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

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page [1] suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD [2]. There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question [3]. as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When you fail to get supporters for your harassment at ANi, cite the thread at ArbComm as evidence. Comedy gold. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever.[4] and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process [5] Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" [6], calling other users who are interested in portals as biased [7], and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not of fan of Legacypac's conduct by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand why other users are frustrated. Nevertheless, it was absolutely inappropriate for OhanaUnited to use the term 'xenophic' in this context. Such use of the term is insensitive to those who experience real xenophobia and is a plainly wrong representation of what Legacypac actually said. That much should be made very clear. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This Admin has not backed down on the use of this slur, and has doubled down at ArbComm. They exercise very poor judgement. Done in the context of a request for WP:ADMINACCT makes this especially offensive. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually subscribe to "there's one law for ordinary editors and another for admins" conspiracy type theories on WP but I think if this had not been an admin who made a grotesque personal attack on another editor they would have had to retract or at least receive a rebuke from an admin. I still think User:OhanaUnited didn't actually know what the word "xenophobic" means and has had to flail about to try to find some ridiculous, unconvincing rationale for its use. Those diffs User:OhanaUnited supplies do not justify the accusation of "xenophobia", it is an absurd and offensive slur.Smeat75 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest that, for starters, OhanaUnited re-reads WP:ADMINCOND, andthen perhaps explains how accusing editors of xenophobia represents an appropriate standard...of courtesy and civility. ——SerialNumber54129 17:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's not as if it were a random word choice - it was commenting specifically on the editor's perceived fear of the fact the discussion was closed by someone other than a "normal" moderator. We're making too much of this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We're making too much of this indeed. OhanaUnited has clarified what they meant, and that they are not accusing Legacypac of being racist. OU could and should have used a different word, but by continuing to focus on it we're just taking attention away from the actual issues with Legacypac's behaviour (oh, and that OU is an admin is completely irrelevant here - a non-admin making an inadvisable word choice that was understandably misinterpreted as a person attack but actually wasn't one would not be treated any differently). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that a non-Admin would have been treater the same. Even when the offensiveness of this slur was explained to this Admin - who used the slur in context of WP:ADMINACCT, they stand by the slur and have not apologized or retracted it, nor even admitted they used the wrong word. This shows very bad judgement for any editor, and especially for an Admin. Do we have open season to broadly accuse editors of anything we feel like? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The DRV overturned User:OhanaUnited's close which proves their complaint against me here is invalid. Now - what are we going to do about their conduct? Free pass because they are an Admin? Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac posted this diff on my talk page accusing me of supporting a personal attack. As I've described above, I do not believe OhanaUnited called Legacypac a "racist" as Legacypac claimed on my talk page, nor was the DRV technically "overturned" Wikipedia:Deletion review#Portal:Bacon (closed). I'm very concerned with Legacypac's behaviour here, not necessarily the posting on my talk page (which I found quite odd) but more specifically this battleground mentality against OhanaUnited and portals generally, specifically because the DRV closer mentioned the nomination itself, led by Legacypac, was defective. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• The admin has responded by saying that when he called Lpac "xenophobic", he wasn't saying that Lpac was racist, just that he has a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners. A fellow admin calls this "clarification"; I call it "doubling down on a personal attack". Tomato, tomahto, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leviv ich 17:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I assure everyone I do not have a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. SportingFlyer continues to support this smear against me even when I pointed out they should not be doing that. Indeed I withdrew the Mfd nom because the underlying article assessments by WikiProject Portals were screwy. SportingFlyer seems to have missed there is a big cleanup job around portals going on and nothing in my conduct in the cleanup rises to any kind of problem worth discussing. A non-Admin might have been blocked for making a personal attack like this, and this Admin did it in the context of WP:ADMINACCT. I want the attack removed by RevDel and an apology. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Demanding an apology never works on Wikipedia. It doesn't result in a sincere apology and what are the consequences if an apology is not given? Is OU going to get a block for not apologizing about a slight? It doesn't happen, to admins or regular editors. This is all deflection from the talk about portals. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I still insist on [WP:ADMINACCT]] attacking me instead of dealing with the error the Admin made is wrong. Using a synonym for racist to discribe me is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Let it go. OU choose their words poorly, but nothing more is going to come from that. Please stop trying to divert attention away from the real issue, which is your behaviour in regard to portals. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time [8] so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Barb is aimed straight at ya'

EEng

But Madonna's aim is far more pointy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that barb was aimed at me. Perhaps the aimer can clarify where I ever advocated such a thing, or, you never know, just apologise. Sheesh. -- Begoon 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "aimer" you are referring to me, then I don't see a need to apologise for stating something which is true: You desire to see portals deleted without regard to quality. Portals contain content (that it is republished content is the whole point of portals). Some portals you wish to see deleted contain content that is bad and/or badly organised, some portals contain content that is good and/or well organised (and others contain content that is between the two, it's not black and white). Therefore what you desire is the deletion of both good and bad content. You are perfectly entitled to have this opinion, but those of us who do not share that opinion are not being disruptive simply by disagreeing with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The TTH portals don't "contain" any content, contrary to your claim. They "display" content which is kept elsewhere. No content is deleted by deleting these portals. Twisting words to suit your purpose (like you did as well with your novel definition of "merging" at the CfDs, or like OhanaUnited did in a much worse way with their version of "xenophobic" as a synonym of "neophobic") is not a good thing, and seems to match the kind of comments and votes you argue to be stricken and sanctionable at the arb case request. Fram (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram, the very basic misunderstanding of the nature of portals which you explain so well there is quite fundamental to this whole debate, and the issues being considered. It's alarming that it should need to be set out at all, and even more so that it needs to be explained to an admin ... but it certainly does need to be explained.

It seems to me to be a central part of the issues being considered in respect of a possible arbcom case, so please may I urge you to add something to that effect to your statement at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fram? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[9]

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes [my] true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Wikipedia, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Wikipedia for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. [16] This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: Re dispute predating the article: I don't follow the pit bull article and have never edited it. Nor have I bothered to check revisions of the pit bull article. I didn't join as a wiki editor until Nov 2018, so anything that went on over there last summer was never on my radar and was not anything I was referring to in Talk:DogsBite.org. Neither did PearlSt82 come on my radar until I discovered the Dogsbite.org article (Feb 2019). Indeed, the entirety of the Talk:DogsBite.org page is only 38 days old. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: As for the lowellsun.com citation, it was removed by me once and also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I think for a total of three times. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over PearlSt82's edits again, and I didn't see anything really problematic. There doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR vio, nor does it seem like an edit war. They have been civil, and they have interacted on the talk page thoroughly. I think that the more problematic editor here is Nomopbs. Take for example this edit, showing a less than civil interaction. Or Talk:Dogsbite.org#Article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View, where Nomopbs seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't forsee this ending with a censuring of PearlSt82; I think their conduct has been admirable considering the situation. Rather I say that this matter either boomerang on Nomopbs with probably a topic ban, or the matter dropped. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. [17] I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• If anything, this should boomerang on Nomopbs. Their characterization of the situation strikes me as completely disingenuous. This seems to be the event they refer to where PearlSt82 'destroyed' their work. However that work involved deleting (one might say 'destroying') what appears to be a meticulously sourced 'Criticism' section. PearlSt82's reversion was equal parts removing newly added content and restoring previous content, which is not the impression given by Nomopbs's statement.

Looking at the talk page, the only incivility I see is from Nomopbs. Thrice they accuse editors of "wasting everyone's time". Their responses in discussions often come off as combative or sarcastic: "OMG, are you kidding me?", "LOL. There's nothing untrue about that statement", "I guess you can't be assuaged. Unless it's YOUR words, you're not going to like it." The other editors involved in the article have behaved with what seems to me an admirable level of patience and cool tempers. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs' edit history on Wikipedia (versus PearlSt82's ad hominem attacks)

Let's look at wiki's statistics (editor contributions), instead of simply jumping on PearlSt82's bandwagon and adding to his smearing my wiki reputation with an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

PearlSt82 asserts that I'm anti pit bull, however...

• PearlSt82's wiki statistics [18] show that PearlSt82 has made 108 edits to the Pit bull page, 44 to Dogsbite.org (whom P considers is anti-pit bull), and the rest mainly to "men's rights movement" type pages.

• Nomopbs' wiki statistics [19] show I have made 290 edits to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page, 40 to Dogsbite.org and a bunch of miscellany. I have made ZERO edits to the pit bull page, and just 6 edits (link maintenance) to the American Pit Bull Terrier page.

So tell me... Which editor is looking like a pit bull advocate? And which editor is NOT looking anti-pit bull?

Destructive editing:

• Going backwards in time, the last 8 edits PearlSt82 made to the pit bull page were REVERTS, earlier was 2 contributions, 3 reverts, 1 contribution, 3 reverts, then 2 contributions.
• PearlSt82's last biggest contribution on that page was the removal of 11,612 characters,[20] an entire section of 'studies about pit bulls', the majority of which pointed to them being dangerous and implicated them in a higher percentage of attacks than their population percentage indicated.[21] That was in 2016.
• PearlSt82 did the same thing in 2015. [22]

That's a lot of destruction and not a lot of construction.

Whether or not the reverts were warranted isn't my point. What I'm saying is that in the last three years, PearlSt82 destroyed/removed/reverted more than he contributed (on the pit bull topic). Why? Are the majority of his 108 edits even more years back when he established the page and now he's taken ownership of it (WP:OWN) and is guarding the pit bull article against all comers who might say something unflattering about pit bulls? Scroll further to see the full extent of PearlSt82's reversions on the pit bull page:[23] What you'll see is a long series of reverts. Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"?

The article Dogsbite.org, though created by editor Dwanyewest, was immediately taken over by PearlSt82. Every single one of his edits contributes only to "criticism" of DogsBite.org as an organization. He has contributed nothing constructive or even neutral. He has railed against all of my contructive or neutral edits on that page. A little bit about DogsBite.org (based on what I see in their website and have read about online): they collect information on fatal dog attacks, they post statistics about such attacks, post that pit bulls are the majority breed involved, post proposed solutions to the pit bull problem including breed specific legislation, and it could be said they are anti-pit bull. Considering PearlSt82's edits on the pit bull page, and the POV you can conclude from those edits, I can see why he must only write criticism on the DogsBite.org article. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't excuse his reversions, nor his disruptive editing against me.

Constructive editing:

On the other hand, I have been a heavy contributor to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. My edits have been "constructive" (adding text), rather than "destructive" (removing text) or "inhibitive" (reverting). And I don't discriminate between incidents with pit bulls versus non pit bulls. Here [24] is my log of edits to the fatalities pages, just search for "added victim" (from the edit summary column). The last 10 additions I made of victims (in reverse chronological order) were deaths caused by the breeds Rottweiler, Rottweiler, Unspecified, Pits & mixes, Presa Canario, Great Dane, American Bulldog, Pit mix, Pit bull, and German Shepherd. I have added 158,203 bytes to that article and deleted 9,666 bytes (less than 1% of my addition count). Now THAT is a lot of work. If I hated pit bulls, wouldn't I have been adding only fatalities caused by pit bulls (to increase the percentages)? Wouldn't I have quit spending so much time researching, getting citations and writing new entries for fatalities caused by non-pit bulls? It takes about 30 minutes of work for each single fatality I add, and I've added dozens, maybe even a 100 by now. I have been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia on this topic. The fatalities page got so long, someone split it in half (made another page). And then later split it again. So now there are three wiki pages to cover all the fatalies by dog in the USA.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking into (not 'at') my contributions/edit history would have seen my neutral POV with respect to pit bulls. If my agenda was to push an anti-pit bull POV, then I would have been done with my work on the Fatalities page long ago. This disruption by PearlSt82 re Dogsbite.org is just a sideline distraction that is keeping me from my real work.

Disruptive editing:

PearlSt82 only used an ad hominem personal attack to get me out of his way, to try to get me banned for WP:SPA or WP:COI, and to try to get sympathetic support for his viewpoint against me (to obtain a false concensus; not based on facts). PearlSt82 accused me above of being "a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages." However, there is no evidence that I have made ANY anti-pit bull edits, NOR ANY pro BSL edits. He has failed to support his claims. His 'smoke and mirrors' contribute to my claim that PearlSt82 has been WP:DISRUPTIVE (as he was in 2015 on this very same subject!).

Four years ago, PearlSt82 displayed in great detail his disruptive behavior about DogsBite.org in a 2015 discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [25] It involved EIGHT OTHER wiki editors (User:Epeefleche, User:AndyTheGrump, User:EvergreenFir, User:Blueboar, User:DrFleischman, User:GRuban, User:Arkon, User:RightCowLeftCoast) and no one took PearlSt82's side. PearlSt82 was combative, refusing to get their points, continued to argue "content" instead of RS, and wasn't interested in concensus. For whatever reason, or for no reason whatsoever, PearlSt82 is rabidly opposed to DogsBite.org, and has been since at least 2015. Which is why I groan when PearlSt82 posts (for the umpteenth time) about trying to get concensus on the issue today, when his opinions and behavior towards THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT hasn't changed in four years despite other editors chiming in.

When is enough enough? When will the disruption end?

Nomopbs (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I was referring to in my initial response. I find this bit: Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"? particularly telling, as this is the exact same line of thought Dogsbite.org has been criticized for by RS, and is what Nomopbs has objected to, in part calling it libel. In light of this libel accusation on the talk page after the ANI report was filed, I'm a bit concerned by this phrase in Nomopbs' initial ANI filing: PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia) - what do they mean when they say "at least two" reports? How do they arrive at a figure of multiple filed reports, but an indeterminate number? Are they saying that they themselves have filed multiple reports? Or do they know of others that have filed reports? If the latter, how do they know this? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence, the proof

Apparently I have been unable to adequately explain what is going on, because of the esoteric nature of the "content". So today, I undertook research to identify the types and patterns of edits made by PearlSt82, without getting involved in specific content issues. The primary patterns I saw were "revert or remove" and "state critical opinions about DogsBite.org on Talk pages".

