Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS: OK; as I appear to be one of the few admins with no previous involvement with any of the parties in this thread, I'll close this.
Line 30: Line 30:


== Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS ==
== Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS ==
{{atop|OK, this has gone on long enough and the consensus is as overwhelming as I've ever seen when it comes to a long-term contributor. [[User:Ihardlythinkso]] is indefinitely (not infinitely) blocked. This is {{em|not}} an AE action, and any admin is free to overturn this block should IHTS submit an unblock request or UTRS appeal which either makes a convincing case that there won't be a repeat of the issues, or that the consensus to block was based on false information. I urge (but don't order) IHTS not to submit any unblock request unless and until the issues raised here have been addressed, as if there's a perception that an unblock will cause the underlying issues to flare up again it's likely to end badly. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)}}

On 30 January 2018{{userlinks|Ihardlythinkso}}, AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". <s>There are 25 entries in his block log.</s> There are 14 blocks in his block log.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIhardlythinkso]
On 30 January 2018{{userlinks|Ihardlythinkso}}, AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". <s>There are 25 entries in his block log.</s> There are 14 blocks in his block log.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AIhardlythinkso]


Line 283: Line 283:
:Seems moot at this point to revisit this hatting, given the additional comments above by others and you... [[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color: black">Lourdes</span>]] 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
:Seems moot at this point to revisit this hatting, given the additional comments above by others and you... [[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color: black">Lourdes</span>]] 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::I can't help but wish that IHTS, instead of focusing on a minor issue such as the above hatting, would instead provide some indication that he understands why seventeen different editors all came to the conclusion that he should be blocked or banned. Hint: it isn't just because of the comments during the three days that I checked, and it isn't because someone else besides IHTS misbehaved. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
::I can't help but wish that IHTS, instead of focusing on a minor issue such as the above hatting, would instead provide some indication that he understands why seventeen different editors all came to the conclusion that he should be blocked or banned. Hint: it isn't just because of the comments during the three days that I checked, and it isn't because someone else besides IHTS misbehaved. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Ligma, etc ==
== Ligma, etc ==

Revision as of 15:10, 30 July 2018

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS

    OK, this has gone on long enough and the consensus is as overwhelming as I've ever seen when it comes to a long-term contributor. User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely (not infinitely) blocked. This is not an AE action, and any admin is free to overturn this block should IHTS submit an unblock request or UTRS appeal which either makes a convincing case that there won't be a repeat of the issues, or that the consensus to block was based on false information. I urge (but don't order) IHTS not to submit any unblock request unless and until the issues raised here have been addressed, as if there's a perception that an unblock will cause the underlying issues to flare up again it's likely to end badly. ‑ Iridescent 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On 30 January 2018Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". There are 25 entries in his block log. There are 14 blocks in his block log.[1]

    The battleground mentality and incivility has continued. Examples from the last three days:

    • "Bug off"[2]
    • "There's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge."[3]
    • "The fact is, it's your continued personal/WP:OR interpretations of same that I've repeatedly objected to, when you're uninformed and wrong. But yeah, the fact "[you] don't care" has been repeatedly demonstrated by you WP:IDHT-style. "[4]
    • "here you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again)... I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions."[5]
    • "Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argumment."[6]
    • "You dont' know what you're talking about... You, are dishonest here, harassing me once again. Your arguments have to be taken in that context, since you're repeating old arguments already refuted, without new argument, as though you haven't read the thread. You like to start more shit between us whereby I have to ask you to stop badgering me again, after all these years?? Don't pretend none of this is true. You have even documented elsewhere how to harass others and still be under the WP radar of 'policy'. Go blow."[7]
    • "Since you're "into" making assumptions, there's plenty here to guide your assumption-making"[8]
    • "And why aren't you put your xxx where your mouth is, by responding at Talk:Three check chess#Test your mettle? You are oh-so confident here in this thread, but strangely absent from replying Yes or No in that Talk sec. Lacking confidence much?"[9]
    • "Your arguments are all bogus. Plus you're an insulting jackass... You know nothing what you're talking about... What a blowhard in-the-dark argument!... What an argument! Don't make me laugh so hard I throw up. "[10]
    • "If you editors really had confidence in your assertions, instead of OR and bullying, and if you cared about encyclopedic value, then you'll agree with the following:"[11]
    • "Gosh, such a real convincing argument, that! What a joke. You don't know waht you're taking about."[12]
    • "Quit destroying articles."[13]
    • "Your arguments are bull.... You have no idea."[14]

    The above is just from the last three days. He has been doing this for years. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Modified 13:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite ban! I know I'm jumping the gun here even before IHTS has had a chance to respond. But in my review, I think this is a lost case and a waste of our community time to allow this editor to continue disrupting the project with this kind of mentality – which can be summarized with the statement, "you're an insulting jackass" used by this editor. Enough is... Lourdes 11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • IHTS is frustrating. On one hand, I feel like we should get along as two of the rare people who care at all about chess variants (IHTS is almost certainly the most active editor in that area). If he were banned, I would miss having someone so passionate about the subject on Wikipedia. On the other hand, his tendency to treat other editors badly and turn even minor disagreements toxic is well documented in the AN archives, AE, other noticeboards, talk pages, etc. I don't think I've been part of any of them in the past, and if it were just a matter of IHTS having a problem with me in particular (many of the quotes above were directed at me), I wouldn't be leaving this comment. But it's an awful lot of people -- and untold others that were put off of editing those articles (or from Wikipedia) after accidentally drawing IHTS's ire or seeing it on various talk pages. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a place where one can reliably work autonomously. Content disputes will come up, and it's necessary to the collaborative process to be able to stick to the content without lashing out at people. If it were just on rare occasion, that would be one thing, but when it's persistent, it creates not just toxic environment, but discourages participation. I'd have a hard time !voting to indef, but certainly wouldn't oppose it -- I just don't know what other lesser approach would have any meaningful effect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Guess what?: I find you frustrating. (But just like at Talk:Three-check chess, just like at CV article, my views count zero, your views must be implemented, right??) --IHTS (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Let's give Ihardlythinkso a chance to respond, of course, but, pending said response, I'm in favor of a months-long block, say, three months or so; steady escalation of blocks over slapping an indefinite block, in my opinion, properly balances the history of the editor (as a chess enthusiast) with, well, the history of the editor (insofar as the block log and invective is concerned). —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer: As I made clear at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban, I am fairly confident that User:Ihardlythinkso, is not a fossorial mammal, is not a Melanocytic nevus, is not made of exactly 6.02214179(30)×1023 atoms, not a massive stone structure between places separated by water, not a sauce used in Mexican cuisine, and is definitely not a Soviet Beriev Be-8 amphibian aircraft. I hope that this clears up any confusion on this matter.

