Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walterblue222 (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 18 February 2019 (→Walterblue222 - NOTHERE, TEND, and CIVIL issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Iranian opposition articles

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

    Clarifying that I had merged Thread #3 with the already-merged Threads #1 and #2. Another user had previously merged Threads #1 and #2. Yet another user added Thread #4 to the previously-merged Threads #1 through #3. Thereafter, yet another user unmerged Thread #2. Somehow, this has caused confusion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The explanatory note I left erroneously suggested that I had singlehandedly merged the first three threads; my apologies for being unclear. Levivich 19:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing by Saff_V

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

    This is wikipedia and users can edit on any subject by observing rules. I just ask user:Ladsgroup more RS but he accused me to support Iranian politic.Interesting reason! I nominated Radio Farda as a disputed source and here it was proven I am right because of propagandistic mission.Saff V. (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see anyone agree with you that Radio Farda is a disputed source and as such should not be used, quite the opposite. How did the link you provide "prove" any of your points? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there is not any exact confirmation to using it because of propagandistic mission. Any way I did not remove any material sourced by Radio Farda in mentioned articles (Ali Nejati, Esmail Bakhshi and Sepideh Gholian) unless the radio Farda news did not cover the material. Saff V. (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In your own words not any exact confirmation - How does that lead to the conclusion it was proven I am right? If you mis-represent something that badly it's hard to have any faith in your interpretation of the other events. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to be a lot more critical of the way certain WP:RS/N users treat leftist state sources vs. American funded sources WRT propaganda vs news than most people on the board, but even I wouldn't suggest that brief discussion proved anything beyond that Radio Farda has been connected to propaganda in the past. Whether they can be a reliable source in context doesn't appear to have been exhaustively discussed in that thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I remove the AfD labels he has put on Sepideh Gholian and Ali Nejati articles yet? How much longer are you humoring this guy? Fredrick eagles (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No the AfD's should run their courses. If the nominations are baseless, the community will pint that out. User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Both closed as "keep" User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 02:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

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

    @Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray report below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If You and Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then you both should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with you. Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This is the first edit by Nikoo.Amini in ANI. Just like, Alex-h and Poya-P. All of them are Fa wiki users and I have never dealt with them or talked to them. I had no conflicts with them in any of the articles.Saff V. (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Blanket removals by user:Pahlevun

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

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

    These are all political oppositions to the current Iran government, which links to the report above by Ladsgroup concerning political POV-pushing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah it's starting to ridiculous now. Even when this user is "expanding" articles, he stealthily removes/changes information that clashes with his POV. There has generally been a lot of political pov-pushing going on in articles of peoples/groups/protests that criticize/oppose the clerical rule in Iran, a country with poor human rights, where people aren't allowed to criticize the regime cough cough. See a pattern here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should not be used in this way. This seems to be a coordinated POV effort by these users against political oppositions to the Iranian clerical rule. This needs admin attention.Poya-P (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; At best, I can say that Pahlevun is a bit too solistic. At worst, Pahlevun is transforming articles into attack-pages, which is frustrating to see. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not going accuse any user here, because it is not the right place and the right time. However, in order to clarify the situation, I should shed light upon these two points first (Please note that all of the articles mentioned are all somehow linked to the MEK):

    1. Since (at least) 2016, there has been coordinated efforts to purge anything unfavorable about the MEK here on English Wikipedia. It has been technically proven that multiple sockpuppets are involved in the campaign (please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantic12/Archive for more details) and as User:EdJohnston has pointed out recently, "It seems to be a fact that the socks are always here to defend the MEK".
    2. Based on various reports by different media outlets, we also know that the MEK spends lots of money to manipulate information about itself on the internet and even maintains a "troll farm" whose "online soldiers" are tasked to do that on a daily basis. (for instance, please read the reports by Al-Jazeera and The Guardian)

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

    Response by Pahlevun

    Sometimes everything is not what it seems. I want Drmies and others making decisions on this, to kindly take the time to read the following thorouly:

    It really hurts to read something like "disruptive editing" about your work, when you are here to build an encyclopedia. Contributed to Wikipedia since 2012, I made more than 21,000 edits and created more than 600 articles during these years. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines, and I pledge that I am complying and here to uphold Wikipedia's values, however, that does not mean that I make no mistakes. So, I encourage everyone to assume good faith about my edits.

    Explaining my edits on the article 'People's Mujahedin of Iran'

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

    • In the |ideology= parameter of Infobox political party, all the content was removed, while it was supported by these reliable sources:
    • Mehrzad Boroujerdi (1996). Iranian Intellectuals and the West: The Tormented Triumph of Nativism. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0433-4.
    • Fred Reinhard Dallmayr (1999). Border Crossings: Toward a Comparative Political Theory. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-0043-1.
    • Bashiriyeh, Hossein. The State and Revolution in Iran (RLE Iran D). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-82089-2.

    Is it disruptive to restore these well-sourced content removed from the article?

    • In the Infobox war faction, in front of |leaders= parameter, a strange typographical error occurs that creates a malfunction leading to hiding sourced content, without removing it (See how this minor correction makes a difference on the content sown). Is it a coincidence? Considering the fact that confirmed sockpuppets were determined to remove the same content, makes me suspicious. (See Saleh Hamedi, Carpe765 and NickRovinsky for example). Note that Iran hostage crisis is also being removed from the list while it was also supported by reliable sources (Mark Edmond Clark (2016), "An Analysis of the Role of the Iranian Diaspora in the Financial Support System of the Mujaheddin-e-Khalid", in David Gold (ed.), Microeconomics, Routledge, pp. 66–67, ISBN 1317045904, Following the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, the MEEK participated physically at the site by assisting in defending it from attack. The MEK also offered strong political support for the hostage-taking action.) Is it a coincidence that confirmed sockpuppets also wanted to remove this (links are available in case requested)? I restored the content and I'm sure it was constructive.
    • A whole table sourced by a book published by an academic press (Masoud Banisadr (2016). "The Metamorphosis of MEK (Mujahedin e Khalq)". In Eileen Barker (ed.). Revisionism and Diversification in New Religious Movements. Routledge. ISBN 1-317-06361-9.) is totally removed and I restored it. I do consider it a constructive edit.
    • The fact that the government of Japan designated the MEK as a terrorist organization and froze its assets was removed from the article and I restored it (Japanese foreign ministry). Is it disruptive?
    • The sentence discussing that the MEK tried to assassinate US President Richard Nixon in his trip to Iran was completely removed while it was backed by a a book published by an academic press (Gibson, Bryan R. (2016), Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War, Facts on File Crime Library, Springer, p. 136, ISBN 9781137517159). I restored it, do you consider it disruptive?
    • Just take a look at the names of the following sections and the changes that was made:
    Original name Altered name Notes
    Anti-American campaign Totally removed The section is supported by multiple reliable sources and plays an important role in the group's history. Maybe it was removed to blend into irrelevant content?
    Fraud and money laundering Alleged fund raising Is really being prosecuted for these two financial crimes in at least five Western countries an "Alleged fund raising"? What about those huge amount of reliable sources saying so?
    Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) Conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) The word "Armed" was removed. Why?
    1998 FIFA World sabotage plan 1998 FIFA World political banner plan → Totally removed It is one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned and documentaries have been made on the event. Why it was removed and was blend with irrelevant text?
    Forgery Totally removed The section was supported by multiple reliable sources and is now removed. Look at the first sentence that is not in the article now:

    An annual report by California Department of Justice in 2004, asserts that "[m]embers of the MEK were arrested for operating a Los Angeles-based immigration and visa fraud ring, which enabled members of the group to enter the United States illegally... By using forged documents and fictitious stories of political persecution, the ring was able to assist hundreds of individuals entering the United States." (Source: Patrick N. Lunney, Rick Oules, Wilfredo Cid, Ed Manavian, Allen Benitez (2004), Bill Lockyer (ed.), "Organized Crime in California: Annual Report to the California Legislature" (PDF), California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement, Criminal Intelligence Bureau, pp. 23–24{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))

    Scholarly views Allegations of Indoctrination The section was modeled after Hezbollah#Scholarly_views (an article rated good). Why it was wholly removed, while it contained a list of scholars that worked on the subject and it was supported by reliable sources?

    Was restoring back these sections disruptive?

    • Whole section entitled "Propaganda campaign" is now reduced to a paragraph. Look at some of the sources removed:

    I restored the well-sourced content removed from the section and I think it was constructive. What is very interesting, is the fact that technically-proved sockpuppets were also very sensitive to the section and determined to remove it from the beginning. For example: Citieslife, NickRovinsky, London Hall.

    Last words

    For my contributions on the article discussed above, I have been blatantly attacked and harassed by users who are proved to be coordinated sockpuppets/meatpuppets here to purge this article (links available in case required). One of the reasons that I became interested in the subject and improving this article was the sense that I am safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it and use it as a means to advocate an organization.

    I believe that block, topic ban, or any other restriction on my account would be unfair. If if you maintain that my edits were "disruptive", I think that would be unnecessary to enforce any restrictions on me, I'll tell you why. I saw some user has argued that I should punished because I made edits after I "returned from a short wiki-break". It is not clear, even to myself, that how much I can continue my contributions because of the hardships that I'm facing since a few months ago. So, there's possibly nothing to prevent.

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

    I removed, 26 Sep 2018 removed the Japanese alleged terrorist designation since": "Primary source - freezing of assets of "terrorists and the like" from 2002. Unlcear this was a terrorist designation in 2002 - and even less clear this is in force today. Notably, the Japanese wiki doesn't seem to think they've been designated by Japan."). We discussed formatting on the talk page afterwards, though not the removal which hsd a rather clear reason. And yes - I consider resotration of rather dubious info (also for 2002, moreso for present day) without discussion or even an edit summary - highly disruptive - I am not sure of the 2002 status (seems to be a financial designation) - but saying Japan currently (2019) designates MEK as terrorist seems to be in WP:HOAX turf.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz, I'm not seeing hoax in that edit. I mean, it's true that citation doesn't support the statement that MEK was currently designated as a terrorist organization by Japan, but the citation does support the statement that it was so designated in 2002. I would have copyedited rather than reverted, but either way, I don't see how that edit is violation of policy or otherwise suggests the editor should be TBANed? Leviv ich 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Is Japan 1 of 3 countries (Iran, Iraq, Japan) currently designating MEK as terrorist? If not it is a HOAX - very simple. Prior to removing it I tried looking for any reasonable non-wikiclone saying this - did not find any (MEK was delisted by most countries since 2003). I also failed to find a secondary source discussing this - and it is unclear to me if the mofa announcement is just for money laundering (financial transactions) or a stronger domestic designation. Pahlevun above justifying reinserting what looks to be a hoax - only has me more convinced of the problem here. The MEK article has been edited and heavily discussed (including a few RFCs) since September - it appears Pahlevun took some old version (pre September) and reinstated text that was changed and discussed (e.g. removed for failing WP:V) - removed with a clear rationale - reinstated willy-nilly without even a reason. Pahlevun is not even acknowledging inserting what appears to be a hoax is a problem - he is justifying it above! WP:IDHT.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FTR, I did a fairly thorough search for all .go.jp websites mentioning either "ムジャヒディン・ハルク" or "モジャーヘディーネ・ハルグ"; there weren't a whole lot of results, indicating that the Japanese government is not that concerned about them, and so demanding an up-to-date source specifically claiming that they have removed them from a list of terrorist organizations whose assets they froze at one point in 2002 (a list they do not appear to maintain in any consistent manner) seems fairly unreasonable. The most prominent instance I found was this, which specifies that the US took them off a list of terrorist organizations, but does not mention any such Japanese policy one way or the other; presumably Japan, whose primary motivation for freezing the assets in the first place, as outlined in the cited source, was the 9/11 attacks on America, would have followed suit if they actually maintained an official list of terrorist organizations that had ever actually included the group. I did, however, locate this list, which doesn't mention either Japanese variant of the name under the "ma-column"; this of course is not a reliable source for the specific claim that they were removed from the list of terrorist organizations, but it is a very reliable source for the talk page argument that we should not be engaging in original research based on that one announcement from a few months after 9/11 a few months before the Iraq War. If anyone involved in this dispute ever needs help tracking down (or translating passages from) Japanese sources in the future, please feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Propaganda - WP:BLP vio and editing against previous discussion - Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 5#Hamilton and Rendell. Pahlevun restored a rather bad BLP violation (stating in our voice American BLPs were paid by MEK to support MEK - a possibly criminal charge (designated terror organization at the time) - and not quite what the sources say). This was discussed on the talk page at length. Introducing a libelous BLP vio is disruptive - doing so after a prior discussion on the issue - is disruptive. Justifying it here (and not saying - "sorry, I was wrong") - means such disruptive behavior is likely to continue.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be specific in this diff which names several BLPs, Pahlevun restored libel unsupported by the cited source (and the specific langauge here is important - paid to give a speech by an Iranian-American group vs. paid by MEK to support MEK (a designated terrorist org at the time) - and previously removed and discussed in the article talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page consensus you linked to you is you and one other editor working out an issue about one passage four months ago. Easy for an editor to miss that. I agree with you completely that this one passage is complicated, and it needs very precise wording to maintain accuracy to the source and neutrality. But to me this means it's the kind of passage that any of us could draft or edit in a less-than-ideal way; it's not clear black-and-white what is neutral and what is not neutral when talking about those payments and who made them, so AGF leads me to believe it's an innocent mistake. A "hoax" is a deliberate attempt to introduce completely false information; a POV error isn't the same thing as a hoax in my mind. Please see my further comment on this below to Stefka's analysis. Leviv ich 20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reinstating, in parts, a six-month old version is not innocent editing. In this specific edit - Pahlevun asserted (in wiki voice) that a whole list of named BLPs commited a Federal crime (receiving a payment for a service from a designated terror organization). If you make that sort of edit you better have iron clad sourcing - and you definitely should not misrepresent a source. This sort of edit is insta-blockable under the BLP policy. AGF is out of the window when the user does not use edit summaries, rolls back in a six month old version (after multiple discussions and a few RfCs), ignores talk page discussions, and the kicker -justifies this gross BLP violation as a constructive edit in their reaponse above. I do not see a sorry, an "I was wrong". I do see WP:ASPERSIONS of socking in Pahlevun's response above. This behaviour is beyond the pale.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Response by Pahlevun

    This is a response to the Response by Pahlevun (the points I was able to make sense of):

    • Iran hostage crisis: The MEK's support of the Iran Hostage crisis is disputed: "The Mojahein attacked the regime for disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists... and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."[1]
    Original name Notes
    Anti-American campaign There isn't a single RS in the article that backs up the claim that the MEK ever launched an "Anti-American campaign"
    Fraud and money laundering This section contained a large amount of repetitive and ambiguous information. Sources and backed up information were kept (see article's TP for discussions there)
    Armed conflict with the Islamic Republic government (1981–1988) The word "Armed" was removed because the 1981 conflict between the clerics and the MEK began through a peaceful demonstration by the MEK (and MEK sympathisers).[2][3]
    1998 FIFA World sabotage plan According to Pahlevun, this is "one of the most famous operations that the MEK has planned", and therefore required its own subheading. Rather, this is an allegation that the MEK tried to disrupt a football match by bringing banners to the game. These are the two sources backing up this claim:1, 2 (this is still included in the article)
    Forgery The first part of this was deemed a primary source, and the second part was moved to United States section
    Scholarly views See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_cult

    As I see it, this section does not require further sub-sections derived from the information that's already there

    References

    References

    1. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 208. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
    2. ^ Svensson, Isak (2013). Ending Holy Wars: Religion and Conflict Resolution in Civil Wars. ISBN 978-0702249563. On 20 June 1981, MEK organized a peaceful demonstration attended by up to 500,00 participants, who advanced towards parliament. Khomeini's Revolutionary Guards opened fire, which resulted in 50 deaths, 200 injured, and 1000 arrested in the area around Tehran University
    3. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 24. ISBN 978-0615783840. (from Abrahamian, 1989) "On 19 June 1981, the Mojahedin and Bani-Sadr called upon the whole nation to take over the streets the next day to express their opposition to the IRP 'monopolists' who they claimed had carried out a secret coup d'etat" - "The regime banned all future MEK demonstrations. The MEK wrote an open letter to President Banisadr asking the government to protect the citizens' "right to demonstrate peacefully".