Reverts/removals in general:

On PearlSt82's top 9 edited pages,[26] P totaled 286 edit. 163 (57%) were reverts/removals.

• Pit bull: Out of 108 edits, at least 53 (49%) were reverts/removals.
• Dogsbite.org: Out of 44 edits, at least 12 (27%) were reverts/removals.
• Men's rights movement: 32 edits, 28 (88%) of those are reverts/removals.
• Roosh V: 25 edits, 15 (60%) are reverts/removals. One "Nominated for deletion".
• Fatal dog attacks in the United States: Out of 20 edits, 13 (65%) were reverts/removals.
• Masculinism: 17 edits. 14 (82%) reverts/removals.
• A Voice for Men: 17 edits. 11 (65%) reverts/removals.
• Breed-specific legislation: Out of 13 edits, 10 (77%) involved reverts/removals.
• Manosphere: 10 edits. 7 (70%) reverts/removals.

This pattern of heavy reverts violates Wikipedia's editor policies about reverts (why, why not, when, and how). In summary, reversions are considered to be hostile, drive away editors, and make editing Wikipedia unpleasant. WP:ONLYREVERT There is a whole slew of wiki guidelines on how better to make changes than to revert, including Alternatives to reversion.

Deliberately seeking out mentions of DogsBite.org in Wikipedia (to remove):

• On a single day (Jan 18, 2017) PearlSt82 made exactly 7 edits. ALL of them were to remove references to DogsBite.org from all around Wikipedia, including 5 removals from Fatal dog attacks in the United States [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], 1 from Greyhound [32], and 1 from Dog fighting [33].

• One of those 7 removals [34] had been there for 9 months, created on April 18, 2016 [35].

• On the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page that PearlSt82 had made 20 edits and 13 were reverts/removals, 9 out of 13 were in order to remove DogsBite.org as a citation or when it was mentioned.

• Three of the reverts on the pit bull page were remarked as being to remove DogsBite.org as a citation.

Talk pages, vilifying DogsBite.org:

Considering the dearth of actual constructive edits, on the other hand the Talk pages are filled with lots of commentary about why this or that should be removed or this or that should be a certain way. According to WP:TALK "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

• On the pit bull Talk page, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite for the last SIX YEARS: 31 January 2013, 17 February 2014, 20 April 2015 X 3, 25 January 2017, 2 July 2018.

• On the Talk page for Fatal dog attacks in the United States, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite.org: 22 April 2015, 28 September 2015

• The entirety of P's discussion on Talk:Dogsbite.org is critical of DogsBite.org. In fact, the article was created as a criticism piece,[36] and it wasn't until I came along that anyone tried to bring it towards NPOV.

PearlSt82 publishes his opinions of DogsBite.org:

Do you really think someone with these opinions could possibly maintain any sense of NPOV while editing the Dogsbite.org article?

• "Dogsbite.org is a anti-Pit bull, pro-Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group. They have a vested interest in skewing statistics regarding dog bite fatalities in order to make pit bulls look more dangerous than they are" [37]

• "I disagree that my views on dogsbite.org is personal opinion. It is a fact dogsbite.org is not peer reviewed. It is a fact that it is self published. It is a fact that Colleen Lynn, the sole operator of dogsbite.org has no credentials in veterinary science, animal behavior or other related matters that would make her reliable for quoting these kinds of statistics from. It is also fact that HuffPo wrote an article which I quoted above that labels Lynn and Merritt Clifton as academic frauds. If you look at the data on Lynn's website, its mostly circular citations with Merritt Clifton." [38]

• "Yes, what DBO is doing here is tabulating their own research based on the media reports they've surveyed." [39]

• "My labeling of dogsbite.org as fringe is absolutely NOT POV." [40]

• "... Lynn's lack of credentials, stating Colleen Lynn is a menace; she's a web designer who was once bitten by a dog, and has been on a vicious campaign to eliminate the pit bull type ever since. Still, she makes no pretense to academic credibility." [41]

• "... a fringe and discredited organization like dogsbite.org" [42]

• "a pro-BSL site which intentionally skews dog bite fatality statistics" [43]

• "dogsbite.org ... is a self published source run by non-veterinary professionals who intentionally skew statistics." [44]

• "... these statistics are impossible to outline with any degree of certainty" [45]

• "their conclusions are refuted by reputable organizations" [46]

• "Other organizations do not make such statistics, because such information is unknowable." [47]

• "Colleen Lynn and Merrit Clifton have no professional or academic experience in animal behavior, statistics and epidemology, Clifton intentionally misrepresents his academic credentials, and DogsBite.org and Clifton are given false balance by many media outlets as their opinion carrying the same weight as the CDC and AVMA" [48]

• "... and its citation of unreliable and biased sources such as dogsbite.org" [49]

• "How is this not a fringe organization?" [50]

• "I think this is absolutely not reliable information. Dogsbite.org is a self published source which has been known to skew its statistics. It is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, who has no professional experience in animal behavior. It is not peer reviewed. All of their dog bite statistics come from media reports" [51]

• "How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn?" [52]

Does anyone still think the author of the above statements could possibly edit the Dogsbite.org article with a neutral point of view? I can only conclude that this person must have some sort of vested interest. No one would spend six years making absolutely sure that nothing is ever said positive about a single small organization unless they saw themselves as some sort of competitor (like National Canine Research Council) or they work for one of the large pit bull advocacy organizations such as Animal Farm Foundation, Best Friends Animal Society, etc. Not even someone with a personal grudge against Lynn could cook up the lengthy and detailed arguments against her work like PearlSt82 has done. The hours and weeks P must have spent on this over the years. Oh my! (And I had to go get myself sucked into the quicksand of this rivalry. Beating myself up now for getting involved.)

To sum it up:

I accidentally encountered PearlSt82 when I tried to edit the Dogsbite.org article. Working with, or around, PearlSt82 has been excruciating. Apparently I could not adequately explain to others what was going on. I hope that this summary of P's edits has sufficiently shown that P has been engaged in DISRUPTIVE EDITING for a very long time, and specifically on the subject of DogsBite.org — though not disruptive exclusively towards DogsBite, but also as a general pattern of his type of editing. Considering P's documented focused attacks on the target DogsBite for an extended period of time (six years) without break, PearlSt82 should be banned or blocked from editing the Dogsbite.org article.

Nomopbs (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as a WP:STICK wall of text, misunderstanding policy and mischaracterizing my edits. I again strongly disagree that any of my edits constitute as being disruptive. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with PearlSt82. This is a true wall of text, and this horse feels pretty well flogged. I did go through however and read this large block of text. While reverting shouldn't be the main way of editing, many editors still do revert a great deal. Why you brought up Pearls non-dog edits seems to be confusing the issue. Deliberately removing DogsBites mentions? Thats no crime, and in fact I support Pearl's edits in that area: per WP:BLOGS, a website like DogsBite is hardly a reliable source. On talk pages: reading through the talk page, I see no egregious problems. If you'd like to provide specific diffs or sections, please do. I hardly find evidence of them "villifying" DogsBite. And from what I can see, they don't seem wildly or unfairly prejudiced against DogsBite. They claim that its a fringe source, and I think they may be right. Its certainly not a reliable source. Perhaps that issue would be better raised at the RS noticeboard. Their view that DogsBite isn't reliable seems backed, or at least not just their opinion.

At this point, I see that there is a clear issue between PearlSt82 and Nomopbs. Perhaps an WP:IBAN is in order? Otherwise, I say that Nomopbs should probably step back from Dog articles (with a topic ban if necessary). PearlSt82 could also step back, but their edits do not seem overly problematic to me. That, or per WP:STICK, this horse is well and truly flogged, you should both accept that this thing is over, and maybe stop editing the article and go find another article to work on. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That you think "heavy on the reverting" is okay as an editor's pattern of activity shows a weak grasp of the wiki guidelines about reverting and how repetitious and heavy-handed reversions do represent disruptive editing. Nomopbs (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: I didn't say that. I agree that reverting should not be the main way of editing, and I would warn PearlSt82 to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of reversion, and to revert only when necessary. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You cannot simply say that because >X% of a user's edits are reverts, they're being disruptive. You need to consider the actual content of their reverts. For example, you could have an editor who chooses to do nothing but watch for vandalism and revert it. Their article-space edits could be 100% reverts, and yet, their contributions to the encyclopedia would be very positive. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I see a lot of smoke but no fire.

• That someone's edits are largely reverts is not a problem per se, especially on troll magnet pages like Roosh V.
• The removal a non-RS websites used as sources is a positive thing, not something we should chastise Pearl for.
• A discussion about HuffPo from 4 years ago seems reaching. I'm sure that if Pearl has a negative view of dogbites.org, challenging its mention from a low-to-middle tier source is logical. But that Pearl challenged it is not an issue.
• The website in question, dogbites.org, is not a source that should be used on Wikipedia. That Pearl hates it or that Nomopbs loves it are irrelevant. Both parties should be reminded strongly of NPOV, especially on a topic that has become a moral panic. Perhaps temporary WP:DISENGAGE from the topic would be best.
• I'm not convinced that Nomopbs' user name is referencing pitbulls. Perhaps they are against PBS as purveyors of muppet smut.
• Five brownie points awarded to Nomopbs for using "rabidly" in this discussion.

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it [53]. And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in [54]. They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now found how to see some of User:Moylesey98's image uploads to commons[55]. I think there are images of value. They do not have to be of immediate use and even poor quality images may turn out to be of value in the future when some unsuspected aspect of the image is identified as being of use. I think some of his images may have been denigrated, which could have exacerbated the situation. A few examples in the gallery should give an indication of how this editor's contributions might be of value. If totally blocked their interest in contributing to commons as well might be lost. The lack of competence in other aspects might well persuade admins to block for a while. I would not object if that were the case as much effort has been spent on dealing with this editor's incompetence already.

• 
  Defiant and Earl of Mount Edgcumbe at Tyseley
• 
  Hunslet 0-6-0 no 3696 "Respite"
• 
  Andania's builders plate
• 
  Avonside 0-6-0 no 1883

To clarify for you, the problem isn't that Dave occasionally takes good enough photos that are, or might be, useful. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing, so he takes many more poor quality photos than the accidental good ones. But then he persists in insisting that "his" photos, are included in articles, regardless of whether they are better than others. If they happen to be better than others, we should include them at least until better ones are available. But more often than not they're not, and we therefore shouldn't. If you want a few examples, take a look at these:

• 
  Composition wtf?
• 
  shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
• 
  horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
• 
  overexposed mess
• 
  Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
• 
  Distracting snowstorm
• 
  Overexposed sky, odd composition
• 
  A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
• 
  It's mostly a tree!
• 
  subject in the middle
• 
  too dark
• 
  This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
• 
  Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
• 
  subject in the middle, overexposure...
• 
  Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
• 
  Taken from the side in shadow;
• 
  meh
• 
  Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
• 
  The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
• 
  This is OK

He's got a Flickr account where there's pages and pages of this stuff. Tony May (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Let's not get all steamed up about this. EEng 08:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  tldr - I completely lost track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Shame, you missed vital points.SovalValtos (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  I want to express my disappointment at the limited participation. EEng 14:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fake references

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T198456

Thanks to Doug Weller for spotting the pattern here. I think the following search results speak for themselves:

• "Effect of etafenone on total and regional myocardial blood flow"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase isoenzymes in human and rat brain"
• "Digitoxin metabolism by rat liver microsomes"
• "Antidepressant drugs affect dopamine uptake"
• "Action of propranolol on mitochondrial functions--effects on energized ion fluxes in the presence of valinomycin"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase by acidic metabolites of the biogenic amines"
• "Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study"
• "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning"
• "Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin"
• "Studies of oxygen binding energy to hemoglobin molecule"
• "Maturation of the adrenal medulla--IV. Effects of morphine"
• "Comparison between procaine and isocarboxazid metabolism in vitro by a liver microsomal amidase-esterase"
• "Radiochemical assay of glutathione S-epoxide transferase and its enhancement by phenobarbital in rat liver in vivo"
• "Effect of chloroquine on cultured fibroblasts: release of lysosomal hydrolases and inhibition of their uptake"

"Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin" is being used to support statements in Alluvial fan, Urban open space, The Arena (Ahmedabad), and Draft:Saudi German Hospital Group, among others. "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" is being used in Chilik River, Holcomb Fire, Baja California slider, Lolita Lebrón, and >40 other pages. And so on. As far as I can tell from Wikiblame, each time the refs ahave been added by a different ' user. One theory is that there's some "How to create a Wiki page" tutorial that's using these as example refs. But when I Google for the same titles, I find no such tutorial. So what, exactly, is going on here? I'm willing to list some of the users doing this, but before I start leaving scary ANI notices, does anyone have an explanation for why so many users might be doing this? I don't think it's a sockfarm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited articles have PubMed IDs in order, starting with PMID #1 (Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning). I bet there's some citation tool where if you click it, it adds the next PMID that's not already in the article as an example, under the assumption that the article author will fill it in with the desired metadata, and that these are just ones that never got filled in. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Random paranoid suggestion - someone doing research on reliability of Wikipedia by adding BS refs and seeing how quickly we remove them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Goldenshimmer's answer makes much more sense. Occam's razor :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a reference that's just a number in Visual Editor produces a PMID reference. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how this PMID thing happened, but I'm going to start removing these from articles where they clearly don't belong. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Every one I've checked seems to have been added by VisualEditor. So I'm thinking it's either:

1. People are just typing random numbers into the from and adding in whatever reference comes up.
2. People are adding valid references, and some bug in VisualEditor is silently replacing the refs with crazy low-PMID ones.
3. Some other tool is interacting with VisualEditor, causing the behavior Goldenshimmer describes.
4. People are trying to reuse existing references. That is, the user wants to reuse reference [4], so they type "4" into VE's form. Something strange comes up about polypeptide backbones, myohemerythrin and hemerythrin, but think think "hey, that's probably just some strange wiki term, I'll learn what it means later" and just click "Insert".