    The following prior interactions with AE, AN and ANI lead me to believe that any sanction that depends on Ihardlythinkso agreeing to behave a certain way and then sticking to that agreement is doomed to failure.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Huh, I remember the whac-a-mole stuff now but I'd forgotten you and IHTS were the editors involved. His tirades have been going on way too long. Maybe a talk page ban would be the way to go, since that- rather than IHTS's article work- seems to be the problem. If he then starts screeching at people in edit summaries we can rethink. Reyk YO! 07:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a really interesting idea! Other than edit warring (which a 1RR or 2RR restriction would fix) has he ever been disruptive when editing articles as opposed to talk pages? Or maybe a limit of one talk page comment per talk page per 24 hours would be sufficient. On the other hand, I haven't had a lot of success with carefully crafted sanctions designed to keep an editor editing without being disruptive. The admins usually ignore the suggestion and either apply an indef block or decide to wait for further disruption before acting. I can't say that I blame them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without comment on the merits of applying it to the current issue, I have long been a believer that some editors would be better topic-banned from the subject of "other Wikipedia editors (broadly construed)". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an option. Collaboration is required. If you ban someone from article talk pages not only can they not collaborate with anyone else, when they get into a content dispute it also means other editors can't possibly resolves it with them. If we have got to the point where banning them from talking to others is considered a solution, then it needs to be a complete ban as that is a core requirement to edit here. Play nice with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have already reached the point where if another editor gets into a content dispute with Ihardlythinkso they cannot possibly resolve it with him, except by letting him have his way. All you can do is stop editing the page, as I and many others have done with the chess pages. Alas, even that didn't work, because Ihardlythinkso started being disruptive on the reliable sources noticeboard and on an AfD. I like chess. I miss being able to edit the chess pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tough questions. Can't have the continued personal attacks and angry rambling, but you don't want to lose the content contributions. But I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there. Reyk YO! 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there." If we're even having to ask ourselves that question, that to me is a clear sign that a topic ban or equitable sanctions are in order. Nobody owns a page.--WaltCip (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is unlikely to be effective. His previous topic ban was "Ihardlythinkso is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed"[15][16] and he couldn't or wouldn't abide by it.[17][18] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unaware of the previous blocks of IHTS and the prospect of reading all the associated walls of text is not enticing, but in my experience he has been reasonably amiable and of course has made many useful contributions to chess-related articles. So since he is HTBAE I oppose an indefinite block but he needs to be less combative in discussions as it does seem to be a recurrent problem that is not helpful to anyone. Whether this change is a realistic expectation, I do not know. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UTRS appeal #20545

    Ihardlythinkso's block log has the following entries:

    • 17:45, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem)
    • 17:52, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Additional note to say that the block extension is not AE enforcement; the original 2 week duration, and talk page access removal for those 2 weeks, *are* arbitration enforcement. Any UTRS admin can unblock after 2 weeks without fear of desysop.)
    • 16:30, 11 February 2018 Alex Shih changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of 13:56, 27 February 2018 (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Reducing the block extension to 2 weeks per UTRS appeal #20545, making this a one-month block. TPA turned back after both UTRS discussion and consultation with blocking administrator)

    Without revealing anything that shouldn't be revealed, could someone please post some sort of indication as to what is in UTRS appeal #20545?

    In particular, was there a commitment on the part of Ihardlythinkso that is inconsistent with the behavior documented elsewhere in this report? It seems to me that "chronic battleground mentality ... multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem) is a good description of his behavior during the three days that I checked.

    @Floquenbeam and Alex Shih:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, the UTRS discussion was mostly about unblock conditions, in which I have posted on their talk page after ([19]). Unfortunately I did not explicitly ask for commitment on their behaviour, partially because I thought it was already implied when they apologised for several instances of their misbehaviour in the incident that led to the indefinite block. I would endorse re-blocking Ihardlythinkso indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this is the last discussion I've had regarding IHTS: [20]. Here were the unblock conditions: [21]. I never saw the UTRS appeal, I just defered to Alex's judgement. I recall being skeptical at the time; IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has.
    I'm just responding to the ping, I have not (and will not) looked at IHTS's latest interactions to see what's happening now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The unblock conditions were:

    1. Please do not violate your current AP2 topic ban again.
    2. No more compiling lists of any kind that could be considered as attack pages, please.
    3. Next topic ban violation would have to be indefinite block (and probably needs public discussion if it was to be appealed).

