"—the same WP:IDHT as predicted. WP:WEIGHT makes no exception for CNN, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

"The many other sources listed"—the same IDHT. List as many sources as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's a fringe term used by a very small minority of sources, thus highlighting it is in violation of WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to dignify much of that with any response because you are not hearing any part of what I have said except for what you have chosen to quote, while ignoring the rest. Others can read the rest for themselves. I will say, I certainly clicked on the links and I note that you provided this link while noting "only 1,650 for "Lavscam" -torontosun.com" concerning this 1% calculation of yours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Those were not the links provided to support the "fraction of 1%" stat; they were to support the "2/3 of sources that use 'LavScam'" stat. Please demonstrate good faith now by acknowledging your error. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if I am mistaken on that I apologize BUT I don't think I am. You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers, BUT you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for "LavScam". You have cited so many Google searches it is hard to keep track. I assume you mean to say this comment is where your "one percent" number comes from. There you use similar search terms which catch unrelated materials, specifically trudeau lavalin vs. trudeau lavalin -lavscam. These search terms again create a false narrative because they will get numerous hits unrelated to the 2019 scandal. SNC-Lavalin is a company which has been around for more than 100 years. It was around when Trudeau Sr. was PM and then leader of the opposition and then PM again (leading to many possible erroneous hits). A quick review of SNC-Lavalin shows that they have been in many legal disputes and bribery scandals (some of which occurred while Trudeau Jr. was an opposition leader. A lot has been written about those which would lead to false positives. But I digress, you have been told about problems with your choice of search terms before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers"---that's right.

"you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for 'LavScam'"—not "few"—I gave numbers in the thousands. The evidence shows that there are thousands of sources that use the term "LavScam" (primarily the Toronto Sun), but that there are hundreds of thousands that don't. There are undoubtedly "false positives", but we'd need evidence they are statistically significant. "'pierre trudeau' lavalin -justin" gets us 376 hits—a rounding error. Even with your "CNN" example, "LavScam" appears in a single article out of the six CNN has published on the affair; with the WaPo it appears in 6 out of 148. What about these "false positives"? We have strong evidence that "Lavscam" appears in a small minority of sources, and no evidence that it appears in a significant percentage. In fact, look at this: "Lavscam" set to pre-February 2019. Look at how many pages of "false positives" we get for "LavScam" before the controversy was even born! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This part of the thread is simply becoming a discussion of content and doesn't belong here. I am mindful of The Blade of the Northern Lights complaint about length of this ANI below. If you want to continue to belabour the point, I invite you to raise it on the talk page so we can disagree there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even name whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the very existence of evidence: "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence." I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com 4940 "Lavscam" vs only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."

Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for (some sort of) closure

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "responsive" in what way? I haven't been ignoring anyone there—I've been responding with diffs, quotes & links from our sourcing policies. Here's my last response (nearly two weeks ago) to Safrolic, who opened this report—hardly "unresponsive", or even curmudgeonly, and Safrolic has refused to engage with it. The article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I just see that the complaints allege failure to address other's points/concerns/sources/rationales/etc., and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns. What I've seen doesn't really look that way, but if people don't feel heard then they don't feel heard, so one can try harder to make them feel heard. At any rate, I agree with you on the substance of the matter; there's a PoV issue going on at that article, and you're right to stick to a CCPOL-based position (without any "inventive" reinterpretation of what the core content policies mean and how they apply, which seems to be what the other side is doing). I think this ANI got opened because some of your responses were a little brusque. I doubt there's really anything more to it, and it's weird to me that this thread is still open, much less open with any doubt as to what the closure should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: "and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns"—uh-huh, and accusations of having an "agenda", both accusations of which are backed up with precisely no diffs, nothing. Here's a for-instance: I've demonstrated that the disputed alt-term appears in a small fraction than 1% of newssource hits, and 2/3 of that from a single newssource; the response is that CNN has used it (a single time); my rebuttle is that even including such sources still results in a small fraction of 1% of newssource hits, 2/3 of which come from a single newssource—WP:WEIGHT doesn't make exceptions for CNN. The response is that Curly Turkey is pluggin his ears: obviously I'm not—I've responded directly to the claims and demonstrated how the claims violate policy. Response: "Yeah, but CNN!" ad nauseam ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Aye. I definitely noticed that "alternative term" analysis, and it's pretty obvious that including that barely-attested opposition slang in the lead would be patently WP:UNDUE (maybe even including it in the article at all would be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a concern, as none of the named editors seems to have expressed the slightest interest in putting it in the body—notice how many times I brought that up in the course of these "discussions". They're not interested in noting the term—their single-minded obsession is with highlighting it in the lead sentence. This would ensure maximum exposure and maximum spread in usage via Citogenesis. Putting it in the body would simply bury it—not worth the effort. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

SM^c: from today—here's more of that WP:IDHT WP:CIVILPOV game I've been talking about—as if linking to every single source that uses the term somehow changes that fact that it's used by a small fraction of 1% of available sources. This is the same Darryl Kerrigan I quoted extensively for IDHT behaviour above. "Reasoning" is not a reasonable strategy against this type of persistent behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is not so so much lack of responsiveness – indeed, it seems to me CT tends to be over-responsive — as that he responds without listening. And he responds abusively. E.g., his first comment at the top of this discussion (at 07:47, 12 April): "So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ...", his suspiscion of "an astroturfing campaign", and his accusations that others are edit-warring. And that's without drawing on examples from any other pages. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  To the extent this may pertain to my own post higher up, what I mean by "responsive" is the narrow sense (i.e., logically and substantively responsive to what it's responding to, which I think is how this term is generally used in discourse and debate circles). I don't mean "simply making any response at all, just to make one". I.e., I wasn't suggesting CT should post more frequently or longer. I've suggested (albeit vaguely) that the opposing side don't seem to feel heard by him, so he can try to address their material in more detail or something; I dunno, really. I'm not a mind reader, and cannot intuit what exactly anyone wants out of him in any particular thread or subthread. More to the point, though, when multiple editors feel there's a PoV problem at the page ("whitewashing" or not), and as CT indicated there were several others until basically pushed out of the discussion, an ANI like this looks very much like an unclean-hands attempt at WP:WINNING. I'm rather surprised it hasn't boomeranged already. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that CT's tone tends to over-excite the "civility is more important than reliability" crowd, who hang out in ANI like this is some kind of nightclub.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: why did you revert (diff), without explanation, my response (diff)? to SMcC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I have no idea! (And that applies both to the revert and to the content of this discussion.) It has resulted, I surmise, from some Wikipedia incarnation of butt dialing. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I will attempt to restore my response, as follows. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mac: a certain level of civility is essential for reliability. This incident arises from a page where there are issues regarding (in part) the veracity of certain content, the reliability of certain sources, and even of verifiability (i.e,, whether content is supported by the source). These are not uncommon issues, and they usually are resolved (or perhaps not) without reaching ANI. What brings the matter here is an inability to resolve these issues at the article's Talk page. Whether there is a POV problem there is immaterial here; the issue here is why. And from what can be seen here the biggest factor running through all of this is the battleground approach taken by one editor: Curly Turkey. Is this not sufficiently evident from pretty much every comment he has made here? Or is it necessary to list and argue every point and response?

To be clear, what I would like out of him is: no more personal attacks, no more accusations of edit-warring, no more railing against everyone else, etc. In short, some civility. And then perhaps the discussion could get down to some actual issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have diffs that the "battleground" was well underway before I showed up (Littleolive oil was chased right off the page, and Legacypac's even been indeffed for his personal attacks). So much for your "approach taken by one editor"—and yet again no attempt on your part to back up your assertion—just attack, attack, attack—and accusations that a formal complaint against Legacypac's POV-pushing (backed with diffs) is a "personal attack". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

My statement (above, at 23:58 30 April) that your first comment in this discussion was an accusation of a personal attack I backed up by providing the timestamp (07:47, 12 April) of your actual comment. If you can't find it by eye use your browser's search function. If you really, pedantically insist on a diff, fine, here it is: diff. Is that good enough? I note that your comment was not a "formal complaint". Also, just because "someone else does it" is no excuse for you doing it. But if you insist on getting just as much as LegacyPac got, sure, let's do it: is indef good enough for you, too? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ): So open yourself an ANI. You're obviously WP:NOTHERE for anything but the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• I was suspecting something similar—there's a pile of people who'd love to pile on me for my language, but it's hard when I've sworn only once on the page. They can't "get" me, and it's a pain to have to engage with the actual evidence, especially when there's so much to sort through ... on a boring Canadian politics page. My concern now is the POV-push will win through attrition, which seems to have been the modus operandi before I showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @J. Johnson: I've provided diff evidence to back up my assertions. You've provided hand-waving WP:IDHT refusals to engage with evidence and policies. Examples of your own IDHT: "problems that exist in only one editor's mind" and "problems that don't exist"—a sampling of the long list of problems appears on this page from both before and after you showed up, as well as links to editors who have also identified problems. We can see Safrolic and Harris Seldon acknowledging sourcing issues I fixed at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Continued sourcing issues—they've both even thanked me![17][18][19]. It's hard to see these repetitions of yours as anything other than disruptive WP:IDHT, particularly as you have done precisely nothing to improve the article in any way.

  You also throw this Catch-22 at me: "If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. ... By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't"

  You've nowhere demonstrated an interest in improving the article and appear to be bent on preventing me from doing so. Your one edit to the article has been to join in a tag-team editwar to remove the {{Cite check}} template to hide the continued sourcing problems from the readers with the specious reasoning that "its presence violates WP:NPOV". Again, no evidence to back that "unique" interpretation of our policies up—just the IDHT I linked to above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delayed response- I've been moving my apartment all of yesterday and will be all of today as well. So, there's two separate issues I have here; firstly, the uncivil behaviour (which I also hope will decrease now that lpac isn't exacerbating it), and the sourcing policy issues. With regard to Lavscam, I don't really care that much, but I was going with existing consensus and my reading of how we're supposed to interpret alternative names. I can see looking at the RfC that despite a lot of replies, only a few editors with more than 1k edits have chosen to weigh in, and among those editors it's about 50/50. I note that CT is wrong that none of the editors have suggested putting alternative names in the body- from my vote, I quote: Both [WP:LEADCREATE] and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name,.. This paragraph is still in my plans for this article- if you check the stats for the page, I've written about a fifth of the total copy, and I plan to keep going now that my exams are done.

Now, for sourcing; CT has made some fairly non-controversial edits. Things like fixing formatting, fixing wording[20], that's helpful. He's also made edits which I think are less helpful. Notably, he refused to accept this source, which you can read more about here (the whole section, but I've linked to my most relevant diff). There was also this dispute on my talk page and the article talk page. I originally made the ANI report after that talk page discussion. What I really want (what I really really want) is outside eyeballs on these policy applications, because I haven't seen anyone else 'agree with his interpretations of sourcing policies. J.Johnson was actually some outside eyeballs; someone who came in from his post on a notice page for sourcing in Canadian articles[21], and who was immediately accused by CT of 'joining in the edit warring' [22] when he removed an article-wide citation check template CT kept adding to the article. Basically the mirror image of lpac's treatment of Bradv above. As mentioned above, I won't be able to read/reply to this again until later tonight or tomorrow morning (pacific time), so thanks in advance for your patience. [Safrolic @ 13:58]

"Notably, he refused to accept this source, "—I didn't "refuse to accept this source"—the source remained in the article. You've WP:3RRed to keep that source placed after a quotation that does not appear in the source,[23][24][25] and the article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. You had this explained regarding other sources and again on the talk page:

• "If it's meant to source earlier portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and only the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't."
• "There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly)."

Along with detailed explanations of our sourcing policies. But rather than implement either solution, you've gone the WP:IDHT route (you still haven't replied nearly two weeks later) and have 3RRed to keep the article in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state (where it still is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say anything in your last reply to that discussion which wasn't addressed earlier, or which was supported by anybody else looking at the discussion/the edits themselves. I don't feel the need to get The Last Word in, generally, so I decided to let it stand until/unless someone else came along and agreed with you on it. So far, no one has. Safrolic (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This is about the most exasperating IDHT I've seen from you yet, Safrolic. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith, nor in upholding our core content policies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of "you're being the problem", "no, you're being the problem" in this thread, which is pretty typical for drawn-out ANIs. I've seen JJ's comment that the most important thing is civility (a paraphrase; I don't mean to straw man). But it's not. WP:ENC is. Civility is an important conduit by which we get there, but we also have the WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK principles, and the "WP is not a suicide pact" one; we are not bound to be sweet-toned and fawningly courteous and perpetually good-faith-assuming after evidence of protracted non-encyclopedic editing. Where there is evidence of an UNDUE problem and a tag-teaming to stonewall against fixing it, it's generally a guarantee that civility is going to erode; the community knows this and doesn't shit its own pants about it. One thing going on here, too, is a bogus reinterpretation of "civility" on the fly to just mean "everything about CT that made me unhappy". Using swear-words isn't by itself a civility breach; we just had a site-wide RfC about that last year, followed by ArbCom using that community decision in their own case reasoning. Being critical isn't a civility breach or personal attack, or we couldn't ever deal with any controversy. Pointing out edit-warring problems and an ICANTHEARYOU pattern isn't a civility or NPA breach (how could ANI exist?), especially when the other side are pointing the exact same fingers at the other party. What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute. Neither side in the dispute needs censure, though neither is exhibiting perfect comportment. The dispute needs to be actually resolved.

Recommend closure without action at ANI, and an RfC at the article's talk page or at WP:NPOVN, to actually resolve the real dispute..
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but are engaging in strawman argument. (E.g.: swear-words? No, I that is not why we are here. Nor is there any tag-teaming here: that is solely CT's bogus accusation against me.) And you do a disservice in suggesting that the civility issue here is simply a lack of "sweet-toned and fawningly courteous" behavior. Civility is the core issue here.

Nor is the issue here (ANI) any matter of encyclopedic content, POV, RS, etc. Those should be dealt with on the article's talk page. This page is for (per the statement at the top of this page) discussion about "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And that is exactly what is evident at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, and here: pervasive behavior, mainly by one editor, that confounds all attempts sort out the issues. (Do you need an annotated list of diffs?)

As a counter proposal I recommend this: TBAN for Curly Turkey, and see if the remaining editors can then sort out matters; post a request for more eyes if there is any concern about the article or its remaining editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Do you need an annotated list of diffs?"—yes, that's a basic requirement at ANI.

Discussion has returned to the talk page, and happily Littleolive oil has returned to the discussion since Legacypac's indef, and we've enlisted Blade of the Northern Lights to monitor. J. Johnson, who has contriubuted nothing but belligerence to the discussions and nothing to the article, can thus continue his drahmah here without interference.

