Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray

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

At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.

To get right into this matter, see the examples below.

Examples of IiKkEe's problematic editing, spanning years.

In March to April 2015, IiKkEe's edits to the Hypertension article, a GA article, were such an issue that an editor felt that that "it may need to be delisted now." IiKkEe responded by, for example, saying, "I agree the article was a good article and I acknowledge the major contribution you have made to it. I don't think that I completely reworked the article: I did make 134 specific edits with a justification for each in the Edit history notes, and I believe each were an improvement to an already good article. I could be wrong: please feel free to critique one, some, or all of my edits on the Talk page and voice your specific objections, and we can discuss them there in a spirit of mutual respect with the aim of reaching a consensus." Right there IiKkEe acknowledges making a whopping 134 edits, or however many edits, to the article. The editor who complained replied, "I have made almost no contributions to it - which just goes to show that you took almost no time to understand the standing of the article. I just noticed that you acted with terrible arrogance, and we probably need to delist the article." Indeed, IiKkEe's 2015 edits to the article contain numerous errors or issues, and, to save time, I can only point to a few. After the article was restored to its GA status, IiKkEe still needed to be reverted. For example, here, where the editor changed the text to state "fast heart rate at rest" (which contrasts what resting heart rate and tachycardia state), here where the changes were labeled confusing and it was noted that the definitions were already provided in preceding sentences, here where the editor removed an entire section that needed to be restored, here where the editor added birth control as a cause of hypertension (although birth control can be sourced as an increased risk), and here where the editor called a study a treatment. In April 2015, IiKkEe made this edit to the Cushing's syndrome article, stating, "clarify causes of excess cortisol in MEN I and Carney complex." This had to be reverted, because, as stated on IiKkEe's talk page, it's not two hereditary diseases that cause Cushing's syndrome. "More than two diseases cause pituitary adenomas." It was noted that the editor also "added details that are not supported by the ref in question." In 2017, at the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion article, they had to be reverted on sourcing issues like this one, MEDMOS issues, and so on. In April 2018, at the Animal article, IiKkEe's had to be reverted on one of their edits that removed something as "unneeded." The article had just reached good article status via Chiswick Chap's hard work. And then there were more accuracy issues with IiKkEe's edits to the article in December 2018. In October 2018 at the Blackmail article, where I think I first encountered IiKkEe, I reverted IiKkEe because the editor added unsourced text in place of sourced text, and gave the unsourced and unencyclopedic example of "Buy me that necklace or I'm not going out with you." The editor tried a different version, I reverted again, took the matter to the talk page, and contacted WP:LAW. As noted by an editor on the talk page, issues with IiKkEe's edits included the fact that blackmail is not a statutory offense in every jurisdiction, and that "there is no need to separate the common and legal definition—it is the same definition written in a different way." The lead issues were remedied, but not before IiKkEe made a mess of the lead. In March 2019, IiKkEe made edits to the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article, which included IiKkEe asserting that "feel the need to check things repeatedly" was redundant to what was there. I reverted, stating, "Checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. And we use 'or' for a reason. Maybe discuss on the talk page?" IiKkEe kept at it. Didn't bother discussing on the talk page. I took the matter to the talk page, stating, "IiKkEe, you need to discuss your changes because you are changing the context or meaning of some material. Keep in mind that this is a medical article, which is why WP:MEDRS has high standards. Why not just to stick to what the sources state? When reverting you here, I stated that checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. For example, a person with OCD might feel the need to repeatedly check for an email reply. But this doesn't mean that doing so is a routine for them. After all, that is just one email reply. Once the other person replies, that matter is over. The person with OCD might not communicate via emails enough for repeatedly checking emails to become a routine. You went back to changing the lead. You made it so that the lead states 'the need to perform certain routines repeatedly such as checking on the status of something (rituals),' which led Doc James to remove 'checking on the status of something (rituals).' It's best to just leave the lead as it was and include 'feel the need to check things repeatedly,' just like we do in the infobox." In that same discussion, Doc James stated, "It is important to be actively reading the sources when text is adjusted." Since then, the lead of that article still doesn't have "feel the need to check things repeatedly." This is because I didn't feel like dealing with IiKkEe anymore at that time. And where the text used to state "Common activities include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked.", it now states, "Common compulsions include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked." The lead still needs tweaking since feeling the need to check on things repeatedly and performing certain routines repeatedly are both compulsions, but they aren't necessarily the same thing. In April 2019, at the Concussion article, IiKkEe spoke of "copy edit[ing] for accuracy." But like Doc James stated on IiKkEe's talk page, "What is this 'over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury (TBI)'? Are you reading the sources in question? There is no such thing as a score over 15." And Doc James, who watches a lot of medical articles, if not most of them, has had to revert IiKkEe at various articles, as the next few examples will show. In August 2019, at the Heart failure, Doc James had to revert this ("also known as") because it's not "formerly called congestive heart failure", and he had to restore text to its more accurate or just plain accurate form, after IiKkEe's edits. In September at the same article, he had to revert this unsourced material that IiKkEe added. And here he reverted IiKkEe, because, in his words, the text "did not make sense." In October 2019, at the Osteoarthritis article, Doc James reverted IiKkEe because of unreferenced material and because he was correcting IiKkEe's incorrect material. In October 2019, at the Human papillomavirus infection article, Doc James fixed IiKkEe's edits because "it is a step wise process, goes from precancerous to cancerous." Here he was clear about IiKkEe's edits not being supported by a reference. Here he was clear that "no ref [was] provided" and that he was reverting IiKkEe "to better match the source." No reference for this either. This edit shows Doc James reverting one of the stylistic changes where IiKkEe felt the need to explain what a Pap test is. This edit shows Doc James reverting back to a WP:MEDMOS setup (which IiKkEe has been made aware of times before, including on their talk page). Another MEDMOS revert by Doc James here. Also in October 2019, at the Subconjunctival bleeding article, Doc James repeatedly adjusted material, as seen, for example, here and here after IiKkEe's edits, and reverted IiKkEe here (after this change) because "usually it is one blood vessel, not multiple." Even with this October 20, 2019 edit at the HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer article, there's a problem with what seems to have been meant to be a simple copyedit...because IiKkEe removed "lack of any such evidence of a primary tumour" from the "occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes" text as redundant. So right now the text says "The occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes." What occurs? Today, at the Masturbation article, IiKkEe made edits like this, where IiKkEe strays from the source, saying, "delete unneeded and inaccurate 'or other sexual pleasure'. IMO it is only for sexual arousal." So IiKkEe calls "or other sexual pleasure" inaccurate based on his or her opinion? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." The only reason that our Wikipedia article says "or other sexual pleasure" instead of "and sexual pleasure" is because sexual arousal in this context falls under "sexual pleasure." With this edit, IiKkEe replaced "usually to the point of orgasm" with the "with or without inducing an orgasm" wording, stating that the new wording is more accurate. Again, "more accurate" according to whom? To IiKkEe? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure, usually to the point of orgasm (sexual climax)." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." A variety of other sources also stress the orgasm part. People usually don't masturbate without achieving orgasm.

There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.

IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they often overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:

• Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
• Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
• Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
• At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
• IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.

Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.

As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Flyer22 Reborn thanks for raising this. I share your concerns. It is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or simple changes text to what they personally feel is better.
• In this edit[1] they changed correct text to first "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (under 13 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI) and over 15 as moderate or severe TBI)."
• Than in this edit they changed it further[2] "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI), 9-12 as moderate TBI, under 9 as severe TBI)."
• There is NO such thing as a GCS of greater than 15. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

They are one of a certain type of difficult editor, who just tinkers carelessly or beyond their capacity. They have been around since 2014, very rarely engaging on their talk page. This pattern suggests English language competence may be a factor here. A widescreen topic ban may well be the only remedy. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I was mixed up with the Anthony22 issue a month or so ago and I agree that it's a big issue. In this case, it is even worse since he is making a flurry of small but significant changes to articles that alter the meaning (often making them inaccurate). This type of edit is hard for a user who is not a subject matter expert (e.g. someone like Doc James) to patrol since it is not overtly vandalism. It wouldn't be a big deal if this user was responsive on the talk page but he isn't -- like Anthony he just does whatever he wants and leaves it up to others to clean up after him. If this user is willing to be more responsive and to stop making such changes without discussion, I would be OK with letting it go but so far he hasn't been. 73.128.16.15 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the editor continues to edit articles while making no response to the complaint here, I've blocked them for 48 hours. Any admin can lift this block if they become convinced that User:IiKkEe can and will change their editing behavior to answer these concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing this, EdJohnston. I wouldn't state that IiKkEe is as unresponsive as Anthony22 usually is, considering that IiKkEe is significantly more open to responding on his (or her) talk page, but I don't see that IiKkEe's behavior will change at all. Like you noted on IiKkEe's talk page, they continued editing while concerns were being expressed in this thread. And IiKkEe's response indicates that IiKkEe still isn't willing to comment in this thread. IiKkEe stated, "Who are you? Who do I discuss this with? I assume with an objective administrator assigned to look into the accusations, not one of my accusers. I am not familiar with this process." So IiKkEe appears to be stating that this case is in administrators' hands alone. Also, one does not need to be familiar with the process to take the time to respond in an ANI thread about their problematic behavior. Once the 48 hour block expires, IiKkEe will keep on editing the way they have before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• After a discussion at User talk:IiKkEe#ANI, I unblocked IiKkEe so they could respond to the issues raised here. I suggested focusing on a small number of key points. IiKkEe has asked for "a few days" which seems excessive to me, however, there should be a response before further editing occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering that threads on ANI are archived after a certain timeframe, IiKkEe's responses should come before this thread is set to archive. Either that, or it will continue to need a new comment to keep it from archiving or it should be tagged with User:DoNotArchiveUntil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Added DNAU template to keep this alive until discussion takes place. If there is no response from the user within a week, then we should probably move on to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My reply. I may not be able to complete this in one sitting. Please allow me to finish before responding.

Based on the above criticisms, I will take the following actions:

First, I volunteer to stop editing WP for 3 months ie until February 1, 2020.

Second, I propose the following for any of my future edits: 1) I will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited. 2) I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site. 3) I will accept any reversions of my edits and discuss them on the Talk page if I have questions. 4) I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article. 5) I will add a reference to any edit which changes the meaning of that already referenced sentence.

Third, I will respond to the speculation that I am not fluent in English, and that I am not qualified to edit the articles I have chosen to edit. I was born and have always lived in the United States; I am fluent in English. I graduated from Rice University with a BS in Biology. Undergraduate courses included physics, general chemistry, quantitative chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, geology, anthropology, comparative anatomy, physiology, histology, and electrical engineering. I am a physician, a graduate of an American medical school, Board certified in Internal Medicine, and an Assistant Professor at an American Health Science Center. I lecture to second year medical students in my area of expertise. I have reviewed articles submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for accuracy and format. I have participated in clinical research published in peer reviewed medical journals. I have published a single-authored textbook of Internal Medicine purchased and used by thousands of medical students.

Next, I will respond to Flyer22 Reborn's criticism of my editing based on direct interactions with me plus a reading of my Talk page. I believe there are fourteen articles/edits discussed. I suggest that these are not representative of my total work product at WP: I have been editing for 5 1/2 years; my guess is that I have submitted around 17,000 edits to around 500-700 articles, and interacted civilly, amicably, and productively with around 1000 fellow editors. Most have shown appreciation for my edits either at my Talk page, clicking "Thank you", or by giving tacit approval by reading my edits and not reverting or modifying them. I would guess that over 90 per cent of my 17,000 edits still stand as written today. However, I have run up against about a dozen editors over the years who verbalize outright scorn for my edits, reverting them in toto. My reaction to this is to move on to some other article.

Next, I will address the allusion to edit warring. It is correct that twice I have been *accused* of edit warring. But I have never been turned in for or investigated for that allegation. When I asked for details of at which edits exactly I had done this, none were provided. Perhaps on two occasions I was *perceived* as edit warring.

Next, I will address my relationship with Doc James as I see it. [I have been interrupted by the duties of the day. I will return shortly. Again, please do not respond until I have had a chance to finish. Thanks.] IiKkEe (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting that it has been more than two days since IiKkEe said they would "return shortly." WMSR (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel that I should simply go ahead and reply to IiKkEe's comments. It's been days. I've waited for the editor to come back here and add more. So, to begin, IiKkEe stating that they "will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited" only solves my personal frustration of dealing with IiKkEe unless I go to an article after the editor has edited it because I stumbled across it, I was asked for help there, or the article was brought to WP:Med's attention. It doesn't resolve the issues with IiKkEe's edits. IiKkEe would still be editing a lot of articles that Doc James is at, but that I'm not at, and leaving those articles in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray. Placing a notice on the article talk page of any article they plan to edit will simply serve as a heads up. And although IiKkEe says they would be open to scrutiny of their edits and will also notify any major active contributors to that talk page, I worry about the articles that don't have any major active contributors and that, if those articles do have any, those contributors may not be interested in scrutinizing editors' edits; those contributors may also not understand the topic well or well enough to spot IiKkEe's errors. And as for IiKkEe's guess that "over 90 per cent of [their] 17,000 edits still stand as written today," that's a guess and it doesn't mean none of those edits need fixing. If they do need fixing, it just means that no one has noticed and/or gotten around to fixing them. Also, various Wikipedia articles lack traction, which is can also explain IiKkEe's claim that they "have run up against about a dozen editors over the years" who have objected to their edits, if IiKkEe is simply speaking of objection and not specifically "verbaliz[ing] outright scorn for [their] edits." IiKkEe's claim that their "reaction to this is to move on to some other article" is not entirely accurate, since the editor (as displayed by my evidence) is known to try to retain their edits and only moves on after that, but is also likely to return to the article at a later date. But if one or more admins want to give IiKkEe's conditions a try per WP:ROPE, I suppose we can go with that. If that's the case, Doc should be pinged to see what he thinks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request now at two+ weeks, editor apologized, seems simple enough?

• Tatzref (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User_talk:El_C#Your_block_of_Tatzref

More than 14 (full 2 weeks ago) ago Tatzref (talk · contribs) received an indef block from User:El C following a report here. Tatzref requested an unblock on his talk page (User_talk:Tatzref#ANI) shortly after, but so far it has not been reviewed (besides me only two other non-admins commented in the relevant discussions, as well as El C who declined to take any further action). I think it is quite unfair to leave an editor dangling for that long; either tell him he is not welcome here for the rest of his life or unblock him. As far as I can tell, Tatzref was accusing of violating WP:OUTING, but while I cannot access the revdel versions, he states that he only suggested that another editor name should have been revealed in a newspaper article (which already named three other Wikipedians, all of them however disclosed their identity publicly). He did not post any name or other private information on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and he did not even speculate about what it may be, he just said that it should be disclosed. El C noted in his reply that Tatzref posted some urls that "seemed highly suspicious at the time and [were] factored into the block" but "on closer examinations [are] actually fine". I do not believe that Tatzref did anything that warrants more than a warning; suggesting that someone's identity should be revealed is in bad taste but it is not OUTING (we don't penalize thoughtcrime, right?). Further mitigating circumstances to consider are the fact that the editor Taztref was referring to has been himself indef blocked by ArbCom for off wiki harassment, of which Tatzref might have been a victim off (I am not sure about that) and regardless of any connection here that Tatzref himself was recently subject to pretty nasty off wiki harassment which he documents on his talk page. So if he lost his nerves a bit, it is somewhat understandable. In either case, in his unblock request Taztref apologized and promised to be careful in the future: "If I did contravene the Wikipedia policy in any way it was unintentional, as the policy does not address this situation, and I apologize for having done so. Had I received a warning, which I believe would have been the appropriate course of action, I would have taken heed. If I am unblocked, I undertake not to discuss the matter further.". Given that per WP:INDEF "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy... As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to stop problematic conduct in future." think that Tatzref should be unblocked, since he clearly promised to be careful in areas related to OUTING in the future. At least, assuming there is any shred of truth behind it when we say that blocks and such are preventative, not punitive. Seriously, if he did out someone, saying sorry may not cut it, but saying that someone should be outed and apologizing for it later is hardly an indication of hardcore vandal deserving an instant ban... Thoughts? Endorse indef, shorten, unblock, issue any further warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, did you ask El C? Guy (help!) 09:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:El_C#Your_block_of_Tatzref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Added to the head of this request. Guy (help!) 10:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to endorse the block, but unblock on the basis of "time served" given that the events were highly charged and the issue is now largely moot. Guy (help!) 10:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Uninvolved editors should not be posting requests to review unblocks here. There are many blocked editors who have been waiting in the queue for a while. Asking admins to handle some random person's request is not fair to the other editors. Someone will eventually get around to the unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Letting potentially unjustly blocked editors languish indefinitely isn't fair either. Tatzref has been blocked for two weeks, and you're saying there's people who've had their unblock requests left sitting for even longer than that. I think that's not a satisfactory situation, so maybe periodic reminders that the unblock request backlog is kinda long would be a good thing. Reyk _YO! 11:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    I had a quick look and Tatzref's unblock request does seem to be at the long end although I was hampered by below. Most others with longer requests either seemed to be the sort of insane requests where the editor had made many unblock requests and I guess no one could be bothered working out if they should kill talk page access do they just let it languish. Quite a few of the long ones also looked like they were socking cases so may require CU comment, or at least may require significant work (if the editor denied socking). Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

    Someone changed my subthread into a thread. I don't really mind since it's 50/50 whether it should be a subthread (it arises out of this, but it's only very minorly related), but to be clear when I said below I mean #Username change and unblock request. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  NinjaRobotPirate, meh, no biggie I reckon. This is not a third party unblock request, after all, and people are allowed to have mates on Wiki. Guy (help!) 14:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus, a thought stays in someone's head. A call to out an editor's real-life identity is not a "thought" —it is an outing effort— so the notion of a thought crime somehow having been enforced in this case seems rather spurious. As for the unblock request, as stated, I'd rather someone else attends to it as they see fit. El_C 16:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• El_C A public suggestion to act against a policy is not a policy violation, and is justifiable by WP:IAR. In response, we can tell people that violating policy is a bad idea. But blocking them for a suggestion is not far from thoughtcrime. If I were to say 'I think we should vandalize an article if we feel stressed', that would be a pretty stupid idea, but would you block me for saying this in a discussion? OUTING clearly states "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia ... attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block." It does not state that suggesting such an action should be taken is a policy violation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• That is a stretch. Policies are not created equal and this isn't a philosophical debate — on the contrary, it involves the lives of real people. At any case, vandalism is something that can be quickly corrected, but being outed could have permanent lasting effects. And they were not arguing to change the policy on outing, in general. Rather, they identified a particular individual as a target for outing. Painting that attempt as some harmless, fleeting thought is a distortion. El_C 17:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is an issue worth raising at WT:OUTING. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you would split the discussion. El_C 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Because WP:FORUMSHOPPING. He raised it twice here, once on Tatzref's TP and once on yours. I won't be surprised if we next see it on the Signpost: "Honest editor suggests Jewish conspiracy and paid editing, blocked by stray admin. Appeal to ArbCom ongoing." François Robere (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not split. Here we are discussing specific incident, there we can discus if it is generalization in terms of policy modifications (should suggestion of outing be acted on just like outing itself). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I also encourage the reviewing admin (and all other admins, as well) to read closely the redacted edits here and here, especially in regards to Tatzref's claim of an "Israeli/Jewish POV network." El_C 16:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Since I receive a copy of the redacted edits, I've reviewed this, and what I see is a statement that "there is a far stronger case for the existence of an Israeli/Jewish POV network than a Polish one" [in reference to the newspaper article covered in recen Signpost issue which makes a claim that a Polish one exists]. Shrug. His view is debatable, WP:NOTAFORUM might be invoked and discussion closed if it is irrelevant for encyclopedia building, but how does it relate to indef block I have not a faintest clue. PS. Come to think of it, since no public information was revealed, I am not sure if said redacted edits should have been or should stay redacted at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I operate under the notion that we have a low tolerance toward depictions which resemble Jewish conspiracies. What is even a "POV network" (how is that even established?) and why single out an "Israeli/Jewish" one vis-a-vis a Polish one? Obviously, there are two sides to Antisemitism in Poland debate, but a POV network? Really? Anyway, any admin is free to un-revdelete those revisions at any time, I have no objection. But as already mentioned, I'd rather not involve myself further in this unless directly queried. El_C 17:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Before being unblocked, shouldn't an editor's unblock request comply with WP:GAB? Most of Tatzref's unblock request continues the battleground behavior by blaming the editor who was outed, claiming it wasn't outing, saying the policy isn't clear, etc. – Levivich 19:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "blaming the editor who was outed". No editor Tazref mentions was outed. Tatzref mentions Icewhiz, who was blocked for off wiki harassment. Not sure which part of his request is 'blaming him'? And what battleground mentality? It's pretty clear that Tazref apologized and promises not to act in such a way again. That's battleground mentality for you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Few things to note:

1. Tatzref was warned against making such comments at least twice before,[3][4] but didn't seem to mind.[5][6]
2. He has repeatedly cast aspersions on his fellow editors, even when those were clearly false (see here for three such occasions). He had repeatedly claimed, without proof, that some editors are being paid for their work.
3. He has repeatedly invoked antisemitic sources, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz,[7] "Mark Paul"[8] and Gilad Atzmon[9] (his first and last edits, respectively). In one case, in order to circumvent a ban on a source, he copied the source's references and tried to retrace its work.[10] He has repeatedly distorted sources, in one case

Tatzref is not WP:here to build an encyclopedia. Don't let him back in. François Robere (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that you, in tandem with the now-indef banned Icewhiz, had criticized Tatzref time and again, including presenting extensive "evidence" about his purported bad edits and attitude, and workshop related proposals, during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. ArbCom chose to disregard all of your claims and made no finding concerning Tatzref, choosing instead to topic ban Icewhiz. One could assume that if Tatzref was indeed here not to build an encyclopedia, ArbCom would at the very least issue a remedy concerning him. Of particular relevance in said ArbCom, in addition to findings related to bad faith and battleground mentality, is the BLP violation one, where ArbCom noted that is inadvisable, to say the least, to make "negative claims or speculations about living scholars". Such as accusing them of antisemitism (see diffs linked in the finding). I'd suggest you take heed of what ArbCom wrote, assume good faith about others, and stop making inappropriate claims about BLPs. Tazref is here to build an encyclopedia just as you are. That his POV may differ is irrelevant. People who disagree with you are to be reasoned with, not banned. Wikipedia thrives on the multitude of voices, not on creating walled gardens by banning everyone who may have a different view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Actually it's at least four editors who have independently raised issues regarding Tatzref's editing (see here and here as well).
2. You already made the point on ArbCom, and I already replied: ArbCom ignored all evidence that wasn't directly about the parties - multiple editors', yourself included. They haven't rejected any particular claim about Tatzref or anyone else. You participated in the discussion on Jimbo's TP where their considerations were explained.[11]
3. I assume you refer to Chodakiewicz, as "Mark Paul" is a pseudonym and Atzmon isn't a scholar. Jan T. Gross said that that Ch. is antisemitic, Piotr Wróbel said he "doesn't like the Jews", Joanna Michlic suggested he's prejudicial towards Jews and minorities, Laurence Weinbaum implied that he comes close to justifying anti-Jewish violence, and Andrzej Żbikowski wrote that he does indeed justify, and that he "lacks empathy" towards Jewish victims.
4. And then there's Ewa Kurek, and the dozens of references to the Polish-Canadian Congress Toronto Branch's website - a non-RS that's unfortunately headed by a man who thinks Jews are trying to take over Poland economically.[12] I think that's enough. François Robere (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignored means pretty much not found worth of acting. ArbCom was within its rights to add more parties or issue findings about anyone they felt like it. They chose to issue none regarding him, you or me. Do you suggest that they didn't read the other evidence or felt lazy? I'd rather think that ArbCom is at least somewhat competent and that they they considered it and felt it is not sufficient to warrant any action. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When it came down to it, removing those two from the area, along with iBanning from each other seemed to be sufficient on an individual basis. The area already had access to DS and with the additional sourcing requirement, I believe the area could move forward. (WTT, 2019-10-04) In other words, they viewed it as an efficiency measure. François Robere (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• The block was good (I agree that we should err on the side of caution for anything related to outing), but I'd be inclined to conditionally unblock if the user accepts a ban from discussing Icewhiz and the Haaretz article going forward, and provides an assurance to refrain from personal commentary in general. This would seem to satisfy the issues raised by the block. This is a block for a specific offense (and a debatable one at that), and I don't think it's legitimate to retroactively revise it as a NOTHERE block. @François Robere: If you want to topic or site ban the user for general misconduct, I would say compose a sanction proposal. Do it here or at AN, with a separate heading, and I will hold off moving forward with the unblock. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'll have no objections to unblocking if he's limited from editing Poland- and Judaism-related articles. This would probably be the end result anyway, as there are now sourcing restrictions in place.[13] What would you like to see? François Robere (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tatzref started as a SPA for a fringe author "Mark Paul" (pseudonym); did not answer my questions about whether there’s a COI for Canadian Polish Congress (KPK Toronto) where Mark Paul is published exclusively [14]; and then progressed to claiming that the Jews in the first two years of WWII—in 1939 to 1941 while under Soviet occupation—were "de facto" Nazi collaborators (!) [15] bottom of diff. They now wonder out loud, in the unblock request, if there’s a likely “Jewish POV network” on Wikipedia [16].

The areas in question are under discretionary sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe & Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland), so any admin can impose a topic ban. Tatzref is aware of DS as they participated in the Antisemitism in Poland case this past summer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Adding to what was already said on Tatzref's choice and misrepresentation of sources, I've looked at the three article which he edited most frequently: History of the Jews in Poland, Jedwabne pogrom and Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946. I've only examined major edits, which would miss a lot of "see also" links he added to "Mark Paul", Chodakiewicz and the Canadian-Polish Congress (KPK); and I avoided identical edits, so straight-up cases of "edit warring" won't show here. François Robere (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • History of the Jews in Poland:
    • Exaggerating Jews' role in the European slave trade [17][18][19][20][21][22] (see discussions here and here).
    • Portraying of Jews as looters, rioters and pimps [23] (see discussions on Talk:Alfonse Pogrom).
    • Misrepresenting sources on property restitution [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] (see discussion from here onwards. My comments are highlighted, and more source quotes are given further down [32][33]).
  • Jedwabne pogrom:
    • Promoting lenient positions towards perpetrators of a violent pogrom, based on the right wing daily Nasz Dziennik, the nationalist and anti-Jewish Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and misrepresentation of other sources [34][35][36] (see talk).
    • Turning "Jews" to "Soviet collaborators" [37][38].
    • Removing material dissociating Jews from the Communist party [39].
    • Removing material on Jewish fighters in allied armies [40].
    • Promoting "Mark Paul" - a pseudonymic, antisemitic writer [41].
  • Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946:
    • WP:COPYVIO of "Mark Paul" [42] (see here).
    • Retaliatory COPYVIO claim [43] and "template sabotage" [44].
    • Misrepresenting sources on property restitution (same as above) and WP:POINT on COPYVIO [45][46][47][48].
    • Lowering the number of Jewish victims by removing material by Tadeusz Piotrowski, inserting estimate by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, and cherry-picking from Haaretz (original text mentions "antisemitism, hatred and property issues" as well) [49][50][51].
    • Removing of well-sourced material on the danger to Jews in post-war Poland [52].

User:Boinelomatlapeng copyvio images

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

User:Boinelomatlapeng has uploaded four images that mask copyvio/licence laundering status by linking to non-existent webpages. One of them has stock photo watermarks. ミラP 15:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine, please provide links to the images in question. I went through the user's file edit history, re-tagged the fair use criteria for three, and marked a fourth for deletion based on very questionable license claims, but you should always provide links. Also, note to admins: Boinelomatlapeng tried to remove this report, so I'm not feeling the good faith here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Creffett: Here they are:

File:Kanaueda.jpg

File:Nozomu-sasaki.jpg

File:Koichi Yamadera.jpg

File:Mori Katsuji.jpg

ミラP 18:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I don't think you have posted a notice of this ANI to Boinelomatlapeng's talk page, thanks. ?

Sorry, forgot. I'll do it. ミラP 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower identity

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

---

I warned WoodElf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and revdel'd two edits on Trump–Ukraine scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but I am disturbed by this, which argues that Breitbart is credible (Washington Examiner was among the cources cited here). Guy (help!) 17:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A supposed name has been added to the article, removed, and revdel'ed three times in the last two days. As a result I have imposed extended-confirmed protection. Snow consensus at the talk page is that we should NOT list any suggested or proposed or alleged identity for the whistleblower. At least not now while Reliable Sources are not doing so. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment There was a graphical source chart that, reasonably well, illustrated the degree to which a source was reliable, credible, and objective (possibly on Wikipedia); however, I can't recall its location. Personally, I would say the Washington Examiner is akin to the New York Post, so if that's a credible source, then it too is. It's got some issues with bias, but as to reliability, I think it's met. As for Breitbart, as I recall, it was regarded as more biased and less credible than Fox News but the graphical chart (which, as I say, was on Wikipedia or linked to from Wikipedia) still regarded it as "reliable"—if not somewhat questionable. I would equate it slightly less credible than Axios, and roughly the same as HuffPost. If HuffPo is not regarded by Wikipedia as reliable, then Breitbart would not be. Ideally, these sort of sources (HuffPo, Qz, Breitbart, et al.) should be cited by one other (and preferably two other) reliable source(s), I think. InfoWars, by contrast, is wholly not reliable.Doug Mehus (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A good cheat sheet on reliability is WP:RSP. Which of course every source is to be examined on a case by case basis but this is a good summary of past consensus and discussion. I do not think either of those sources are good enough for naming the person yet. Unless, as MelanieN says, stronger sources are doing it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

PackMecEng, That's not the chart I was thinking of, but am pleased to see that BuzzFeed News is not considered reliable; I personally think either Breitbart should be a yellow caution/warning or BuzzFeed should be a grey/no. What's the policy on yellow/warning sources? As I said above...get it cited by one, ideally two, other green sources? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the source, the list only summarizes past discussions on Wiki about those sources. It is hard to say what it would take, if a few really strong sources mentioned them and not in passing it might be worth talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The other issue is that even the dubious (W/E, Spectator) sources refer to him as the "alleged" whistleblower. They don't state it as fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ Guy (help!) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Thanks! That's the one I was thinking of! At any rate, The Washington Examiner may be a yellow/warning source, so it would count as one potentially reliable source but we'd want to get confirmation from a green source (including a primary source), I think?--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, it's a very bad source for politics, it's extremely biased. Guy (help!) 19:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, True...I just hope we're not counting HuffPo's original content as a reliable source, especially for politics. Their syndicated CP and AP content is fine.--Doug Mehus (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I'm not, for sure. Guy (help!) 22:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither BB, IW, WE or NYP are RS, though WE and NYP aren't quite as low as the other two.

Not that I disagree, but what is the Policy or TOS rationale for censoring the whistleblower name? François Robere (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP, obviously--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, But does the whistleblower have a Wikipedia page? It's not clear to me how this policy applies here—unless it's libelous or the policy allows the subject to request deletion of their own Wikipedia policy?--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The policy is not about individual Wikipedia pages, it is about information added to any Wikimedia projects. If someone writes the name here in this discussion, the edit will have to be oversighted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP? You should know that.--Jorm (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, Agreed. Unless it's classified, and I'm not sure it is, and unless it's libelous, which it isn't, I see no reason against publicizing the name. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, WP:BLPNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Specifically WP:BLPNAME. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

BLPNAME would be applicable, except that this article is based almost entirely upon the allegations of the whistleblower, therefore alleged identities of said whistleblower very much constitute part of the scope of the article. In this case, since the allegation is widely reported, I would advocate for its inclusion. As previously mentioned by another user, this does not constitute slander or state secrets. User:WoodElf 18:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@WoodElf:, they aren't using the whistleblower's report any more because of all of the on-the-record testimony that made it irrelevant. That affirms that the identify of the whistleblower is irrelevant to us. BLPNAME is clear. I have RevDel'd the addition of the name of the alleged whistleblower a few times myself and will continue to if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This was a bit of a trick question: BLPNAME is only marginally applicable here - the part that is relevant to this case is so vaguely phrased, that one could easily argue for inclusion using other policy rationales. More convincing reasons AFAIC would be TOS-related (if that was against the law at some locale the WMF operates from) or extra-policy - and here I agree with K.e.coffman (see below): the main reason to exclude is that it might place that individual in serious personal danger, that is unjustified by any other Wiki-related consideration. To that I will add that Wikipedia, as a semi-journalistic pursuit, has an innate interest in the free flow of information, and exposing a legitimate whistleblower would undermine the very foundations of this enterprise. François Robere (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am quoting a conversation that occurred between the admin and I on User_talk:JzG#Re:_BLP_violation_warning, defending my actions:

Hi, You recently posted a warning on my talk page regarding a violation of BLP. I contest this warning on the following grounds: "Inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article" - I have cited RealClearPolitics and Washington Examiner. Since these are allegations and not facts being reported, I don't believe the same standards apply. "The identity of the whistleblower is a matter of fevered speculation in the right-wing partisan media" - Citation needed. And if there is speculation in the media, the fact that there is speculation, and the broad findings of said speculation, should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. "Wikipedia is not the place to blaze the trail" - Again, reflecting the reality of what is being reported is not blazing the trail. Personally, I find this action tantamount to censorship and does not reflect the ideals of Wikipedia. I hope you will reconsider your decision. User:WoodElf 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WoodElf, wrong venue, see the report at WP:ANI. Also: you are badly, badly wrong. Guy (help!) 17:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that this constitutes "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as mentioned on the notice board. Furthermore, I think a glance at User:JzG/Politics will reveal the admin's obvious political bias on this matter. Therefore, I do not believe this report was made in good faith, and in an apolitical, unbiased manner. User:WoodElf 18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @WoodElf: You cannot be serious. This is not a matter of "censorship". It's about Wikipedia being used (by you) as an extenstion of a harassment capmaign that targets a purported whislblower. Disclosing the name will place that individual and their family at risk of serious harm. Wikipedia should not be participating in this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns, but again, I haven't delved into some fringe conspiracy website for this information. The allegations have been published on multiple websites and social media. The disclosure has already occurred. I take offense to the implication that I am a part of a "harassment campaign". I am simply reporting after the fact. User:WoodElf 18:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP demands much more than that. Publishing somebody's name on the Internet and reporting on that name in the context of a rumor is far from the BLP requirement that multiple reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking have definitively stated that the person is who they are rumored to be. See the case of Richard Jewell. Acroterion (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion, That's a good point, but also a point of how the so-called reliable source media got things terribly wrong.--Doug Mehus (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and it's one reason why the same media sources are vastly more cautious nowadays. And that was before the Internet was widespread. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with others that this should clearly be kept out: the whistleblower is a low-profile individual who has taken steps to keep their identity private. Stating the name doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose and carries a substantial risk of harm to a living person. Reliable media sources (which generally have somewhat more relaxed standards than Wikipedia when it comes to this sort of thing) have mostly declined to publicize the name for precisely that reason. Even Facebook is deleting this, and I'd like to think we're at least slightly more careful than they are at this point. Nblund ^talk 18:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Filter

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

---

• I suggest an edit filter be created to block addition of the name or its variants; whack-a-mole isn't good enough for this situation. EEng 19:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • +1 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WoodElf, you don't have to agree, and it doesn't have to be intractable when an admin is looking for input including from other admins, as was the case here. Guy (help!) 19:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I propose Special:AbuseFilter/1008 if people could review and improve please? Guy (help!) 20:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how these filters work exactly. I presume it's not case sensitive? I'm just commenting here to say I fully approve of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

irlike is case insensitive, yes. Guy (help!) 20:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Much like Trump himself. EEng 20:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You are most kind. EEng 21:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reviewed and enabled by zzuuzz. Guy (help!) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A good suggestion and implementation. I'm of the opinion that it stay in place until and unless they are revealed and profiled in several high profile and very very reliable sources such as the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I know there's a pagename blacklist, is there a username blacklist as well? Per [53], for example. Guy (help!) 23:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• There is a significant amount of media coverage regarding this name, including more reliable sources that are bringing up the name. I don't want to link said articles as it could theoretically be argued that posting such would be a WP:BLP violation, even though I don't subscribe to that belief. I will still call for an abundance of caution regarding this subject, for obvious reasons. I believe there should be a healthy discussion regarding the theoretical creation of this article, given the increasing media coverage--a trend that I believe will continue. This issue should be solved with collaboration by certain editors, and community consensus, not consistently revdeleting/stifling any discussion of it. I believe it should -eventually- become an article. Tutelary (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would also add the following caution. Sometimes the media gets it wrong. Sometimes law enforcement and prosecutors get it wrong. See Richard Jewell, Yoshiyuki Kōno, Duke lacrosse case, and McMartin preschool trial. There is a real possibility that the name being bandied about is the wrong person. So how do we deal with the possibility of sources getting it wrong? Two ways. First, don't accuse living people of things without solid sources, and in particular, if an otherwise reliable source reports that Captain Jason McCord was a deserter and the source has no possible way of knowing whether or not that claim is true we should not consider that source to be reliable on the topic of McCord's guilt no matter how reliable it is in general. Second, when we do report such things, it should always be with attribution; Not "Jason McCord was a deserter" but rather "Wyoming Territorial Enterprise reporter Ned Travis called Jason McCord a 'deserter'." --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Tutelary, we all know that when the most powerful man in the world is determined to get a name out, even when that would be a gross breach of both ethical norms and the law, then it will happen. Wikipedia is not going to be part of blazing that trail. The filter can be disabled when there is consensus it's no longer needed, which IMO would be after it is in at least two reliable mainstream sources with sufficient context to avoid violating WP:BLP.