    Would User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo be considered a list list that could be considered an attack page? (I am not claiming that it is or is not; this is a good-faith question posted because I don't know the answer). --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • "IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has." I think this comment by Floquenbeam sums things up very accurately and precisely. IHTS has a clear, pervasive, and very long-term CIR problem which he refuses to correct or modify. No matter how valuable his content work, if he cannot adjust civilly to Wikipedia's collaborative environment, he needs to be shown the door, per WP:CIR. I support a site ban; the indef blocks have not worked because he always weasels his way out of them, and his promises to change are empty. The community has wasted far too much time on his problematical behaviors already. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban or indef - This user has proven time and again that he is unable or unwilling to participate in the project in an acceptable manner. His combative attempt to bargain with Alex an his talk page underscores exactly why removing him from Wikipedia is in our best interest.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stalking my Talk!? Gosh I wonder why! (Not a long-term grudge-holder, for sure.) p.s. Your comment when I correctly stated that words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are neither race nor even ethnicity, as "obtuse" -- I really didn't get that. I thought I was as clear as a person can be. --IHTS (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      "Combative attempt to bargain". Not try and say the truth as best I can, and asking consideration for same, right? And Softlavender, not liking to see any past block lifted, says "he always weasels his way out", even she was never witness to any block lift rationale, discussion, or argument. (Both your behaviors are not vindictive-nasty??) --IHTS (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Normally this is the point where I tell you that you need to examine your own behavior and inform you that blaming other people is an ineffective way of avoiding a block, but in this case you are pretty much an expert on what gets you blocked and what gets you unblocked, so In won't bother telling you what has been told to you so many times already.
    That being said, a new user may run across this discussion, so I will say for the new user's benefit that we are each responsible for our own behavior, and that pointing to bad behavior by someone else -- even if it is true -- in no way excuses bad behavior on your part.
    I expect that we will now an example of the Law of holes in action as Ihardlythinkso explains in entertaining detail what an evil and vindictive person I am, but I will be very disappointed if this turns into yet another game of Whac-A-Mole.[22]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was impressed favorably by IHTS's handling, in March of this year, of the discussion of how MOS:NICKNAME was to be handled in the lead paragraph of Bobby Fischer. (Now in archive #8 of the talk page.) Moreover, I would have to say, in the two and a half years that I have been editing Chess on Wikipedia, I have never had so much as a difficult moment with this guy. I concur with some other editors that his competence is not at issue -- his edits to chess articles are exemplary, and he edits a lot. Nevertheless, I can see that there is a serious problem; I've watched him get into hot water on several occasions, and it baffles me how quickly it seems to happen. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block, not sure how long, but maybe indef. Really starting to think IHTS's name might be better as WP:IDHT... --Tarage (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite block. Such a block should not be done lightly, and if it is to be imposed, it should be done by ARBCOM, not by the chaotic free for all environment that is ANI. A cool-down block of 2 or 3 days might well have been imposed at the height of the dispute between 19-21 July, but to impose it now would be WP:PUNITIVE. This all stemmed from a content dispute between IHTS and LukeSurl at the page Three-check chess. There were testy exchanges on the Talk page (ok mostly by IHTS) but a compromise was eventually hammered out. Meanwhile LukeSurl had raised the issue at the RSN, leading to Izno nominating the article for deletion (or more likely merging with List of chess variants). This is where Guy Macon became involved, apparently forgetting that he had 5 years ago requested an interaction ban with IHTS. Since then Guy Macon has refused all requests from IHTS to refrain from interacting, and in my opinion has been unnecessarily provocative. He has even used direct personal attacks e.g. [23] "Sorry, but it is difficult to remember every ******* on Wikipedia." - it is a fair assumption that the asterisked 7-letter word here is "asshole" or similar insult, and he has the nerve to link to WP:CIV in the same breath. Referring to someone's block log is also an irrelevant personal attack. The behaviour continued at the Afd, with some unnecessary baiting here, here and here, despite IHTS's stated desire not to interact. In raising the ANI he took a scattergun approach, highlighting threads from several years ago, some of them perfectly reasonable interactions. He also for some reason thought it necessary to publicize the ANI in multiple forums [24] [25] [26]. This is the editor who has been the most strident in pushing for an indefinite block. Rather than jumping on the mob bandwagon, please examine Guy Macon's provocative behaviour. I question his motives in raising this ANI. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree an indef shouldn't be taken lightly, but this is where it typically happens. The community, chaotic as it may sometimes be, does resolve long-term behavioral issues sometimes. It's only if this process fails (repeatedly) that it goes to arbcom. I'd be 98% sure that a case request would just kick it back here, especially since there seems to be a consensus forming that something is necessary. I'd probably be inclined towards a fixed-length long-term block (6m/12m) over an indef or a site ban. Indefinite is not infinite, but practically speaking only in certain cases -- it's hard to find consensus to come back when the block was based on activities over a long period of time. A 6m/12m block would be the last step before site ban, I guess, as it builds in the ability to come back for another chance. I completely disagree with your assertion that this is punitive. I don't think anybody here is supporting a block/ban based just on the recent events, but on a demonstrated pattern over the course of years. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't like how this is being handled at all. Guy Macon repeatedly provoked IHTS, and now he's the one pushing so hard for a site ban. He's bombarding us with the sheer volume of old links, not all of which are valid examples of misconduct on IHTS's part. Why isn't this behaviour being examined? This whole thing just has a nasty smell to it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "he's the one pushing so hard for a site ban" – There are many editors pushing hard for a site ban/block, and Guy wasn't even the first, I was. "He's bombarding us with the sheer volume of old links, not all of which are valid examples of misconduct on IHTS's part." – Multiple editors have reviewed the links and have reached the same conclusion separately, without being canvassed by Guy; trust their intelligence please. "Why isn't this behaviour being examined?" – You or any interested editor are free to list out links where you can point out Guy's egregious behaviour; I'm not sure you'll find any where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff (and no, "*****" doesn't make the cut; your imagination of what ***** may mean holds no relevance here), but do please list any you find problematic; however, while it may invite strictures against Guy (that is, if such links can be produced), that will not in any way reduce IHTS's culpability. "This whole thing just has a nasty smell to it." – One guess where all the nasty smell started from. Lourdes 19:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you'll find any where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff. Here is one: "go fuck yourself, asshole." on 9 June 2018. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrodvarsson, how is this an attack by Guy against IHTS, whose name is not there on the whole archive of the page you link? Perhaps placing ad hominem page links, which have no relevance to the IHTS-Guy Macon story, is not of any benefit. If you want to pull up Guy for general behaviour issues against other editors, I would suggest that you may please go ahead and open a new thread and place your general links there. This thread is about IHTS – and if you want to prove that IHTS' behaviour was exacerbated by Guy's attacks on him, then it'll be good to be relevant. Lourdes 03:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an attack by Guy against IHTS, it's a diff "where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff". I took your comment as a request for diffs of insults towards other editors, not just towards IHTS. I thought it also might add one possibility as to what the seven asterisks could mean. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me a break, it is disingenuous to claim that "Sorry, but it is difficult to remember every ******* on Wikipedia." is not a direct insult. Why would you replace a word with asterisks unless the asterisks were a stand-in for something offensive? It could be "asshole", it could be some other 7-letter insult, but it is definitely an insult. What makes it even worse is that he links to WP:CIV even as he breaks that policy himself. Very hypocritical. I gave several examples of deliberate provocation on Guy's part. Since when has taunting someone over their block log been considered civil behaviour on wikipedia, for example? Knowing IHTS's tendency to lash out, Guy ignored all requests to stop and continued to goad and poke IHTS. (Yes, I know he shouldn't take the WP:BAIT) On the occasion when he didn't take the bait he was taunted with [27] "sound of crickets". Deliberately provoking someone known to be volatile despite requests to stop, then reporting them to ANI and pushing for a site ban, is nasty, vindictive, and system gaming of the worst kind. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so you know, I originally wrote "but it is difficult to remember every annoying POV-pusher on Wikipedia", but when I hit the preview button (and keeping in mind how Ihardlythinkso has literally spent years complaining about me once saying "I think we are playing Whac-A-Mole here") (Again, Ihardlythinkso does not consist of 6.02214179(30)×1023 atoms), I replaced it with a random-length string of asterisks. Given MaxBrowne2's claimed ability to read my mind and thus determine with absolute certainty what I really meant based upon how long I held down the repeat key, I am glad that I didn't randomly type **** (or even worse, *************!!) instead of *******. I do invite MaxBrowne2 to list how many times I was uncivil in a recent three-day period or to post my block log, as I did with Ihardlythinkso -- but please keep in mind that my rather small number of blocks was stretched out over 12 years and 40,000 edits.
    While we are at it, Ihardlythinkso's oft-repeated claims that I "pledged no contact years ago" are factually incorrect. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban did I make any such "pledge". The closest I came was saying "I have been avoiding interaction with him ever since". In fact, I clearly stated "I am inclined to close this and come back only if the problem continues". The problem continued, so I came back to WP:ANI as I promised to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally wrote "but it is difficult to remember every annoying POV-pusher on Wikipedia", but when I hit the preview button....I replaced it with a random-length string of asterisks.. This is about as convincing as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't'". Your use of misdirection, misrepresentation and hyperbole is also noted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: you calling me a liar and comparing me to politicians (but I repeat myself...), I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (For the benefit of those who don't know the code, he's telling me to fuck off... and I'd respect him more if he'd just come out and say it in as many words instead of using this weaselly formula. Fake civility, you can be as offensive as you want as long as you don't actually say the f word.) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no desire for "respect" from someone who calls me a liar without evidence. vdYgEc}&Ep$f~JUaMb_m\|Q;_p5&@0H#. (Psychic ability test: Let's see how good he is at assigning meaning to an encrypted, padded-to-32-characters string...} --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block with a very clear message that indefinite does not mean infinite. I have no doubt that IHTS is a genuine chess expert and a productive chess contributor. Other chess editors attest to that. However, IHTS's repeated combative and extremely insulting behavior is simply not acceptable. IHTS can act like a jackass on Twitter or Reddit or 4Chan but not on Wikipedia anymore. So, IHTS should be blocked and then unblocked only if they make a rock solid personal pledge to abandon battleground behavior on Wikipedia forever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite ban This user is the only user to have, effortlessly, make their way onto my hit list. He is the only user, and first person, where I've felt frustrated/annoyed/upset enough to support a site ban. With that being said, I stay away from these users, but I will not hesitate to vote to indef/ban them if the discussion comes up. Given that the behavior has not changed since I've banned this user from my talk page, I'm inclined to believe he is still a net negative to the project.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, Cyberpower678, but I think your comment here is a bit strange. Why would you maintain a "hit list", and since banning someone from your talk page means you prefer not to interact with them on personal basis, it's not really a reason to suggest that they are net negative to the project (gives the impression that you are saying "I don't like you, therefore I believe you are net negative" or the reverse, which is still a bit strange?). Might be the wording. I do agree that the belligerent approach by IHTS whenever they are in a dispute is extremely frustrating. Alex Shih (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Alex Shih: You're right, that may be a bit strange. I really don't maintain a hit list, nor do I want to. For lack of a better way to phrase it, this user got on my bad side for reasons that led to this discussion now. Also to make a point, it's really not easy to get on my bad side, case in point IHTS is the only one. One would really have to leave me with a lasting negative impression to pull that off. My reasons to ban this user from Wikipedia is roughly the same reason I banned them from my talk, where, for years, the exact same behavior has continued elsewhere, where this user alienates others. I have avoided this user, successfully, since, but the behavior has got to stop. So it's not because I don't like them, it's because the behavior he has towards others is just appalling. I hope that helps clarify things.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • A "hit list"! (What if *I* said anything like that!?) Am I allowed similar feelings? No? Just you? I see. I've totally forgotten you as editor, and what exchange that got under your skin. But we don't need to go back & examine it, your undissipated hot hate tells us that you were "innocent", I was "guilty". Right. --IHTS (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite ban at this time. Guy Macon engaged IHTS on his talk page, and IHTS has apologised and pledged to be better. A fixed-term block may be appropriate, but I'm not calling for it and this isn't a black and white issue of "everything IHTS does is bad". If he can temper his rank incivility and just step away whenever he feels himself getting wound up, he could return to being a great contributor after some (likely inevitable) time off. Also, on a separate issue (or is it?), Guy Macon and Max Browne need to stop trying to bait one another, as they are above. Fish+Karate 12:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • He only apologized to "every or any editor I was uncivil to in the Three-check chess dispute and at the related WP:RSN item." [28]. I do not see any acknowledgement of the more than 6.5 years of endless BATTLEGROUND and STICK behavior, even on matters and conversations completely unrelated to chess. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Softlavender, I'm a much better editor than 6.5 years ago, in a lot of ways. I'm not proud of several past interactions, but I can't erase them. Going back and finding and individually apologizing for past posts w/ be unprecedented on the WP, I've never seen anything like that. And it wouldn't satisfy those, perhaps you too, who are just looking for blood. The WP way has always been forward-looking. As part of continued evolution, I could promise to you now to be completely professional and never make an uncivil post again, to anyone under any circumstance. But that wouldn't be sufficient either, would it. --IHTS (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked him to do the following:

    • Acknowledge that you are responsible for your behavior and stop blaming others.

    He didn't do that.

    He continues to maintain that his behavior was justified because he was "only editor to defend a side" (in other words, the consensus was against him).

    He continues to maintain that his behavior was justified because in his mind someone insulted him (the actual "insulting" statement was "IHTS and others treat Pritchard as gospel read by biblical literalists because it's about the only source that can easily be argued to be RS". Compare the way he complained about Whac-A-Mole at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban. This is a long term pattern of behavior.

    He continues to maintain that his behavior was justified because I filed this ANI report.

    • Post individual apologies to every person that you have attacked.

    He didn't do that.

    • Show us that you fully understand why the community has overwhelmingly supported blocking/banning you.

    He clearly has no clue as to why so many people want him gone. Not a hint of understanding.

    There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"
    • Attempt to convince us that you finally "get it" and are at last willing to change your ways.

    Nope. He thinks he did nothing wrong other than the specific incivility I found when checking a grand total of three days edits.

    • If you manage to escape the block/ban one last time, follow up by never again exhibiting the behavior that led the community to decide to block or ban you.

    Does anyone -- even the two individuals who opposed an indefinite block -- really believe that this will ever happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather pompous and self righteous to set up a list of demands. Fact is he *has* improved his behaviour over the last few years, and I say that as a former enemy. And obliquely insulting people by substituting asterisks or "referring them to arkell vs pressdram" is not "civil", it's just dishonest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. Feel free to file an ANI report on me if you think you have a case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block this has gone on long enough. IHTS has had ample opportunity to change and there's no reason to believe he finally will. Lepricavark (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note that I no longer endorse re-blocking IHTS indefinitely. I'd support 3–6 months block with indefinite civility restriction. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban Anyone who thinks they are actually going to change is naive at this point. Block may solve the problem in the short term, but even with a civility restriction it's just delaying it until later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef. This user doesn't need an nth chance to behave with the decorum and professionalism that the rest of us manage every day without threats hanging over our heads. Just reading their rhetoric on chess article talk pages is enough to make me never want to participate there—how many other editors have they had that effect on? Their behavior creates a battleground and chilling effect on people who might disagree with them. Net negative. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef This is my first experience with ANI, and it's not turning out the way I want. Most of the people that are discussed in ANI, as far as I can tell, are actively destructive in articles. IHTS is, sorry to rain on anyone's parade, constructive.
    What can I say? Although I have been involved in one discussion (early 2016) in which IHTS and another editor were misbehaving, I have not had a problem with him, and indeed, we have interacted cordially at least a couple of times on his talk page and some article talk pages, and we have edited many of the same articles, often one of us right after the other. Editing is a collaborative activity, and I am about to lose an important collaborator, and it's annoying. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is denying that IHTS can do good article work. And I understand your frustration at losing a collaborator. However, some of us are annoyed when IHTS chooses to be combative instead of collaborative. He may collaborate well with you, but he treats some of us like dirt. And we've had enough. Lepricavark (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "he treats us". That's present tense. When I've avoided contact w/ you for years. (Yet you hounded & badgered me at RfA, e.g.) Ditto some others here, e.g. the OP, specifically have avoided contact for years. Can't erase the past, used as drum-beat for revenge/wiki-kill/blood. (That's the WP-way!?) --IHTS (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recollect the RfA incident(s) in question. I do, however, recollect that our most recent encounter was less than a year ago. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, and was negative, I guarantee I didn't initiate it. (Were you the editor who came to my Talk and apologized? I remember being cordial in response.) --IHTS (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not encourage you, either of you, to continue this unpleasant dialogue. I had already read your earlier comments.
    I do not have any magic that wards off evil aggressive editors. If I have gotten along with any other editor, including IHTS, it is only because I respect that editor, and that editor respects me. I do not have a lot of helpful advice about how to get to that point, but I know that there are times when it requires a lot of forbearance, cautiousness, slow reaction, and backing off. I think that most of the people reading this know that, but knowing it and doing it are two different things. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again - you don't even need provoking. There were no personal attacks, no incivility, and no campaign, nothing toxic, just a reference to a vague group of people who constantly issue toxic comments at and about admins - from a cowardly corner knowing that admins are not allowed to defend themselves. If you self identify with an "anti-admin brigade" that's up to you - note that all the other admins and editors calling for your ban posted here before I did. The time is over when abusive users thought their prolific content creation or expert-subject knowledge gives them the right to abominable behaviour with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't know what I think. Many criticized your bad-faith campaign, not only me. And about abusiveness, see WP:ANI. --IHTS (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh how I wish that the time was actually over when abusive users were given a free pass because of their content creation. But the fact that this report is still open after 7 days and an 18 to 3 consensus for a ban says otherwise. Anyone else would have been blocked at...
    "You're pathetic [redacted], filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly... In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd... You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do." ... "Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great"
    ...instead of being given chance after chance for so many years. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block and site ban. Enough is enough. The multiple chances IHTS has been given are above and beyond what most people would get. Being "constructive" in articles is no license to constantly mistreat others, and IHTS has been given numerous chances and has shown no sign of changing. Nihlus 10:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. IHTS' contributions cannot be weighed against the harm he does with personal attacks. Quoting WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians." He has been given numerous chances to change his behavior but at this point I don't think he is willing and/or able to change his ways in this regard. --Count Count (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For the benefit of the closing admin; summarizing comments

    Boldly hatting comment summary, which is starting to become a discussion in itself -- anyone interested can expand
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I've just summarised the comments of editors in order of gravity in alphabetical order, below; please correct liberally if I've made a mistake. Thanks, Lourdes 07:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC):[reply]