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

    Overview of Pahlevun's blanket edits

    Trying not to overwhelm this report, so I'll focus on a single blanket edit (of several brought to this report) done by Pahlevun. With this edit alone, Pahlevun removed all of the following information without discussion from the People's Mujahedin of Iran article:

    • In May 11, 1976, the Washington Post reported that in January of that year, “nine terrorists convicted of murdering the three American colonels… were executed. The leader of the group, Vahid Afrakhteh stated that he personally killed col. Lewis Lee Hawkins in Tehran in 1973 and led the cell that gunned down Col. Paul Shafer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner.” (p.A9) In November 16, 1976, a UPI story reported that the Tehran police had killed Bahram Aram, the person responsible for the killings of three Americans working for Rockwell International.[1] Bahram Aram and Vahid Afrakhteh both belonged to the (Marxist) rival splinter group Peykar that emerged in 1972, and not the (Muslim) MEK.[2] Despite this, some sources have attributed these assassinations to the MEK.[3]
    • In 1982, the Islamic Republic cracked down MEK operations within Iran. This pre-emptive measure on the part of the regime provoked the MEK into escalating its paramilitary programs as a form of opposition.[4] By June 1982, Iraqi forces had ceased military occupation of Iranian territories. Massoud Rajavi stated that "there was no longer any reason to continue the war and called for an immediate truce, launching a campaign for peace inside and outside of Iran."[5]
    • According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the ‘medieval’ concept of the velayat-e faqih."[6][7]>
    • In January 1983, then Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz and Massoud Rajavi signed a peace communique that co-outlined a peace plan "based on an agreement of mutual recognition of borders as defined by the 1975 Algiers Agreement." According to James Piazza, this peace initiative became the NCRI´s first diplomatic act as a "true government in exile."[8][9] During the meeting, Rajavi claimed that the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had been "the only person calling for the continuation of the [Iran-Iraq] war."[10]
    • The foundation of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the MEK´s participation in it allowed Rajavi to assume the position of chairman of the resistance to the Islamic Republic. Because other opposition groups were banned from legal political process and forced underground, the MEK´s coalition build among these movements allowed for the construction of a legitimate opposition to the Islamic Republic.[11]
    • A 2018 research by Amnesty International found that Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners through a secret fatwa. Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. On July 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Rouhollah Khomeini, “used the armed incursion as a pretext to issue a secret fatwa” ordering the execution of all prisoners that were supportive of the MEK. Iranian authorities embarked on coordinated extrajudicial killings that were intended to eradicate political opposition. The killings were considered a crime against humanity as they operated outside legislation and trials were not concerned with establishing the guilt or innocence of defendants. [12][13] The Amnesty report has itself been criticized for whitewashing the MEK's violent past and its alliance with Saddam Hussein. It also failed to mention that thousands of MEK members were killed during Operation Mersad and not in prison. [14]
    • In 2016, an audio recording was posted online of a high-level official meeting that took place in August 1988 between Hossein Ali Montazeri and the officials responsible for the mass killings in Tehran. In the recording, Hossein Ali Montazeri is heard saying that the ministry of intelligence used the MEK’s armed incursion as a pretext to carry out the mass killings, which “had been under consideration for several years.” Iranian authorities have dismissed the incident as “nothing but propaganda”, presenting the executions as a lawful response to a small group of incarcerated individuals who had colluded with the MEK to support its July 25 1988 incursion. According to Amnesty International, this narrative fails to “explain how thousands of prisoners from across the country could have communicated and co-ordinated from inside Iran’s high-security prisons with an armed group outside the country.”[12][15]
    • SAVAK had severely shattered MeK’s organizational structure, and the surviving leadership and key members of the organization were kept in prisons until three weeks before the revolution, at which time political prisoners were released.[16]
    • Some surviving members restructured the group by replacing the central cadre with a three-man central committee. Each of the three central committee members led a separate branch of the organization with their cells independently storing their own weapons and recruiting new members.[17] Two of the original central committee members were replaced in 1972 and 1973, and the replacing members were in charge of leading the organization until the internal purge of 1975.[18]
    • By August 1971, the MEK’s Central Committee included Reza Rezai, Kazem Zolanvar, and Brahram Aram. Up until the death of the then leader of the MEK in June 1973, Reza Rezai, there was no doubt about the group’s Islamic identity.[19]
    • Although the Muslim MEK had rejected recruiting Marxists, the death and imprisonment of its leaders from 1971 to 1973 led to the inclusion of Marxist members to its Central Committee. In 1972, Zolanvar’s arrest led to the inclusion of Majid Sharif Vaquefi; and in 1973, Taqi Sahram replaced Rezai after his death. Reforms within the group started at this time, with Taghi Shahram, Hossein Rohani, and Torab Haqshenas playing key roles in creating the Marxist-Leninist MEK that would later become Peykar. By early 1972, Shah security forces had shattered the MEK, with most members being executed, killed, or imprisoned. The organization’s leader, Massoud Rajavi, was also held in prison until January 1979.[20]
    • By 1973, the members of the Marxist-Leninist MEK launched an “internal ideological struggle”. Members that did not convert to Marxism were expelled or reported to SAVAK.[21] This new group adopted a Marxist, more secular and extremist identity. These members appropriated the MEK name, and in a book entitled Manifesto on Ideological Issues, the central leadership declared "that after ten years of secret existence, four years of armed struggle, and two years of intense ideological rethinking, they had reached the conclusion that Marxism, not Islam, was the true revolutionary philosophy."[22]
    • This led to two rival Mujahedin, each with its own publication, its own organization, and its own activities.[23] The new group was known initially as the Mujahedin M.L. (Marxist-Lenninist). A few months before the Iranian Revolution the majority of the Marxist Mujahedin renamed themselves "Peykar" (Organization of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class) on 7 December 1978 (16 Azar, 1357). This name derived from the "League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", which was a left-wing group in Saint Petersburg, founded by Vladimir Lenin in the autumn of 1895.[24] Later during the Iranian revolution, Peykar merged with some Maoist groups[which?].[25] From 1973 to 1979, the Muslim MEK survived partly in the provinces but mainly in prisons, particularly Qasr Prison where Massoud Rajavi was held.[26]
    • In 2005, the Department of State also attributed the assasinations of Americans in Iran to Peykar. The Country Reports issued on April 2006 stated that "A Marxist element of the MEK murdered several of the Shah´s US security advisers prior to the Islamic Revolution". According to Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., Massoud Rajavi and the MEK under his leadership "had no involvement in the killings of Americans in Iran."[27] Other analysts support this, including director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Patrick Clawson, claiming that "Rajavi, upon release from prison during the revolution, had to rebuild the organization, which had been badly battered by the Peykar experience."[28][29]
    • The MEK also blames a Marxist splinter Peykar for these Americans killed in Iran. While in prison, after learning of these events, Massoud Rajavi wrote a book referring to Peykar as "pseudo-leftists opportunists" whose military operations had killed US citizens in a bid to "challenge" and outmaneuver the "genuine" MEK.[30]
    • In 1981, a mass execution of political prisoners was carried out by the Islamic Republic, and the MEK fled splitting into four groups. One of the groups went underground remaining in Iran, the second group left to Kurdistan, the third group left to other countries abroad, and the remaining member were arrested, imprisoned or executed. Thereafter, the MEK took armed opposition against Khomeini's Islamic Republic.[31]
    • Khomeini's government identified secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and active member of the Mujahedin, Massoud Keshmiri, as the perpetrator.[32] although there has been much speculation among academics and observers that the bombings may have been carried out by IRP leaders to rid themselves of political rivals.[33]
    • In 1981, Massoud Rajavi issued a statement shortly after it went into exile. This statement, according to James Piazza, identified the MEK not as a rival for power but rather a vanguard of popular struggle:[8] "Our struggle against Khomeini is not the conflict between two vengeful tribes. It is the struggle of a revolutionary organisation against a totalitarian regime... This struggle, as I said, is the conflict for liberating a people; for informing and mobilizing a people in order to overthrow the usurping reaction and to build its own glorious future with its own hands".
    References

    References

    1. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 17. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    2. ^ The Shah of Iran, the Iraqi Kurds, and the Lebanese Shia. Palgrave Macmillan. 2018. p. 8. ASIN B07FBB6L8Y. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    3. ^ "Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations". www.state.gov. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
    4. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    5. ^ Manshour Varasteh (2013). Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine. Troubador Publishers. p. 88. ISBN 978-1780885575.
    6. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 208. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
    7. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    8. ^ a b Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 9–43. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    9. ^ Varasteh, Manshour (2013-06-01). Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine. ISBN 9781780885575.
    10. ^ Times, Special to the New York (1983-01-10). "IRAQI VISITS IRANIAN LEFTIST IN PARIS". The New York Times.
    11. ^ Piazza, James A. (October 1994). "The Democratic Islamic Republic of Iran in Exile". Digest of Middle East Studies. 3 (4): 13–14. doi:10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x.
    12. ^ a b "Blood-soaked secrets with Iran's 1998 Prison Massacres are ongoing crimes against humanity" (PDF). Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    13. ^ "Iran: Top government officials distorted the truth about 1988 prison massacres". Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    14. ^ Amnesty Int's lies about mass executions in Iran in 1988, UK: Scribd
    15. ^ "Iran: Top government officials distorted the truth about 1988 prison massacres". Retrieved December 14, 2018.
    16. ^ The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan. 2008. p. 8. ISBN 978-0230601284. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    17. ^ Abrahamian 1992, p. 136.
    18. ^ Ḥaqšenās, Torāb (27 October 2011) [15 December 1992]. "COMMUNISM iii. In Persia after 1953". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica. Fasc. 1. Vol. VI. New York City: Bibliotheca Persica Press. pp. 105–112. Retrieved 12 September 2016.
    19. ^ Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
    20. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. pp. 15–16. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    21. ^ Vahabzadeh, Peyman (2010). Guerrilla Odyssey: Modernization, Secularism, Democracy, and the Fadai Period of National Liberation In Iran, 1971–1979. Syracuse University Press. pp. 167–169.
    22. ^ Abrahamian 1982, p. 493.
    23. ^ Abrahamian 1982, pp. 493–4.
    24. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand, Tortured Confessions, University of California Press (1999), p. 151
    25. ^ Abrahamian 1989, p. 144-145. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFAbrahamian1989 (help)
    26. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 152. ISBN 978-1-85043-077-3.
    27. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 19. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    28. ^ Pike, John. "Mujahedin-e Khalq". CFR. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
    29. ^ The Mystery of Contemporary Iran. Transaction Publishers. 2014. ISBN 9781351479134. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    30. ^ Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. (2013). Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) Shackled by a Twisted History. University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs. p. 18–9. ISBN 978-0615783840.
    31. ^ Bernard, Cheryl (2015). Breaking the Stalemate: The Case for Engaging the Iranian Opposition. Basic Books. p. 109. ISBN 978-0692399378. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    32. ^ Michael Newton (2014). "Bahonar, Mohammad-Javad (1933–1981)". Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 28. ISBN 978-1-61069-286-1. Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished. Various mujahedin were arrested and executed in reprisal, but Kashmiri apparently slipped through the dragnet.
    33. ^ Kenneth Katzman (2001). "Iran: The organization of Iran". In Albert V. Benliot (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Science Publishers. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-56072-954-9.

    Make of it what you will. To me, the removal of this text alone without any discussion constitutes disruptive editing. Considering that there is an ongoing misinformation campaign by the Iran clerical rule against the MEK, I find this level of POV pushing to be an issue. Pahlevun was also warned to stop their blanket removal of text, but they continued. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you did the same disruptive editing here where, despite what you claimed to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, you mass removed some sections without discussing them with others. You did this, despite the objections and warnings. --Mhhossein talk 18:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: I guess you missed Alex-h's reply to you about this in the discussion below? In case you did, here it is: "Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you were mass removing without discussion until I objected and the discussion began. I guess you need to know that discussion is so much different from consensus!!! --Mhhossein talk 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As shown on Alex-h's diffs, the edits were being discussed, and Saff V., Icewhiz, and Alex-h had been contributing helping to build consensus, and you blanket-removed all of it with and edit summary that said "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". That speaks for itself despite your WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First you mass removed (with not prior discussions), then there was objections and then your edit warring despite the objections. And I repeat, "mass removals of well-sourced material needs discussions". But discussion does not guarantee action. Discussion should lead to consensus based on which one needs to act, while in your case there was no consensus over doing mass removals. --Mhhossein talk 10:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of discussion and consensus building (1, 2). If I may conclude (again) with CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I should repeat, you were mass removing without having discussed the removals. My objection came after your mass removals! It was me who started the dispute resolution process, as in many other cases. By the way, should I quote sentences by others describing your editing style, too? --Mhhossein talk 18:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: the recent TP discussions started with a revert concerning an alleged charity involving four anonymous Iranians claiming to be ex-MEK members. Then you objected to this and this edit, which were all explained in my edit summaries and then discussed on the TP discussions, but you've been fighting consensus each step of the way.
    In your own words at Wikiproject Iran when consensus didn't go your way: "Personally, I don't think any consensus here should be respected. If it's aimed to cover the sources to be used in MEK, it should be discussed either on the article TP or at RSN board.".
    Anyways, this section is about Pahlevun, so I'll stop here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A step forward! So, you were mass removing without prior discussion (you don't to say yes or no since it's already shown by the diffs). By the way, Please don't use my words out of context and consider that "fighting consensus" is another PA you need to avoid repeating. --Mhhossein talk 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt there were many problems with the edits to that article, but that was Jan. 30, and after being reverted, the editor didn't edit war there–though I see they did at least a little bit elsewhere, but it was also Jan 30 or earlier. What's happened in the last two weeks? Are there more recent diffs of problems, or did this ANI report and discussion lead to a change? Leviv ich 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I don't know how much you've been following this, but perhaps a brief background is in order: On January 27, Pahlevun was warned by HistoryofIran to stop "huge removals of information". Pahlevun continued blanket changing text in different articles (1, 2, 3), so on January 28 I warned them to stop too. Pahlevun continued blanket removing text (1, 2, 3, etc. - including all the overview presented above), so on January 30th HistoryofIran warned them again, which led me to file this report.
    From looking at Pahlevun's editing history, they seem to have only become active twice since this report was initiated (on February 1 and 15). Does that mean that they won't be disruptive when they do become active again? Unless I've misunderstood, Pahlevun justified their edits (such as the mass removal of information presented above in green text) by saying they're "safeguarding Wikipedia from those who want to manipulate it". I think that speaks for itself. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time you're canvassing Jeff5102. Be careful about it. --Mhhossein talk 14:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, though would limit to geopolitics (or some more limited scope than all of Iranian topics sans football). I have opposed all other proposed sanctions against other users in this section (three of four) - as while they have their faults (as all humans do), they have been trying to edit collaboratively. The situation with Pahlevun is different. Pahlevun, it seems, returned from a short wiki-break and went a bit of a blanket-revert spree. No edit summaries. No discussion. And this on articles, in which there have been ongoing discussions on part of these disputes for months (and in some cases - in which consensus was reached after a rather rough and long consensus forming process). To add insult to injury, his answer (or rather non-answer followed by no-answer) to @Drmies: indicates that Pahlevun doesn't realize that they don't understand that this behavior is disruptive - and suggests that they will continue with this disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Icewhiz Ladsgroupoverleg 15:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I know Pahlevun for about 2 years and I sometimes had conflict with him (for example: 1, 2 and 3); but he is one of the best users in articles refers to Iran. I wondered about Pahlevun's TBAN Proposal for editing articles about Iran!! Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If TopicBan is true for Pahlevun who have tried to edit a vast number of articles by using RS and representing logical reason, respecting to discussing , also it should be done for Stefka Bulgaria, consider that most of his edits are related to MEK or it's member, between 10 top articles and main edits, 6 of 10 is awesome!After getting the report his strategy changed.Saff V. (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support For blanket reverting spree without discussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, I'm opposing though Pahlevun had reverted some of my edits. I think the user is accurate and open to discussion. I don't think there should be a ban, or something like this. --Mhhossein talk 05:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert on Japan designations but in every country I've looked at around ISIL a designation as a terroist org stays in force until lifted. Is there a source saying thos designation was rescinded? If supported by a source as happening it is not a hoax absent proof otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No there's no source saying it was removed from the list by Japan. --Mhhossein talk 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear they were ever on a domestic Japanese list. This was a Ministry Of Foreign Affairs announcement of an asset freeze - while terrorist designations are done by National Public Safety Commission (Japan). A Japanese fluent editor to check this out would be a great help, however one would expect the Japanese Wikipdia to know how to source their own terrorist list - Designated terrorist at jawiki - MEK isn't on there. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: Already replied above, but the closest thing I found was a long list of international terrorist organizations that doesn't appear to include MEK. This is not an acceptable source for the mainspace claim that "Japan has removed them from the list", but it is a good talk page source for the argument that the claim that their having ever been on a list except as a result of a US effort to trump up charges against Saddam-backed groups in the leadup to the Iraq War is highly dubious and does not belong on Wikipedia. If you ever need me to help out with Japanese stuff again, even in bullshit drahma threads, feel free to ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Mhhossein (talk · contribs) to this discussion

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

    • Er, no. 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot seems the best name for this article - out of the two that are being edit-warred over - as whilst it is undisputable that it was an assassination plot, the article uses the word "allegedly" throughout on whether the Iranian leadership were involved. There's an "Alleged responsibility" section. Nowhere does the article state as a fact that the plot was orchestrated by Iran, because as the US Govt admitted, they can't prove that it was. It probably does need to go to RM, but mainly because both of the titles that are being edit-warred over are unsatisfactory. Why is it not simply called Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, and then both of those could redirect to it? Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Yes, “alleged” may be a better way of describing it considering the points made. I don’t think all edits made by these editors are questionable, but they do seem to have an agenda that makes it very difficult to aim for neutrality on these articles concerning political oppositions to the Iran clerical rule.
    For instance, Mhhossein has pushed to have the following inserted on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (one of the main opposition groups to the Iran clerical rule):
    1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
    2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by this group)
    3. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government."[1] (no RS found confirming that this group is involved in the Syria conflict)
    On the same article, Pahlevun has recently blanket reverted month's of TP discussions, ignoring consensus and RfCs:
    Is it just me, or is this disruptive to say the least? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Putting this here as well, this is defo worth mentioning; Mhhossein, didn't you support [23] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [24]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - yes, there is POV pushing. Yes, some of the behavior is concerning. And yes - some of the past complaints by Mhhossein to AN/I were baseless. However, Mhhossein has also been attempting to discuss and his behavior has not risen to the level we should impose a harsh ban for. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) Organization fights in Syria, 19 August 2013, retrieved 15 September 2016
    • Support For the way he has handled himself in this ANI report, including making baseless libelous accusations and constant "I don't want to hear it". I don't know if a Tban has formerly been proposed here, but this is what I would support based on his disruptive POV (evident in this report alone). Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to see WP:ASPERSION because this is what you are doing here.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I casting aspersions? Mhhossein (and you) are accusing me of being "active on the Fa wiki" and being "involved" here, while at the same time saying this report has "nothing to do with you!", nevermind that I've been participating on one of the pages discussed here. Wouldn't this be casting aspersions? Alex-h (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria

    I was not willing to put energy on this discussion and were inclined to use it (the energy) elsewhere on editing the articles, given my limited time. However, now that there's an ongoing ANI discussion opened by Stefka Bulgaria, I think there are things I should share with others for the sake of the project and I don't care if it will lead to the result I'm seeking:

    • Despite my warnings, He's been by hounding me and trying to confront me (see this one for example). Notably, he even hounded me to my RFA in Wikimedia Commons!!! and tried to inhibit my admin nomination. The admins questioned Stefka Bulgaria's act, since it was really questionable/dubious (see [25], [26] and [27]).
    • He's been harassing me by the repeated mentioning ([28], [29], [30]) of my ANI participations, regardless of the outcome of those ANI reports.
    @Mhhossein:, I didn't propose the TBAN above, someone else did, I just reported what's been happening.
    Your Boomerang proposal, however, is hardly a surprise to me; both you and the other reported user:Saff V. have been falsely reporting me for a while now ([36][37],[38], [39], etc. ), a collaborative effort that also used to involve user:Expectant of Light, who was blocked last year for being a sockpuppet and "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East." Also, worth noting that both you and Saff V. have edited over 300 pages together, see a pattern?
    Beyond the already mentioned, your POV edits have also included claims that Black people in a picture were "MEK Rent a Crowd", a claim based on your own conclusions, which some would argue is trying to turn Wiki articles into attack articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#%22Non-Iranian_rent-a-crowd%22_image
    You have also made statements such as "Don't cram your words in the Wikipedia's mouth"[40] for my inclusion of a quote backed up by RS and "Stop source forgery"[41] for my inclusion of a quote from RS, which, unless I'm mistaken, is not how we should handle ourselves on Wikipedia per WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.
    I believe your POV pushing is disruptive, the way you deal with controversial topics has been uncivil, and think this is also evident by your numerous previous ANI incidents: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]) Having said that, I'll stop monitoring your edits now that I've reported this here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your global hounding is never acceptable. Btw, You're using "POV pushing" against me although you're warned/advised not to attack others. I suggest you stop digging your self deeper by bludgeoning the process. Wait for the admins comments, instead. --Mhhossein talk 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: This is definitely not the whole picture that is being painted. Stefka is a good user that tries to do his best in articles that are constantly being ruined due to POV-pushing. Also, Mhhossein, didn't you support [57] the Khomeinist user Expectant of Light who made anti-semitic comments and disruptive editing whilst being hostile to every user he didn't agree with [58]? You never reported him even once, yet you have reported me and several other users (esp Stefka) for the most mild reasons due to not agreeing with you. Also you have recently used your power as an admin on Wikimedia Commons to quick delete pictures of a certain anti-cleric figure (Kasravi cough cough) without any proper form for discussion and by using a weak argument. Yet you haven't done same to pictures of clerics from Iran whose pictures are exactly the same? Curious. Anyways, it doesn't take a genius to see that you including other users have been trying to paint the controversial and heavily criticized clergy-ruled Islamic Republic of Iran in a good light whilst trying to paint the criticizers/opponents of the regime in a bad light. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria's edits speak for themselves. If you have issues regarding Commons, take them to my Commons talk page or, as you did, talk to other admins. Here, we're talking about Stefka Bulgaria's misconducts including personal attacks, hounding and harassment. --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they do indeed, which is why I'm opposing. Also dodging my comment is not gonna work. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, a good editor is the one who hounds you globally and ...? come on! --Mhhossein talk 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: What is it proven by this contribution as well as it have been seen some anti Iran subject in contribution of Icewhiz and Stefka Bulgaria, while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written ‘’collaboratively’’ by the people who use it. Consider People's Mujahedin of Iran and review TP (as an instance) , most of discussion were began by me or Mhhosein or all of our edit (affixing facts) were supported by RS. Which of them is the sign of POV? Do you believe in pov issue if users follow exact subject?Saff V. (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Saff supporting this, who would have thought. Also, you might wanna ping @Icewhiz: when you make such accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Much of this complaint is meritless rehashing of old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action. Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner (most of the time) on the relevant talk pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz: So you endorse his global hounding and repeated personal attacks? Also, the problem is exactly Stefka Bulgaria's mentioning of those "old complaints to AN/I that closed as no action". Up to when should this harassment continue? --Mhhossein talk 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not endorse behavior on either side - note my oppose above to Stefka's proposal. How about we focus on reaching agreement on content (something there has been some progress on) - as opposed to an ANI discussìon?Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not a content dispute and I'm talking about a repeated behavioral issue which need to stop somewhere. That said, I'll address content disputes on the article talk pages, but not here. --Mhhossein talk 08:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thing, you opposed because you believed "Stefka has been discussing the content disputes in a clear and level headed manner". What does it have to do with my Boomerang proposal focusing on Stefka Bulgaria's hounding, harassment and personal attacks? I suggest you disambiguate your defending comment or others get the impression that you were endorsing his repeated use of "POV pushing" against others and his harassment. --Mhhossein talk 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the enwiki stuff seems to be mutual interest in Iranian articles. The comments at the commons RFA, on the other hand, I agree were ill-advised. However (at least on enwiki) - RfA is an open process for comment - and often partisan rivals will show up (and, as happend here, are often shouted down as partisan commentary).Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did provide diffs for my claims of POV pushing. If I may add CaroleHenson's reply to Expectant of Light during their report (and block) for disruptive editing concerning certain political topics: "We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others." Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is nothing in this diffs that support any kind of sanction --Shrike (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Wikihounding around Wikipedia and even on Commons speaks a lot. Removing content by adding a misleading edit summary on People's Mujahedin of Iran further shows that the editor is editing with a WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Kraose (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Stefka's edit summary is fairly accurate - he reverted Pahlevun's edit chain (which AFAICT contained many edits that were against talk page consensus).Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've pointed to some of those, let's say, misleading edit summaries on the article talk page. However, this one is a clear and fresh example, where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. I can provide more examples at the request of the admins. That said, Stefka Bulgaria's behavioral issues should be considered along with his editing pattern. --Mhhossein talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein, I suppose you mean this and this discussion, and this undiscussed blanket revert by you which ignored my, Saff V.'s, and Stefka's contributions, before you requesting the page to be protected and accusing me of being involved even though I had only edited the article once. The edits were being discussed, and you blanked reverted them. If anything, your edit summary was misleading, and Stefka restored the article to the point of Talk page disucussion. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean this one where, despite what he claims to be the restoring of materials removed by Pahlevun, he's mass removing some sections without discussing them with others. No, there was no consensus over the mass removals by Stefka Bulgaria he needs to get warnings for blanket removals. You were/are truly involved. Let's not dig it deeper. --Mhhossein talk 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, about that one, I repeat, there was an ongoing discussion here and here, where myself, Saff V., Stefka, and Icewhiz were participating and contributing. You blanket reverted all of these contributions saying the edits were not being discussed, but they were. You keep accusing me of being "truly involved" (whatever that means), please do "dig it deeper", otherwise you're casting aspersions.Alex-h (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No content dispute but actionable behavioral issues. He already promised not monitor me and you say no violation! If you say no violation, it does not mean there was no violation, since those hounding and harassment diffs I provided are clear enough. --Mhhossein talk 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What's clear enough is that you have a POV and seem to report those who disagree with it, and seem to be fine with disruption as long as it supports your POV.Alex-h (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that "interesting!!!"? Unlike what you have proposed, I have been active on English WP for a while now. Is this the reason you've accused me of being "truly involved" here? For a year or so I worked in Fa wiki as eliminator . In the course of these activities I have often referred to Wikipedia English including Administrators’ Noticeboard. Poya-P (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Admns: This is a clear example that Mhhossein tries to Open a deviant subject to escape answering for his POV and to make the above less important. What is so interesting with working in two wikis? My main activities are in WP- English and I don’t see anything wrong with working in fa wiki as well. Could you please make sure Mhhossein stops harassing me and stops WP:Libel?It’s the second time. Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's dubious that your first edit in ANI was editing against me in a topic which had nothing to do with you! It's dubious that you're doing your best to transform my report against Stefka Bulgaria's well documented behavioral issues into a completely different scenario. You may want to tell us how you appeared here. You've already opened a topic against me, as your first edits in ANI, and saw the result. So, this is you who is Harassing me by hounding me. You can have this message as warning against harassing and hounding me. --Mhhossein talk 18:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all the baseless libellous accusations you've made here, I think it's time someone placed a Boomerang on your Boomerang. Alex-h (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a response to Mhhossein's admin note (which Saff V. removed, while leaving Mhhossein's note)Alex-h (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex-h ,This is the first time you're editing ANI, where you are not called, pinged and is not related to you. You're making too many comments in a discussion which is not related to you. To be frank, it raised questions for me, too. Every one with some years of editing in WP will have such a question? What you're seeking here? Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What's happening here is similar to what happened on the DBigXray below: "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". If Mhhossein can't discuss controversial topics in a civil way, then he should stay away from controversial articles instead of casting aspersions or reporting those that don't agree with him.Alex-h (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Too much evidence to ignore. I don't understand why there was a need to wikihound at commons. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Icewhiz and others. This seems like a largely retaliatory proposal here by an editor who's upset their own behavior has suddenly been put under scrutiny. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: There are evidences of harassment. Links show that Stefka Bulgaria has used the administrator's noticeboard links against the user many times to discredit him and hounded him even to commons. I think it is not good and constructive to accuse others of 'POV pushing' such many times. Going after the user and harassing him is even worse. The user should stop this behavior.M1nhm (talk)
    • Support Wikihounding+improper edits are evident enough for me to say that this behavior is not constructive. desmay (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    DBigXray

    DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in gross POV pushing that he neither understands what he is editing about, neither he shows any willingness to accept where he is completely wrong. He deliberately misrepresents sources and policies to justify his POV and resorts to personal attacks and bludgeoning so often that he has become a timesink.

    • On Human rights abuses in Kashmir  he has been whitewashing human rights abuses by Indian army[61] while hyping the abuses from militants and Pakistani army. He misrepresents sources and frequently removes long standing content which he don't like by making a false claim that the content was violating copyrights or  NFCC,[62] Since last few days he is removing more content by providing the same fallacious reasoning,[63] and making threats on edit summaries.[64] despite being told otherwise on talk page.[65]
    • He has been misrepresenting sources and showing his inability to understand English by not getting the fact that "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations". It is ironic that he has been harassing other editor on talk page by saying "it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR."[66] Though anyone can tell that DBigXray is the one with CIR.
    • After getting reporting for gaming WP:1RR rule by removing the same content without getting consensus, he made a personal attack on me that I belong to a "{{tq|sock/meat farm",[67] see WP:ASPERSIONS.
    • Has been told by 2 editors and an admin[68] that there is no violation of copyvio or NFCC, still he was not agreeing.
    • I reverted him again,[69] and he quickly reverted me but this time he reverted claiming "no consensus for adding these either, first complete the talk page discussion",[70] despite he never gained consensus to remove the longstanding content at first place. He also left a 3RR warning on talk page of mine when I am nowhere near 3RR. His recent talk page comments can be best described as WP:IDHT and WP:STONEWALL.[71][72]
    • I commented on a DYK[73] where the concerning article is created by a different editor. DBigXray interpreted my comments as "battle grounds to attack editors".[74] His incivility and aspersions include "unfortunately i am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts... Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article)"[75] He also falsely claimed that I "already confessed above that you are going through" his contributions, when I haven't and "consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article"[76] when multiple editors on talk page are discussing the name change.[77][78]

    He has restored to mass bludgeon the talk page where the consensus was being developed to change the name of the article.[79]

    Other recent examples
    • Makes 4 reverts in 3 days to label Zabiuddin Ansari as a "Islamic fundamentalist" and a terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST[80] then engages in IDHT on talk page.[81] Extreme labels like "Islamic fundamentalist" are not even supported by any of the sources he is using.[82]
    • Labels Ajmal Kasab as a terrorist  by reverting other user then bludgeons on talk page.[83]
    • After one editor brought two above articles to WP:BLPN,[84] and other uninvolved editor replied[85] DBigXray WP:BLUDGEONed the section to the degree that now no one would touch the section even with 100 feet pole.[86]