I don't think it's mostly (1), or there would be more hits for PMID 69, PMID 123, PMID 420, etc. (2) wouldn't be shocking, but so far no one's been able to reproduce the bug. I don't know about (3) ... maybe something to do with Wiki Ed? My bet is on (4), unless someone can think of a better explanation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've created filter 979 (hist · log) to track this. If it's a bug, I expect to see experienced editors doing this as well (that wouldn't show up in the search results, because they probably would have fixed the problem right away). If not, it's probably user error, and the filter can be set to give a friendly warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, Your number 4 is the explanation I was thinking of, but I removed a PMID 11 (I think?) from an article that had fewer than 11 references, so I ran out of possible explanations. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Possibility (5): The user doesn't realize that reference numbers are assigned automatically, so they think the first step is to choose the number. So, if they are adding a reference near the end of the page, they try to "make room" for the refs that they plan on adding later. In any case, this problem was reported at phab:T198456 last year. Seems it's a problem on other wikis as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

93.38.65.148

93.38.65.148 (talk · contribs) writes in abominable English, curses in Italian in his edit summaries, and has a long history of bad edits including edit warring. He is being disruptive on Minhag, without engaging in any discussion, either on the article talkpage or his user talkpage. I think a 24-48-72 hour block might be the best course of action. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours for edit warring on Minhag. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Cmt: That IP is blocked on it:wp as a sock of 1ShabElion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Meat socks at Identity Evropa refused to answer COI

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Student4N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SheepDirectory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SamSamuel11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bakken56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A continuation of this ANI thread. So after I asked these accounts to clarify their COI on March 30, All of them disappeared, until yesterday when one of them blanked my message and left this angry message at my talk page. A brief look ar their contribs looks like clicking random article or rabbit hole and make small edits eager to get past 50 edits. One of them sneakily inserted "alleged" on a section related to the group before finally reaching 50 edits and jumping onto the main article. This neo-Nazi group has an active, ongoing effort to whitewash their Wikipedia page. A couple of them got indeffed in their campaign last summer. Need admins willing to action.  It looks like a duck to me. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has asked the following of multiple editors:

Hi, [USERNAME]. You are expected to answer the following questions in a clear, honest, and yes/no manner:

• Are you a member of the organization(s) known as Identity Evropa (IE) or American Identity Movement (AIM)?
• Are you personally or financially related to IE/AIM or other white nationalist/"Identitarian" groups, or Nathan Damigo, Patrick Casey, and Elliot Kline, in any way?

If so, you must declare your conflict of interest. Undisclosed editing, especially undisclosed paid editing, are serious violations of our policies. You must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until you have done so.

The detailed notice is below. Thank you. (Emphasis in original)

...followed by the standard Template:uw-coi notice.

To make things worse, he then took these editors to ANI complaning when they blanked the message or posted an angry response. I certainly would have blanked such a message if I had received it.

I have no problem with uw-coi notice, but Tsumikiria's added text seem overly aggressive and accusatory for a first contact with a suspected coi editor. It is also factually untrue. No policy says that coi editors "must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until they have done so." It is perfectly acceptable for a coi editor to not declare anything and to instead delete the warning and silently stop editing in the area where he has a coi.

None of the above implies that these users do or do not have a coi. That only becomes an issue if they continue to edit the pages where they are suspected to have a coi after receiving a warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to post here but this user tried to do the same with me. They seem to prowl articles about radical leftism and when anyone tries to edit or portray them in a bad way, the user goes onto their page and accuses them of rules violations usually without evidence, in a way that implies that the user is a moderator. I was personally accused of being a sock because I (actually what they said) "knew how to use wikipedia". Kilometerman (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kilometerman have a content dispute with me and Doug Weller on Antifa (United States) where they added insufficiently supported and undue material, which has been rigorously discussed and settled in the past months, onto the lead. I dragged them into discussion per standard WP:BRD process and asked them to stop potential personal attacks, but they blanked my message. The full exchange can be found here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I originally meant to use Template:uw-paid1, but feared that this COI situation may not necessarily involve paid, so I thought I could use uw-coi instead. The "must not edit until respond" clause might fit uw-paid better, I could be under the wrong impression that the same thing apply to regular COI inquiries as well. Sorry if I seemed too aggressive and I'll better my approach in the future. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, it is a bad idea to make threats or ultimatums of other editors unless you intend to follow through on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason we don't have a template like the paid editing template for unpaid editing is because the same rules don't apply. It's a TOU violation to engage in undisclosed paid editing. That's not the case for a member of an organization. They have a COI, yes, but it's handled differently and there are fewer bright lines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Related: Template talk:Uw-paid1#"do not edit further until you answer this message". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly do not want undisclosed meatpuppets of the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa or its rebranded successor "American Identity Movement" editing anything whatsoever related to those groups or American or contemporary or 20th or 21st century politics in general . I suppose that it is hypothetically possible that such an editor might contribute positively about butterflies or stamp collecting. But any inquiries to such editors must accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, and it looks to me like you got over your skis here, Tsumikiria. Tainted evidence is often worse than no evidence whatsoever. Please be careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs

May we have a few diffs showing each of the listed users exhibiting behavior that would support them being meat puppets, please? Nobody wants undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group editing Wikipedia, but nobody wants someone who isn't a undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group being accused of being one either. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I shouldn't expect people to read page history or previous discussion. Here's a few:

• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 removed the well-sourced info that AIM is a rebrand of IE, as well as IE facing decline in membership, falsely claiming no citation.
• 2019-03-26T16:15:17 SheepDirectory appeared out of the blue to revert on behalf of SamSamuel11.

• SheepDirectory previously inserted "alleged" onto the sentence and the group was renamed American Identity Movement (AIM), [allegedly] as part of a public relations effort to avoid scrutiny on Unicorn Riot. These two edits appears completely unrelated in topic field with their other edits. For a brand new editor they display proficiency such as Twinkle usage. Most of their edits has been small copyedits with no large content addition.

• 2019-03-26T18:50:49 SamSamuel11 revert again, declaring no consensus purely based on number of reverters on their behalf.
• 2019-03-26T18:55:48 SamSamuel11 hitting 3RR with no explanation whatsoever.
• 2019-03-19T14:30:03 SamSamuel11 blanking the redirect American Identity Movement, claiming AIM to be a different organization
• 2019-03-19T21:47:13 Bakken56 appeared out of the blue on this redirect, 3rd edit, adding the promotional sentence "The American Identity Movement was founded by Patrick Casey on March 8th, 2019."
• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 blanked the redirect again, claiming that "majority of editors have determined".
• If you read this entire section: Talk:Identity_Evropa#Rebranding_and_reorganization_into_"American_Identity_Movement"_after_discord_leak, it is entirely filled with walls of sea-lioning texts by SamSamuel11, with Student4N and SheepDirectory stonewalling against the 10-year veteran editor Grayfell, obstructing changes. Student4N claimed w/o source that they were removed from all of their old communication channels, but is contradicted by the source given by Greyfell which says that IE and AIM use the same communications infrastructure.
• On March 21, Student4N made a series of disruptive cite-tagging trying to undermine well sourced content supported by SPLC. Also directly referenced AIM website.

Gotta leave my laptop for a while. Will update later. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 21:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

Would someone mind speedy-closing the first discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30 and sanctioning the nominator? Two editors, including me, have demonstrated that the nomination and initial supporting votes are in error (the nominator misunderstood a category for a region as being a category for a single city in that region, and the other voters thought the same), which is the basis for requesting WP:SKEEP #3. Moreover, in response to my saying that the whole nomination is in error, the nominator has proceeded to attack me for one of the most risible and disingenuous exercises in wikilawyering I have seen in a long time and bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap. We block newbies for such attacks; there is no room for tolerating it in anyone else. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed it "is very sad to see an admin indulging in such blatant disruption" BHG should take a deep breath and not get so worked up about categories. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, The reason I am angry is not because of the categories. Some nominations gain consensus, some don't, and I'm used to that. What angers me here is the disruptiveness and blatant bad faith of Nyttend's attempt to wiklawyer a speedy close over a difference of interpretation of ambiguous category titles which — no matter which interpretation is chosen — do not alter the fact the UAE categories are too small to split, per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. The fact that Nyttend says below that they actually agree with this substantive issue on which my nomination is based makes the the disruptiveness of the wikilawyering even more risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• PS, if this is speedy closed, I'm happy to open a new nomination for the same categories on the grounds that these categories are too small without reasonable chance for expansion. (The nominator said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination.) I don't have an opinion on this question, so the nomination would be procedural/neutral. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply More nonsense from Nyttend, and a blatant misrepresentation of the nomination. The size issue is the very basis of my nomination, and it is explicitly set out in the first two paras of the nominator's rationale, which I reproduce here in full:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT, upmerge year and decade categories for Abu Dhabi to the equivalent category for the United Arab Emirates or its predecessor the Trucial States.
The merge targets are all quite small. AFAICS, the biggest category after the merge will be Category:2013 establishments in the United Arab Emirates , which will grow from 14 to 18 articles ... and most of the merge targets will still have less than ten articles.

I don't know whether Nyttend has somehow failed to notice that per "WP:NARROWCAT" is the first two words of the nomination, or is trying to misrepresent it in the hope that others will not check.

But either way, Nyttend's claim that I only said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination is plainly false. What on earth does Nyttend hope to gain by coming to ANI and asserting falsehoods? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wow! Nyttend escalates the wikilawyering to a new level.

My CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30#Years_and_decades_in_Abu_Dhabi is based on the categories being too small. The point about Abu Dhabi being a city is not mentioned until the 8th sentence of the nomination, and it is a subsidiary point to the main thrust of the nomination.

In hindsight, there is ambiguity about whether the intend scope of the categories is the Emirate or the city; it could be read either way, and I would be happy to clarify that in the nomination.

However, as Nyttend is very well aware, it is almost irrelevant which view is correct. This is a distinction without a difference, for two reasons:

1. The city has a population of 1.8 million, out the Emirate's total of 2.3 million. So expanding the category to the whole Emirate makes little difference to the number of articles in scope, esp since most notable events are linked to cities
2. regardless of which definition is used, the fact remains that these are all smallcats. Only 5 of the 72 categories nominated for merger contains five or more pages; and the largest single category which will be created by the merger will contain only 18 pages.

For whatever reason, Nyttend has chosen to ignore the sound numerical basis for the nomination, and to engage in a bout if disruptive wikilawyering with the explicit intent of derailing an entire well-founded nomination on the basis of difference of interpretation of an ambiguous title. Instead of engaging with the substantive issue of the UAE categories being too small to split, Nyttend has chosen to engage in obfuscation through petty point-scoring.

I applied WP:SPADE, and I stand by description of Nyttend's conduct as bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap.

I repeat that is shameful for an admin such as Nyttend to disrupt a consensus-forming discussion in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Whilst agreeing that BHG should tone down the rhetoric, when looking at the CfD itself I am in agreement that the categories are ambiguous and could possibly do with being split. As such, continuing the CfD may be useful in order to gain some sort of consensus about what should be done with the category(ies). Incidentally, there's something awry with our population estimates; as BHG says, the article says that 1.8m of 2.3m live in the city, but Al-Ain says that the population of that city alone is 766,000. Something doesn't add up there. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What would be the point of splitting the UAE categories? Even if merged as proposed, the largest would only have 18 pages, and most would have less than ten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was unclear. See Fayenatic's comment, in that the "city" articles could simply be in the already existing "Abu Dhabi" category whilst the wider one may or may not be necessary. Anyway, this isn't the page to discuss the technicalities of the actual cats, so I'll comment at the CFD later. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Previous history. I have had little interaction with Nyttend, but I just recalled WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia. Nyttend was quick off the mark there with a bunch of unfounded procedural objections about that mass nomination of ~650 categories would have terrible procedural effects. All of Nyttend's objections there were misplaced; nobody speedy-closed the discussion, and the discussion concluded after 16 days with an overwhelming consensus to rename the lot.

Is it just coincidence that this is the second time in 7 weeks that Nyttend has tried a convoluted procedural argument to derail a group nomination by me?

It is especially odd that it is happening here, where Nyttend now says that they agree with my substantial analysis, and explicitly wants to reopen the discussion under their own rationale, which it turns out would basically be rewrite of the first 8 sentences of mine.