  We are certainly not at that stage now.

  Analogy: publication of the name is like mobsters trying to smear the guy who pulled the fire alarm for claimed links with the fire department benevolent fund, and asserting that this somehow invalidates not just any investigation of the fire but also the finding that the burned out building is full of gas cans and match books with the mob boss's fingerprints all over them. Guy (help!) 11:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This phrase "blazing the trail" keeps getting mentioned here. I contend that Wikipedia will not be blazing a trail by mentioning the whistleblower's name. His name has already been mentioned in multiple articles in RealClearPolitics, Washington Examiner and Heavy.com as well as many other smaller websites. I ask that my fellow editors understand that Wikipedia can, and should, update the article to reflect coverage. User:WoodElf 12:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "Many other smaller websites" is generally a clear indication of BLP violation. If Fox News (for example) starts broadcasting the name with regularity, let's think again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I can understand the BLP concerns for the Wikipedia page. I did not mention the name under discussion in this thread out of the same consideration. But going so far as to delete links to legitimate news websites which I cited in my defense on this thread?? Orwellian much? Besides which the alleged whistleblower's name was already in the news a couple of years earlier: (Redacted) User:WoodElf 13:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You're deliberately trying to skirt the rules, and the last who did that (Wumbolo) was indeffed for it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • As discussed here, I will add details to the article in good faith, based on reliable sources, without contravening the clauses of BLP. User:WoodElf 14:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

            WoodElf, that would be an extremely bad idea, given your idiosyncratic view of what constitutes a reliable source (e.g. Breitbart, as per your request at the spam blacklist). Guy (help!) 17:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

            WoodElf, do not add the name. Adding the name contravenes WP:BLPNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and Zzuuzz:, can we get this permutation added to the filter? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• ATTENTION Now we have a registered account using the name that we need to suppress. Please help filter more. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

WoodElf and RS

WoodElf has edited only intermittently since 2007 and appears not to be heeding advice about what constitutes reliable sourcing for information about living people. In addition to the now-suppressed edits relating to the whistleblower, he has proposed Breitbart as a reliable source], used the Washington Examiner as a source for the whistleblower's identity, used Fox News as a source for details about the Trump administration's attempts to out the whistleblower, and a source of no clear relaibility as a source for a statement of fact regarding the legality or otherwise of that act. Set agaionst that, this edit is decently sourced.

I am concerned as to whether, based on this and the redaction and statement above, WoodElf is acting in good faith in this topic and should perhaps be topic banned, at least until we are no longer in a position where we are not having to control abuse by conservative activists looking to use Wikipedia to propagate this information. At the very least after making two edits that have had to be suppressed for the same reason, WoodElf should be aware that even one more such edit will undoubtedly result in a block or ban. Guy (help!) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mate, check the edit history. I didn't add the Fox news citation, MelanieN (talk · contribs) did, take it up with them. Leaving aside the fact that you have an objection to Fox News, which is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, you also removed two citations I had added from the BBC and Reuters in your reverting zeal. I have already raised concerns about your objectivity. Labeling editors arbitrarily as conservative activists without a shred of evidence seems to confirm it.User:WoodElf 17:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• A conversation with JzG (talk · contribs) on my page. I find his behavior troubling to say the least. Can an admin arbitrarily choose what constitutes a reliable source or not? I defer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

I await a full retraction and apology from the posting admin.

WoodElf, Already checked, corrected and noted on your talk. I remain convinced that your return form hiatus, along with two suppressed edits outing the WB, is a very bad sign. Guy (help!) 18:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mate, just call it an honest mistake and move on. I didn't sign up for this drama. User:WoodElf 19:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

you're right, Fox was already int here. I rmeoved it, we should not be citing anything to Fox about this (or MSNBC or The Hill or anything other than top tier sources like WSJ, WaPo and the like).Guy (help!) 18:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we could resolve this amicably. Having said that, your objection to reliable sources such as The Hill, Fox and MSNBC is extremely concerning. Let me remind you that you got on my case for not citing reliable sources in the first place, and now you've turned on a dime to denounce the very same. I have no choice but to highlight this arbitrary, irrational and abrupt interference to the noticeboard.User:WoodElf 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:WoodElf 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy: It’s true that the Fox News reference that you object to was not added by WoodElf. It was added by me. It appeared to be neutral and factual, as Fox News (the News division) usually is. (See WP:Perennial sources.) WoodElf simply moved it to another location in the article. On a related issue, please see my message on your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Given the attempted outing of the purported whistleblower by WoodElf, as well as advocacy of Breitbart, I believe that a topic ban from Trump-Ukraine scandal, broadly construed, is appropriate at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you please address my concerns which I have raised on the unfair, seemingly politically motivated attacks by JzG? Thanks. User:WoodElf 18:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WoodElf, the only motivation here is WP:BLP. Your editing has been sporadic for over a decade, I am not sure you've fully understood Wikipedia's developing consensus on sourcing around living people, or around specific sources in politics. You also don't seem to be an especially fast learner, given the suppressed edit you made to this page. It's not clear what political motivation there would be for excluding the three sources you name. I work on the "media boas chart", largely, which ranks sources by accuracy and bias. For this article we should stick with sources that have high accuracy and low bias, and exclude all others regardless of alignment. It may also not be a great idea for someone with an average of 20 edits per month to lay down the law about source reliability. Guy (help!) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Your charge to topic ban me (current discussion) is based on your own misunderstanding of the timeline of events. As such, I'd expect you to do the honorable thing and strikeout your latest allegations. As I have already mentioned, I referred to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you object to users citing from this list, please look into it. Until such time, I will not expect any objections. User:WoodElf 18:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, as noted, yes, sorry, I corrected that already. Guy (help!) 18:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Block-evading vandal

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

---

Bussy4life, now reappearing as IloveCLCstudent, is both a quite determined vandal, and seems keen to harass those trying to clean up their vandalism. This seems like a job for WP:AN/I. -- The Anome (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is now a third one, Candycreamqq. All three are currently blocked. I will file an SPI report - unless someone here wants to tackle the situation? The vandalism is severe, with rapid-fire posting of obscene pictures in the sandbox and on their own talk page, as well as attacking users who cross them. I suspect they will keep it up with additional socks. Checkusers, are you able to do a rangeblock on users as well as on IPs? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And now resurfaced at Candycreamqq. Their main interest seems to be vandalizing the sandbox with sexual images. -- The Anome (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe a CU has taken a look and possibly done a thing. No guarantees for this one.. for future reference, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Their signature move seems to be continual reverts of attempts to remove their vandalism. Would it be possible to use the edit filter to prevent multiple rapid-fire reverts by non-autoconfirmed accounts using the rate limit options in that filter? -- The Anome (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, a filter could reduce the disruption. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Lazy-restless

• Lazy-restless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lazy-restless caught my attention after he had made this comment, and his history on Wikipedia shows that he has been trying to push a WP:FRINGE theory, which claims that Muhammad is a messiah of Hinduism. So far it is clear that Lazy-restless has no idea what is WP:RS, WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE and WP:BATTLE.

Until now, Lazy-restless has created:-

• Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book) (deleted after this Afd)
• Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (deleted after this Afd, also look at the DRV initiated by him)
• Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures by moving a faulty draft to main page

After the issue was raised on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures, he was quick to start canvassing other users,[54] and displayed further WP:IDHT. Bharatiya29 18:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I just looked a bit more through their editing history. That, and their latest edits/comments suggest someone clueless about the Vedas, when Bhagavat Purana was written, etc. That is not the problem here though, as we don't expect editors to be experts in the subject or field they are contributing. The problem is the repeated disregard for our content guidelines, repeated use of questionable and fringe sources in topic areas that are sensitive/controversial/provocative. Possibly a WP:NOTHERE who should move their attention to subjects/topics other than Indian religions, broadly construed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Another problem with this user's edits seems to be quotation farming.[55] I support a topic ban from religion since the problem is wider than just Hindu-Muslim relations subject. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 18:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is problematic. I favor a warning, rather than a topic ban as an incremental step to let them learn / reform. @Lazy-restless: Why this recent massive WP:QUOTEFARM-ing of primary sources here, without a cite to any WP:RS? Would you be willing to self-revert please, and instead focus on summarizing scholarly sources such as this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban from religion at minimum, or even block. I've dealt with this user before and they are a pusher of fringe viewpoints. For example, here, after misinterpreting a scientific study, he said All your edit attempts based on sexuality and orientation seems pseudointellectual to me. and pointed to some preacher's blog as justification. In this talk page discussion he wants to use centuries old Christian sermons as sources, and he points to a YouTube video and claims the articles, either theoritical or informative, about homosexuality in English wikipedia tend to be too much influenced by homosexuality-friendly western notion's point of view.
• The AfDs and other evidence above show he has been doing this for years. The first AfD is from 2014. (He used to be "Sharif uddin".) He's also made a bunch of edits to LGBT in Islam which I never had time to look over. It's clear that he does push fringe theories, and that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior which he is not stopping despite what others say. He's already had the chance to reform and has not. In my experience such users often succeed in placing their poorly sourced POV content in a few places where it remains for years, because those places weren't scrutinized, so we need to prevent any further damage from him continuing to do so. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg edit suppression

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

---

On 22:30, 6 November 2019 an edit was suppressed by Diannaa ( https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Pete_Buttigieg ) despite the fact that I very carefully paraphrased, neither copying nor violating WP:Synthesis, in my 05:38, 6 November 2019 edit. I asked for logs showing this was a copyright issue and this editor was not able to provide logs indicating this was the case, instead arguing the material should be deleted. While I disagree the information should be deleted, that can be a discussion. However, edit suppression on the grounds of copyright infringement, when there was no copyright infringement, is a breach of admin duty. DouggCousins (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell what the problem with NYTimes is as I've used up the monthly articles (Link), but the problem I see for the Vox article is that except from some synonyms and shifting sentence fragments around the verbiage is still fairly similar in the source: A city-commissioned study on racial inequalities in the city from 2017 found the black population in South Bend has higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the country. About 40 percent of black residents are living below the poverty line, and there’s an 11 percent unemployment rate in that community. in Vox article while A 2017 study commissioned by the city on racial inequality in South Bend found the black population there has higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the country. The unemployment rate in the black community’s at 11 percent there, and about 40 percent of black people are living below the poverty line is our article. This raises close paraphrasing concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the close paraphrasing concerns, there's also the issue of this editor's POV pushing verging into the disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm subscribed to NYT, and the close paraphrasing is immediately apparent upon even an initial look. For example: Reports of violent crime increased nearly 18 percent during the first seven months of 2019 compared to the same period in 2018. The number of people being shot has also risen markedly this year, after dropping last year. The city’s violent crime rate is double the average for American cities its size. (NYT quote), Violent crime increased nearly 18 percent according to reporting during the first seven months of 2019 in comparison to the first seven months of 2018. There were also a greater number of people being shot this year, after that number dropped last year. The violent crime rate in South Bend is twice the average for American cities of its size. (article edit). That's an extremely close paraphrase and for all intents and purposes is saying the exact same thing in the same way with only a few words changed. I would agree with this revision deletion, and would caution DouggCousins to avoid paraphrasing so closely going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I too looked at the NYT page, and found the same – a few words had been changed or shuffled about, but the text was recognisably the same and the sequence of the material was identical. Removal and revdeletion was entirely appropriate. The content in revisions 924254173 and 924469334, on the other hand, was copy-pasted verbatim from the sources. DouggCousins, any further copyright violation on your part is likely to result in loss of editing privileges. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Wumbolo

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

---

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

Wumbolo was topic banned first from Andy Ngo and related people and then, on 24 July 2019, from post-1932 US politics and related people (Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). Wumbolo "retired" and made only two edits between then and 5 November, bot to his user talk page.

Since 5 November Wumbolo has made 50 edits. The articles concerned are Lana Lokteff (a white supremacist), Amy Robach (involved in the Epstein story), Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands (Epstein's island), Great Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands (the island next door to Epstein's), Quillette (the magazine most closely associated with Andy Ngo) and then edits at WP:RFAR and elsewhere around Drmies' WP:SALTing of an article squarelty within the ambit of US politics.

Based on this, the exemplary Future Perfect at Sunrise imposed a perfectly proper block of 1 week per arbitration enforcement. Given that close to 100% of the edits made by Wumbolo since returning from "retirement" after a topic ban are violations of that ban, I can't help feeling that we may want to consider extending that somewhat. Guy (help!) 21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I've obviously been trying to keep the lowest of low profiles since coming back, but I do need chime in here since I would prefer not to lose Wumbolo as an editor. I also feel bad for the guy because I did recently encourage him privately he should consider ending his retirement. I genuinely think that Wumbolo was expecting to be told when a violation occurred by his editing rather than (in reality) the burden to comply being on him. Looking at his topic ban (which needs to be logged on an unrelated note btw), it wasn't a "broadly construed" matter but just like the US politics. The proper action might be to give him a final warning and say upfront that future edits to any topic related to the Jeffrey Epstein matter are strictly prohibited.
  Fut.Perf's block is still good, though. Wumbolo needs to cool down for a bit, and withdrawing the arbcom case request is a good first step to that. The week-long block probably finally got through to him. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Second that, I don't think the community needs to expand the block, AE actions should do the trick. One should hope that a weeks block might put the fear of god into Wumbolo. But if not...then their next topic ban vio should be a month, and then forever. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, some of the edits violated two sanctions. Some also not only violated one sanction, they gave a clear indication of intending to violate another plus WP:BLP. That's indicative of quite a serious problem. Guy (help!) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• MJL, the sanction is logged.The log is linked above. Guy (help!) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Guy: [Thank you for the ping] Oh I'm being stupid. I didn't see the note here. Stricken, thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, np, mostly I would not bother linking it so I don't blame you for not looking. Guy (help!) 22:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• It will need to be an indefinite block. My biggest concern is that Wumbolo is showing significant divergence from what we would consider sensible, decent and proportionate under our biographies of living persons policy, additionally they show a gap in their understanding of the page protection policy and a refusal to concede that they have erred in their interpretation of that policy, finally, we have their repeated violations of their topic bans which simply cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. I would be in favour of allowing an appeal after 6 to 12 months, allowing the indefinite block to be reduced to the length of finite block we would generally be looking at for the numerous topic ban breaches we're witnessing in any case. Nick (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• (ec x 3 or 4) I second Guy's motion. Not only has Wumbolo repeatedly violated his topic ban, but this latest incident involved repeated attempts to add something to the encyclopedia which would be a severe BLP violation. It appears he tried to create an article about the person, and finding that the name was salted, complained about the salting first at ANI and then at AE. To me that by itself was blockable, on top of his repeated and deliberate violations of the TBAN. TBANs only work if they are respected. And sorry, MJO, but a person under TBAN should not expect babysitters or stalkers to follow him around, evaluating whether his edits comply or not. You say you would be sorry to lose him as an editor, but virtually EVERYTHING he has done since coming back from retirement was editing he was not supposed to be doing. I'm thinking this may be a straightforward enough matter to resolve via admin consensus here at ANI, without needing ArbCom's elaborate deliberative process. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, he first demanded at RFPP that the title be unsalted, then four minutes later on Drmies' talkpage, then did the same on my talkpage when I removed the post. After that, ANI, where he at least didn't repeat the person's name, then RFARB. I dealt with it as BLP violation, rather than a topic ban breach, as I don't maintain a list of editors under restrictions in my head. Now that I see the full extent of Wumbolo's topic ban violations, along with the scorched-earth accusations against anyone who dares to confront him, I think a longer block is called for. A BLP topic ban would be advisable as well. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef. Checking more stuff, seriously, who thinks this is good faith in any way at all? Guy (help!) 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• This really smells like a coded reference to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Also, he has now removed this other issue but he had posted a request to his talk page asking people to get multiple editors to let him know if he's violated his topic ban after he's edited an article -- which is really an overly polite WP:IDHT on his topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason I bring up the coded reference to Pizzagate is that there's a good deal of overlap between the folks who believe in Pizzagate and QAnon, and, well, the other stuff we've seen from Wumbolo in political articles -- and Pizzagate is the sort of conspiracy theory that's so obviously wrong that it's worth blocking anyone who argues that it's not debunked, like blocking anyone who wants to argue that InfoWars is a reliable source.

Aaaand he's playing dumb as to why anyone would revdel references to a website where some QAnon-fans and Pizzagaters are posting info about someone they think is the Ukraine Whistleblower.

If it wouldn't violate his topic ban, I would explicitly ask him if he views Pizzagate as debunked, unproven, plausible, or reality. If his response is anything but "debunked" (including trying to avoid the question) then indefinitely blocking is worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indef - Enough's enough, At this point Womble's becoming a net negative to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - Enough is too much. Why would you purposely, repeatedly, admittedly vio a TBan – and try to desysop an admin who salted an attempt by them to out a person based upon an internet rumor in an area not only political but pressed by the POTUS, requiring multiple revdels? This isn’t close. Let them ask to return in one year. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure if indefinite block worthy Breaking a topic ban, and reposting oversighted material is bad, however--we need to look at the primary reason for doing so. There is a specific name that has over 20 thousand results in Google News search results, and is being covered more and more by reliable sources each passing day. Given the American political scandal that this name is attached to, I expect this trend to continue. Wumbalo mentioned this name in specific contexts with regards to page protection, and tried to bring it up further in arbitration. There is a significant encyclopedic interest in an article -eventually- being created for this individual. I have only taken a simple look at the situation, and am not sure if I'm missing something regarding this name, or not. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tutelary, definitely not a subject for an encyclopedic article. We have no idea if this person is the whistleblower or not. Reputable news organizations are not spreading the name,[56] because of the whole reason we have whistleblower protections at all! WP:BLPNAME says we don't publish it at al. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tutelary, the primary reason for what? Disobeying the topic ban or doing so in order to repost oversighted material? Given the timing of his "unretirement" it's pretty likely that this was in fact the main purpose. Guy (help!) 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The primary reason to continue referencing the name. If the name itself is oversighted, I believe that is a step too far, given the encyclopedic interest in the name, and the increasing coverage. It's hard to talk about whether or not it should even be an article if every single mention is oversighted or revdeleted. Which section was this name oversighted under? Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we need good sources for this, not simply a large number of crap ones. I had a quick look just now, and couldn't find any mention of the name in such sources. If someone believes they have found one, they could simply link the source without needing to mention the name. Further, if Wumbolo had simply once mentioned the name and the stopped when people took issue with it, maybe their actions would be acceptable, but not, as I understand they have done, trying to talk about it all over Wikipedia in a very short space of time, especially not since they are an experience editor who has been warned about issues with their editing related to living persons before. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As for your question on the use of suppression, I assume it was done under number 1 "Removal of non-public personal information". Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indef I had some not-so-good interactions with this user however long ago. This more recent behavior sounds worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef Recent activity shows the tone-deaf battle ground behavior continues—for example, see #Acroterion above where Wumbolo asks for an admin to be blocked or desysoped because the admin was removing Wumbolo's BLP-violating edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef under competency concerns, (although no cban). I think the recent forum shopping attempts at ani and Arbcom in an attempt to get os’ed material restored was already something a newbie would be indeffed for, but considering this absolutely bizarre comment he made over a year ago, it seems he has never understood how forums work on this website. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 04:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment editor has received an indef WP:OSBL by User:TonyBallioni Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Tiger versus lion

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

---

Talk:Tiger versus lion might be one of the most tedious walls of text I've witnessed on Wikipedia. In recent days the article and talkpage have become a free-fire zone that has led me to fully protect the article for a day just to stop the rapid-fire reverts and arguing. I've blocked one two editors for attempted outing and aspersions - and the editor who is the target of the aspersions and outing used to be named "Eichman Heydrich" ... Little of this behavior is new to the article, it's been like this for its entire history, and it's probably the biggest original research offender in the encyclopedia. Short of blocking everybody who's edited the article for the last week for edit-warring, I'm at a loss about what to do with the article and the editing environment. Suggestions are welcome, up to and including nuking it all from orbit. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I just scanned the talk page and immediately ran headfirst into a wall. Plus, one of the accounts outed the other there, too, in several places. So more rev/deletion, and perhaps an indef block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• It's a significant undertaking just tracking down all the outing amid the wordwall. I've warned a longtime editor on that page for that - at least I'm confident that they're sticking to one account. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Its the worst article and equally worst talk page on Wikipedia. It’s survived multiple AfDs by some miracle. The solution to this article and its problems is deletion. For those who don’t feel like reading it, it’s basically big cat fans arguing over which is better. Both the article and the talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks to be Deftred's contributions just this evening. A limited number, so it isn't too hard to find the outings. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I've gotten it - both Deftred and what I take to be his sock are blocked.When I'm feeling less exasperated, I might work on an AfD propsal. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Somehow, Acroterion, and not for lack of effort on your part, some of the outing is still encased in a rant there. These guys know a lot about lions and tigers, fighting. Now I'm off to draft a piece on scorpions and tarantulas. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You're right, got it. Thanks for checking. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Please AfD it again. BTW, a Google search on [ Ducks vs. Penguins ] turns up "About 42,600,000 results"... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Seconding AfD. This article serves no encyclopedic value. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • At least they're both in the same league. Tigers and Lions are in different sports. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
              • I propose we change the article to say

                Based on extensive scientific analysis, it has been proven beyond and shred of doubt that in any hypothetical or real fight between a tiger and a lion, the tiger will win. This applies even if it is a badly injured and starving tiger cub the size of a domestic cat and the biggest most dangerous lion that has ever existed. In fact, it has been demonstrated that even a single such tiger cub will be able to defeat the 100 most dangerous lions cooperating in a reasonable fashion. (Not in the "Mook Chivalry" style of fighting made famous as a TV trope where a group will generally engage with a single person one at a time.)

                We then ask the WMF to permanently superprotect the article and talk page and archives, and for good measure add an edit filter forbidding any edit mentioning tiger and lion in the same edit. Problem solved! Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
                • @Nil Einne: but what of lions and tigers and bears (oh my)? Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • Just realised I typoed "any" as "and". Luckily my proposal wasn't already implemented and we're now stuck with the typo forever. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• The article's a complete joke, a mess of bulletlists of random stuff. Here's an excerpt:

  According to the Gettysburg Compiler and The Baltimore Sun (1899), towards the end of the 19th century in India, the Gaekwad of Baroda, that is Sayajirao III,[76][77] arranged a fight in an amphitheater, between a Barbary lion called 'Atlas', from the Atlas Mountains between Algeria and Morocco, and a man-eating Bengal tiger from the Indian region of Shimla, both large and hungry (with their diets reduced before the fight), before an audience of thousands, instead of between an Indian lion and the tiger, as Indian lions were believed to be no match for Bengal tigers.[b] The tiger was more than 10 feet (3.0 metres) long, over 4 feet (120 centimetres) feet at the shoulder, had strong shoulders and long teeth and claws, and was agile. The lion looked taller at the head than the tiger, and had a large mane, legs and paws. The tiger was seen as "the personification of graceful strength and supple energy," whereas the lion was seen as the "embodiment of massive power and adamantine muscle".[64] In the fight, both cats sustained injuries, and although the tiger sometimes retreated from Atlas, it would come back to fight it, and in the end, managed to scratch Atlas to death, though Atlas pushed it off in one final move before dying. The Gaekwad agreed to pay 37,000 rupees, accepted that the tiger was the "King of the Cat Family," decreed that Atlas' body be given a Royal burial, and that the tiger should have a "cage of honour" in the menagerie of Baroda, and decided to prepare the tiger for a battle with a Sierran grizzly bear weighing more than 1,500 lb (680 kilograms). The battle was to happen after the tiger recovered from its wounds.

  That the article's authors are able pass such nonsense on to our readers with a straight face implies a possible CIR problem. We even have an article Atlas_the_Barbary_lion_versus_the_Bengal_tiger_of_Simla reporting this idiocy as straight fact. EEng 11:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  It seems completely plausible to me. Do you have some proof that this was a newspaper hoax?--Auric talk 14:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's not beyond belief that something like this happened, but we almost always treat 19C newspapers as primary sources because their idea of what constituted fact was, um, somewhat loose -- sort of like Fox News today. If our only source is Mr. Smith telling the Gettysburg Compiler about some letters he got from Major Somebody relating an alleged eyewitness account, and there's no modern source commenting on the story's veracity, we don't repeat it, certainly not in the breathless detail seen in the article just linked (Round One ... Round Two ... Round Three ...), and we certainly don't base an entire article on it. EEng 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Acroterion The Tiger versus lion should be kept, and is of encyclopedic value. Its probably one of the biggest animal vs animal debate, and the animals are so evenly matched that it is in itself very controversial and opinionated (even the so called "experts" and "zoologists" have questionable opinions which may demean the whole article, though), so keeping neutrality is key just to show both sides. This wiki article is probably the most balanced out of most tiger versus lion sites, and is the first thing that comes up when you look up lion versus tiger, so its stupid to delete, everybody sees this, also at a minimum gets 30k views per month. Its just some fanboys want to push a one sided view point, and to prevent that you can just protect the article so no crazy fanboys can just edit without being experienced on wiki to be able to know the policies and how it works (unlike deftred), there is no new information regarding tiger versus lion anyways. Tijkil (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  The article's stupidity begins with its title; what does it even mean??? And please, after you tell us what it means, tell us which reliable sources inform us about it? Hint: 19th-century newspaper articles, and interviews with circus promoter Clyde Beatty, are not reliable sources about the natural history of lions and tigers. EEng 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree the problem lies in the title. Perhaps what would help is a move request to move it to Lion versus tiger. – Levivich 02:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  The article needs TNT, but the topic is probably GNG notable, per popsci RSes like Smithsonian (magazine) [57], Live Science [58], umm HuffPost [59] and this totally legit science website. Along with other pressing scientific topics like, should you run or freeze when you see a mountain lion? (hint: run) and The eight animals most likely to attack you – and how to survive (hint: the animal most likely to attack you is Homo sapiens wikipedian), and of course the classic scholarly work Lions, tigers, and bears, oh sh!t. – Levivich 02:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm fascinated by Scientific American's intelligence that hitting the animal with a walking stick or a gun butt often saved people from attack. Fair warning to any animals that attack me: if I happen to have a gun at the time it's not the butt end of it I will be using on you. EEng 06:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Mountain lions are very smart and will likely steal your bullets before attacking you. – Levivich 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  See User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_30#The_extent_of_a_lion's_knowledge_of_firearms. EEng 15:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Of course. A thread for everything, for every thing a thread. – Levivich 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Re Tijkil above: I think you've presented exhibit A for the mess the article is in. And no, I'm no going to protect it so a select cadre can maintain it in that state. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, since no-one has, I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger versus lion (2nd nomination). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Top talk pages

• While the top cat title is disputed, we have excellent statistics about the comparative sizes of talk pages and so we can be quite definite about the largest. Talk:tiger versus lion is only 370K and that's including its archives, which go back seven years. The latest section is just 13K and so that's just a scratch on this scale and this section in ANI is about the same size. These numbers are quite small compared to the record holders which measure in megabytes, not mere K. Here's a fresh list of the top 300. Notice that while Talk:tiger versus lion doesn't make the list, User talk:Acroterion does with a weighty 6.5 Mb. But even that is well short of the record in its class. Anyway, to put this matter in proportion, here's a list of the top 10 talk pages in mainspace. The talk pages in other name spaces are even larger and ANI isn't in the list because it's technically not a talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Top 10	Mb
Talk:Main Page	22
Talk:Intelligent design	19
Talk:Barack Obama	16
Talk:Donald Trump	15
Talk:Global warming	15
Talk:Jesus	14
Talk:Race and intelligence	13
Talk:Catholic Church	13
Talk:United States	13
Talk:Homeopathy	12

It's not the size of the talkpage, it's the excruciating content of both the talkpage and the article. I'm still working out what I think ought to be done about that, which is the real point. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How is this article topic any more excruciating than Today’s Featured Article, which is about a war monument in Northampton, England? Wikipedia is filled with articles about topics that don’t matter...almost six million of them...99% of Wikipedia. Are you just now realizing? – Levivich 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Portals

At some point soon we need administration to step up and get a handle on your colleagues.Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.--Moxy 🍁 07:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Despite all of the one-sided personal attacks, WP:HOUNDING, badgering and bad faith that has been occurring against me in the discussion, I have remained calm and civil throughout. There's not much I can do about what another user chooses to type. Not sure why the above is phrased in plural form using the word "colleagues", as I have not engaged in any personal attacks, hounding, badgering or name-calling whatsoever that require "getting a handle on". Hopefully the user who has solely been engaging in these activities against me will calm down. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay for someone to call someone else a liar and an idiot? That seems like a PA to me. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a PA and definitely not ok @anon. Someone needs to muzzle BHG since she's clearly not going to abide by WP:NPA. AryaTargaryen (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Muzzle is not the right word. But I agree, something should be done. The question is will anyone have the gumption to do it. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It will end when both admins are topic banned from portals. This is absurd. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I urge anyone interested to actually read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport.

The problem there is that User:Northamerica1000 is engaged in a sustained exercise of gaming the system, which includes:

• systematic and repeated misrepresentation of other editors
• repeatedly citing as guidance a page which they themselves asked not be a guideline
• using sneaky and stealthy editing techniques to hide severe POV-pushing
• refusing offers to collaborate on RFCs to resolve susbstantive issues
• repeatedly posting demonstrable falsehoods across multiple discussions (the most of extreme of which led me finally decided to call a spade a spade, and explicitly call them "either a liar or an idiot")

That MFD is yet another venue for a sustained baiting exercise by NA1K, who has deployed similar techniques many times before. The pattern is that NA1K engages in a sustained pattern of verbosely posting faleshoods, deceptions and failures of reasoning; and then howls "personal attack! hounding!" when called out on their lies and idiocy.

I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both.

I have never before seen on Wikipedia any admin attempt to game system as brazenly as NA1K has here:

1. call for a Wikipedia guideline to be delisted, and downgraded to a failed proposal
2. then cite that same failed proposal in defence of POV-pushing, ... and when challenged on that duplicity, dig deeper trying pompous word-play to create a synonym for "guideline": schema for advisement

This is not social media. We are here to build an encyclopedia. That is an intellectual process which requires both honesty and integrity, and the ability to engage in rational discussion. NA1K's conduct repeatedly reveals some sort of severe deficiency of that combination, and it reached its peak at the Transport MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please justify the above personal attacks of calling them an idiot and a liar. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As seen above we really need a stop to the harassment and attacks. Hard for the rest of us to move forward when we have an admin going out of there way to be disputive and block any conversation about the topic.--Moxy 🍁 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, the admin going out of there way to be disputive and block any conversation about the topic is NA1K.

NA1K has repeatedly refused my requests to collaborate on RFCs to resolve the issues. That's the only blocking of any conversation.

The disruption is NA1K's attempts to game the system, which includes: their sneaky list additions, their stealthy conversions of portals to a "black box" format, their persistent failure to consult or even notify WikiProjects, their creation of massively POV lists, ... and most brazenly, their attempt to cite as a guideline a page which they themself had demanded by de-listed as a guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The above response makes it clear to me BHG has no intention of stopping the personal attacks, so long as they believe that they are justified in their position. WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned Brown is not aware of what others are seeing for the past few months. There have been numerous RFC attempts to help to define portals and there content by third parties all ending because of Brown's involvement. In many cases out right attacks on the proposers based on Brown's POV of a perceived bias of the questions being discussed.--Moxy 🍁 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, like that RFC where Moxy made a thoroughly bad faith proposal to delete all portals, knowing that such a crude binary would be rejected, all just so they could claim misrepresent it as the community deciding not to delete portals?