    Oppose block

    1. I oppose an indefinite block: Hrodvarsson
    2. Oppose indefinite block: MaxBrowne2
    3. I oppose an indefinite block--and I point out that some of the opinion posted in the support section also oppose an indefinite block but support lesser action. They should not be seen as support for an indefinite block any more than my comment is. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support block/ban

    1. Support indefinite block: Cullen328
    2. Support indefinite ban: Cyberpower678
    3. I'm in favor of a months-long block, say, three months or so: Javert2113
    4. Support indefinite ban: Lourdes
    5. Support site ban: Guy Macon
    6. Support site ban or indef: MrX
    7. Maybe a talk page ban would be the way to go: Reyk
    8. I'd have a hard time !voting to indef, but certainly wouldn't oppose it ... I'd probably be inclined towards a fixed-length long-term block (6m/12m) over an indef or a site ban: Rhododendrites
    9. I would endorse re-blocking Ihardlythinkso indefinitely.: Alex Shih
    10. I support a site ban: Softlavender
    11. Support block, not sure how long, but maybe indef: Tarage

    Discussion

    I think just quoting the first three words of Cullen328's comments is a bit misleading. And I think this whole section probably isn't helpful, the closing administrator will, I'm sure, be reading the whole of the content to form their conclusion. Fish+Karate 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What, exactly, do you find misleading? His entire comments was:

    Support indefinite block with a very clear message that indefinite does not mean infinite. I have no doubt that IHTS is a genuine chess expert and a productive chess contributor. Other chess editors attest to that. However, IHTS's repeated combative and extremely insulting behavior is simply not acceptable. IHTS can act like a jackass on Twitter or Reddit or 4Chan but not on Wikipedia anymore. So, IHTS should be blocked and then unblocked only if they make a rock solid personal pledge to abandon battleground behavior on Wikipedia forever. (emphasis in original).

    That's pretty much the standard advice that anyone who is indefinitely blocked gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • !Vote tallies/summaries of ongoing discussions are generally frowned upon and not particularly helpful. At worst, they may be seen as an attempt to influence other editors by implying that the outcome is already decided or inevitably leaning one way. I find it odd that Lourde placed their own new, non-summarized comment at the top of the "in order of gravity" list. That said, I don't see this section as having any significant influence on the outcome and I trust the closing admin to assess consensus appropriately. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I alphabetized the list to avoid any appearance of bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There wasn't the appearance of bias, it was actual bias, because the list was ordered "in order of gravity", which is an entirely subjective measurement. I actually removed the list as well-intentioned but unhelpful earlier, but Lourdes re-added it. That's fine I guess, but I expect the reviewing admin to simply ignore the tally and all it has succeeded in is is people discussing the merit of it rather than the actual subject at hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Without opining on the particulars of the above, I'm going to boldly hat this. Summaries like this can be controversial, and regardless of the merits of doing so, it's starting to distract from the actual subject. Anyone interested in a summary can expand it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you hat DGG's post? --IHTS (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems moot at this point to revisit this hatting, given the additional comments above by others and you... Lourdes 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but wish that IHTS, instead of focusing on a minor issue such as the above hatting, would instead provide some indication that he understands why seventeen different editors all came to the conclusion that he should be blocked or banned. Hint: it isn't just because of the comments during the three days that I checked, and it isn't because someone else besides IHTS misbehaved. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ligma, etc

    Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but many VOAs (now blocked) have been inserting vandalism talking about how the fortnight player "Ninja" just died of the fictitious disease "ligma", especially at the Celebrity article, which has now been protected.

    I thought this might be over, but this diff [29]makes me question that (look on urban dictionary, 4th answer down, [30] bofa has to do with ligma). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And I thought we hit peak Deez Nuts in 2016. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a joke. pewdiepie made a video where he made a joke about Ninja catching “ligma”, so his fans are now trying to goof on us. It’ll die in a week, whatever.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 00:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there's the numerous ones who made their guest appearances when reported at AIV. Do a user Contributions name search under Deez and Deeez and Deeeez and Deeeeez. Just keep adding an "e" to the name in the search, and more names pop up. Some of the edits never made it past the filters, but they had fun. Perhaps not all went thru AIV. Must be a lot of people out there who think this is the funniest thing they ever saw, or thought of. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Money emoji: Ah. I suspected this was something like the Todd Howard incident that happened a few months ago. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel like every time a youtuber encourages wiki vandalism their own article should be made worse. --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tarage: to be fair, he doesn’t actually ask his viewers to vandalize the article in the video, they did it themselves... also ligma=lick my balls, so dont y’all fall for it.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 05:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He should know better. --Tarage (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I watched the video (funny skit about how to insult people on Roblox). He doesn't mention Wikipedia, let alone encourage vandalism. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted Draft:Ligma. If this doesn't die down soon, an edit filter might be potentially useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing, I reported a few ligma vandals today. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still happening as of now. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I just reported Da G0od sUcC. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How surprising, it was recreated. Natureium (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Salted Draft:Ligma for a month. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Raghu Acharya vandalism needs rangeblock