I can speculate about many possible reasons why Nyttend would want to do this, but I can't see any credible explanation which would be part of a good faith effort to assist consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I'm sorry, am I missing something? Sure BHG could have been a touch friendlier and avoided the accusations of bad faith, but this sort of hair-trigger sensitivity seems totally inappropriate for an experienced admin. We block newbies for such attacks - my ass we do. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ahrtoodeetoo. I went two rounds of friendly before the wikilawyering and misrepresentations became too extreme to sustain AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I see no reason for speedy closing anything since there still seems to be valid issues of discussion. The issue over whether the category is for the city or the emirate seems to be under active discussion. This may entail a move. Ideally probably WP:RM should have been used for that. But there also seem to be some who feel it doesn't matter and the category should be deleted regardless. Hopefully these can both be resolved in the CSD. If the CSD only comes to a consensus on whether to keep the category and that decision is keep or keep for the emirate only, then an RM can be started if people feel it's necessary. While I don't hang out at XfD, AFAIK it's hardly uncommon that discussions are started with imperfect opening messages. But even when that happens, we don't normally close them provided there are valid issues to discuss. People can clarify any points of confusion in the discussion, and any unclarified !votes based on misunderstandings can be ignored. I'm actually even more confused about the purpose of the suggestion since Nyttend seem to explicitly acknowledge that there were still valid issues to discussion when they suggested re-opening. Frankly I can understand the boomerang suggestions unless Nyttend can explain better WTF the purpose of this thread is. (And I'm sorry but whatever the problems with BHG's language, it's difficult for people to care when the discussion starts off with what seems to be a completely pointless suggestion.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne. This doesn't need to be here. Deb (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Whops I obviously meant CfD not CSD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I wasn't that aware of the norms for CfD. Based on other comments and having looked into it more, it seems it's the norm to use CfD for renaming categories anyway. So I see even less reason why the CfD should be closed. I would note that even in WP:RfCs where the opening comment is required to be neutral, it's not necessarily a good idea to close it just because the opening statement was imperfect. It can sometimes be better to just reword it and notify anyone who has already participated. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I do not see a need of closing (an particularly speedy closing) the nomination. CfD means categories for discussion (in contrast e.g. to AfD being articles for deletion), and it is not uncommon that discussions provide some good alternatives not though of by a nominator. If anybody feels there is a better solution that what was proposed by the nominator, they should just add their arguments and explain why their solution is better. Closing a CfD and then renominating the cats usually does not make much sense, it is easier to keep the discussion in one place. Having said that, I would kindly ask both Nyttend and BHG to tone down a bit. It is highly unlikely that this thread would result in personal sanctions against any of you, and we have already enough accusations in disruption and bad faith in the air and do not need new ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - it is not unusual for cfd discussions to become fractious but it is most unusual for one editor to urge closure and relisting on the grounds of superior understanding of the issues involved. This reminds me of M Thatcher, who would find herself more logical than anyone else in the room. Oculi (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• It's exceptionally poor form to drag a monumentally experienced editor to AN/I over a contested XfD, suggesting that their nomination is so erroneous that the only possible explanation is that they have no idea what they're talking about, and that they need to be force-closed and sanctioned. I can't find any actual grounds for this request, and this seems to be the sort of petty "run to ANI" behavior that we expect from immature newbies. BHG is clearly providing nuanced refutations that show there is a legitimate disagreement stemming from the ambiguity of the intent of the categories, so to frame her as being objectively in error is fairly insulting. Swarm– ^{Sting · Hive} 🐝🐝🐝 22:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 at MfD

Northamerica1000 is a strong portal advocate who persists at posting identical useless comments like this [56][57] [58] over and over at MfDs. Over the last few days NA1000 has done this with other canned comments. [59]. (Scroll through and see many identical or near identical sized posts to MfD) Is this ok or is inappropriate?

NA1000 and her portal friends demand individual discussions and detailed unique deletion rational for pages that were mass created at rates of 5 or 6 pages a minute, sometimes over 100 pages a day, and yet several of these users are copy pasting canned votes ("meets WP:POG") is my favourite) and other comments in response to handcrafted deletion rationals. If people can't contribute constructively to MFD they should stay out of MFD. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• My comments in MfD discussions are not disruptive whatsoever, and are intended to provide factual accuracy, particularly for closers of the discussions. The op herein has used WP:X3 as a qualifier for deletion in some MfD discussions, but WP:X3 is not a guideline or policy, it is presently a discussion. As such, it is entirely equitable for closers and other potential MfD participants to be made aware of this matter in a neutral, impartial manner, as I have performed. Also, the closer of one MfD discussion may not be aware of my post in another discussion, hence the multiple comments. I have violated no policies or guidelines whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope I and others use WP:X3 as shorthand everyone understands (or can click to understand) to differentiate mass produced crap portals from one user from limited production crap portals by other users. No Admins who closes a discussion and deleted the pages (or any other editor) has expressed any confusion yet. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, if I understand your concerns, you believe it is disruptive for tto clarify with a comment what X3 is. Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Andy Gibb, you invoke X3 in your nomination statement but offer no explanation or link as to what it means. Northamerica1000 makes that explanation and explains their stance that it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. I do not see how offering an explanation for something that is stated with no explanation is disruptive. ~ GB fan 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just on WP:X3 but on other issues. Posting [60] on many discussions for another recent example. If someone does not know what X3 is how would that influence them in any way to vote up or down? However NA's comments are an obvious criticism of the nominations repeated over and over. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is a clarifying comment about something you said in your nomination statement. How is it disruptive to comment on points that have been made? Using the same comment on multiple MFDs is not disruptive if the comment is pertinent to each discussion. ~ GB fan 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, this is not the first time you've had it pointed out that referring to X3 as a reason for deletion before it has gained the consensus of the community is at best misleading and at worst deliberately disruptive. Even if it were currently accepted as policy It is unreasonable to assume that everybody who interacts with an MfD discussion will be familiar with all the jargon, so adding links and explanatory context is useful, not disruptive. Portals are not a battleground, and having a different opinion to you about them is not disruptive. Those not familiar with the see also the history of Template:db-x3, the various proposals at WP:AN#Thousands of portals (including WP:AN#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3), [61] where Legacypac added X3 to WP:CSD long before the discussion about it was over, and #Legacypac and portals and its subsections on this page (this discussion really should be a subsection of that as it's part of the same dispute). Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Suggestion to combine sections struck following a comment on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with others that neither of the 2 examples I've seen (the X3 one and the ref one) seem to be a problem since they seem sufficiently relevant to the points made. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those who don't see any problems with Northamerica1000's comments shown here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I don't really have a problem with the comment in question, just that its being spammed on every MfD that mentions "X3". CoolSkittle (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  So it's OK for them all to state X3 as a reason for deletion, but not OK for someone to challenge that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang please, up to and including a topic ban from Portals. This is yet another example of Legacypac's heavyhandedness causing issues again. Legacypac is moving waaay to fast on an issue in a sloppy manner, which requires clarification on several different fronts, which NA1K has helpfully provided. As shown above, anyone who stands in the way of Legacypac's "clean-up" efforts is the enemy, and that is completely antithetical to the process in which Wikipedia makes decisions. Portals are such a low trafficked area that cleaning up that area is simply not the emergency that Legacypac is making it out to be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support a boomerang, including a topic ban, per my comments above and in the thread about him at the top of this page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Given @Thryduulf's repeated bogus accusations about me at RFAR (see here), I am very surprised to see Thryduulf advocating WP:BOOMERANG. If we're going to launch boomerang's there's a big and heavy one head straight for Thryduulf.

It's also noticeable that Thryduulf now has a long history of trying to skew discussion in his area by advocating sanctions against those who disagree with him, even on the most tenuous, misrepresented or fabricated grounds. I suggest that Thryduulf step back a long way from this partisan gaming-the-system approach, because sooner or later it will lead to that boomerang. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully responded to BHG at RfAr, those who are interested in the full story rather than a misrepresentation of it should read the RfAr. But a TLDR version is that BHG initially misunderstood my partially sloppy wording and then doubled down when I didn't withdraw everything they objected to. BHG isn't as bad as Legacypac, but neither are they entirely without blame for the current situation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Amazing, @Thryduulf. You have had multiple opportunities to fully withdraw your comments, and you didn't.

And here you are, still at the same game of trying to smear me without any evidence of any misconduct, just by making vague unsubstantiated allegations. The single point of substance you could identify is that I was one of many dozens of editors who support the X3 proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Both sides are way out of line. It is very unhelpful that the nominator @Legacypac cited X3 when that is still a proposal under discussion. I support adopting X3, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's wrong to proceed as if it has happened. Legavcypac should demonstrate good faith by promptly amending any MfD contributions which mention X3 without explaining that it remains a controversial proposal.

I also note that the "keep" votes continue to resemble an attrition strategy. There is a crew of editors who splat-paste dubious keeps on scores of MFDs of driveby-created portsalspam, even when the portals don't even meet the minimal criteria set by portal fans. These same editors are doing nothing to assist in cleaning up the portalspam ... and while I cannot mindread and would like to believe that they are acting in good faith, it's hard to avoid noticing that their actions are wholly compatible with an attrition strategy of making it too time-consuming for other editors to clean up the flood of dross with the portals project sprayed out at high speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also note that it is hard to avoid noticting that the actions of those who are nominating large numbers of portals for deletion every day, including batch nominations of sometimes several dozen pages not all of which are closely related or of a similar standard, are wholly compatible with an attrition strategy of making it too time consuming for other editors to stop good portals and those that only require some cleanup getting deleted and preventing time being spent on cleanup rather than firefighting to prevent a fait accompli. Copy-paste comments in MfDs are only required because of the volume of portals nominated at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The volume of portals nominated at MfD was only caused by the volume of portals created with no thought given to their necessity nor any thought given to providing for their maintenance. The large volume of MfD nominations are in response to the large volume of creation of unmaintainable portals. --Jayron32 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As is repeatedly explained every time this is brought up, yes too many portals were created too quickly but that doesn't mean that we need to rush to delete them. There is no deadline and two wrongs do not make a right. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FAITACCOMPLI are both things. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not rushing. MFD is a deliberative process, and each discussion is open a week. MFD, in Wikipedia terms, is a process that moves at a glacial pace. --Jayron32 14:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Each individual nomination is not rushing, it's the combined volume of them that is the issue. Each discussion taking a week is not actually a problem anyway - and I don't know why you describe it as "glacial" as that's the standard length of time for all deletion discussions - it is intended to allow for all interested parties to become aware of the discussion, review the nomination and (if possible and they want to) improve the nominated page. The sheer number of similar nominations defeats that as it overwhelms the availability of editors. Excessive nominations in the name of cleanup was one of the main things that led to user:SimonTrew getting topic banned from RfD (although it was not the only one). Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The "sheer volume" argument is a dead end because it was created by a "sheer volume" of creation of inappropriate pages. Unless you are genuinely suggesting that we establish, in our will and testament, that our children should carry on nominating these inappropriate articles into the 22nd century, the pace of nomination needs to match the pace of creation, or it gets VERY QUICKLY out of hand. Yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and while we can quote utterly meaningless platitudes at each other all day, we're still faced with a mess of portals that need to be deleted, and we've got to do it sometime. No time like the present. --Jayron32 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The point is that there is no consensus that there is "a mess of portals that need to be deleted", let alone consensus that it needs to happen now. So what if it takes time? There is no evidence and/or consensus that following the usual processes at a more sedate pace will cause any problems for anybody, other than those who dislike the existence of all portals. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

More of the same obstructionism. Thryduulf and the other defenders of the portalspam did nothing to restrain the spamming, nothing to build a broad consensus for portal criteria, nothing to remove even the most pointless portals, nothing to identify marginal cases ... yet are happy to devote their time and energy to force the community to spend vast amounts of time slowly scrutinising each one of the spam page which were crated in literally 1 to 2 minutes each. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have seen zero evidence that any person at all "dislikes the existence of all portals", much less any group of people that could be described as "those". Given that the central point of your argument seems to be based on a mischaracterization, I don't know why anyone should place any value on the rest of your argument. If you can retract that, and more accurately describe the position you are refuting, you would do yourself a better service. When you create false arguments no one but you has stated and then refute your own imagination, it does you no credit. Stop that, if you want to be taken seriously here. --Jayron32 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Wasn't part of the reason for WP:ENDPORTALS because some people disliked the existence of all portals? I mean it's true that many !voters felt there were other reasons like the lack of editor interest and maintenance, but reading that discussion (and I'm sure I've seen it expressed in followup discussions) it seems clear that some dislike all portals.

Okay technically there appear to be very few, if any who feel Portal:Current events or the Wikipedia:Community portal and Main Page should go. And a smaller number (which still means a massive number) felt stuff like Portal:Science were useful. But it's clear some, like Legacypac, rejected even those. (I'm unclear whether Legacypac supported or oppose Current events and the Community portal. I assume they support keeping the Main Page, some people don't consider it a portal anyway.) But frankly as much as I like to nitpick, all except 2-15 vs all is a very minor point of difference.

Whether there's enough to refer to them as "those" I don't know, but my read of some previous discussions is it's probably not unreasonable.

Of course, the consensus was against ending all portals, and I'm in no way accusing those who supported, and still think we should just end them all, of failing to abiding by the community consensus. They may very well have done their best to abide by it, while still trying to cleanup and improve things in manners they reasonably feel are supported by the community consensus or to achieve consensus in areas where there's currently none.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have a certain view, but recognise the community consensus is against the view and to act accordingly. (For example, I still personally believe Main Page should be moved to Portal:Main Page or maybe Wikipedia:Main Page.) And the existence of a small number of people who do want to end all (or all except 2-15) portals in no ways means everyone advocating for changes and cleanup dislikes the existence of all portals. Clearly many support a number of portals. And as I've said before, there were major problems with the mass creation which is a big part of the reason we're now in a mess. If that had been stopped very early on, were would be in a far less of a mess.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I may have overstated that no one in the world things that all portals should be eliminated, but clearly that is not a widely-held position. The characterization that the only people trying to rollback the massive creation of unneeded portals were doing so because they were trying to delete all portals is the issue, however. It is still setting up a strawman to knock down. The vast preponderance of people who are arguing for the deletion of this specific batch of ill-thought-out portals are not saying that portals are bad, just these portals are bad. --Jayron32 18:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second "side" you described is "a crew of editors who splat-paste dubious keeps". This section isn't about keep votes. Literally none of the diffs in Legacypac's post here are about keep votes, but about NA1K's comments. If there were consensus that these portals are "spam" or constituted a "flood of dross" (and should treated as such), X3 would've been enacted. It didn't. That's not to say there's not consensus that there's a problem with the mass creation of portals, but that there's clearly insufficient support for treating them in the way you're describing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Thryduulf, the portals fans had months to stop the crapflood or driveby portalspam, and did nothing even when there was a community outcry. You and the other portals fans have had months to start your own cleanup process, but have done absolutely nothing about it.

Even when the most blatantly useless portals (e.g. Univ of Fort Hare) are nominated, the portalspam defenders won't come along to support deletion of a portal-to-absolutely-nowhere.

In practice what you and other portals fans are doing is objecting to every single approach to cleanup. When portals are nominated individually, you claim that there are too any nominations. When they are nominated in batches, you object that the batches are too big. When a speedy criterion is proposed to save community time, you denounce that. And you, Thryduulf, have repeatedly attacked anyone who supported any part of the cleanup.