I do agree that the issue here at ANI was never a "content dispute", though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you. But if you insist diffs are required, by all means please show us diffs of your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior"—I never admitted uncivil behaviour. I retracted my accusations against Pavelshk. This is you moving the goalposts to kick up more drahmah. WP:NOTHERE Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not "moving the goalposts" asking for diffs: that is your requirement (above, at 22:12: "that's a basic requirement at ANI", and further above at 22:28, 1 May, and following, where your complaint seems to have been that I had not provided a diff). Why are you unable to play with the same "goalposts" as everyone else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles

TBAN from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic for persistent POV-pushing, sourcing-policy violations, and WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer per copious evidence in the sections above. None of these editors will give up on contaminating the article or preventing it from being cleaned up, and have already driven others from the page via attrition and personal attacks. At least four editors have noted POV issues with the article. Our WP:Core content policies are at stake—we cannot allow it to spread by turning a blind eye here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Won't even dignify this with a vote. This is an embarrassing and vindictive way to try to win a content dispute when you haven't provided solid diffs of these editors doing any of the things you have accused them of, additionally you didn't user link a single one of them and I'm sure they would like to defend themselves against these charges: Legacypac (talk · contribs), Darryl Kerrigan (talk · contribs), Safrolic (talk · contribs).

The only instance of blatant sourcing violations was the "illegal political interference" statement added by PavelShk [26], this was rightly fixed by Curly and no one objected. This [27] appears to be Curly misunderstanding citations, the first sentence in the paragraph is a paraphrase from the CBC citation, while the quote is from the National Post citation and no violations of souring policies occurred here, except removing citations for well-sourced content. SWL36 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The source was never removed—it was moved only to content it supported (your diff even shows that)—but this keeps being framed as "removing sources". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with SWL36. This is not way to try to win a content dispute when solid diffs have not been provided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unsurprisingly, I agree with SWL36. This is an attempt to win a content dispute which has been discussed at length on the talk page. My dispute with CT relates to that issue. I think I have stated solid reasons for forming the opinion I have, namely MOS:LEADALT, WP:POVNAMING and the consensus on the talk page. I have also taken issue with CT's disruptive behaviour toward others here and on the talk page. From where I am sitting Safrolic has done nothing but attempt to discuss edits and improvements with CT in good faith. PavelShk, a new editor, made the inappropriate (but I assume good faith) edit adding the term "illegal". This was reverted and there does not appear to be any continuing debate about it from him or anyone else (CT excluded).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Good morning to you too! My diff from two weeks ago should provide some additional context to SWL36's reply. Note that there is significant overlap between the Natpo cite and the CBC cite, and the CBC cite is fine for everything but the exact wording of the quote (CBC paraphrases it). I still await someone else supporting your interpretations of sourcing policy. Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  So again you admit the quote does not appear in the citation, but 3RRed to keep it where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm still puzzled as to what the perceived problem is with this paragraph, both citations cover the content and a quote is used from the NP citation. There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph. SWL36 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  SWL36: "There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph."—under the condition that both citations support the whole paragraph. When they don't, we place the citations after only that content it supports. Look at the first paragraph of the first section of Today's Featured Article. There are two citations. The first supports the first half, the second supports the second. Putting them both at the end would imply they both support the whole paragraph, which is an WP:INTEGRITY violation. I've given more details here. Keep in mind that I've been involved in scores of WP:FAC and WP:GAN assessments (both giving and receiving)—this isn't my interpretation of sourcing requirements, but what the community has required for many years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  Even if I accept your narrow reading of WP:INTEGRITY, the two sources support the paragraph as a whole because the CBC source closely paraphrases Dion's quoted words: "Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act." (from cited CBC source) "Dion said he has 'reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 (of the act) may have occurred.'” (from NP source; the text in single quotes is what is quoted by the wiki article). This non-violation of a very-narrow and atextual reading of WP:INTEGRITY is not sufficient for a Tban, a trout, or even just a revert. SWL36 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  So—you admit, and provide evidence, that the quotation is not in the source cited. No policy allows the sourcing of a quotation to a paraphrasing of a quotation, which the community would never support. This is but a symptom, though, of wider behaviour patterns throughout the various disputes on the page—the TBAN proposal is for those behaviours.
  I'm curious, though, SWL36—what problem could either of my proposed fixes cause? Neither removes the source. Nobody has engaged with the question, or seems concerned that Safrolic would WP:3RR over it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I appreciate Safrolic's view that this proposal should not be dignified, there needs to be a clear and definite rejection of this one-sided, disruptive, and even frivolous proposal. It is also quite inappropriate. There is a rather entangled dispute about content, sources, and POV, but all that belongs on the article's Talk page. What is pertinent here (as I have said above) is why these issues have (so far) not been resolvable. That is due mostly to CT churning the discussion so much (such as with this inane proposal) that there is very little chance for anyone to grapple with the issues and sort them out. I explicitly reject his various contentions (such as "copious evidence", "WP:Core content policies are at stake", and the rest). But as CT has raised the issue of a TBAN, I think we should consider a boomerang. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, unsurprisingly, I agree this should boomerang towards CT. I see more WP:IDHT behaviour above and to SWL36 immediately above concerning citations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR, on behalf of basically everyone who hasn't already commented here. I'm not sorry to say, the sheer length and hydra-esque quality of this thread basically kills any attempt to get any definitive resolution. At this point, I think the verbiage is enough to bore a judge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand this. (how) Can we fix this, so that some kind of resolution can be found? Safrolic (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'd like to ask a favour. I've opened a discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam"—out of the numerous disputes, this is the most contentious. I've headed it with a note to keep on topic and refrain from personal remarks. Could you monitor it to ensure it does indeed keep on topic, and that participants refrain from dragging in other (or past) disputes, WP:NPAs, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, etc.? I'm not asking you to so much as peak at any other part of the page. Or if you're not up to, do you think you could recommend another admin? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can watch over that discussion. I don't have any strong views on the subject, so it shouldn't be a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks enormously! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My single edit has been mentioned here multiple times. Let me explain. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I created an account specifically to edit SNC-Lavalin Affair page. I've done a lot of research for that page when it was just starting. I did make that edit where "illegal" political interference was mentioned. I had my reasons for it because that was my understanding of the source after reading it, but when it was reversed, I agreed with the reversal and never tried to edit it back. So it should be a non-issue. Also, it looks like I correctly tried to remove citecheck from that page. Mr Turkey never explained to me what specific sources must still be checked. However, Mr. Turkey immediately accused me of being a sock puppet, astroturfing, being a single-purpose account, violating a million wikipedia policies I have no idea about, and all other imaginable sins in figurative language! So, by now I pretty much lost any desire to contribute my time and edit anything more here. I though experienced editors like Mr. Turkey would be supportive and help new editors instead of trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents. PavelShk (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@PavelShk: I hope you won't be disheartened by one uncivil editor. It is because of his continuing "trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents" that we are here at the Administrator's noticeboard, hoping that some administrator will step in. If you have any questions or would like some help please feel free to ask on my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Bookmarking yet another in a long series of WP:NPAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify: Pavelshk removed the {{Citecheck}} twice in one day, once as an IP and once under their username. This appeared to me an aggressive way to game the system, especially given the amount of editwarring that has been going on at the page since before I even showed up—including by IPs, and including removal of maintenance tags—and the continual aggression and editwarring from several of the other editors. I jumped to conclusions about PavelShk's motivations. I thought we had cleared this up weeks ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you shouldn't have to be told to not bite the newbies. It is a further indication of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that at no point did you attempt to advise the new user (neither on his talk page, nor the article's talk page) on his missteps, but you immediately accused him of sockpuppetry and of ulterior motives. If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I already retracted them. Now it's time for you to "apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior". Not expecting anything, given your comment above above "one editor" that has been refuted multiple times now. Here's your chance to prove you're not here just for the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retracted? That looks like false statement. Which being made knowingly sure looks like nothing short of a lie. But show me wrong: give us some diffs (you like diffs, right?) where you have retracted the several comments where you accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry, ulterior motives, etc. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh ... scroll up? But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording. Like I've been saying: WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As I just noted further up: I am not "mov[ing] the goalposts": providing diffs is your requirement. As to your sockpuppetry accusations (such as here): I see no retraction, neither with strike-thru text nor any follow-up comments. Your statement that you have "already retracted them" is false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Heads games—WP:NOTHERE. Won't be responding to your belligerent horseshit further. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Curly, I am trying to keep an open mind but I have to agree with Johnson: you need to "give us some diffs". - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I retracted the accusations against Pavelshk in this very section, so I'm not buying there's any good faith in demanding diffs from an editor who has refused to provide diffs either here or elsewhere. J. Johnson's now framing it as if I need to provide diffs for an "apology" (having moved the goal posts). I haven't apologized and won't—my concerns with Pavelshk's inappropriate edits were legitimate. Nothing will satisfy J. Johnson regardless, who has contributed nothing to the article or the discussions that hasn't been pure belligerent drahmah—and with no diffs to back up any of his horseshit claims over these weeks.

So, Ret.Prof—when will you demand diffs for any of the claims J. Johnson's made over the last several weeks? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for Legacypac, no vote for others: I don't see this as fair to LP. The editor is currently blocked and can't post in their own defense. It seems very unfair that LP might come back from that block and then find a TBAN. Additionally, my feeling is that LP's current block boils down to a civility issue. I don't think anyone has accused them of competency issues. Thus if LP's block is lifted it will almost certainly come with a new understanding of civility. That should address any concerns that a TBAN was meant to address. Springee (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Oppose Involved parties should not be proposing sanctions against those they are in a dispute with. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12

I have serious concerns about editor SleeplessNight12 (talk · contribs). They firstly reverted a number of edits I made to the article on Helena (empress) with no justification or talk. They then followed me to the articles on Frederick the Great and Donatello to revert edits I had made by arguing that anything that spoke about homosexuality was "vandalism" (WP:HOUNDING). Today I have looked at the talk page on Helena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(empress)#Bunch_of_changes) and I have been called an "anti-Catholic, gay apologist" along with s reference to "homosexual and immoral people". A look at the editors talkpage suggests they are involved ina whole number of antagonistic disputes. I also wonder whether they are using a separate account (IP:96.70.198.37) as the changes made by this user to Helena look remarkably similar to those pushed by SleeplessNight12 and this IP has not previously been active on this article page. Could someone please look into this please. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Mr Contaldo80 started editing Catholic articles to display his anti-Catholic bias. I corrected 3 of those. Once he told me to stop, I stopped and started a discussion. Now, this person is angry that not everyone agrees with his anti-Catholicism. I did not edit or revert after being told not to, and started a discussion. You guys can decide how to best proceed. God bless all --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Frederick the Great wasn't even Catholic so in what way did you "correct" my "anti-Catholic bias" in that article? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir, that is the way I started out, and went to about 3 articles. Fact still remains, after you gave me a warning, I immediately stopped and went to the Talk Page. It is not my problem that other people are finding your anti-Catholicism disruptive on Wikipedia too. I always take warnings seriously. Hope that helps. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12 - you can't use terminology like "anti-Catholic" to describe editors - you can comment on actions, but don't try to discern someone's underlying motivation. For starters, it's easy to get wrong - someone who may disagree with you might seem like a supporter of the opposing side, when in fact they aren't. Regardless, if you call someone "x", you need to be able to back it up with evidence that's convincing to a disinterested outsider.

What's more of a problem though is that you seem to talk "anti-Catholic" views as disqualifying. That isn't the way it works around here - there's nothing wrong with editing topics you disagree with. If only supporters got to edit articles, you'd have totally one-sided presentations. By getting both sides involved, and by expecting both sides to walk away OK with the final product Wikipedia can produce excellent articles.

It rarely helps your case to label someone by ideology anyway. Calling someone anti-Catholic is likely to elicit a shrug from many of the people here. To the non-religious person, or Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Eastern Orthodox Christian and or Buddhist, fights between Catholics and Protestants so narrowly sectarian. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And the longer schism between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is sometimes not seen by Protestants. I did once advise a Buddhist editor to read about filioque and told them that after reading it, they still wouldn't understand (but I am not sure that I understand either). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I did not intend to be disruptive. I only wanted to make my observation known. I apologize for what I did SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on I am more concerned that SleeplessNight12 has called me "immoral" for being a "gay apologist". This homophobic abuse it simply not acceptable; and I'd ask administrators to deal with it promptly please. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This is false, I never called this person immoral. I said that many people (including immoral people) would disagree with the Catholic Church. I never said this person was immoral. I should probably, not have said anything at all. It is true, I called this person a "gay apologist" which this person agrees with, it is true. And I also said he was anti-Catholic (which is yet another thing that this person would not deny). Someone who is anti-Catholic is not necessarily immoral, I merely indicated that among many people, immoral people would be against the Roman Catholic Church too. But that is not necessarily so. Anyways, I admit, I should not have said anything, and should have just stayed silent. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Come on administrators is anyone actually going to do anything about this. I have been called immoral because I am gay and my edits have been removed because they have been described as “gay apologetics” and so “vandalism”. Is this acceptable?! A religiously inspired editor has been found to be hounding me and harassing me on the issue of sexuality and nothing is done! I’m additonally told that I am anti catholic and thus “immoral”. I want some sort of confidence that administrators are taking complaints such as mine seriously. Thank you Contaldo80 (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: Could you provide diffs of the places where SleeplessNight said those things? Having diffs/links to the comments will make enforcement much easier and happen much faster. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm I see that Sleepless agreed that they used "gay apologist" and "anti-catholic". For that, I'd say that Sleepless be sternly warned to not use such language in the future, and to retract those attacks, per WP:NPA. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To Contaldo: Whats likely to happen here is that Sleepless is warned of their conduct, and if they do it again they get blocked. But unless they are actively using personal attacks against you, or have continued to do so after this ANI was opened, they are unlikely to be blocked. Blocks are preventitive, not punitive. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CaptainEek I flagged the section of the talk page in my initial comments but for doubt it says “Now I understand that homosexual and immoral people, would disagree with the One True Church, and that is ok, but is it really necessary to inject this anti-Catholicism into these articles? Thank you all”. At no stage in that article did I raise the issue of homosexuality - it was about the historical accuracy of statements made by Helena. Sleeplessnight looked into my background, saw that I identify as gay on my talkpage and began to abuse me on that basis. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I will say this one last time, I did not intend to say anything homophobic. I simply noticed that this individual always tries to edit Christian articles in a negative way. So I simply connected his self-stated sexuality and his hatred of Catholicism and concluded that his homosexual interests may be causing him to edit out Catholic articles. I did not intend to abuse anyone's sexuality, and I do not judge people because of their sexuality. I understand that gay people have no control over how they feel, in most cases. Once again, I think all of this is a huge misunderstanding. It is my fault and I should have been more careful. Please, accept my apologies, Mr Contaldo80. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@SleeplessNight12: I’m not involved in any way, but I am interested to understand: 1) your explanation for what you mean by “his homosexual interests" as opposed to any other interest? and 2) in this edit summary (and to be clear I am not saying the addition was worthy to be kept), what do you mean when you say "Specifically adding homosexual material can be considered vandalism" - where do you get that statement from?NJA | talk 18:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So this person is very passionate about one area of this encyclopedia: homosexual history. The Catholic Church embraces people who exhibit homosexual attraction, since many of us recognize that people have no control over their attraction, but we also hold the marriage to be a sacrament. Thus, it is understandable why this person would dislike the Catholic faith, and that is his right, but I noticed that this conflict of interests creeps into his editing, and this is why I was concerned. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You haven’t really answered the question, but I suppose (based on your statement) it’s arguable you have a COI as well. I also added above (albeit later) an edit summary that I’m also unsure of and I'd appreciate your rationale around the wording used. NJA | talk 18:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I already apologized for what I said and the wordings I used. It was not my intention to disrupt. It is my fault it happened. I value consensus and dialogue. When someone reverts my edits, I usually, prefer a dialogue. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So above you stated Thus, it is understandable why this person would dislike the Catholic faith where you state that because the person is homosexual they dislike the Catholic faith. So after all the apologies and statements of "not mean to offend", you still imply that sexual orientation has something to do with editing or religious beliefs? Do you not see that this is the problem in a nutshell? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I add again that the edits I made to the article about Helena Augusta were not related to homosexuality at all. So these comments - at the time and subsequent - about my sexuality, judgements about my morality, and how this generates bias in relation to edits I make that deal with Catholicism is a worrying and unpleasant commentary. SleeplessNight12 has brought my sexual orientation up in order to abuse and intimidate. I can't see how this is acceptable under any circumstances. I want to also add that Helena is not a "Catholic figure" either - she was the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine (who incidentally was likely to have been an Arian). This conflation of historical figures with a defence of Catholicism is not good history and does suggest COI. The editor also reverted by edits to Frederick the Great on the spurious grounds of "vandalism". And again I point out that Fredrick wasn't even Catholic. The editor has undertaken a personal vendetta. They came to my talk-page to write "God bless" - which I regard as intimidatory. My latest edits to Helena were reverted by this editor with the statement "Keep your personal atheist BS to yourself." (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Helena_%28empress%29&type=revision&diff=895885464&oldid=895851060)Statements such as "I noticed that this individual always tries to edit Christian articles in a negative way", "I connected his self-stated sexuality and his hatred of Catholicism", "his homosexual interests may be causing him to edit out Catholic articles", and "I understand that gay people have no control over how they feel" are just extraordinary and not supported by any evidence. I'm afraid I do not accept their apology and would like administrators to kindly respond accordingly. I would ask for a block please. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The apology is pointless since the behavior continues, SleeplessNight12 obviously is not getting it or choosing not to get it. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to let the administrators decide whether this anti-Catholic hater should get his way. I will listen to the consensus. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Except the report was about you so I de believe administrators will have to decide whether or not your behavior is acceptable behavior.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