    New edit filtering rule introduced to prevent most of such vandalism (thanks to User:Crow). Please report here or at WP:EFR if user's pattern changes and the filtering rule needs to be updated. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A childish vandal has been disrupting various articles, often inserting the name "Raghu Vir Acharya"[31] or "R. Acharya"[32] into the text. The disruption has been going on for more than three years.[33] A couple of times the person has used Saint Paul [Minnesota] Public Library IP 156.99.40.14,[34][35] but far more often the IPs are 174.255.0.0/20. Can we get one or more rangeblocks without too much collateral damage? Recently active IPs are listed below. Binksternet (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully disagree. Outside of one or two very minor copy edits, I see nothing useful aside from the unsourced-and-therefore-dubious claim here. This vandal has been reverted, warned, and had individual IP's briefly blocked over a long period of time. An edit filter looking for "Raghu" or "Acharya" would stop many of these edits, but not others, such as [36], [37], [38]. I support a rangeblock of 174.255.0.0/20, with the expectation that it would need to be renewed until vandal becomes discouraged. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. If there was an edit filter for "R. Acharya" then it would stop edits which include "N.R. Acharya" who was a Bollywood film director/producer. There was also a Tamil filmmaker named K.V.R. Acharya, a biochemist named K.R. Acharya, and a dance teacher named C.R. Acharya. But an edit filter for "Raghu Vir Acharya" would work on some of the vandalism, as would "Raghu Acharya", unless it also catches the Bodhidharma book author Acharya Raghu. As an aside to Hobbes Goodyear, I think Black Kite was saying that "useful" activity could be seen in the range Special:Contributions/174.255.0.0/20, not in the above-listed IPs which are within the range. As an example, stuff like this, from 174.255.3.154, is helpful, not harmful. So a rangeblock big enough to catch all of the IPs listed above would also block a great many beneficial edits. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the block would be temporary and that there is the option to create and edit under a username, I think it would be worthwhile. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude is back from his block. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now another 174.255.4.72 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - someone please block this one too as apparently the range block didn't work. Can't we accept some temporary collateral damage with a bigger short-term range block and perhaps discourage this jackass? Tvoz/talk 02:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    http://whois.domaintools.com/174.255.0.0 shows those addresses are in the range owned by United States Rolfe Verizon Wireless, and is actually a large address block 174.192.0.0/10 (4 million addresses) Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Julio Puentes

    JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

    For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

    • Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
    • Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

    The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopening as this was auto-archived without resolution. The articles shouldn't necessarily be prodded, many are on notable topics, and draftifying them brings other issues - many of those who work on drafts are not happy so many on notable topics are moved there. I think an indefinite block would force them to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say it's caused me a lot of disruption and others at NPP trying to sort these articles out, and the continued creation of these articles. Julio Puentes, you have continued to edit since this was opened, please comment here so we can get this resolved. Will you add references to these articles? Will you add references and respond to messages in future? Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Julio Puentes, can you please comment here? Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Julio Puentes is continuing to edit but not to comment here, despite several requests to by different editors. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor POV pushing on Romania's contribution to World War II and espousing extremist views

    I'd be grateful if other admins and editors could please consider the case of Torpilorul (talk · contribs):

    These views have lead to POV-motivated disruptive editing of articles. As some examples within the last month:

    At very minimum, I think that a topic ban on articles concerning the history of Romania during World War II is needed. Given that they are a SPA for pushing extremist views into articles, I think an indefinite duration block might also be appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick question: Is it still POV if it's all well-sourced to a easily-accessible book on Google Books? As for the Axis and Antonescu articles, dude, that's over. For the first I settled on the talk page to only edit the text awaiting a consensus for infobox and such (again, reliable books linked) and for the latter, again, the matter's been dead for weeks. I accepted it and decided to never edit on the Antonescu article without my usual Google Book sources accessible by links. Also, am I seriously going to be blocked for openly espousing my purely-honest opinions and views? I thought editing using reliable sources is all that matters. Anyone can see that I do so. And not swearing, I don't do that either. I've been very civil and honest, and only wanted to offer ideas for improving articles, I'm sorry if it came out as something else. As for my opinions, no, they aren't changing. I invited you to my talk page if you wanted to discuss my opinions, but instead you opted to write a hit piece on me. Torpilorul (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has continued to be a pain in this area, and has been so for a while. It is not at all clear he is not here, just that he has a very different view of what this encyclopedia should say. He may not even always be wrong, but clearly does have far too much of a battleground mentality provoked by a clearly nationalist agenda. This means he is going to continue to be a problem in the long term when he does not get "THE FACTS" in to articles.