In short, you are trying to maintain the flood of portalspam against the clear RFC community consensus that it was disruptive, and you are doing so by impeding every single path to cleanup, and offering no assistance even in the most blatant cases. You have proposed no alternative mechanism for review, no alternative deletion process ... and you have even used Arbcom proceedings as a venue to make bogus allegations of misconduct[62]. So don't accuse anyone else of an attrition strategy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone of course, but I am certainly not trying to "impede every single path to cleanup". I'm simply doing my best to restrict cleanup to an appropriate pace that waits for consensus about what actually is cleanup, what needs cleaning up, what is and isn't a good portal and to limit deletions to those pages that actually need deleting rather than any other action. Some bundling is appropriate (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean (6 clearly related portals of comparable scope and quality) and some is not (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples, loosely related and of significantly differing scope and quality). However this is all detracting from the scope of this thread, which is about Legacypac's objections to NA1K's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've copy-pasted keeps on several MfDs and made it clear I was doing so, but I've also cleaned up several portals. There are over 100 nominations to remove portals as of several hours ago, when I last counted. Many of these nominations should be deleted, many of these nominations should not be deleted, but the overwhelming number of nominations makes it very difficult to review, the rules for what constitutes deletion remain flagrantly unclear, and many of these portals can be saved with a small amount of work. A copy-paste vote can be effective for reviewing a lot of articles in a short period of time. For instance, Portal:Tashkent was significantly improved since the nomination but is likely to be deleted based on the discussion. I also clearly see a problem, but it appears as if nominations like [[63]] has been effective so far in cleaning up a lot of the mess. I'd personally like to see a moratorium on nominations that weren't clearly bot created, or to at least have the flow reduced significantly, as this cleanup process has turned into a massive battleground and been one of the least pleasant experiences I've had on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 14:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not particularly sure if this is a useful avenue of discussion in this thread but I have to say while it would be nice for those largely supportive of portals to comment in support of deletion in clear cut cases, I don't really see it matters much if they don't.

I mean I'm sure I'm not the only one who is often less likely to comment in some discussion if the outcome seems clear cut and my view is largely in concurrence with what's already been said. A bunch of pile-ons is often unnecessary and I assume particularly in the portal deletion discussion, based on the recent community consensus deletions normally happen even with only a few supports provided there's no opposition, rather than bothering to relist let alone make it a no consensus.

And of course, you should only comment if you've sufficiently examined the evidence to be able to offer a reasoned view. So I can understand those who are mostly supportive of portals not bothering with cases where they believe a deletion is justified but can't be bothered confirming just letting others comment. I mean sure, maybe they will save someone else's time when they see enough keep !votes that they don't bother. So in some ways it's a good demonstration of their commitment to cleaning up the problems that have been created. But ultimately it's hard for me to care about what happened in the Fort Hare example you cited since it looks like the right outcome happened without much fuss and no one actually !voted keep.

I'll be more concerned if there are no delete !votes in more borderline cases rather than clearcut ones. For example, with SportingFlyer's copy and pasted comments they've noted above, it seems to me sometimes the result of their analysis should be !delete so it's impossible to be right all the time from guesses beforehand. An exception may be if SportingFlyer only bothers to look into cases where there's a very high probability of it being keep.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Tavix. There's no problem with NA1K's messages. You can't rush to delete as much as possible, citing fake rules and creating tons of parallel nominations while expecting other people not to respond to recurring themes in your nominations. I find Legacypac's aggressive approach to other editors that get in the way of his pet deletion projects of self-defined "clutter" more problematic than the nominations themselves. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good way to put it. This exchange on Patar knight's talk page is a good example of aggressiveness towards those who don't agree with his fake rules. "What is wrong with you today?" is never a good way to start a good-faith discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the message. Leaving a single comment on a discussion, even a canned comment, is not disruptive. It also doesn't necessarily mean anything, the closing admin is not required to abide by any one comment, and if they don't find it relevant to the overall consensus of the discussion, aren't required to give that one comment any particular weight. --Jayron32 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• comment For goodness sake. Why create pages that are subject to deletion if it is not manipulation of normal deletion process of 'content'? Is this an online war game in the minds of those engaged in portal creation. The appropriation of wikipedia for a mass of contributions—that draw in and isolate users from the process of legitimate content creation—is disruptive and creepy; fighting it out on talk pages is a sub-tribal response in an imagined territorial dispute. The objections to portals (and other cruft) a decade ago envisaged all this and I only see one winner, the champion of reuse of wikipedia within wikipedia according to their transcendent concepts of 'navigation'. This approach is a recipe for a disaster, granting several users the latitude to grant others the latitude for the liberal creation of pages: forget articles and join our club? The bad users are trying to delete what we do! [Sits back and watches fur fly, detached and silent] cygnis insignis 15:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost all of this is directly contradictory to the community consensus in the RfC about ending portals, and all of it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread - other than to provide more evidence that some people who dislike portals have a battleground mentality towards them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf and his allies could save everyone a lot of grief if they actually read WP:ENDPORTALS rather than repeatedly misrepresenting it. It showed a clear consensus not actually delete every single portal; but it also showed a widespread (and probably majority) view that there were already way too many portals.

Instead of following that up with an RFC to define which portals the community does want, a small group set about bizarrely interpreting "don't delete every single portal" as "create thousands more low-quality, narrow-scope portals". That blatantly disruptive behaviour is why this became a battleground ... but even at this late stage vocal editors like Thryduulf remain in verbose denial about how the obvious lack of community consensus for the portalspam is what created the reaction which they complain about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Remarkably it doesn't seem to make a difference how many times I say that I don't support the creation of low quality portals I still get accused of exactly that. It is really <expletive omitted> tiring to see exactly the same misinterpreations of my comments despite correcting them every <expletive omitted> time. There was indeed no community consensus in favour of the creation of those portals. That does not mean that there is a community consensus in favour of deleting them all either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a continuum between ending all portals, and creating too many portals. The difference is largely about letting portals develop from groups of editors who are actively using and maintaining each portal, versus creating portals at a pace and rate that makes it clear that the person creating them isn't capable of doing the necessary work to have a useful portal. As a navigational aid, well-maintained portals can be wonderful. But creating shell portals that have no hope of being maintained is not useful. --Jayron32 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The rate at which portals was created was too fast - I've said this many times - but that doesn't mean that those portals that have been created must be deleted without any thought either, the two are independent. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a false equivalence though. Just because two positions are in opposition doesn't mean the two positions are equivalent. In this case, there is a clear spirit at Wikipedia that it is always the burden of the person wishing to create or keep something to establish that it is justified. The default is "shouldn't be here". Even without citing similar policies, that makes sense: Otherwise, people could just create things at near randomness and without any effort or thought, and to demand that the position that those things shouldn't have been created is equivalent and requires an equal burden is silly. There's a near infinite number of pages I can create at Wikipedia; the idea that not creating something is equivalent to creating it is simply not true. The burden should always be upon the person who thinks that something needs to be at Wikipedia, and the default should be "don't make it". Our thresholds for burden are relatively low, but not zero, and especially in the case of non-content based navigation aids (where we aren't basing decisions on source text), it shouldn't be an equivalent burden upon those who say "we don't need this" It's the case of "proving a negative". It should be the burden of a person asserting "this navigational aid is needed because..." to establish positive evidence that it is needed. WP:BURDEN is about referencing content in actual articles, but in general greater burden should always exist for people who establish something as necessary rather than who simply hold that it is not. Null hypothesis is the similar position from logic. --Jayron32 18:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's a false equivalence, and I agree lots of these need to be deleted. The issue in my mind is that too many portals are being discussed simultaneously (I'm including the bulk nominations as one discussion, I think those do a good job of addressing the problem), making it harder for users who want to bear the burden of keeping the content. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, we really should be having two different discussions because we have two different situations. 1) What do we do with the entire batch of portals created during the recent event of bad portal creation and 2) What do we do with any other portals that weren't part of that. I think the first set should be fair game to be deleted as fast as they were created. The second set, portals that had nothing to do with the recent mass creation, I could at least hear the argument that such nominations should proceed slower, because those older portals were probably created in good faith by an active Wikiproject that was, at one time, maintaining them. Still, if the argument is that moribund or unmaintainable portals should be deleted, then if there aren't enough people to keep up with the deletion discussions, then how can those same people be able to maintain those portals? Certainly, the work needed to maintain a portal is far greater than the work needed to make a comment at a deletion discussion... --Jayron32 18:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I still haven't read that discussion, just the predictions and evidence of the outcomes, eg. your singular focus on a creating the potentially objectionable pages and undeniable skill-set acquired at insular and questionable sub-projects, reading notice boards, and debating talk-page discussions in defence of the same. Quelling the battleground is what provokes my observations, I don't expect it to be welcome by the combatants who are doing happily what they whatwant to do. cygnis insignis 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cygnis insignis: It's unclear who you are referring to here, but I haven't created any portals (good or bad). Quelling the battleground is exactly my aim in proposing discretionary sanctions below and the many pleas to get people to slow down and actually listen to one another (which usually seems to result only in being accused of things I didn't actually say, do or advocate). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: You haven't created any portals? That was presumptuous of me. Why are you vehemently supporting a process that causes so much disruption, waste so much of the community's time, and behave in such a partisan manner? Why so fiercely protective of what is going to cause users to get deletion notices? … as I said elsewhere, this is not doing anyone any favours, just a recipe for aggrieved users and clever trolls to exploit goodwill. cygnis insignis 17:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: My overarching goal is to prevent the deletion of content that should not be deleted (the X3 proposal being transcluded to WT:CSD was when I first became aware of the issue). Yes many of the rapidly created portals should be deleted, but not all of them should be - and I would support a speedy deletion process that discriminated between those that should clearly be deleted and all others (X3 as proposed would not have done this). You seem to suggest that people getting deletion notices when their creations are nominated for deletion is a bad thing, but I don't understand why that would be? Time spent discussing whether pages that neither meet the criteria for speedy deletion should be deleted nor should clearly not be deleted is not time wasted. Time spent in those discussions making arguments that are not relevant to the page under discussion (such as those that relate only to portals as a class, for or against) is wasted and wastes the time of those who have to point this out and refute them though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Receiving a deletion notice is not good, you would need to convince that has no effect on a creator when the evidence is otherwise. Creating content to have a discussion about the page specifically, and portals in general, would be strongly discouraged, obviously time-wasting in comparative situations, yet there is an admin turning up to make announcements that contradict the known outcomes and willingness of the community to maintain their creations, which is <0. At least that is how it works in main-space. What is the content that you are preventing from being deleted? You've been misled I think, there are good reasons why the portals were never created in a decade, or deleted if they were, an ongoing experiment that I would prefer was deprecated for the discontent it creates. Have the creators demonstrated some profound insight into navigation that is somehow absent from the myriad of creations that harvest content to present themselves as "content". cygnis insignis 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to several comments above: I support ending Portal space as it exists but I'm not seeking deletion on everything at this time. My nominations fall into four areas: 1. fails existing portal guidelines 2. thoughtless mass creations with obvious errors 3. unfinished abandoned junk 4. A few topics that are unsuitable for special reasons like Portal:Incest. I've never sought deletion of the community or current events portals or the mainpage because readers actually use those pages, so they serve a purpose. I'm interested in Wikipedia having useful informative pages that give the readers good information. I volunteer to help people access correct verifiable curated info they want in a form that makes the most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang with a tban from portal space, per Tavix. It's particularly interesting that, given the way this portion of the thread has gone, Legacypac still thinks it wise to mention the possibility of an MfD tban for NA1K below. The aggressive behavior needs to curtailed and Legacypac doesn't seem willing to curtail it voluntarily. As has been noted several times above, Legacypac never had a valid reason to open this thread. But Legacypac doesn't seem to be getting that message. Lepricavark (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nominations

Since this thread started NA1000 has started bringing normal random declined AFC Draft submissions one by one to MfD. WP:POINTy, though I'm not clear on what the point is dipping into random pages from the 23,000+ at Category:Declined AfC submissions when WP:G13 is a thing. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting how my MfD nominations are deemed as existentially problematic, that is, problematic simply because they exist, while after going through the MfD archives, the op in this sub-thread has very recently engaged in the exact same behaviors they so strongly object to. Below are some examples. The hypocrisy is just, well, glaring.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Book Music & Lyrics – created by Legacypac on 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) – created by Legacypac on 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) – created by Legacypac on 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daniel Mark Harrison – created by Legacypac on 18 November 2018 (UTC))
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet – created by Legacypac on 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdul Quadir Amin (3rd nomination) – created by Legacypac on 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The drafts I recently nominated at MfD were found by using custom searches in draft namespace. Some are quite promotional, but may not quite qualify for WP:G11, so I initiated MfD discussions for wider community input, as is customary. I also use such searches to find problematic pages that I nominate for speedy deletion.