So that is what I mean. Whatever the consensus I will accept it. Wikipedia has been extremely hostile to Catholicism and extremely biased towards all sorts of depravity. So we will see. I am happy with their conclusions. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for all depraved editors, but I will confess that Wikipedia accommodates my depravity quite well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SleeplessNight12, I think you are skating on thin ice with that comment. Calling someone anti-Catholic is akin in the minds of some to an accusation of bigotry. The only place where you can make that accusation on Wikipedia is here at ANI and you had better be prepared to back it with evidence. Your use of the term "depravity" is setting off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. Your religious views are your own business and we don't discriminate on that basis. But if you can't separate your private beliefs from your editing, your tenure here is likely going to be brief. I am concerned that you are here to Right Great Wrongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem - a point well made. SleeplessNight12 you are entitled to your own private religious beliefs. You will not find it surprising that I do not share many (all?) of them. However, where I draw the line is in being told on Wikipedia that I am "depraved" for being openly gay and being told to stop my "atheist bullshit" - and those sticks being used to beat me in relation to articles that are not even dealing with the issue of sexual orientation, and intended to intimidate me against editing. As a historian I actually am only interested in good historical analysis - nothing more. And I wonder how we can have confidence in neutral and dispassionate editing by someone who insists that Wikipedia is "extremely biased towards all sorts of depravity". Contaldo80 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s late for me, and I only happened to stumble upon this thread when responding to another report, though admittedly what I’ve read and seen myself (only briefly) is of concern. I do plan to consider the user’s edits and summaries in more detail. There may be an issue here and it may require some intervention. I will reserve any view until I've considered the matter in detail and have evidence. NJA | talk 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr Contaldo, I have already said, that I did not intend to joke about your sexuality or to intimidate you with my "God bless you." I apologized for how I phrased my sentences, and stopped editing and opted to have dialogue. I do not know what else I can do. I do believe that your atheism has a lot to do with you wanting to distort Catholic History and trying to defame our saints... But, I will fully accept what the consensus decides. I have no idea what else I can do. If majority of people decide to defame our saints, then I will not be happy, but I will accept this decision. If the majority of people want to ban me, again, I will not be happy, but I will accept the decision. I am a passionate Catholic, and I usually stay away from Catholic articles, so as to not add my bias. I believe that you are not doing the same with your atheistic bias. But in the end, I already apologized and accept, it is my fault for what I said, I did not mean to insult you or your sexuality, of course, but it is my fault as to how I phrased it. Anyways, I do not know what else I can do. I am glad to wait and see the outcome. Thanks SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not aware of stating at any point that I am an atheist. I might or might not be but you seem very confident in labeling me such as implying that this distorts my editing capability. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr Contaldo, I think this is all a huge misunderstanding. First, I believe that your atheism in this case has gotten the best of you when it comes to Catholic Church related articles. That does not mean that no atheist is capable of editing. Other than that, I think we really started on the wrong foot, and I simply stated things the wrong way. Anyways, I should have just assumed good faith. And once again, I did not intend to abuse you over your sexuality. It was an unfortunate wording and I simply could not express what I wanted to say correctly. I hope you will accept this apology. I will just assume that your atheism does not make you biased, and I hope you can forget this mess of a misunderstanding. Thanks SleeplessNight12 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you persist in referring to Contaldo as an atheist? Did you read what Contaldo said in the post you are replying to? --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose Indefinite Block

• Support on a wide range of grounds... WP:RGW, WP:AGENDA, WP:NPOV and gross abuse of WP:AGF which continues even after my cautionary post above. "I do believe that your atheism has a lot to do with you wanting to distort Catholic History and trying to defame our saints..." Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support I had hoped that Sleepless was genuine with their apology, but they are showing very clear signs of WP:IDHT and don't seem to understand what they did wrong. Sleepless was certainly less than civil, and I think clearly broke WP:NPA and show no sign of stopping. If Sleepless wants to convince an admin to unblock them after this, I'd be fine to give 'em some WP:ROPE, but block again at the slightest sign of hootenanny. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Per continued discussion, I withdraw my Rope belief. First calling Contaldo anti catholic and gay, then aplogizing, then calling him an atheist out of nowhere?? Sleepless really is digging his own grave here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I clearly apologized, have had a civil discourse, contribute to Wikipedia, and do not think this misunderstanding should result in a permanent block. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain it's not great form to vote on your own block proposal. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  No, it's perfectly ok, and the closing admin will weight it appropriately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, and apologies for assuming. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support behavior continued after the "apology", it cannot be played off as a "misunderstanding". MPJ-DK (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support This behavior is unacceptable and offensive. The apology amounts to "Sorry I took issue with your gay atheist anti-catholic bias", which is a clear non-apology and further proof this editor should be shown the door.--Atlan (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support SleeplessNight12 just does not seem to understand how their behavior is offensive and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia (and should be unacceptable anywhere). - Donald Albury 11:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support In this response to Contaldo's post here the amount of IDHT is staggering, and as for bringing up the totally unrelated issue of C's sexual orientation, as if that has anything to do with how they edit, that is also obviously unacceptable. If SleeplessNight comes to an insight of why that kind of attitude is incompatible with collegial editing, they can apply for an unblock. --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I was planning to propose either a block or an alternative (e.g. short term topic restrictions, perhaps with some mentoring). As I said above I was reserving my judgment until I had time to review his edits in more detail. I was expecting him to have been with us for a while and I was surprised to see he has only been here for 38 days and is in this situation. Although he's offered apologies, they are, in my view, disingenuous. He has failed to give any meaningful answer my very straight forward question about what he meant by “homosexual interests" and he failed to explain how he has interpreted editing guidance when making a revert saying “...adding homosexual material can be considered vandalism". Based upon his short time here and failure to comprehend the issue, I do not have the confidence that the user can contribute neutrally to the project. NJA | talk 12:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. SleeplessNight is new and has apologized on a number of occasions. I would rather she be given training and support rather than an outright ban. With time she may come to be a constructive editor. That will never happen with an indefinite ban.

Hmmm. So the IP address that Contaldo80 specifically named as editing in a remarkably similar fashion to SleeplessNight12 shows up for the very first time ever at a noticeboard just to cast the only other 'Oppose' vote to this sanction. Totally not suspicious at all. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like my suspicions were well founded, and we now have the issue of sockpuppetry to deal with. Could administrator's also please look into blocking this IP when dealing with the main account. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per this user's persistent WP:IDHT behaviour. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the ongoing problematic commentary. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support They continued to inappropriately make personal comments about Contaldo80 after apologizing, and I don't think they actually get why it's wrong. I also have competence concerns; SleeplessNight12 has been making massive edits to Quran-related topics, including starting a new article yesterday, yet despite repeated reminders, is still not providing correct attribution. (Content in the new article is pasted from other articles.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support bigotry like that has no place here. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Everything that's already been said above- and putting aside the suspect of the Don't Bite The Newcomers vote, it is behavior like this that drives away newcomers (particularly those who may be part of underrepresented groups on Wikipedia) MapleSyrupRain (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) (PS. Never done this before- please let me know if there's a reason I shouldn't vote here!)

Personal attacks from Kansas Bear

[28] Editor Kansas Bear deleted my notification to him about DNR in a very rude form. First, such ill-explained deletion is prohibited in WP:TPG. Second, I don't care about this guy, but I will not tolerate such outrageous violations of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA from anyone. If he or somebody else thinks that I am a sock-puppet, I will glad to hear his concern on the respective noticeboard.

I will wait for the sanctions, that community will find appropriate and I hope this editor's bad conduct and lack of manners will be assessed. John Francis Templeson (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

While Kansas Bear isn't being particularly polite, they're well within their remit to remove anything they want from their own talk page. I suggest dropping the matter before you risk a Boomerang. Rivselis (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I will drop with a great pleasure, if someone will finally explain me, what the hell is going here, since I am already thinking that there is a sort of anarchy in English Wikipedia. Administrator threatens me with ban just after I asked an innocent question related to the conflict resolution procedury and very vaguely accuses me in nationalism, then he claims that I am a sock-puppet, whereas I am not and it is easy to check — you have special noticeboard, I mean. Then one of the editors delete my very polite notification in a very rude form, makes an accusation without any proof and thus violates the basic Wikipedia rules, and then you threaten me with boomerang. What the hell is going on here? Editor makes an evident violation of WP:CIV, WP:PA and that is just OK, but for some reasons, that only God would know, boomerang should hit me. Okay, I don't mind that, but only if you will find out something contradicting to Wikipedia in my very friendly notification about WP:DRN. I am not fan of conspiracy theories, but it looks like everyone wants me to leave the Wikipedia. Or just the rules don't work and are overshadowed by the influence of well-established users. Sorry, for a little harshness in my words, I just got a little nervous. I don't want to insult someone. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You returned from a two year wikibreak by almost immediately resuming the same dispute from two years ago. Your conduct at the time [29][30] was unproductive, and continuing it now is unlikely to be productive. Rivselis (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soo, how should I understand it? I cannot add peer-reviewed sources, because two years ago my conduct not that well? Or it means that if I have returned to the same discussion, because at that time I couldn't finish it, Kansas Bear have a right to insult me? Just please explain how does it works. Because I don't think that "I think you did somewhere wrong, so he can do wrong with you" logic is OK. Don't think that I try to troll you with such questions, I just try to understand rules of this Wiki, as in Russian Wiki, where I am pretty well-established, the things don't go like this. John Francis Templeson (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You also failed to properly notify Kansas Bear that you've started this discussion, which I've gone ahead and done for you. Rivselis (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I barely see a need to write him something on his talk page, since he deletes my messages. But I thought that he will be notified from the user "template" that I've used (it results in notification in Russian Wikipedia, at least), so there is just a little misunderstanding. I didn't have a wish to leave him unnotified. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment John Francis Templeson has been editing this encyclopedia for about 2,5 years, however, i checked his contribs and, to be honest, it's hard to find out how this editor has been a net positive for the project. Many of his contributions are comments on talk pages and his main space edits include some controversial changes like this, this, this or this. The common point between all the previous edits ? Removal of sourced content (often a Persian ethnicity/language/identity) replaced with some unsourced/poorly sourced pro Turkish POV. This editor has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and an irredentist/Pan-turk agenda, thus, When he disagrees with an established user like Kansas Bear who is not driven by any bias and a real net positive for this project, he comes here to open such an irrelevant case. I would support WP:BOOMERANG and some strong admin action to put an end to the disruption from this editor.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I replied already on this. I was new and young and easily got involved into the conflict. What wrong you can find in my contribution of this year? See Talk:Qizilbash and Talk:Iraqi Turkman, discussions of 2019. What is wrong? You will see well-sourced arguments, polite style of conversation. And I repeat: If my conduct two years ago wasn't that well, it means that now anyone can insult me in a very rude form? Two years ago and know, feel the difference. I acknowledge my previous mistakes. Now, as you see I try to be very nice, but some editors just don't understand it. And yes, I have mentioned in my page, that my main field is Russian Wikipedia, and I come to English Wikipedia, when I see disagreement between the latter and former. And I try to discuss it, of course not just because my opinion is such, but because I have plenty of sources. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"What is wrong" : Coming here to open such an irrelevant report is wrong. "anyone can insult me in a very rude form" : I don't see any insult toward you in a very rude form. On my end, i see an editor, you, trying to WP:GAME the system while playing a straw man here. I repeat what i said above : you have been editing this encyclopedia for 2,5 years and i don't see how you helped this project. In other words, don't feel offended, but you sound like a WP:NOTHERE and WP:TENDENTIOUS user. Think we're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know, accusing someone in sock-puppetry without proofs is a personal attack. If it will be proved that I am sock-puppet, ban me. But I am not. I am basing only on the WP rules. If you don't mind I will wait for the opinion of administrator and I hope he will understand me why my report is irrelevant. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't edit for 2.5 years. 2.5 years ago I made a list of edits, which I admit to be disruptive to some extent and regret them. Now, month ago, I returned and want to start from a new scratch. I try to be very polite, do everything according to the Wikipedia procedures, but face only accusations in sock-puppetry. But anyway I am tending to improve this encyclopedia. I already showed good conduct in Talk:Iraqi Turkmen. My flowless edit log in Russian Wikipedia, where I am editing for 3 years [31] should assume my good faith and the fact that I never use sock puppets. John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Considering he posted this link with the deletion and note to stay off his talk page due to SOMEONE ELSE'S assertion that you were both disruptive and possibly a ban evading sock puppet. I think it may be necessary to break out the Australian throwing stick here. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

How should I understand it. Sorry, maybe I am not that acquainted with such terminology. I should wait for boomerang? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

Over the past few years, John Francis Templeson has wasted much time of the community through his persistent efforts at gaming the system. Forumshopping and adminshopping have become synonyms for his editorial pattern, in addition to his tiresome efforts at pushing an irredentist pro-Azerbaijani Turkish/pan-Turkic POV. Two years ago, John Francis Templeson left the English Wiki for the Russian Wiki, as he was already hanging by a thin rope.[32] On the Russian Wiki he's pursuing the exact same pattern.[33] Now, he has returned to the English Wikipedia for "Round Two", determined to waste more time of the community. Admin JamesBWatson already left him an elaborate message a few days ago, a summary of his disruptive editorial pattern.[34]-[35] However John Francis Templeson decided to trample JamesBWatson's message right under his foot; he continued with the same disruption as soon as possible, and started to make renewed attempts in order to venue-shop his POV into Wikipedia.[36]-[37]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is unable to edit according Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Middle East, the Caucasus region and the Iranian/Turkic world, in addition to a 6-month ban on creating sections at WP:ANI, WP:3O and WP:RfC.