Of course I denounced Moxy for that attempt to game the system. It was a shabby stunt, which rightly failed. WP:RFC says that RFCs should be framed around a neutral question, preferably agreed by both sides ... and the portal crew has doe far too much of these pointy RFCs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't this, this, and this WP:HARASS? It seems that way and it is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't tolerate violations of WP:NPA, nor should anyone. BHG is harassing and personally attacking Northamerica1000, and should be given a short-term block for that. And given their behavior in this incident and others, I think a topic ban is in order. ɱ (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Request to Close

Please close this thread by consolidating it with the one below named "Portals". Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done – Levivich 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic/interaction ban proposal

I propose the following, which in my view recognises both the scale and disruption of the problem and the sincerity of those involved:

1. BrownHairedGirl topic banned from portals for six months for battleground behaviour and incivility.
2. Northamerica1000 topic banned from portals for six months for battleground behaviour and gaming the system.
3. BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 interaction banned for one year.
4. A central RfC to decide the objective criteria for closure of moribund or dormant portals and setting clear expectations for the level of activity required to keep a portal alive, allowing for removal of cruft with less drama and forestalling third-party gaming.
   1. Addendum: Also a process for gaining consensus before creating a new portal, as uncontrolled creation seems to have been a large part of the root cause.
5. A moratorium on portal deletions pending the central RfC.

I think we've all had enough by now. For the avoidance of doubt, the topic ban would also cover the RfC. Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lemme try to get this clear, Guy. Are you proposing a topic ban on me because I have been "uncivil" to an admin who has been, as you acknowledge, gaming the system, and who has repeatedly refused my requests to collaborate on opening RFCs to resolve the issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I am applying the standard admin technique of dragging the warring parties apart and trying to impose some order. Please don't go WP:NOTTHEM on us, that is never a good look. Guy (help!) 13:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy, it is never a good look to create a false equivalence between an editor who is sytematically gaming the system, and the editor who challenges the misconduct. That approach stacks the field in favour of the gamer.

Note that in this case, as in previous encounters with NA!K, I gave them ample opportunity to stop their gaming. I have also proposed RFCs to resolve the substantive issues, which NA1K has repeatedly refused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about false equivalence. But your behaviour has been horrible from the tiny amount I've seen when it's made it to ANI. I mean saying Northamerica1000 has "low intelligence" is just one example of how terrible your behaviour has been. Nothing that Northamerica1000 has done can justify your behaviour. Nor can anything you, or anyone else has done, justify their behaviour of course but you can't defend your terrible behaviour just by saying the other side has been worse. If you don't want people to support a topic ban of you for your terrible behaviour, don't behave so poorly. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, there is a real, substantive problem here: NA1K's sustained Dunning–Kruger effect conduct. If we are actually here to build an encyclopedia, we need to find ways of dealing with that, and stopping the damage which it causes, rather than just expressing outrage at possibly excessive directness in noting it as they try to deal with the problems which it causes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if your incivility towards NA1k is acceptable, which it isn't, you've been extremely uncivil to many other editors, including myself. I couldn't possibly care if people agree with you on what to do with portals. Hell, I probably agree with you on most of it. This is about your behavior, which is entirely unacceptable and demonstrates a strong lack of compliance with community civility and conduct standards, both for editors and administrators, and your failure to recognize that you are at fault worries me. This is not to say that NA1k is faultless; there are also issues with his conduct, hence why I support all proposals by JzG, but you need to recognize that incivility is not a proper response to perceived "gaming the system", especially as your immaturity and improper commentary causes constructive and good-faith editors unnecessary distress while attempting to contribute to the encyclopedia. Your constant harsh hostility towards editors who disagree with you is not a trait of someone I trust as an administrator, and as there is no community desysop procedure on this project (even if there were, there likely isn't consensus to reshelf your mop) I believe a topic ban is the next best thing. Regards, Vermont (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any proposal that wants a moratorium on portal deletions should also be have a moratorium on portal creations. I'll look over this never-ending portal nightmare in terms of ongoing editor behaviour later Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I think we can only ask for status quo ante but I agree we should look at the issue of whether there should be a bar to creations. Guy (help!) 13:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• If this proposal isn't enacted (and I'm not sure it goes far enough in terms of either number of editors or response to their behaviour, but it's a start) the whole mess needs taking to arbcom. I allowed myself to get bullied out of most portal discussions months ago and absolutely nothing about the behaviour of the usual suspects seems to have improved since. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want an extreme example of bad behaviour, one of the best examples was Thryduulf's sustained efforts to demand one-by-scrutiny of the 4,200 spam portals created by TTH and his acolytes. That was a blatant attempt to rig the system in favour of spam, by demanding that the commmunity put in far more time deleting the spam than TTH put into creating it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    BrownHairedGirl, Question What constitutes a "spam" portal exactly? Portals are meant to be navigation aids, as I understand it. Thus, even niche fiction portals have their place, regardless of them seemingly being fan cruft. Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    • @Dmehus: by "spam" portal" I mean: the navbox-cloned automated portals created en masse by TTH + acolytes, which added no value over the navboxes from which they were derived.

TTH created them at sustained speeds of up to one per minute, some of them just for the heck of it, and lamented their inability to produce them faster. Most of this portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), with overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout. The rest were deleted in a series of follow-up nominations,and the template used to ceate them was deleted at TFD Oct 25. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)\

BrownHairedGirl, Ah, okay, I don't necessarily agree that navbox contents can't make a portal, but we need to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis, I think. Some obvious navboxes related to companies should be just that: template navboxes. Others, it is less clear.--Doug Mehus T·C 19:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment For those who've not being following this (such as myself), please could you link to the relevant previous discussions for context/clarity? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Lugnuts: It's your funeral... (oldest to newest): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands of Portals, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal_Issues, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl, & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 13 would be where to start. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - thank you. And you can't spell funeral without fun. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support #1 let's see what the community can acomplish when we are free to have productive talks. Let's see if we can stop the loss of cotent editors for a few months see if it improves moving forward on a scope of an RFC on portals.--Moxy 🍁 15:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support all (including the single addendum) Maybe other editors need to be sanctioned as well, but I just had to look at this thread and the one above to be reminded that it's reasonable to sanction those 2 editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  After further thought I feel I should make clear I would oppose either one of 1 and 2 passing without the other. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I'm not convinced this is fair (I think the problem is that there is bullying on the playground, and this proposal solves this by sending the bully and one of their victims away from the playground), but it would work for the moment, and is better than the inaction we had in the last couple of rounds of discussing these editors. I'd suggest to start the ArbCom case once the next ArbCom is up and running. —Kusma (t·c) 15:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 - I have noticed in particular the battleground behavior by BrownHairedGirl which include edits like: [60] Moxy, as usual you are wrong on nearly every point., [61] As KK87 knows, [62] you and other portal fans have made that argument before. It is focused more on the editor implying that they should know by now that .... whatever, I am frankly shocked by the conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support of all: As Kusma says, I can't help but feel that this is better than no action, but it's not ideal, either. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good: it's time to put this matter to bed, and, absent ArbCom action, let's see what the community can do. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose: There are many, many, many other people involved in the "portal wars", and silencing just two prominent users? This will only further escalate the conflict. ToThAc (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have supported having an RfC, but Guy's proposal regarding the individual editors is a bit involved. I think that aspect is primed to go to WP:ARBCOM. bd2412 T 15:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I support this (or any) effort to lay down some specific rules governing how and when these processes should be carried out. Right now it is more or less the wild west in terms of portals, with arbitrary and ad hoc reasoning going into arguments both for and against them. I think part of the problem is that MfD is a little-attended forum relative to other XfD namespaces, so perhaps portal deletion discussions should be moved to AfD. I was involved in the creation of MfD, and it was originally intended for things in project space and user space, not for reader-facing content. All that said, there are unquestionably some very poorly conceived portals that should be deleted, but perhaps that task should be temporarily put in the hands of a different slice of the community. bd2412 T 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I wouldn't be opposed to that, either. ToThAc (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support the idea of taking this to ARBCOM: I've been watching this unfold since around the end of August and it has devolved to a point where I'm almost certain that writing each act of incivility on the same Word document would end up with a several thousand word essay. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 15:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support the idea of taking this to ARBCOM ...lets get other admins involved in a wider tlak. Because the integrity of admiship is being questioned at this point. --Moxy 🍁 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking this to arbcom. Its clear that the community has repeatedly failed to resolve this matter. I don't know whether it can wait until January (as suggested somewhere) though, I'd prefer to take it there before it degenerates further. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support JzG's proposal to take this to ArbCom. Question: So, basically, can ArbCom be used to take any proposal that repeatedly fails to gain consensus? I thought they only dealt with editor discipline. I think Wikipedia needs some adult supervision, so this is encouraging. I'd even support giving bureaucrats and ArbCom Clerks expanded powers of veto to override consensus where it's clear so-called "school war" voting blocks are stymieing otherwise sound, rationale, policy- and circumstance-based arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• They'll only look at the user-conduct side; they have the authority to decide that one or more of the parties is acting unreasonably and have the authority to topic-ban them, but they have no authority to determine content so can't rule on whether portals are a good thing or how the creation and deletion processes should work. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve is the official definition of their scope if you want chapter-and-verse. ‑ Iridescent 16:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Iridescent, Ah, that's too bad. I wonder if there would be community consensus for expanded powers for ArbCom—to determine consensus on its own in a very limited set of contingent circumstances? Doug Mehus T·C 17:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think there would, rightly, be strong oppposition to ArbCom's remit being extended to make content decisions. (As an aside, ArbCom can't "determine consensus on its own" by definition, because a unilateral decision by ArbCom would not be consensus). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, So I'm confused then, why is JzG proposing an RfC agenda to take to ArbCom to have approved? If not what he's proposing, what is he proposing? Certainly he's not proposing to take Northamerica1000 to ArbCom for sanction is he, particularly in light of the compelling diffs Northamerica1000 posted showing admin BrownHairedGirl apparently engaging in both bad faith and personal attacks against NA1K? I have to say, this ANI troubles me greatly...I always held administrators in such high regard, as all-knowing, impartial, and above-the-fray, but these events seem to demonstrate to me that they, at times, engage in the same sort of shenanigans of editors brought to ANI. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are two separate things being proposed here, an RfC for community discussion and consensus, and a referral to ArbCom to examine the bahaviour of the combatants. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dmehus, I'm not. People have replied in the wrong section and messed it all up... Guy (help!) 17:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Sub-colloquy re timeline and comments by Northamerica1000)

• Comment from Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) – I want to be crystal clear here, so I encourage all to please consider the timeline below and check the links.

• At the MfD discussion for the Transport portal, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has accused me of gaming the system, stating in part, "NA1K is wholly unrepentant about continuing to relay for guidance on a former guideline WP:POG which was delisted with their support; and now seeks discussions to "update" a page whose status is solely a "failed proposal". This is one of the worst case I have seen of trying to gaming the system".
• Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but my intention in stating that discussion could occur at the POG talk page was that potential future portal criteria could be discussed there. Another option that I didn't mention would be to discuss potential portal criteria matters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals.
• In the thread above on this noticeboard titled "When will it end", Moxy posted a link to the Transport portal MfD discussion.
• The proposal here written by JzG regarding potential sanctions against me appears to be based upon BHG's proclamation at the Transport portal MfD discussion, or at last it did before others chimed in after JzG posted it, while I was typing this out in the meantime.
• First and foremost, at the MfD discussion, I have not engaged in any personal attacks, hounding, badgering or name-calling whatsoever. Rather, I have remained calm and civil throughout the discussion. I have also not engaged in any gaming. Meantime, on this very ANI page, BHG has continued their personal attacks against me, stating in the "When will it end" section, "I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both." (diff). This is a reprehensible personal attack, right on this ANI page.
• BHG has repeatedly engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors that they so vehemently oppose at the Transport portal MfD discussion, over a significant period of time. Ironically, BHG themself has set a precedent for referral to the former Portal/Guidelines (WP:POG) page, now a failed proposal page, at various MfD discussions. I certainly have not engaged in any gaming; the user and other users have routinely refer to POG in MfD discussions, after it was downgraded from the status of being a guideline page. Very importantly, note that the commentary listed below occurred after POG was downgraded. BHG's comments denoted below all occurred in October-November 2019.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Karachi – BHG stated: "The portal was never properly built, and it has basically been abandoned since construction was halted. It has only 15 selected articles (and no separate set of biogs), which is less than even the risibly low bare minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG. All those pages were created in 2008, since when they have had only trivial technical changes, such as punctuation and disambiguation." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • This is a classic deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline.

  NA!K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bremen – BHG stated: "The set of only 9 articles is less than half the risibly low minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG. It includes no recognised content (i.e. FA-class or GA-class), and there is little scope for doing so because few such articles exist." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline.

  NA!K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paralympic Games – BHG stated: "So after 9 years, this portal has only 8 articles, which is a trivially small set, less than half of the risibly small minimum of 20 which set by the former guideline WP:POG. And all of them are abandoned. There is no sign of nay maintainer, let alone the multiple maintainers needed to avoid the "key man" risk." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline.

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statemnets that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamabad – BHG stated: "WP:POG was right about some things, including that portals need both multiple maintainers and supporting WikiProjects. In this case we have only one inexperienced editor interested in maintenance, and WP:WikiProject Islamabad is inactive. That's a recipe for continued failure." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did not claim that POG is a active guideline, or that in NA1K's pompous words a schema for advisement. I offered my explicitly personal view that in this instance, it was right ... but I did not claim that it represents a current consensus.

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statement on the value of the former guideline and their own attempt to use it as a shield against their POV-pushing ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Washington (state) – BHG stated: "A mere 11 selected articles+bogs is a pathetically small set, barely half the risibly low minimum of 20 set by the former guideline WP:POG, and nowhere remotely near big enough to provide a decent sample of the topic." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly".

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1940s – BHG stated: "The portal was created[1] in September 2016‎ with only selected article and one biog. More were added in 2017, bring to the tally to 5 articles plus 5 biogs. That total of ten is only half the risibly low minimum of twenty set in the former guideline WP:POG. The selection is also grossly unbalanced: all 5 topics listed in Portal:1940s/Selected article are military, and 3 of the 5 are predominantly about the United States ." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly".

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Carolina – BHG stated: "Two articles and two biogs is Perfectly good portal?????? Really??? Am I missing some sort of sarcasm or comedy here? Even POG set a minimum of twenty articles, which itself was risibly low." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline: "risibly".

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Carolina – BHG stated: "A mere one selected article makes a Perfectly good portal?????? Really??? Am I missing some sort of sarcasm or comedy here? Even POG set a minimum of twenty articles, which itself was risibly low." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I did was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline: "risibly".

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Statistics – BHG stated: "This total of 13 topics is little over half the risibly low bare minimum of 20 recommended by the former guideline WP:POG, which has now been downgraded to an information page." and "Since late 2006, WP:POG had warned editors "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but that warning was not heeded here." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I cited it to explicitly stress the folly of that guideline "risibly".

  NA1K snipped the sceond snetence from my cescription of the history of the portal. I also carefully worded that comment about "maintain a portal you create" to stress that I was referring to the guidance as it applied at that time when the portal was created. The standing guidance when the portal was created had not been followed. It did not in any claim that POG is a current guideline.

  NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as current guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which it does not.

  Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statements to the fact that the portal was created under former crap guideline and their own statements that their actions are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Elbe–Weser triangle – BHG stated: "WP:POG has been downgraded to an info page, but its guidance in this respect was excellent: "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This portal lacks both the supply and the maintainers." — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. My words are very clear, and were chosen carefully.

  I was very clear that POG is a former guideline, and I did not in any way claim that it has any current force.

NA1K is trying to conflate this with their efforts to cite POG as guidance on how to act, which is the exact opposite of what I did. NA1K actually claimed that POG has current value, which I explicitly did not. And NA1K actually claimed that the wording of POG somehow endorsed their choice to create a massively POV list of articles, which r does not.

• Either NA1K does not understand the difference between my statement of my view of the value of some words in the former guideline and their own statements that their actions in after its delisting creating a POV page are justified by following that crap guideline ... or they do understand, and are actively trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Furthermore, of note is that Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), who appears to be a wiki-friend of BHG's, has also engaged in the same behaviors in various MfD discussions, using a copy-paste rationale that synthesizes aspects of POG relative to WP:COMMONSENSE, after POG was downgraded from being a guideline page, which is quoted below with diffs. It is alarming and hypocritical that BHG has not criticized this user whatsoever about this, only me.

• diff, diff, diff, diff, diff and diff – "The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise" — Northamerica1000 16:40, 10 November 2019 — continues after insertion below
  • Yet another deceitful, manipulative misrepresentation by NA1K. @Robert McClenon explicitly stated his personal view that some parts of POG reflect commonsense. Robert is entitled to state his own view, and he clearly takes responsibility for that view. He has not attempted to claim that POG has current force as a schema for advisement, and he has not in way emulated NA1K's disgraceful attempt to claim currency for POG as a device to justify creation of a POV portal. This is an attempt by NA1K to smear me and Robert McClenon by misrepresentation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I have stated above, BHG and others have engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors that BHG has so vehemently opposed at the Transport portal discussion. The user is not holding themself to the same standards that they impose on others; rather, they are applying double standards based upon their own selective and subjective criteria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Section break for sub-colloquy)

• Comment – I dislike how BHG has interjected their commentary within the comment I posted above, and ask that they or someone else please move their commentary into its own separate post. The interjection of commentary within my comment has served to dilute my message, turning it into a long wall of text that is less likely to be read and considered as fully by others compared to the original state it was in when I posted it. I prefer my posts to remain as I posted them, rather than being modified in this manner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• NA1K, you posted as wall of text a series of deceitful misrepresentations of me, which you clearly intended to create through sheer volume of misrepresentation a mountain of "evidence" in support of your false claim that I had acted like you. I have posted in each case an individual response, and taken care to retain attribution.

If your message of deceit has been diluted, that is solely a consequence of your choice to deceive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• You should not have interleaved your comments within NA1K's comment in the first place, per WP:TPO (this is explicitly mentioned in the documentation of {{Interrupted}}, the template you used to mark your insertions). To then thumb your nose in response to a polite request from NA1K not to do this is so brazenly disrespectful it boggles the mind to see it coming from an administrator. Colin M (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Colin M – The inappropriate interspersal of commentary within my comment equates to an entitled rationale of, "I don't like your comment, so I am therefore allowed to modify it any way I'd like, because I say so". This is certainly against the advisement of WP:TPO. I don't like this at all; it's obviously totally off base and highly inappropriate. It turned my comment into a long wall of text that is now disjointed, interspersed with loaded adjectives such as "deceitful" and "manipulative", inappropriately changing its meaning. It is also very concerning that the user has ultimately posted comments below their very own verbatim comments in this strange manner, which bizarrely reads almost as though if they are referring to their own comments denoted in the list as deceitful and manipulative. My premise to the discussions list exists above them, not within the list. My text in the discussions list consists solely of a link to a discussion and " – BHG stated:". That's all. This is not deceitful or manipulative whatsoever. It seems that the user is intentionally working to disruptively dilute and obscure my post by bludgeoning it in this manner, intentionally and disrespectfully tampering with it to make it more ambiguous for other users to read, while interspersing negativity within it, changing its meaning. This is a disrespect to me as well as to the readers of this page. The fact that the user has chosen to reject a perfectly reasonable request to format their commentary properly and in accordance with WP:TPO, and the reasons they have provided for not doing so, only further supports the notion that this disruption as I have described is intentional, for the reasons described herein. Furthermore, since this ANI discussion involves the user and myself and elements of them interfering with my edits and actions in a battleground manner, they should especially not be posting within my commentary in this manner at the very ANI discussion about these matters. It seems that the user just cannot resist interfering with my activity on English Wikipedia. Per all of this, it is my request that someone please WP:REFACTOR the user's posts into one post, as per the directives at WP:TPO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reply That long charge-sheet against me by NA1K is simply more evidence that NA1K is either incompetent or mendacious, or both:

In each of the instances which NA1K sets out, I noted that POG is a former guideline. I did not seek to uphold it as guide to ongoing conduct; on the contrary, I repeatedly and explicitly described it as risible.

By contrast, what NA1K did was to repeatedly justify their actions as being in accordance with POG, ... and did so to justify their creation of a massively POV list. In other words, NA1K used a non-guideline as their shield again breaching a core policy.

Why sort of person tries to claim that these are the same thing? Is NA1K too incompetent to distinguish between those two uses? Or are they consciously lying?

Whatever reasons applies, NA1K's statement that BHG engaged in the exact same behaviors is completely false. How on earth can we build an enclyopedia when discussions are repeatedly polluted with such counter-factual nonsense? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Northamerica1000, My proposal was based on the current dispute, not any one person's version of it. The fact that both of you think I am siding with the other is pretty clear evidence of this. I'm siding with neither, I am just sick of the drama and looking for a way to advance it that doesn't end up in desysopping and bans for people whose work I admire in every other area. Guy (help!) 17:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I support Guy's comment above. Both are otherwise great admins. It seems the crux of the matter is one's view of Portals and the other's, which views them less favourably. I personally think Portals are a great idea, but am confident they're under-utilized because they're so hard to find. We just deleted a Star Trek portal for Pete's sake—despite there being a lot of Star Trek articles.Doug Mehus T·C 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Some questions for JzG – Since you have devised your proposal based upon the MfD discussion for Portal:Transport, relative to the information I posted in my comment above, do you still feel that I have somehow gamed the system, or is your proposal simply based upon BHG having proclaimed it as their opinion at the discussion? I have not engaged in any gaming whatsoever, and as I have stated, others, including BHG themself, have engaged in the exact same highly similar behaviors of referring to POG in MfD discussion in various manners after it was demoted from being a guideline page. Nobody else at the discussion has agreed with BHG's viewpoint of gaming, and most are in agreement with my contention that the portal should be retained and improved.

Also, I have not engaged in any battleground behavior there whatsoever. After being continuously personally attacked there, I never responded in kind. I have posted no personal attacks and have harassed nobody there. Rather, I have calmly and civilly presented my point of views in a functional, collegial manner. Also, notice how I posted my comments in a manner to separate myself from BHG, because it is clear that they were angry, and it is not my intention to provoke them. Could you please cite any specific commentary there that I have posted that you perceive as battleground behavior, since you are basing your proposal upon the discussion? When a user is constantly personally attacked in a discussion, should they just not respond, or should they defend their honor and reputation, and try to better explain their position using civil, calm commentary as I have done? In my view, people have a right to stand up for themselves in a civil manner. I worry that any sort of response to BHG's anger, regardless of how civil and well-intended, could be misinterpreted as battleground behavior when it is not, particularly when users may skim the discussion, rather than reading it in-depth. Conversely to the barrage of attacks that have been posted against me at the discussion, I have remained on-topic about the portal and its content there, and have not personalized the discussion in a negative manner whatsoever.

Please don't take this the wrong way, and I am aware that you are not siding with anybody, but some specific examples from the MfD discussion would be helpful in terms of qualifying your proposed sanctions against me, since it is what the proposal is based upon. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• More lies from NA1K. No, I did not engage in the exact same behaviors. Please do try to stop repeated your habitual lying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have struck part of my commentary above, replacing with "highly similar". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC))

• More reality inversion from NA1K. Mo, it was not highly similar. It was the complete opposite.

1. I repeatedly referred to a former guideline as risible.
2. NA1K cited a failed proposal as a schema for advisement which justified their breach of the core policy of NPOV.

I repeat my earlier observation that only an idiot or a liar would try to equate those opposite actions. This little exchange is an excellent example of why NA1K's conduct is so toxic. NA1K repeats and repeats a patently false assertion which smears another editor and then whines at huge length that they are being bullied and badgered by requests that they desist from the absurd smears and reconnect to reality.

NA1K continues to turn themselves into poster-child for the Dunning–Kruger effect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• More personal attacks above from BHG, qualified by gross semantic nitpicking of phrases and words that are naturally open to various interpretations. I even struck part of my commentary in hopes to appease the user, so they would hopeully calm down, but to no avail. The user disagrees per their own interpretation, so they then engage in more name calling, proclaiming and labeling another user as a "liar" on a public noticeboard, in bold, of course, to make it stand out more. More of the same unfortunate smear campaign behavior that the user appears unable to resist from performing. The user feels that it is okay to quickly and eagerly engage in ad hominem behavior, rather than responding functionally, such as saying something such as, "I feel that this is inaccurate". All the while, the user does not address the overall gist of the original comment that was posted.

I mentioned WP:POG at the Transport portal MfD discussion in the context of article additions that were performed to the portal. I did not refer to it as a guideline page there, I referred to it in terms of the recommendations that exist there (e.g. where I stated in the discussion, "I simply updated the page in accordance with POG's recommendations.") (bold emphasis mine). I urge readers to read my entire post there, so matters are kept in context. Also, the Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines page is still active, with an active RfC occurring there as I post this.

As I stated in my post above, other users have continued to utilize the sentiments of POG in MfD discussions, after it was demoted as a guideline page, such as continuing to qualify deletion as per the points in the lead of POG, stating that portals should be about broad topical areas, should attract large numbers of interested readers, and portal maintainers.

For example, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1940s, which occurred after POG was demoted, BHG based part of their nomination for deletion by stating, "That total of ten is only half the risibly low minimum of twenty set in the former guideline WP:POG", referring to a deficient number of articles. The user was directly referring to the recommendations of POG in an MfD discussion as a means to assess the portal, utilizing those recommendations to qualify deletion. I utilized the recommendations of POG at the Transport portal MfD discussion in regards to additions that were performed to it, referring to an increased number of articles, also as a means to assess the portal. Both actions involved the utilization of POG's minimum article count recommendation, just for different purposes.

These are not opposite actions, they are similar actions that both involve sentiments of POG's minimum article count recommendation. That the user used the word "risibly" in their nomination in reference to POG's article count minimum is of no consequence; the user utilized sentiments of POG's article count as a qualifier for deletion after POG was demoted. While deletion and retention are opposite in nature, utilizing POG's article count recommendation in various manners is not. The article count recommendation has been utilized in both ways, for deletion or retention, but both uses involves the same action, the utilization of the same general concept, just in different contexts. It's like purchasing cooking oil, which can be used for cooking or to fuel some types of motor vehicles. The action of obtaining the cooking oil is the same, but it is used for different purposes.

Since BHG and other users are opining for deletion based in part upon the recommendations of POG after its demotion, it is only fair for users to have an option to opine for portal retention based upon said recommendations as well. It's a two-way street, not a one-way street where its recommendations can only be utilized in the context of deletion. While POG is not a guideline page anymore, in my opinion, people will still rely upon it for advisement. Despite its demotion, it's one of the only pages that provides any sort of direct portal criteria for people to consider. What else should be used in place of it? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• NA1K's response continues to actively try to distort my words.

There is world of a difference difference between:

• My observations that a portal did not meet even the risbly low criteria of the guideline which applied when it was last developed
• NA1K's description of the guideline as still a guideline (by using pompous words which amount to a synonym for guideline), and relying on that former guidance after its demotion which they had requested, in order to crate a massively POV portal.

This is all a smokescreen by NA1K to distract from the fact that NA1K:

1. sneakily created a massively POV list.
2. cited in justification a former guideline which did not require the actions they took (POG desribed a technique for making a list. It did not advise editors to suspend judgement about core policies such as NPOV, and it did not require or advise NA1K to use only one of the >20 transport-related projects)
3. failed to notify any interested parties of their actions

NA1K writes it's one of the only pages that provides any sort of direct portal criteria for people to consider. What else should be used in place of it?.

This is absurd, and massively hypocritcal. NA1K specifically advocated delisting the guideline. They could have requested amendmnents to it, but instaed they supported delisting.

The resulting state of having no guideline is therefore exactly what NA1K wanted ... so why on earth is NA1K now complaining that there is no guideline? You got what you asked for, NA1K.

Also, as NA1K well knows, I have been asking for weeks (since the ANI thread on my reversions) for collaboration to develop RFCs for guidance on these various issues. I have posted that request at least a dozen times, several of which have pinged NA1K (e.g. [63]), and I have several times set out some of the issues which I woyukd I like to reslved by RFC, e.g. [64]

NA1K has not supported any of those repeated requests for RFC ... but is instead insisting that they are right to rely on the guideline which they themself got delisted.

This is classic gaming the system. If NA1K wants guidelines, then they can propose that POG be reinstated ... or, as I would prefer, they work collaboratively to develop new guidance, initially in the 3 major issues in dispute.

Instead, NA1K is tryig to take advantage of the vacuum which they created, by misrepresenting the former guidance as still having currency.

A good faith editor would now agree that there are substantive issues which need resolution at RFC. Will you do that, NA1K? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Above, BHG stated: This is absurd, and massively hypocritcal and so why on earth is NA1K now complaining that there is no guideline?.

My post above consists of observations, not complaints. It is unclear why you are asking yet again about why I was for WP:POG being delisted. I have already addressed this matter at Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) earlier, which you then responded to in a later comment that finished with an intro stating the phrase "Na1k=Liar." (diff1, diff2), so you are obviously already aware of the response I provided. It is you who is being dishonest, because you act as though if you are entirely unaware of matters that I have already stated my opinion upon, and to which you have already responded. Did you not remember when you added my user name and the word "liar" in bold? Your personal attack there should be redacted, and you should learn to at least try to be more respectful of others. Your consistent battleground mentality and behavior is incongruent with building an encyclopedia. Other editors would have already been blocked for such long-term, ongoing harassment.

I encourage all readers to please read my post on 10 November 2019 (UTC) at the Portal:Schleswig-Holstein MfD discussion page (diff), where I stated (in part):

I have not cited the WP:POG page as a guideline. I opposed it being utilized as a formal guideline page per principle, because its lead was decided upon by one user in a unilateral manner and a WP:CONSENSUS never existed for it to be an official guideline page. Your theories about why I opposed it as a guideline page has nothing to do with this MfD discussion, and is also incorrect.

For more information, please see this VP discussion which was closed on 26 September 2019 (UTC) and includes the detailed rationale I provided regarding POG relative to its demotion.

So what are the real reasons for why you are acting like you're unaware of my opinion about POG and its demotion? Is it so you can repeat your interrogation here in attempts to further smear my reputation? It certainly appears to be that way. Please cease from asking the same questions over and over again on multiple pages when I have already answered them. If you are unable to remember things I have previously stated, you could consider denoting them in some manner. It is wasting my time, time I'd rather spend performing functional activities, rather than responding continuously to your identical interrogations on multiple pages, whereby if I don't respond, you then imply that I haven't addressed the matter, when the response has already been provided elsewhere. Please stop your constant repetitious badgering and WP:HOUNDING, because it is disturbing my enjoyment of Wikipedia, and likely that of others as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Above, BHG stated, A good faith editor would now agree that there are substantive issues which need resolution at RFC. Will you do that, NA1K?.

As worded, the statement implies that I would exist as a "bad faith" editor if I decline to draft an RfC or collaborate with the user in doing so. Of course, this is a poor preface to begin with when suggesting activities for other users to work on, and equates to complying with a request to perform specific work or otherwise face a potential of being declared as a "bad faith" user. Furthermore, the user's ongoing name calling against me and smearing of my name across various Wikipedia pages inhibits me from wanting to work with them. It is patronizing for the user to request that I perform work on an RfC after the behavior they have exhibited against me.

It is unrealistic and illogical for the user to expect a user who has repeatedly been called a "liar" by them, in bold, across various discussions, including in this ANI discussion, to then have an interest in working with them. The user has not been behaving in a collegial manner, and then requests collaboration for an RfC, which requires collegial behavior. The user's past behavior creates doubt regarding the feasibility of working with them, as well as in their intentions in requesting collaboration. If BHG were to perform the good-faith act of redacting each and every instance across Wikipedia, including in this ANI discussion, where they have engaged in such name calling with the words "liar", lies", "lying", etc., only then would I begin to consider working with them on an RfC. Even if this were to occur, I naturally reserve the right to choose for myself what I spend my time working on. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per Northamerica1000 above. I've never found NA1K to be anything but impartial and objective. I don't know the whole story, but this seems like too soon. Doug Mehus T·C 17:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, do you not watch this page? It's been going on for at least six months. Guy (help!) 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, No, sorry, I've only recently started following WP:ANI and, to be honest, I don't like that I see here, by admins and editors alike. I think I should unfollow this page. It's almost as bad as the RfA/RfB "ritual hazings" to which S Marshall so aptly and concisely put it.--Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Procedural Note: There's too many edit conflicts...but can someone move this my struck vote above and the next three support votes at the same hierarchical level above NA1K's comment, so his comment is back together again? Doug Mehus T·C 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support #1 – This has been a one-sided matter, in which BHG has engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against me and other users over months of time, intentionally working to malign my character and reputation and that of others on English Wikipedia.

• BHG has also attacked me again very recently, both directly here on this ANI page on 10 November 2019 (UTC) (diff – "I stand by my description of NA1K as either a liar or an idiot, or both.") and on 10 November 2019 (UTC) (diff – "'NA1K=Liar".)
• I urge others to please refer to and read pages from the extensive list of links provided at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311 § Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl (from August 2019), where Vermont took the time to provide many diffs that demonstrate BHG's ongoing pattern of the performance of hounding, bullying, personal attacks, name calling and harassment. This serves to provide additional context demonstrating that BHG's poor conduct has been an ongoing matter. In addition to Vermont's links posted at that discussion, below are more links from that discussion that I posted there, to serve as an addendum, further establishing the pattern that BHG has been exhibiting:

• User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 047 § Discussions about portals – 12 April 2019: BHG shames me, and then pings me to the discussion afterward. I replied, and also requested at that time that they "please at least consider toning down on the "us versus them" stances (e.g. above: "shamefully... (et al.), "you portal defenders", etc.) and try to understand that Wikipedia consists of many diverse individuals that have many diverse viewpoints."
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Archive 9 § Collaboration – Country and major geographical Portals - 28 April 2019: I posted a good faith request for some portal improvements at the portal Wikiproject, a project "dedicated to developing and maintaining portals and portal tools." BHG then proceeded to take over the thread in a barrage of shaming and blaming against me, to the point of preventing anyone from potentially responding. Now, BHG could have brought their concerns to my talk page, but instead, chose to engage in smearing my reputation. Furthermore, there is no shame in seeking collaboration to improve Wikipedia content, nor should there be.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Request for improvement: Portal:Northern Ireland – 1 August 2019: Another good faith request seeking improvements, which has realized some positive responses, is met with long tirades of anger and shaming toward me and other users by BHG. It appears that any discussion about portals outside of MfD is considered by the user to be gaming the system somehow. Portals can be discussed outside of MfD.
• Diff – 1 August 2019: A user asks BHG on their talk page to tone down their personal attacks against me. Diff - BHG then replies with more personal attacks against me. Diff - Then, another user also states that BHG should attempt to tone matters down.
• Diff – 14 August, 2019, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals: Same pattern, another long wall of text that in part attacks and smears me personally on a public noticeboard.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Vermont – my simple !vote is met with long walls of criticizing text. Another user is also unnecessarily berated.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evolutionary biology - BHG attacks again, yet doesn't attack another !voter who uses a very similar rationale, that the topic is broad enough to qualify for a portal. They only attack me.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Colorado – BHG attacks me, in part stating that my suggestion is in "bad faith", and also attacks another user in the discussion.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biochemistry – BHG attacks again. For example, see their "Reply to the liar Northamerica1000"...(et al.).
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church – More huge walls of personal attacks and battleground behavior against me.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wyoming – Another copy/paste rant of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wisconsin – Another copy/paste personal attack
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Mexico – Another copy/paste personal attack
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) – More of the same. Attacks another user there as well.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy (2nd nomination) – Attacks me and another user, in a discussion I did not even participate in.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Grenada – Attacks anyone who may potentially discuss the portal in a manner contrary to their opinion. See "Expect portalista opposition."...(et al.). I have not contributed to this discussion.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia – Intense badgering against myself and others

– I have attempted at times to discuss matters with BHG in a functional manner in various discussions, but the user has continued to attack for months, often responding with great walls of badgering, hurtful and angry text, against myself and many other users. Despite all of this, I have remained calm, civil and objective, and have never posted personal attacks. I have also performed absolutely no gaming of the system anywhere. I have done no wrong. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reply. There isn't a venue where all those discussions can be examined properly, but I stand what I wrote in those discussions. They all show variants on the same pattern of NA1K engaging in mendacious and/or incompetent conduct, and then whining about being called out on it.