    These examples also describes the pattern of DBigXray, to edit war by misrepresenting sources and engage in gross POV pushing, then bludgeon the talk pages so that no one would participate or remain interested in the article in question for any longer. Further evidence of POV pushing and deceptive editing can be seen on Kunan Poshpora incident in which he was whitewashing the entire incident into Indian Army's favor by using misleading edit summaries. His prolonged edit warring on Rafale deal controversy and IDHT over there also appears to be disruptive.  MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [87], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [88] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
    • The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [89] after which they tried other ways [90] to get sanctions on me.
    • Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [91], I had raised my objections on the talk page [92] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [93] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [94]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [95] into the article.
    • Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [96] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
    • After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [97] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [98] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
    • The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [99][100][101] [102] [103].
    • On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [104], He responded [105] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [106] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
    • After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    The proposal has been open for nearly 10 days now, and I read a clear consensus opposing a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Taking all this into consideration and agreeing that this cumulative behavior of edit warring, harassing other editors, misrepresenting policies and sources, mass bludgeoning, battleground mentality and IDHT is undoubtedly disruptive, I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.   MehrajMir (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • I would note here that this user above has been editing with an extreme anti-India bias at Human rights abuses in Kashmir diff and Kunan Poshpora incident [107], on Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead of joining the talk page discussions or WP:DR for content disputes, he has tried tag teaming with an IP (who is clearly someones sock) at WP:AN3 [108] and when AN3 did not work out he tried to disrupt a DYK I had submitted and is now trying out ANI here.
    • The IP had joined Mehrajmir13 and filed an AN3 case against me with false claims about EdJohnston, within a short period of time without any invitation Mehrajmir13 reached AN3 to argue (diff) against me and to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) It did not work out as expected [109] after which they tried other ways [110] to get sanctions on me.
    • Regarding the massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA act [111], I had raised my objections on the talk page [112] since I had felt that it was both COPYVIO and undue. It was later clarified that it may not be considered COPYVIO which I accepted. On the talk page I had stated that [113] this copying of entire AFSPA act is still undue and an article on Human rights should discuss the implications of the AFSAP Act and not just copy paste the entire act in the Human rights article instead of giving a link to the act itself [114]. After staying away for a week, and instead of joining the discussion Mehrajmir13 again restored the disputed content [115] into the article.
    • Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support (diff) an Edit warring report on an article with 1RR restriction, but at the same time he is outraged for getting [116] the standard Edit-warring template for his continued edit-warring (diff, diff, diff) on the same article.
    • After having a content dispute and trying an AN3 complaint against me, Mehrajmir13 hounded me (diff) to a recent DYK, that I had submitted. The DYK had already been approved by a reviewer [117] and yet Mehrajmir13 tried stalling an already approved DYK, on entirely frivolous grounds and asking for rename or merge. Mehrajmir13 was also warned [118] by another editor WBG on Mehrajmir13's frivolous thread (diff) on the article's talk page.
    • The discussion at Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir among several editors that included User:Hamster Sandwich, User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Kautilya3, MarkZusab showed that the consensus was against any renaming or merging of the article since the current article was a consensus title, that had been decided after long discussion on the talk page as well as WP:TEAHOUSE [119][120][121] [122] [123].
    • On the DYK page, When I noted that he has hounded me [124], He responded [125] stating " I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you." To this claim about my edit counts I had responded stating [126] "Congrats to you that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. you have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that You have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this."
    • After this reply from me, Mehrajmir13 filed this ANI thread filled with Lies, hyperbole, exaggeration, overstatement and most important of all, "including his proposal for topic ban", which shows his clear intentions to snipe the opponent and to get his way in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is requesting a sanction because the editor dared to actually discuss an editorial issue, which is what you're supposed to do, and which long before this request was opened was already posted at the appropriate noticeboards. It's another in an unsettling recent string of seemingly independent proposals to sanction DBigXray specifically which have all amounted to nothing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider justifying his nationalist POV pushing, bludgeoning, harassment edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and probably tons of other issues raised here in a proper manner. I don't see any of that except canvassing and further bludgeoning by the disruptive editor in question who is thoroughly unfit to edit this subject given his inability to even represent the sources or policies.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: The most egregious line in the frivolous filing, that also gives you an insight into the level of deception and coordinated offline planning, by this group is the line when they say (diff) "I am proposing a complete topic ban WP:ARBIPA, because he has been reported enough times on ANI and has only retrogressed further.". So quite clearly, the plan here was to keep on filing an ANI report every week, and now the time has come when, they can claim "Enough number of (frivolous) reports have been filed against DBigXray, lets block/ban him." This is exactly what has been happening in the past couple of months. Perfect example of "weaponizing ANI for sniping an opponent". --DBigXrayᗙ 10:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a threat I received from Qualitist on 23 January (diff) along the same lines that said, "you (DBigXray) will get the time for it one day since it is very usual to see 'some' editor dragging you to ANI because of your CIR". This threat gives interesting insights about how this harassment campaign against me is being carried out.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment one thing is correct clear here, there is WP:NATIONALIST POV bickering going on. If the editors are having trouble collaborating and reaching consensus maybe they would be happier editing entirely different topics. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as an interested and somewhat involved party. When I see terms like "bludgeoning" "thoroughly unfit to edit" "deliberately misrepresents sources" etc. with no proof of those particular things, I tend to believe the complaint is less about merit, and more about leveling a measure of opprobrium. Not to dismiss their complaint entirely... User:DBigXray used some "tangy" language with the complainant, but saying you're not interested in a "Dick measuring contest" is different from saying "I have a bigger dick than you" or even "You are a dick." Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without this becoming too much of a "timesink" on my resources, I followed up on the claims concerning your issue with the Zabiuddin Ansari article. Am I correct in assuming you take issue with this individual being identified as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist? He has been identified as belonging to a named group of organized terrorists; whom the cited source describes as being philosophically inclined to violence based on their agenda of violence for payment couched in their religious affiliations. This is more widely known as "terrorism" for those people afflicted by sectarian violence. It certainly is IMO. Now, I have seen enough of this, and been involved enough in this to have made a determination to have no more of it. If we need to agree to disagree, so be it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before we fork another content discussion onto ANI, note that this exact issue is already being discussed at WP:BLPN. DBigXray did make a lengthy series of arguments there but all were on-topic and addressing the issue at hand. There's a lot to unpack, but it's a complicated issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The crux of the dispute seems to be whether to include text from the AFSPA (an Act giving special powers to armed forces in dealing with the insurgency) in this article on human rights. The straight answer is no. The Act is not an abuse, but it is possible that it has led to abuse. If so, the abuse should be documented, sourced to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not the act itself. I admit that this tricky territory, and advise the editors to take it to WP:DRN. The filer exhibits WP:IDHT tendencies and is difficult to deal with. I recommend closing with no action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not faulting the commenter, but if this is about a content dispute and not (as stated) a behavioural issue with one editor, the form response ought to be "take it to WP:DRN". ANI is not for content disputes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But DBigXray was removing content by mislabeling it as "blatant WP:NFCC violation(s)"[127] and now removes it by claiming that there is no consensus when he is the only one to remove it. "reliable WP:SECONDARY sources" have been already provided to DBigXray which discuss the act as relevant in the context of human rights abuses.[128] DBigXray is absolutely engaging in nationalist POV editing. I also don't see any consensus for this edit as claimed by DBigXray. This is not the only one article where he is being a problem. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harmanprtjhj, there are many reasons why we discourage excessive quotations in articles. See WP:QUOTEFARM. People explain it in many ways, ranging from "it is unencyclopaedic", "affects readability", "excessive quotations", "COPYVIO" etc. etc. Not everybody has a good understanding of the applicable policy, but their instincts are right. In this particular case, I agree with you that NFCC is the wrong thing to cite, because a Government Act is essentially public property, free for everybody to quote and use. But that does not make it appropriate for use in this article. If Mehrajmir13 couldn't agree with DBigXray, there are any number of places he could have gone for getting a third opinion, where people would have told him exactly what I am saying. But he seems to have convinced himself that DBigXray was acting in bad faith. That is not conducive to collaborative atmosphere we would like to see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray by deceptively claiming the content to be a violation of NFCC and then misrepresenting sources. How can anyone expect such an incompetent editor to deal with a sensitive subject? We already had "third opinion" on talk page. Fact that you are not aware of it simply sbows that you are not even checking the diffs.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As shown in this edit from 2014 it was User:Mehrajmir13 who added this disputed content.
    • User:Mehrajmir13 is again clearly lying here when he says "Content is long-standing, no one has problem with it other than DBigXray" because one can see in this diff [129] and [130] that Admin RegentsPark had removed most of the content added by User:Mehrajmir13 there.
    • His content was further challenged [131] by me on the talk page and instead of discussing the validity and veracity of the said content on the talk page, he is is continuously trying to get the objecting editor blocked/banned first in a totally frivolous AN3 report (diff) and now here at ANI.
    • If User:Mehrajmir13 is unable to tolerate or discuss objections to his controversial edits then he should rather stay away from controversial articles, instead of kicking up a shit storm with lies and Drama at admin boards.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support You can't expect constructive discussion from DBigXray as he always engages in harassment and battleground mentality. For example, he fails to agree that he is using a primary source when the source is written by an involved police officer. I started a thread on WP:RSN where DBigXray started his response by making personal attacks on me,[133] and continued to claim the source is non-primary and completely reliable even after more than 7 editors told him otherwise.[134] He has been wikihounding my contributions by appearing on pages that he never edited earlier,[135] and reporting admins over trivial issues.[136] He has violated copyrights on articles related to Punjab insurgency and his violation of WP:TERRORIST can be also seen on Khalistan Commando Force, where he made 6 reverts to claim the militant group as "terrorist" and their supporters a "radical" (without providing any sources).[137][138] Not surprised that this disruption has now moved into Muslim-related articles. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, I have seen unbridled hostility emanate from your from the beginning: 20:29, 7 January 2019 ("it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article"), 20:54, 7 January 2019 (" Have you carefully checked the article on Osama Bin Laden? Even that is more grammatical and neutral than this article written by you"), 21:37, 7 January 2019 ("you are going to do yourself a favor only if you fix the article. Anyone who knows A and B of this subject would know that article is in a very bad shape.") etc., where the last of these sounds more like a threat, not even hostility. Many people watch the pages that you are dealing with. If you discuss things in a calm and polite manner, people will come forward to help sort out issues. But if you shout at the top of voice all the time, people will walk away.
    • If you want to accuse him as having made 6 reverts (I don't know over what period), then you need to provide 6 diffs. The diff you have provided 09:23, 11 January 2019 shows him adding sources. Since the sources exist and he wasn't simply making it up, it was verifiable. So I don't see what the problem is that you are alluding to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Quotations of posts added for immediate evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diffs cited by you don't show any hostility. You are just being too sensitive over DBigXray who was totally engaging in IDHT and battleground mentality against this user.
    • Anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a little time can count those 6 reverts, they don't "need to provide 6 diffs", especially when those edits are that recent.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are again similar lies and deception that Harmanprtjhj had tried to use in his last "Snipe the opponent at ANI" thread against me, to get a way out of his content disputes. They over exaggerate content disputes with hyperbolic language and add lies and deception hoping that gullible folks will fall for their old tricks. To give an example, Harmanprtjhj's talk page is on my watchlist since 5 January and Ad Orientem had blocked and warned[139] Harmanprtjhj on his talk page, regarding what Ad Orientem then believed as "disruptive edit" on Yusuf Soalih Ajura, after which I made this edit on [140] and also noted this on the same thread [141]. But one can see that these facts never stopped Harmanprtjhj from cooking up a false and deceptive narrative, because "why let facts spoil a good story". --DBigXrayᗙ 03:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reading shows that it was a mistaken block as acknowledged by Ad Orientem. If anyone is engaging in "lies and deception", that is only you. Not to mention that none of this justifies your harassment of other editor.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misrepresenting entire thing and distracting. Ad Orientem never "warned" me and made a block in error only after after reading an automated report.[142] Having a user's talk page in your watchlist doesn't means you can wikihound their edits. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. Perhaps it is time to consider a topic ban or some other solution for the OP. Dlohcierekim talk 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Comment no opinion on the topic ban, but it appears both Mehrajmir13 and DBigXRay are replying to any posts opposing their side with content seemingly intended to discourage !voting from that side. It's not quite as bad with both sides doing it as only one side (for that encourages nonrepresentative conclusions), but it may be adversely affecting participation, and thus, a balanced result. Surely any reasonably experienced editor would have formed a definitive opinion before commenting, and a reply from the editor whom they have opposed accusing them of "lies and deception" or the like isn't going to sway their vote; if anything, it will cement them further into their current position. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on-going pattern of disruptive editing is evidenced by many other recent examples, which includes his 10 reverts on Rafale deal controversy by engaging in POV pushing and creating Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox by abusing autopatrolled user-right to evade full protection. History of this sub-article shows DBigXray made a few botched page moves to retain this misuse of article space. Making 5 reverts on 1984 anti-Sikh riots by misrepresenting sources and superficially using BLPCRIME as exemption[143][[144] to edit war when no BLP was concerned (December 2018). 4 reverts on Jaggi Vasudev for violating BLP (November 2018). 6 reverts on Khalistan Commando Force (January 2019) and all these pages resulted in full protection because of DBigXray's lame edit war. What is even more interesting that his edits received no support from any other editor in spite of his bludgeoning on each of the concerning talk pages[145][146][147][148]. His disruption on talk pages has been beyond disruptive because he attack opponents[149][150], modify others comments[151], remove others comments[152] and engages in typical IDHT.[153][154] I note that how all of these articles attracted no controversy before DBigXray started disrupting them. It is clear that he can't edit without righting great wrong or harassing other editors. Note his creation of Pakistan administered Kashmir against consensus (December 2018) and his DRV against deletion of this CFORK with no one supporting your demand to overturn the result. Further disruption was also seen on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean of Tears where he was alone arguing for deletion because the article concerned a documentary on human rights abuses by Indian military, the same issue over which he is now edit warring on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. It took him less than 2.5 months to produce all these examples. A topic ban is a no-brainer. Qualitist (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. DBigXRay could afford to make fewer reverts when he edits contentious topics, but his edits generally tend to be based in policy. The extent of mudslinging here suggests a couple of a boomerangs are in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Absolutely sanctionable behavior given the final warning on one of the previous ANI and aspersions and bludgeoning in this thread. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @शिव साहिल: Which diff do you think is the violation of the warning the reported user was given here? --Mhhossein talk 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mhhossein: Wikihounding,[155] exclusively attacking contributors[156]][157], and accusing them of sock puppetry[158] does show violation of that warning. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This seems to be an evergreen ANI thread. The user in question has a target on their back and has had some questionable editing habits in the past. But I don't see anything here which isn't a content dispute at this point which could be resolved through discussion or RfCs. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose A overblown content dispute which the OP has with misplaced zeal brought to an inappropriate forum. There doesn't seem to be anything remotely actionable. In fact, looking at the content under dispute, I am inclined to support the removal of the excessively long quotations. The other changes made also seem reasonable. No harassment of the OP is visible. The elephant in the room are the supporters of the topic ban who seem to be hell bent on getting a net positive editor topic-banned from Wikipedia and have resorted to digging up unrelated mud from a month or two back in the hope of getting some of it to stick to the wall. It is this sort of behavior that I (as a spectator who has seen all these incidents play out in front of me) find utterly disgusting. << FR (mobileUndo) 13:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - As Dlohcierekim says, it may be time for a boomerang against the OP, whose wall of text doesn't make a case. It is true that DBigXray sometimes becomes stubborn; so do a lot of editors. Maybe they should be warned, but the OP should be warned first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robert McClenon: OP has reported evidence that DBigXray is falsely attributing content as a NFCC violation, misrepresenting sources on multiple articles, making baseless accusations of socking, bludgeoning and edit warring. This is a established pattern of DBigXray's editing. Even in this same thread, DBigXray is accusing OP of evading scrutiny as an IP. I don't see why a user should not be sanctioned for it. What are we waiting for? Qualitist (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: per Ivanvector. Simply discussing an issue on a talk page instead of warring it out in the mainspace isn't grounds for a topic ban. God forbid someone wants to actually discuss something first. Has DBigXray been stubborn? Sure. Does that warrant a topic ban? Absolutely not. SITH (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as minimum per the evident repeat problems shown. That said, although no personal attacks here, canvassing and clear attempts to bludgeon the thread shows there are broader issues and we will be back here again. I really do think some type of sanction is necessary for this to be solved as complaints about BigDRay's behavior is fairly frequent and the OP has indeed shown some misrepresentation of sources and baseless accusations that don't seem like they are ever going to stop without at least some action. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition the warning शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil pointed out [159] with the conclusion being "admin should block if behavior continues" warrants at least some action to correct this if we are ever gonna have an end to these notices. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another example of WP:BLUDGEONING. I have no personal qualms with DBigXRay. I've supported action against him on exactly two other threads simply because i thought the action was warranted in those cases, and the first case i thought was definitely an injustice because he basically baited a noob and got him banned. All he did was post my edits to the same posts I made and then posted the edit i made on this thread to make it seem like i have an extensive feud with him when i dont. If he wasn't always appearing on ANI i wouldnt be posting those comments I'd be posting on other posts in ANI. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was inclined to comment after seeing the final warning issued by User:cyberpower678, which शिव साहिल brought to our eyes. Falsely accusing others of Sockpuppetry, after getting warnings against making harassment, calls for action. I'm interpreting "Mehrajmir13 is happy to file+Support" as accusing Mehrajmir13 to have a IP sock (am I right?). The case was filed by an IP, in fact not Mehrajmir13. I may be wrong, but in this diff, also coming after the last warning, he's harassing another user by comparing him with a banned editor. --Mhhossein talk 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The admins who are familiar with the WP:ARBIPA topic area, (some of whom have also commented in this thread), know very well about the massive sock and meat puppetry going on in the India Pakistan topic area. So much that there is an ongoing proposal for Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict at WP:AN. You see, Mehrajmir13 has still not clarified this and I am still very interested to know how Mehrajmir13 reached WP:AN3 (diff) within minutes of the IP filing a frivolous AN3 case involving me. And Mehrajmir13 then attempts damage control by trying to explain the botched comment made by the IP while filling the AN3 case. (diff) --DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the India-Pakistan articles are hot topics, but, hmm...I think you're again harassing the user by making these comments. Though, I would not blame you if you had opened a SPI report accompanied by clues. Did you get the point? Needless to mention that you did the same for Dilpa kaur. --Mhhossein talk 05:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't totally disagree with this, if he does correct his behavior its of course fine. The problem is, given his extensive edit history and frequent appearances on ANI [160], [161], [162] I don't see how his behavior is ever gonna change without some kind of action. This doesn't mean we need to permaban him of course, but unless there's some type of action I expect this behavior will persist. At the very least, admins can give another final warning or something and see if this actually helps correct his behavior. I doubt it will unless we implement even a small temporary sanction, which is why i think some kind of action is necessary. But who knows. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiman5676: See this comment repeating socking accusations coming after the apology request! --Mhhossein talk 05:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. I do not believe he will alter his behavior unless action is taken. What i describe above was a proposed bare minimum action. Basically give him one last chance to correct his behavior before sanctions. I think this is taking a very lenient approach but I just wanted to put the idea in the air. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hmains

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

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

    • Thanks to @Ritchie333 for opening this discussion.
    I'll try write a longer post later today, but for now I just want to note that Hmains is a prolific editor whose good intent to me to be seems beyond question. He's always civil, and I have seen no sign of any intentional disruption.
    The problem I see is long-term patterns of Hmains introducing plentiful errors which other have to clean up, and Hmains showing little sign of learning from these issues. It's the lack of learning which concerns me. Every editor has a non-zero error rate, but most editors learn how to avoid particular types of errors, or at least to check their own work and clean up after themselves. That doesn't seem to happen with Hmains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given both the number of bots and editors which do nothing but change the sort of thing discussed here, it seems that there isn’t actually a problem for the reader. If some wikiteur is incensed because someone made a long dash by putting two short dashes together, even though the content associated is good, it may not be the writer who is the problem. Qwirkle (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak to active errors at all, not having reviewed Hmains' edit history to see what's going on — but what I do want to point out is that AWB automatically applies its own "general fixes" (inserting missing whitespace where it's needed, deleting extraneous whitespace where it isn't, converting template links from redirect-title to direct-title, etc.) independently of the job that the user actually coded for. For instance, if I use AWB to do a tagging run on articles in a maintenance queue, AWB will also apply all of those same fixes at the same time as it's making the changes I actually planned for. Not because I coded for that, but because AWB is preprogrammed to automatically apply those changes separately from what I coded for. So it's not fair to criticize Hmains for that, because AWB simply does that automatically as a side dish to the job the user is actually trying to do.
      If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff, then that's a different matter — but please keep the discussion on focus, because criticizing Hmains for AWB's automatic genfixes isn't productive or helpful. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If Hmains is making active errors that are breaking stuff – Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. Those in a hurry might start at [163] and read forward as necessary, and backwards according to taste. I want to echo BHG's sentiment that there's no question Hmains is sincerely trying to help. EEng 15:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be more impressed by seeing examples of him breaking stuff, not being told he is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read through the relevant threads on Hmains' talk page and also the diffs contained therein, and I agree there appears to be some kind of competency issue, I think some diffs would help here. Hmains seem like a very nice person, which is probably why they still somehow have managed to retain their AWB privileges (and please note if this changes that both Hmains and Hmainsbot are on the checklist). All that being said, doing this gnoming work is a thankless task, Hmains' intentions are 100% good, and we need to be kind, please. Fish+Karate 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to be honest and say that I don't personally understand what the issue is with Hmains, probably because I don't go anywhere the MOS or AWB so these edits never turn up on my watchlist (or if they do, they don't trigger sufficient interest for me to notice). However, while EEng can be .... an "acquired taste" to some, I find it very uncharacteristic that he would ask me to drop Hmains' AWB rights for no reason whatsoever - so there must be something going on here that I don't get. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to mention that I'm offering free tastings all this week and next. EEng 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a gentle reminder to folks - spit, don't swallow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that they're applying custom fixes, which work 90% of the time, but don't review their edits and they break stuff 10% of the time. An example is changing ... to _..._ (where _ is a space). That may be fine in prose in most situations, but it will break things like Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. There are other example, but the point is repeated WP:AWBRULES violations and they edit in a broken-WP:MEATBOT-like fashion. Revoke AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after requests, I see no DIFFS being offered, just opinionns. 2600:100F:B125:1224:D075:21D1:EB81:E6AD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or you know, you could just have followed up on many of the several links that were offered here. Like User talk:Hmains#For the last time. Or User talk:Hmains#Bibcodes, again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Revoke AWB rights

    It is clear that Hmains's use of AWB does not meet the community's standards and is prone to error. Per the consensus in this discussion, Hmains AWB access is indefinitely revoked. After a period of no less than six months Hmains may request access at WP:PERM/AWB. There are additional concerns about Hmains's systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits, which may continue to be discussed if editors believe that an editing restriction is needed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Support indefinite revocation of AWB rights. Hmains can go back to regular, careful editing, of things he understands. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as per User_talk:Hmains#Request_that_AWB_access_be_revoked seems like a good idea for a while. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support plus... the problem's broader than just AWB use. Per BHG's suggestion at User_talk:Hmains, in addition to no AWB we really need something along the lines of a topic ban from systematic/repetitious stylistic and formattimg edits. EEng 07:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support we can revisit the situation in a few months. Don't see the need to remove access to other tools however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, 6-month AWB ban This user is here in good heart but misused AWB, so I think a brief break from it is good enough. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 10:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the discussion on Hmains' talkpage—linked to by EEng—raises sufficient concerns which, combined with the disruption (low level, but still) evidenced here, indicates that this particular use of AWB is...over excited, perhaps. A break is called for. It's merely a break; nothing punitive, and no-one is being sat on—it's just a (six month) pause for breath in which Hmains recalibrates their approach. ——SerialNumber54129 10:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • support as per EEng's outline and clear approach to this situation, well supported by similar comments. I doubt the user is benefiting from this method of contribution either, although it is not my business to speculate on compulsion to act and aversion to scrutiny (which describes virtually everyone, in some way), and they may also reflect on this as a good outcome. cygnis insignis 13:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, plus a ban on systematic/repetitious stylistic and formatting edits as I suggested at User_talk:Hmains, and as noted above by EEng. The problem is that Hmains doesn't take sufficient care over what they do, and while this is exacerbated by tools such as AWB, it is not limited to AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS Note that back in January, in a discussion at User_talk:Hmains, I opposed @EEng & @EEng's proposed revocation of AWB rights and proposed instead a 6-month suspension.[164] Since then, I have changed my mind on that.
    In hindsight, I think I was reacting to Hmains's undoubted niceness and goodwill, and trying to be gentle. However, having reviewed the long history I don't think there is any reason to assume that the problems of working outside their skill zone will be resolved in 6 months. So it seems to me that a 6-month suspension is unhelpful to everyone, because promising Hmains reinstatement without any test of whether the competence issues have been resolved just invites a re-run of this discussion shortly after the 6 month ban expires. So now I think it's better for everyone to make the revocation indefinite, and leave Hmains free to reapply at any time if and when they can demonstrate that they have gained a better understanding of the problems which have arisen, and demonstrate that they now have ability to avoid them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support temporary revocation - Hmain has contributed very well to Wikipedia for a very long time, but his AWB use is very concerning. Plus, the lack of response to the ANI threat and the user's talk page (as of 2/14/19) sends a red-flag to me. However, I think the user can learn from his/her mistakes. I think a temporary revocation is necessary, perhaps around three to six months. A permanent revocation is a bit too much for a punishment. INeedSupport :3 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      threat ==> thread? Not permanent, but indefinite in the way a block can be indefinite. He can ask for it back when he can explain why things will go better than they have. In the meantime there're plenty of other ways to contribute. EEng 16:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support revoking AWB rights indefinitely. This user has consistently failed to comply with both WP:AWBRULES and WP:COSMETICBOT, despite multiple warnings [165][166][167]. What is perhaps even more concerning is that they refuse to take proper care in checking every edit before they save, often leading to broken categories and MOS violations, with these edits going back as far as May 2017 [168][169][170][171]. While I don't doubt that these changes are made in good faith, until Hmains can learn to be more careful in using semi-automated tools, a removal of rights is in order. Omni Flames (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RightTruthTeller