• Support As nominator. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per my above comments and this edit, reverted shortly after by another editor, showing that John Francis Templeson has not well understood what JamesBWatson told him.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look on this edit. It is well-sourced and does not make pov-pushing (as you see I represented several opinions on the laguage of Nader). So I have a question: why this edit is disruptive. How I can understand this limitation to add well-sourced information? User HistoryofIran doesn't agree with my edit — well, for such cases we have a talk page. I don't understand why you so hesitate to discuss good-faith edits. John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See my edits on Iraqi Turkmen article. I have brought several academic sources, these were deleted, because, according to the Selçuk Denizli they are not academic. Well, I showed the contrary and the 3O supported me. Now, I have proceeded to DRN. What is disruptive in my contribution, can you explain? If you consider this as disruptive as well, then I can say that I have already a topic-ban, as all my good-faith edit are seen as disruptive by some community members. Louis Aragon, in Russian Wikipedia I was never been accused in pov-pushing. I am established user, I have over 3300 edits, several articles created, one of them has good article status and one more is nominated to the selected articles. I collaborate with Russian, Azeri, Armenian colleagues and never face such accusations (I have several blocks two years ago, since then I was not experienced, but now I improved my conduct). John Francis Templeson (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I previously expressed my concerns on this users pan-Turkist edits, specifically pushing for Azerification on the Iraqi Turkmen article. It is reassuring to see that other users have also taken notice. But, if this user is simply continuing with the same attitude they had two years ago, I question how effective a 6 month ban will be. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to notice that it is place for discussion, not for ill-motivated revenge. You questioned reliability of several sources, including Iranica and Gerhard Doerfer, and even the 3O couln't make you give up such uncompromising conduct. I have to ask other editors, isn't it WP:DIS. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• For administrator: Let me once more clarify my intentions. I will talk about my recent edits, not the ones from 2017. Two years ago I was unexperienced and I acknowledge that my conduct was bad and I regret it. Now, let's talk about my last edits. I am not a warlike one. But I perfectly know that consensus can be described as flowchart: Make an edit — Someone reverted? — If no, then cool; if yes, then discuss and if the discussions fails, appeal for 3O, RfC and so on. And I tried to stick to this formula, extensively discussed the issues on talk page and when they failed I called for the conflict resolution procedure (see for example Iraqi Turkmen talk page). If the latter supports me, I would be happy, if not — well, I will let it go. And this is what I want. Unfortunately, some editors for some reasons don't accept my right to use this procedure and I don't know why. This all would be unnecessary if my colleagues allowed the discussion to go with its normal pace, but my notifications were deleted with some rude comments, clearly violating WP:PA. I hope, this will be taken into account. And I don't know why resist me, because if they did not, the problem would be resolved. Third-party user would express his opinion and that would be over. I hope, I was clear. If there was minor violations in my contribution, I ask to explain me and I won't repeat them. Thanks. John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• I am about 97% certain that "John Francis Templeson" is a sockpuppet account, evading a block on an earlier account. If I were 98% certain I would block. I have seen editors blocked on evidence far less certain than what there is in this case. The more he attracts attention to himself by such means as starting this thread, the more likely it is that eventually he will slip up and provide that extra 1% of certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am not. Call for sock puppet investigation, call for CheckUser, I don't care, because I am not. Just stop accusing me, I don't have any other account in English Wikipedia and already two investigation have proven that. Maybe I don't understand some rules, maybe you can consider my edits as disruptive (though, I do not agree), but I am not a sock puppet. John Francis Templeson (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: The only account I can think of that may be tied into this would be RoslynSKP (talk · contribs), who hasn't editing since December 2014, but had been topic banned for Ottoman/Turkey related disruption following community discussion which was logged here (if you care to look). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was 14 at that time and didn't even know that it is possible to edit Wikipedia. Anyway, you can check. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Definitely not RoslynSKP. I've crossed swords with her before. JFT doesn't have the same combative style as she did. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any chance at all that John Francis Templeson and RoslynSKP are the same person. There are numerous ways in which the two accounts are not even remotely similar, indeed so much so that I am surprised that anyone would even consider it as a possibility. However, there is another account which has numerous similarities to John Francis Templeson, and, contrary to what John Francis Templeson claims, the relevant sockpuppet investigation did not prove that it was not a sockpuppet: it left the question open, and nobody could reasonably read it differently. This is in line with John Francis Templeson's misrepresentation of his editing history on Russian Wikipedia as "flowless" (presumably "flawless"?), carefully ignoring the history of 7 blocks, various warnings, continual conflict with other editors, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI case (archive)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Francis Templeson/Archive

If Ulvimamedov57 (talk · contribs) and Cangevar (talk · contribs) were JFT's sockpuppets, then why his main account is still open?! And if they were not his socks, why nobody has moved that SPI case?! --Wario-Man (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: In both cases John Francis Templeson was accused on being a sockpuppeter; both cases were unfounded, or at least unproven. ——SerialNumber54129 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, but it was second sock puppet investigation, that involves me, and both showed that I am not a sock puppet. I think here everyone should stop accusing me — or start another investigation, which will be surely in vain. John Francis Templeson (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, for clarity, you are not a sockpuppet, you are a person, but the account you are using to edit Wikipedia may well be a sockpuppet. Contrary to what you say, neither sockpuppet investigation showed that your current account is not a sock puppet; one of them merely established that there was no technical evidence of connection to one of the other accounts mentioned, which is not at all the same as showing that there is no connection; in the other investigation nobody even suggested any reason for thinking that sockpuppetry was not taking place, and the closing administrator explicitly stated that he was leaving the question open, with an invitation to editors to provide further evidence. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting archived RSN discussion?

I would like advice whether/how to re-post or re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at AN,Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote of sorts emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard, of the AN discussion consensus about the HuffPo article: "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[38]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an AN sub-thread.)

• Should there be a new discussion on RSN solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed at AN? Arguments for an against are on the RSN archived thread.
• Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
• Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion?

BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your insistent lobbying for your paid editing business is entering WP:NOTHERE territory. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The referenced RSN discussion was started by User: Newslinger and archived before a determination of consensus was made. I don't understand their objection to reaching a determination (or deciding one should not be reached on RSN) on a discussion they began. BC1278 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 I understand why on both a personal and professional level you'd like to have the RSN closed but not every discussion gets a formal close. One has been requested and the lack of anyone willing to do it suggests that perhaps it's not a discussion which will get a formal close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 - as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion. Of those who did cast !votes, it would be NC in general, with a slight tilt against usage for that particular article - but the aforementioned disruption means it wouldn't make a great cited discussion to use on a talk page for example. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You had already posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895346422 and the requests for closure noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895048737, and attempted to add additional arguments to the previously archived discussion in question at Special:Diff/894752296/895053227. This noticeboard, ANI, "is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" and your request doesn't belong here. — Newslinger talk 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It was because I mistakenly added an update to the RSN archived discussion (edit soon reversed) that I sought to figure out the best way to proceed. I discovered the request for closure noticeboard was the wrong place since the discussion had already been archived when I made the request. (I've made a note there pointing to here.) It also became obvious RSN was the wrong place to get advice on what should happen next, since it's a process question, not a content decision. (I pointed that post here right away.) I think with the clarification from Nosebagbear above, explaining why they didn't close, it's clear what happened at RSN. Following the extended discussions resulting from the HuffPo article across three separate admin noticeboards and five articles has been a nightmare that could have been avoided if people limited themselves to the original AN and COIN discussions. IMO, the resulting fallout of multiple overlapping discussions affecting major articles like Facebook and NBC News is what warranted this ANI post. BC1278 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User: KalilTheDindu45

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

---

I didn't post this on WP:AIV because it isn't obvious vandalism, until you check the refs and compare the odd changes across multiple articles related to an area in Spain. User:KalilTheDindu45:

• Changed the mayor to "Alberto Tablón Planillo" on multiple town's articles (references don't support the name change): Special:Diff/895248121 , Special:Diff/895248075 , Special:Diff/895248019 , Special:Diff/895247958 , Special:Diff/895064743

• Added "Francesc Lara" to multiple articles, claiming (without support) that "Francesc Lara" "founded those rivers": Special:Diff/894867705, Special:Diff/894863821, Special:Diff/894863711

• Added content to Sant Quirze del Vallès, to incorrectly change the mayor name to "Ahmed Al-Khelafi Mukhar" from the "PRUNE" party Special:Diff/894867151, and to add unsupported content claiming that the mayor praises islam and supports stoning women. Special:Diff/894865840

• Also on Sant Quirze del Vallès, an IP had made edits changing the town name to "Sant Kuayrz dil Falys", changed town leader to "Sultan", claimed the town's official language is arabic, added an arabic "native name" in infobox (I can't read arabic and can't tell what the inserted letters mean), and other mischief, all of which I had reverted; Kalil reverted back to restore all of those changes. Special:Diff/895368308

I notified Kalil about adding Planillo: Special:Diff/863230039; cautioned Kalil about adding Lara: Special:Diff/895364507; warned Kalil about vandalism at Sant Quirze del Vallès: Special:Diff/895367434. Kalil has since reverted some of the articles back (including Sant Quirze del Vallès), hasn't replied on their talk page to any of the warnings, and has only communicated in an edit summary "stop deleting my texts". I don't think any of Kalil's 20 edits are valid. I'm raising the issue here rather than getting pulled into edit wars across multiple articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scazjmd: To the contrary, it's extremely obvious that this person is a racist vandal. "Kalil" is arguably a racist reference to Arabic people, 45 is a reference to an American president who has white nationalist fellow-travelers, and "Dindu" is a racist slur used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis against Black people. In racists' fever dreams, African Americans always perpetrate bad acts then deny responsibility by saying they "didn't do nothing," rendered in their racist mocking of African-American vernacular as "dindu nuffin." For God's sake, User:Schazjmd and anyone else who doesn't know, don't google those two words. Just block this fucking idiot and be done with it. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious to me, coordinated vandalism of Spanish, Catalonian, etc. articles across at least two users and 34 IPs, with most in the last ~24 hours, but repeating some from 30 April. 3 of the IPs are from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. It really does belong at WP:AIV...

Multiple vandal edits spread across

User:KalilTheDindu45

User:WTCUpdate Segre (river) Sant Quirze del Vallès [39] Cantabria Ebro Cervera and Vidreres Oct 2018

User:158.109.94.211 Barcelonès Sant Quirze del Vallès Francesc Segre (river) Llobregat (blocked as school block)

User:158.109.198.43 (btw: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Tagus Sants Segre (river) Vidreres ‎

User:158.109.198.42 Sant Quirze del Vallès [40] Vilaller El Pont de Suert Vall de Boí Hostafrancs Segre (river) River Ter

User:158.109.198.41 Segre (river) [41]

Well, User:KalilTheDindu45 is blocked. I'll go see if WP:AIV wants to do anything about the others. Shenme (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contribs/158.109.198.0/24 for vandalism apparently in concert with User:KalilTheDindu45. Not sure if it's a bunch of meatpuppets, or good-hand/bad-hand, or what. Special:Contributions/WTCUpdate is going to get indeffed as well for nothere, it's a 3 year old account with sporadic vandalism throughout that whole history. ST47 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, and for the clean-up help and blocks, 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1, Shenme, and ST47. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Lita (wrestler)

• Lita (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Trish Stratus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hmdwgf (talk · contribs)

This is listed as a good article, but was long ago commandeered by users who've added unsourced trivial content throughout, so it's become a fan-cruft piece. I've brought it here for that reason, and because I don't know how far back to revert. Much of the damage has been done by one registered user who's blown through multiple warnings not to add unsourced content, but several other accounts have intervened, as well. More eyes on this, please, with the short-term suggestion that the good article designation be removed for now. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

After you posted here, Hmdwgf seems to have reverted back to approximately March 18, see [42]. Not sure if there's anything actionable here for admins specifically. Use WP:GAR to request a reassessment. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably nothing actionable, aside from a block if Hmdwgf continues adding unsourced content. If the revert takes care of the problem, there's no need to reassess. I'd just never come across a well-assessed article that had gone that far south without someone taking notice. Thank you, Scott Burley. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What I was afraid of: I've added another article with the same issues, long term addition of unsourced descriptions of who did what to whom in the ring. Reverted some, but there's a lot more still embedded, and it compromises good article status. Wary to look for other such articles edited by this user. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fringe edits at Urine therapy following warnings

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

---

JGabbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been warned about discretionary sanctions.[43] The editor has staked out a position at Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Protestation/Responses and Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Closing salvo. I am bringing this here because we have reached the next step from the proposal on that page.[44] Topic bans were deemed inappropriate because the editor was said to have little interest in medicine/alternative medicine topics. Edits at Urine therapy suggest otherwise.

While I was not explicit and just cited WP:MEDRS to revert, this edit was not at all subtle. In the quick summary for those not versed in the subject, Premarin contains hormones purififed from (PREgnant MARes urINe), but describing it by saying "[a]nimal urine is used in some hormone-boosting prescription medications" is a broad stretch (WP:OR). Neither Urecholine (bethanechol) nor Urocit-K (potassium citrate) contains urea and the restored edit cited a list of drugs but nothing that discussed the content of the two. The last edit on the article replaces a statement about lack of support with a reference which discusses the historic purification of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from nun's urine.