The problem is that NA1K is fundamentally well-intentioned, but is either incapable of conducting rational discussions, or unwilling to do so. They repeatedly post the same falsehoods, and are impervious to reason. That is why I assert that they are either a liar or incompetent, or both.

Two examples (I don't have time for diff-farming now):

• Across multiple discussions, NA1K repeatedly, cited an incomplete sentence from POG, snipping off the part of the sentence which contradicted their case. The full sentence, with a strikeout through the art which NA!K systematically omitted is "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
  NA1K persisted in doing so even when they were pointed to the full sentence. That is deceptive and dishonest behaviour, which NA1K repeated across multiple discussions. It is one of the reasons why I call NA1K mendacious, but I also accept the possibility of an alternative explanation: that NA1K is too stupid to recognise the dishonesty involved.
• In discussions about pageviews of portals, every other editor posted daily averages. NA1K repeatedly replied with a higher number, which was the total pageviews for a different timefame, creating an apples-and-oranges comparison. This was mendacious use of statistics.
  Subsequent discussion revealed that NA!K was actually substantively incompetent, and made absurd claims such as that an average is a statistic whereas the addition of data across a timeframe is not a statistic. After much discussion, NA1K did eventually agree to stop using simple statistics in this misleading way, but a huge amount of drama was created through their stupidity.

NA!K's contributions to portal debates have been full of this sort of mix of stupidity and mendacity. That is a large part of why portals debates have become so antagonistic, because challenging the stupidity and mendacity inevitably involves personal criticism of NA1K.

These problems with NA1K are longstanding, and were noted at NA1K's two RFAs, e.g.

• Candidates need to demonstrate that they have that particular brand of clue that is required of administrators
• in my experience this user doesn't deal well with disagreements. He just talks over the top of people and doesn't listen to them. -- which is exactly what NA1K has done at multiple portal MFDs
• When we tried to explain notability guidelines, deletion policy, and WP:NOT then he changed his focus to telling others why we were wrong instead of addressing us and discussing it. He doesn't listen. Then when we had the discussion about canvassing at ARS, he was doing the same thing. He didn't want to understand canvassing policy, he wanted to exonerate ARS. This "I want to win" behavior is dangerous to Wikipedia and certainly not helpful in an admin
• I do not believe that NA is a proper reader of consensus. Tparis points out lawyering, canvassing, and not listening, and that is my experience also
• ... suggests that you aren't so much interested in administering Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as you are in saving articles -- exatly the smare issue as at poratl MFDs
• Tactics as a member of ARS were highly questionable, inluding canvassing and dumping long lists of useless sources which he clearly did not take the time to read or evaluate -- again, similar to NA1K's conduct with portals, where they have made long indiscriminate lists. See e.g. my analysis at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ghana.
• What I've seen from them in article space is impressive in terms of zeal and sheer number of edits, but I am less than impressed with their judgment in the matter of evaluating sources--for instance -- the same lack of judgement has been displayed ven in the simper task of their creation of article lists for portals
• Issue with judgement are clear here
• Judgement is clearly an issue, reflected in the huge number of edits as well as elsewhere, as is the possibility of hat collecting
• Like other opposes, I am concerned with Northamerica1000's judgment.
• the concerns about judgment ring true to me
• past behavior has led me to have serious concerns about NA1k's judgment, especially w/r/t deletion related issues

The core problem here is that in the case of NA1K, the community has failed to act on long-standing concerns about their lack of competence. This has led NA1K to repeatedly extend themselves well beyond their very limited competence, which has exacerbated the Dunning–Kruger effect demonstrated by NA1K's repeated inability or unwillingness to abandon even simple falsehoods and follies.

This has created the cycle seen at numerous MFDs, where NA1K repeated posts half-truths or outright falsehoods, is incapable of engaging rationally with the replies, and then plays the victim card by crying "badgering!" "hounding!" etc. This is all inevitable, as described by Ehrliger et al in 2008: poor performers grossly overestimate their performances because their incompetence deprives them of the skills needed to recognize their deficits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• The use of a comma in Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. makes the portion that follows it non-restrictive. Which is to say, it can be omitted without changing the truth-conditional meaning of the sentence. i.e. The sentence could be rewritten as "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas (broad subject areas are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers)." Omitting this non-essential clause requires neither malicious intent nor incompotence.

I think you may have acquired a distorted view of what are just ordinary disagreements between rational editors. When you reframe these as "correct editor vs. obviously stupid/evil editor", it makes any kind of movement toward consensus impossible. This is why WP:AGF is so important. Colin M (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Colin M, I disagree with your assessment of that as non-restrictive. Wikipedia guidance pages are not written with such legalistic precision, and the clear intent of the sentence as a whole is that the goal is to create portals with "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". AFAICs, the the essential meaning of the thought is disturbed by the clarification of the goal, so in my view the relative clause is restrictive.

It also seems to me to be a breach of commonsense to suggest that a portal is viable if it is unread and has rotted because it has no maintainers.

I can respect your different interpretation, while disagreeing with it. That is usually the sort of point on which there is reasoned disagreement, and possibly an RFC to establish consensus for a clarification ... but my complaint about NA1K's omission is that in discussion where those very problems of readership and maintenance were being discussed, they repeatedly acted as if those other words simply did not exist. That is the deceit, and it is the systematic omission which impeded consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Section break: general user comments on proposal

• Support for Guy's #3-5 of amended, clarified proposal; call it reluctant support for #1-2. Doug Mehus T·C 17:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support for #1 BHG is violating WP:HARASS through examples like: this, this, and this. What is even more concerning is that BHG is an admin, a privilege that is meant to be a role model for examplar Wikipedia behavior. NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes. It is unbelievable that an admin can be this disrespectful of their peers. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• If the harassment escalates further, it may become a case I suggest where BHG receives a review for the possible removal of adminship through the proper process. (WP:DESYS). AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This from an editor with "Northamerica1000 is such a fantastic editor and my Wiki-Idol." on their userpage. Well, thanks for your input. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I put that on my userpage back when NorthA was considering retirement. I wanted to remind the public of the good and benefit they are to encyclopedia. It is not bias, it is the truth. Also why did you leave out "Please do not retire, we as a community support you"? Are you trying to shorten it to make me look worse? I am clearly stating my opinion based on the evidence and sides given. I am not a yes-man to NA1K, I am an individual human who wants to improve the encyclopedia and stand for what is right. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• While this can be seen as a potential WP:COI or w/e the reasoning, the provided diffs with things such as NA1K is either an idiot or a liar or both is concerning. This is focusing on the editor rather than the debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• AmericanAir88, Agree completely. That's what troubles me the most is the harassment and incivility of another administrator. I thought admins were supposed to be above this sort of thing. That does not mean they are not infallible, but BHG's apparent reluctance to see where she erred is what troubles me most. Someone said above there is no consensus as to desysoping procedures, which is also problematic if ArbCom is the only solution. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Bureaucrats have discretionary authority to desysop an admin under limited circumstances. Doug Mehus T·C 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  AmericanAir88 writes NA1K is a victim of harassment from someone who does not learn from their previous mistakes, and provides three diffs: this, this, and this..

Those three diffs are of edits where I provide evidence to show that NA1K was systematically lying in order to WP:GAME the system and thereby disrupt consensus-forming processes. That is not harasssment.

It seems that AmericanAir88 is appalled by an editor being called a liar, but entirely unconcerned about the fact that the admin NA1K has lying in order WP:GAME the system,and that NA1K did so in support of a massive beach of WP:NPOV. That says a lot about the priorities of AmericanAir88, and not in good way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not appalled by an editor being called a liar, I am appalled that someone of admin status, like yourself thinks they can treat their peers this way. It is not just these examples I provided, you have been proved to harass other users and make untrue claims such as calling NA1K a "liar". I see no violation of WP:NPOV on NA1K's end and only see it on yours. You target this user, you not only target them: You harass and obsess over them. I'm not here to argue, I am here to state that NA1K is not in the wrong and I am shocked by the amount of disrespect you have given me and other editors. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• @AmericanAir88: I called NA1K a liar because they were lying. I stand by that assertion, and have provided evidence to support it, which you sadly choose to ignore.

I am appalled that someone of admin status, like NA1K, treats their peers so badly by lying to them repeatedly. Their repeated deceit is incompatible with adminship.

And I do not target this user. I respond to their repeated lies.

As to WP:NPOV, NA1K violated WP:UNDUE by making a selection in which over 50% of the geographically-bound articles relate to their own country. NPOV is a core content policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Like I said above, I am not here to argue. I can pull evidence from plenty of previous discussions and your edit summaries as evidence that you are harassing and targeting users. Accusation is not the way to hold a discussion and you are personally accusing NA1K of something they had no intention of doing. Also, how would you know where NA1K lives and if they are making UNDUE edits? Your claim of NA1K having UNDUE edits and a violating NPOV is you trying to start trouble. Again, I do not want to argue and I want to be civil. However, I believe you are harassing and being disrespectful to editors and you need to be held accountable for your actions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88:: User:Northamerica1000 carries a userbox which says this user lives in the United States of America. I relied on that statement. Is that unreasonable?

As to UNDUE, you can check for yourself in the list posted by NA1K at MFD:Portal:Transport: 19 are generic topics, without particular ties to one country. A majority of of the remainder (i.e 24 out of 45) specifically relate directly to the United States. The 24 are 5=Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, 6=SS Christopher Columbus, 7=Baltimore Steam Packet Company, 8=AirTrain JFK, 10=American Palestine Line, 11=San Francisco tech bus protests, 12=Congestion pricing in New York City, 13=Greyhound Lines, 14=Pony Express, 17=Metrorail (Miami-Dade County), 19=Bay Area Rapid Transit, 22=Bayview Park ferry wharf, 24=Northwest Seaport Alliance, 25=NYC Ferry, 26=Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 29=Port Miami Tunnel, 31=Kitsap Fast Ferries, 32=Staten Island Ferry, 35=List of Interstate Highways in Texas, 46=Goat Canyon Trestle, 49=Transportation in Omaha, 59=Forksville Covered Bridge, 60=Interstate 355, 63=New York State Route 28.

It is strange that you dismiss this evidence of bias as me trying to start trouble. If you genuinely want to be civil, that ABF dismissal of my noting a breach of core policy is an perverse way to go about it.

NA1K has had plenty of opportunity to express good faith by saying something to the effect of "oops! yes, that was unintended, but not acceptable. My bad. Needs a fix before it goes live". Instead they have been saying variants of 'former guideline made me do it', which is not true, and 'set of articles made me do it', which is also untrue.

As to accusation ... NA1K posted to the MFD 14 hours before I did, accusing me of making a series of rapid, drive-by edits. NA1K neglected to acknowledge the reason for my revert and instead complained that I had made difficult to update portals. From the info which NA1K belatedly posted at the MFD, I found that the concern over the effects of a hidden article list was justified: NA1K's hidden article list is a POV violation.

If you do not want to argue, why critcise me accusation, but say nothing to say about NA1K opening the discussion with an accusation against me about a revert I made for reasons are justified by the facts? NA1K's massively-POV list would have been spotted promptly if had been visible on the face of the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all portals and topic-ban all Wikipedia editors from ever discussing portals again. It's the only way to be sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC) (Not entirely serious, but it would be an improvement over this continued warring.)
  • Oh, and more seriously oppose any punishment of BHG for continuing to carry out this frustrating but helpful task. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 I've had enough. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 way iban Support Guy's proposals #3,#4 & #5 - most especially proposal 3, which I'd ideally like to be a no fault iban. While on a much bigger scale, this reminds me of the feud between Dream & Hijiri88 – both excellent editors in different ways, but months of drama followed once they began interacting. The iban they had in Jan seems to have been effective in ending the feud. It was later clarified that both could continue to post in project spaces like ARS, both could post on AFDs etc, they just needed to not talk about each other. Hence Im not sure we need to ban either of them from Portals at this stage, and Id prefer the ban to be no fault. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1. As an involved editor my opinion may be predictable, but BHG's behaviour is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. The diffs quoted clearly show which contributors are conducting themselves in a civil manner, and that this is not a symmetrical dispute with both sides equally at fault. It would be very unfair to also sanction an editor whose only crime is to be selected repeatedly as a target for abuse. Certes (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sadly, it was entirely predictable that Certes would pile on to support NA1K's diff-farming exercise of mendacity. NA1K created a pile of diffs to "prove" that I had done as NA1K ... yet in reality, the substance of it is that I did almost the exact opposite. The diffs show that I repeatedly noted that the former guideline had been risible; by contrast NA1K cited the guideline as justification for breaching a core policy.

Certes's endorsement of NA1K's reality inversion is a large factor in why portal disputes have become so toxic. NA1K's mendacity and incompetence has persisted because it is repeatedly endorsed by NA1K's cheerleaders and enablers such as Certes, who if they had sufficient competence and integrity would long ago have been asking NA1K to desist.

The fact that Certes's chooses even now to endorse NA1K's lies and smear tactics is just evidence that Certes also needs restraint.

I am heartily sick of accused of "bullying", "harassment" etc for calling out this co-ordinated campaign of mendacity. This project is supposed to be about building a encyclopedia where verifiability is a core policy, and the anti-truth antics of the likes of NA1K in support of their prolific incompetence should have no place in it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Where is your evidence for this? Sadly, it was entirely predictable that Certes would pile on Are you suggesting that this editor came here to target you? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue needs to go to arbcom, where evidence will be properly presented and personal attacks will be subject to clerking. The disorderly proceedings here make portals look good. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't between two editors though anymore, it is clear from those supporting that BHG has rubbed a number of editors the wrong way. She may be right with her arguments, but in no way does that excuse the poor behavior presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic bans and interaction bans. Support an RfC that results in the creation of guidelines for portals. I've closed a lot of the MfD's on these portals, and while some of the discussions have been heated, I haven't seen any that have risen to the level that would justify a topic ban or interaction ban for either of these editors. Having an actual agreed-upon guideline would calm down the whole situation, as it wouldn't require the constant stream of individual portal MfD's, which seem to be causing friction on both sides. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 01:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Scottywong: I have very limited involvement in XfD and don't close discussions but wow, are regular accusations that the other editor is lying or an idiot, or deceitful or being deceptive or making sneaky changes or has low intelligence or whatever else really a level that is normal enough not to justify a topic ban or interaction ban? (Yes I've concentrated on one of the editor's here, because the other editor's problems are more complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  While I would agree that these discussions could be more civil, I also understand that this is a difficult topic and passions run high on both sides. I think that BHG has some valid points, but also agree that those points could be expressed in a more civil manner. My opinion is that this is a relatively minor problem, that should be resolvable without resorting to extreme measures like banning these editors from participating in anything related to portals. In short, I agree that there is a problem, I disagree that items #1-3 in this proposal contain the right solution to that problem. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 02:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  My view is that clearly these haven't and most likely can't be resolved without extreme measures. It's been several months. And yet we still have this sort of terrible behaviour. Further, while I'm sure many will attest I often make long posts, I can help but notice every time one of these threads opens on ANI it's soon filled with very very long back and forths mostly (although far from exclusively) between Northamerica1000 and BrownHairedGirl which partly drown other discussions. It's hard for me to imagine how there's any simple solution, or that it's a minor problem which IMO partly explains why we're still here months later.

  And on the topic of the personal attacks, while I've just told another editor that sometimes they need to put stuff said about them they disagree with aside, there is also a limit. IMO these attacks seem to have well breached that limit especially since they are persistent, and I find it very disappointing if we don't treat them that way. It can't be easy to work with someone when they keep saying you have a low intelligence, are a liar etc and I don't think we should expect editors to do so. As I've said before, it's possible to say someone lacks the competence to edit in a certain area without needing to say they have a low intelligence. There comes a point where we have to say enough is enough, and IMO we're well past that.

  A particular problem which BrownHairedGirl doesn't seem to understand is that her attacks are not only angering those she is opposing, they are angering those like me who don't give a fuck about portals. She may have some valid points, but they're often not coming across because she is so terrible at making them.

  And ironically her own words IMO provide a rationale for why it's fair to take action. She lacks the WP:Competence to be able to edit in this area without editing in such away she just puts every off by what she says. I don't know why, and I don't think it matters. I definitely don't think there's any reason to think it has anything to do with her intelligence. But IMO based on the available evidence, it would be best if she is forced aside from the area for the betterment of wikipedia. I'm sure there are others who can argue her PoV, and they'll probably do it far more successfully when BHG hasn't managed to turn everyone against her "side" by her behaviour. (I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I think we have to be realistic that when one of the most outspoken supporters of a PoV is coming across so poorly, it's difficult for that not to colour people's perceptions.)

  Frankly since I only really know about these from when they make them to AN//I, I would be fine just banning any mention of portals on one of the noticeboards for a year and letting them fight it out elsewhere. But I know that's not fair to those involved, nor will it actually solve the problem since someone still has to deal with all the MfDs and other problems that arise.

  Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support #1 - This has become disruptive to the project. There is no rush regarding deleting these portals. How is the project harmed if we leave them be? If an ordinary editor had behaved in this manner would we be here debating? Lets give portals a break. They will still be here in 6 months. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Specifically in regard to BHG's conduct, I've created a page listing a few highly uncivil quotes written by BHG in this ANI section. (User:Vermont/BHGANI) I've left my opinions above, although I hope that her blatant incivility in this section, towards multiple editors, sways those on the fence. Vermont (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1-5 - In anything but the least contentious areas, 1,000s and 100,000s of edits indicate a ferocity beyond natural limits, and naturally induces panic. On this date, an armistice must be declared in the portal wars, enforced upon the resisting combatants. An RfC and guideline (maybe call it a charter?) must guide future developments in the portal area. Excess does not recognize itself, as surely seen in either TTH or BHG. Shenme (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ArbCom is the best venue for these disputes to be resolved as much as possible, which have been intractable in all other venues for many months. I am strongly against punishing @BrownHairedGirl in any way for her remarkable and selfless work cleaning up the portal mess created by others. My personal experience with her as an editor has been informative. We first interacted at CfD and clashed because I didn't know what I was doing there and she called it out, but I had the fortitude to understand I had screwed up in my votes, corrected them, and apologized to her. Our wiki-relationship has had its ups and downs since (yeah, I called her a troll before, which I bet portal fans never realized from our interactions at MfD), but overall, she has been very gracious editing and collaborating with me despite heated clashes and unkind words in the past.

It would be absurd to topic ban her from portals or take away her adminship when the two principal issues at play here are: the swarms of unread junk portals a handful of editors randomly defend for reasons none can articulate and NA1K's ridiculous actions, neither of which are her fault. She's spent well over 1,000 hours over the last seven months cleaning up an enormous mess others created, so please give it a rest that she is in any way the problem in portal-land, which was a 15-year joyride in a candy store that responsible adults have been cleaning up. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support #2, #3, and #4 if the community thinks that it can resolve this. User:BrownHairedGirl is right on all of the technical issues, and has been trying to pull together an RFC, but has faced opposition from the supporters of portals. However, it is clear that these two editors cannot get along and really do need to be interaction banned. BHG is mostly right that the arguments advanced by User:Northamerica1000 are inconsistent and incorrect, but should not be characterizing them as lies. However, it would be better to let ArbCom handle the matter first, and then see what can be done on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• ArbCom is necessary here, I'm afraid. My frustration with this conflict stems largely from BHG, who - the best and most recent example is here - has continually attempted to block any improvement of portals by saying that we need to have RfCs to determine portal structure and content, while voting to delete almost all portals in spite of a total lack of policy or guidelines on which portals should be kept or deleted. It's a continuous double standard and it's bringing a battleground mentality to an already very contentious area, and it's ending up being incredibly difficult for editors like myself who just want to contribute to the project constructively. I don't see any way forward without ArbCom. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 BHG’s conduct has frankly been reprehensible. Other options should be examined, even desysoping or a recall. This is not acceptable behavior from anyone, let alone an admin. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1 BHG's repeated personal attacks need to stop and it is clear that she won't stop voluntarily. I am strongly against taking this matter before the current iteration of ArbCom. They've mishandled too many other situations to be trusted with this one. Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions, support RfC per ScottyWong and BF. Also, I doubt an Arbcom case would be helpful. What's needed is a guideline. – Levivich 00:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support #1-5 for a comprehensive solution to a huge problem that has already gone on way too long. Krow750 (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• So, BHG recently wrote on her talk page: "So sustained incivility directed at me is fine, but my incivility in response is unacceptable? Wow." To me, this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of our civility policies, and the place of an administrator as someone who should respond to incivility with maturity and rationality rather than mirroring those who they percieve as uncivil. I believe their level of incivility is significantly worse than anything I've seen from NA1k, although even assuming that NA1k was uncivil, BHG's thought that it's perfectly justifiable to respond in turn is worrying. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My thought is how wrong I was to assume that my replies to Vermont on my talk page were part of a discussion with an editor who was making a good faith effort to talk civilly about a disagreement. I could and possibly should have halted the discussion when Vermont opened by making false assertions based on their failure to to do 30 seconds of checking before posting, but I foolishly AGfed that there was no malicious intent.

Vermont has already disregarded my request to stay off my talk, and their post here indicates that their aim in the discussion seem to have been to take a quote out of context and weaponise it.

The discussion is at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Selective_Application_of_Consensus.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You told me I would be welcome to comment on your talk page if I retracted the statements that I copied from you. I specifically retracted them. Stop trying to pretend I'm at fault here. I left a response to you, using your exact wording which you rudely used to describe NA1k. You told me it is "spectacular rudeness" and uncivil, which it is, and when faced with the fact that you wrote it, you reverted my edit and kicked me off your talk page. As I explained, my intention was solely to show to you how rude you are to people who you disagree with, and that you should stop. And no, that quote was not taken out of context; you recognized your replies to NA1k and others are uncivil, but you don't yet recognize how your incivility is against policy. Vermont (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Considering past comments, I could reasonably predict a decent-length wall of text that skirts around the whole bit about her writing rude comments to people and focuses on attacking me for asking her to be civil. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, I used the phrase "word soup" to describe a tautologous phrase conveyed no meaning. You abused it to describe a lengthy, reasoned reply, and you have confirmed that your intent as to provoke.

That's cheap trolling, and I have no time for it.

Your statement now that your intention was only to provoke me into something you could cite as rudeness is proof of absolutely nothing other than your own bad faith abuse of my openness to discussion. Your conduct was an uncivil attempt to play disruptive games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You are not allowed to be uncivil to people, I am not allowed to be uncivil to people, NA1k is not allowed to be uncivil to people, no one is allowed to be uncivil to people. You have no right whatsoever to look at someone else's argument, one which they may have spent much more than 10 minutes on, and discount it as junk while regarding your own argument as reasoned and correct. Of course you think you're right, everyone thinks they're right, but that gives you no special priviledge to insult other people while believing you're immune to the 4th pillar of our community. And now you've called me a troll, bad-faith, uncivil, and disruptive, for quoting your words back to you. The people who you used those terms on, Na1k and others, how do you think they felt? Do they not have every right that you do to contribute in an environment free of insult? What about when you called me incompetent in an effort to discount my attempts at an argument at MfD? It's necessary that you recognize your actions in applying rude and uncivil terms against other people, which you recognize are rude and uncivil, is not okay. What if I had called you incompetent, a word which you've used on numerous occasions in discourse? You have no special pass to be uncivil, whether it be because you think you're right, an administrator, or anything else. Incivility is what causes editors to leave our community, and you're doing nothing but perpetuating it with the double-standard I've outlined here. Vermont (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction against BHG unless someone can produce statistics showing that a majority of the portals she has nominated for deletion end up being kept after community discussion. When I stopped participating in the MfDs, BHG's track record was very good—uninvolved editors supported her arguments. Then the pushback started from those that like glitter. Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone ever tried addressing BHG's accusations concerning NA1K beyond exclaiming how naughty the words are? Obviously BHG has become frustrated but that would be due to lack of engagement with the underlying issue. Solving the portal issue based on who can be nice while engaged in a battle won't work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  That seems backwards. Shouldn't the real question be whether or not her accusations have ever been proven? Generally, one doesn't need to fall back on rhetoric and insults when a good case can be made without them. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed? My point is that simplistic hand waving is not suitable when there is such obvious conflict over an important issue (should there be limits regarding what portals are created?). BHG is known to be a good and civil editor so the background that has led to the current situation calls for investigation. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  User:Johnuniq, User:Lepricavark - The statistics that I have been recording on portals do not include who nominated them, but the large majority of the portals that have been nominated for deletion have been deleted, and I am not aware of any portals that were nominated by User:BrownHairedGirl that have not been deleted. Her nominations continue to be detailed and well-researched. Yes, I have "asked BHG what she is getting at". What she is getting at is that User:Northamerica1000 is making unilateral changes to portals in order to improve them to prevent their deletion, but that BHG thinks that the changes do not improve the portals enough to warrant keeping them, and that BHG thinks that NA1k's changes are arbitrary and introduce bias and have other disadvantages. BHG has also objected to the very large number of portals for which NA1k had self-designated as a portal maintainer (at one time as high as 42, although nearly all of those have now been dropped). No one has raised any technical issues that I know of about what BHG has said, except that she has been very uncivil. Johnuniq is correct that the only real criticism of BHG is precisely that her words are naughty, but no one really is answering whether the portals are crud or whether NA1k is making sneaky changes to the portals. My own conclusion is that what NA1k is doing to the portals is something of an improvement, but not enough to warrant keeping them, and that it is being sneaky, and it is introducing bias. That is my analysis, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: It's unfortunate that you are dismissing repeated, rank incivility as mere naughty words. It's also unfortunate that you and Johnuniq can review the above thread, full of BHG posting massive walls of text and attacking the good faith of anyone who disagrees with her, and wonder why people (aside from you, Robert) aren't asking her what she means. However, if were are content to set aside BHG's repeated abuse so that we can launch further accusations of sneakiness at NA1K, then on what basis should we do so? How has he been sneaky (which is an accusation of deliberate bad faith on his part)? And don't refer me to any of BHG's comments. I have no intention of wading through any of her grandiose haystacks hunting for the mythical needle of substance. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support All. When half of a long discussion at ANI is taken up by the two editors continuing their battleground behaviour against each other you something needs to be done. Arbcom isn't a stupid idea either, but lets at least get this one underway to start with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Johnuniq above any sanction against BHG unless someone can produce statistics showing that a majority of the portals she has nominated for deletion end up being kept after community discussion. BHG says above that an editor created (portals) at sustained speeds of up to one per minute, some of them just for the heck of it, and lamented their inability to produce them faster. Most of this portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), with overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout. I participated in those discussions back then and thought that was the end of it. I can't believe this is still going on. Those portals were junk, BHG worked very hard to clear up the disgraceful mess, she should be commended, not sanctioned.Smeat75 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The latter

-EEng

The former

Doing good work for the encyclopedia is not mutually exclusive with incivility, and the former does not justify the latter. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Doing good work for the encyclopedia is not mutually exclusive with incivility, and the former does not justify the latter. Colin M (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. the battleground mentality is extremely excessive and counter-productive. Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Example RfC agenda

1. As a matter of policy, what is the project-focused goal of portals?
2. Should portals be required to be active?
   1. If so, what should be the criteria that define an active portal
      1. Miniumum number of active editors?
      2. Minimum number of edits per month?
      3. Update frequency (i.e. number of updates rather than number of edits per update)?
      4. Article updates?
      5. Page views?
         1. Absolute or relative to something else (e.g. main topic page)?
3. Should we have an anti-gaming criterion?
   1. Updates by editors who do little other than portal updates across multiple topics?
   2. Updates by editors new to the portal, that a reasonable person would perceive as gaming (WP:CLUE)?
4. What should be the removal process?
   1. XfD, PROD, CSD?
   2. How to prevent "school wars" style voting blocks?
   3. Are there any arguments (other than activity) that are or are not normally relevant to whether a portal should or should not be deleted?
5. Should there be a bar to creation?
   1. Should there be a review period for newly related portals, e.g. after 12 months, with a low-bureaucracy removal period if they have not survived the initial enthusiasm?
6. Should there be a bar to nomination for deletion?
   1. Nominations by editors who do little to no constructive work on portals?
   2. Nominations by editors who do little to no work in the topic area?
   3. Nominations by editors who have nominated this or similar portals before?
   4. Nominations who are engaged in a dispute about the contents of the portal?
   5. Nominations by editors who have made significant changes to the portal recently?
      1. What does "recently" mean?
   6. Repeated nominations of the same portal?
   7. Number of concurrent nominations?
7. Should deletion nominations that fail to advance a reason specific to the individual portal(s) nominated be speedily kept?
8. Should we continue to link and reference portals from the banner on the Main Page?
9. In general, should we increase, decrease, or keep-the-same the prominence of portals across the wiki, from the perspective of directing users there?

Feel free to add / amend. Guy (help!) 14:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've added and amended. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow! Thryduulf's proposals are yet another attempt to game the system

No other XFD venue has any restrictions on who can nominate pages for deletion. No other namespace or type of page has such restrictions.

Thryduulf is quite blatantly trying to rig the system in favour of the portal fans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the assumption of bad faith. These are simply questions that should be answered by the RfC, I fully expect that the answer to many of them will be that the restriction is not needed but it is important that comparable restrictions for both sides are discussed by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the bad faith did not need to be assumed. It is structurally bound into your suggestion that only the creators of a particular type of page should be allowed to propose its deletion, because that rigs the field in favour of the creators. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming you are approaching this topic area with a battleground attitude. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You're projecting, Thryduulf. The battleground attitude is your attempt to exclude those who disagree with you with portal deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Wow. You're an administrator as is Thryduulf. My mind is blown. I've never seen an admin assume bad faith about another admin. Doug Mehus T·C 16:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you must be new here! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, in order to keep the process fair, there should be no bar to asking a question, even when the answer is obviously "no". Guy (help!) 17:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I fully support Guy's proposal. I'm sick and tired of... well, this. At this point, anyone looking for proof that the portal crusade has gotten out of hand in terms of incivility and bad faith need only look up. WaltCip (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I've added two more questions about the prominence of portals (one on the Main Page, one more general.) A lot of people seem to be discussing that aspect, and I think we might want to consider whether it is useful or helpful to direct users to portals. I'm extremely skeptical about some of the suggestions to try and revive portals by making them more visible - they've been prominent for a long time, and don't seem to be accomplishing what they were intended for going by the relatively low views and participation. This makes it hard to see why we should be sending users there in their current state. The suggestions to make them even more prominent seem like a solution looking for a problem - all indications seem to be that most users don't need or want portals, and that they're generally just an unnecessary bit of cruft and complication. We can leave the active ones around for the people who use them while sunsetting the general push to make them a major part of the wiki (which, I think, we can all agree had failed, and which it seems hard to justify doubling down on.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Previous portal discussions

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals (April-May 2018)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 157#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals (February-March 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal: Halt the mass deletion of non-spam portals and focus on achieving consensus on portal guidelines (14-27 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#RfC: Ending the system of portals take 2 (19 June 22 September 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 162#Proposal to delete Portal space (September-October 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC: Purposes of Portals (19 July 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 153#RFC: Formalize Standing of Portal Guidelines as a Guideline (18 July 2019)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 152#Portal Guidelines (16-19 July 2019)]]
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 151#RFC: Portals and Project Sponsorship (30 March - 1 May 2019)
• #When will it end (currently open)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive editing and personal attack by User:Tisquesusa (13 October)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted (12-16 October)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Northamerica1000 at MfD (4-8 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Legacypac and portals (22-28 March 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (4-15 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Portal deletion at MfD and G6 tagging and deletion of portal subpages (11-18 April 2019)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Civility issues with User:BrownHairedGirl (14-15 August 2019)
• Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 4#Request for comment: Require that users be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space (11-28 April 2019)

This is almost certainly incomplete, please expand it with any I've missed, and possible improve the order - I've run out of time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these Thryduulf. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The original AN portal discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands_of_Portals

Declined ArbCom Case

https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?oldid=890921122#Portal_Issues

Misconceived RFC proposals

The problem with the RFC proposals above is that they try resolving a problem by focusing on its symptoms rather than its causes.