    May well be an Sock of a banned account, they are however (as this edit summery makes clear [[172]]), not here to build an encyclopedia but are here to fight the good fight (and a clear SPA).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven: If you think the user is a sockpuppet, I'd recommend filing at WP:SPI. Edit: But upon review the user's edits, it does seem they are NOTHERE and WP:RGW. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are a sock, they got blocked early into their original account's activity, or else they are are attempting a bluff, as they dispaly zero familiarity with our WP:OR and sourcing standards: [173], [174]. I do think this is looking likely to end in a WP:NOTHERE block based on their TP comments thus far, to say nothing of the sandbox comments (apparently now revdelled) which could not be a more explicit statement of ideological agenda. I wouldn't argue against a prophylactic block under the circumstances, but heavy warnings, some coaching on basic policies and, and a bit of WP:ROPE (with very clear indications that they are already on the cusp of sanctions despite their just having arrived here) would be my preference. Unless Steven can put a finer point on the sock issue, that is. Snow let's rap 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name and tone seems familiar, but mainly the name. It might just be the same kind of person is going to pick the same kind of name.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, please don't forget, you are obliged to leave a notification on the user page of any party whose behaviour you raise as the topic of a thread here. Snow let's rap 02:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified RightTruthTeller. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry thought i had, Guess I got it mixed up wit the many posts I made there before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RightTruthTeller has not edited in the past couple of days. If disruption resumes, we can evaluate and take appropriate action at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello people, It is I. I would like to assure you that this in in fact my first WikiPedia account, not a 'sock'. I simply created the account when I saw a piece of information on the site that wasn't quite true. I appreciate your concerns, I am most certainly not a second-account troll, everything I do is out of pure goodwill and a feeling of responsibility to the truth. Yours, RightTruthTeller (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)RightTruthTeller[reply]
    Welcome to the project, RightTruthTeller. I think, given the lack of more particular evidence of socking, we can WP:assume good faith with regard to this being your first activity on Wikipedia. However, that being the case, you are going to want to take a good long look at a number of our guiding editorial policies, including especially: WP:verification, WP:reliable sources, WP:No original research, and WP:neutral point of view. It may seem counter-intuitive at first, but we actually tend to focus less on whether we, as individuals, credit a statement in an article as "true" and more on whether it is "verifiable" (meaning that a given assertion or other piece of article content can be supported with a cite to a reliable source--see policy linked above for definition). This helps keep our articles free of the idiosyncratic bias of individual editors and cuts down on what would otherwise be unending debates about the "truth" of a matter which would otherwise grip every article and talk page. Understanding these policies is key to productive and smooth contribution to the encyclopedia in any area, but it is particularly essential for those who wish to contribute (especially early into their time here) in controversial areas. Again, welcome to the project, and don't be afraid to reach out if you have questions--most community members (myself included) will be more than happy to share the benefit of their experience with regard to a direct inquiry, and there is is also the WP:Teahouse if you don't wish to go hunting for someone. Snow let's rap 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MetricSupporter89

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

    This appears to be a very young editor who needs to gain a little more maturity before they can be a productive editor. Their personal goals are a bit at odds with the encyclopedia's. That said, I'm not prepared to say they're not here to help the project, but, having interacted with them a little bit, there is a certain absence of cluefulness. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) And now it seems that they are logging out to edit: [175] I will be blocking both for 24 hours in the meantime. --Rschen7754 04:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal: MetricSupporter89 is topic banned from directly changing any unit of measure or any English variant spelling. They may propose changes on an article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Seems reasonable and might give them a chance to learn our ways. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. As linked above, the editor has been warned multiple times. The username makes this sound like it's going to end poorly, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. --Rschen7754 07:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. The alternative is to waste time trying to persuade them to change their ways, but I've never seen that work yet with such a single-minded young person and it almost always ends in an indef block. Hopefully they can direct their energy in more productive directions, while maturing a little. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN. Although I worry that leaving the door open for talk page discussion is just inviting disruption of another sort. I have to say, with such a strongly evident WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW/WP:SPA focus. I'm doubtful there is a general purpose editor to be salvaged from this, and fear this approach will only allow gamesmanship, but if they become disruptive in their talk page interactions in advocating for particular spelling or metric idiosyncrasies, I suppose they can always be brought back here then--and in the meantime it is possible this approach will restrain their edit warring while allowing some useful changes relating to their fixation to filter through. It's worth a shot in any event. Snow let's rap 11:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Iban violations: read what I actually wrote

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

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

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

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

    Good block. Godsy was clearly—albeit subtly—continuing their feud with LP with draftspace the theatre, presumably as being further off the radar than mainspace. If this was a recent "thing" then it could probably be resolved, as there's usually the potential for self-education: but after two years, self-education would appear to be lacking. I daresay an appeal might succeed in the future; I wouldn't advocate one for much less than six months, though. ——SerialNumber54129 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban from MfD, if unblocked. MfD is a high profile forum not amenable to subtle harassment. No sign of problems there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly sure editing after him is a violation. In fact, the I-ban page says "the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other." I haven't seen any direct interactions. The specific terms of the I-ban also don't seem to have been violated. That aside, I'm really having a hard time understanding why Godsy feels the need to edit these minor drafts, and can't stay as far as possible away from Legacypac. While this seems to circumvent the interaction ban, this is definitely continuing the feud. I also have another minor issue with admins dropping indef blocks and then coming to the community for reinforcement. This in effect community bans the editor and makes a successful appeal much more difficult. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember this isn't simply a normal interaction ban. The wording was modified as part of this discussion Special:PermanentLink/800239899#So unhappy to post this as a result of community concerns. While the issues highlight above aren't direct violations of XfC limitation, they reflect the communities concerns about the two editing the same pages. Editors expressed concern about their fringe interaction in other places e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#IBAN violation?. I think there have been more but I admit I couldn't find them. Either way the editors should have understood the greater need to take care surrounding any edits which seem to relate to the other editor. Anyway more importantly, the whole point of interaction bans whatever their wording is to cut out interactions between editors when they aren't seen as productive. Editors are supposed to understand they need to stay away from each other as much as possible, not follow them around. If Godsy is mysteriously appearing on each page edited by LegacyPac, and often does not appear on other pages, this is a very strong indication they aren't obeying the iban. I haven't looked at the evidence, but if Ivanvector's assessment is true, it seems a very likely iban violation and would demand some sort of block for violation unless they can offer some reasonable explanation which doesn't involve them following the ibanned editor's contribs and then editing just after. (The only time I can see it justified looking the the contribs of someone your ibanned with would be when you're looking into filing a complain about a violation. And when you do so, you should never edit any page you saw in your investigation, even if you think you would have discovered it independently. Likewise, if you see the editor's name your watch list, you should likely ignore the page. I mean if it's had multiple edits it may occasionally be justified to check it out, but this should be done with great care.) Frankly the history means it's unlikely that Godsy has any reasonable explanation, and also means an indef is IMO justified. (And of course any block can be appealed, so if Godsy really does have a good explanation, they can still offer it.) Remember also this could easily be considered WP:Hounding even without an iban. This doesn't mean an editor just happening to edit a page not long after an editor they are ibanned with would always be a violation, since it's reasonable that may happen by accident especially if there is a good reason why both editors would have independently been interested in that page (e.g. it concerns something in the news, by which I don't mean ITN recently, it's TFA, it was listed on some noticeboard etc) but too many 'coincidences' give reasonable cause for concern. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Indefinite /= permanent. I see problematic behaviour and my two options are: do nothing, or block entirely. A more refined sanction is definitely apporopriate here but admins don't have the authority to unilaterally dole out limited bans in situations like this. So what should we do?
    As for not violating "the specific terms" of the ban, that's kind of a side point here: the history of this dispute has several examples of Godsy clearly following Legacypac but not quite violating the specific terms of the ban, which is how I read the conclusion of the second discussion I linked to. As Legacypac pointed out in today's talk page request, the drafts which Godsy edited after Legacypac this week were all obscure pages in idle userspaces which Legacypac moved to the draft namespace, which Godsy then commented on less than a day later, during a time when Godsy was not doing anything else. All 14 of the drafts that Godsy edited today (15 Feb, UTC) were recently edited by Legacypac, all but one of those on 13 Feb. The last time before that that Godsy edited a draft was on 3 Feb, which was also the next edit after one by Legacypac a few days earlier. I am open to there being an innocent explanation for that pattern, but with Godsy being known to have some kind of grudge against Legacypac it seems doubtful. To me it suggests that Godsy was specifically going to pages appearing in Legacypac's recent contributions, not just going around flagging new promising drafts as part of their regular activity and incidentally overlapping with drafts Legacypac had edited. And that is a continuation of the hounding behaviour referred to in the second discussion, so additional action is warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on this is that if you think a block you have just made needs to be reviewed on AN/ANI, you should probably bring the matter to AN/ANI for discussion before a block is placed, not afterwards. I don't think Godsy necessarily needs to be restricted from all draft space, just from editing drafts that Legacypac has edited, as that appears to be the issue. Fish+Karate 15:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for the block to be reviewed. I'm very comfortable with this block. If there's not consensus to do something else here I'm quite happy to just leave Godsy blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: If you are not asking for the block to be reviewed, then what are you asking for? Note the title of this section is "Iban violations: request review". Paul August ☎ 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose that Godsy is indefinitely banned from drafts including any page in Draft: or Draft talk: namespace, userspace drafts outside his own userspace, from miscellany for discussion, and from any project discussion regarding drafts, all broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I think the point is that if there is consensus for any other action, then hopefully someone will enact this consensus. This would I assume include a consensus for an unblock or reduction of term of the block, since a community consensus shouldn't be ignored. (I'm assuming it's following our policies and guidelines since otherwise it isn't really a consensus.) Ivanvector has specifically proposed an alternative which would allow an unblock, but it's the communities decision if they want to endorse that proposal, suggest something else, or just leave things as they are. If there's no consensus for any other action, then the block will stand, although of course since it's also a simple administrative block and not a site ban, it may be lifted with by a suitable appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For editors to review Godsy's I-ban violations, I assume? ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is clearly an IBAN violation; I don't think it justifies an infinite block (a week may be enough IMO), but indef != infinite. The reason for the interaction is clear; Legacypac has been moving a lot of {{Userspace draft}} tagged draft-like pages from user space to draft space recently (where they would be eligible for WP:G13 deletion). Draft:Marin_Kristo_Frasheri-Gjoca, for example, was created in 2011 by an editor with 3 edits and has been ignored since then. I'd support in principle a restriction along the lines of "Godsy may only edit articles in draft-space by adding referenced content to them to improve them so they may be moved to mainspace", but from experience that will result in at least two more ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the description, it sounds to me like an IBAN violation. Maybe a week or two for reflection. Their unblock request is most unpromising. It is a shame that this goes on. Such a waste. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think the TBAN is not good. I agree with GoldenRing that cautioning Godsy (which I did on his talk page earlier) to check more carefully about avoiding the appearance of violating the IBAN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An iban is an iban, I guess. However, it is not possible for someone who cares about drafts (whether in draftspace or userspace) to engage with that area without interacting with Legacypac. An iban with legacypac goes a long way towards a de facto tban on drafts. I don't think it's controversial to say that legacypac's approach to drafts can be, well, controversial. He is the one (in my perhaps limited experience, anyway) far and away most likely to push the envelope with regard to deletion of drafts, with apparent willingness to take actions or !vote in ways that test the procedural gray area or subvert deletion-related PAGs/conventions. As consistent as he is with this, it makes sense to me that someone who cares about what happens in draftspace/userspace may likely take issue with Legacypac's methods. In other words, if one is looking for particular issues or actions that come up regarding drafts, it's not unlikely that legacypac will be the one that pops up as responsible. The reality is that if one person is best known for a pattern of controversial actions in an area, there will be corresponding patterns of people addressing those actions, and that could be framed as hounding rather than more straightforward maintenance/editing. I'm not trying to turn this into a case against legacypac here, to be clear (I also don't want to give the impression that I don't think legacypac doesn't do some good work around here), but rather trying to frame the nature of such an iban/tban in such a space. We'll see if I'm putting my foot in my mouth, I guess, though. I don't think I know anything about their history, hadn't seen the past threads, and haven't read gone through them with any real thoroughness, so there might be more to the story than I realize. Ultimately, an iban is an iban, I suppose, and so a block seems merited. Indef + tban definitely seems like overkill for this situation though. Without knowledge of the past, I wouldn't formally weigh in on the block, but Oppose tban. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a little uncomfortable with this block. Editing pages that have been edited by the other user is not a violation of the letter of an interaction ban (so long as the edit is not a revert). And while Godsy's contributions could be explained by him following Legacypac's edits, the explanation he has offered also seems very plausible to me, when combined with the insight from Rhododendrites above. I'm not saying Ivanvector acted wrongly - I would almost certainly have done the same - but I think, given the explanation, that Godsy ought to be unblocked with a ticking-off for not checking which user has moved pages to draft space. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing are you aware he flooded my watchlist to let me know he is watching me twice before? Once it was a series of meaningless edits to random pages and another time a series of opposes to a bunch of MfDs I started.
    His current unblock request is an attack on my editing that violates the IBAN.
    While I work to delete a lot of junk User:Legacypac/CSD_log I also regularly move AfC pages and old userpages into mainspace that meet our N and V criteria. I operate well within policy and practice. I've even helped write some of the policy and guidelines such as the current G13 wording. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think t-bans should imposed unless there's any evidence of actual problematic edits in the area. And of the two editors concerned, it's not Godsy the one who's been engaged in draft-related activities that they know the community disapporoves of. – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a very good and serious point. Legacypac does a massive amount of abandoned draft rescue, but he has a small error rate that multiplied by the number results in a fair number of individual problem actions. I don’t review Legacypac’s work, there is no way I could keep up. Godsy reviewing legacypac’s work is in principle a good thing. What was not ok was Godsy doing massive numbers of pointless edits to pages in Legacypac’s wake, thus filling Legacypacs watchlist with Godsy links. Godsy should be allowed, encouraged, to bring to a forum actual problems, but he should not be doing trivial edits specific to Legacypac’s recently edited pages. Follow Legacypac’s edit history to review, for sure, but do not make a noise doing it for pages where there is no substantive problem, and if there is, bring it to some talk page for others to review. I suggest WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. A clear cut rule for Godsy would this be: Do not edit drafts edited by Legacypac, instead raise problems for others to review at WT:AfC, or WT:Drafts. MfD should not be part of this, as MfD is already an active well-watched forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggestion we remove the iban? Because if not, sorry but Godsy reviewing Legacypac's work is not a good thing as long as the iban is in place. Godsy should not be following or reviewing Legacypac's contributions or work, and they should not be bringing any problems relating to Legacypac anywhere except iban violations to ANI or somewhere else appropriate. If Godsy is actually doing anything you suggest, then the the indef is a good thing, and should stay until they can convince us or at least an admin they will stop it. But I think Godsy understands this though, since in their appeal they appear to be denying they are in any way intending to review Legacypac's contributions, they are just reviewing an area of interest without paying attention to who made said contributions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read the Iban differently perhaps. There is nothing wrong with Godsy reviewing legacypac contributions, as long as he does it silently. The trivial edits were harassing. I think there should be no issue with Godsy lodging a complaint about Legacypac, as long as the complaint is upheld. The following and editing of pages is what is not ok. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the block was harsh and that Godsy was not in violation of his i-ban. I also believe more attention should be paid to the action that was taken by Godsy and whether or not it was appropriate. If it can be demonstrated that the action itself was inappropriate, that would raise a more legitimate concern regarding a potential violation of the iBan. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock and remove i-ban. This is a perfect example of an i-ban itself being more harmful then any harm it was meant to avoid. In short: I don't see anything wrong with Godsy's edits. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Tavix it is not the substance of the edits we are dealing with. This is textbook WP:HOUND and remember that Hound is why I tried multiple times to get this IBAN instated and that at least twice before HOUND has been breached by them after the IBAN was imposed. At times hounding me is pretyy much their only activity on site. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very messy editor and I am grateful that Godsy is willing to clean up your messes. We should be encouraging this clean-up effort instead of blocking him for it. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Remove your baseless personal attack. 2. Following me to a series of obscure draft pages is not cleanup any more than when he followed me to a bunch of random pages (including ones up for deletion) to make whitespace and other meaningless edits or the time he followed me to a bunch of MfDs to oppose my nominations while doing nothing with any other MfDs or anything else on the site. I ran a friendly demonstration for User:SmokeyJoe] so he cound understand the problem. I'd be happy to run one for you with your permission. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I regret and apologize that you took my observation as a personal attack. It seems we have different opinions on what constitutes clean-up and/or hounding, so I will leave it at that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support tban, good block, per Ivanvector, SmokeyJoe and Nil Einne. Godsy's February 15 edits were a clear, intentional violation of the iban, and the community should not tolerate long term harassment of one editor by another. Four reasons I support:
    1. When the original iban was imposed, Godsy changed his userpage to a countdown clock for the 12 months until he could appeal the iban, with the edit summary "It is important to note that there is a great deal of hope. No, no?". Unfortunately, that obsessive behavior continues to this day.
    2. It has been suggested in this thread and in Godsy's unblock request that if you threw a dart at draftspace, you're likely to hit an edit by Legacypac. Somehow, none of Godsy's edits in 2019 have been to pages edited by Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) until February 15, when every edit Godsy made was one or two edits after Lpac (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff), including gems like these:
    3. This is not a new thing. When ArbCom denied Godsy's case request against Lpac, he was advised both gently ("...there are lots and lots of articles to 'unambiguously improve' on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Legacypac, and those other articles are where you should be investing your content efforts...") and directly ("Don't modify Legacypac's edits."). In his unblock request, Godsy more or less says he will continue this behavior.
    4. The revised iban obviously isn't working, and a stronger community sanction should be in place when Godsy is unblocked. When Godsy's behavior led to a revision of the iban, the closer wrote "...editors have been community banned from Wikipedia for considerably less disruptive activity than that demonstrated here." The ban proposed by Ivanvector seems like a sensible intermediate step to try. If Godsy can't keep away from Lpac's edits in draftspace, then Godsy shouldn't edit draftspace (and related areas). Leviv ich 04:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank-you for the considerable effort taken User:Levivich to pull that all together. This response [176] gives me no comfort that they will abide by the IBAN for it critiques my editing and suggests wrongly I'm the only user moving WP:STALE userpages. If I'm the allegedly the only person doing something why exactly is he "monitoring" with a view to "remedy" my actions when he is IBANed from me? Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Yurikanger

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

    They don't seem to notice toned down messages about their behaviour and the need to stop it. I've given them a warning that should be more effective in getting their attention.Lurking shadow (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to have stopped editing (for now). File this under close and keep an eye on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkDice Off site canvasing

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

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

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

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

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

    On User talk:MarkDice the most recent section states:

    == Off wiki canvasing ==

    Is unacceptable and really against out best practice, this [[[177] has lost you any sympathy I may have had for all, all it has done is caused a raft of childish vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is also why I've blocked this account and block anyone who shows up because of the video. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious what Jimmy Wales has to say about this development after getting involved in the BLP talk page in the first place...? - wolf 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Extended content
    == Mark Dice ==