With these edits in article space, it is time to raise the question of a topic ban. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear (from the above, BiologicalMe appears to agree); I do not think that ANI should become involved when someone uses the talk page of an essay as a soapbox when the essay itself is already a a bit of an allowed soapbox. I believe that both should be allowed. That being said this edit makes it perfectly clear what JGabbard is and what we can expect from him if he edits any articles.

In my opinion, a topic ban should be imposed, based upon these edits to articles:[45][46][47]

I would further argue that, for JGabbard, promotion of pseudoscience is a small part of a much larger body of edits concerning music, all of which seem to be constructive. A topic ban would have very little effect on him or on his work on the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon for a TBAN (Edit: see below for why). The last of those 3 edits was unwise, but the first two might have been wrong, but they weren't really promoting WP:FRINGE views. BiologicalMe, you explained why the edits about Premarin were no good here, but you didn't explain it on the article's talk page or on JGabbard's (that I noticed). Jumping right to ANI to call for a TBAN after someone just barely inches over the line is a bit draconian. Any disruption so far has been extremely minor. Let them earn their TBAN if it's really warranted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If it were just those three edits, I would not have come here. I should have provided more context. The warnings came after multiple attempts [48][49][50][51] to push a change in the lede to Amygdalin. The sum total of engagement at that talk page was to argue a cited essay.[52] I probably read this as a little more of a road map leading here than I should have. To my eyes, wildly creative edits trying to describe some pharmaceuticals in terms similar to urine therapy is promotion of a fringe theory, and it has held up on a second reading giving it a favorable light. If I pulled the trigger early, I'm sorry, but it has been pulled. If there are measures short of a topic ban that will solve the problem (including this discussion itself), excellent. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's certainly a bit more troubling. I've struck my "too soon", and I'll leave it more as an "I dunno". Not sure why, but part of me still wants to see if they'll back off on their own, but if others feel differently, I certainly wouldn't argue anymore. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would not be against closing this, waiting to see if JGabbard voluntarily steps away from fringe theories, and reopening it if he continues. He was crystal clear about his views...

"Mainstream science and western medicine are willingly ignorant of any therapies or remedies which are not profit-driven, regardless of how effective they may be. That is why doctors receive scant training in nutrition at Rx-driven allopathic medical schools. It also explains precisely why oncologists can be sued and have their licenses revoked for curing patients using any method other than slash/burn/poison (i.e., surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy). That is also the reason broccoli growers are threatened with litigation by pharmaceutical corporations (via the FDA) for touting the health benefits of their product. Wikipedia should operate in the interest of the betterment of humanity and not be in subjugation to and a reflection of that inequitable, self-serving and corrupt system." --posted by Gabbard on 2 May.

...but it is entirely possible that he will walk away now that this is at ANI. I am OK with a topic ban and I am OK with waiting. ---Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind. If he was pushing political conspiracy theories or fringe physics, I would recommend a warning. This is medicine we are talking about. People come to Wikipedia to see whether what somebody told them about a fringe medical treatment is legit. Topic ban him. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

They do good work with music articles, and work mostly on them, but the fringe medical stuff has been going on for years. Ingesting semen to cure morning sickness from 2017 [53], going back to 2009- consumption of semen cures breast cancer. [54] and there are plenty more. Warnings on their talkpage about only using MEDRS sources in 2011 and 2013. Urine is just the latest bodily fluid. Yesterday's polishing of their user page [55] does not look hopeful. Curdle (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is a lot worse than I thought. Note to closer: please read User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Call for close I believe that this discussion has come to a natural end. Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate and close? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to impose a six month topic ban from complimentary/alternative therapy as an arbitration enforcement action, but I'd prefer to see JGabbard comment here first. If they don't do so in the next 24 hours or so, I'll close with such a ban. GoldenRing (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

On urine therapy, I feel that the topic is inadequately covered because it omits the therapeutic uses of animal urine, such as in some fertility drugs. Also, the blanket claim about no therapeutic value to human urine was unsourced, so I challenged it, replacing it with the Time article about nuns' urine in hormone replacement medications/fertility drugs. That edit was reverted and remains unreferenced. The statement about urea in skin rehydration products is well referenced, however, the part about Ur- named drugs containing urea was original research and is only partly true. I apologize for the wording of that part of the edit, as well as not including a source.

The reason I so seldom contribute outside my chosen realm is because I recognize the institutionalized bias inherent in areas such as the healing arts, where I do have some philosophical differences. I freely admit a desire to expand consciousness by at times attempting to boost a marginal topic into more general acceptance, and I do enjoy chipping away at bias where feasible. However, those rare edits are always intended to be both positive and constructive. - JGabbard (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

JGabbard, urine therapy is the application of human urine for medicinal or cosmetic purposes, including drinking of one's own urine and massaging one's skin, or gums, with one's own urine. There is no scientific evidence to support its use. The fact that Conjugated estrogens are available in the form of both natural preparations manufactured from the urine of pregnant mares and fully synthetic replications of the natural preparations has nothing to do with the use of human urine in urine therapy. Urine is also used in gunpowder manufacturing, fertilizer, and even to make neural progenitor cells.[56] These are all interesting facts, but none of them any any way excuse you removing " There is no scientific evidence to support its use." from the urine therapy article.[57] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I support at the minimum a six month topic ban from complimentary/alternative therapy. It is clear from their user page missive that they are here to right great wrongs and challenge "bias" (as the post above also indicates).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the long term pattern of slow edits, the topic ban should be indefinite, with a possible appeal after six months conditional on Gabbard making a compelling argument that he will not be disruptive if the topic ban is lifted. I also think that he should be required to remove all of the alt-health polemic from his useed pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Given that user pages are not supposed to be used in this way that should be given.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Fæ

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

---

I noticed that in a recent ANI discussion, Guy Macon demeaned Fæ by making fun of their gender identity:

Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line xe can go regarding xyr topic ban and regarding civility...It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or xyr previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. --Guy Macon

These kind of "jokes" don't just hurt their direct targets. They demean an entire minority group and hurt the encyclopedia as a whole. This should be considered as serious as one editor calling another faggot or similar. Thanks for your consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Fæ has made it quite clear that they prefer the singular they prounoun as opposed to the idiosyncratic xe and xyr usages that Guy Macon is deploying in a mocking fashion. I advise Guy Macon to refrain from this type of ugly harassment in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Demanding/expecting someone to keep track of and use every Wikipedian's pronouns is exactly as manipulative as intentionally misapplying those pronouns. I suggest any offended parties instead practice the art of projecting an aura of resilience, and that any offending particles project an aura of respect to others. I don't foresee any action coming out of this based on one comment. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

While keeping track of every users pronouns is unlikely, using gender neutral pronouns unless you know otherwise can and should be the norm. We're literally on an anonymous platform where anyone's gender is unknown unless they proclaim it. Guy could have easily not used pronouns, or used they/them for a gender neutral default (or since Guy certainly knows about Fæ's pronouns). But instead Guy intentionally mocked Fæ, and then leveled a personal attack! Guy should know better. I don't think any action should come of this, but I do think Guy needs to be more civil. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, your comment might have some validity under WP:AGF if Guy Macon had inadvertently used the historically common "he" or "she", but instead, Guy Macon consciously chose to use the highly idiosyncratic "xe" and "xyr" usages without any preference for those terms being expressed by Fæ. Your failure to see the distinction is nearly but not quite as as troubling as Guy Macon's obnoxious and harassing choice. A basic principle of human dignity is to refer to human beings by the names and pronouns that they prefer. Good faith accidents are both understandable and forgivable. Deliberate provocations are much less so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I am pinging Fæ since I think that I botched earlier pings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the easiest ways of establishing human dignity is resilience. The best part is that its a gift that you can give to yourself, and enjoy all the more for it. Say to yourself "Today, I did not let that Guy get under my skin, and I feel just a little bit better than I did yesterday about myself" and recognize that you've earned a bit of self-respect. Doing so will reflect outward, causing others to respect you as well. @Fæ and WanderingWanda: don't let him ruin your day. @Guy Macon: WP:Don't be a dick and hey, maybe apply WP:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values #3. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass. Zero doubt considering that Guy Macon was writing on my talk page in March about their fear of me, playing the victim, and explaining how important using the right words are (ref multiple entries by Guy Macon at User_talk:Fæ/2019). Despite claiming to be frightened of me, this has not stopped them writing about me, writing on my talk page and making this attack against my gender identity on Wikipedia. Guy Macon has made their views about pronoun use abundantly clear, refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour and with a response to me of "I don't hate you, just as I don't hate any other person who attempts to force us to abandon one of our basic principles (Wikipedia is not censored). If anything, I feel sorry for you. It must be awful (apologies to any middle-English speakers reading this) to go through life being offended again and again, yet somehow being unable or unwilling to simply avoid the things that offend you. As for ridicule, I will try not to ridicule you, despite the fact that your ham-handed (apologies to any Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu contributors that I may have just triggered) attempt at censorship is completely ridiculous and deserving of ridicule." and talking about me with "Last I looked God did not appoint Fæ the arbiter of all humor. Nor does anything in this discussion have anything to do with heteronormativity; that was the first time anyone mentioned sexual-partner preferences here. I find that hilarious, since the point of Fæ's mini-rant was to browbeat someone about staying on-topic." at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour.

The joke here would be Guy Macon blatantly harassing a queer editor for their preferred pronoun, when there is zero doubt that this was a deliberate premeditated attack, and the only so-called sanction is to politely ask Guy Macon to try to refrain from deliberately abusing and demeaning queers. Sure... thanks.

By the way, it is worth highlighting that Arbcom recognized the harassment I had been targeted with around 2010. It would be humiliating and unfair to resurrect those events and make me relive it, it was damaging and made me seriously unhappy. Those digging for dirt should get real lives and find other things to research than what people wrote 10 years ago, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon's Response

I took a break and thought about how to respond to the above. Below you will see my conclusion about what is best for the encyclopedia.

WanderingWanda is suspiciously familiar with ANI for such a new editor. I'm just saying.

In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Thon[58] with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the following 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others Also see User talk:Fæ/2012#Unacceptable edits.

I really did make a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar (plural and singular have meanings) and I am still doing my best to do this in this comment, yet Fæ still decided to fire up the well-used flamethrower. And, it appears, there is a crowd gathering with pitchforks and torches. If you want to sanction a 12-year/45,000-edit veteran editor with a clean block record -- all without any prior warning -- for doing his level best not to offend, go ahead, but please start by quoting the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you believe I violated. This will save time at Arbcom.

Fæ also mocks my legitimate fear that, after Fæ going off-wiki and trying to get two individuals who opposed Peh[59] removed from their positions, I would get the same treatment. At the time I assumed good faith and accepted Fæ's assurance that this would not happen, and now I am seeing that very AGF weaponized against me.

I refuse to use the singular they pronoun in cases where someone demands that I do so. I use it as the least-bad choice when I don't know the gender of the person I am addressing, but it is a bad choice. Singular and plural have specified meanings in the English language, and I strongly oppose any attempts to redefine them. Go ahead and try to force me to do use them and see what happens. I also wanted to avoid "he" and "him". I know that Fæ is in the habit of making a show of being outraged, and I predicted a false accusation if I used "him". I am also unwilling to carefully rewrite every sentence to avoid any pronouns. Go ahead and try to force me to do that and see what happens. Yes, what I just wrote was aggressive and confrontational. Perhaps 10% as aggressive and confrontational as "This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass".

So, outside of my own personal outrage at being treated unfairly and my conclusion that any choice I make will result in further personal attacks, what is best for the encyclopedia? In my considered opinion, Fæ should be topic banned from all comments about anyone else's choice of what personal pronouns to use as part of the existing topic ban. Nothing good has come from these complaints. If someone is really demeaning an entire minority group there will be plenty of other editors who will report it. Fæ obviously can not or will not understand the difference between some bigot making a personal attack and me doing my best to not offend zhim[60] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: "WanderingWanda is suspiciously familiar with ANI for such a new editor." I was thinking that too. It's very strange to me that this editor showed up out of nowhere just as a whole string of gender-related disputes were erupting or re-erupting, and that the user focuses on this drama almost exclusively. Especially since at least one blatant WP:MEATPUPPET [update: turned out to be a sock; MaryKontana was shortly thereafter blocked as a sock of AttackTheMoonNow], arguing in the same vein and also too savvy of internal WP process to actually be a new editor, was caught out in these threads just last month, and also acting as part of a "back up Fæ" brigade. Double-especially given that we know Fæ was shopping gender-related disputes offsite, at very least to other WMF sites (as covered at ANI regarding Fæ and me a month or so back [61]). I'm not sure about more broadly, and can't think of a way to be certain yet that doesn't have WP:OUTING risk, though that would be mitigated by e-mailing evidence directly to ArbCom when the time comes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - using the singular "they" is correct per all contemporary sources, the tradition of the English language, and Wikipedian commonsense. The second-last paragraph of the above is simply an unsourced, IDONTLIKEIT tirade against grammar and usage. Furthermore, using a make-up pronoun of the writer's choosing to refer to another editor is POINTY, unCIVIL, and in clear defiance of contemporary Wikipedian norms. I have difficulty seeing how Guy could interpret his own making up of pronouns as other than a mocking personal attack, and if "agressive and confrontational " responses are all he has to offer then he should volunteer to step back OR be subjeCt to sanction. Guy's refusal to see this and his denial that his original comment was, in fact, an attack is evidence that his behaviour should be subject to more scrutiny rather than being allowed to fester. In have no information on Fae's behaviour in this matter to date, particularly since it may involve off-wiki issues. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the singular "they" is correct per all contemporary sources, the tradition of the English language, and Wikipedian commonsense, you say?