The underlying causes of the problems with portals are fairly simple:

1. WikiPortals are functionally redundant to head articles, cross-linking, navboxes, and search. Readers don't need them and don't use them. (even the 8 portals linked from the prime place on the mainapge are massively underused compared to other mainpage items)
2. Nearly all WikiProjects have rationally abandoned the portals within their scope (thanks to User:Britishfinance for identifying this problem)
3. Most content-creating editors have also rationally abandoned portals for similar reasons.
4. Despite the evident functional redundancy and lack of reader interest, the community has declined either to delete all portals, or to lay down conditions for their existence.
5. That leaves most portals without wider scrutiny, and all of them without any guidelines
6. Some portals are developed or maintained by lone editors who bring demonstrable skill (e.g. Portal:Law/BD2412)
7. Most of the rest have become a playground in which portal enthusiasts with low general skills and no demonstrable expertise in a topic can make huge changes without scrutiny.
8. Portals do not require the normal intellectually-taxing editing process of discussing how to use which sources, which has left portalspace dominated by such low-skill editors. Some have technical expertise in tasks such as coding, but nearly all lack experience and skill with actual content, and lack skill both in applying policies and in discussing disagreements to reach consensus.
9. This low-skill group has found a comfortable niche in the vacuum created by the rational abandonment of portals by readers and content-creating editors. Portals are the only part of Wikipedia where they can design and maintain large reader-facing pages, with almost free rein on the content, because what little scrutiny is applied usually only comes only from within the low-skill group.
   • For example, Portal:Transport was one of dozens of portals rebuilt by a highly energetic but massively incompetent and serially mendacious editor, who built a hugely POV article list for the portal by a) maximising the number of articles with no regard to bias, even tho a smaller set could have been less biased; b) working off the assessment lists of only one Wikiproject, even tho there are 22 WikiProjects within the field. This level of stupidity doesn't last long in article space, where it is outnumbered by skilled editors, but it has flourished in the under-scrutinised portal space.
10. This low skill base of the portal crew as a whole is long-standing, and is evident in multiple ways: e.g. the failure to establish and sustain community consensus for guidelines on the nature of portals; the extraordinary flakiness of the former featured portals process, which conducted assessments with no checklist of criteria and focused overwhelmingly on presentation rather than on substantive content; the systemic failure of the portals project to assess the quality and importance of portals (most are unassassed); the ease with which they were lured into support/acquiescence with TTH's automation spree, and then for his spam; the persistence of
11. As has happens with content areas of Wikipedia which have become dsyfuctional walled gardens (e.g. longevity and its piles of GRG-cruft, or various types of fiction which became filled with fancruft), the portalspam episode triggered scrutiny by outsiders who have tried to trim the low quality cruft. This outside involvement has been bitterly resented by the portal fans, many of whom lack skills which would be transferable to actual encyclopedic content. For some of them, the low-quality magazine-style portals are the only area of Wikipeda where they can thrive, and they are understandably frightened and threatened by the squeeze on their ecosystem. They have responded with rage, low quality dissembling and deceptions, and with demands to exclude no-fans from scrutiny of portals.

This can be resolved only by the community resolving the core issues, roughly in this order:

1. Why keep portals when readers don't use them?
2. What precise purpose is supposed to be fulfilled by portals? These are pages which consist of a one-at-a-time display of articles from a non-prominent list of articles with no stated clear criteria. What exactly does this offer which is so important that we should keep it even thou readers don't want it?
3. To what extent do any portals actually fulfil that purpose?
4. How can a topic-based portal be sustained when the editors and WikiProjects who work on that topic have no interest in the portal?
5. Apart from deletion, how can we prevent under-scrutinised portals being effectively captured by incompetrent editors, as happened e.g. to Portal:Transport and Portal:Ghana, Portal:Chad

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose because this doesn't seem to address the core problem or, more accurately, question, either, which is why users aren't using portals. To me, they're not prominently placed on the homepage. Instead the homepage is cluttered up with useless "featured articles," "did you know" and "on this day" factoids, and featured photos. The sister projects and other areas of Wikipedia links are useful, but they're all located "below the fold." To me, the DYKs and FAs are useless wiki puffery in which editors clamour for getting their articles featured on the homepage. We waste TOO much time on DYK and FA voting instead of improving Wikipedia. The homepage should be, fundamentally, a navigation aid; not a collection of daily-changing article links. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, getting content on the Main Page is a fun little game that encourages some people to write better articles. It is not clear that taking away the motivation of seeing your article on the Main Page would make people volunteer more in other areas. As for your proposal of turning the Main Page into a navigation aid: we have Portal:Contents which tries that but doesn't do it well. —Kusma (t·c) 19:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, I agree with your comments on Portal:Contents not doing it well; it's too text heavy. I'm just saying, to me anyway, I find the Wikipedia homepage wholly irrelevant. Rarely does an interesting topic get featured I look it. In fact, of late, I've been accessing Wikipedia via the first article page that comes up (usually Canadian Tire Services or Motusbank, both now redirects to other pages). From there, I check my "Watchlist" and then check on a few WikiProjects; hence my thinking to making the Portals figure more prominently and have the FAs and DYKs take up much less "screen real estate." Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Sub-colloquy on issues with creating an RFC)

• @Dmehus: The en.wp main page gets an average of about ~16 million hits per day. The 8 highest-level portals are linked from the absolutely prime real estate on that page, but get only ~1500 hits per day each.

So even if we make the absurdly generous assumption assume that every hit for those portals comes from a mainpage link, that leaves us with less than one in every thousand visitors to the main page using even one of those very prominent portals.

Readers are voting with their feet, and shunning WikiPortals just as they shunned webportals as soon as better navigation tools became available in the late 1990s (powerful search, and massive cross-linking facilitated by CMSes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This still does not explain why your stopping progress on portals. Just cause you hate them is not a reason to block attempts at there improvement or to verbally rape other editors.--Moxy 🍁 00:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not stopping progress on portal. On the contrary, I have repeatedly asked NA1K to collaborate on opening RFCs to resolve key issues around how portals should be built, and that offer remains open.

Sadly, NA1K prefers to make unilateral decisions and create a widespread WP:FAITACCOMPLI, rather than build consensus. They prefer to sneakily and stealthily create a massive breach of POV, without even notifying the topical WikiProject ... and then cite in support of their efforts a guideline which was delisted with their support, which has in any case has never supported POV-pushing.

The Moxy notion of stopping progress on portals is no more than another of Moxy's bullying ways of saying that I am an evil cow for seeking transparency and consensus. It's all much the same logic as Moxy's efforts at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses to bully me into abusing my AWB tools to implement a personal preference of Moxy's for which Moxy refuses to seek consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Why cant you look at yourself in the mirror here and see what you are doing wrong rather than going with a "everybody but me" kind of defense. Can you do a self evaluation to see why so many editors are saying the same things? you aren't at fault for arguments, you are at fault for your conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

KK87, I have looked v hard. No amount of pile-on will alter my view that the structure and population of portals should be decided by consensus at RFC, rather than decided by one prolific editor trying to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. No amount of pile-on will alter my view that stealthily creating a black box portal with massive POV issues is a problem wrt core policy. No amount of anger from Moxy will alter my refusal to breach AWB rules.

My conduct is a mater of challenging these things. Sadly, it seems that there is much greater concern about the tone and language with which that is done than with the substantive problems, which remain unresolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: if you want an RfC, why didn't you just start working on one? If anyone refuses to work on you in designing the RfC then it's their own fault. By your own admission there are plenty of other "portal fans" who can work on you in making a good RfC. Provided you give Northamerica1000 and anyone else entitled to participate, the opportunity to participate, without continued name calling etc, and anyone who does participate gets equal voice, then it seems to me the community is likely to reject anyone's complaints about the RfC. (But these conditions do have to be met. For example, if you work on this in a personal sandbox and barely mention it to anyone else, don't be surprised if the community accepts that the drafting of the RfC wasn't done in a reasonable fashion given how contentious this whole thing is.) Of course if everyone else is so sick of portals that almost no one new participates in the RfC then I guess the outcome of the RfC isn't going to help, but still that doesn't seem to be your concern. From what I've seen, I imagine the more likely scenario is that the drafting of the RfC degenerates and you all won't be able to come to consensus what should be in the RfC which is why I supported all of Guy's proposals. At a minimum, I suggest you should first try to come agreement on how the final wording of the RfC should be decided that everyone is happy with. It would be good if User:Northamerica1000 explicitly agrees to participate in drafting an RfC but at the same time I can understand their reluctance to agree to something so abstract after all this time. Especially made in the middle of this highly contentious ANI. (I believe you said you made this proposal before, I don't know where and why Northamerica1000 didn't agree but IMO it's not worth discussing.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I didn't start working alone on an RFC because that can look like a "please approve my draft" exercise.

I thought we were far more likely to get a productive process if the RFC evolved out of dialogue. And given the amount of disruptive unilateralism that has been happening around portals, I was trying to lead by example rather than simply creating my own fait accompli. Sadly, it seems that I was mistaken, and that the preferred modus operandi is to charge ahead unilaterally and then yell "bullying" etc when challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: For clarity, I wasn't suggesting you start working alone on an RfC and then submit it for approval. I guess I didn't explain very well but I was suggesting that was the sort of thing which the community (and I don't mean those you may call "portal fans") is likely to reject such a process as flawed and is the sort of thing you shouldn't do. In fact, an RfC evolving out of dialogue was precisely what I was suggesting.

Find a place where it's suitable (as said, I think definitely no one's sand box) and mention briefly what you want to do. I have no idea if there is some sort of noticeboard that those involved in portals are likely to read, I suspect not from what I've read. In which case it would probably be fair to invite people to it using some process which isn't canvassing but ensures most who are highly interested in portals, whether generally supportive or opposed, are invited. I assume it's likely Northamerica1000 would end up invited in such a case, I would hope they would participate but if it not they would still have to accept the result of a fair process. Since you started it, it may be necessary to prod the process along by making some initial proposals and other stuff, it may not be.

Ultimately provided everyone is given a fair chance, IMO it will be hard for people to complain. But someone needs to at least initiate it. (As said, IMO the far bigger problem is what happens when you have a dispute, unfortunately I have no simple suggestions for that. A mini non advertised RfC on an RfC can sometimes help, but not always.)

My main point was there was no reason why Northamerica1000's not responding to your suggestion had to be a roadblock to developing any RfC. Nor would it mean the RfC wouldn't evolve in a fair process out of dialogue with all interested parties feedback and views taken on board fairly in it's development.

It seems to me this is the way to lead by example. And if I'm blunt, not what you've done. There's no need for anything to be unilateral or "fait accompli", but nor do you have to wait for any particular editor to respond. Especially since I believe you feel, there are plenty of our editors who's views are not that far from Northamerica1000. Continually fighting with another editor, to the extent that you are making personal insults that do not in any way advance the conversation, whatever their failings, is not in my book, leading by example.

I get that you strongly disagree with a bunch of stuff Northamerica1000 has done, but it doesn't justify what you've done, and maybe more importantly, what you've done IMO often hasn't helped anything. Personally, I think it would have been better to just ignore some of the stuff, while I haven't looked in great detail, even if the changes Northamerica1000 made were not beneficial, from what I saw none of it was so bad that it really matter so much if it was instantly reverted, let alone make such an aggressive challenge understandable even if I can understand why you weren't happy about the way it came about. Still if you wanted to challenge it, you could do so in a manner which didn't require all this, while continuing the development of the RfC with whoever else was taking part.

If you had developed a successful RfC with other interested parties, ultimately the portals NorthAmerica1000 worked on would need to comply. I think the community would rightfully reject any attempt by them to keep them in a manner which didn't comply with our guidelines simply because they just changed them when they were aware of the controversy and chose to go ahead anyway.

IIRC, I intentionally did not support any action against any editor last time this was at ANI precisely because I hoped someone would do something which would help improve the situation. From where I stand, you could have done that, but you didn't hence why we're here now and why I'm now supporting.

Again, you didn't have to do anything unilaterally or in a "fait accompli" manner. IMO you should have led by example by doing something which would hopefully help lead us out of the mess we're in now, precisely by starting a dialogue for an RfC (and whatever else). Actually, it was already a bit late by then as other than it already having IMO gone on for too long, I expect the process would have been more fraught than it needed to be since the parties clearly were quite annoyed with each other for various justified reasons which yes included what you'd said. (To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that was the only thing, or that you didn't also have good reasons to be seriously annoyed.) But I still hope that even now, you all are able to put that aside and come up with something to put to the community and we won't know until it's tried.

Technically it could be anyone to start the process, including me. In fact having a neutral party who takes a more leading rule is often the best way to minimise problems. But I'm not interested especially given my often expressed attitude towards the portal disputes, and don't think I have the experience. And it's not clear to me anyone else is that interested. And frankly seeing all that's happened at ANI would likely put many off, and again yes this includes but is by no means exclusively referring to what you've said and done.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed: take this to Arbcom

But first, please read this: [65]

I propose that this be taken to Arbcom on the basis of it being a dispute that the community is clearly unable to resolve.

I further propose that one of you who is into this sort of thing post a draft Arbcom request in your userspace and invite your opponents to comment/edit, with the goal of having an Arbcom request that is endorsed by at least some of the major players. The main request should be a NPOV question; you can lobby for what you want done in your Arbcom comment section. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the problem is that ArbCom can't take on the core issue, which is: do portals have a purpose, and if so, what criteria, if any, should govern their creation, maintenance, and deletion. A bit like infoboxes, where the finding was "meh" on whether to have them or not but beatings for everyone who warred over them. Guy (help!) 17:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom was able to help resolve some of the intractable problems re:infoboxes; surely a case is worth considering re:portals. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. All we are going to get from an RfC is the usual characters having the same argument again (as you can see from the "Support #1" votes above from the Portal supporters). This needs to go to ArbCom who can look at the behaviour of all parties dispassionately. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa as well. While Arbcom won't say yay or nay to having a portal, it can address the behavior issues within the battle. — Ched (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I know! We can have the WMF Trust & Safety Team solve this!! (Guy Macon runs for cover as everyone throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support taking this to ARBCOM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom declined a case on this topic already in March 2019: here— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand your thinking - and perhaps right at the moment isn't best, but once ACE2019 has been resolved, I think the ripeness of it may have turned. — Ched (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds this thread is way too long; it's becoming hard to reply to. The parties involved need to be separated. I prefer JzG's proposal, but would support Guy M's proposal of having some editor/admin create a draft userspace ArbCom proposal on which we could comment Doug Mehus T·C 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking to Arbcom. This has degenerated into both sides getting into escalating beligerance, and multiple attempts by the community have failed to resolve it. There's very poor behaviour on both sides that needs to be examined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC) (moved from above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose Per Guy's argument above, and per there still being reason to think a community solution would work. There's a huge amount of history and context here. Lets not take up the Arbs time & energy on this until we've at least tried a simple iban. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the monumental list of portal discussions above is somewhat damming - obviously a couple were on the underlying thoughts but a number are about how the dispute has been waged and we've not resolved the problem yet. Pending ARBCOM making superceding temporary injunctions, I do still think that a 2-way IBAN and temporary TBANs for both parties to avoid first-mover advantage from the IBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support sending to ArbCom, but I will note that an extended discussion of portals that began on 1 March 2019 was closed on 11 April 2019 with no consensus except for the view of many editors that the community was too divided to resolve the matter and that it should be sent to ArbCom. A case request was filed to send the issue to ArbCom, and it was declined. I said at the time that the idea that the community was a few weeks away from resolving the issue was too optimistic. The community did not resolve portal issues within a few weeks or a few months. I still think that this will have to be resolved by ArbCom, because I don't have the faith that ArbCom had in April that the community would be able to resolve the matter. But that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This seems very like the infobox issue which was likewise intractable and so had to be referred to arbcom. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, as I have noted above. I think that we need to be clear, however, that there are two distinct controversies here. One is the establishment of some rules for addressing the status of content in portal space in an orderly manner. The other is the specific behaviors, actions, and accusations that have welled up recently with respect to portals. bd2412 T 00:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support although I think we should give it a few more days and see if the original proposal gain consensus. I imagine a case will take at least that long to develop anyway. If any of the original proposals gain consensus, the editor's primarily involved can consider whether they will need to take this to arbcom or whether to give it another chance with the implementation of the communities decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Conduct issues make resolving this dispute hard if not impossible. The factionalism makes any community-originated sanctions unlikely. Clearly an intractable dispute that needs a structured discussion to resolve. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support taking this to ArbCom. The issues involved have been intractable for many months and the community has been unable to reach a resolution to poor behavior by some or the issue of swarms of clearly worthless portals still in existence that some want kept for unexplainable reasons other then WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support After BHG's reprehensible conduct in this discussion, I see no other option. Vermont (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as proponent, and because there is evidence of behavioral problems in this area that the community has not been able to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support It seems the ongoing issues cannot be resolved at the community level and the community has made concerted efforts to resolve over many months. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for far too long, and the community has not been able to resolve it. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Seeing that the community has made some unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation, maybe an WP:RFAR is in the works as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Before !voting further, editors should look at the last 20 closed MfDs of portals (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates). The standard of analysis is as good, or higher imho, than AfD (and I have plenty of AfD experience). The admins closing these portal MfDs are some of the most experienced/active uninvolved closers in WP and include: Scottywong, JJMC89, Killiondude, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and many many more. Rarely do you ever see these closers criticize the standard/quality of the arguments around portals, and at least, it is evident that a lot of hard work has been done at MfD to clean up the mess – and it is a mess. Just look at the MfD of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alaska, where the MfD is a long thread over an abandoned portal that is a link to the Main Article Alaska, and an article on a polar bear, and on a sea-lion, neither of which are relevant/notable enough to Alaska to be in Main Article Alaska; same with lighthouses. While the community has decided not to unilaterally delete all portals, a lot of editors have toiled away for years now, respecting this decision and addressing portals one-by-one in good-quality arguments that in almost all cases, result in a deletion by a wide range of experienced + uninvolved administrators. Some of the comments above (I am not going to name them), I find unworthy to these editors (of which lately, I include myself), who have given their time to this process. Therefore, unless the community is going to change its mind on portals (which I doubt, and ArbCom is not going to intervene on content), this process will continue. I am not going to opine on the BHG/NA1K interactions, which I do find very unpleasant and increasingly unnecessary, however, as I have said to both BHG and NA1K – two of the most productive and valuable editors in WP – if we declared a moratorium on Portal deletions for 5-years, that wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of them (e.g. +80-90%) are going to collapse of their own accord anyway. Whatever purpose they served 10 years ago, they are now functionally obsolete to Main Article+Navboxes on one side, and WikiProject Directory on the other side. There are many examples of portals where the Main Article is indefinitely protected due to extensive vandalism (e.g. Alaska, Mesopotamia), but the portal requires no protection, as the vandals have given up on it. It would be such a shame to lose one or both of the best contributors in WP over a tool that is already far down the highway of obsolesce, and in almost all cases, will not be coming back. Britishfinance (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It means nothing that a group of very adept closing Admins did not comment on unacceptable behavior in their close. Behavior issues are addressed at the proper venues after proper complaints have been made. Authentically, kudos are in order for these closers and their skill.

Regarding arbcom - I've ivoted "support" for Arbocom intervention. I'm going by what I see in this ANI and at a recent MFD. I have to find the link for that MFD again. BHG has engaged in the same personal attacks over, over, and over again - and these are only two discussions, albeit long discussions. I am an uninvolved editor. I have not participated in any RFCs or MFDs related to any portals.

What I am seeing is BHG creating a hostile atmosphere that is anathema to the collegial type editing that Wikipedia strives for. Losing a major contributor, or more than one, is not a sound argument for giving a pass on disruptive behavior. One of the problems is, BHG's attacks overshadow issues they are trying to point out about the behavior of one or more other editors. And, as has been shown, BHG's attacks have occured in other discussions, for which links are provided in the previous section. Also, if there is ongoing factionalism in these Portal RFCs and MFDs, then that needs to be addressed as well. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: This is more of a tit for tat behavior. And even if BHG is guilty of any misconduct at all, the fact remains that NA1k's conduct has been no better, as has been proven multiple times. ToThAc (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is gaslighting. Misconduct by one editor does not justify gross, repeated, shameless misconduct by another editor. It's nothing to do about whether BHG is justified and has everything to do about the sort of hostile environment this creates.--WaltCip (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: You do have a point about potential gaslighting, so it might be better to just cite a good example.

I just now learned that there was in fact a fairly broad consensus to eliminate the subpage-based listing of portal content in favor of lead-section transclusions in a community proposal that even BHG herself supported. But even though that partially nullifies the argument that NA1k's implementation of this consensus was "sneaky", potentially unintentional gaslighters (such as myself) still appear to have the argument of NA1k repeatedly failing to justify said proposal as the basis for their actions (hence BHG's reversions were based on misunderstandings she would only just now be aware of) and implementing things clearly outside of the established consensus (such as failing to disclose why they selected the content they added to portals).

In my unbiased conclusion, I believe this is a case where one editor is creating a fait accompli whether it was their intention or not (NA1k), while the other is assuming no clue (BHG). @NA1k: I don't wish to be biased in any way, so would you care to comment on my analysis of your behavior? I'm all ears. @BHG: did NA1k ever cite the consensus here as justification for his actions a month ago? (Feel free to answer this as well, NA1k.) ToThAc (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@ToThAc: I am not aware of any instance where NA1K cited Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 6#Portals are moribund as a reason for their actions.

I have just read through that discussion for a second time, and I don't see any consensus emerging from it, let alone a formal closure. A lot of ideas were discussed, but I don't see any consensus being reached. I am astonished by the suggestion that I supported there any proposal for how to structure portals; my one comment in that discussion (timestamp 14:32, 29 March 2017) was to support a purge and consolidation. I did not comment on structure.

In the course of other discussions in 2019, I have supported the move towards excerpt transclusion to replace the content-forked subpages which are maintenance failure a vulnerability. I have not endorsed doing so as a "black box" model without any visible, linked list of selected articles. The best model I have seen so far is Portal:Wind power, which displays a list on the face of the page. I am not thrilled with its layout, but the transparency is there to facilitate scrutiny, and improve usability for readers who don't want the excerpts.

But this mining of two year-old discussions seems to me to a big diversion. NA1K set out to do a massive restructuring of dozens of portals. NA1K didn't cite any prior consensus for doing so. NA1K didn't post anywhere to explain their plan. NA1K didn't seek any input on whether their preferred method was actually supported, let alone specifically seek support on it. NA1K didn't notify any WikiProjects or any other stakeholders. This was a unilateral WP:FAITACCOMPLI.

In 2019, NA1K has been a prolific participant in discussions at WT:WPPORT. They commented there on many issues, and started lots of threads, so it is very hard to see any good faith explanation of why they chose not to even notify the project of what was clearly a plan for widespread restructuring, let alone seek consensus that it was a god idea both in principle and in detail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• edit conflict I've updated several portals before without disclosing or needing to disclose as to why I added specific articles, though I almost always add featured content. There's not enough editors updating these to have a substantive discussion about what to include, and portals have shifted away from being a quasi-magazine to now being more of a navigational structure for quality content. Portals are currently the wild west, there's no style guide for how to improve them, and that's one of the biggest reasons why we're here - apparently any edit NA1k makes can be reverted for going "against consensus" because there is no consensus, but NA1k has made a number of constructive edits and it's tough from me as an outside party to see exactly which rules they've been breaking when no rules really exist in the first place. I've worked constructively with NA1k to bring a couple portals up to speed, including on some of these portals where the changes "weren't discussed" and the edits were constructive. NA1k to justify all their portal edits isn't required anywhere, and the fact we're discussing it at all demonstrates the battleground which we overlook. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict Why does anyone believe this one editor need anyones ok to edit theses pages? As the editor even posted what was going most of the time as seen here. This has not happened as much to other editors...so why this admin -because someone thinks there an idiot is not a valid reason? --Moxy 🍁 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, you are getting to one of the core issues of portals - there are no regulations/rules around portals (unlike Main Articles which have full PAG). Mass-update of portals to give an artificial illusion of activity and maintainence is not what I think is meant to happen. When BHG has tried to engage with NA1K on a portal-by-portal basis (as only she could do), the mass-update approach breaks down? Beeblebrox's comments about The Portal Rescue Crew on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alaska are this very issue. Abandoned, artificially supported portals, give the impression to potential Alaska focused editors, that WP is a failing project. Why do this to ourselves? Britishfinance (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not correct in fact we have had a few portals do very well in updates when Brown is not around - when brown is around they revert any changes by multiple editors. (i.e as seen here )with walls of text not related to the portal at hand Portal talk:Australia. We here at wikipedia follow editor discretion and use Wikipedia:Portal#Features of portals for guidance.--Moxy 🍁 00:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy that diff you posted is to NA1K's sandbox. It is utterly bizarre that you seem to think that an edit to a personal sandbox is some sort of notification to other editors. (I don't sniff around other editors sandboxes, and visit them only when asked or when they appear in cleanup categories). Your diff has the opposite impact to what you intended: the fact that NA1K created such a list but apparently chose to post only in their own sandbox looks to me like evidence of an intent to be sneaky about the scale of changes they were making.

As to this has not happened as much to other editors ... that's simply because no other editor has done anything anywhere close to NA1K's mass restructuring of portals. I spotted it a whiff of it one day when I was looking at the relatedChanges to Category:All portals, and then looked at NA1K's portalspace contribs. That was when I noticed the scale of what was happening, and started the examination which led me to begin reverting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Its very concerning that your not reading what is posted by others as the chart in the sandbox has already been presented to the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted.--Moxy 🍁 00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: its very concerning that you choose to me berate for responding to what you actually wrote, and to falsely accuse me of not reading. The only not reading in this exchange is your failure to read your own words before attacking me.

You posted a link to a sandbox, and that is what I commented on.

Now you say it was also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Portal updates reverted ... but you don't seem to notice that was that thread was posted in response to my reverts (which you definitely should have noticed, because you started the thread[66] about those reverts). So what you have unintentionally achieved is to reinforce my point that NA1K did not advertise their mass takeover of portals while it was underway, and instead advertised it only after the fact.

This is yet another example of why I have said several times in other ways that you are a repeatedly disruptive factor in discussions, because you do not demonstrate remotely effective communication skills. Instead, you start exchanges like this in which you generate a lot of heat and give a strong impression of having little or no regard either for either the facts which you assert or for their significance. The repeated need to counter your streams of false and/or misplaced assertions wastes the time of other editors and drains their patience ... and then you hypocritically complain that the responses which debunk your nonsense are walls of text. I don't believe that you are consciously or intentionally trolling, but conduct like this is a technique used strategically by some clever trolls who so understand how disruptive it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support For BHG being held accountable. My proposal below was not allowed on ANI space and it contained why BHG should be desysop. At Arbcom, other experienced users can have a closer look at the reasons. It would also bring a possible resolution to this discussion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Further comment to my Oppose (above). As I said above, I think the process of portal MfDs will go on; however, unfortunately, I don't think ArbCom is going to add anything useful in that regard. Most of the major portal RfCs were split affairs, and any real consensus, outside of small RfCs which are not really meaningful (often for good reasons), was not forthcoming. RfCs carried out in the heat of this ANI will probably even be more detrimental to the longer-term resolution of the portal mess; untimately, the functional obselence of the vast majority of portals (per above), will see their own rapid deterioration continue at pace. Somebody in 10 years time, will delete most of the portals in WP (but not all), and nobody will probably care.

However, the specific issue of BHG/NA1K interactions are undoubtably very problematical. I understand the basic argument of BHG's first problem with NA1K, in that his mass-updates across many portals is not how portals are meant to work (e.g. meant to have proper topic-interested maintainers/enthusiasts), and NA1K's actions are artificially extending the time-scale of their demise (like TTH did in 2016). While I agree with BHG on her technical point, her language to NA1K is not acceptable and way off base, no question.

However, BHG also accuses NA1K of further behaviour (which she describes as "sneeky" or being a "liar"), around the technical way in which he has attempted mass-updates that mekes them hard for anybody but proficient editors like BHG to undo or spot. I don't understand this argument. If BHG is correct, then it is a different issue, and one could argue that BHG that been driven "off the cliff" (because her language is "off the cliff" in my, and I think most editors view, regardless of their view on portals), by NA1K.

Ultimately, we would either need a targeted ArbCom to look at this issue (either BHG is unacceptably/unfairly bullying NA1K, or NA1K has been doing things that he should not have been doing), OR, we get some uninvolved senior admin who understands the technical detail of portals (but is not a portal enthusiast, understandably), and what NHG is accusing NA1K of (e.g. somone like Scottywong). Anything else will be a mess in my view, and will produce no useful outcome to the project, and a huge loss of editing-power from one or both of the most productive editors on the project. We owe editors like NA1K and BHG more targeted and considered analysis, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I notice Scottywong has kind of started this at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Help me understand. Britishfinance (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Does this really need a consensus here? Can't someone just open one if they think it has reached the level of needing Arb involvement. AIRcorn (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, they can, but a case will have more clout if it shown that there is a strong consensus among editors that other methods of resolution have failed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Arbcom will not and cannot investigate the underlying issues regarding portals. All Arbcom can do is count how many bad words have been used by each participant and urge the community to hold a discussion. Rather than wringing our hands over the fact that BHG has made certain accusations, an investigation of the issues should occur. Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed? Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: "Has anyone asked BHG what she is getting at? Has any response been analyzed" Last time this was brought to ANI, less than a month ago, I tried to mediate a discussion on how to move forward at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Talking it out. Specifically asking how they both "think we can move forward from this and de-escalate" and "What is it you both want to see happen?". As you can see from that discussion and this one, it was not a successful strategy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. BHG has made an almost record number of unsubstantiated personal attacks without any admin doing their job and blocking them (As far as I can see from the above mess, the 'death by section overload' tactic seems to be well in hand here). A normal editor or IP who repeatedly called someone else stupid (and don't think snide references to dunning-kruger make you seem more clever) would have been blocked for significant periods of time by now. Neither has any editor or admin seen fit to enforce WP:NPA which allows anyone to remove personal attacks. So if no one is going to do anything, send it to Arbcom so they can put their official stamp of approval on BHGs bad behaviour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. User BHG's sustained attacks are unacceptable at this point. Many users have tried to negotiate, but to no avail. It usually ends with user BHG claiming their bullying is WP:Spade and then the insults get extended to the negotiating party until they give up and duck out. Several solutions have been proposed, most along the lines of "let us punish both sides equally", as some kind of ill-fitted compromise. Which of course is ridiculous. You don't punish both bully and victim because you are annoyed by the ruckus. I get it, nobody wants to read the tens of thousands of words that come along with portal discussions. Let ArbCom handle it then. --Hecato (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The name-calling, personal attacks and failure to assume good faith have been going on for a very long time without any admin stopping them, so Arbcom is the only resource left to us. I agree with the comments above that this isn't a case of "a plague on both your houses" but a situation where there is a clear bully and a clear victim. On the underlying content issue I would lean towards the position taken by the bully, but that doesn't excuse such behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Phil Bridger; Support. If the community is actually able to express some consensus on this, then yes, perhaps ARBCOM can help somewhat. Sm8900 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional support: I just want to be completely clear here: I'm supporting this action only if it questions the general individualized civility of everyone participating in portal deletion discussions (myself included) as was established in this ARBCOM case, though since I wholeheartedly feel that BHG's actions aren't the only root in this conflict, I can't find myself supporting otherwise. ToThAc (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Abolish Portals, please

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

---

If only the community would've followed through at Village Pump & chosen to abolish all portals :( GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't helpful, we have already had two lengthy discussions with a clear community consensus not to abolish all of the portals. At this point its a WP:DEADHORSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I like the idea of Portals, so wouldn't support such a proposal. In fact, see above, where I've argued for featuring the portals more prominently on the homepage instead of useless (in my view) FAs and DYKs. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 19:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Best to abolish them, as they're more a negative asset, then a positive. I've never seen the value of portals, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point, such proposals are in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. bd2412 T 19:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly.... nobody at the moment wants another lengthy debate on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree not the time but also agree they don't work as we though they would....be it because of lack of accessibility due to mobile view limitations or the labour intensity of the old style portals making them outdated. If a few are to stick around I belive Portal:Canada can server as an example of what a portal can provide....being a showcase for featured and vital content while providing a navigation aid (cotents) and introduction to the backside of Wikipedia by way of project introduction - Wikipedia:Portal#Purposes of portals.--Moxy 🍁 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with portals is that their very low utility and very low readership means that most of them have been rationally abandoned by the more skilled editors who might have built them into something which adds a little more value. For similar reasons, they have also been abandoned by most active WikiProjects.

As a result, most (tho not all) portals have become the playground of

• those who like creating Rube Goldberg machines: vast forests of templates, Lua modules and sub-pages just to display an excerpt which is only marginally better than the excerpts built into the Wikimedia software. Most portals are basically just an absurdly baroque wrapper round a short list of articles which could be displayed in a few lines of [[Article1]] * [[Article2]] etc
• very low-competence editors such as Moxy and esp NA1K. NA1K charges around a vast range of topic areas in which they have no demonstrable expertise or skill, making lists without clear criteria which would enable other editors to examine why those articles have been chosen over others. NA!K's competence levels are so abysmally low that they are either unable or unwilling even to acknowledge that there is a serious problem in their choice to crate a list of massive bias even on the broad topic of transport, where they populated the portal with a list where of 50% of the geographically-tied articles relate to their own country.

Even in that extreme case, when NA1K was challenged about it, they failed to do what any honest and competent editor would do: promptly acknowledge that they had screwed up really badly, and that some wholly different approach was needed.

Most of the antagonism over portals derives from their collapse into this status of a playground for the incompetent, who bitterly resent being challenged about the abysmal quality of what they create with their low skills, and are frightened that their playground is shrinking.

This structural problem could be resolved either by deleting all portals, or by the wider community making a much firmer grip of how portals should be designed and built. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Propose immediate block for yet another personal attack by BrownHairedGirl against NA1k and Moxy, just above. I'm too involved in the portal dispute to do it myself, but I can't understand how this harassment and bullying has been tolerated for so long, and BHG now continues to attack and bully other editors in a thread started because she has been bullying and harassing other editors. Is the WMF right and we are a pro-bullying pro-harassment website that can't get its house in order? Even if BHG were right about portals, I can't see any excuse for this anymore. —Kusma (t·c) 20:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem we keep running into....an administrator not willing to engage others with any respect.--Moxy 🍁 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I show great respect to editors who try to work in good faith within their skill zone. Those like you who repeatedly demonstrate bad faith and refuse to recognise your own imitations get less respect from me.

As one example, it's only a few days since you engaged in sustained bullying of me at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses because I refused to accede to your repeated insistence that I should abuse tools such as AWB in pursuit of your desire to circumvent long-stranding aspects of interface design. You were especially outraged that I insisted that I would have no part of that unless there was a clear community consensus to do so.

I do not express respect for an editor engaging in that sort of bullying and contempt for consensus ... and I have no respect at all for your blatant hypocrisy in behaving like that and then calling me all sorts of names . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Not sure what your linking to when it comes to a personal attack on you at that page. But it is odd that after that talk you changed some inline-portal templates limiting accessibility for 50 percent of our readers. You can see how time and time again many are not convinced your edits related to portals are made with our readers in mind and has lead to numerous complaints about edits and behavior.--Moxy 🍁 21:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: if you had genuine concerns and wanted to know why, you could simply have come to my talk page and asked why I changed some inline-portal templates. But sine you chose to make a drama of it here, this is the answer.

My AWB setup for updating portal links after deletions does not change the portal template in use. In most cases, this works fine, but in cases where {{portal-inline}} has been used there is a problem when one portal links is replaced with two, because {{portal-inline}} takes only one portal as parameter. I usually let my AWB job do the replacement, and then cleanup the errors.

After the deletion of Portal:Indian classical music, its links needed to be replaced with links to Portal:India and Portal:Music. I used a different methodology, and manually handled those cases of {{portal-inline}}. AFAICR, I used a variety of approaches depending on context, and in some of those cases, such as [67], I used other portal templates which take more than one parameter. It depended on what seemed to be the neatest and easiest solution. In that case {{Portal bar}} seemed both easiest and neatest.