    Background: I have sided with Dice exactly 0 times in that discussion and I am explicitly mocked at the 2:20 mark in that video. Not that I get a say in such things but I think blocking someone because they post off-site criticism of Wikipedia is not great. While it was meat puppetry I think this is a case where discretion would have been the better part of valor. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Barkeep49: If it was just criticism, I wouldn't have blocked. He knows he has a following and he's using it in bad faith to get what he wants without regard to our policies. I recommend reporting the video (and his comment linking to the talk page) for harassment. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in my case it might have started, should be fun times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: If I'm on and I see further incidents (on your page and a few other), I'll semi-protect. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, it does not overly worry me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then. It looks like it's just a few folks going to random pages because they don't know what they're doing (...I mean, if they did, they'd be taking a different approach). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those accountants (being very generous) have just posted rants about how unfair Wikipedia is, and snide comments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And all of them were unaware of WP:TALK. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Were they, all the blocked accounts, even the ones who have been here for years? Even after I posted this [[178]], which tells any one who read it the talk page is for discussing the article, not a soapbox?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If Dice was a far-left conspiracy theorist, would you be complaining about me blocking accounts who posted stuff that had to be revdelled? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, completely ignoring politics, we're dealing with fans of a professional troll. Calling his fans here on Twitter was a cry for attention. Calling Jimbo on Twitter was a cry for attention. Coming on here was just gathering material for yet another cry for attention. Calling his fans here on Youtube was just a cry for attention. The best that can be done is to avoid giving them another platform and showing them that rallying the base is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) None of you asked but the recent batch of accounts are Red X Unrelated to User:MarkDice and  Unlikely to each other. But, as someone who had to look up just who Mark Dice is (and also an accountant fwiw) I endorse these blocks per WP:MEAT and per Arbcom direction on what to do with obvious meatpuppets (which, in my opinion, includes long-idle accounts waking up in response to a blatant canvass). Please copy this comment if anyone feels the need to escalate the issue to one of the admin noticeboards. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I figured they were unrelated, which is why I didn't bother filing an SPI, tagging, and opening a category page of suspected sockpuppets. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole "reactivating old accounts" thing is a big red flag for me, and I'm not saying I saw nothing, but nothing that suggests any more useful action at this time. I will likely check again later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Ironically, the re-blocking would be wheel-warring I think, but I totally agree that PBS shold be reminded that unilaterally overturning a community consensus has surely got to be mainline to arbcom... ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a terrible cowboy unblock, against community consensus (there's already been an AN thread about this) and without contacting the blocking admin, which should result in a swift trip to ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My ending of the indefinate [sic] block should not be read as my approving of the actions of MarkDice/Mark Dice, and I will take no further part in discussion of the initial block or other possible actions that may be discussed here. So you reversed an admin action without consulting the admin involved, didn't research the background, created a mess, and now you're simply going to walk away? And by the way, yeah, unblocking Mark Dice is a de facto approval for his canvassing. --Calton | Talk 13:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disappointed PBS felt the need to reread WP:WHEEL on the assumption that they'd be reversed - and especially to say so above as a chilling effect - but not WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking, the policy that would cover their own action. —Cryptic 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocking

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

    • I would suggest PBS reverse it or consensus here is obtained within 24 hours (or whatever the customary time period is these days). Don't let any technicalities get in the way of this one. spryde | talk 13:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There already exists a community consensus to block at AN. Although this hasn't ran 24 hours, there is consensus here that PBS's actions were improper. IMO, the only way this doesn't end up with a desysop action at Arbcom is for PBS to reverse himself sooner rather than later. John from Idegon (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the unblock, support a reblock, but let's calm down a bit here. I wish everyone on all sides would take on board the suggestion that MarkDice be treated like any other editor (that goes for Jimbo, PBS, and everyone else). The community has faced these sorts of issues before and there are existing practices and procedures and policies that should be followed. It's not proper for an admin to reverse another admin's action without discussion first; nor to take action directly against community consensus (e.g., the AN thread on this subject). If the consensus to block is reaffirmed here, it seems proper for an uninvolved admin to re-block. But that doesn't mean we should adopt a "block on sight" policy for suspected canvassed accounts, and talk of ArbCom seems over the top to me. I could do that thing and provide a shitload of diffs of admins undoing other admins' blocks without discussion, against consensus, and nobody taking them to ArbCom over it, or ArbCom denying a case request. Y'all know there've been some recent well-known examples of this. I say reaffirm consensus, reblock the account, and follow our usual procedures. This is a trout not a de-bit situation. Us getting hysterical about Mark Dice is what Mark Dice wants. Leviv ich 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^+1 ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you ask me, Talk:Mark Dice contains a bunch of hysteria about Dice, from top to bottom. Leviv ich 15:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions on user pages are ususally reactive to the user themselves, and MD's page is neither exception nor exaggeration. The discussions BK was referring to that haven't' involved MD, however—here and at AN—have been qoutecompletely under controlunquote. The environment of a discussion moulds the discussion, you see. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, it would have been better if any of the following happened: 1) Jimbo hadn't brought attention to it in the first place; 2) editors ignored Jimbo instead of rushing to the article; 3) other editors ignored the whole thing instead of rushing to police the article; 4) Dice's canvassing was ignored instead of him being blocked; 5) Dice's followers were ignored instead of being blocked; and, 6) Dice wasn't unblocked without him making an unblock request, leaving good enough alone. Just my opinion. Leviv ich 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly consensus is against you on that. And why, may I ask, did you reply to me when it was Black Kite who responded to your remark about "hysteria" to which you were then responding? ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What does ^+1 mean? I intended to reply to both of you, but I must have misunderstood your comment. Please accept my apologies. Leviv ich 17:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful about using words like hysteria, Levivich. It was using hysterical that caused me to be banned from Jimbo's talk page. Gendered overtones, apparently, although I thought that was ancient Greek usage. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did miss that on the talk page, care to link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed something you replied to? I know you more often than not seem to get it wrong but ... Here's example. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no mention here of canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:CIR. I am getting very fed up of it: numerous examples of your incompetence/slapdashery at that one article talk page alone and your speciousness beggars belief. Re-read the entire talk page if you must. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can see is something about his ranting about his article, that is not canvasing (any more then this is). What I need to see is clear evidence he has done this sort of thing (saying "go over" to my page and edit it) before. Because if it is a lot of users who discuss articles off Wikipedia are canvasing, is that the criteria we have?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's [179] ——SerialNumber54129 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm I would point out this is part of the same incident, just on another platform, that does not really go far to establish he has done this "before", or that he will do so again. Blocks are not punetive. I supported the block for this current round of canvasing, but all users deserve to show they have learned their lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus already exists that it was a bad unblock. Any passing admin can reblock based on that consensus without this subthread, and should do so and close this entire section immediately. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reblock. It'll mean more if someone besides me blocks at this point. Dice continued to canvass after being blocked for it. He clearly doesn't care about what the article says, he's just wants another platform to rally his fans around. WP:RBI is the standard procedure for dealing with trolls. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The editor has been reblocked. [180] Leviv ich 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reblock What the ever loving fuck good does anyone in their right mind expect to come from inviting that guy to edit this site? Seriously! If you want to argue this point, you need to present a coherent case that unblocking was a good idea, not a vague case that the original block was not perfect. WE ARE NOT A BUREAUCRACY. Claiming that this block was wrong due to some technicality is essentially the same as admitting this was a good block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose reblock for much the same reasons as the !vote above, though in rather more civil language. WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. On a side note, I am having real difficulty seeing how Drmies reblock is not wheel-warring; linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists is rather different to consensus actually existing, especially when a section on reblocking has one !vote in favour and another !vote against. GoldenRing (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEAT gives grounds for blocking meatpuppets, not the meat-puppet master, and certainly not indefinitely. What part of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy did you find difficult to comprehend, and why did you think my comments mentioned if, as you have just implied, my reasoning had nothing to do with it?
    And what good, exactly, does blocking this account achieve? What does it prevent? On the contrary, it gives Mark considerably more latitude to cause trouble. That is the single most ignorant statement I've read on this site in at least a week. Congrats, I guess. To answer the silly questions in it; it prevents Dice from disrupting the project himself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to your question is Arbcom. Unless you think another consensus is going to emerge, overturning the previous one (yeah, right), then there is nothing more you or anyone can do here. If there are issues with it, then that is the next venue. And moaning about the result doesn't get the guys back on the pitch. But, you go ahead, feed the drama, I'm sure there isn't enough of it! ——SerialNumber54129 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:MarkDice is WP:NOTHERE to develop the project, he is using Wikipedia to create controversy and gove him material to rant about. He knows full well he should not be canvassing his viewers to edit the page, but he did it to create controversy which gets him more views. It's working because I'd never heard of him but now I've watched his view. Keep him blocked and block any acct that crosses the line into trolling. Be sure the option to file an appeal of his block is available. Then ignore him to the extent possible for attention is what he seeks Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • PBS, I wasn't aware that I was breaching policy--in all honesty, I thought that you were doing that, by unblocking without consulting with the previous admin. But policy or not, I thought that was a pretty unwise decision, and that you didn't fully consider what kind of shitstorm this would raise--I suppose I'm glad you saw that your unblock was challenged to this extent, and yet I wonder how you got to it in the first place (yes, I read your original post). As for "linking to one involved editor's opinion that consensus exists" remark by GoldenRing--GoldenRing, I'm sure you understand that the diff isn't so much to link to Tony's comment (though he's frequently right, and I an not aware he was "involved") but to the situation as I found it at that time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: As I am sure you are perfectly aware, according to our banning policy, a community discussion of an indef block is a ban discussion and a ban discussion must remain open for at least 24 hours (emphasis in the original). You re-blocked when the discussion had been open for five hours and five minutes. I'm not after your bit, but your action here was clearly wheel-warring. You ought to self-revert and let the discussion reach a consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think I was that wrong, go ahead and unblock. You have my blessing. I gotta go teach. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understood it (and it is the basis of my vote) that AN thread was about the blocks of other accounts (for meat puppetry), not Mr Dice for canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought we were discussing meatpuppets as Dice himself was already blocked and no one was seeking to review that. The path to an unblock is usually admission of wrong in an appeal (or tweet Jimbo) Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies didn't wheel war. It's not necessary to refer to the AN discussion; at the time Drmies reblocked, there was a strong consensus above that PBS's unblock was bad. There was no need to start a new section "Reblocking", still less to wait for that section to gain yet another consensus for the block — how many consensuses do we need? I agree with Tony Ballioni here, and I obviously disagree with Golden Ring. I'll quote WP:WHEEL: When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action. With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. I've bolded the references to consensus in there. Drmies reblocked after a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision". Bishonen | talk 20:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • I've been highly critical of admin actions on the talk page. So have Jimbo and Larry Sanger [181]. However, Mark Dice has shown blatant disregard for WP:COI. If he is to return, I support a topic ban from the article about him. Unlike new editors who've been indeffed for not knowing the ropes, Dice knows exactly what he's doing and is being completely transparent. This unblock is out of place. Dice may not fully understand why he's been blocked, but he knows that it can only be because of one thing. Not to mention that it's all explained in the links in the block notifications. wumbolo ^^^ 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (break #1)

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

    Oh, I dunno about that. But it was your name so, your call. And since this didn't directly affect me, I don't have anything else add. My work is done here. - wolf 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't think PBS should have unblocked, I'm not sure I see the wisdom of a reblock so fast. The original discussion last 2 hours and 53 minutes. This discussion lasted 5 hours and 5 minutes before the reblock. So this clearly does not meet the requirements for a community endorsed block. Even now, the discussion has still only been just under 17 hours so the requirements for a community endorsed block are still not met. If PBS wanted to revert their actions because they realised they made an epic mistake, then they should have, but I don't see the urgency to reblock otherwise. It's not like Mark Dice had actually done jack shit on wikipedia since they were unblocked so there was an urgent problem that needed to be dealt with. Also, while I don't think it would have made a great difference since most of the meatpuppets don't seem to have even a basic grasp of our policies or guidelines, it may have made a small difference to those who correctly felt that MarkDice hasn't been treated fairly with the reblock. (Note I'm not saying the original block was proper, and I've already said I disagree with the unblock.) This doesn't mean that I'm saying there should be a further unlock. Since PBS has already said they planned to re-block, then that would serve no purpose. Before someone brings it up, we've established several times already that this is one policy area where for better or worse, WP:IAR should never be applied and all community sanctioning decisions should be left open a minimum of 24 hours since otherwise we just get a royal mess. My read is effectively that was what the community wanted when they made the decision anyway. Note also that this is not criticism of the close of the original discussion either. There was no reason why such a block needed to be community endorsed and if an admin just wanted to make a quick check that they weren't making a major mistake that was fine. So the close of the old discussion was fine, although the block itself should not be treated as community endorsed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:IDHT at Talk:The Voice India Kids

    A few IPs blocked,
    talk page semi-protected
    for 24 hours. Leviv ich 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
    This fad for Haiku
    Is now threatening to reach
    Frightful proportions. EEng
    Much levity here
    To contrast the sad events
    Please do continue
    —[AlanM1(talk)]—

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

    Various IPs have been disrupting things at Talk:The Voice India Kids for the last few days. The article is not protected, but an edit request keeps getting placed for some reason. At least four different editors have responded to the edit request, all noting that the article is not protected and that the user should be able to make the edit. After each response, the IP removes the response and reopens the request, with escalating threats. Yesterday User:B dash and I were taken to WP:AN3, which was boomeranged back at the IP who reported it. Based on the "final warning" in the latest request, it's quite likely that I'm being reported there again now. The IPs have not responded to requests for further details as to why they can't edit, so I have no idea how to respond to this at this point. Can someone take a look? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - with the bouncing IPs it didn't seem feasible to place notice on the user talk page, so I placed a notice at the article talk page, where it was also reverted. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked a few IP addresses and semi-protected the talk page for 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This has continued, Can further action be taken?RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    K6ka blocked the IP for block evasion, and I semi-protected the talk page for 3 days--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd behavior in new accounts

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

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

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

    Someone had made a threatening video.

    FORWARDED PER WP:911
    SITH (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    The person suspected to be behind these IPs (2601:4C4:4000:C420:697B:3F4C:F1C0:CC37 and 2601:4C4:4000:C420:0:0:0:0/64) had made a threatening video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=niT802WDwTQ) aganist the user who block that person's IP address.

    Not only that but another user by the name of Hukum mati salah (Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVgUiPMLuCOw6vJhb0EW-GQ) made a userpage threatening to kill people and the police according to translation.

    Please investigate these people. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) It have nothing to do when those threat was outside wikipedia. For the first video, despite is not registered , still it may violate the privacy when discussing the manner of the user outside wikipedia. There was a ANI thread about a user's twitter account, and all of the page history was hidden and the name of that twitter account was redacted . May be this email may help for the first link oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org
    For the second link, not related to wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, after you adding the user page of Hukum mati salah in wikipedia, it qualify for using emergency@wikimedia.org email. Matthew hk (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But i believed Hukum mati salah is not related to youtube user of the same name. Matthew hk (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the comments section of videos #1 and #2 RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hukum mati salah is WP:NOTHERE and recreate attack page

    (Non-administrator comment) Post-close: Hukum mati salah had recreated the attack page User:Hukum mati salah which was speedy deleted, so he is WP:NOTHERE and please block. Matthew hk (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting the user name means 'death penalty wrong'. While it's a sentiment I share, I wonder if it's also a WP:UAA case. BTW, I can confirm the user page says "kill police, kill president, kill person, kill soldier, kill riot police, ..... kill god, we war, we steal arms" Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic, did it quality for WP:revision deletion and redated the youtube link? It is not well related to wikipedia and it seem a private information. Also, the linkage of the alleged youtube account and wiki user Hukum mati salah is weak (the second youtube user just spamming the link of the wiki user Hukum mati salah), it may be an impersonator or someone want to promote the youtube account (as the channel's video is not related to wikipedia, despite the allegation on the youtube comment, unlike previous ANI thread regarding wikipedia unofficial youtube tutorial) Matthew hk (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpage deleted and account blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Second post-block comment. The user still have access to his talk page at User talk:Hukum mati salah, he still turn it into attack page. Matthew hk (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUNDING by User:Binksternet

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

    • At Susan B. Anthony List he used Twinkle to roll back a dozen edits I made that were either extensively sourced, or potentially controversial but I was willing to address objections from other editors. Binksternet unilaterally declared that I cannot edit Susan B. Anthony List because of WP:COI. I volunteered a few hours a week for the organization about 10 years ago when I was a senior in high school trying to bolster my resume for college. As stated on his talk page and mine I was never paid, never on staff, haven't had contact with them since then, and have edited the article in the years since --including a number of back-and-forths with Binksternet himself-- without anyone finding it necessary to ban me from editing the article.
    • At Artur Davis he rolled back a bunch of non-controversial copyediting. He said I was trying to make Republicans look good or Democrats look bad by removing the timing of when Davis switched from Dem to Rep, but it's clear Binksternet didn't actually read my edits. Because prior to my edits, the article redundantly repeated three times the same sentence about Davis switching to the Republican party. All I did was to remove those repetitions and make the lede more readable. But Binksternet rolled them back anyway saying in his edit summary "political activist at work".
    • At Andrew Cuomo he declared that I could not use Fox News as a source for a factual sentence talking about how a liberal bill angered conservatives. He ignored that my edits cited The Buffalo News and a governors office press release.
    • At Tommy Norment he rolled back two "non-neutral removals" of content. The content in question was a single source that said Norment or someone using his information was named in the Ashley Madison leak, and I removed it on WP:BLP grounds because of the accusation. Debatable perhaps but not "non-neutral". The other edit removed a single article making anonymous accusations from ThinkProgress, which is owned by Center for American Progress and not a WP:RS. According to Binksternet, Fox News is not a reliable source but a blog owned by a liberal activist group is?