• "Chicago accepts this use of singular they in speech and informal writing. For formal writing, most modern style and usage manuals have not accepted this usage until recently, if at all. CMOS 17 does not prohibit the use of singular they as a substitute for the generic he in formal writing, but recommends avoiding it, offering various other ways to achieve bias-free language. --Chicago Manual of Style
• "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing" --Oxford English Dictionary
• "It has become the target of criticism since the late-19th century. Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend toward gender-neutral language, though most style guides continue to proscribe it." --Wikipedia, Singular they

"And yet since singular they will still annoy many readers, many writers will want to write around the problem... Use singular they in relaxed prose, when you know you're in the company of those who get this right, or if you don't mind annoying a determined and vocal minority." -- The Economist

• "The Singular 'They' Must Be Stopped. The misused word is everywhere, proliferating like fruit flies 'round a bowl of rotting bananas. We must stop it before it goes too far." --The Atlantic

Certainly some sources accept it.[62][63] Maybe even most sources. But all contemporary sources? ^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was not under the impression that you were engaged in "formal" writing; if you were, it is unclear to ne how a made-up pronoun nobody else had introduced in the discussion would be more acceptable, anyway. So yeah, you haven't produced any recent RS against the singular they. Not yet. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Last I looked, no one made you the Official WMF Discussion Page Language Formality and Currency Enforcement Officer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Nerp. But that doesn't disallow me from pointing out a non-sequitur when I see one. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem clear on what non sequitur means (neither the literary nor rhetoric senses apply). You not agreeing with Macon indicates neither that his argument has a logic-flow problem nor that he's said something irrelevant to the context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy justified his animus against using the singular "they" on WP Talk pages citing the Chicago Manual of Style as characterizing the usage as "informal". However, unless Guy regards his contribution to Talk pages as formal writing, he is therefore employing non sequitur argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that Macon is behaving sort of a jerk (w/o any good reason) and nothing is gained by disrespecting Fae's choice of pronouns. But then Fae belongs to the lot of professionally offended and I will be much surprised, if Fae had not been part of some head hunt for Guy, on some random pretext of misogyny/transphobia/sexism/whatever. In 99% of the cases, it's typically Fae who first manages to piss people off, before both take turns at making it a shit-fest. ∯WBG^converse 12:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  FWIW, I agree with the content of Macon's post that led to this thread. ∯WBG^converse 12:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy that it seems suspicious that WanderingWanda has only been here since January yet has been involved in some very advanced activities such as AN complaints, several move requests and very well formatted RfCs, setting up a talk page archive etc. I can understand why editors have wondered about prior accounts.[[64]] I mention this because editors filing are subject to having their own behavior scrutinized. Given that Fea didn't start this ANI I don't see why it would need to be acted upon. In agreement with Winged Blades of Godric, I guess Guy was being a over the top in a way that isn't helpful but I also agree that it appears that Fea is working the victim angle (with a disclaimer that Fea didn't actually file this one). Additionally, just a few discussions up we have a case where Fea is being less than civil (but not to the level requiring sanctions). Personally I use "they" even though it sounds unnatural to me. I also don't really care if people call me "he" (which random odds says would be correct) or "she" because of something or some way I've said something. When it comes down to it I'm a screen name around here. Perhaps the best thing to do is relax a bit. Springee (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Fæ could literally be the worst single editor on the entire encyclopedia, or they could be the very best, and it wouldn't matter either way: making fun of their gender identity would not, in my view, be appropriate. That's why I said that These kind of "jokes" don't just hurt their direct targets. They demean an entire minority group and hurt the encyclopedia as a whole. (If you have strong personal feelings about using singular they/them you can always just avoid pronouns altogether when talking about someone who prefers those pronouns. No one's forcing anyone to use words they don't want to use!) (Regarding the accusations against me: I take it as a compliment that some people apparently think my editing is so brilliant I couldn't possibly be a newbie, but if you dig into my history you'll also find plenty of dumb mistakes I've made along the way.) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have listened to all of the above, and here is my final comment:

• I will respect a person's gender pronoun if [A] they let me know about it, and [B] they treat me with respect. This excludes Fæ, but even in the case of Fæ I will of course try to use gender pronouns that the majority of the population will not find offensive. I will not defer to the personal preferences of anyone who uses them as a club to beat other editors with. I refuse to play that game.

• There is absolutely nothing wrong with using Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs. I plan on using them in certain situations where I suspect that the traditional pronouns may be offensive. If anyone wishes to claim that they are offensive, it is up to that person to provide a compelling explaination as to why.

• When I use Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs, I am not trying to insult anyone. When I insult you, you will know it. You have my promise that there will be no doubt. I used and will continue to use Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs in a good faith attempt to not cause offense. If you want to call me a liar, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

• I suggest either sanctioning me, in which case we will go to Arbcom so you can explain what policy I violated and why you failed to warn before blocking, giving me an official warning in your role as an administrator on my talk page, in which case my practice is to stop doing whatever I was warned about and start discussing it whether or not I agree, or closing this ANI report.

• I have no interest in hearing any more of this, and am temporarily unwatching this page. If this gets closed one way or the other, could someone please drop me a note on my talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy Macon, if the use of the pronouns was not meant to make fun of Fæ that's another matter, although I think your attitude of well-I'll-use-someone's-preffered-pronouns-unless is rather uncomfortable. Someone's preferred pronouns should not be thought of something that is bestowed. 2. Using terminology that hardly anyone else uses is bound to cause confusion and offense, and I don't think it's a very good idea. But if you're insistent on it, my earnest recommendation is that you start using Xe, Xem, Xyr, to refer to everyone of every gender to make it clear it's not meant as a joke or attack. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone give Guy Macon a firm warning or a proper sanction, as he is clearly trying to play the anti-pronoun martyr?

"This excludes Fæ" with a commitment to continue using wrong or fictional pronouns to harass me with, is a deliberate misuse of Wikipedia for harassment, in plain English, it is an open promise to run a battleground hate campaign. I do not expect to have to go to Arbcom to get someone who behaves this badly to stop or set an interaction ban, so hopefully this is a decent reference point so that future "queer related" harassment by Guy Macon, against me or anyone else, will result in swift sanctions based on that evidence, not an excuse for people to queue up to make bizarre presumptions about the actual victim of Guy Macon's hounding that they apparently just made up, or be taken in by Guy Macon playing the "but I'm the real one being harassed!" victim card. The act is tired and seeing someone get away with this transparent bulls**t positively damages the Wikipedia community.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should stop turning someone's pronouns into such a large issue. Also agree that Guy Macon refusing to use singular they because "it's not formal English" yet using neologistic pronouns without a problem makes literally no sense at all. Also agree with Fæ that people trying to dig up dirt on people based on what they did years ago should do something else. This has happened in real life. SemiHypercube 17:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fae should have been blocked for a very long time for falsely accusing Slatersteven of sexism and then attempting to hide behind (im)plausible deniability as if their words did not mean what they clearly meant (see the above thread entitled "Fæ"). Yet despite the fact that Fae's abusive behavior received no meaningful consequence, here we have Fae calling for sanctions against someone. Fae, when you get off scot-free despite gross mistreatment of another editor and then show no inclination toward even a hint of mercy when another editor ends up in your bad graces, it really reinforces the perception that you are lying when you claim to care about the existence of a hostile environment. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Provide the diff to where I called Slatersteven sexist or accused anyone of sexism. There is a reason that these diffs cannot be produced as evidence, it's called fake news. Repeating false or exaggerated claims by others does not help this thread and is a bad faith act of character assassination.

A more useful link is the discussion about those (tangential to this thread) claims at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Canvassing_allegations_for_Sarah_Tuttle. No evidence has yet been provided for any claim, despite those claims being serious and disruptive to our collegial work on Wikipedia. If you want to continue discussing this issue, or provide the missing evidence, please do so there at WiR, rather than creating a further tangent here which is about Guy Macon's on going stated commitment to misuse gender pronouns. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you really think I wouldn't have a ready answer? [65] You are directly accusing Slatersteven of creepily and 'obsessively' sniffing Tuttle's easily accessible Twitter account (which anyone can find right away through a google search even though you apparently think it is hidden in one of the pyramids or something) because she is a woman. That's a direct implication of sexism. Sure, you didn't use exact letter combination of s-e-x-i-s-m, but you were implying exactly what you wanted to imply and what you wanted everyone else to think about Slatersteven. And now that it has backfired, you are trying to say that you didn't really say what you said. I'd expect that kind of logic from a five-year-old. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Searching for dirt through a BLP subject's social media accounts is creepy to me, it's fine that you do not think that it's creepy. Thanks for confirming that I never called anyone sexist. If you want to discuss the evidence of canvassing by the BLP subject on their social media accounts (which is what Slatersteven has alleged and others have researched and failed to find evidence to support), this has nothing to do with Guy Macon's self created issues with gender pronouns, so please provide whatever new evidence you have at WiR. This thread is not about your opinions as to what "sexism" might be defined as, nor is it about Slatersteven. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the evidence speaks for itself very loudly and I will not be taking directions from you on where to comment. Or on anything else, for that matter. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

She They could be saying that he might be operating under the assumption that women articles are given preferential treatment in some way — that wouldn't make him sexist, even if it, ultimately, probably would make him wrong. That said, that entire comment seems aggressive and it doesn't sit well with me. But I haven't had a chance to read the whole exchange, so maybe I'm missing something pivotal. El_C 17:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that there's a minuscule chance that that's what Fae meant, but it certainly doesn't align with the aggressive tone of the comment, which you also noticed. It seems clear to me that Fae was simply jumping into the fray with a major assumption of bad faith. I mean, Fae still has not acknowledged the difference between 'searching for dirt' and opening one of the top results on a Google search. And yes, I realize that Slatersteven has said he did not find the Twitter link though Google but rather that someone else had posted the link, but that means Fae had even less reason for attacking Slateversteven. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is still a tangent, it has nothing to do with Guy Macon. If you want to be helpful, you could supply the missing evidence of canvassing at WiR where the case was discussed in detail. Slatersteven has refused to supply the missing evidence, and yet has not withdrawn the allegation against the BLP subject. Defaming BLP subjects seems a more real problem for Wikipedia than hijacking this thread as a proxy for the one that was already closed on this page by an administrator, or hijacking it to try to crowbar in a new way of understanding what the words "allegation of sexism" might mean. Actually, if you want to pursue that, WiR would also be an excellent venue to gain a better understanding of what "sexism" means in practice for Wikipedians trying to correct the systemic bias that exists on this project and how WiR participants can frankly and openly discuss the very visible patterns of systemic bias, without being accused of making "allegations of sexism/misogyny" or whatever other words get bandied about in tangent creating allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not make or repeat the charge of canvassing, so why do you think I should supply the evidence? I have been concerned with defending Slateversteven against defamation. Speaking of which, you keep accusing Slatersteven of defaming Tuttle even though he has repeatedly said that he was concerned by one of the replies to Tuttle's tweet. Or, to put it another way, he made no accusations against Tuttle and thus did not defame her in any way. Seriously, stop with the false assertions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• The response has every appearance of hot-button game-playing, drama mongering, that lost boy style so popular in off-site brigading of sites. If the user Guy Macon doesn't recognise how obnoxious the explanation is, how unlikely it is they are not being wilfully obtuse and maliciously compliant, they are not going to appreciate the virtues of civility any time soon. Why are they here? cygnis insignis 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with the title of this thread. User:Guy Macon has made an IMpersonal attack on User:Fae by persistently using a novel pronoun when they have said that is not what they want. Guy isn't treating Fae with the dignity which they have requested. Stop it, User:Guy Macon. Use novel pronoun forms for someone who has requested them, or for yourself if you wish, not for Fae or for me. You have used the Internet long enough to know to be familiar with the Shapiro report's reminder that the names that you say on your screen are those of real human beings (regardless of their identified gender). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me, and I have avoided commenting until now (and am none to happy about being dragged into it). I think (in this case) both sides are equally out of order, Guy for refusing to obey someones wishes about how they wish to be engaged with, and Fae for (ironically) the same. It does not matter to me if it is a request to be called they, or refusing to treat other users with the same courtesy and respect they demand. Here I almost have some (but only a very small amount) of sympathy for Guys stand, if someone wished to be disrespectful or obnoxious then they have no Right to demand that of others. But (and this is a very big but) this does not excuse or condone rudeness. If they wishes to be called they they should have their wishes respected, and no one (no matter who they are or why) should ignore this. But (also a big but) as far as I know Guy's actions do not really breach policy. I think both users should be reminded to treat others with respect and courtesy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed.

Wikipedia:Harassment

--Fæ (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing about "not referring to them how they have asked". I suppose if you wanted to stretch it you could argue its Harassment of an editor on the sex, gender or sexual orientation. But I would find that hard to swallow as he is not attacking your, whatever it is, he is just refusing to call you by a certain word. Now if he is harassing you you can provide diffs where he show up very often to attack your sex, gender or sexual orientation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. When diversity policies include "gender", in the real world this includes all genders, including nonbinary and genderqueer. It would be an odd technicality to interpret "gender" as not covering "gender identity", which is why gender pronouns exist. Someone could always propose an improvement to the wording of the harassment policy if they think it is confusing to not explicitly include "gender identity" as well as "gender". I think this would be less a wording change than a clarification on the policy talk page, depending on what external best practices the Wikipedia community might want to compare the current wording against. The WMF has been working on this area, as per the Technical Spaces CoC, so that might be a useful comparison, even if we have no plans to adopt it. --Fæ (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Personal pronoun: Though many Wikimedians know me from real life events and meetings, this is separate from my on-project identity. If you need a pronoun to refer to my account, I prefer the courtesy of a singular they rather than she, he or anything else.", so this is not about your gender identity, but your Wikipedia one. Reading that does not tell me this is about your gender identity (unless of course the gender you identify with on WP is different from your real world one, if this is the case it is not clear).Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The statement is clear, this is my personal pronoun I have asked to be used on this project, which is the same thing as the gender identity I ask to be respected here. Guy Macon was aware of this fact, based on their past edits, and yet chose to get weird about it as discussed above. Their later commitment to continue using this as a harassment method is, well, read the comments by others in reaction. Questions about my personal life are neither relevant nor necessary. --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said I think Guy is wrong to refuse to obey your request (though I would also point out that your choice of pronouns hardly flows naturally and I can see why they would have an issue with it), but it is not clear this is an issue of gender identity, and thus no one should be hung over it (just tolled they are being a dick). Now if it is the same as the gender id you wish to use here (not that I am wholly sure what that is) it should be made explicitly clear on your users page that this is a gender ID, and not just a way of creating more anonymity (which is how it read).Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are over wikilawyering words. Respecting our contributor's gender and using the right pronoun is not that difficult. There is no expectation for our contributors to do any more than say what their preferred pronoun is, the rest are new types of distinction that do not apply in the real world, so it would be bizarre for Wikipedia to start creating special barriers before our contributors are treated respectfully. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The make it clear its a gender issue on your user page. You cannot hope users second guess that this is about gender and not anonymity. Ifd this was not an ANI, where sanctions were being sought I might agree with you. But this is, and as such it must be a claer violation of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, this does not make sense. The root cause here is not my actions or a failure to write something on my user page that Guy Macon might understand or find acceptable. So no, there is nothing wrong with the statement about my preferred pronoun. If you honestly believe that Wikipedia needs special policies about this, then please make a proposal. --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Again this is not about me, so stop making it about me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