If Moxy or any other editor wants to deprecate any portal template such as {{Portal bar}}, then they are free to bring it to TFD. Meanwhile, I used a valid portal template to resolve a problem caused by {{Portal-inline}}, to ensure that links were displayed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Even a moron like me would have simply used a second inline template to not hide the portal to 50 percent of our readers. Again think what is best for our readers.--Moxy 🍁 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, that would be your choice. I chose not increase vertical bulk, and instead to reduce it by displaying the portal links prominently in a {{Portal bar}} in (AFAICR) about 5 or 10 cases.

You have a particular personal obsession with using only {{Portal-inline}}, for reasons which you believe are important. I weighed the benefits differently. As I noted above, if you want the community to deprecate any portal template such as {{Portal bar}}, then open a TFD and seek consensus for your view. But, unless and until there is consensus to do so, {{portal bar}} remains a valid alternative, used on 74337 pages. So back off your bullying. This is just a continuation of your personal attacks on me on at MFD:Portal:Lighthouses, where you demanded that I use AWB to make changes to implement your personal preference. WP:RFC is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This could be what the main problem is (understanding of others intent) ...was no demand nor any attack on you at that page...as for portalbar ..that is a good choice and is one of the temples we got fixed to work in mobile view. But that was not what my example was.--Moxy 🍁 00:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, if you truly believe that NA1k and Mo on you to do anythinxy. perhaps its a cominication are too incompetent to edit here, you should either start attempts to ban them (I guess you know where to find the ArbCom), or you should rejoice that they spend so much time on niche low-viewership things like portals instead of in places where they could do more serious damage. It is quite difficult to disrupt the encyclopaedia using portals (again, pageviews and number of editors involved are not huge), but you have succeeded many times to blow the issue up to epic proportions by focusing on contributors instead of content. Bullying is bad and the ends do not justify the means. —Kusma (t·c) 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kusma: I recoil at the bureaucracy of an ArbCom case. Months of diff-farming does my head in. After The Troubles case ~12 years ago, I vowed never again if I could avoid it. And my experience of ANI is that is good at simple, immediate issues, but very poor at handling cases involving prolonged issues with several people, esp if the miscreants have a vocal fan club. (Part of the flaw is structural: non-admins get equal voice in the decision-making, so its not really an admin board).

So I hoped that progress could still be made without bans, by enough outside editors getting involved to outweigh the vocal-but-incompetents. Most of the time this has worked well, but every now and then it all flares up, as it has just done over transport, or as Moxy tried to do with P:Lighthouses.

If you actually look across the range of MFDs, you can see that I have tried v hard to focus on content. I spend a lot of time researching and writing detailed researched, rationales (to the portal crew has denounced me for that: it's "intimidation", they said, because they prefer ilikeit debates).

The problems arise when the likes of NA1K arrive and post nonsense. Moxy mostly just posts garbled hot air, but NA1K specialisses in truthiness: well-written nonsense which is structured like reason, but littered with non-sequiturs and falsehoods and half-truth. A debate/discusison format is ill-equipped to deal with sustained half-truths like that, so things can kick off as NA1K responds with verbose scattergun nonsnense. You can see an example of it further up this page, where NA1K accused me of doing "exactly the same thing" as they dis, even tho I had done the exact opposite. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Kusma: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

We are here to build that enyclopedia.

Building an encyclopedia requires skills.

Editors who lack the skills to contribute effectively in a given area are expected to have the self-awareness to recognise their limitations and find other way of contributing. Failure to do so is disruptive.

Massive disruption has been caused, and is being caused on an ongoing basis, by the failure of those editors to work within the limits of their own competence.

There is now a persistent problem that those who challenge this disruption caused by this incompetence are accused of all sorts of wickdeness for pointing to the emperor's nakedness.

If the solution is to silence the critics, then the problem will not be resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, That's true...I do agree with this, "Massive disruption has been caused, and is being caused on an ongoing basis, by the failure of those editors to work within the limits of their own competence." I try and limit my editing to Canadian politics, corporations, and North American radio and television stations. I wonder if part of the problem may be the country-specific WikiProjects whereby editor-members are editing, on a mass scale, on topics which they have little knowledge but are colocated based on their being in the same country? Perhaps we need a re-think of WikiProjects such that we eliminate country- and geographic-specific WikiProjects? Doug Mehus T·C 20:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just country-specific portals that are the problem—it's just that you're seeing those because they're the ones that are potentially viable and have consequently survived deletion. TTH's portal-creation script was based on search terms and was very scattergun, and we ended up with things like Jannie de Beer in Portal:Alcoholic drinks. (I have no idea if that was a real example or not—that's just one I made up to illustrate the issue—but anyone who was there can confirm that I'm not being unfair.) ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, True, and I don't disagree with you. I didn't realize editors were creating portals via script. I assumed most were created manually. Excuse my Pollyanna syndrome. What I meant was the WikiProjects (not Portals) contributing to the perceived, if not real, problem of editors editing beyond their topical competence. The Canada Portal is a good example of a portal (but so was the now-deleted Star Trek one). The real problem, I think, is the country WikiProjects (i.e., WikiProject Canada; WikiProject United States of America, etc.). Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the main problem with country WikiProjects is that they tend to be too large to have much coherence. I don't quite see how WikiProjects cause people to edit outside of their competence. Most people tend to edit topics they are interested in, and from my own experience trying to cheerlead the Germany project I can tell you it is rather hard to find people who will help with some "important" topic that they don't enjoy editing. YMMV of course. Anyway, this is off-topic and might be better at the idea lab. —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

In 2018, a script was used to assist in creating portals, all or almost all of which have been deleted. The script has been blanked and the templates which it used have been deleted. Certes (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, Dmehus. I try to limit my editing in similar ways. My topics are politics and modern history in Ireland and the UK.

However, this has almost nothing to do with WikiProjects, which have largely abandoned portals. Most Wikiprojects as less tha active, but insofar as they are still functioning, WikiProjects do prvide a forum for steering editors away from damage.

This is about portals, where NA1K in particular has charged in and rebuilt many dozens of portals on a vast range of topics. At one stage they had even listed themself as the "maintainer" of over 42 portals, including Ghana, Free software, Guatemala, Biochemistry, Money, Djiboti, Tanks, Moldova. After repeated criticism, they removed themself as maintainer, but went on to sneakily rebuild dozens more portals on topics where they have with no demonstrable expertise. Every one of those which I have examined in detail was very poor quality work.

This is the Dunning–Kruger effect on steroids. NA1K has some bizarre delusion that the have some magic skill which gives them expertise in all these diverse topics, and doesn't learn to change course when the evidence is set out that they have screwed up yet again. Part of the reason this continues is the portal fan club, in which low-skill editors are dominant. None of them as severely deluded as NA1K, but they cheer on NA1K against what they say are the bad nasty people who "bully" NA1K by challenging the failings. So NA1K continues in a bubble. It's a dystopian group version of Randy in Boise, with lots of Randys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As one of the low-skilled editors who continue to cheer portals, this was probably my favourite diff from the recent discussion on Portal talk:Australia. And I love the argument you need "expertise" in a topic to improve a portal, or, indeed, anything on the encyclopaedia. With some simple researching skills, I've added citations to many topics I've never heard of before, and portals should be even easier to update if there's an associated WikiProject. Requiring "expertise" has never been a rule anywhere on Wikipedia, and is just another example of how BHG continually moves the goalposts on portal-related discussions to ensure no progress ever happens. SportingFlyer T·C 10:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

So far as I could see then, and so far as I can see now, SF was the only Australian editor still participating in those discussions. The others were portal regulars. So I asked for notification to WP:WikiProject Australia, because This talk page is dominated by editors without connection to Australia, rather than by those with demonstrable expertise in the topic.

I note SF's derision at the notion that anyone needs any expertise in a topic to select a list of significant articles in that field. It's a very disappointing attitude, which I have never seen outside portal-space. Sure, anyone can research a particular point of detail, but selecting a representative set to give an overview clearly does require prior knowledge. Why on earth not ask?

I also note SF's claim that asking for notifications is moving the goalposts. On the contrary, a courtesy notification to parties who work on the relevant issues is common good practice across Wikipedia. SF's indignation only reinforces my point that portalspace has normalised poor practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find my attitude disappointing. It's not at all difficult to become competent in a topic, I'd say it's even a requirement to be able to WP:HEY an article at AfD (which is not at all difficult.) Also, it's not as if I'm looking at NA1k's contributions to the Australian portal and going "tut, tut, if only they were an Aussie they would have picked better content to feature." Requiring only Australians to edit the Australia portal makes no sense at all, especially given none of the articles added were close to being controversial. Furthermore, how is it not moving the goalposts? There's not a single rule anywhere on Wikipedia which requires competency before someone can edit an article, and especially not from good-faith editors. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, please do re-read what I wrote,[68] and take care not misrepresent me. My comment there is only two sentences long, so it shouldn't be confusing.

I did not suggest requiring only Australians to edit the Australia portal.

I did ask that Australian editors be notified. This was to give them opportunity to comment if they wanted to.

Your indignation is is based on you attributing to me something which I neither stated nor implied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I am just stating that any consensus here isn't going to override community consensus per WP:CONLEVEL. I would recommend it be taken to the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We've been to the PUMP about this, multiple times and recently. It's completely ineffective for this, because the people who want to keep Portals refuse to even consider changing process at all. Instead, any attempt to even propose guidelines for portals is met with accusations of "backdoor deletionism" and the whole thing grinds down to No Consensus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Well in my humble opinion, well constructed portals are doing their jobs by getting the views. If proposals are made they have to be careful to not lump all portals into the same category. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see a lack of willingness to change, but an overly narrow focus by both those who support portals and those who do not. There has been very little attempt to engage editors interested in the various candidate topic areas. Without support from the editors interested in a given topic, there is no chance of long-term viability for a portal on that topic. (I get why it's scary to engage: the vast majority of areas have shown no interest in portals. But there's no point in creating a portal in an area that you're not actively interested in supporting and pushing it onto a group of editors who aren't interested in the portal.) On the other hand, portal detractors seem to think it's necessary to bring up their points repeatedly because they're not being heard. But brainstorming ideas is a messy business, and people are going to discuss avenues even if you think they're going down unproductive paths based on faulty evidence. People can be wrong in discussions, and that's OK: they need the freedom to slip up to allow new ideas to bubble to the surface. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - BHG, there is NO excuse for the continued name-calling. I don't care if the other editor is Hitler reincarnated. Stop the personal attacks. Now. This shouldn't even be up for debate. It's one of the five pillars. Be civil or leave. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Desysop BrownHairedGirl

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

---

I am not an admin and I know I do not have much say, but I am initiating this proposal. User:Toa Nidhiki05 said that other options need to be explored and I believe this to be a possible option to end the dispute. I propose we desysop BrownHairedGirl for the reasons below. No blocking or topic banning needed, just one proposal. I want to be as polite as possible. BHG, it is not personal and I do not want to argue, this is just a proposal based on previous evidence. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for Desysop of BrownHairedGirl

1. Harassment. Plenty of evidence is prominent through diffs and this discussion. Targets other users. This violates WP:ADMINCOND and is against Wikipedia policy through the pilars.

2. Violation of WP:ADMINACCT. BHG does not reason properly as she erupts into poor judgement and accusations. She breaches multiple policies

3. Reverting and edit warring. Violation of WP:TOOLMISUSE by reverting other admin's edits. She reverts other users edits without consensus and does not consider WP:ALTREV and WP:ROWN.

4. Not a role model for non-admins. Administrators are meant to be examples of Wikipedias who excel in the pilars and understand all policies. They are meant to cooperate and help build an encyclopedia. BHG being able to commit activities I mention above is not what an Admin stands for or what ANY Wikipedian should be doing.

• Feel free to chime in at WP:DESYSOP2019 though. – Levivich 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• I am aware that no discussion of AA88's proposal can take place here, but I think that it is only fair to be allowed to make a one-off response to the allegations made by AmericanAir88. I have followed the same numbering scheme:

1. WP:Harassment is specifically restricted to "intentionally target a specific person or persons". That has not happened. Where NA1K's actions have fallen within my normal field of work, and I have seen problems, I have been outspoken about them, especially when they have been repeated. That reactive criticism is not targeting.
2. WP:ADMINACCT says "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools". This is the first allegation I have seen anywhere in these discussions which even suggests that I have failed to account for my use admin tools. No evidence of of any example is provided. So far as as I can recall, my only use of admin tools in relation to portals has been in deleting subpages after the closure of an MFD.
   • The claim that BHG does not reason properly is perverse. I have repeatedly posted lengthy reasoned arguments, especially when I have been critical of other editors.
   • I stand by my judgements. A generalised accusation like that needs example of of poor judgement, but AA88 has provided none.
3. Reversion does not require consensus. It is part of the WP:BRD cycle. I have done a second revert only in cases where the contested edit has been restored while discusion is ongoing.
4. The 4th para by AA88 is just generalised assertions, without specifics. It is simply an example of the logical fallacy of proof by assertion. The closest thing I can see to a specific is the generalised allegation that I do not co-operate. That is counter-factual: most of the criticism heaped on me is because of my support for oral deletions, in support of which i have opened about 500 consensus-forming discussions. I regard to the questions of portal structure and content which led me to revert NA!K's edit, I have in the last month repeatedly asked NA1K to work with me to design neutrally-worded RFCs to resolve those issues, but NA1K has not taken up that offer. It is perverse to accuse me of non-co-operation when I have repeatedly sought that co-operation.

I note that AA88 says it is not personal. But a set of unevidenced and counter-factual accusations looks very personal to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, you have access to the block buttons. Suppose you were attempting to mediate a dispute in which one editor repeatedly attacked the intelligence of the other editor. At what point would you consider issuing a civility block? Lepricavark (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Useless proposal, bound to waste a lot of time and create more division and hostility. Wish Floquenbeam hadn't reverted his own closing of this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Editing of Hinduism articles (restore vandalized report)

Anonymous60987766 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anonymous60987766 (talk · contribs) has removed referenced content and made substantial unsourced changes to multiple articles. The only explanation so far has been this [69]. Suggesting a user block, with attention from editors knowledgeable in the subject, as to whether any edits are acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This [70] confirms the problem. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• The removal of this report by the subject of the report was obviously a very dubious act. I'd be grateful if the IP editor could provide specific diffs to the removals that are a cause for concern, so that we can assess those without trawling through all their contribs. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, Girth Summit. [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]. These are, in terms of volume, the prominent deletions. Many of the smaller edits are to infoboxes, changing gods' 'affiliations', which has an effect similar to genre warring in music articles--all unsourced and all done with a sense of unquestioned authority. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Per my inclusion of this diff above [79], it's never a good sign when someone goes through numerous articles deleting and changing content on nothing more substantial than Actually, I removed it intentionally because of the distorted content which I felt shouldn't be there but if you choose to keep it the same way, then it's your wish. It's better to remove something than to let it be there even if it's distorted. There is a limit to adding distorted information but I've got fewer fucks to give. If you don't know about something then you shouldn't interrupt. Anyway, if not you, someone else would have done it. That doesn't mean I agree with the shit written here though but anyway, thanks for your concern Mr. I know wikipedia isn't my father's property and that's why anyone can come here and write BS. The attitude speaks for itself. At this point, my question is whether any of the edits ought to be preserved. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks you, IP editor. This is certainly concerning - the diffs presented show a pattern of removing sourced content, and their response quoted above indicates a pretty poor attitude with regard to collaboration. Perhaps Anonymous60987766 would be prepared to attempt to explain their conduct before we decide the best way forward. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Many of his edits seem sensible de-cluttering, but with a tendency to go too far. The "sourcing" on many articles on Hindu deities is to very-much-not-RS Hindu sites. This series (almost immediately reverted) starts off well, but imo seems to go too far by the lower bits. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Johnbod. It would be good to get a handle on the validity of their edits, since they're not inclined to account for them or leave edit summaries explaining the strength of a source....or what sources they're relying on. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• He never seems to add sources, and most of his edits are net removals, but that is often not a bad thing on these pages. I don't like this group on Krishna so much - again reverted immediately. But this is a sensible link correction (apart from missing a "). Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:대한민국 헌법 's Disruptive Editing

대한민국 헌법 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user persistently removes chunks of infomation from articles with no explantion at all in the respective edit summaries. Examples of this include: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85],[86], [87], [88], [89], [90].

This user has been warned about disruptive editing on multiple occasions including:[91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99],[100], [101], [102], [103] or can be more simply seen by looking the user's talk page in full here:[104]. Yet the user still continues to remove infomation from pages with no reasoning given on their Edit summaries  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Promotional content on Tracy Byrd

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

---

Catitude98 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding unsourced and promotional content to Tracy Byrd, and seems unresponsive to requests to adhere to a more neutral tone. I even cited on their talk page a more neutral way to rephrase the content, but the user was unresponsive and restored the exact same content. I would like to believe the editor is editing in good faith, but the utter lack of responsiveness and persistent re-adding despite more than one warning is troubling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I really think they're close to meriting a block. Also wonder if WP:COI is relevant. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believe my last edit followed the rules. I did include a phrase that you (ten pound hammer) suggested, "several of Byrd's hit singles" which an anonymous user then edited out, and I think complained about. I am trying to go by the rules here, I'm definately not intending to do what's being suggested of me. My original edits were written after a style that I have seen on the page, which I now realize were cited published remarks, and mine were merely my opinion. I now understand the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catitude98 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Catitude98, your last edit on the Tracy Byrd article at 18:33 on 10 November [105], still had no sources to it? You posted here 40 mins after saying that your last edit followed the rules? Every piece of new content added to Wikipedia must have a source (per WP:RS). If you keep adding material without any references/sources, you may have editing privileges withdrawn. I will close this thread now are you are a "newbie", but please take all the advice given on your Talk Page by TenPoundHammer and others, on board. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

IPs adding/re-adding unreferenced material

91.140.110.64 (talk · contribs), 78.87.169.180 (talk · contribs), and probably others have been adding unreferenced material to many Doors (rock group)-related articles and other album, song, and music bio articles. Specifically, an editor or editors keeps re-adding unreferenced material to L.A. Woman (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After these edits by 91.140.110.64[106], I updated the article and removed most unreferenced material, since it was tagged "needs additional citations" since April 2014.[107] Nearly the same material, still without references, was re-added by 78.87.169.180.[108] I removed it[109] and added uw-unsourced2 to their talk page.[110] They re-added[111] and I removed with the edit summary: "removed unreferenced material (OR?), please see WP:BURDEN: 'All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.'"[112] Nearly the same material was again re-added by 91.140.110.64[113] without any references. They consistently do not add references, provide edit summaries, and have been reverted and warned by other editors. Clearly, they are unable or unwilling to contribute to WP in a meaningful way. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I must concur with Ojorojo, this user has no intention of sourcing or communicating with other editors regarding their disruptive editing. Robvanvee 14:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also adding 37.6.220.114 (talk · contribs) to this report as an IP that was also part of the group that overwrote the redirect Spanish Caravan in the same manner. I've sent this and another redirect to RPP recently, both of which were semi'd already by Malcolmxl5 and El C respectively. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

46.190.69.62 (talk · contribs) has begun similarly re-adding unreferenced material. Reverted and added uw-disruptive4 to talk page (also added Template:ANI-notice to their & 37.6.220.114's talk pages). —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Aidayoung inserting fringe/promotion, removing sourced content despite warnings, potential COI

Massimo Introvigne is an Italian attorney and member of a New Religious movement called Alleanza Cattolica. In 1988, Introvigne created an organization called CESNUR to lobby for the legitimacy of New Religious Movements such as Scientology.

Aidayoung (talk · contribs) has inserted and re-inserted Introvigne's material while repeatedly deleting well-sourced material critical of Introvigne. Aidayoung has used misleading edit summaries, has misrepresented a source, and their total editing history suggests an Introvigne-related conflict of interest. Recent examples of problem behavior:

On Oleg Maltsev (psychologist):

• Added Introvigne-based content
• Content removed by User:Drmies: "there is no good reason to take "Introvigne 2018a" seriously" & "FRINGE stuff needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources"
• re-inserted and warned

On Massimo Introvigne:

• inserts content citing a print book and attributing an extended quote to a scholar named Gallagher.
• Quote was removed by User:Grayfell after investigation of the print book showed the quote's source was Introvigne himself, not Gallagher.

On CESNUR:

• Removed sourced content with misleading edit summary
• Warned for 'Removal of content on CESNUR with a misleading edit summary' by User:Thomas.W
• re-removed same content
• again re-re-removed

Additionally, User:Aidayoung may have a conflict of interest. Second and third articles edited were Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR. History shows widespread promotion of Introvigne's material across multiple articles. First denial of being Introvigne occurred in 2017. COI concerns again resurfaced in 2019:

"you included, show very strong ties between Massimo Introvigne, CESNUR and Oleg Maltsev, and between certain editors here, you included, and those three. As for you, you created the article about Oleg Maltsev, and have continued to maintain it, including through adding ever more badly sourced promotional material, and reverting attempts to clean it up, and even though you didn't create the articles about CESNUR and Introvigne, you made the first edits on those articles in 2007, and are still active on them (on multiple language versions of Wikipedia), including by removing material you see as criticising the subjects of the articles; the majority of your other edits here also appear to be on articles with a connection to Introvigne and CESNUR, most recently plugging CESNUR's "Bitter Winter" on multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Making it look as if you work for Introvigne/CESNUR."(per Thomas.W)

Feoffer (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Feoffer should answer substantive questions raised in the CESNUR talk page eg did CESNUR defend the Solar Temple or New Acropolis, was Mr Lewis ever associated with CESNUR rather than shooting the messenger. I am obviously a scholar of new religions and for all of us CESNUR is an obvious main reference - the rest is innuendo. Aidayoung (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are strong connections between the report above and this previous discussion here on WP:ANI, the long discussion about sources on Talk:Oleg Maltsev (psychologist) (which clearly shows that Aidayoung either doesn't understand sourcing at all, in spite of having edited here since 2007, or is deliberately trying to mislead...) and multiple discussions on User talk:Aidayoung. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum's non-stop bad-faith accusations

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

---

User:Bacondrum and I have been engaged in Talk:Call-out culture. They never stop accusing me of acting in bad faith. Here is a list of diff demonstrating recent instances:

• Accusations of "bias and pushing" "Just one of many examples of Srid's bias is hanging out" (note that the word 'divisive' comes straight from a primary source)

• Accusation of cherrypicking

• Suggestions of 'bias' and 'writing off'

• Covert accusation of bias

• Accusation of confirmation-bias

• Accusation of "cherrypicking negative quotes"

• Suggesting I cherrypick sources with overtly negative bias titles

• Yet another accusation of cherrypicking <!-

And that's from just the last two days. I can cite more from the immediate past if necessary.

In response to their repeat cherrypicking accusation, I asked the user several times to WP:AGF (see here for one instance). I also stated that their accusations had no base. According to my meticulous search of scholarly sources and the internet, most sources on the topic happen to bring one group of viewpoints (something that's not represented in proportion in the article currently); and I challenged Bacondrum to demonstrate otherwise. Instead of offering the sources, they only continue to accuse me of acting in bad faith in periodic intervals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sridc (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ongoing content dispute regarding this topic (we already have a mediator who offered to help!), and this report is not about content disputes.

Prior reports on Bacondrum

This user has been reported here previously. The last two, in fact, are in relation to the same topic (Call-out culture):

• POV editing ("Bacondrum has now deleted 37K bytes of reliably sourced material from Alt-right" -- this happened with Call-out culture too; see next section below)

• ANI: Requesting a subject-matter ban for user Bacondrum on the Call-out Culture article

• ANI: Stalking and ad hominem

• The user has previously received a 2 week ban, followed by a topic ban from Milo Yiannopoulos.

Possible explanation

Given that the complaint in the second ANI report was about Bacondrum deleting a large portion (compare this to this) of the article text, despite the consensus among editors to keep majority of it (here & here) - the fact that I'm recently engaged expanding ( see here) the article to be as elaborate as it was before Bacondrum got involved, I can only surmise that Bacondrum is WP:NOTHERE as far as Call-out culture is concerned. Which brings me to:

Request for action

Given this pattern of behaviour, I request a topic ban of User:Bacondrum on Call-out culture. Every day it feels to me that this user is hindering progress (as User:VQuakr from the first ANI report observed, they "are going to exhaust other editors' patience pretty quickly at this rate"). Please take a look at Talk:Call-out culture (scroll from middle to end of page), to realize how much time, energy and effort I have been putting on this article.

Reply to reporter

—Srid^YO 00:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If I understand right, the main thing you're objecting to is being accused of bias and WP:CHERRY. I don't think that cherrypicking is that severe of a thing to bring up - it's usually seen as a content and not a conduct complaint, except in the most egregious cases, and it isn't always deliberate. Remember that bias doesn't have to be intentional and doesn't always raise to the level of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing; bringing it up is an important part of resolving disputes. Many editors are unaware of their own biases, and you have definitely described some sources, like Haidt, as neutral on a subject where I definitely wouldn't consider them such. I think Bacondrum could have worded his objections more cautiously, but "I think you're putting WP:UNDUE weight on one point of view" is central to the dispute here, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your edits have at least had a very heavy focus on adding voices, like Haidt, with a very particular culture-war angle on the topic to the article. Obviously the content dispute is partially over whether those changes are needed or whether they end up giving that angle undue weight, but I don't think it makes sense to accuse Bacondrom of personal attacks for basically articulating his position in that dispute (ie. that those sources don't reflect the broader view and are therefore cherrypicked.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" - is what happened here. In regards to the content dispute question you raise, it would appear you have somewhat chosen to ignore my response. Here it is again, for your benefit:

One such earlier instance of you saying it was "It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible", to which I responded: "That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.".

Once their initial WP:AOBF was addressed, they either should have provided the evidence (sources) asked for, or stopped WP:AOBF. They did neither. —Srid^YO 14:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Back & forth area

There's a pattern of harrassment with the endless spurious reports from Srid. I've been critical of edits and proposals on talk, no personal attacks. I've been trying to be more civil after a bad start between us, but it makes it hard when every disagreement ends in a report. This is a content dispute, nothing more. How many times is he allowed to do this before it's seen as disruptive? I mean look at the reports, clutching at straws, this is vindictive reporting, is it not? This request for a topic ban is him clearly trying to shut down debate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment by largely uninvolved party

• @Sridc: I haven't looked at anything you wrote. But are you aware that probably the most common result of repeatedly opening ANI threads on another editor in a very short space of time is a WP:Boomerang? In such cases, the one who's exhausted everyone's patience tends to be you. As a case in point, you opened a WP:DRN, it was far from perfect and it wasn't just your fault. Still it looked to be somewhat proceeding. I'm not sure why you didn't just let that proceed with hopefully all of you learning something and also coming to some sort of consensus, rather than a third ANI in few days which has prevented the DRN from proceeding for now. (The 2nd ANI may not have been intended for ANI, but it actually dealt mostly with stuff best dealt with on ANI.) I personally suggest you just withdraw this complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The last time I made an error in opening an ANI here (I really should have gone for dispute resolution; but then being a new Wikipedian I was still getting to grips of how all this works). But for this ANI, I had put a lot of thought into the matter. I tried discussing the matter with User:Bacondrum in the article talk page several times (see the diffs; also the Talk page), but they do not show any sign of stopping. Per WP:AOBF, "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.". As I understand, an ANI report would be the natural next step. —Srid^YO 02:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't aware that DRN and ANI had to be mutually exclusive. I also wasn't aware that we were to suspend Talk page activity while the DRN is active. The article is currently locked, so I figured I do research on sources to use and post them in the Talk page (see Talk:Call-out_culture -- scroll from middle to end). —Srid^YO 02:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the 2nd ANI was not something suitable for DRN. It was a complaint about another editor, something that will not be dealt with at DRN, but will be dealt with at ANI. So regardless of where you wanted to post it, it was basically an ANI complaint. As me and others have said in the previous ANIs, maybe the behaviour of some of the parties involved isn't perfect, but it doesn't seem to rise the level requiring action at ANI. The natural next step is sometimes just to put aside your reasonable or not, annoyance with what another editor has said and done, and work in improving wikipedia via the processes available. Actually being able to put aside your differences, disagreements and grievences is a key part of collaborating on wikipedia, as it is in a lot of other places. Sometimes others go to far, and we will sanction them for it and not expect people to just accept it. But not every misbehaviour requires action, and in fact if it did you'd also be blocked by now so you should be glad about that. Anyway I don't think it's likely anything will result from this thread other than it being closed without action and largely ignored albeit still having wasted your time and a small amount of mine, and probably others when they read at least part of it. But you should be aware that opening more and more of these threads probably isn't pushing us towards the action which you seem to desire namely some sanction of Bacondrum, but instead some sanction of you. As for the DRN issue, well I don't do stuff there but I'm not surprised when one party is trying to get one of the parties sanctioned, it gets put on hold. The fact that you're still so new and still so unaware of how everything works, is maybe a good sign you need to take a step back and stop trying to get Bacondrum sanctioned every 3rd day or whatever it is, and instead focus on the article content. As I believe I said before, ultimately one editor cannot permanently prevent changes to an article since once enough editors are involved, it will be clear if consensus is against them. (Although I don't believe it's only one editor opposed to some of your proposals anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I will continue to work with Call-out culture, either way. However, with Bacondrum this process is going to be unnecessarily long and painful. I'd recommend a minimum 1 month topic ban on Call-out culture. Please take the whole context into consideration before making a decision; consider their mass deletion history (I provided references above), and continued opposition to improve this article. I don't even understand how they were able to get away with deleting a huge portion of the article early this year despite lacking consensus from other editors. —Srid^YO 03:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saw your response above. While I continue to reflect on it, please note a correction. I did not post the second ANI here (it is actually the first ANI; I ignored linking the second ANI). —Srid^YO 03:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page [114] since while what I say may be of some benefit to others reading this discussion, I should try and cut down on the number of lengthy replies by me at ANI largely consisting of advice to editors involved. Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely want this content dispute moderated Srid appears to be unwilling to find a compromise and is using ANI reports to shut down debate. Bacondrum (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN and WP:ANI are mutually exclusive. Forum shopping in Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. I have placed the DRN thread on hold while this matter is resolved. I don't really understand how User:Sridc thinks that they can have a content dispute at the same time as they are trying to have the other editor topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: DRN involves User:Aquillion as well, so it would be between the three of us? Even if Bacondrum is not going to get a topic ban - I think involving you, Robert, in Talk:Call-out_culture discussions such that I'm not dealing only with Bacondrum would be of tremendous help. Sorry, I don't really know how DRN process is going to play out, but if an another active neutral editor (such as you) gets involved, that I would consider that to be an acceptable solution. In the last two days, however, wherein I delineated so much of the sources - it was basically Bacondrum word-salading / WP:AOBF'ing me - so the future of the article looked rather bleak. —Srid^YO 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Srid's behaviour

I believe this report should boomerang. Srid may be new, but he has: Been edit warring -

1. 00:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC) "Bold edit, fixing neutrality of intro paragraph. 1) Move feminist sources below to 'Description' section (inasmuch as it is not NPOV). b) Use Haidt's book to describe the synopsis."
2. 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925118534 by Aquillion (talk) - This is not how I understand WP:BRD to work. You made a change, I reverted it (citing properly). Now it is time for you to address the many arguments I made on the talk page. Please do, thanks."
3. 23:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925117894 by Aquillion (talk) - This was discussed in Talk. Ctrl+F "Evan Gerstmann""
4. 22:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925107941 by Bacondrum (talk) -- They are verbatim quote from a reliable source. Your 'challenge' does not have any substance, was already addressed in the Talk page."
5. 21:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 925105041 by Bacondrum (talk) - Discuss to establish consensus before reverting"
6. 21:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not the place to display one's beliefs. Don't replace verbatim quote sourced directly from a reliable source. If you have an alternative source that's reliable, provide it in the Talk page."

Making spurious ANI reports -

• [115]
• [116]
• [117]

Appears to be colluding to act against another editor -

• [118]
• [119]
• [120]

Canvassing editors during a moderation rather than opening an RFC -

• [121]

And now, personal attacks in the above thread -

• "However, with Bacondrum this process is going to be unnecessarily long and painful"

He's been forum shopping Also asked for moderator to help with a content dispute and simultaneous tries to get editor invlved in moderation topic-banned. And that's just the stuff I can remember. Is there a point where this is disruptive? I mean how many guidlines does this fella get to break before there's something done about it, a warning? I mean the guy has demanded I be topic banned for a month, seems more than a little vindictive. Bacondrum (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Or even better, Srid retracts this stupid report and we get back to moderation, which would be my preference. Bacondrum (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Srid's final statement

I ask the admin to consider why Bacondrum would copy-paste the six diffs from a former AN3 report, which had the result of protecting the page, without even mentioning it.

Here's my stance on it. I've provided the evidence–that which I had been asked for in my prior "Stalking & ad hominem" ANI– here so as to illustrate the fact that Bacondrum is creating a behavioural roadblock to the article. Obviously I'm not alone, as you can see from the prior reports from people other than me. I also believe they were lucky enough to get away with it in the past, and gave them the opportunity to continue deleting en masse the contents of the article (compare this to this) without any established consensus on the Talk page (see here & here). There really wasn't much of consensus-based editing prior my involvement, and other editors (who are no longer active) thanked me for it. I really only see two solutions to this:

1. Topic ban User:Bacondrum on Call-out culture for a certain period.
2. Failing that, as stated above, involvement of a mediator (as is already the case, albeit on hold) and neutral third-party editors on this article for at least a month is absolutely needed to improve the article.

I implore the admin to consider not only all the context, but also the long pattern of behaviour (taking a look at ANIs opened by other editors, which were referenced above), and choose "1" as the response, even though "2" would work as far as the article is concerned.