    Binksternet is WP:HOUNDING me across six different articles I've recently edited ([182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]) in the last 24 hours, making wholesale reverts of sourced content he has not read and citing "political activist" in the edit summaries and abusing Twinkle by engaging in edit warring. Binksternet has a history of engaging in this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and it is one reason why his 2013 request for adminship was denied. I've clashed with Binksternet in the past but have no interest in doing so now. I admit I've made some mistakes on Wikipedia for sure and I've faced sanctions for them in the past. Binksternet is trying to drudge up old controversies that happened years ago in order to get me topic banned because of some sort of vendetta. All I want to do is contribute to the encyclopedia without being hounded. I am requesting that Binksternet be told to stop hounding my edits and instead discuss them constructively. If he does not, I request an interaction ban. Instaurare (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This request for an interaction ban should boomerang on Instaurare, who is a political activist holding goals not in alignment with Wikipedia. He carries and continually implements a non-neutral long-term agenda of promoting American conservative ideas and people while putting down American liberal ideas and people. He should be topic-banned from all American politics starting from the 1970s when Roe v. Wade was decided.
    Background: Instaurare caused a big problem nine years ago when he was caught socking extensively, especially with the accounts NYyankees51 and BS24. (See the SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYyankees51/Archive.) The only reason the socking was a problem was that Instaurare was continuing his politically slanted editing. I can compile an extensive list of edits showing the non-neutral slant of Instaurare/NYyankees51/BS24 but in the interest of brevity I will simply ping some active admins who have dealt with this guy: Mojoworker, HJ Mitchell, Jpgordon, JamesBWatson, Carrite, NuclearWarfare, EdJohnston, SarekOfVulcan, Black Kite, and Nakon (who just retired). In January 2012, NYyankees51 was banned from abortion topics for three months.[188] Later the same year, NYyankees51 was topic-banned from all LGBT-related articles. At that discussion, Carrite said, "NYY51 is pretty clearly a POV warrior and at some point really soon he's going to need to decide for himself whether to knock it the hell off and to start to build constructively or to be topic-banned off the planet."
    In April 2011, I wrote up a report about how Instaurare held a conflict of interest with regard to the political action committee Susan B. Anthony List, but only he and I took part in the discussion. The point was that he had edited from an IP address registered to the activist organization, and that he continually removed negative text and added positive text. Yesterday, Instaurare resumed the same behavior, adding positive text and deleting well-cited negative text. That last bit is why we are here today. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How is adding factual references from the New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post "adding positive text"? How is a reduction of weight in a lede where a topic is given 25% of the lede but constitutes a fraction of the article body? Binksternet does not adhere to WP:AGF.
    Again, Binksternet is trying to rehash stuff that happened 7-8 years ago. If Binksternet wants to play that game, I can point to his own extensive block log for edit warring on various political and abortion articles, and the previously linked failed request for adminship. I was sanctioned years ago for the dumb stuff I did. I regained the trust of the community to be able to edit again. Binksternet is acting as if any edit to a political article is unacceptable, regardless of how neutral and well-sourced it is, because of stuff I paid the price for nearly a decade ago. I've changed my behavior and I'm ready to move forward without being hounded. Instaurare (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But Instaurare, has your editing style really changed since then? Have you completely re-earned the trust of the community just by disappearing for a couple of years, after all your early disruptive time here? You still seem to be the poster child for WP:CPUSH, and your POV still shows in many of your edits, despite numerous attempts by many different editors over the years to offer advice to you to try and bring about a change in your behavior, you never seem to take it to heart – all we ever get are apologies, your disappearance for a while, then your return to editing in the same manner without any resultant changes. Have you forgotten your promises? I'll note you were indeffed, considered for a site ban, and ultimately topic banned four days after I offered that advice. I'll quote some more advice from long ago when I warned you for electioneering on the Terry McAuliffe article: Instaurare, I would advise you to reread the advice that HJ Mitchell gave you when he removed his restrictions on your editing: "...if you start making edits that don't abide by both the letter and the spirit of policy (and relevant guidelines, ArbCom rulings, etc), I suspect it won't be long before you're in an even worse position than you were with the restrictions." I'll reassert the admonition from WP:CPUSH: "Using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, or to advance a specific agenda, damages the encyclopedia and disrupts the process of collaborative editing." That has been your main problem all along – and your sanctions only the most obvious results of it. This editor has narrowly avoided additional sanctions several times in the past. Perhaps it's time for a larger boomerang, maybe restriction from articles covered by WP:ARBAP2 broadly construed. Nothing else seems to get through to this guy. Mojoworker (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mojoworker, can you point to specific examples of advocacy? I'm not citing Breitbart with my edits. I strive to only made edits that are extensively sourced from reliable sources. I often put multiple references behind a sentence. Instaurare (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you are citing Glenn Beck's The Blaze and an anti-abortion group known for deceptively edited Planned Parenthood videos to suggest that Planned Parenthood doctors boasted about killing newborns.[189] Here you created a long list of Catholic figures condemning Andrew Cuomo and going into great detail on their thoughts on whether he ought to be excommunicated or whether he's just bad Catholic for being in favor of abortion rights.[190] I've seen numerous problematic edits by you, in particular on abortion-related topics, but these are only ones I can recall right now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think The Blaze was not a reliable source in that instance, that can be discussed. If you think the New York Times, AOL, New York Daily News, Fox News, Syracuse.com, Associated Press, etc are not reliable sources for the Cuomo article then make your case. Does WP:BRD not apply anymore, and we're just accusing anyone who adds extensively sourced content to pages of politicians of acting with an agenda? Instaurare (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You were boasting about not adding Breitbart-level sources, yet in that instance you were adding Glenn Beck's The Blaze (which is absolute garbage) and a video by an organization known for publishing deceptively edited videos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Instaurare, what I'm saying is basically what HJ Mitchell advised you when he "stuck his neck out" and unblocked you: "Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles." You made a lot of promises to him that you never followed through with, and seemed, to me, to have taken advantage of his AGF in you. I'll reiterate what I advised you: "If you can't make an edit without your strongly held beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article – at least not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. That's a whole lot different than pushing every guideline and policy to the limit, which, ultimately, is only going to get you into more trouble." But apparently you can't restrain yourself, so perhaps it's finally time for the community to do so. Mojoworker (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mojo, you and I both know that if we were really applying the "nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits" rule, we would probably take out 80% of editors involved with US politics articles, including Binksternet. (How about this hugely problematic edit where he added the words "engaged in extramarital sex with a female lobbyist" to a BLP and cited two sources that say no such thing?) I do my best to contstrain myself by making edits that are extensively sourced with a variety of reliable sources such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, New York Daily News, Associated Press, and all sorts of regional newspapers and TV stations. You're acting as if I'm citing Breitbart or not citing anything at all. Instaurare (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term political activist edits by Instaurare

    Instaurare has been engaging in non-neutral editing for many years on the topic of abortion, demonstrating a conflict of interest and a persistent inability to view the topic objectively. He defends the Susan B. Anthony List by deleting facts and wording that make the political action committee look bad, and emphasizing positive aspects. His removal yesterday was just one more example in a long string going back ten years, for instance this similar removal from March 2011. Instaurare's first SBA List edit I know about is this misrepresentation and promotion from April 2009, following which the views of SBA List were given a voice here and here in October 2009. This example is relevant to the recent conflict – Instaurare again misrrepresents Susan B. Anthony's legacy by spouting the SBA List fabricated story about how Anthony held "anti-abortion views" and advocated against abortion (she did no such thing, ever.) It's this false co-opting of Anthony's legacy as a fighter for women's right to vote that drives me to correct the problems caused by Instaurare and fellow travelers. This removal wasn't neutral, and this addition was a promotional misrepresentation of the source. This promotional addition inserts an unnecessary pro-religion quote: "God knows what he's doing." This edit changed an appropriate qualifier to a blatant falsehood about Susan B. Anthony, who never signed a document with the letter "A". In July 2010, a sock of Instaurare edit-warred with me to retain the false depiction of Anthony.[191][192][193][194] The ideological battle grew beyond any one article, so Instaurare sock BS24 (rightly) started the article Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute, giving more credence to the recent false/political views than to scholarly conclusions. I greatly reworked the article over time, to better represent the conclusions of the world's most respected authority on Susan B. Anthony, which is Rutgers historian Ann D. Gordon, a biography I started. Instaurare persistently fought against my changes, removing an establishing description of Gordon, for instance, to try to bring doubt to her scholarship. Instaurare persistently tried to reduce the level of scholarly opposition to the SBA List claims about Anthony.

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

    user:Levalbert

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

    Yes, Levalbert has been rather naughty here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI they have been blanked again. Please speedy delete them. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I fixed it. I did a history merge to combine the old talk page and new talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's perfect. The history is back. Meters (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the argument for including the image at Pubic hair, but it's a substandard example for the rest of those articles. Leviv ich 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Help on 2019 Pulwama attack and Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack

    Fully protected.
    "The wrong version" discussions
    are now underway.
    Leviv ich 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    2-3 editors seem to be engaged in an edit war, reverting each other's edits without clear consensus. Can an admin or anyone else mediate and resolve the issue? There seems to be a good amount of constructive time being wasted over there. 119.82.70.109 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2019 Pulwama attack fully protected for two days. The reactions article was nominated for deletion, but someone closed that with a speedy keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because someone raised the issue on my talk page, I'll explicitly say I don't care if anyone wants to unprotect the page or try some other solution, such as page restrictions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    please block some editor

    This is a content dispute, and the issues involved should be discussed by all interested editors on Talk:Special forces of Thailand. Please start a civil discussion there and explain your viewpoint. Then assess the WP:CONSENSUS of how the text should read. If you need help with English-language grammar issues, please visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin closure)

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

    User:Frank marine is edit the page due to translate from thai article with no english grammar knowledge. I tired to help him prove the article why Wikipeida doen't has a countermeasure to stop this guy edit any page in Wikipedia. Every article that he edit is non-sense and all translate from Thai language from Google Translate with no re-check. I need your help to block him and please check every article that he make which is bullshit article and bullshit action. Thank You --58.8.169.80 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Which article, we do need to see what the problem is.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please notify the user as it is required to do so. I have done it for you. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like a content dispute, can you say what is wrong with (say) [[195]] this edit?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    the name of the regiment force don't need a point after it such as Thai Navy Seal not Thai Navy Seal. Are you understand it? 58.8.169.80 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor do we need links to non existent pages either. I also note he did not attempt to reinsert the full stop. So I am not seeing why he needs to be banned.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    58.8.169.80, I don't see that you have ever posted to an article talk page or user talk page. Please start a discussion with editors you have a conflict with about the content that is under dispute. Your first step should NOT be to come to ANI asking for an editor to receive a block. ANI should be where you come after all other means of dispute resolution have been tried. I see that this editor has not responded to messages on their talk page but you should make an attempt to communicate with them before asking for a block. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (edit conflict)

    • Re: Frank marine (talk · contribs) - It should be pointed out that despite this ANI, and the numerous notifications of problematic editing posted to this user's talk page, he has never once responded. In fact, he not not made a single post to any talk page since joining Wikipedia. Communication is important in a collaborative project such as this, and refusing to engage with others, whether it is to acknowledge problematic edits or more importantly, work toward resolving a content dispute, is itself a serious problem. I agree with Liz, that the OP should certainly attempt to discuss issues with this editor (and any other) before coming here and seeking a block. But if Frank marine will not engage with this editor, or even respond to this ANI, then perhaps a block is called for, until they show a willingness to communicate. Blocks such as this are not at all uncommon.

      Post edit conflict addendum; Softlavender, I was typing out my post when you closed this discussion. Please consider undoing this close so that my comment, as well as any others might be taken into consideration. Thank you. - wolf 07:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • He only has one single notice of problematic editing on his usertalk [196]. Also, discussion of article content belongs on the talkpage of the article, not at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Softlavender: Ok, so when this editor doesn't respond on the article talk page, what then? The OP has to start with ANI all over again? Why not have this dealt with now? Leave this open and give the editor a chance to respond. If/when he doesn't, then have an admin decide what action, if any, should be taken next. Seems reasonable no? 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence that the user is not listening, is he edit warring over this or attempting to revert?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edward'sworld

    (non-admin closure)

    Indeffed indeed
    Only spam we tolerate
    Goes on sandwiches

    Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Problematical WP:User page, maybe WP:User name. WP:COI? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    New articles by Shevonsilva

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

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

    It is done. I have stopped the creation of new articles. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the background, see this thread: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Stubs created by Shevonsilva. Shevonsilva's main activity here is to create one-line stubs on obscure administrative divisions of various countries. I know that some people do not like such new creations, but I actually find them useful, since these articles are then easier to incrementally expand than to start from scratch. They are sourced, but, as Shevonsilva is not autopatrolled, they go to the new page patrol queue, and this is how I became aware of them. The problem is that often these articles contain critical errors. I started the referenced NPPR thread with a number of examples (note that the diffs are not to Shevonshilva's edits but to the corrections): an article on an abolished department of Colombia, Fiji subdivision with a template of the Argentine province (a batch of five subdivisions all had this template), the name of the article does not match the content, a duplication of an existing article. These are just a set of examples, more examples are found in the same thread and at User talk:Shevonsilva. The reaction of Shevonsilva was to accept and to promise to correct the errors. (Sometimes they reacted defensively, for example the same NPPR thread contains a suggestion to me to stop patrolling their articles), but constructive reaction is more typical. The problem is that nothing changes. They typically come up with a reason why they screwed up (for example, caching issues when an Argentine template was added to Fiji articles), and they correct the issues, but next day something else happens, and new articles with (different) critical errors go to the main space, adding extra work to new page patrollers. Just today a couple of their articles were moved (not by me) to the draft space, because the sources did not confirm the information in the article, and there was no way to know whether the administrative divisions actually existed. They were repeatedly told to slow down and to change their workflow in such a way as to ensure that the articles do not contain critical errors, and they were responsive, but it just is not happening. Apparently, the issues were discussed at ANI before in 2014, and the user was already blocked for the same behavior by Anna Frodesiak prior to 2014. Whereas I have no doubts they have good intentions and act in goor faith, the competence issues are recurrent and are too serious so that we need to do something. May be a topic ban on article creation in the main space could help, may be we need escalating blocks, I am not sure, but we can not leave the situation like this. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I am very bad person by going to help wikipedia, and by doing so it will help to third party software tools like Grammerly by serving as a data repository, for example, to provide accessibility features too (Note: data mining is done by topics not the article content), and, these third party tools can also find a different repository too. It may be needed to understand that filling this large gap needs a heavy work which was alonely completed by me (effectively upto countries starting from letter A to M (partially inclusively) and almost African countries, and, I also appreciate the support given by reviewers. I had to create plethora of articles in order to complete this gap and some technical errors were unvoidable due to the larger number of articles. There are a few pending articles remaining and I am not bothered about those. Anyway, in the end, I really feel bad after giving much effort to complete this knowledge gap by thinking I was doing to good service to the world.Shevonsilva (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shevonsilva, this issue has been brought to ANI not so that you will feel like a bad person but that you will listen to your fellow editors and see where there are problems with your article creations. Do you understand Ymblanter's points about problems with your article stubs? Because it's not just a matter of you saying you're sorry, you have to understand what the problems are so they won't happen in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. To be honest, the issue is there are many articles missing, there may be a chance of 1-10% error may happen due to human error (I may not notice due to consistent pattern) or machine error (unmodified versions are poping up or cursor in the wiki editor is moving without my consent) [That is another reason I did not request auto-patrol permission as I needed other reviewers eyes too to complete these missing articles.] I have already changed the flow of creating articles that I will double check the references with spelling variances with different versions of publications of place names (that may be the reason due to which they are not touched before). I can try my best to gurentee minimisation of errors in this missing articles if I am going to finish the rest. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this has nothing to do with being a bad person or a good person, simply about paying attention to what one is doing. Having created numerous geographical stub articles, I believe in their importance to the WP project, but I also understand the necessity of accuracy. There are other editors who have made "human error" mistakes, and when they are pointed out, work diligently to avoid making the same mistakes again. That cannot be said of Shevonsilva. They continue to make the same errors over and over again: creation of pages (using dab) which already exist, faulty referencing, spelling errors in article titles, etc. It would be one thing if, after having been informed of the corrections needed this editor then showed a propensity to abiding by the correct procedure. However, this editor instead seems to show the need to simply plow through creating inaccurate stubs regardless of accuracy. They seem to pull references from other articles, without verifying the validity of those sources, or whether or not those sources exist or not. And while they are polite and civil in their interactions, the issues persist.Onel5969 TT me 04:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ongoing problem. Shevonsilva started by creating dozens of articles on obscure units of measurement. Each was copied from a very dubious book (Imaginatorium did a source analysis here). Shevonsilva deletes talk page comments so it is not easy to link to the many discussions on their talk about the problems. My sandbox shows most of the original articles with working from five editors in the sandbox and its talk. Other editors had to do a lot of work to remove misleading information from stub articles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I already understood the complications. As I mentioned before I already changed the flow of creations to assure minimum or very low errors. Anyway, I have stoped contributions for the moment as I got a surgery in my right hand and it is very hard to involve in contributions with a single hand. I will try to avoid future errors. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Unexperienced user keeps submitting my rough draft for review

    User:Trillfendi is urged to treat other users more nicely or they may find themselves the subject of an ANi report. They have created the page in mainspace now amd sought deletion of the draft. A better course of action would have been to improve the Draft when another user tried to get it moved to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Iichiroh Ohhira continues to submit my unfinished draft of Shanelle Nyasiase (they’ve done it 3 times now!) for review without my permission when it is NOWHERE near complete or and isn’t contributing constructively to complete it before submission. It’s vandalism and annoying as hell. I’m sitting on 100 drafts right now, while I’m willing to take any help that people want to contribute, I’m not going to continue putting up with people disrupting it. Block this user! Trillfendi (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe if you asked this user in a more friendly way than this you would be able to resolve this issue without posting here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NONE OF US OWN ARTICLES. from Trillfendi's userpage. Hmmmmmmmm... SITH (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject likely fails WP:NMODEL anyway. Legacypac (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns articles, and anyway from the edit history of the draft, it seems the user who added the most to it was Iichiroh Ohhira. Said user hasn't made many edits, so might not be familiar with our policies and method of operation. I think the best course of action here would have been to let the article go through AFC, where it would likely have been declined. This would have been a chance for the new user to maybe learn the ropes. Filer took a rather uncivil approach in confronting user, and ran to ANI quickly. Suggest that this boomerang on filer with a warning on civility, and to not bite newbies. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek: “Nobody owns articles” is just common sense; there are people on this website who take over an article then remove everyone else puts because it doesn’t align with what they like. Happens a lot over at a certain SI Swimsuit model’s article but I won’t name names. That’s not the same as saying “no one else can edit my drafts”. A few of my drafts such as Alexina Graham have been submitted by other users who ACTUALLY contributed the proper information for it to it for it to be approved. I don’t care that Iichiroh Oohira contributes to the article but what they have contributed is NOT enough to keep submitting it for review when the article is only two goddamn sentences right now. The article draft is nowhere near complete. With that inexperience, having made ONLY 36 Wikipedia edits at all, they obviously don’t know what they’re doing and keep submitting it just for hell. And what they did contribute had to be rewritten. If the article had gone through AfC it would declined because it’s not done! So that’s why I’m mad this brute keeps doing this. Simple. If they wanted to submit it themselves and “experience” the AfC process the least they could do is add unvaguebcareer information such as campaigns, shows, and editorials, not “she was born in Ethiopia.” and thinking that’s enough for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Legacypac: The model does meet NMODEL (anyone who even follows fashion knows) having been profiled by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Dazed, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, InStyle, and part of a New York Times piece, but clearly the draft has not been updated yet to include that information to continuously be submitted like this! That’s the problem. Point blank. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the model meets NMODEL isn't germane to this discussion. Trillfendi came here to bring up someone being disruptive by submitting his drafts for review before they're ready. Is the disruption going to be addressed, or are you all going to keep taking digs at him until he gets mad and quits? Iichiroh Ohhira hasn't edited since 2016 (and only has a few edits), then suddenly reappeared and magically found this totally unrelated editor's drafts? Does anyone see something wrong here? WOPR (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest be done, WOPR? Please AGF. Iichiroh Ohhira doesn't edit regularly, made one edit early this morning and hasn't had a chance to see the notice about this discussion. Maybe we should wait for a response to see if they realize that their edits are problematic. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A very quick check shows of Iichiroh Ohhira's few contributions have been to the topic of modeling. I don't think there's anything malicious going on here at all on the moving user's end. Having a draft moved into mainspace by another user can be annoying, but it's not vandalism, and if anything, I'm more concerned with the initial attempt to resolve the conflict. The article appears to be in mainspace now, so I think we should all just move on with a gentle reminder to Trillfendi to WP:AGF when initially trying to resolve a conflict. SportingFlyer T·C 05:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor WP:NOTHERE?