--

A note that a consensus was reached a while back to add gender identity to WP:NPA, I see no reason not to add it to WP:HARASS as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least all agree that deliberately misgendering Fae or anyone else is a personal attack and, if repeated after warnings, a blockable offense? Fae should not have to do anything to deserve proper and respectful treatment of their gender identity. It is the basic dignity that all our editors deserve automatically, by virtue of being people. If you can't bring yourself to use singular they (except for those times when you probably already use it and just don't notice) then avoid using a pronoun — call Guy Guy, call Fae Fae, etc. If you feel compelled to misgender people with whom you have disagreements, and set agreeing with you as a condition for treating them respectfully, something is wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How is he misgendering Fae, what is the gender of the terms he has used? Hell what is the gender of the term they wants to useSlatersteven (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have had my say, I do not think any thing more then a "be nice" message should be done about this, anbd this is my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, using a masculine or a feminine gendered pronoun in dialogue with a person who has clearly expressed a preference for neither masculine nor feminine pronouns is misgendering, every bit as much as it would be if you preferred feminine pronouns and I called you "he", or if you preferred feminine pronouns and I called you "she". Using made-up pronouns to deal with people whose chosen peonouns we do not accept (but not with others or ourselves) is equally insulting. We do not simply get to decide that all non-binary folks should be called "zie" any more than we can decide that all folks - m f or anything else - should be called "it", which would be misgendering and dehumanizing in much the same way as Guy's attack pronouns, albeit less attack-ey,

Slatersteven. I don't think anyone who has not in fact been in discussions where an interlocutor has used incorrect pronouns in order to undercut one's argument, or as a form of insult, is really in a position to decide what calls for a "be nice" message rather than a sanction, any more than someone who has not been subject to misogynist verbal attacks should decide how consequential it is to he called a "bitch". Empathy often fails in the attempt. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Slatersteven's name has been questioned here and in the previous thread I'll say here what I had intended to say earlier. Slatersteven and I have been on opposite sides of a contentious issue. What I found, much to my annoyance, was he/she/they were level headed, willing to listen even when they didn't agree and generally well behaved to the point where I couldn't claim some sort of behavior or editorial fault and I was forced to discuss the issue based on merit! Basically, I have no doubt that someone might get mad at Slatersteven for making them think but not because Slatersteven was rude or otherwise problematic. Oh, on top of all that, they also try to find common ground and seek compromise. Can you believe it? The nerve° of that person! Springee (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have had the same experience with Slatersteven in the past, to be honest. But this intervention - combining a failure of empathy with an implied, but sophmoric, argument in the style of analytical philosphy that one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities - is, if only debatably rude, most certainly "otherwise problematic" in the context in which it was offered. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think we're getting off track a little here, but I'm severely concerned with Guy Macon's response which, if I've read it properly, states that they will continue to use whichever pronouns they wish to use without regard to the wishes of others. I don't think anything's necessary, but if this is closed, I would prefer some sort of warning to ensure this doesn't happen again. (I also try to use the singular "they" in every situation on this encyclopedia unless gender pronouns are clear, without any grammatical issues whatsoever - English does not have a "neutral case", and it's incorrect to assume everyone here is a "he," so please don't think I'm being snarky towards the user in question.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Since I was asked[66], and this is all just an extended part of a previous dispute that centered on something I had written (and which two MfDs declined to delete, despite Fæ's activism for that result), and Fæ's participation in that was a blatant violation of the terms of their topic-ban from gender and sexuality issues being lifted, I do feel entitled to comment. But aside from what I've just pointed out, I'm going to stick to responding to the OP here, and skip all the back-and-forth above.

  Using a gender-neutral pronoun, for someone who (lately) expresses a preference for gender neutral references, is not a personal attack nor mocking, in any way. Using constructed ones (rather popular constructed ones, among the subset of people who use them at all) for this purpose is not and cannot be any kind of transgression, especially since the entire basis of Fæ's rampage of personal attacks (real ones), assumption of bad faith, canvassing, and off-site harassment against me personally (see previous ANI about Fæ a month or so back [67]) was Fæ's incorrect belief that I was mocking people specifically for using such gender-neutral pronouns. [As I think we all understand by now, the point of the piece was to criticize use of non-standard English in Wikipedia's own voice, especially for PoV/promotional reasons.]

  This has come full circle. WanderingWanda and Fæ can't have it both ways. Either my and your and the next person's well-attested gender-neutral writing approach (neologistic, or singular 'they', or even just avoidance of pronouns at all, as I'm doing here in reference to Fæ) are valid for people to use as gender-neutral writing approaches, or none of them are. If they're gender-neutral, it is not possible for use of one of them to be "misgendering" when applied to someone with an explicit stated preference for gender-neutral references being made regarding them. That Fæ apparently uses they, personally, creates no obligation on the part of everyone else to use it. I mean, really; just think about it for half a second. This is not MindControlPedia, and if such a "must use the exact pronoun I like better, or else" notion had any shred of validity, then it would not be permissible in WP to, for instance, write in reference to such a person in another language without dropping out of that language and into English 'they' when it came time for a pronoun. I know none of us are that brain-damaged, so it's time to just drop this mongering of pseudo-drama and move on. Especially since the actual substance of Guy Macon's quoted material is spot-on: Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line [Fæ] can go regarding [Fæ's] topic ban and regarding civility...It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or [Fæ's] previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. It's precisely the kind of editor behavior examination request that ANI exists for.

  PS, @Jorm:: Trying to censor a post after someone in the post has been pinged is futile (pings cannot be undone), petty, and against the discussion-page guidelines (which also apply to venues like this that serve the same function but are not in "Talk:" namespace). Editwarring to continue censoring it is likely to get you blocked.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I believe you are eliding scenarios here. Using the time-attested singlular "they" by default, and using made-up pronouns (or, say, "it") for people whose pronoun choices we do not respect, amount to two completely different situations with respect to WP:CIVIL. Let's not forget key differences just to score cheap rhetorical points, even when we believe that "the actual substance [of the UNCIVIL post] is spot-on". Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What you surmise about Macon's views directly contradicts his own statements about them. So, WP:AGF failure on your part. You are not a mind reader, and are not in a position to tell us what someone else means/believes. I don't know who "we" is supposed to be in "people whose pronoun choices we do not respect", but speak for yourself. For my part, I've stated many times I have no issue with people in their personal and professional lives having preferred pronouns, including neologistic ones; I've seen Macon say the same more than once. So, basically, you're just making shit up out of nowhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm, no. Fortunately, Guy has explained his actions in this post, and regardless of any underlying beliefs, what he has chosen to do - by his own account - is to refuse to use pronouns because people express their preference to be addressed by those pronouns. In other words, he chooses his language in order not to respect their choices. However, interestingly, he does not appear to do this for the multiplicity of editors who express a choice for "he" or for "she" as pronouns, only for those who express other preferences. I say again, this stance of Guy's, regardless of the semiotics, ethics or metaphysics behind it (about which I know nothing behind what he has recently said), is to me a clear violation of CIVIL and NPA.

The scenario to which you seem to be alluding - referring to everyone consistently with "they", regardless of personal preference - is entirely different and would not be UNCIVIL in my view; it would either not be misgendering anyone or would be misgendering everyone equally, depending on one's interpretation, and would therefore not be a personal attack in any case. But that is a complete red herring, since that is not what Guy has said he is doing. Also, accusing me of making shit up out of nowhere is a personal attack; I would appreciate a retraction. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, SMcCandlish, re: [As I think we all understand by now, the point of the piece was to criticize use of non-standard English in Wikipedia's own voice, especially for PoV/promotional reasons., I hope this (and the fact that the blanked page was not deleted) were not actually the main points you took away from the massive reaction to your essay. To me, the most salient point was that, per CIVIL, we are responsible for what we actually say, not simply for what we intend. In fact, as a best practice, we ought to imagine what the impact of our remarks would be on a highly sensitive person whom we love, who is temperamentally unable to let go of an issue, rather than placing the burden on our interlocutors to "just get over" the unintended consequences of our own utterances. The way away from the BATTLEGROUND is that way. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A lot of words, with several obvious inaccuracies, that I'm left wondering if they are intentional in order to get me to respond to tangents.

However the issue here is Guy Macon's chosen, unprovoked, actions. No matter how that is twisted and turned, Guy Macon's actions are not my responsibility. It would be super if Guy Macon would get out of my face and spend their volunteer time doing something positive for this project, rather than weirdly playing pronoun martyr. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If Fæ's comment above is meant as some kind of response to what I posted just above it (which seems to be the case), we can all be very, very certain that it's not my intent to have Fæ respond further to anything in this thread, since I've advocated that Fæ be re-banned from the topic area entirely (see also #Fæ thread above). And I expect that result very soon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. You cannot ban someone from expecting that their own choice of pronoun should be respected on Wikipedia.
2. I did not create this thread.
3. I am not responsible for Guy Macon's actions or hostile statements.

--Fæ (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No one suggested any of this as a reason for Fæ's T-ban being reinstated. The civility breaches (cf. this ANI and this one, possibly also the one just before that one, though I think it was more about canvassing in the same topic area), are sufficient, as clear transgressions of the terms of the lifting of the t-ban. I don't think I'll need to repeat this again. The matter isn't likely to be dealt with in this particular thread. But I'm also not going to be the one to open up the thread that will (barring some new outburst from that editor); someone less involved should do that, and probably at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

TLDR: Massive long winded tangent, nothing relevant to Guy Macon's actions. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Everyone and everything is fair game at WP:ANI, including the sometimes murky reasons behind reports... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

People here don't seem to see the real problem

The real problem here, as I see it, is that WanderingWanda (i.e. whoever is behind that account) and Fæ are banding together in a concerted attempt to get an opponent, i.e. Guy Macon, kicked out, something that, from what I can see in the wall of text above, has happened before, and is highly likely to happen again to someone else later on if no one puts a stop to it now... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory fantasy. I have no idea who WanderingWanda is, nor had I any idea they were going to raise this thread at ANI until I got a notification about it. There is no queer secret cabal, so lay off with the freaky allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Or I'll be next? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What a silly thing to say. I have no idea why you want to have a crack at me or WanderingWanda, nor am I inclined to waste time examining your account to find out. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's part of a pattern of gender-and-sexuality hostility for which Fæ was indeffed, then provisionally just topic-banned for years, then recently unbanned under the condition that the behavior not resume. But it clearly has, so the t-ban needs to be reinstated, whether by ANI, AE, or a new ArbCom case. Given that Fæ received a {{Ds/alert}} over a month ago, AE is an available, viable, and usually expedient option, especially given the number of gender-dispute-related CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS breaches by this editor. I checked, and WanderingWanda had not received the DS notice yet, and now has [68].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The "real problem here" is Guy Macon's actions. My preferred pronoun is not a "a pattern of gender-and-sexuality hostility" and someone else harassing me because I have a preferred pronoun should not become an amusing excuse to hijack this thread to lobby to get me banned. Your open hostility to me existing on this project after your disruptive essay was deleted is clear to everyone, please find something else to do with your time rather than gaming the system because you are bored. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Part of WP:Competence is required is the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. While Guy's actions are one thing, I think consensus is pretty clear that editors do not consider pronouns to be worth getting in a huff about. People mess up pronouns all the time because this is text-based community with too large a population to keep track of individual preferences for more than a short time. Expecting others to always use your pronoun is unreasonable. This is not "misgendering" - its just the reality of how this medium works. Its why I said above that you need to show resilience when it happens, and stop letting it impact your ability to communicate with other editors. I know you didn't make the original report, but you had a chance to read the writing on the wall in this section and defuse the situation, but instead redoubled. It should be no surprise that your persistence is making people look at your past problems in this area. -- Netoholic @ 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My sense, Netoholic, is that pretty much the opposite of what you say is true. What the response to SMcCandlish's pronoun essay tells me, for example, is that the consensus is clear that deliberately obtuse pronoun choices applies to other editors are, by consensus, "worth getting in a huff about", and Guy's explanation here shows that he was making a very deliberate and POINTey choice in selectively not respecting pronouns. Let's not go down the garden path of grammatical versus social gender - the real question is how we can show our respect for other editors. By selectively imposing made-up pronouns because an editor has expressed a pronoun choice, Guy has violated NPA and CIVIL, and probably BATTLEGROUND as well. Accidental slips between he, she and they are something completely different and are entirely unrelated to this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy may be harrasing Fæ, but I will not refer to a singular editor with the singular they. (There are times when the singular they is appropriate when discussing a single one of multiple editors.) I'll try not to use pronouns at all, if I'm aware of the problem. I've been known to use formal variables X and Z when I need to refer to two different persons (or editors) in a paragraph. IIRC, Loglan had 5 free variables which are genderless and pronoun-like. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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

• I have reclosed this (with Arthur Rubin's comment). There's already an AN thread regarding this, so continue there if needed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:BZAW31559

• BZAW31559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account’s activity, especially [69], makes me doubt that the user is here for a right purpose. Can any sysop, at very least, revdel this stuff? The very first edit on Meta-wiki created global.css. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: not one revision, but all revisions since 895301588 to 895913570; the current one may be kept. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry...was interrupted by a real life meeting...should be done now. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadore College

This article appears to be a complete and utter dog's breakfast of unsourced content. I came across it today when a bunch of IPs, and two accounts Canadore College Marketing (talk · contribs) and Dan (Canadore College Marketing) (talk · contribs) started removing some of the questionable content and edit warring over it. They were stopped in their tracks by CLCStudent (talk · contribs) and ThePaSch (talk · contribs), who started tag-team edit warring alongside them ([70],[71],[72],[73]) and generally going nuts with templates and false accusations of vandalism. I suggested taking the "College Marketing" accounts to UAA, but somebody affiliated with a college making a good-faith attempt to fix an article of very poor quality shouldn't really have the COI riot act read at them quite so strongly. I full-protected the article for 24 hours, which I believe is standard procedure for a content dispute involving established editors, and dropped a note on the talk page. I've had a quick look around for sources and can't find anything obvious, which makes me think I should just redirect the article somewhere else, or nominate it for deletion. Obviously I can't AfD an article when it's full protected. How should we progress? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no dog in this race, and I suspect CLCStudent (talk · contribs) doesn't either; from my perspective, an unregistered IP removed content from an article without any justification, which I came across during a patrol of RC. I was unaware the IP was affiliated with the college until after the all-caps edit summary from the IP and the subsequent creation of the account Canadore College Marketing (talk · contribs) had been created, at which point I ceased my activities on the article and went to WP:AIV with a notice that should, as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) rightly pointed out, have went to WP:UAA; I apologize for the inconvenience caused. --ThePaSch (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@ThePaSch: No problem, apology accepted. The trouble is I've found that editors who are fired up on Huggle with a mindset of "get rid of vandalism ASAP" (which is, by and large, the right attitude to have) occasionally fail to see the wood for the trees and inadvertently cause issues like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to treat the two COI accounts any differently to other COI accounts. I see one has been blocked, presumably for an obvious username violation. The other will need to walk very carefully, as presumably they are PAID for these edits. GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever for full protection, Ritchie333; the article needs to be gutted (and possibly built up, but that's another breakfast). Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a reason, everyone was reverting and nobody was discussing. If you mean the article shouldn't be protected now following development, I'd rather leave it for a bit and check we've got a consensus first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverting per policy, it would seem]]. Which is nice. ——SerialNumber54129 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In an attempt to de-escalate, I left a bunch of advice on the user's talk page, and in a response to a message on my own. On the article talk page, I might have found a source that might let it survive WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a stub, at least. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided Dan (Canadore College Marketing) (talk · contribs) with information regarding their (obviously) paid editing and their ownership, and their incivility. I think AFD is the way to go, but perhaps the PAID user can come of with some sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Agree with Goldenring. DlohCierekim 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• That protection scores somewhere around 3 in a scale of 10. Both the sides had gone crazy (one, probably from seeing the COI aspects of the opposing editors) and it asked for some cold-headed editorial intervention; sometimes sysops need to click the edit button rather than (needlessly) prolong the impasse by using their mop. The reverts by CLC/TPS were not bad, but I note that most of the sources are not working and the paragraphs can be rephrased in a better manner. ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• And, don't launch an AfD and waste even more time. ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Per my standard advice, any admin is free to undo the protection if they think this is superfluous. I thought more eyes needed to be put on this issue, hence why I came here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: It was the thing to do. It'll give PAID-guy time to absorb and reflect. And as for afd, it's never a waste of time to try to clear out artspam that is poorly sourced. DlohCierekim 16:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur and see no issue with the very short period of protection. There was disruption at the time by multiple parties and you did what you felt was the most appropriate thing. The alternative was blocking the COI editor on their new account (made, mind you further to a username soft block and the new name, whilst still a COI issue, is technically within the username policy assuming they declare themselves as paid) and further possibly warning the others of using the appropriate forum, etc. The disruption has ceased and the employee warned appropriately of the COI issue and policies on disclosure on their talk page. NJA (t/c) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition - though I would not say my notice on COI issues to the IP clearly in use by the editor in question was “Spam”. No worries though. NJA (t/c) 16:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would advise reducing to ECP as that is all that's needed to stop the editwarring/paid editing; full protection when it's only being edited by IPs and new accounts seems unnecessary (though I wouldn't semi it because one of the accounts has enough edits to get autoconfirmed in 4 days). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You miss the point that experienced editors were (also) edit-warring. The problem was not the paid editing. In these cases, where no vandalism is involved, full protection is appropriate and in line with policy. As I write this the protection is due to expire in a few hours. The COI editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page and provided a number of potential references. I suggest focus now switches to getting the article up to date. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Terriannecroasdale