—Srid^YO 13:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ANI, we don't deal with content disputes. We cannot force a mediator or neutral third parties to get involved in an article for a second, let alone a month. Consider also that your behaviour is probably not encouraging anyone to get involved since while it's fine to be new and inexperienced, what's not fine is to be unable to take onboard what everyone is telling you. No one wants to deal with a new editor who seems to have a persistent case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and unfortunately that's how you're coming across, at least to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Nil, by your own admission you did not read the diff evidence I posted. I wonder how you are able to provide a precise response when you have not even read the essence of my report. —Srid^YO 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't need to read any diff to know we don't deal with content disputes at ANI. And I especially don't need to read it to know we can't force anyone to get involved in something. So for outcome 2, you are at the wrong place without needing to read anything but what you said. As for the rest, well as I already told you, when you've had 2 bites at the cherry in ANI in about 2 days, and people didn't seem interested even you yourself should recognise maybe it's time to drop it. And you were told, both times to just drop it and instead work on the content dispute as best you can. After you came here a third time on the fourth day, I told you again, as did others, to just drop it. I was hoping you'd take that advice, but instead you continue to demand action, even an action we cannot possibly fulfill and which is unsuited for ANI i.e. assigning a neutral third party for a month. So from my mind, it's starting to get to be a case of IDONTHEARTHAT. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

+1 on Nil Einne's advice. These are 100% content disputes on articles with several experienced editors (i.e. Aquillion), who also disagree with you. WP has several other noticeboards for content disputes (e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard), or edit warring (e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring) and dispute resolution, which you have already been just recently invited to by Robert McClenon. This is I think your third extensive post to ANI in just a few days, and despite being given the same advice each time, you seemingly ignore it. This is not a good button to keep pressing. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

From WP:AOBF, "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" - is what happened here. This is not content dispute, which was already addressed several times in the article Talk page. Here is one instance:

One such earlier instance of you saying it was "It comes off like your trying to tie as many negative to the topic as possible", to which I responded: "That's not me trying to push a particular point of view; this is simply how it is. One group of viewpoints are much more common than the other (original) group of viewpoints; you can easily verify this for yourself by searching for sources (I searched both internet and scholarly search engines). See WP:YESPOV where it says to, I quote, indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.".

Once their initial WP:AOBF was addressed, they either should have provided the evidence (sources) asked for, or stopped WP:AOBF. They did neither. —Srid^YO 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

But he keeps pressing that button. Come on now, surely that's enough. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Nil Einne Hi, Is this kind of behavior okay? It feels quite personal and like I'm being stalked by these two - an attempt to gang up or stack votes rather than contest/debate content. Reading this I really think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, it's just really grubby. Bacondrum (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

DRN Status

I have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard thread as failed due to various problems including this thread, and allegations of canvassing. After this thread is closed, any survivors who wish to request assistance in formulating a multi-part neutrally worded RFC may make the request at DRN again. Do not come back to DRN while this thread or any other conduct dispute is in progress. I will not be taking part in the dispute here, in order to preserve my own neutrality in case I am requested, as mentioned, to assist in developing an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I will gladly request assistance in formulating a multi-part neutrally worded RFC once this done. I think this would be the ideal course of action at this point, it's how this should have gone from the outset rather than spurious ANI reports. Bacondrum (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Srid really acting in good faith?

This editor has been:

• Repeatedly making spurious ANI reports
• Editwarring
• Canvassing
• Repeatedly focusing on another editor rather than content during moderation
• Requesting moderation then making an ANI request while moderation is ongoing
• Exhaustively starting new discussions on relevant talk page while involved in Moderation that they requested over dispute on said page
• Demanding unreasonably long blocks for other involved editors over content disputes
• Repeatedly ignoring advice from admins
• Forum shopping
• Repeatedly referring to content disputes and criticisms as personal attacks and bad faith accusations

Bacondrum (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Compromise

As this is clearly a content dispute and it's going nowhere - I propose closing this report and using DRN to formulate a multi-part neutrally worded RFC about the article. This would be done with the expectation that once the RFC is posted that myself and Srid agree to participate in a civil manner, focusing only on content. Also, myself and Srid agree to make no edits to the article until the RFC is closed, and following the RFC's closure, we make no edits (and no reversions) without a firm and clear consensus on the talk page first. At least until this dispute has settled down. Bacondrum (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I am an external editor who came to know about this from the DRN, and I notice your first post there was to accuse Sridc[122], and the first to open hostilities. Also you repeatedly accuse him of canvassing[123][124], whereas WP:APPNOTE states "Appropriate notifications ... Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article", which is exactly what Sridc did, as he notified the top 4 editors by authorship[125] apart from the 3 editors already involved in the DRN. So your strategy of defending by accusing may be WP:KETTLE. Sridc sure is not without blames, but he's new, with your experience, you should know better how to act in this situation (ie, let it be). --Signimu (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Signimu. Bacondrum, you were also told to drop it last time including IIRC by me. I haven't directly addressed you since then AFAIR, in part because Sridc always began these threads. But sometimes the best response is no response, especially when your behaviour has been far from perfect. At this time, I don't think anyone feels there's anything that warrants administrative attention, but that could change and it could easily be a WP:Boomerang from either side. BTW, I had a quick look at the thread you linked above and mostly what I see is an inexperienced editor seeking help. Given the circumstances, I don't think sufficient canvassing concerns arise. While User:DeRossitt's replies may not have been perfect, IMO there's nothing that crosses any real line. While I can understand it's uncomfortable being talked about in a manner you don't feel is fair on some other editor's talk page, provided there's sufficient reason, it doesn't go too far, and it doesn't happen too often, it's something we should accept will happen. Another key point is I assume you are able to reply, although I would strongly advise against it. (If DeRossitt had banned you from their talk page, I would have far greater concern.) So yes, just drop it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that FOARP's latest suggestion on Talk:Call-out culture#A Chill Pill (and FOARP is a very experienced editor), for both Bacondrum and Sridc to take a break from Call-out culture is worthy of consideration. These are 100% content discussions issues, however, their intensity is ratcheting up now, and that is only ever going to end up in one outcome, for both of you, if it keeps coming back to ANI? Take a break, and no harm will come to the article while you are away. Life will go on, give yourselves a break from this. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes definitely worth considering. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I should clarify that IMO the best result from this thread is that it is either it's archived without action, or dies a natural death because everyone stops responding. I'm not sure much more is going to come from it. Hopefully the editor's involved take the advice offered but formal action doesn't seem likely. (And so yes, I'm not likely to respond anymore.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would concur that this AN/I post should just be closed down before it becomes worse, and that this is mostly just a content dispute. However I'll mention I advised Sridc against taking a content dispute to AN/I and they ignored this advice and took the precise same dispute here twice. In the spirit of WP:BITE I'd suggest against a boomerang this time but I would suggest Sridc should receive a final warning against attempting to resolve content disputes this way going forward. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223, and Nil Einne; if this comes back quickly again to ANI as an(other) content dispute, a topic ban will be advocated. Closing this. Britishfinance (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:TOOLMISUSE by user:acroterion and user:huon

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

---

Antipolish chauvinist user:acroterion and his fellow germanic antipolish chauvinist user:huon used their administrative privileges abusively to force their political and ideological chauvinistic antipolish agenda by removing and blocking addition of verifiable sources from talk:Olga Tokarczuk talkpage. Diff: [126] [127] and the rest: user_talk:83.29.33.38 --83.29.22.107 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bless your heart - you missed an IP you've used - [128]. I particularly value "chauvinistic anitipolish propagandist and falsehood producer Acroterion" as an epithet - it's pretty much what we all do in West Virginia, all the time. I am less charmed by the IP's consistent attacks on Huon for being German,. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

And yes, I've blocked the latest IP, the second one this evening. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Nice catch, all my research on the IPs have concluded that they are dynamically registered to "Orange Polska" with similar hostnames. Obvious multi-account usage. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's because I've blocked them all at one time or another for their singular focus on denigrating Olga Tokarczuk. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Nice work. They were obviously in tandem. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

They're obviously the same person, or else they're using the same insult generator. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this is WP:Beans but I've never figured out if the people behind these sort of complaints are just trolling, or genuinely don't realise the result of their ANI complaint is not going to be any action against whoever or whatever they're complaining about. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be the latter in this case. Reading Tokarczuk's article makes it clear that there are lots of people in certain sectors of Polish society that don't like her, and some of them are determined to abuse Wikipedia to attack her. Acroterion (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I've placed a short /18 rangeblock to give us all some rest. Acroterion (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To some extent this may not be the best example of what I'm thinking of. I'm particularly thinking of cases where an editor has been here for a long time and has opened several different ANI threads which only result in them being blocked. Especially when they had perhaps flown under the radar as a sock until they opened a thread alerting us that they were socking. I don't quite understand how such editors don't understand the inevitable result of what they're doing after so many tries. Or if they do, why they would bother unless they're trolling. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If any good is to come out of this, folks should add Olga Tokarczuk to their watchlists, as I have just done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, Nil Einne, Flights looks like a fascinating book, but perhaps that is because I am one of those "postcommunist and neomarxist elitists" (not aware that I am, but hey). So I would like to thank the IP for their comments here--I love discovering new books, and I am sorry that I hadn't paid attention to Tokarczuk before. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock

Seems to have moved to a new ISP: 83.10.3.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (help!) 17:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Probably the same ISP but a different range, and clearly the same user as 83.10.12.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which was also recently blocked. I get a range of 83.10.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) fwiw but low confidence the range isn't wider. They haven't edited since yesterday and did so incompetently enough that they were reverted by AnomieBot, so I think we can leave this be for now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Joker157

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

---

• Joker157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Watchmen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has been repeatedly disruptive editing on Watchmen by rearranging the starring/main cast order despite several warnings on his or her Talk page and hidden comments on the Watchmen article saying not to be rearrange per MOS:TVCAST. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also has not participated in talk page discussion that had been opened to discuss the cast order. (I am involved otherwise I would block). --Masem (t) 03:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

He seems to have indicated in this edit that he will stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Cengizsogutlu

This editor included loads of unsourced info and deleted sourced info of Human rights violations in the Village guard system twice! The second time he included a lot of unsourced material. Once I could revert it but now there have been too many edits since, and I think someone else could fix this easier. Maybe you can look into this. Thank you, Lean Anael (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so I reintroduced the Human Rights Violations again by my self. Let`s hope it stays and doesn`t get deleted again. The unsourced info is still present tough. Maybe someone here would like to have a look. By the way, is this the right place where to notify of (non-intended) vandalism? I have not received an answer at all, but sysops are on this page commenting all over. So if there is a better place to find a solution, I`d by thankful to know it. Best, Lean Anael (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lean Anael, the best place to engage on these issues is the Talk Page of the articles in question, and particularly with your other editors on these articles who will be able to help Cengizsogutlu, who is a new user, with WP:PAG, and what is appropriate for a WP article and consensus. Unsourced information can be removed by any editor. If Cengizsogutlu refuses to engage, and just reverts your reverts, thus edit warring, then you can come back to ANI, or just ping a sysop directly from the article Talk Page. From looking at their edits, I don't think Cengizsogutlu is as yet edit warring?.

When a sysop can see clear evidence that other editors are trying to engage an editor on the article Talk Page (or the editor's Talk Page), but the editor continues edit warring/reverting against consensus (and particularly reverting to add unsourced information that other editors are not comfortable with), then much swifter action can be taken. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Emory College students placing assignment tags

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

---

Patrolling recent changes, I stumbled upon a project apparently created by Emory College with the apparent aim to edit a number of articles on Wikipedia [129]. I've had a look at some of the edits. As can be expected in any college course, some are really good, other rather bad. My reason for bringing it here is that students place tags at article talk spaces, as in this example. I have doubts about this. I take it Emory College is not exceptional in any way, so if we decide that this is ok, and we soon have 1000 college courses *60 students, we'll be looking at 60.000 tags being placed. If there is a policy in place, I am not familiar with it. I must say I do not see how these tags contribute to WP in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} currently has 25,772 transclusions. Certes (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty standard if not invariably used. Useful too, as it directs discussion of issues to course instructors and WikiEd liaisons. Don't see where the detriment comes in? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a standard template used widely. I find it most helpful. The only way it would stop being used would be a village pump consensus by a wide part of the community. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Such flags are useful in understanding some otherwise strange editing patterns, with new editors biting off more than they can chew or edit-warring in material because they feel that it needs to be kept in in order for them to get a good grade. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If you edit history or art subjects you will be extremely familiar with them, and they do serve to warn other editors. In fact, amazingly often there are no edits to the article, or very minor ones. What I don't like is that the tags never get removed, & some articles already have more than one (eg Talk:Claude Monet - 2 from 2018), as this programme has been running for several years. Contrary to what Elmidae says, it is very difficult to engage the students/instructors/Wiki-Ed "experts" in useful discussion. The choice of obvious big subjects already with very good articles very often sets students up to fail, it seems to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin action at Spanish Empire

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

---

Due to an ongoing edit war at Spanish Empire, I fully protected the article yesterday. However, on reviewing the article history, I see that I reverted an edit by one of the participants in the edit war a couple of weeks ago, here. Since I am not completely un-involved with this article, I request review and appropriate actions by other admins in this case. - Donald Albury 14:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Donald Albury, if that is the extent of your work on that article, I'd say "not completely un-involved" is a correct way of describing it, and I'd add that I think you are uninvolved enough to have made the call on protection. Having said that, I'd be happy to take over protection, but since I just got a cup of coffee and some chocolate, allow me a few remarks.

  I think you could have said "unreliable/unacceptable sources" to this edit summary, which isn't just a comment on content: all three of those sources (including the pares.mcu.es link) should be unacceptable in an article like this. (Note where that "lumenlearning" article actually got its content from--something called "Boundless World History".)

  Second, as far as I can tell the edit warring mostly involves an uncommunicative IP, 38.68.135.127, which I've just blocked, and which is no doubt the same as 195.123.245.99, blocked earlier by Favonian--Favonian, you think this might be Krajoyn? So removing that from the equation will restore at least some measure of calm, in the expectation that Barjimoa and SmithGraves can talk this over in a civilized manner. As far as I am concerned you could have blocked the IP on the spot for their display of uncollaboration.

  I shortened the protection by a day, since I didn't know how else to take it over; if the two editors decide they can handle the matter courteously and collaboratively, I would be happy to unprotect.

  Anyway, thank you for your diligence. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: 195.123.245.48 is certainly Krajoyn, and its /22 range already blocked. I am sorely tempted to do the same with 38.68.135.0/24. 38.68.135.127 flares up as web host, and the same user has certainly used 38.68.135.52, even if it doesn't get the scarlet letter. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Favonian, you are priceless. You are sorely tempted to block that range? Give into it! Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The deed is done. Favonian (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Mikola22

The user history shows not only are they not here, but a clear case of I did not here that. Here (this is not the first problem) [[130]] he starts a thread claiming this person Krunoslav Draganović is a historian (as well as talking about facts and the truth). Here [[131]] shows that he is here to right great wrongs. This goes back a lot further, [[132]] claiming there are no historical records to support a claim made by RS. Here [[133]] he talks about "original historical document", it subseqiazntly turns out its in fact a relatively modern book he is using, not a historical document. The latest is this [[134]]. This [[135]] a response to a user tying to explain RS sums it up. He knows better than any historian we use. Also a look at his edit history shows it seems to very much be a SPA. And the level of tendentiousness is now getting tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović (Matići near Orašje, 30 October 1903 - Sarajevo, 3 July 1983), was a Croatian historian in Croatian Wikipedia. I used a couple of information from his book written in 1937 for which he defended his dissertation in German language.[136] Otherwise I did not know that it was banned from Wikipedia as a data source? All the quotes I have provided as proof have Latin records below the page from Vatican archives known to the public. Otherwise the same book is mentioned in various doctoral dissertations by Croatian historians. I'll answer part by part Mikola22 (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

[137] My quote: "Wikipedia speaks that he has Serbian origin, although there is no historical document which proves that he is Serbian?" I asked how it is possible that Mehmed Pasha is Serbian when there is no original written historical information for that. The other editor's answer that this is true but that and some others do not have historical information about origin? But this is Wikipedia and truth should be told. There is no historical record that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin but on Wikipedia RS claims that he is Serbian? Bosniaks live in Bosnia; Vlachs, Croats and Bulgarians are mentioned in that area. Based on the archives in Istanbul, the American historian Harold Lamb claims that he is Croatian. but he is Serbian without one original document? And I asked to be explained that and how it could be. Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Uskoks[138] My quote: "Large numbers of "Serb fugitives from Bosnia and Serbia fleeing the Ottomans to Croatia" there is not a single piece of information that anyone from Serbia comes to the Senj area or Dalmatia where Uskoks live. And I asked how it was possible for this information to be on Wikipedia when it was not correct and true. I would like to point out that I am not talking about the area of Eastern Slavonia(and Hungaria) because there are some Serbs from Serbia coming there, this is about Uskoks along the Adriatic coast. It would be as if it somewhere writes that Serbs are migrating to Italy from Serbia, although there is no historical information for that. That would be removed tomorrow. And that's why I asked how it's possible and what to do because it's an obvious lie. Once again, to be clear and specific "there is not a single historical record that speaks of the migration of someone from Serbia to the areas along the Adriatic coast and Uskoks area" Did anyone migrate probably yes but we do not have this historical migration data. Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "Question asked earlier so I ask it here too. If original historical document in a village mentioned Vlachs(15th, 16th, 17th century) and historian in the book states that in same village(15th, 16th, 17th century) live Germans, Croats or Serbs (it is not important), what do I do?" Since I have provided evidence that some Serbian historians are falsifying the truth If in some village are mentioned Vlachs and that is about 70% of Croatia and Serbian historians throughout books mentione that they are Serbs without proof, I am interested what to do because it is not true information, it is a forgery. I say this because part of Croats are also referred as Vlachs in documents and these forgeries are actually created some fiction fact that Vlachs are Serbs, which means that part of the Croatian population are of Serbian origin, which is not true and such manipulation is not in good faith. Therefore it is not RS but forgery and manipulation, how to stop it? Mikola22 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another" Article about Serbs from Croatia, I quote: "According to Srđa Trifković, by the mid-14th century Serbs were present around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača there was an Orthodox majority" So I asked where there is good faith when in those Serb-cited places we have no historical data there there live Serbs. It is the 14th century? Therefore, if we do not have historical information about Serbs in those places, why anyone entering this in Wikipedia article, is this a provocation? How can this be written on Wikipedia? This means that Serbian historian population of Vlachs from Croatia 14,15th century who lived there as in every state in the Balkans consider as Serbs. What the Serbs have to do with Croatian Vlach population? And I asked how that was possible. The second part My quote: Serbian source, "A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs"" Book of Croatian historians has original record(letter) I quote: " King Ferdinand in November 6, 1538. writes a letter to Petar Keglević "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque" in which he mentions "Rascians or the Serbs!" "And Vlachs!" (who are commonly called the Ćići ). Therefore we have one original letter. Croatian historian brings original letter and translation, the Serbian historian does not have this letter in his book but writes something which is not written in the letter, that is, he is lying. Where is here good faith? Wikipedia is supposed to promote truth, not lies and manipulation by some historian. I stand for true Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

References

You aren't helping by posting randomly indented run-on paragraphs. 2001:4898:80E8:0:DBE:B655:97CB:B70E (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Mikola: A word of advice before you dig yourself too deep in. This is not a place for content discussion. This discussion is about your edits in relation to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, more specific about your understanding (or lack of understanding) of Wiki rules about reliable sources and original research. For your own sake, please consentrate on that. --T*U (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My quote: "But there is no historical record that he is a Serb, an American historian speaks of him as a Croat because he found in the archive that he was Croatian or from Croatia, why he is not Croatian? If some historian or encyclopedia claims that he is a Serbian origin and there is no original information that speaks of him as a Serbian then it is not relevant evidence" My explanation say it all, we do not have original historical documents that he is referred as a Serb, and the editors of that article keep that information. So if everything is in good faith and you know that there is no historical information that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin why in good faith not asked for consensus i.e remove that information from the article. This is good faith, maybe Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Bosnian? You know that there is no information that he is of Serbian origin and you you keep that information in the article, that is not right, this whole world reads. Mikola22 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Also a look at his edit history shows it seems to very much be a SPA. And the level of tendentiousness is now getting tedious" I have proved every word entered on Wikipedia with a history book or historian and a link to that evidence. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm being accused of something, so I have to answer. I don't know what i should say, i explained my views. Why I would dig myself, because I warn that something in the articles is untrue, this is read Croatians in America, Argentina etc, students, ordinary people. Does anyone here control what is written on Wikipedia? Why there are no such facts on Croatian Wikipedia? Why doesn't someone write that Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin on Croatian Wikipedia. There is no evidence that is of Serbian origin that’s why he can’t write it. I thought that all Wikipedia have the same rules? This is a big surprise to me. Mikola22 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is read by ordinary peoples and they don't know that it is not an Encyclopedia, these are millions of people in the world. They will really think that some Serbs live in Croatia in the 14th century. On forums Wikipedia is more for data source, but ordinary people think that it is an Encyclopedia. So I suggest to consider changing some rules, to make Wikipedia more truthful and accurate. Mikola22 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you are able to accept that the rules aren't going to change, and that you probably won't get your way. 2001:4898:80E8:0:DBE:B655:97CB:B70E (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that is why we will know that Serbs live in Croatia in the 14th century. And that’s okay and should be. That's why no one sees Wikipedia as a serious source of historical information but unfortunately only in local forums, the whole world thinks it's all true, I thought I'd change it, but it won't work. At least I tried.Mikola22 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A simple question, just answer yes or no, Do you intend to obey our policies on wp:rs wp:or and wp:concensus? If multiple users say no will you listen?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but when I add a fact to an article, I don't know if it violates a rule. How should I know that? It is important that source has a background in the book and with some historian. As far as consensus is concerned, if the information that Serbs live in Croatia since 14th century and that Sokollu Mehmed Pasha is Serbian origin in Wikipedia on the basis of consensus then this is true. It's a little weird to accept that, but I was obviously mistaken. Mikola22 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is often hard, but (as has been said) wp:rs is a good place to start. Ask yourself "does this meet these criteria". If othre users then say "no its not an RS" Or "this is OR" or "This is not supported by that source" listen, do not start 3 or 4 RSN threads (again as I have said see wp:tenditious, wp:forumshop might also prove useful. At this time I am happy to close this as you seem to have agreed to obey policy. But I would strongly advise to stop editing articles about Croatia or Serbia until you have a lot more edits under your belt, and understand our polices better and how to apply them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. I think you should take some time to read WP:RS and WP:OR carefully and make sure you really understand what they say. If something is not clear to you, you can ask at WP:TEA or WP:HELPDESK. We have all experienced that Wikipedia takes time to learn. --T*U (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Slatersteven regarding the WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior of the editor. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I had a couple of discussions with Mikola. He just not interested in another opinions. And in the policies of Wikipedia too.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You must know that I first look at Croatian Wikipedia, most Serbian books and historians are not there RS nor foreign historians and books who write on the basics these historians. On Croatian Wikipedia is more looking for original evidence and that is why the same Wikipedia for the Serbian side is propagandistic or fascist. But that is original history. You can always find an editor who writes this or that on Croatian Wikipedia especially when Serbian editors appear. Anyone who has original documents in their book and claims something this must be accepted on Croatian Wikipedia, but unfortunately there is a lot of mythomania and forgery from the Serbian historians and books and that is why for someone from Serbia it seems fascist but Serbian history must be blame not Croatian Wikipedia. I thought that all Wikipedias had the same rules so i was wrong. That is the problem. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Heather Purser

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

---

An editor claiming to be the subject of the article is removing controversial content from the article and is repeatedly being reverted. I am not involved but would appreciate an admin assessing the situation. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the underlying dispute, but the article [139] contains the troubling statement Purser also works to raise domestic violence within Native American households. EEng 21:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's an example where the omission of a word reverses the meaning of a sentence. This is usually true if the word is 'not', but there are other ways including the above. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, that hadn't occurred to me. I genuinely thought the subject was working to increase the incidence of domestic violence. EEng 23:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The missing word is 'awareness' of domestic violence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? You amaze me. Because I really, truly thought the subject was promoting domestic violence. EEng 04:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed that one but I generally can not access the main source the article is based on.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You can read the New York Times via Earwig's tool, no subscription required. I've added an archive url for cite #5 (Indian Country Media). The content appears to be backed up by these sources, especially the second article, which is a 2012 interview. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I notice that the IP has engaged Masumrezarock100, who did the last reversion of the IP deletions on this article, on their talk page at User talk:Masumrezarock100#upsetting content. I think that their post to MZK100's talk page should be re-pasted to the Talk Page of the BLP, for the record, and a discussion had with the IP (who may, or may not be the subject), on their concerns, and also their options under headings like WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE etc. Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, sounds like quite a mess she made. Just so you know, I have know idea who is the person behind that IP. They claimed that they contacted me on Facebook. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have a Facebook account. But I deleted it sometime ago and never revealed it to Wikipedia. I do not know who she contacted but sounds like she could be trolling. I didn't know about this at all, in fact I never edited the article before if I recall correctly. I just patrolling the enwiki queue in SWViewer and found their edit and reverted it as they removed sourced content and replaced them with commentary without any adequate explanation. Masum Reza^📞 12:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Anaxagoras13

User:Anaxagoras13 refuses to engage in conversation in regards to the article 2019 WBSC Premier12. I have left talk pages on the article's talk page [140] and on the talk page of the user [141], which have been reverted with the reasoning "Sportsfan 1234 is not allowed to edit tis page, this is considered vandalism". What am I supposed to do in this case if the user is refusing to engage in discussion? Back in January User:Bishonen blocked the same user for labeling my edits as vandalism (and refusing to discuss). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Just stop your disruptive and unconstructive editing in 2019 WBSC Premier12, that's all you have to do.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans edits on Julian Assange

Multiple reverts and WP:TE on the same content by Snooganssnoogans in which Neutrality and Snooganssnoogans repeatedly revert content inserted by Rebecca jones (and later by me) over a couple of days. I noticed on my watchlist. Then Acroterion admonished Rebecca (and me) when I agreed that the edits did look like vandalism. I used the wrong term, instead it looks like WP:TE or WP:CIRCUS. Eventually El C locked the article.

• Revert: November 8 [142]
• Revert: Nov 11 21:20, 11 November 2019‎ [143]
• I created Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_on_Julian_Assange_location_and_condition at 01:47, 12 November 2019‎.
• Revert: Nov 12 02:17, 12 November 2019 [144]
• 02:20, 12 November 2019 I advised Snooganssnoogans here [145] content was now subject of RfC
• 3RR notice: 02:22, 12 November 2019‎ [146]
• Revert: Nov 12 02:27, 12 November 2019 [147]
• Article subsequently locked 02:35, 12 November 2019‎ El C

Might be useful if this article had a 1RR, it has worked well for the blockchain space at WP:GS/Crypto. Also admins can review the behavior of the involved editors and give feedback (I welcome it as well). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of applying 1RR to the article, may still do so once the protection expires. But, Jtbobwaysf, per WP:ONUS, why don't you wait for the RfC to conclude rather than edit war over the contested addition? El_C 03:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You and the single-purpose account Rebecca Jones are edit-warring new content into the lead of the article. Content that multiple editors on the talk page have objected to as inappropriate for the lead. After attempting to bully (3 reverts within 24 hrs) content contested by multiple editors into the lead (!) of the article and falsely accusing others of vandalism, you now drag me here? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The OP doesn't have especially clean hands, and I've had to remind them and Rebecca Jones that disagreement isn't vandalism. I remind them again - don't cast aspersions to win an argument. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I support 1RR being applied to this article and the user Snooganssnoogans receiving a further warning. The track record of this account shows nothing but biased editing in order to further their own personal opinions and biases. Apeholder (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What did I just say immediately above about aspersions? Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at the history of this page and their user talk page - when they have the amount of complaints they do - at what point does it go from an "aspersion" to a legitimate concern? Apeholder (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I just reported Snoogansnoogans last week for gaming the system on reverts. They routinely do a 3RR and stop before going to 4RR, just as they have done on the article in question today. If, as their last edit summary revert says[148], that there are multiple editors that disagree with this edit, then why are they not letting those editors also do the reverts? I recommended last week Snooganssnoogans be placed on a 1RR for six months and ElC closed that and said I could take it to AN/I, etc. Well, here we are, once again, same story. The best part of this is that just before Snooganssnoogans did their last revert to 3RR, they warned another editor for edit warring on another page[149]. Oh and hey, this isn't some conspiracy theory of fake news...its all in the diffs. Snooganssnoogans may indeed be dealing with, as they claim, SPS's and or bullies (or bully--->to force something into an article, I suspect is the intended acrimonious insult) as they called me last week[150], but well, its okay I suspect if they engage in "aspersions", right?--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh as we live and breathe, yet another edit war unfolds[151].--MONGO (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I just had another editor arrive on my talkpage to complain [152]. So far I've been chiefly concerned with the application of the "vandalism" epithet to disagreement as a means of gaining the upper hand. My review of editor behavior has thus far been confined to Julian Assange, where it's mostly bickering and some WP:RGW activity. Acroterion (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This behavior has been going on for months. Focusing on the last day is far too narrow MrThunderbolt1000T Apeholder (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators aren't omniscient, and I've spent much of this evening dealing with puerile image vandalism rather than conducting wide-ranging reviews of editor conduct. Until now this thread was concerned only with behavior surrounding Julian Assange, where the scope is pretty narrow. Some of this might be best raised at AE, since some of these topics are under restriction. We have content disputes with folks running right up to three reverts. I'd suggest 1RR be applied to the articles at issue. But I'm signing off for the evening. Acroterion (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans's edits (like mine) were perfectly proper; new and disputed content certainly cannot go in the lead section of a biography without a consensus for it, which is of course lacking here. That's what WP:ONUS is all about. Neutrality^talk 04:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• 3RR is not an entitlement unless were talking about vandalism...and all these appear be a content disputes.--MONGO (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute and really come on, this is a minor quibble really so WTF is the edit warring all about?--MONGO (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, the information that Assange was imprisoned in Belmarsh prison was added to the lead on 2 May, so it's hardly "new". I think it's useful, but it's certainly not worth edit-warring about. I think the major behavioural issue has been created by Rebecca jones who has been constantly edit-warring and labelling other edits as "vandalism". After she repetitively did that, I made a comment on the article's talk page on 22 September and on her talk page on 24 September. Yet she has continued to do it. Jtbobwaysf and others seem to be tacitly supporting or excusing her behaviour. I think this is a case of WP:Boomerang.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• No doubt some bad actions are happening all around really and ElC was correct to lock the pages down to prevent further edit warring. Is there proof others are engaging in 3RR games on multiple articles tirelessly week after week though?--MONGO (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• When one patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial politics pages, one is bound to do a lot of reverting. Just in the last week, I spent time repeatedly removing content which I discovered was added by a COI PR account[153] and wasting time reverting and talking to what was obviously a yet-to-be-exposed-sockpuppet account[154]. Users such as yourself may have opted to turn a blind eye, hope that someone else will step in, and let these editors abuse the editing process. Others, such as myself, don't let editors bully bad content into articles, and sometimes part of that is doing lots of reverts (while also adhering to BRD). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You accused me of trying to bully bad content last week. Now you accuse others of the same. BRD means you take it to the talkpage after one revert, not three. Consider joining Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club.--MONGO (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You were absolutely bullying content into that page. You failed to adhere to BRD by repeatedly edit-warring new content into the article. I started the talk page discussion, not you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for calling my good faith edits "bullying". You routinely wait till you're at 3RR to start discussion. That image was added by another editor in good faith...you just didn't like it. But instead of taking out another image of lesser quality, you just revert warred till you reached 3RR.--MONGO (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• And Snoogans continuing to bully on these talk pages. Its these types of WP:OWNERSHIP focused editors that drive away other editors, especially when they are skilled and skirt to avoid violating the 3RR and the admins are too weak/afraid to sanction a clear pattern of violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:OWNERSHIP: The case you bring to us here is a case where you edit-warred new content into the lede of a BLP, despite vociferous objections from many other editors, and reverts from other editors. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: The disputed part of the lede (that Assange's life is at risk) was added in a series of edits by Rebecca Jones on November 1 (which are hidden due to copyright violations).[155] So it is new (and the source cited is from 1 November 2019). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

However, when you removed the disputed part on 8 November, you also removed the rest of the sentence, which had been there since May. And that was a little heavy-handed.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and just for clarification: I only removed that part (the long-standing content) once[156], and that was that time. So entirely consistent with BRD (not that you're accusing me of anything). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not comment about this specific page but Snoogan's overall editing approach works against building consensus. I agree with those who feel their edits are POV pushing. Snoogan is very good at never actually crossing the line but spending a great deal of time way to near it. One problematic example is they are happy to get into long term edit war but too often don't go to the talk page to discuss the disagreements. That applies to the case Acroterion mentioned on their talk page. Some edits are inaccurate to the source and phrased as to make the article subject more distasteful than it might otherwise be. For example this edit where a correlation is referred to as causation [[157]] or this case where the editor ignored the objections of two other editors (one being an IP editor) [[158]]. Despite a back and forth that lasted over a month Snoogan didn't raise the question at the talk page. Snoogan's is very happy to make bad faith accusations against editors who disagree with Snoogan's edits such as here where I was accused of willfully ignoring a RfC that was in the talk page archive and occurred before I edited the page for the first time.[[159]] The long term pattern of behavior was noted by @Awilley: here [[160]]. In summary, I don't think any particular edit or action of Snoogan's crosses the line but there are many cases of poor edits that look like attempts to discredit or place "half truths" (factually correct but lacking in context or mitigating details), frequent edit warring (but great car to not step over the 3RR line), and rather than using the talk page as the first place to civilly solve disagreements, they only reluctantly go to the talk page. Once at the talk page the ideas of those who oppose are dismissed without due consideration and not infrequently with uncivil comments that either assume bad faith or fail to FOC. I have trouble believing Wikipedia as a whole is better for Snoogan's edits. As such I don't think Snoogan's actions here should be viewed as a generally good editor who just was edit warring. Instead this should be a problematic editor who has practiced avoiding the line while walking along it. Springee (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an aggrieved editor who I have clashed with repeatedly and who generally has a POV contrary to mine. In my last encounter with this editor, Springee was removing text agreed upon in a RfC on the Wall Street Journal page (I created the RfC because I do actually build consensus) about the editorial board's promotion of fringe science, including a citation to the most prominent academic book on the climate change denial movement. Despite having never read the book and despite having been pointed to the RfC, this editor repeatedly removed citations to the book, falsely claiming that the book (which he had not read) did not support the text.[161] After pointing this editor to direct quotes from the book that supported the text, the editor moved the goalposts and kept arguing against inclusion of the book. This is a good example of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional and why it's fraught with conflicts: failure to stick with a RfC, dismissal of the best sources, and constant shifting of goalposts. The example also highlights the difference between me and others in terms of building consensus: I started a RfC to settle the content dispute in the first place... Springee violated the consensus reached in the RfC, refused to start a RfC of his own, yet kept edit-warring his preferred changes into the article. Springee, Mongo and these other editors are holding me to a standard that none of these editors adhere themselves to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a long line of aggrieved editors with whom Snoog has edit warred.