Furthermore, a clear precedent already exists that drafts are commonly discussed at MfD. See the following examples below:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2019 – 61 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/February 2019 – 67 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/January 2019 – 103 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2018 – 116 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/November 2018 – 145 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/October 2018 – 192 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/September 2018 – 206 Draft namespace nominations
• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates for more

Conversely, I also appreciate that per the existence of WP:G13, some potential nominations may not need to occur, something I have known for quite some time. Ultimately, if a moratorium for Draft namespace content being nominated at MfD is desired, this should be proposed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. It is my hope that Legacypac will consider abandoning their ongoing battleground stances and perform in a more civil, respectful manner toward others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It is just weird that someone without much interest in draft space MfDs until now, suddenly nominates 13 drafts for MfD in one day (about one fifth of the number of drafts MfD saw per month from all editors together the last two months), for pages without in most cases glaring problems beyond what most rejected drafts have, and in at least one case actually defeating what draft space is for and why we have a 6 month delay between rejection and deletion (Draft:WEN ZHONGLIN 温忠麟, a Chinese professor with lots of citations, was nominated for deletion just two weeks after rejection). Many other MfD nominations may be equally unwarranted or pointless (we have G13 to get automatically rid of them after 6 months anyway), but in most cases people didn't nominate this many at once, and when it includes drafts which should get a respite, not a sudden death because they are not acceptable in their current form (which we already know, that's "rejection"), then it becomes problematic. You still haven't really explained why it is important that these 13 get deleted now and not after their 6 months are over, seeing that they are not indexed and not linked to from the mainspace. Fram (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion is a significant part of what I do. One could say it's weird that I have nominated many pages for speedy deletion at times in a succession, or several articles at AfD in a succession, but that's how I edit sometimes. With several users above stating that they have no concerns with my MfD contributions, it didn't cross my mind that nominating drafts would all of the sudden be perceived as problematic. Lately I've been finding content that qualifies for deletion using custom searches in user namespace, and simply performed this for content in draft namespace, because it crossed my mind to do so, to improve the encyclopedia. There's actually a lot of highly promotional, non-main namespace content all over Wikipedia that exists in a grey area regarding whether or not to tag for WP:G11 speedy deletion or to initiate a wider community discussion. Sometimes, posting for wider community input is a proper, conservative approach to better determine, by consensus, whether or not content meets Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, an approach that also provides time for creators and contributors to respond to concerns. Regarding the Zhonglin Wen draft page, in its present form (permanent link) it qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTRESUME, and arguably could have been tagged G11 which would have quite likely led to it being routinely deleted. Instead, I initiated a discussion. It is also important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a webhost for the publishing of WP:PROMO content for six full months, waiting for WP:G13 deletion and leaving pages that violate WP:NOT indiscriminately in place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've brought plenty of problematic drafts to MfD - stuff that needs deleting now or where the draft is being disruptively submitted usually. Occasionally an enthusiastic newer editor starts nominating random drafts and we explain G13 and CSD and they stop. NA1000 is an Admin who nominated Draft:List of Australian cheeses consisting of "Bfer cheese: cheese made of birb milk." which can only be seen as a WP:POINTy disruptive time wasting move. Taken in context of having an ANi open about their MfD participation, an MfD topic ban should be considered here. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Taken in context of having an ANi open about their MfD participation... you conveniently neglected to much that it has been conclusively established by the participants in that ANi than NA1K had done nothing wrong. And that conclusion had been reached by the time you posted this comment. How can you possibly use a thread which vindicated NA1K as justification for considering a topic ban? Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Several users above stated they have no concerns, so as I stated, it didn't cross my mind that nominating drafts would all of the sudden be perceived as problematic. Many users did not address the matters stated in the top post at all. Now, since there's a thread stating the word "disruption", a topic ban should immediately be considered, irrespective of the actual content of the thread? Seems way overly draconian, and highly agenda-driven. After all, Legacypac has been running around recklessly for quite some time, casting insults and taunts all the while, continuously posting negative comments about anyone and everyone that disagrees with them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

How about you stop with the cow manure? We deserve better from an Admin. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Colonny Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

For Shame Clearly someone needs to read the WP:POINT riot act at NA1K as they are weaponizing MFD, Draft Space, and ANI in an attempt to gain the upper hand against editors they disagree with. Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could someone explain why these MfDs are disruptive? I'm frankly don't see the problem. It seems like Legacypac is just looking for another reason to have a go at NA1K. I'll reconsider that interpretation if someone can explain why these nominations are a problem, but it isn't really helpful for Legacypac to expect the rest of us to connect the dots. And, given that this thread was completely frivolous when it began, I see no reason to conclude that this second complaint has any more merit than the first one. Lepricavark (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark: I'll take the ball.
    1. Legacypac gets involved with a great many cleanup efforts (WP as a whole needs Janitors to clean up items that nobody really cares for).
    2. Legacypac got involved with the process of nominating portals created in a automated manner that may or may not have community consensus.
    3. Legacypac was using the argument that "proposed CSD X3 would cover this" on portal MFDs indicating that there could be a consensus argument that the portal was created by a specific editor with little quality control or useful scope. This may have been percieved as an end run around the consensus discussion about authorizing the CSD rationalle by showing that portals are frequently deleted with this being a contributing argument.
    4. NA1K is standing opposed to the deletion of these automated portals.
    5. Spontaneously NA1K moninated 13 pages from Draft space for MFD.
    5. Legacypac takes exception to this as there is the appearance that NA1K disruptively nominated for deletion these drafts as one of Legacypac's interests in some sort of revenge/sorched earth strategy.
    6. Draft namespace is granted much more latitude than main namespace as these are "in progress" and potential future articles or ones where there is the belief that some level of normal editing can fix the cited issue.
    7. From my brief analysis, none of the drafts nominated by NA1K require the "immediate" deletion (copyright, attacks, negative BLP, etc.) and therefore the CSD:G13 Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in: Draft namespace, Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template, Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. would clean thes up in 6 months if no editor provided even a single byte update.
    Hope this helps you connect the dots. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the reasons for objection to NA1K's actions. While I can understand why the MfD nominations might appear a little odd, and while it would probably be best if NA1K refrained from taking any more drafts to MfD for the time being, I must confess that I don't see how Legacypac will be personally harmed by the deletion of these declined drafts. I also don't agree with the assumptions made regarding NA1K's motives. In particular, the claim that she is opposed to the deletion of automated portals is untrue, as NA1K has demonstrated below. Legacypac is not accurately representing both sides of the portal dispute, so please don't take his word at face value. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No Shame. Well, most of the treatise above is just a bizarre personal conspiracy theory, with no basis in truth. I've already stated why I performed the nominations above, and that's why. There's no ulterior motive.

For starters, the theory of my philosophy stated above about me as supposedly "standing opposed to the deletion of these automated portals" is just false. I have actually !voted for deletion for many of the portals nominated at MfD. Apparently you didn't bother to actually check, instead just stating some idea you made up. Furthermore, upon consideration of community concerns regarding portals, I nominated several that I created for WP:G7 deletion, which resulted in their deletion. These are listed below:

• Portal:Ahold Delhaize: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Waffles: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Tomato sauces: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Alaska Airlines: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 00:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Salad dressings: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 00:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This does not correlate with the false premise of my supposedly standing opposed to deletion of automated portals at all. It's like people will just say anything. It's a real time sink to have to spend my time responding to false accusations such as this here, having to state how I have !voted, etc. to correct these false claims. Stop casting aspersions.

Additionally, there are now several additional draft articles nominated at MfD (by other users) that occurred after my nominations, yet these have received no scrutiny herein. It's a real double standard.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BROOKLYN FROST
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (3rd nomination) – Started by Legacypac on 20:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC), about 20 hours after they started this subthread
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Backup guitar
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GPV International A/S

Lastly, nobody has actually addressed my post above regarding drafts and MfD, and the blatant hypocrisy of the matter, as stated above, instead just engaging in finger pointing and hand waving.

I tire of this smear campaign against my personal character, complete with bizarre conspiracy theories and a battleground desire to shame, along with the phrase "for shame" in bold, so this may be the last post I make here regarding these bad-faith accusations. If people don't want drafts to be discussed at MfD, it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User concerns about Legacypac's ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

Several users have expressed concerns that Legacypac (talk · contribs) has engaged in ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND and disruptive behavior, including personal attacks and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS toward other users. Per concerns raised by some users in the top discussion in this thread, posting some diffs below regarding this matter.

• Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Legacypac and portals – Ongoing, present discussion at ANI (permanent link)
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples – diff
• Arbitration/Requests/Case § Portal Issues – diff 1 • diff 2 • diff 3 • diff 4.
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Starbucks – diff
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination)
• The user's talk page: diff • diff
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smartphone – diff • diff
• Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines – diff
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California – diff
• Furthermore, the user's block log demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing and harassment – Block log.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Other people's opinions are anecdotal. This should be filled with diffs of Legacypac's behavior.--v/r - TP 20:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll just leave it at that at this time, with the addendum that the diffs provided above serve to provide examples of several users who have expressed ongoing concerns about the user's approach and actions. For clarity, when making this post, I added the phrase "Several users have expressed concerns that" to my initial post and added "User concerns about" to the header of this subsection (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a diff of Legacypac's behavior. There is nothing remotely disruptive about the comment with which Legacypac takes issue. The accusations of bad faith against NA1K are quite tiring, especially when it is clear that Legacypac is the chief aggressor. Lepricavark (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the nomination statement and then the post I replied to. User:Lepricavark Context matters. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you somehow under the impression that you get to use the nomination statement to determine what rationales other editors may use? You don't think the portal's wide scope is enough to save it. NA1K does. Reasonable minds may vary on such a matter, yet one of you accused the other of acting in bad faith. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of accusations of bad faith and worse being thrown at me by NA1000. [64] is exactly on point as is [65] and [66]. This whole section is a purely retaliatory filing. Anyway. my tolerance for games is over. Other users can call out the nonsense, and NA1000 can continue to discredit themselves. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This entire thread (which led to this section) began as a retaliatory filing against NA1K by you. It was quickly established that you had no grounds for a complaint against NA1K. As noted at the top of ANI, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Your filing certainly did not meet those standards. Yet even after NA1K was vindicated in the initial thread, you refused to drop the matter and continued to act as though you actually had a valid reason for bringing this complaint in the first place. You say that your tolerance for games is over, but it is you who has wasted the community's time by using ANI as a weapon against an editor who disagreed with you in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Clerking at AfD

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

---

User:Sheldybett will clerk discussions being held at AfD. Unfortunately they seem to have trouble doing this with the competence required for the task. Numerous editors have expressed concerns about their abilities while doing so in the last four months ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72])). The concerns in those diffs, each expressed by a different editor, include nearly the full range of options available for non-admin actions at AfD. It is possible that this user has trouble with other aspects of editing, as I notice several declines of speedy deletion tags and at least one file they uploaded itself tagged, and one question of hounding, but I admit I have not fully investigated those areas so I can not speak to their validity.

However, what is clear to me is their repeated inability to clerk at AfD. This suggests, at minimum, that they should be topic banned from clerking at any deletion forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly support a topic ban Every few weeks, we get a reprieve and then we are back where we started. It's a waste of time to continue to deal with this and as indicated here here and here. Sheldybett was more than aware of the potential consequence of continuing their disruptive behavior at AFD (and elsewhere, for that matter.) They have repeatedly shown they lack even a basic understanding of deletion policies - outside of AFD - incorrect copyright tagging, speedy decline, speedy decline a7 isn't even eligible for the subject they tagged. And just for ease, here's a list of all the discussions where they were told in detail why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]).([80], [81], [82],[83]. Waiting for a response or a promise for them will be useless, per the first three diffs I provided. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that I'd support an outright ban from deletion areas in their entirety, including nominating articles as they do not appear to understand notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban from clerking AfDs per lack of policy understanding. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban – I left my (friendly) message thinking this was an isolated incident and they were unaware of community consensus around this area, but this appears not to be the case. Non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and frequently disruptive, so a topic ban here is the obvious solution. Bradv🍁 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's clear from the links provided in this discussion and other issues raised on their talk page that they are not understanding the problems with their editing in relation to AfD, despite the number of different people who've tried to explain in different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support The original diffs compounded with Praxidicae's subsequently indicate that the user seems not to actually understand what they are meant to be doing. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support but I must ask the obvious question - disruptive editing is one of the issues for which we block users, why has this user not been blocked ? Do you want me to do it ? Nick (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: - but if bans really are to be preventative, and we don't think they're editing in bad faith, then escalating beyond a TBAN seems wildly overreacting Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: and where did I mention a ban ? We routinely block good faith but disruptive editors to prevent further damage and disruption, and to permit a suitable resolution of the issue. Nick (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: - sorry I mis-interpreted your statement, I see it was with regard of preventing an ongoing problem during discussion of longer-term solution. As such, I'll readjust - they've not done any AfD clerking since this discussion was started (or edited at all, I assume they're not around atm). I wouldn't say a block is needed at this point - obviously if we get another poor nac-action (or potentially any) then that would probably be justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per all the above. We've given them enough rope, and they still continue. A topic ban is probably the only way to stop this from occurring. The Duke 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've seen several bad closes from them and very few good ones, and I'm not the only one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I have no doubt that the editor wants to help, but the issues are persistent, and the editor seems unable or unwilling to address them. A topic ban will spare the time of other editors and administrators in deletion areas, and perhaps encourage the editor to be more careful in their editing elsewhere. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Examining the linked examples, I'm seeing a lot of very poor English, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, so maybe there's a language problem here? To understand the subtleties of our many policies and guidelines sufficiently well to do clerking/adminny things, you really need a good command of the language. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of deletion matters in general and XfD in particular. User needs to be made aware of the dangers of thin ice. My sense is the user will need to be blocked. DlohCierekim 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban from clerking AfDs. I previously suggested to the user to participate in deletion discussions but to not close them. As the advice hasn't been taken a ban is now required. Schwede66 23:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am a fan of allowing everyone to do any job they have the tools to do, but because they lack the delete button no non-admin should be clerking AfDs/MfDs except for SNOW keeps after 7 days and procedural closes where the page has already been CSD deleted. Very experienced users might handle the odd Speedy Keep or odd situation. No non-Admin should be relisting. Legacypac (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not my area, & I've noticed nothing, but I believe we need to be ready to restrain persistently incompetent editors. From the above it is evident there is a real nuisance here. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
• Support as one of the too many users who have asked them to stop. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to note since @Boing! said Zebedee: told them yesterday they should avoid any sort of maintenance at AFD, they've gone ahead and NAC'd an article. It's not a bad NAC, but I would think if you're at ANI for a topic ban based on your behavior at AFD, it's ill advised to do anything at AFD other than participate by voting. There's also been absolutely no communication from them regarding all the concerns here or their talk page. And then there's this slew of pointy edits at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Removing_non-admin_closures_at_AfD where they clearly demonstrate a total lack of competence in this area, and possibly elsewhere. I know it might appear that I'm beating a dead horse, but perhaps this discussion should be broadened.Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And because of what I outlined above, as well as what is now their fourth request for rollback (and still no communincation or response regarding concerns here) that a lengthy block might be in order. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This remark (if I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change) in particular suggests that they still do not understand; combined with a lack of engagement here, there would indeed appear to be more than just AfD-clerking in the frame. ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, to at least make them stop while this discussion is in progress. They can be unblocked the minute they promise to stop all activity at AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• As Sheldybett has now said "If I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change or I just shall quit Wikipedia for good." See diff. That would only shift the problems elsewhere, so alternative proposal below...