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

---

This user violates the 3RR in article Deadcuts -history (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4). Regards.--PATH SLOPU 03:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

144.98.98.33

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

---

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

User has persistently vandalised the 2019 South African general election. Deliberately attempting to destroy or deface the page. Numerous editors trying to stop them. Conlinp (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

User:Iftequarfohyan has added dozens of unsourced edits (almost exclusively regarding the Mahdavia sect) over the last few years, the most recent being a few hours ago.[74] [75] [76] [77] [78] As per their Talk Page, they have recieved several warnings about their disruptive editing, but none seem to be sticking.

In addition to this, (though it may not be too relevant given how long ago it was), in August 2017 they recieved a warning regarding the use of copyrighted material.[79] A few months later, on 8 January 2018, they apparently ignored this by adding what appears to be copyrighted material on Dollah Darya Khan (sorry, I'm not really sure how to make a direct link to this particular edit).

I've spent a decent amount of time disproving and cleaning up their edits and I'm struggling to find one that was constructive. Alivardi (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:CIR issue here. Their English looks pretty broken and they don't seem to be engaging at all with the warnings they've gotten. Only 63 edits from them total, they don't seem to be a very prolific editor, only 3 edits this year. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Yeah I get you. I'm gonna give it another go with the warnings and I'll make it a bit firmer and clearer this time. Thanks anyways. Alivardi (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be time for a block of Alivardi, if they don't reply to or engage with this and continues their behavior, then an indef block may be in order. The community might support a ban, or an admin might just executively decide to block. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

DilletantiAnonymous

This user has been asked many, many times not to put unreferenced articles into the mainspace. Numerous other editors have also contacted DA, who does seem to read the messages, but has only responded once in the 166 messages. Nearly all 166 have been about lack of referencing/copyvios, articles being moved to draftspace because of these issues. They have been getting concerns raised on this exact issue for 2 years, but has continued to behave in exactly the same way, including as recent as yeterday creating this unreferenced articles, swiftly moved to draftspace: Draft:The Cows (painting). Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If @DilletantiAnonymous: would just respond there could be things we could do - I see that a couple have been referenced and patrolled, but this is clearly endemic and required draftifying from multiple editors. If Dilletanti actually is willing to communicate, then there might be things we can do. Otherwise WP:CIR may require an indef. Alternatively - could we revoke autoconfirmed?? I believe it technically can be removed (it's an accidental issue with de-sysops), I've no idea if the community can/has done so, but it would in effect be a forced use of AfC post-ACPERM. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Slander or violation?

I'm not sure this is the correct noticeboard for this, but would the following be considered slanderous or violations? (the following assertions are not verified in the supporting sources):

• Adding “Saudi government have paid blood money to Khashoggi family” section in Jamal Khashoggi [80] and Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.[81]

• Adding “The Human Rights Watch had been reported in a document, titled ‘No Exit: Human Rights Abuses inside the MKO Camps’ and published in 2005, that The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran did a wide range of sexual harassment against men and women, even children.” To People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Camp Ashraf.[82][83]

• Adding “she said women who promoted to in the Leadership Council after a series of meetings directed 'X saloon'. The X Saloon covered with white color and there was a table which included some traditional marriage tools. In this room all women who was in the Leadership Council got temporary marriage between them and Masud Rajavi. Finally Rajavi said to them to act freely around him.” to Camp Ashraf.[84]

• Adding “It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.” to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon,[85], Syrian Armed Forces,[86] and to Anti-aircraft warfare.[87]

The editor making these edits is User:Forest90. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you, Alex-h, need to be more careful about making such reports because you could ask me all these points on my talk page. It seems you were hasty for reporting me. why? For now: [ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-children-intl/index.html CNN] attributes the "blood money" payments to a "a source familiar with the matter". and [ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43014081 BBC] says " It is the first time Israel has lost an aircraft in combat since 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon by a Hezbollah rocket, the Jerusalem Post reports," so you can consider it the second shutdown. If you need more explanation, come to my talk page or to Articles talk page.Forest90 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 I believe Alex-h meant that the "in the invasion to neighbors countries" part appeared to be slanderous. Correct me if I am wrong Alex-h. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZLEA:, yes, that's correct, thank you. There are also the statements added in Camp Ashraf and People's Mujahedin of Iran, which are not in the refs provided. Also what Objective3000 said below. Alex-h (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the claim that “blood money” was paid that you have added four times[88] [89] [90] [91] is not in that article or any other article that I can find. Blood money normally would only be negotiated after conviction. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Can editors please stop using the words "slander" and "slanderous" in this discussion? It's legally misplaced and not constructive. It's better to focus on the applicable policies and guidelines, namely, WP:V, WP:NPV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. R2 (bleep) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BITE on new archive user – University of Lincoln, International Bomber Command Centre Digital Archive

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

---

212.219.220.124 (talk · contribs) is an IP from the University of Lincoln. Lincolnshire in the UK is known as "bomber county", from its role in WWII. They have added a large number of ELs, all to relevant searches within the International Bomber Command Centre Digital Archive, e.g. "Lancaster".

As a consequence, they've been mass reverted and threatened with a block: User talk:212.219.220.124. No other discussion.

Seriously? Is this how we're supposed to behave? Some academic, or their student, is connected to what shows every sign of being a valuable archive of material. We should welcome this. And instead, this is how we behave?

Yes, there are better ways to use this content. We can always do better. We can inform new editors how to do things better for starters, and we can take a rather more welcoming approach to them. This was emphatically not doing that.

I'm supposed to be at (another) university next week for WMF, trying to encourage their academics to collaborate on the project. HTF am I supposed to do that, when this is how such approaches are treated? This sort of treatment gets passed around. Academics do know each other, and they do talk. So when we burn one collaborator like this, that reflects badly on WP across a whole range of institutions.

@Ohnoitsjamie:, @Widr: Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

And they're already blocked. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of link quality, we generally don't permit mass link canvassing. The links weren't even to specific articles, but to search pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• And your best response to that was to ignore them and threaten them with a block? Do you think this is a useful block?

Why did you fail to make any attempt to discuss this obvious GF (and potentially valuable) effort with them first? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not see canvassing search links as a valuable contribution. I would've been happy to discuss it with them had they responded to the warning. I did not implement the block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We know you saw no value to adding links (to an academically backed archive of substantial material of significant value), that much is obvious. Do you really think that threatening new users is the way to encourage them to engage? Do you pay any heed to AGF? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

What’s the concern with the short term block? The was a warning given and the filter log was being lit up by the editor in question. If it was an error then the user is free to discuss the block and their intentions on their talk page using the unblock template. Should that discussion indicate the block is not necessary to prevent disruption then it can be undone. NJA | talk 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe the concern is that a user was busy adding links to an archive of photographs on articles apparently relevant to those articles. At 15:19, Ohnoitsjamie dropped a level 4 spam template on the IP's talk page as a first notification. At 15:20, the user saved another edit, and it is reasonable to assume that's when the talk page notification showed up. The IP user made no further edits, but was blocked by Widr at 15:34. Yeah, it seems pretty harsh to me, too. But it's not really a hanging crime, some people were overzealous, they should acknowledge their mistake and try to avoid it in the future. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Kill them all, let God sort them out. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh great, now you've gotten me sucked down the rabbit hole of reading articles about the Albigensian Crusade and Catharism...RecycledPixels (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have some sympathy, with both sides. This might well be a valuable resource, but just spamming links is not constructive. Maybe they should have just be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

How about rather than warning them with a rubberstamp template with a big angry icon on it, we talk to them?

Also, why were they blocked after onewarning? Take some real vandal, warn them once and then list them at AIV. It'll be rejected as "insufficiently warned". Here's an editor that's clearly (even the IP is a pointer) the exemplar of AGF, and we insta-block them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a warning was OK, though maybe one more along the lines of "maybe you should read..." rather then just an impersonal warning template.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{uw-spam1}} and {{uw-spam2}} do that, so they're good first contacts for people who are adding inappropriate external links. By the time you get to {{uw-spam4}}, the template is written as though the user has already received prior notifications of why their actions are inappropriate, but have continued anyway, so the stick is brought out. It's not really useful as a first contact template unless the user is putting blatantly unsuitable and off-topic spam links into articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It does seem a massively clear-cut case of over-reaction and biting the noob. If you check the user contibutions you will see that they were adding new links every two or three minutes. The warning was issued at 16:19 (my time), a last edit posted at 16:20 - probably already in hand when the warning was issued. Next there is a gap of 12 minutes until the block was imposed at 16:32. If the user had ignored the warning there would have been several more edits during that 12 minutes before the block was imposed. Instead they gave every sign of heeding it and sitting back to chew it over. They got blocked anyway. Totally disgusted at the amount of self-justification at the expense of fact-checking going on here. I cannot maintain politeness any longer, so I am not going to hang around here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A bad block leading to a missed opportunity to work with the editor. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you to Andy for raising the issue here. I imagine there might be other cases where anonymous editors don't have a third party to step in on their behalf. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked, based on the concerns above. Widr (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The user was spamming links, and rightly treated as such. There is some responsibility on the part of adult users, which I presume is the case for archive researchers, to use their minds and make some attempt to learn how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not something new in 2019, and most universities and colleges, and even secondary schools, now have courses that teach how to use Wikipedia. If someone got their feeelings hurt, sorry. They are adults, they'll survive. I'll also state that this is yet another reason I'm in favor of mandatory registration. Having someone take the time to register an account, and (hopefully) read some basic instructions about how to use Wikipedia, which presumably a researcher would know how to comprehend, would go a long way to preventing these sorts of situations before they start. I realize the WMF is against mandatory registration, but this is an avoidable situation that they choose, for whatever reasons, to continue to allow to happen. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Belittling the user is not particularly helpful. This could have been avoided if there had been more than a token attempt at dialogue. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply presenting another point of view here. This could have been avoided if the user had behaved like a responsible adult. That needs to be said here. We're not dealing with kindergartners who need to be babied. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

'Babying' as you put it and blocking like this are not the only options! There is a middle ground where people work together, so that new editors can learn Wikipedia's norms and how it works. People are allowed to make mistakes, especially when they start editing. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, things like this make want to give up. ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So give up. Wikipedia is a broken mess because of how it's run by the WMF, not because of how thinking adults get their feeling hurt because they don't take time to think before they act because they don't have to. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with your views on the WMF; disagree with you on the total fucking abrogation of responsibility allowed our supposedly most trusted editors. Still waiting for the misuse of the rollback tool to be reversed of course. That's my 50-50 anyway. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• A level four warning template as a first contact is WP:BITE except in the clearest cases of vandalism or spamming (which this was not, as evidenced by multiple users here saying the links were relevant). The indef block obviously more-so. I would've been happy to discuss it with them had they responded to the warning has it exactly backwards. Leviv ich 18:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'll agree a level 4 warning was excessive. Point taken. - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  As fun as this has been can I move to close? The user, who by the way had access to their talk page and never asked to be unblocked has been unblocked by the blocking admin. Also just FYI, and although only one person said as such above: it was never an indef block. NJA | talk 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing that out; stricken. I don't know when the right time to close this is, but FWIW notwithstanding my critical comment, I do not think this rises to the level of any sanctions or anything like that. I think it was an overreaction, but an honest mistake. Leviv ich 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2601:400:8000:ABA0::/64

Resolved

 – Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/2601:400:8000:ABA0::/64

This range was blocked on 15:08, 7 February 2019 by Widr for 3 months. Today is the first day after the block expired and an IP from this range has resumed vandalism (Special:Contributions/2601:400:8000:ABA0:302E:1013:1D45:DD51). See User:EvergreenFir/socks#Heights_and_Ages for more background info.

Please re-block the range. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user declaring himself an Admin

This is in reference to editor Harrison Canyon (and possible anonymous IP 24.50.193.43). Please see details of my concern about this editor in my note here. Besides claiming being an Admin, this editor has been quite disruptive in Puerto Rico roadways articles. I am not sure how to proceed. Also, not sure if this is a case of sock-puppetry as well, since he appears to be editing also as Anon IP 24.50.193.43, where @Yarfpr: and myself have left him messages -- never responds from any known account. Mercy11 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the admin userbox from his userpage. Please provide diffs for any further complaints. Simply editing logged out isn't sockpuppetry unless they are claiming to be two separate people to obtain an advantage. Again if you have diffs where they have violated a specific policy, please add them to this report. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I never claimed that I was filing a complaint for suckpuppetry. Mercy11 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

Given the history of ANI discussion on this topic, I request intervention to end the following discussion:

After finding a academically peer-reviewed journal paper as a source, in Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RFC about the death tolls in the lead, User:Stefka Bulgaria refuses to end the discussion. He tries to dispute the reliability of the journal paper by questioning its primary sources. Would you please give a warning to him about WP:NOTGETTINGIT? — Taha (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)