• From the last couple days: @ Evo Morales government resignation: 1, 2, 3; @ Julian Assange: 1, 2, 3; @ Concealed carry in the United States: 1, 2, 3.
• From the last couple weeks: @ Don Bacon (politician): 1, 2, 3; @ The Wall Street Journal: 1, 2, 3; @ Mitch McConnell: 1, 2, 3.
• From the last few months just at National Review: 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
• For 2RR and lesser examples, see the histories of Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Great Leap Forward, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Kim Jong-un, and Jack Posobiec.
• Edit warring warnings on Snoog's talk page in last two weeks: 1, 2, 3, 4.
• WP:ANEW filings in last few months: September: No violation because didn't breach 3RR; October: No violation because didn't breach 3RR; November: Report declined. quote El C: "I'm sorry, but this just isn't the venue to address these sort of potential problems. Such a venue would be AN/I, where, for example, such specialized sanctions as a six month 1RR restriction, and so on, can be proposed and implemented." [emphasis added]
• Either Snoog needs to lay off the undo button, or we need to implement El C's the 1RR suggestion. – Levivich 06:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• That was actually MONGO's proposal — I merely commented on it not being suitable for AN3. El_C 06:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. (Although I still don't understand, when we're talking about multiple DS areas [BLP and AP2], why a report to ANEW can't result in admin action without a 4RR. This 4RR requirement at ANEW seems prone to gaming, as seen here.) – Levivich 06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree. Patrolling controversial topics means one will inevitably be involved in content disputes. The fact that Snooganssnoogans hasn't violated 3RR here is instructive - being repeatedly and tendentiously hauled into 3RRNB and having those reports declined because they expressly were not violating policy is not remotely a reason to impose sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Those diffs are not examples of a "content dispute". They are examples of edit warring. There's a big difference. Content disputes happen on talk pages, not with the undo button. – Levivich 06:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Your proposed example of Snooganssnoogans' wrongdoing, Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, is in fact an instructive example of the good work that they are doing. One of the editors they reverted, 88Dragons, was expressly a sockpuppet of a banned user; another, GlassBones, is a single-purpose account who has self-admitted that they are here to push a right-wing POV - they said on Talk:Hunter Biden that It should be obvious that the editors of Wikipedia are overwhelmingly liberal and will do nearly anything to protect the left-wing bias in all articles about political figures. These are problematic users, and reverting problematic edits by problematic users is the opposite of undesirable behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Please don't do that bullshit thing where you cherry-pick one example out of several dozen and then argue that it's "instructive". I already labelled that as one of the "lesser examples". Don't pretend there isn't a problem here. – Levivich 06:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  I picked literally one article at random to investigate; I could go through each and every one of your examples and probably find many of the same patterns. There isn't a problem here. Well, actually, there is a problem - there is a problem with right-wing POV-pushing on the encyclopedia often involving defamatory claims and unreliable sources. In fact, here's another example: their reverts on Jack Posobiec involve removing clear attempts at whitewashing a fringe far-right conspiracy theorist involved in promoting the Pizzagate nonsense. The edit they reverted instead described Posobiec as a journalist and reduced the reliably-sourced factual descriptions of him to "characterized by critics and political opponents." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wow. So you're upset that in wiki-voice we couldn't outright call this person a "fringe far-right conspiracy theorist" and instead had to attribute it to critics?--MONGO (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that we go with what reliable sources say, right? Reliable sources factually describe him as such — it's not merely what "critics and political opponents" say. Unless you're going to argue that everything cited in the lede from ABC News to the Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Times, and Philadelphia are "critics and political opponents." If that's your argument, you're on the wrong encyclopedia project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In the diff you showed...here seems the removal of those very same sources was done by Snooganssnoogans. He restored the link to pizzagate which is fine, but why remove the other reliable sourced things? Is the effort to merely malign the BLP? Please don't tell me I am on the wrong encyclopedia project.--MONGO (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a decent argument that the sources referenced are either passing mentions or cytogenetic. Anyone who supports that sort of sourcing is definitely on the wrong encyclopedia project. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In an article that is geared towards maligning and being a borderline BLP and NPOV wasteland, a few balancing positives for the sake of human decency are of course unacceptable. Apparently reliable sources are only reliable for the portions of information that support the predetermined biases, right?--MONGO (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

All the negative. All the time. Policy be damned. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly what NPOV says afterall, snicker.--MONGO (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Great, now pick some that aren't ones I labelled "lesser examples". – Levivich 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sure. Let's look at Julian Assange - where Snooganssnoogans appropriately removed disputed material from the article lede (which had previously been removed by Neutrality) and directed the user to the talk page. Jtbobwaysf's attempts to force disputed material into the lede by edit-warring, despite multiple objections, in contravention of the BRD cycle, is what's actually objectionable here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why am I going to bother responding to each when this is the weak sauce you bring? I literally couldn't even remember editing the Great Leap Forward, yet for you this is yet another example of problematic behavior... so what is it? Oh, it's where I am restoring a peer-reviewed book by one of the leading scholars on genocide when two new accounts were ludicrously claiming this scholar was not an expert on the topic just so that they could whitewash the page.[162][163] I should be rewarded for this kind of editing - it says more about you than me that you consider these to be horrible edits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) It's so telling that one of the examples cited here is me removing text added by a sockuppet account with a neo-nazi-ish account name[164] who added nonsense on the Killing of Mollie Tibbetts. It's almost as if a prolific and highly active editor who patrols controversial politics pages will end up doing a lot of reverts. I'm so sad for you Levivich that this neonazi sockpuppet didn't start a spurious edit-warring noticeboard discussion so that you could lump it in there with the other spurious complaints by aggrieved editors who were not given carte blanche to force BS into Wikipedia articles in contravention to WP:BRD. I have a list of complaints against me listed on my userpage, many from fringe folks on internet forums... seeing as how you're throwing spaghetti on the wall, to see what sticks, feel free to add those to your list of complaints against me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I also have a history with Levivich. Every time someone a brings a complaint against me, no matter how meritless and weak, this editor must enter the fray calling for sanctions on me. Levivich has been on my case ever since he sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[165] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me - because I do build consensus).[166] Ever since, he's been in every discussion where someone raises a complaint about me to argue on behalf of the filer of the meritless complaints (when those filers are inevitably boomeranged) and/or saying I'm a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definition of edit warring: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring".--MONGO (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• For clarification allow me to emphasize the wording "...content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes...". Yet you label such things as "bullying"...--MONGO (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• As can be seen from the riveting conversation above, Snoog & Friends will inevitably argue that because Snoog was right on the content, therefore his edit warring was justified–laudable, in fact. This will continue so long as the community allows it. Put me down for supporting a 1RR restriction, of course. – Levivich 06:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I second this. Snoogans has often engaged in edit warring, and whether or not he has engaged in constructive editing, it's at least clear to me that he engages far more in unconstructive, uncivil reverting. He's engaged in personal attacks and he reverts without discussion: as one user said before, there's a history of Snoogans discussing content disputes. While some may beg to differ, the countless reports filed against him, regardless of outcome, combined with this particular incident thread packed with activity, show that there's definitely a problem. I've tried to discuss content disputes with him, but for someone who points out failures to engage in BRD, he sure doesn't like to talk about said disputes like an adult. Snoogans says that these reports are "meritless," but then again, look who likes to edit-war, make meritless reverts, use hypocritical logic and move the goalposts. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

For context, this is an editor whose unproductive edits I've reverted on Brian Kemp (a few weeks ago) and Concealed carry in the United States (earlier today). Earlier,[167] this editor falsely accused me of stalking him to those pages (despite the fact that I'm a regular editor on both and precede him on both), and then doubled down on the false claim when I pointed out the error[168]. The editor only knows me from those two disputes (and yet can't even get them right), and is still here talking about my history as if he's intimately familiar with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's laughable. First off, there's your contributions, with an extensive list of all the times you've engaged in edit-warring and content disputes. You're the one who thinks an NAS review is infallible and that all other studies are fallible. Your reverts are typically unconstructive and your lack of logic regarding academic qualification equally so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrThunderbolt1000T (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• My question is why does Snooganssnoogans have a "history" with so many people? Is this healthy?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not. Refer to the comment below by Pudeo. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Snooganssnoogans has been recently doubling down in his battleground approach: he recently called another editor's RS/N comment an "unhinged rant". His edit summaries have become uncivil as well: "remove shit source", "tasked my ass", "holy fuck, who added that the school was accredited when it's not at all?", "shit sources", "It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog", "bullshit". I suggest that WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE are enforced, or else getting away with everything will just embolden him, it seems. --Pudeo (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This, right here. Snoogans is out of control and he needs to be held accountable for all of the ridiculous, malicious things he does. There's insurmountable evidence. If nothing is done about this, then I'd seriously have to question Wikipedia, its stated intent and everything else. Snoogans is clearly out of line and nothing has been done, but something has to be done. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at Special:Log/Snooganssnoogans logs as evidence of WP:BATTLE. Does the Assange article have discretionary sanctions already? Snoogan asserted it did on my talk page [169] here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Unhinged rant" was in response to the most random unhinged rant accusing me of being in favor of the dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.[170] I was not aware that "shit" as a description of a source was prohibited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think language like that is prohibited, but it's not conducive to co-operative editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note: JzG has applied 1 RR to Julian Assange. Bishonen | talk 12:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC).

Here's a few more from the Tucker Carlson article - 1, 2, 3, and then 1, 2, 3, 4. In general this is a big part of Snoogans editing style. I would support a 1RR or a topic ban from AMPOL2, but since that is nearly exclusively where they edit it would be a soft site ban, so would prefer something less drastic. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Current state

• Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) protected for 10 days by El C
• 1RR applied to Julian Assange by me
• DS notice issued to Rebecca jones

What else needs doing, please? Guy (help!) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you check the diffs presented above documenting a history of edit warring? Or does that need to go to AE? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose 1RR for AP2

A pattern of edit warring has been shown as well as a disregard for the views/concerns of other editors. Snoogans feels that they are making good edit and when they go to the talk page they are able to persuade or use RfCs to correct problems with articles. A 1RR limit doesn't prevent their making article changes nor does it prevent consensus building. However, it does prevent the pattern of reverting others without trying to discuss or build consensus. This should result in a minimal impact to good article changes and reduce the number of edit warring complaints. Springee (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1RR limit as proposer. Springee (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR limit as per the above diffs. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above notes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Snooganssnoogans.--MONGO (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per above diffs. – Levivich 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in line with my comments and those of NorthBySouthBaranof and Snoogs above. Neutrality^talk 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Meh. Snoogs is the textbook example of being right in the wrong way. I'd like to hope we can find something other than cudgels to fix this. Guy (help!) 13:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR Snooganssnoogans. Edit wars are disruptive to the project. Lightburst (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think everyone who edits American politics has experienced Snoog's edit-warring or battleground behavior. This is a consistent problem. Just look at the above diffs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• The notion that 1RR would have a minimal impact on patrolling is absurd. As someone who patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial American politics pages (which are rife with bad edits), it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes without any effective way of ensuring a stable status quo version of the article... it would make it effectively impossible to patrol pages (many of which do not have other active veteran editors on them), because I cannot start a talk page discussion every time a neonazi sockpuppet adds anti-immigrant propaganda to a page (literally one of the examples of 'problematic behavior' cited against me by Levivich who has spent almost a year gathering data on me due to his vendetta against me, yet these are the examples he brings to the table)... the consequence would be to allow editors (whether they are new acounts, blatant COI accounts or regular editors who edit in a problematic way) to abuse the editing process and let bad content slide into countless articles. Three of the voters above, Springee, Mongo and Levivich have a history of edit-warring new content into articles (in violation of WP:BRD), and with me removing that content (in two cases they edit-warred changes which violated a consensus reached in a RfC[[171]][172][173][174]). Mr Ernie and Red Rock Canyon have a right-wing POV. The goal is purely to prevent one of the most active and prolific patrollers in their topic area from being able to prevent them and like-minded editors from bullying bad new changes into articles. The standards that they hold me to are standards that they themselves do not adhere to in the slightest. You would for instance never in your wildest dreams see me, a supposedly horrific edit-warrior, violate a RfC consensus, yet that is precisely what the proposer has done (and being the good editor I am I had to revert him when he did that[175][176]... 1RR would have stopped me from doing that, which is what this editor wants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You're responsible for this. If you didn't engage in edit-warring, battleground behavior, lying and the like, this wouldn't be an issue. Because you act like American politics is your courtroom to preside over, this is why all of us are here. Why don't you become a constructive editor and stop accusing people of right-wing POV for disagreeing with your reverts? You engaged in an edit-war with me and several other users, even engaging in a personal attack because you can't accept a lede representing a body accurately. This is ridiculous. If you want to patrol American political articles, then stop being an edit warrior, a hypocrite, and a liar. Don't complain if your refusal to be civil and reasonable gets you impeded from patrolling. Everybody here has seen your battleground behavior and your edit-warring. I was 100% willing to have a civil conversation on the matter, and gave you ample time to respond, but just like you always do, your first instinct is to revert. It looks like to just about everyone here that you can't take being wrong. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was actually with you up until you started casting the aspersions. But the problem is that you are the one bullying bad new changes into articles. Take the Bill Barr page for example. Two sections you edit warred to include, the secularists blurb and the Trump hotel party blurb, do not have consensus as encyclopedic topics. That's the problem. You have a different view of what should be in articles, and one that I don't think conforms with NOTNEWS and DUE. You also edit war to include such changes, as is widely demonstrated in the diffs above. The 1RR restriction is an attempt to stop that. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just one thing I want to clarify: I didn't spend a year gathering data on Snoog. That would be weird stalkerish-type behavior on my part. The diffs I posted here I gathered in about 20 minutes yesterday, by going back through Snoog's mainspace contribs to October 30 (two weeks). It's really easy to do: click on his contribs, filter by mainspace namespace only, and look for the repeated "undos" (the +/- bytes changed is a dead giveaway). I have done this before–IIRC in another ANI thread about six months ago, and that one was a deeper dive (I went back more than two weeks). But I have no idea what "the worst" examples of Snoog's editing are; I only can say that there are lots of recent examples of edit warring and, specifically, gaming 3RR. – Levivich 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per the above diffs + Red Rock Canyon. - DoubleCross (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR per the above, especially Red Rock Canyon. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is yet another editor who sought to bully bad changes into an article with a right-wing POV. On the William Barr page, which is covered by 1RR and consensus-required (to restore challenged edits), this editor edit-warred contested content back into the article, which I reverted[177][178]. I did not file an edit-warring case against the editor (despite the blatant violation of consensus-required) nor did I revert him again. When I informed the editor that he should seek a consensus, the editor threatened to edit-war again, demonstrating the kind of attitude in which he approaches editing with[179]. Again, these editors (most of whom have right-wing POVs) do not in the slightest follow the standards that they apply to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You're leaving out a very important fact. These so-called "bad changes" were overwhelmingly supported by uninvolved editors when I opened up an RfC, which closed in favor of the changes that you tried to edit-war out of the article. You have a very hostile attitude and many of the editors here have said the same. Your stalwart refusal to recognize this is a cause for concern. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC did not conclude in favor of the text that you edit-warred into the article (a misleading snippet)[180][181], but a different NPOV version of the text (a full quote which made it clear what the context was)[182]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC accepted a version that I proposed. Please stop trying to spin this. You're only further demonstrating why this 1RR ban is needed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• The version you proposed in the RfC is different from the one that you edit-warred into the article. Here are the diffs for anyone to see[183][184][185] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• You were quite literally the only "Oppose" vote. This is getting tiring especially now that you're trying to WP:BLUDGEON anyone who speaks out against your high-impact, high-conflict style of editing. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 20:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per the comments upthread by Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR as probably useful. Add: please note that I am involved. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - pretty obvious why this needs to be imposed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I’ve had conflicts with Snog before in the past but his work combatting quackery and politics agenda editing in general is solid. He was one of the major people, along with myself and others, that uncovered a sockpuppet ring on Center for Immigration Studies. He should be more careful but this is excessive. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• My editing on Center for Immigration Studies is an instructive example of the great lengths I go to to achieve consensus and to engage in discussion even when the opposing editors are obviously not making good edits and are obviously not operating in good faith. I spent upwards to two years (!) combating what was ultimately revealed to be a nest of 5-10 sockpuppets, and wasting dozens (maybe hundreds) of hours meticulously dealing with their concerns, starting RfCs, looking up the sources that they were bringing to the table (and usually always misrepresenting them), and of course also doing a lot of reverting. For most of those two years, it was up to me alone to deal with those editors. If 1RR had been in effect for me, then I would not have been able to deal with that nest of sockpuppets, and those editors would (1) have been able to insert and keep their awful content in the article and (2) would likely not have been exposed as sockpuppets. My user talk page is also full of complaints from these very same sockpuppets, which Levivich might take as evidence of what a horrible editor I am (because adding ten spurious complaints together must somehow equate one legitimate complaint, am I right?). If anyone wants to understand what editing on controversial Am Politics is like (and why reverting is often necessary), please read the Center for Immigration Studies archives, starting perhaps here[186]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  OK, let's examine this claim, and see who Snoog is reverting: at Evo Morales government resignation, it's Kingsif (2 years, 14k edits); at Julian Assange, Jtbobwaysf (13 years, 5k edits); at Concealed carry in the United States, MrThunderbolt1000T (4 years, 141 edits) and Apeholder (1 year, 559 edits); at Don Bacon (politician), RandomUserGuy1738 (3 years, 4k edits) and MONGO (14 years, 75k edits); at The Wall Street Journal, Springee (11 years, 8k edits); at Mitch McConnell, Rwood128 (10 years, 22k edits); at National Review, some IPs and Rick Norwood (14 years, 21k edits). And that's just from the last two weeks. Doesn't seem to me like Snoog is using 3RR just to fight vandals, sockpuppets, and POV trolls, but rather, regular editors. Some of our most long-standing, dedicated editors, in fact. – Levivich 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue the details of Snoogan's accusations against me, especially the false claim that I was reverting against the outcome of a RfC that I was aware of, but I think the above kind of drives home the point. No one is opposed to Snoogan reverting actual socks/vandalism. It's when they POV push and refuse to engage in discussion with experienced editors that things become a problem. It's worth noting that Snoogan's account has a TBAN related to spamming the material into a large number of pages at once.[[187]] In that case it was clear the material Snoog was adding was not just to patrol. The edits were seen as often POV pushing. Snoog is getting a pass on their bad behavior because they also do some good. In that case the remedy was narrow to try to lance the boil while saving the rest of the body. I think this 1RR is similar. If the edits are good, make the case and others will defend them. If they aren't and others disagree we avoid edit wars. Anything that encourages discussion vs reversion is likely a good thing. Springee (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• "If the edits are good, make the case and others will defend them. If they aren't and others disagree we avoid edit wars. Anything that encourages discussion vs reversion is likely a good thing." This is coming from an editor who was edit-warring changes to content approved in a RfC literally days ago. I can't get over how brazen it is that the filer in this case is the same person who days ago literally edit-warred out consensus text, only for me and other editors having to revert it back to the consensus version (incredibly, this is also one of the examples that Levivich cites as part of my "problematic behavior": me restoring content approved in a RfC)[188][189][190][191][192]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  In those last three reverts in that string of five, you're putting a single cite into the lead. "Should we include this cite in the lead?" is an easy enough question to pose on the talk page. But by your own admission (above), you don't want to take the time to engage in content disputes the right way: As someone who patrols hundreds (if not thousands) of controversial American politics pages (which are rife with bad edits), it would force me to dedicate countless hours to starting talk page discussions and keeping tabs of dozens of on-going disputes without any effective way of ensuring a stable status quo version of the article... it would make it effectively impossible to patrol pages (many of which do not have other active veteran editors on them), because I cannot start a talk page discussion every time a neonazi sockpuppet adds anti-immigrant propaganda to a page [...] the consequence would be to allow editors (whether they are new acounts, blatant COI accounts or regular editors who edit in a problematic way) to abuse the editing process and let bad content slide into countless articles. The answer might be in patrolling fewer pages, because you're right: content disputes take time to resolve. You can't "patrol" the entire AP2 topic area. – Levivich 20:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• There's literally a weeks-old fresh RfC about the inclusion of the text and the cite. How many RfCs am I supposed to start about the same content? This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying that standards are being applied to me that none of these editors come close to adhering to: I start a RfC to resolve a content dispute, spend hours putting together a solid RfC with appropriate sourcing (academic books and articles), the content gets approved by consensus in the RfC, and then when a "good" veteran editor such as Springee decides to brazenly revert the RfC consensus on multiple occasions[193][194][195][196][197], I am suddenly supposed to start a new RfC? Also, I remind you that this is not some random editor I'm talking about: the editor who is proposing 1RR on me right here right now is the same user who just days ago brazenly violated a RfC consensus on multiple occasions. The shamelessness is absolutely stunning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  (1) the RfC was almost six months ago, not "weeks-old fresh"; (2) the RfC language was "fringe", not "pseudoscientific"; (3) the RfC wasn't about whether it needed a citation, or that particular citation; and (4) what you're supposed to do is discuss it at the talk page and not revert. Even if–and I want to make this next part absolutely clear–even if you're right about the content. – Levivich 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why are you so reluctant to actually describe Springee's brazen and blatant edit-warring as edit-warring while you at the same time lambast me for restoring the RfC consensus text? I can't emphasize this point enough: the standards that are being applied to me are standards that none of these other editors come close to adhering to themselves. I'm supposed to seek and build consensus (through for example crafting RfCs), yet they have anointed themselves the powers to literally revert RfC consensus text. As for the specifics: (1) The RfC was concluded in June. (2) Pseudoscientific and fringe are the same thing, in particular in this context (and this semantic difference was not cited as a reason behind the reverts). (3) The RfC question included the citation and the discussion shows multiple editors referencing the book in support of the content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Snoogans has engaged in recurrent edit-warring, personal attacks and battleground behavior. Snoogans usually refuses to engage in civil conversation regarding content disputes, this being Snoogans's talk page, where my message (Concealed carry in the United States) went unanswered by him for days, and he engages in personal attacks, as cited by Pudeo above, and he engaged in a personal attack against Apeholder on Apeholder's talk page. Many diffs and other evidence have been cited as to his edit-warring, battleground behavior and lying. As Levivich pointed out, Snoogans has been edit-warring and engaging in battleground behavior against some of Wikipedia's more experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable editors, disrupting the goals of Wikipedia. Snoogans is clearly acting contrary to the guidelines and just being a pain to anyone that has a different opinion. No amount of service to Wikipedia, whether true or false in its existence, justifies or excuses this behavior. I'm 100% in favor of 1RR. I would have no issue if Snoogans breached 3RR to combat vandals and trolls as he claims, but the facts show that he breaches 3RR regularly to win content disputes and to assert battleground behavior. --MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't read any part of this thread; I saw a proposal to implement 1RR and that's a yes from me. 1RR should be our standard everywhere, but here's as good a place as any to start. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Snooganssnoogans for continued pattern of disruptive behavior, WP:TE, and clear evidence of WP:BATTLE here [198]. Even Snooganssnoogans recent comment on this very ANI page (below) [199] evidence the continuing WP:1AM issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2019 (Utc)
• Comment leaning toward oppose but am confused by the. Claim of regular breaches of 3rr. You breach 3rr regularly, you get blocked frequently. I see no blocks for edit warring. What I think I do see is a political conflict being carried out by some although not all editors here. Not surpriseing I guys'd given the area. And a subject heading that looks like it's for a restriction for a topic area or at least thought to be one by at least one editor. Doug Weller talk 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Doug, 3RR is not an entitlement and you know that. Playing the game of revert warring repeatedly to that threshold is a form of gaming the system. My original thought was a site wide 1RR restriction for six months. Seems this mess will likely end up in arbcom court since this is a multifaceted behavioral situation.--MONGO (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the behaviour is pretty hostile, but there is always another editor in disputes who should hopefully recognize and stop it with a conversation. I just can’t see how this arbitrary lower limit helps. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

More attention required at Julian Assange

There is currently an RFC at Julian Assange that could certainly benefit from more attention, if admins have energy for that. A number of editors have attempted to remove statements by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer despite overwhelming coverage in reliable sources: New York Times, The Guardian, Reuters, The Washington Post, Newsweek Op-Ed by Melzer, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, The Brussels Times, Repubblica, The Independent, Business Insider, Al Jazeera, The Financial Times, The LA Times, The Hindustan Times, The Times, The International Business Times, The Irish Times], Express, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Hill, Liberation, USA Today, La Presse, Deutsche Welle, Counterpunch, Salon.com, The Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Bloomberg, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, France 24, among many others.

This is despite the fact that policy requires that relevant but controversial material in the lead of a WP:BLP not be suppressed, and it is not uncommon that poor health or alleged torture under detainment be noted in biographies. Again, more eyes at the article and participation in the RfC would be helpful there. -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

And this is a far from neutrally worded notice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This isnt the notice, the notice is over on the Assange talk page, and it is neutrally worded there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As always, I strongly support more eyes at more pages (no one has started more RfCs in Am Politics editing than me in the last few years). I have no doubt at all that the community will agree with me (and the majority on the article talk page) that one opinion suggesting that the British authorities are harming or trying to kill Assange is not ledeworthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• At a glance, most of those sources don't even mention the part of his statements that is disputed in the lead (that his life is at risk), and even the ones that do do so in a context that has different implications than the disputed lead wording, ie. the lead wording makes it sound like he should be killed, whereas the emphasis of those sources is on psychological trauma and the fact that he is sick. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why editors thought that the text implied Assange was going to be killed. I just can't see that implication.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Fcbjuvenil

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

For a long time now this user has not really helped or taken part in WP:FOOTBALL project, and yet he/she has been told multiple times not to do certain edits regarding Spanish football club edits. I've noticed the same editing pattern for far too long and even messages from admin Mattythewhite have fallen on dears ear. In August he edit-warred with some user who was reported to be a sockpuppet, at the end of September was banned for just 36 hours. I really don't think the message is getting across, I would say that Fcbjuvenil has been waging an edit-war against a whole project for a long time with out any real consequence. There are been lots of edit-warring with other users on wikipedia over the years and Fcb still hasn't learned from his action. I am sure that stronger action needs to be taken to resolve the issues, Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of questionable conduct? When have you attempted to recently discuss the issues with the user before coming to ANI? GiantSnowman 09:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I pointed to the project with this edit about an issue and he undid it anyway and if he is going to simply removing all the talk conversation from his talk page. Well look at that history! Between his Contrib and history, there are lots of issues to count up. Being you GiantSnowman I am sure you must of crossed paths with Fcb. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So we look to have an editor who disruptively edits against community consensus, does not provide edit summaries to explain their edits, and does not respond to talk page posts? GiantSnowman 10:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Govvy, do you have any other diffs? SportingFlyer T·C 11:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I found this diff where he's recently called Mattythewhite a "Sucker" in the edit summary? Incredibly mild, realistically, but a look at their talk history does show a series of blanking, a past block, which was responded to with a single sentence - "lol", and overall a series of unhappy sections. To say the user seems problematic is probably a fair call. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the user's talk page history troubling and makes the user appear WP:NOTTHERE. I agree the edit summary comment is mild. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say they are Not here to build an encyclopedia but I would argue that WP:CIR is applicable - the edits they are making don't seem like your usual troll/vandalism attempts, but the lack of communication and team-work does lend itself to believe that the user simply isn't willing or able to work in a co-operative fashion. Either way, I would argue it's high time we talk about some form of stronger action. Perhaps another block? I'm hesitant to suggest anything myself considering my small length of service here, I would usually leave that to another more experienced editor. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 14:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, can't really do much now, I managed to fracture my left hand today! I can only put the issues I saw forward, I hope other ppl can come to the right decision on what to do here. cheers Govvy (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Self promotion SPA: Jack Nusan Porter

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

---

Jack Nusan Porter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See contribs here. All were reverted. François Robere (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So why didn't you at least attempt to communicate with Porter (if it actually is him) before bringing this to WP:ANI? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Because I assume he received several reversal messages, and can deduce self-promotion is not seen favorably around here. François Robere (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see no evidence that he received any messages at all prior to you posting here. 86.141.208.224 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

And some users turn them off (myself included). Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notifications aren't logged anywhere, so other users don't see them. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now warned them I also note that have not be made aware of this ANI. I shall now do that too.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. My bad. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Feels like this ANI thread happened too fast. The user is question, Jack Nusan Porter, is a new editor (although their account dates from 2017), and they seem to be a subject expert with a book. Like many such cases, they assume that correcting articles in line and referencing their book is beneficial. I have explained on their Talk Page that they risk being promotional (per WP:PROMO), and have asked them to engage with other editors on the Talk Page first. They haven't even really even got into edit warring (as some initial subject experts do), and there are plenty of editors on the article who can manage their non-consensus edits. I suggest we close this now and hopefully, the user will learn, improve ... and thrive. Britishfinance (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This should probably be at WP:COIN. In any case, this afd is also relevant to the matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Nusan Porter is more than a 'subject expert with a book'. He is an academic who has written extensively on the Holocaust, and on Jewish partisans. He has won awards from the American Sociological Association, and is currently engaged in research at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University. Sadly though the appearance of this thread on WP:ANI led not only to the aggressive response seen above, but to someone prodding Porter's biography (which has existed uncontested since 2008) for deletion, without even a token effort to verify the American Sociological Association awards stated at the bottom of the page - something that took me all of five minutes. Is it any wonder that so many academics take a dim view of Wikipedia? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is ANI - we are not into titles etc. but just efficiently going through the daily incidents of the world's largest (and fastest-growing) store of shareable knowledge. As per above, I think we can close this thread now, as the specific account in question, who may or may not be linked to the real-life author, has been reverted by other editors and has not, thankfully, started edit warring.

The AfD of Jack Nusan Porter is not an ANI issue - any editor can propose an article for AfD. At AfD over the next few days or weeks (as long as it takes), the community will apply WP:PAG (and particularly WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC etc.) to see if this BLP is valid for WP. Jack will pass with flying colours if he is sufficiently notable. It is not a very high bar in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Film Fan, site-ban unblock request(s)

Hi. The above user was site-banned last year and has now made several requests for their block to be lifted. The first decline (by Yamla in October) states "Try again no sooner than six months from today, and only if you refrain from engaging in any further ban evasion..." They then pretty much posted the same request again, which was declined by SQL two days ago. Their third request (!) starts with "I have not socked in a long time..." and even imply that they are still socking here, stating "For the record, the above list is mostly incorrect". So therefore, some of them must be correct. This user has been indef'd not once, but twice, with the latter having a site-ban. The full block log is here. IMO, I would not want to see this editor unblocked, but I would welcome further input. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to explain (again) that they are community banned and they need to try and convince the community here, not just one admin. If they don't post something coherent and reasonable soon, talk page access shoud probably be revoked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words (revisited)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words.

The IP editor is still at it: latest incarnation 27.81.2.164. I have just spent a disagreeable 40 minutes undoing some of its damage. I didn't even bother trying with these diffs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, where the most recent IP edit partially overwrote pre-existing garbage (check both columns).

I also found its friend 2400:2652:481:CB00:807A:38E7:568E:BC5A, active on 30 May 2019, responsible for diffs such as this, which had escaped notice until today. Some of the garbage was still there, and I attempted to fix it by hand. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also seen several cases but left them as I know nothing of the subject and they may have some meaning which I can't discern. It's been going on since at least 2014, with the IP changing frequently. They tend to be on Japanese topics: here is a sample (with a few false positives from chemical formulae). Certes (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I think all the ones I've seen have been in biographies of Japanese voice actors. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• This was also requested at EFR, but I guess we'd all been procastinating. Anyway, see 1010. Discussion of the filter can continue at WP:EFR#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Unusual Behaviour; Test editing, possible vandalism? Help!

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

---

Dear Admin, A recent user conveyed a rather weird pattern of test editing that I couldn't seem to unravel. On the talk page, it appeared as if he was having technical difficulties, so I approached it that way. But now it seems like obvious test editing to the point of sheer vandalism and libel. What should I do? Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 18:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet of User:InklingGirl error. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Thanks for letting me know :) Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Inexcusable vandalism to my edits on the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church page

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

Please help.JoeScarce (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. Please read WP:BRD. Failing that, you can create a WP:RFC to get additional input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It definately started out as content but JoeScarce has now well broken the 3RR limit today on Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, and is not contributing collaboratively on the Talk Page; blocked for a week in October 2019 and their reaction You are pathetic, was not a good look. Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I was blocked for including edits to Diocese of Kalamazoo which a user didn't like. I mentioned this in the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church talk page. I added the names of sourced priests who were accused of sex abuse and was falsely accused of trollingJoeScarce (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce - I would self-revert because you've made 4 reverts there and are in violation of 3RR.--Jorm (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't close this. I've got to get diffs together, but I'm pretty sure the above comments about the Kalamazoo thing are illustrative of WP:IDHT, and it clearly carries over here. Someone should check the Archdiocese of Detroit article for BLP issues, BTW. It's pretty clear Joe is WP:NOTHERE just in this complaint. Ill be back with some diffs in a bit. John from Idegon (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• On second thought, never mind. He'll foist himself on his own pittard soon enough. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced, defamatory posts at Alycia Kaback

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

---

I've asked for a user block at AIV, and requested rev/deletion from an administrator. Maybe this will get some eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, OhNoitsJamie. I suspect the content was made up from whole cloth; A Google search returned nothing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

38.114.82.82

• 38.114.82.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I have blocked this IP indefinitely. It triggered filter 1008 with an attempt to add "$NAME is a traitor" at ITN and a review of contributions finds nothing but vandalism. It was AE blocked in January 2018 for similar nonsense, so it seems to be stable for now. Guy (help!) 23:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg Edit Suppression

My edit 23:08, 12 November 2019 was very different in verbage from the original source content, and the edit was improperly suppressed for copyright violation. I know WP:OR is very serious, so I made sure to not add my own research. Frankly, the fact that crime records were not yet present in the article indicates WP:Bias issues in the existing page. 216.130.236.20 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the same edit that I removed a few days ago. The above IP has received a notice that the material was removed as a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pete Buttigieg edit suppression — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't copy any text from any source. I don't know what the other time you suppressed an edit has to do with my edit, which again does not have copied text (while still avoiding WP:OR). My edit's verifiably identical to a different suppressed edit? 216.130.236.20 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Any thought to removing most of those suppressed edits' summaries? The ones from a few days ago added by User:DouggCousins and this one that was added by DouggCousins logged out are awfully contentious. He's highlighting bad things that happened in a city and blaming that city's mayor by name. That's WP:OR at best, arguably libel at worst, and even if true, it's WP:UNDUE stuff being added by someone who is obviously one of Pete Buttigieg's partisan opponents. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:DCE7:97FB:3FF9:EE1 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What we've got is a series of IPs range 172.58.224.0/21 plus the new one above 216.130.236.20 plus the named account DouggCousins all adding the same copyvio content. See User talk:Diannaa/Archive 66#Censorship of Pete Buttigieg article, User talk:Diannaa#Pete Buttigieg Article for context. I gotta go to the gym now or I will be late for class. TTYL— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, nothing in my edit was copied. 216.130.236.20 (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)