    This editor [197] User:BreakingZews strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a Pro-Trump Russian troll to edit. First focused on denial of Trump's family separation policy and now has turned their attention to whitewashing Konstantin Kilimnik. Displays knowledge of policy (BLP, deletion) far beyond what an account with so few edits usually has. Additional eyes requested. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These days everyone has a bias. Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics generally have a strong left wing bias and very strong anti-Trump bias. I am highly informed on U.S. politics and everything that has to do with Trump, his administration and his policies. But I am not here to sabotage or to have an political influence, but to correct factually incorrect statements, and to be a tiny part of creating a better political balance on Wikipedia. The overwhelming left wing bias on many articles, often with strong misinformation, can only benefit from having an input from someone like myself who's first concern is to get those articles closer to the truth. Trump has never had any "family separation policy", his "Zero Tolerance Policy" had nothing to do with separating families on the border, on the contrary the only cause of those separations was the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement(which was a part reversal of a 2015 ruling). Unfortunately because it is a complex issue, the details quickly get lost in news articles fueled by partisan hate against the President. Regarding Kilimnik, he is a living person and unproven allegations should not be listed in wikipedia as facts. Yes, he was indicted for involvement in Manafort's financial and lobbying "crimes", but NOT for any involvement in "Russian interference" in the 2016 election. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soap box for Russian collusion conspiracies. I have had another Wikipedia account which I used for completely different subjects(Music and entertainment) and have learned some of the basics, but I am not very active here and feel like I lack a lot more knowledge on how to best manoeuvre Wikipedia editing, so I'll take your comment about my "knowledge of policy" as a compliment. BreakingZews (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Being neutral on President Trump is close to impossible, nobody with any interest in U.S. politics could be "neutral" on the President. I am slightly to the right but pretty balanced. For example I am against all gun ownership. I am against religion. I am for tax-payer funded healthcare and education. Does that make me an "pro-Trump Russian troll"? BreakingZews (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not here to "push a POV", I am here to help make Wikipedia more balanced. BreakingZews (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely and completely wrong there. I have read just about everything that I could get my hands on, on that issue. Read the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy yourself and you will see that it does not contain a word about separating families. Read the 2014 and 2016 revisions of the Flores Settlement and you will see that the 2016 revision is what forced the Trump administration to separate children from their families on the border. BreakingZews (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it doesn't matter that I am actually providing correct information? But yes, I get it, you guys don't like Trump and are on the left, and do absolutely not want a balanced Wikipedia. You want to throw anyone who does not share YOUR POV out... no matter how well informed and correct their editing is. BreakingZews (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are providing false information. And your AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump administration family separation policy was WP:POINTY. And I'm not replying to you again. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am providing perfectly correct information, that you do not like, because it does not fit with your own political agenda. The rubbish Esquire article does not take THE LAW or the Flores Settlement into account. The Trump administrations policy was to FOLLOW THE LAW. Not to separate children from the parents. BreakingZews (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think this comment is your nail.--Jorm (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BreakingZews: The Washington Post leans left but is factually reliable, they have an article about how John Kelly proposed intentionally separating children from their parents at the boarder[198]. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has a POV. Everyone has a bias. And yes, in this particular discussion I have been honest and made no attempt to hide my biases. But my editing of Wikipedia is primarily about correcting factually incorrect information, and perhaps trying to eliminate some of the stronger left wing bias that can be found in many articles regarding U.S. politics on Wikipedia. I guess it doesn't matter that I have been doing a good job at improving Wikipedia, that I am extremely well informed on U.S. politics, only thing that seems to matter here is that I am admittedly slightly right wing in a sea of left wing editors. There is an extremely polarized atmosphere in U.S. politics these days, nobody is neutral or balanced. And since I am not one of the editors that hate the President then it is no surprise that some of you want to stop me. Again, I am against gun ownership, I am for tax-payer funded health care and education, I am against religion, so in many ways quite far to the left, I am not some far-right extremist, but because I am not a Trump hater, because I do not have a left wing bias, then suddenly I am a "Pro-Trump Russian troll". Nothing wrong with my edits, they are factual and correct. BreakingZews (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we all have bias but you can't tell what a good editor believes from how they edit. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you easily can. Most U.S. politics related articles suffer from this problem, that there is overwhelmingly left wing editors. But I guess it is just when those edits don't match up with your own bias that it becomes a problem. BreakingZews (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BreakingZews, there is a lot of disagreement among Wikipedia editors, enough to keep dispute resolution, a dozen noticeboards, article talk pages and arbitration boards busy as editors try to resolve many editing disputes. BUT, we are all colleagues, despite disagreements, working to improve this project. I think you probably have good intentions but you can't start your discussions with your colleagues with accusations of left-wing bias and claims of propaganda. If you start from a position of hostility and negativity, you will be met with a backlash from editors who've devoted a great deal of their time to improving this enormous project.
    I have no doubt that our political articles could be improved (as almost all articles on WP could be improved) but could you adopt a position of working with other editors instead of being adversarial? You won't agree with everyone but you have to be able to work with others in this collaborative project. Because if you can't accept that you might not always be right and that it is better to work with others rather than condemning them, your time editing on Wikipedia is likely to be short. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at how this whole discussion and attempt to get me booted here started, with LegacyPac calling me a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... isn't that "adversarial", isn't that a clear sign of political bias in itself? I of course understood after the first couple of "Support" here that I would be booted, so that's not even a consideration from my behalf anymore. And I have always been willing to compromise and if proven wrong I always try to learn and change my position. But I experience this as an VERY unfair attack on myself, and absolutely not deserved considering my (relative few and modest) contributions as editor on Wikipedia. BreakingZews (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread what I actually said. I did not call you a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll" Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just that my editing is like that of a "Pro-Trump Russian Troll"... big difference? BreakingZews (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support When my conservative friend Ad Orientem supports a topic ban, I must sit up and listen. I do not believe that this person is an actual Russian troll, but rather that they have (sadly) decided to act in the interest of Russian trolls and White House trolls and their divisive disinformation operations. To deny the existence of family separation, which is not some abstract "policy" but an absolute fact which has shattered thousands of families, as verified by countless reliable sources, is particularly reprehensible. This encyclopedia must reflect what actual reliable sources say about controversial topics, not parrot anybody's disinformation operations, whether those campaigns originate in the White House, the Kremlin, or elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just following orders.
    Of course the family separations are a fact. But that there was an "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy", as is the title of the wikipedia page, is completely false. They had a Zero Tolerance Policy which simply ment that all illegal attempts at crossing border would be prosecuted according to the law, no exceptions. But the ONLY reason children were separated from their families was because of the 2016 revision of the Flores law, which demanded that accompanied children be quickly released from detention while the same did not apply for their parents. This was misrepresented in all the mainstream media, who largely ignored that these separations were demanded by the law, and instead put the blame on an non-existing Trump "Family Separation Policy", which now has it's own wikipedia page(Which is absurd). When Trump signed the executive order that stopped the family separations he did not change ANY of his own policies, only thing he changed was that he ordered the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings". So the only thing that was changed was the Flores Settlement and that stopped the separations of families. These are the facts, but much of the U.S. media has become so polarized that they don't stick to the facts, they omit vital information when it fits their agenda. Luckily all the relevant information in this case is available directly from the sources, the wording of the Zero Tolerance Policy is available, the Flores settlement from the original 1997 version to the latest 2015 and 2016 revisions are available on the net, the Executive Order is available, so just reading those documents without relying on the media at all is enough to get the facts in this case. Unfortunately it seems most of the editors of the "Trump Administration Family Separation Policy" page have not read those documents, or are ignoring them for political reasons. BreakingZews (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your repeated insistence that the law requires that refugee families be wrenched apart and destroyed, and large numbers of children dispersed to who knows where without any tracking or opportunities for reunification with their parents is rock solid evidence that you are unfit to edit this encyclopedia. Repeating the spurious Whire House talking points over and over and over again does not help your case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And what exactly is that based on? And no, I said nothing about tracking or how the families have been dispersed. The only reason for the family separations was the Flores law, that is a fact. Without the Flores law there would have been no reason to separate families. The Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with that specifically, it only clarified that all who broke the law and entered or attempted to enter the country illegally should be prosecuted according to the law. I am not repeating White House talking points, but explaining what I have understood about this issue after studying it very thoroughly. The Trump administration simply had a policy of following the LAWS, both regarding illegal border crossings and regarding the detaining of children and their parents as described in the Flores settlement. And you can easily find the evidence yourself by reading the documents I already mentioned. BreakingZews (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as the "Flores law" as Congress passed no such law and you seem instead to be referring to the legally binding settlement of a lawsuit filed by Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15 year old refugee from the civil war in El Salvador who was arrested, handcuffed and strip searched when she tried to seek asylum during the Reagan administration in 1985. According to CNN, that settlement "requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to their parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs." To twist that settlement into justification for shattering thousands of families is a grotesque distortion of reality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Flores Settlement is often referred to as the "Flores Law" and as you said is considered legally binding. But what you seem to ignore is that while the 2015 revision of the settlement called for the release of both the accompanied child and the mother/parents of the child, the 2016 revision partly reversed that so that only the child should be released, not the mother/parents. That 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement was the only reason for the family separations. From the Wikipedia article on Reno v. Flores: "In 2016, in Flores v. Lynch, Ninth Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz, joined by Judges Michael J. Melloy and Ronald M. Gould, reversed in part, finding that the Agreement applied to all detained children but that it did not give their parents any affirmative right of release" BreakingZews (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering here to try to support an obviously catastrophic and failed policy, as reported by countless reliable sources, is counterproductive for your future as an editor here. I recommend that you stop, but keep trying if you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Except I did not call them a Russian troll. Anyway this editor is moving into block worthy territory per WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "strikes me as editing pretty much how I would expect a fucking asshole to edit" is the same thing as calling someone a fucking asshole but with more words. Anyway I agree and point out that there's unanimous support here and the problematic behavior continues. Leviv ich 06:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't necessary to call out their nationality, what would our Russian editors think of that? It would certainly be offensive to them. Wikipedia is not a platform to make political remarks. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come off it. If I said "I think X is a great big meddling know-it-all cunt", that wouldn't be a personal attack because I prefaced it with "I think"? And whether or not someone edits here is irrelevant to whether or not personal attacks are acceptable. Fish+Karate 14:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that I think doesn't excuse any and all BLP vios. But saying someone you think is an asshole is a minor BLP violation. Being an "asshole" is not really a clear accusation of some wrong doing or malfeasance, just that you don't like them. I don't think we should tolerate it when it serves limited purpose, especially when it keeps getting repeated. But this case it seems to serve sufficient purpose IMO we should just allow it. Personal attacks aren't the same thing, since they are directed at people were are intended to collaborate with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support only Trump family separation article ban, oppose indef or politics ban, and weak support trouting nom. The editor was indeed POV-pushing when they were exclusively using political talking points instead of making other arguments based on WP:CRITERIA. Just because I agree with the editor on the subject matter's political substance (which is actually supported by some good reliable sources that the editor did not cite) won't make me defend this kind of editing. There are many POV pushers on the archives of that talk page from both sides (and none were punished interestingly, except for socking) and I've watchlisted user talk pages of some of those that seemed SPA-ish to me. With regards to Konstantin Kilimnik, it is inappropriate for OP to completely revert an edit purely because it contains a grammatical error, if the edit had changed the meaning of the text. BreakingZews was accurately summarizing the article, and if anyone was POV-pushing/edit-warring/OWN-pushing it was Legacypac though this is not nearly enough for a serious boomerang ban. Last but not least, if there is evidence of socking, it belongs to WP:SPI, otherwise WP:ROPE never hurt especially when we have a net-positive editor. wumbolo ^^^ 10:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban until editor learn to restrain his axe-grinding impulses. --Calton | Talk 10:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconstructive image replacements

    Please see his contribs.

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

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

    Recent examples:

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

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

    @Anna Frodesiak: I think you forgot to notify him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, you're right. I seldom post here so I forgot. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I seldom post here so I forgot: obviously smarter than the rest of us.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to tests, I am marginally smarter than a lemur, so not sure what that says about you lot. (However, I "...can harvest vegetables...and do domestic work...", so there's that.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anna, the editor hasn't posted since you left your notice on their talk page. I don't think immediate action is called for here on ANI. Let's see how they respond to your message (and whether they respond to it) before taking additional action. Let's hear from them. Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz. Good plan. I really just want a few more eyeballs on their contribs. Taking things slowly is a good idea. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree that these image edits are suboptimal and I have added those articles to my watchlist, as well as the user talk page. On the other hand, those articles ought to have a worldwide perspective. We have no Chicken noodle soup article, and that is a redirect to Chicken soup. Adding noodles to chicken soup is commonplace in the United States and Canada, but less so in the rest of the world. So, it is not inherently wrong to add a photo of a whole chicken in chicken broth to an article about chicken soup that discusses that broad topic worldwide. I just served chicken soup to my wife who is not feeling well, and it was more of a broth and had no noodles in it. But this editor needs to discuss these images and the ones that they have tried to replace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For me (with my Asian connections) there's a big difference between chicken soup and chicken noodle soup. But putting that aside, a whole chicken in a bowl of broth is not a good infobox illustration of chicken soup - I've never been served a bowl of soup (anywhere in the world) with a whole chicken in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Thoughtfulsea123

    As the Thoughtful sea
    Wrote a rapper eulogy
    The page is now gone.

    — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User keeps removing CSD U5 template on their userpage, can an admin please delete this page under u5? Thanks. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Mhayes3 vandalising MTA Regional Bus operations page

    The IP editor doesn't "currently have an account" because this is block evasion. Article semi-semiprotected, and IP editor blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User @Mhayes3: has been edit warring with me for quite some time now under several IPs since i don't currently have an account. He has been undoing my edits consistently to his factually incorrect information. I have left brief messages in the edit summary and on his talk page. My efforts have all failed. Therefore, I am calling for the blocking of this user. 64.223.164.130 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MTA Regional Bus Operations doesn't appear to have any conflicts going on; it's only gotten one edit this month and only seven in the last four months. Are you talking about MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet? Mhayes3 has restored a bunch of what you added there, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What does "i don't currently have an account" mean? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You viewed the wrong page. And i was stating that i edit through an ip. The MTA regional bus operations bus fleet is where the dispute is taking place. 64.223.164.130 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Walterblue222 - NOTHERE, TEND, and CIVIL issues

    Walterblue222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would like to propose an indef block in Walterblue222 for WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, and WP:TEND.

    In this user's short time here on Wikipedia (12 January 2019), they've managed to be disruptive at Color-blind casting, Whitewashing in film, and Feminism.

    Examples of what I consider to be tendentious editing are:

    • 01:28, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed Prince of Persia example - Jake Gyllenhaal being half-Jewish is irrelevant, as Ashkenazi Jews are not "white"."
    • 20:48, 15 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed inapplicable Johnny Depp example - he is of Cherokee, French, Irish and German ancestry."
    • 21:07, 15 February 2019 Inserting WP:OR regarding Black actors
    • This entire discussion: Talk:Feminism#Deceptive_Omission_of_Defining_Terms
    • 16:47, 21 January 2019 Changing "White" to "Caucasian" and two list additions
    • 01:31, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 examples - Fisher Stevens is a Jewish actor playing an Indian character; Ashkenazi Jews are not "white"."
    • 01:40, 16 February 2019 "Examples of associated cases: removed example 'Show Boat' - none of the sources provided give any information that Ava Gardner was fully "white", and it has also sometimes been claimed that "Ava had African-American, Native American, or Melungeon ancestry." While this claim is not verifiable, it is also not verifiable that she was "white" (based on the sources provided)."
    • 14:35 16 February 2019 " Kind of similar to the "we waz kangs" absurdity, where "blacks" claim that their ancestors were kings and queens and royalty, and try to steal the heritage of Egyptians (who were Pharaohs anyway, not Kings)."
      • This appears to be a reference to Hotep. When I told the user to not use the article's talk page as a forum, these were the user's replies which include the usual "no, you": [199] [200] [201] [202]
    • On my user talk page, this user has tried repeatedly to claim that "blackwashing" is a thing and "obviously takes place". [203], [204]
    • 14:34 18 February 2019 "removed "Annihilation" - Natalie Portman and Jennifer Jason Leigh are both Ashkenazi Jews, not "white"."
    • 14:47 18 February 2019 "removed Scarlett Johansson from the 'Ghost in the Shell' example, as she is an Ashkenazi Jew, not "white".".
    • 14:48 18 February 2019 "Scarlett Johansson is an Ashkenazi Jew, not a "white actress".".
    • 14:53 18 February 2019 "removed example "I Don't Know How She Does It"; Olivia Munn is at least half Chinese, with smaller amounts of Scottish, German, and Scots-Irish, and remote French Huguenot ancestry, not "white".".
    • 15:03 18 February 2019 "removed example 'Star Trek Into Darkness'; Khan Noonien Singh was never of Indian descent, he was a genetically augmented human. Additionally, Benedict Cumberbatch plays a different character than Ricardo Montalbán as 'Into Darkness' is in an alternate timeline.".

    Examples of CIVIL, NPA, and ASPERSIONS violations:

    EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow.
    "On my user talk page, this user has tried repeatedly to claim that "blackwashing" is a thing and "obviously takes place"." - It does, and I have provided examples of this. Your denial of this is clearly not coming from a neutral point of view.
    When you claimed I was "referencing Hotep", I was not referencing Hotep, and explained this to you.
    I removed examples from Whitewashing in film because they were not applicable. "White" and "Ashkenazi Jew" are NOT the same, and actors that are Ashkenazi Jews should NOT be used as examples of "whitewashing" because they are not "white". The United States Supreme Court even had a ruling not too long ago confirming that Ashkenazi Jews were a race, and not to be conflated with "whites".
    I haven't provided any "Original Research" regarding "black" actors.
    You have repeatedly accused me of motives that are not applicable, such as the Hotep claim, and are now trying to block me based on things that I have already explained to you, yet you think your opinions and accusations are accurate despite being invalid and untrue.
    If someone claims something that is false, it is a lie. Trying to block me for calling a lie a lie is absurd.
    I am here to collaborate, add to, and correct mistakes when I see them and can verify that they are not correct; not to be disruptive as you claim. Walterblue222 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please explain about paid contribution , and its advantages

    https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#paid-contrib-disclosure

    (Propermans (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=883937916"