Alternative proposal

User:Sheldybett is topic banned from clerking at all admin-related areas, including (but not limited to) WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP. The topic ban is indefinite and can be appealed after a minimum of six months.

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think they have made this decision for us. ——SerialNumber54129 13:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the communication cited by BsZ, this seems to be the only option left. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per all the reasoning above and per my own above and I'd add the caveat that their block is extended until they demonstrate a willingness to communicate. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  I've no objection to another admin adjusting the block in any way that seems appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as first choice given their statement at WT:AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as we are not helped by the problem activity shifting elsewhere. Schwede66 18:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, lack of competence and language skills are indistinguishable from trolling. Leviv ich 19:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per all the above. The Duke 21:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for a willful refusal to accept concerns on competence, despite at least 5 attempts to resolve the issue with lower level assistance, warnings and sanctions Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per everything written by all the other editors in this thread. This editor simply does not get it, and their English skills seem woefully inadequate. I suggest that they go do some good work at the Wikipedia of their native language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals

Look at ‎#Northamerica1000 disruption at MfD and #Legacypac and portals on this page, WP:AN#Thousands of portals, the hundred or so portal nominations currently at MfD, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal issues (which is heading towards being declined) various other discussions linked in those threads and it is clear that something needs to done to stop this getting even further out of hand. I suggest that community discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (including but not limited to MfD) is a simple and necessary first step. Specific restrictions on specific editors can then be placed as needed with much less drama than at present.

Note to everybody please keep this discussion on topic. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of portals, the merits or otherwise of portal MfDs, portal speedy deletion, portal prods, etc, etc. It is also not the place to discuss specific incidents and/or specific users (use existing sections or start new ones for this), it is intended solely for discussion about discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Proposals for and discussion of specific sanctions to be applied if sanctions are authorised should also not take place in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at this point at least - there are a fair few negative discussions, but I don't think there's been sufficient attempt made to handle the disruptive conversations using the regular means (I suspect the prevalence of experienced editors has discouraged stricter de-escalation beyond conversation (which is a great first step, but clearly not enough at this point)). Until standard conduct review methods such as ANI have been shown, to a clear and convincing level, to not work then I don't feel we should escalate to DS - which are frequently overused and an absolute nightmare to ever get rid of. With regards to breadth, it's a relatively small group of editors throughout, rather than this absolutely hoard of disruptive editors that require a shoot first, review later policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: Would you then care to make an attempt to handle the ongoing disruption using the usual means because nothing that anybody else has actually tried has worked so far. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction which would not even need to be suggested if all the major parties involved turned off their PCs for 24 hours; with less WP:BLUDGEONing of each other and other commentators, preferably. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for 45 days (or other similar range of between 30 and 90 days). The purpose of GS/DS is to empower administrators to take actions to benefit the encyclopedia which might otherwise be difficult to impossible to do. As someone who doesn't see much value behind Portals but also has a "hey I'm already weird because I edit wikipedia and even among these weirdos I'm weird because of my niche" live and let-live attitude I'd welcome a chance for community discussions to play-out and consensus to form. It seemed, at least from my casual observations, that things had cooled a little when the ARC was filed but as it has become clearer that this would be declined (which I think is the right thing for ArbCOM to have done) it seems that the temperature is heating back up. It further seems from the threads I've observed at ARC, AN, and ANI (as well as the occasional talk page) that it's the same players going at each other time and time again. A timelimited GS would hopefully allow some neutral administrators the leeway to help cool the temperature back down so there is space for editors who care about Wikipedia but cannot muster the passion of a thousand burning suns around Portals and/or their deletions to (re)join in and help guide us to a conclusion but also then not continue to stick around forever. Because after we (hopefully) reach a point where consensus has been reached, there will be alignment about the way forward even if there's not complete agreement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen widespread disruption as yet. The discussion is getting long and tedious, but being long and tedious is not sanctionable. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No admins will be sanctioned without a long ArbComm case where every benefit will be given the Admin, meanwhile DS will dangle a sword over the head of ordinary users who would be subject to immediate restrictions or block without discussion. DS is just another path for the proposer to get what they failed to get with complaints at ANi and ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If you liked the Infobox Wars, you'll love the Portal Crusades. EEng 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a permanent solution for a temporary problem. With the discussion on portals spread out over so many pages, I think this adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I'll be the first to admit that the issue of portals has brought out less than ideal behavior by some editors but I think this can be handled wiith blocks for regular disruptive or tendentious editing, if this is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose without any indication what kind of discretionary sanctions the proposer has in mind in which situations. Would too many nominations be sanctionable? Too many !votes which don't match the end result? Repeating arguments, already debunked in one or two MfDs, in other MfDs? !Votes without "proper" argumentation? It's unclear which problems the proposer is trying to tackle here. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fram I'm clearly on a fairly small island with Thryduulf in seeing benefit for this so let me give a go at answering your questions: the problem that GS would try to tackle is general disruption to the project caused by editors who are fighting, as EEng says, the Portal Crusades. So for one disruptive editor the answer might be a limit on MfD nominations per week. For another it might be that they may not initate/comment at ANI about portals related behavior. For a third it might be a more typical behavior warning. Essentially it's appropriate sanctions ala User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions. The goal should be to decrease the temperature and allow the project to come up to alignment for a way forward with Portals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good God no. Never in the history of Wikipedia have discretionary sanctions "decreased the temperature"; they just increase the toxicity of already-toxic issues by forcing disputes to fester because people are afraid to comment. If an editor is being disruptive then treat them as we would any other disruptive editor. To hammer home a point that hasn't been hammered enough here, this is not an important issue since 99.99% of readers never see a portal; yes, malformed portals are a nuisance and need to be culled and yes, the mass creation constituted intentional disruption, but hardly anyone will ever see the malformed portals and I'd like to think nobody would be stupid enough to try to restart the mass creation. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, per Iridescent. The intention is good, the plan of execution is not. Everybody involved in this mess needs to wind down the aggression and combative attitudes that have made it so much more unpleasant than it needs to be, and instead work towards resolving it in the quickest, easiest and most amicable way possible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When a trout just isn't enough...^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose but what if we topic ban all editors from discussing portal-related user conduct on any page other than WP:PortalFight2019, enforceable by a 24hr first-time no-warning block by any uninvolved admin? Not a joke suggestion. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal_MFD_Results may help Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary, per above. SemiHypercube 🎂 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - A few editors need to be topic-banned from portal discussions. ArbCom said that the community was handling the portal issues, so the community should handle the portal issues in the same way as the ArbCom would have, by empowering administrators to take draconian action. Strong support. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The Original Poster of this is Thryduulf, who is an advocate for portals. I am a strong critic of portals. But we agree that sometimes a Gordian knot needs to be cut. (Yes, the tool that is used to cut a Gordian knot draws blood, but that sometimes minimizes total injuries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Iridescent.

SPA

• 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apart from having a meaningless username, this user's sole purpouse is to discuss various left-wing U.S. politicians on their article talk pages and push a certain agenda. Should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:BLP. funplussmart (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I like my 'meaningless' user name. I am suggesting edits which are objective and factual. Its comical that factual events that occurred and have similar prominent headlining on the pages of other public figures/politicians are being hidden on other pages. The point of Wikipedia is to be objective. All public figures/politicians should be treated equitably and objectively despite "power users" personal political bias. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

funplussmart and 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60, you should know not to cast aspersions without proof (diffs). Whether you are talking about editors you think are disruptive or "power users" (whoever they are), you have to provide evidence to back up your claims or this complaint will be closed very soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see nothing actionable here. My first few edits weren't very productive either, but I learned. Bradv🍁 03:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• A user who comes to Wikipedia to to post about an imagined sexual assault controversy surrounding Joe Biden involving minors [84], and then making a similar post after being warned[85] is not someone who is going to help build an encyclopedia.

11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 tried to connect Kamala Harris with murder[86]: "Its a reference to a family being murdered as a direct result of her support and enforcement of sanctuary city policies by shielding illegal aliens from DHS while District Attorney of San Francisco."[87]

How about posting that Ihan Omar "has received support from white supremacists such as David Duke"? 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 is here to even the score because Donald Trump has been so unfairly treated by Wikipedia. Multiply that by a few dozen, and that's what the editing environment is like in the American politics topic area because more admins aren't stepping up, and a few are actually standing in the way.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My proposed edit is to treat Rep. Omar and Donald Trump equitably in an objective manner. I don't really understand why this get your worked up. If you are going to treat one public figure/politician in one manner, then all politicians should be treated in the same manner. That is what objectivity is all about. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch....I've seen way too much of this far right trolling in the past couple of weeks years which was preceded by [88].--MONGO (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As usual, MONGO appears out of the ether at just the right moment to discredit/distort/distract. I stand by what I wrote. If you have an issue with it, kindly start a discussion on my user talk page, open a new section here, or take it to some other complaint venue. - MrX 🖋 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You discredit your complaint by attacking the plantiff. The edits they made speak for themselves so no idea why you have to make personal attacks.--MONGO (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree there is nothing actionable. The talk page posts do not rise to the level of posting contested text on actual article space, and such proposals for changes to articles are fine. People are free to respond to such proposals with "no, we shouldn't make this change because...", but unless and until outright disruption to article text starts happening, I don't see anything actionable coming of this. --Jayron32 17:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account

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

---

Xiaoyuankun2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor is hiding unsourced and POV edits with deceptive edit summaries (example here), and seems to be a new account of Xiaoyuankun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit summaries, who is apparently banned for exactly this, i.e calling all their edits grammar changes. Eik Corell (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Eik Corell I see that you've reported the same user twice in this report, did you mean to report a user as a sock of them and just mistyped it? For sockpuppetry cases, WP:SPI is the more traditional venue. User:Xiaoyuankun is currently indeffed blocked anyway. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahh yeah, got confused in the formatting of it. I've fixed it now; The sockpuppet is "Xiaoyuankun2", whereas the original user is "Xiaoyuankun". Eik Corell (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• You gotta hand it to him, that's a cunning name for a sockpuppet. EEng 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Admit it. You would never have clocked it unless someone pointed it out. ;-) 81.129.194.138 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Majeedthaika

Resolved

Could someone perhaps drop in on User:Majeedthaika, who seems to have redirected their user/talk page to a non-existant user account e.g. User talk:Julianne Holt-Lunstad. Julianne Holt-Lunstad is a psychologist at Brigham Young University - see Julianne Holt-Lunstad. I've been up for too long to be able to deal with this right now. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Majeedthaika: - FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've sorted the pages out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti political shills

This account is being used only for promotional purposes. POV pushing on articles related to Balkan states. Reported to AIV twice, but was told to come here. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs and an explanation of what they are promoting would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: You also failed to notify the user as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren is obviously collaborating with Jingiby to push Bulgarian views on Balkan articles, all I'm doing is cleaning out the obvious agenda pushing in these articles as my history indicates. Jingiby has been abusing WK:NPOV for over a decade as is stated by him on the website dir.bg (https://imgur.com/0Kf08kt) where he has explicitly offensive remarks to the Macedonian nationhood and states that he transfering bias information from bg.wikipedia to en.wikipedia to any articles that relate to Macedonia in attempt to undermine Macedonians and push Bulgarian narratives. Clearly a breach of | WK:NPOV, and Woshiyiweizhongguoren is supporting him in this act and is sending threats to me to discontinue my editing. Jingiby has a highly negative reputation, as can be seen by googling his name. All I'm trying to do is make articles which he has edited have more neutral perspectives. I can give examples of Jinbigy's edits which are obvious breaches of | WK:NPOV that I neutralised.

Bulgarian Australians

Jingiby's statement: "... who count the Bulgarian Australian and the later Macedonian Australian diaspora together for historical reasons, estimate a total number of around 100,000 [Bulgarians in Australia]"

The above is obviously a fraudulent statement that pushes Bulgarian narratives, and it is highly contradictory with the Australian census.

Taga za Yug

Jingiby keeps on removing and white-washing references to Macedonians and Macedonia while primary sources and the poster on the article clearly refer to Macedonians and Macedonia Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Three more issues regarding this user:

1. He may be abusing multiple accounts, see the first message on his talk page. He then tried to clarify things by listing an IP address he used, but IPs aren't accounts, so I'm not sure.

2. His username may be a bit too inappropriate and POV pushing for Wikipedia.

3. His allegations of me collaborating with Jingiby are 100 percent false. His dishonesty is just making things worse. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kilometerman

Kilometerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Milewoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to insert "far-left" onto Chapo Trap House since last September under the alt account Milewoman (ownership declared here on Apr 1), nearly completely unsupported by sources. Initially countered by Drmies, the user seems to completely reject community advises and input on the talk page, even take great offence at the slightest warning or inquiry. My initial resolution attempts went nowhere and got blanked, and I was left with this angry message calling me "despicable" for "using the fact that WP's editors are mostly left-leaning to push your personal politics". User page declarations suggest that this editor is a WP:POVFIGHTER here to fight perceived leftist POV and leftist editors, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Briefly reviewing their edits, this edit summary suggest they clearly understand RS and UNDUE, but they nevertheless inserted "committed war crimes including extrajudicial killings and attempted ethnic cleasing" with both sources mentioning neither word. I originally intended to file this to AN3, but ANI appears to be a better venue for these problems. My original draft report is pasted below. Actions may be required for this rigorous IDHT listen problem, POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kilometerman reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: )

Page: Chapo Trap House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kilometerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-03-27T21:07:41

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 2019-04-01T13:02:49
2. diff 2019-04-01T13:08:29
3. diff 2019-04-03T21:13:12
4. diff 2019-04-04T17:29:54
5. diff 2019-04-04T17:32:57
6. diff 2019-04-05T20:12:04
7. diff 2019-04-05T20:12:39

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NPOV, 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chapo Trap House#"Far-left"

Comments:

This editor has a blatant public bias involving politics and continues to violate POV and basic wp guidelines in an obvious effort to ignore primary sources and create biased articles. He continues to spam me and countless other's talk pages with nonsense warnings for no reason, and complains when they get blanked (although interestingly when the same is done to him, he's.apparently fine with blanking...) He tried to start an edit war over the Chapo Trap House article and rather than discuss it on the talk page, continually reverted edits without consensus. They have made no attempt to come to a consensus on the article.

Even now, you can see the editor continue to froth at the mouth about everything I do, stalking my profile. They mentioned the warcrimes edit and said "none of the sources contain either word". At this point I'm assuming they aren't very good at English since they clearly can't read a source well enough to make an accurate assessment.

This user has harrassed me and countless others, pretending to have moderator authority and is a general nuisance. Someone needs to stop them before they continue harrassing and spamming their POV nonsense over what are supposed to be objective articles.Kilometerman (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that this user seems to be a single purpose account--exclusively editing on political articles to push for a more biased perspective. Kilometerman (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"He tried to start an edit war over the Chapo Trap House article and rather than discuss it on the talk page" — Point of fact, Tsumikiria opened the most recent discussion on the issue at Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#"Far-left". This was long after a general consensus had been reached not to include the term "far-left"; check Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#Far-left label and attempted trimming and Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#Political descriptors again. Kilometerman has relied on two things to keep the label on the page as long as it's been there: (1) their own interpretation of anything associated with left-wing politics as "far left", rather than merely "left", and (2) inertia when other the attention of other users turns elsewhere. —BLZ · talk 04:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please check the time of the edits and when that page was createdKilometerman (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever edits Tsumikiria made prior to opening the discussion, Tsumikiria was nonetheless the person to open up the dialogue on the issue again. And their prior edits would be justified by the prior general consensus not to include the term. Incidentally, I invite you to respond at the talk page if you feel you can still defend your viewpoint about inclusion of the term "far left" on the merits. —BLZ · talk 04:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Kilometerman warrants a block at the very least for edit warring and disruptive editing over the course of more than half a year in complete rejection of consensus and community input, in which 7 editors, including one admin, all specifically explained why their edits are unacceptable.

The fact that Kilometerman is willing to resort to their own idiosyncratic interpretation of sources ([89]"All the sources don't need to say "far-left" verbatim in order for an objective article to list them as so", [90] both sources do not mention the words "extrajudicial killings" and "ethnic cleansing" at all) against their perceived ideological enemies, despite knowing full well of relevant Wikipedia policies would prevent them from doing so, is appalling.

If not for the sake of this discussion, their rant above could be entirely removed as personal attacks and casting aspersions. I'd love to see the "countless others" I've harassed and stalked. "Froth at the mouth" and what now? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Onel5969/Year in Radio links

‎Onel5969 has been removing (and edit-warring to remove) Year in Radio links (ie: 1996 in Radio) which have been shortened to show just the year on 19 radio station pages. Why 19, no idea. First the user claims they are in violation of WP:DATELINK. When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK, the user once again reverted (I believe he is at 3RR, haven't issued the warning) and is now claiming something regarding WP:LINKING. If the user is going to remove the links from just 19 pages, he is going to have to do so from ALL radio and television station pages.

Plus, he claims he is using a script to do these edits. Clearly that script isn't working properly or has been changed. I don't seen anything in the script where Year in Something is/can/will be changed.

I have tried to speak with ‎Onel5969 and gotten snarky comments and this claim of violation under one rule to a claim of a violation under another rule. There has been consensus prior (BURDEN) that these are allowed and what harm are they really causing. Plus, removing them on just 19 pages?! So, I bring this to you all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread and of the possible 3RR violation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:05 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

I have respectfully requested Neutralhomer to provide examples supporting their position. They have refused to do so. They have stated, "When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK", without actually have done so. When they reverted the edits I had made, which I did through the WP tool "All dates to mdy", I was a bit taken aback. I remembered an instance which had occurred several years back where I had linked a year on a film article I had created to "xxxx in film", which had been reverted, but I couldn't remember the policy/guideline which had been cited in that revert. Since I couldn't remember, I posted a question in the Teahouse. Another editor (who I won't reference so that I won't be accused of CANVASSING), responded with the aforementioned WP:DATELINK. When I reverted their revert, and stated that position, they shortly reverted again, stating that as per WP:BURDEN it was up to me to prove my case. Now, that's not exactly what BURDEN is about. That guideline has to do with removing and re-adding cited/uncited material, which has no bearing on this discussion. However in my looking at the basic WP:LINKING guidelines, I pointed out that one of the main points of creating a link was "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." And then pointed out that to create a link to another page which didn't even mention the subject of the article in question hardly met that qualification. At that point, I made my second revert (which is what I always try to limit myself to), and made the point on my talk page I list above. Subsequent to that, I reached out to an admin I respect (again, unmentioned, as to not imply I am canvassing), to seek guidance on whether I should open a RFC on the topic. And if so, where. The issue, as I see it, is that the above editor feels that, as they put it, "Radio and TV station pages operate in a special "realm" in many rules and consensus discussions". And that very well may be true. But I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, and saw nothing which dealt with this topic. The only thing I saw was Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Infobox which states that instructions to the infobox can be found at the template, Template:Infobox radio station. At that location, the only guidance is that the startdate should follow this format: First date of broadcast, using {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}. This says nothing about linking to "xxxx in radio". I feel that bringing this to ANI at this stage is silly and a waste of editors' time, but since it has been brought here, I felt compelled to reply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What made you feel compelled to edit war, for example at WVSP-FM? Using a script to make multiple edits is very undesirable if there is any opposition. The matter must be settled somewhere before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, at WVKO (AM), WVSP-FM, WPZZ, WHOV, WLQM (AM), WRJR, WSNQ (AM), WLLL, WGPL, WPCE, WTOY, WHLQ, WKBY, WBLB, WDVA, WSBV, WREJ, WFTH, WGMZ, WGAD, WARB and WWDN... ——SerialNumber54129 09:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

wikihounding

User User:Chris troutman has threated me on my talk page to hound me User talk:86.191.95.230 —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst the message on your talk page seems unnecessarily confrontational (in effect "I will revert anything you do")), and yes does read like a threat to hound you (especially as there seems to have been only 2 edits of yours he has undone, in the last two months). Without diffs as to what it was he reverted of yours it is hard to judge if it was valid (for example if you just insert the word "Twathammer" in every article). Also you should have informed him of this ANI (I have done it for you).Slatersteven (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless I miss my guess, this has to do with the edit war the two are engaged over at the IP's talk page: [91], [92]. While presumably the issues originated in mainspace, at some point the IP started removing the criticisms made against them by Chris at the talk page and Chris began reverting these removals; although he never states it expressly anywhere, Chris's rationale for these reverts seems to be that this is not an autoconfirmed user removing comments from their own personal talk page (which is of course permitted by policy), but rather these are messages left on a public IP user talk, which may over time be shared by numerous editors, and therefore should not be altered by any one person editing from that IP at a given time. This argument has clear merit, and while I am not sure if this principle is codified anywhere in policy, it certainly should be, and is the only logical way I can see the community ever treating this issue--and I'm sure it must have come up in some context before on this noticeboard.

All of that said, Chris isn't 100% in the right here either: there are a few comments in those exchanges that are just not acceptable, no matter the context or the level of frustration: no contributor or member of this community is empowered to tell another that they need to just leave the project, and it's not our preferred method for dealing with even openly disruptive editors, as an initial matter. The IP has very few edits total and we should be trying more constructive forms of engagement starting with more measured language. To be perfectly fair to Chris, there's at least a couple of occasions where the IP has removed content without explanation in the edit summary and this may be where the vexation is coming from--it's also possible Chris is aware of other IPs/socks working toward common ends, so I don't want to judge too harshly without hearing his response first, but if there's not further such context, I'd urge that he could stand to ratchet back the needlessly confrontational/indeed threatening tone just a tad. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) User:86.191.95.230, what happened in the thirteen days between when CT left you that message and you opened this ANI thread, and what admin action are you requesting? Saying "I will revert you because I think your edits are bad" is not hounding, and it isn't even, technically, a threat of hounding. "Hounding" is only hounding if it is done for the specific purpose of harassment. And this was two weeks ago -- do you have diffs of him actually carrying through on this "threat"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• I know nothing about the background to this, but must say that I find it refreshing that Chris used proper human communication rather than a bland, cryptic, template as most editors do. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A user threating me with "Whatever you think you're going to edit is going to get reverted" and "I get to keep reverting you, like I've been reverting other editors for six years, and it just adds to my edit count" is clear as day Hounding and he has admitted doing it before for just to add to his edit count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.95.230 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• So here's what happened: First, this IP from Britain has repeatedly inserted (on 17 March, on 24 March, and on on 5 April) content about Harry Dexter White's death. I reverted each time because no citation was added with the content. This is the sort of drive-by semi-automated editing I do anymore, since the angry crowd doesn't want me at XfD and other meta locations. It turns out it doesn't matter: the IP added content to the lede that was already sourced in the body. Despite my repeated corrections the IP didn't bother explaining their edits and we should have discussed why this should be in the lede. Second, as I reverted and issued the templated warning, I also added the IP talk-header template, since I don't know how many people are behind that IP. If issuing more than one warning I want to specify the warning isn't for everyone using BT Group. Further, sometimes geo-locating the IP will reveal outright conflict of interest and could point to socking. The IP involved repeatedly removed the talk-header which I reverted multiple times per WP:UP#CMT. I did this a bunch because I thought the talk-header couldn't be removed. I had filed at EW but was informed that I was wrong. That was my mistake. This IP has refused to discuss the matter and now complains that I'm hounding them, despite the fact that I haven't reverted their many edits to other articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: The message still on the IP's Talk page is obnoxious. As for White's death, the information added to the lead is sourced in the body - it doesn't have to also be sourced in the lead. I think it's unnecessary in the lead, not to mention ungrammatical, but it shouldn't have been removed for the reason you stated. I'm not trying to make excuses for the IP's behavior, which has often been disruptive (he's already been blocked once for a week for disruption, hence the gap in his editing), but, as an experienced editor, you should learn to control your tongue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Edits that looks like improvements to an article were reverted, first as "sloppy prose"[93] then as rollback without explanation[94] restoring a typo and names in brackets instead of in proper sentences. Also in SIG MCX there's a difference between countries where it is used by police or military forces and one-off use by a member of a terrorist organisation - the "consensus" version now has "Islamic State" in the list of countries although it would have been better to move this elsewhere in the article than into incorrect alphabetical order. And the talk page template isn't necessary as it's an ordinary IP address belonging to an ISP, and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext is visible whether the talk page exists or not. Lack of communication is a valid criticism but the only messages on their talk page are templates or unhelpful comments from an editor opposed to unregistered editing. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Long term warring at Australian legal articles

• Australian Law Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UNSW Faculty of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Zealand Law Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JJCaesar (talk · contribs)

Mostly this has been over the maintenance of lists of non notables. Persistent warring, reconfiguring article talk pages, and spurious accusations of vandalism. At New Zealand Law Students' Association, restoring content after the article had already been protected against just such edits. [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; Drmies, you'll like this--[101]; [102]; [103]. The article talk pages give a fuller picture. Then these recent WP:POINTY edits: [104]; [105].

The editor has made constructive contributions, but in this area an apparent conflict of interest has caused difficulty. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk · contribs)

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

There is a history with disruptive editing and personal attacks by Αντικαθεστωτικός against me and today this kind of behavior resurfaced. History was reported here (permalink) at Bishonen's. talk Page

Today, Αντικαθεστωτικός,

• violates BRD: once, twice
• claims that I am censoring him (and Galassi apparently) [106] (more todays diffs: [107] and [108]. Older diffs: (me and Czar this time) [109], [110] . I have asked him to stop this accusation before [111]
• Associates me with "anarchist rape denialism" (a term I was not familiar with) which I feel it is a moral stigma. (But please tell me you are fact denier of the rapes of anarchist army? i feel that in 2019 holocaust deniers and katyn massacre deniers must have not place in Wikipedia. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[112] and goes on with i feel so sorry for that and i apologize. but i don't like to discuss with fact deniers. Katyn massacre deniers/holocaust deniers/ anarchist rapes deniers are very exhausting to discuss. So i dont find a reason for that. I saw that you wrote "rapes" and i feared that you denied the facts of anarchist rapes. But, for sure i was wrong and i sincerely apologize. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[113].

This is not a major breach of WP conduct policies, but it has been going for a while (since Nov 2018). Cinadon36 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with @Cinadon36.--Galassi (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity on Eliezer Berland

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) is being his usual unpleasant self on Eliezer Berland, edit warring to remove sourced information with crap arguments and refusing to go to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Refusing to go to the talk page"?? [114] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity very clearly did go to the talk page well before Debresser came here, and just as obviously the information in question was not cited to an independent reliable source, so it should be removed unless and until such a source is provided. But, anyway, that's all a content issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The conduct issue is that both Nomoskedasticity and Debresser are edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both editors were edit warring. The dispute is about a promotional phrase that Debresser is determined to add to the BLP, namely, "he has counseled and guided tens of thousands of Jews from secular backgrounds to draw closer to the Torah path", in Wikipedia's voice. The source of that information? The website of the school that this rabbi used to run. Taking Phil Bridger's advice, I will revert it and advise Debresser to stop edit warring to keep such poor content in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Following allegations of sexual misconduct, Berland fled Israel traveling from country to country to avoid extradition to Israel. He was eventually extradited to Israel, where he confessed to having committed rape, and was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration for his sexual attacks on two women, as well as his instructions to assault the husband of one of the women he sexually assaulted. – Doesn't sound very close to the Torah path to me. EEng 20:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is however completely unrelated to the sentence in question. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger My bad, I wrote this before I saw the talkpage, and was going to remove that part. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The website is definitely not the best site, but 1. it is not run by the rabbi 2. the info is definitely true. I could understand somebody would ask for a better source, we even have a template for that, but why remove this? Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)