    However his politics (apart from how they impact upon his ability to cooperate), and should not influence our decision.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If the editor kept their politics to their user space it would be not particularly problematic. But this is clearly motivating their editing, leading to POV content which reflects these views being added to articles and editors who try to stop this being subjected to edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Motivating? Yes, certainly, I'm not gonna deny that. Influencing it? Not at all. All you have to do, is check the book links I provide. They say precisely what I write. I've been very open since day one of why am I here. What my work focuses on. If trying to engage with my fellow editors and seek their opinions/advice was a mistake, or at least doing it too much so I became a "pain in the area", again, I'm sorry. And yes, I did have some edit wars, but they were ended amiably. We all have edit wars from time to time. Torpilorul (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing in the above that is anything other then a very nationalistic editor feeling his nation is being sold short on coverage. Apart form the (trivial) street name issue I see nothing that could be said to be motivated by his opinions of Antonescu (there was a while back, but only the use of the word fascist, he never attempted to deny any of Antonescu's crimes). Indeed quite the opposite is true, he seems to have no issue trying to whitewash the Antonescu regime. As I said it rather appears to be rampant nationalism that is the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you properly define "white-washing" in this case please? I never denied his crimes, I just: 1) Don't agree of the Soviet Union being an appropriate judge, and 2) Prefer to focus on what he did for the country. That is simply what I choose to focus on, same like others choose to focus on his crimes. We're talking here strictly of my view of him, not article editing. The "Elephant in the Room" when bringing Antonescu in the discussion is huge, hence why I tend to stay away from the topic. And focus more on the technical part of Romania's WW2 campaign (war weapons and vehicles, and battles involving them) rather than the biographical one. That being said, am I supposed to be forced to care about his crimes as much as his deeds for the country or care even more, am I obliged to share the majority point of view? This is exactly why I made the today's thread on the WP: inquire if my views will get me into trouble. Judging by the hit piece on me based on them, I see I was right to make that thread. Torpilorul (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I think you misunderstood, I am saying that you are not whitewashing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...Okay, sorry. My bad. So what now? Am I getting blocked? Torpilorul (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not yet, it has not been long enough for most people to comment. Blocks are however not the only outcome, and at this time I think a stern warning is all that is needed (with the understanding that if you do any of the above again it is a TBAN (and note unlike most people who would suggest that here I will back it up)).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Do what exactly? Just so I get this straight: is there anything objectively wrong with my article working style? Because not bothering the WP Talk unless needed for an article and not writing anymore "extremist" edit summaries, that can be arranged. Out of my own volition, I'm willing to take everything to the talk page if I get reverted twice. Any other issues? Torpilorul (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Torpilorul, It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:advocacy and Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. from your user page it would seem that you are on a mission to correct what you perceive as injustices in historiography, or the way your nation has been depicted historically. That may be a path to future problems. My advice would be to widen your editing scope. I have no comments on the political points made by the O.P at this stage, however the statement "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him" does not bode well. I suspect it's probably unprecedented on any Talkpage on WP at the moment. ANI would be buzzing if there were I bet.Irondome (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Torpilorul, I'd also recommend you to follow the advice from Irondome. Your approach is wrong and is not what Wikipedia is about. Our vision of balanced overview must reflect their due weight. We all have our own bias, and the best way to avoid that bias is to compare and discuss what mainstream reliable sources consistently summarises, not to cherry-pick a source that fits in your narrative. If you cannot adjust your editing approach right now, you will be blocked very shortly, and that will be a shame because you are certainly editing in good faith I think. Alex Shih (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me start by saying that I am a Romanian and I find Torpilorul's political views objectionable (unfortunately, such views are more common in Romania than one would expect). Regarding his editing, except his edit summaries and talk page messages, which account to baiting and soapboxing, his article edits are not particularly destructive (even if too bold sometimes). While the topics he edits are generally much too technical for me to have an informed opinion, I suspect his edits may suffer from undue weight in favour of Romania (again, boasting the few Romanian military successes and dismissing/minimising its failures is not that uncommon in Romanian scholarly research dealing with the military, especially the one pertaining to WW2 and published after ca 1980). As far I know, undue weight, as long as is based on sources reliable in form (not necessarily in content, but, unless the source or the author has been the subject of a scandal, it's hard to prove unreliability in practice), is not actionable. Regarding the extremist rantings in userspace and on project talk pages, I don't know how the community deals with such things these days, but Torpilorul should really find better ways to spend his time on WP.Anonimu (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Brother, you're accusing me of things I haven't done. You are inherently convinced that my work must have some undue weight in favor of Romania, because of my beliefs. Doesn't that go against a Wiki principle too? Judge the work, not the creator? Well anyway, for your information, Romania's military successes weren't few, and I'm not maximizing anything, for the simple fact that there was nothing to maximize to begin with, until I came around. Our Navy did great, our Air Force did great, our armour performed well and even parts of our infantry (the vanatori de munte) performed admirably as well. Me writing about this stuff is not called maximizing, if you bother to check the sources in any of my work you will see that there is no hyperbole, I write basically the exact thing said by the source. Torpilorul (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced you do it, it is just an assumption given the bias I’ve noticed in some of the sources you used. You can use sources that technically fit WP:RS and still have a biased article, without necessarily being your fault (you may lack access to sources providing a different perspective that could balance the POV, or you may choose to ignore them; I assume you’re in the first situation, and sloppy documentation is not something that gets you blocked on WP). Anonimu (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Name me the sources, and what's the bias in them please. Torpilorul (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright I've had enough. There is nothing objectively wrong with the content I add on my edits (a bit too pushy sometimes and some tendentious edit summaries, I'll take care of that), this is a hit piece of me based on my opinions and motivations. Which I'm doubling down on. You know why Antonescu killed all those Jews? Because he was the man of the country, he served the country, and did what the country wanted. And Romanians - in their majority - wanted the Jews out. It wasn't just him, it was most of the nation. If those tasked with killing the Jews would have cared, they would have resigned. But most never even tried to save one. During the Iasi Pogrom, railroad workers beat the Jews with hammers. They had no obligation to do that. Antonescu, merely did his job as the leader of Romania. And before you jump, let me just tell you, you have absolutely no right to criticize us. There is no way your countries can ever get into our shoes and prove that they'd have done better. We had 4-5% Jewish minority, for over half a century. We had our 1878 independence recognition, conditioned by giving them citizenship. Whether you block me or not, this is my last comment on this thread. Torpilorul (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Torpilorul I suggest you strike this—with the upmost haste. Wikipedia is not a platform for your beliefs. Advocating for the mass killing of Jews in Romania typically is frowned upon here—and in all walks of civilized life.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So have a lot of other people (and I am damn close to it). This was an unnecessary escalation that will almost certainly earn you a b block...well done.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Indef block

    Based on highly problematic editing, including propaganda, excessive soap-boxing and racist language. Sample:

    • "Shouts like "Fascists, Antisemitic, war criminal" - they're literally gibberish to most of us. We won't see the point, all we'll see is our anti-Communist heroes and martyrs being attacked, and we won't like it." [56]

    The apparent intent of speaking for the entire Romanian nation is offensive. Then there's this:

    • "Call me paranoid, but to me there is clearly an "old guard" in Milhist who wants to keep things as they are now, and not make things right for Romania. Probably because of "Muh Holocaust" or something." [57]

    I had to look up what "Muh Holocaust" means. It's apparently an anti-semitic slur / meme, to the point that The Daily Stormer tags its articles with "Muh Holocaust". It's used to denote the Jewish deflection of responsibility for their misdeeds by invoking the Holocaust. Combined with nationalistic editing sample, the user does not appear "to be there" to build a neutral encyclopedia.

    Also see: [58] and [59], with the same thrust. And finally, there's this jem immediately above apparently reveling in depictions of genocide: [60]. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is still nothing objectively wrong with the content and sourcing of my edits, though. That being said, I am determined to not talk about this anymore. I'm again sorry if I offended anyone, I just spoke my mind, and tried to be as honest as possible. I still have an important contribution to make to the Wiki, doing - as until now - stuff that virtually no-one else would do, pour the hours of research and stuff. If the community will decide I need a "forced break" then I will comply. But I'd strongly advise against an indefinite block. I still have a dozen of Google Books links stored, for the following week alone. I'm sorry I've wasted anyone's time, and I promise I'll get back to work and do it correctly. I truly wish to remain among the ranks of the editors, and I promise to revise my behavior if allowed. It's not like I have much more to say anyway, already spoke just about all of my mind. Torpilorul (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE. AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]
    • Support or at least an indefinite t-ban from Romania in WWII (broadly construed). I was going to propose this myself after the editor’s comment above, but wanted to see if they would strike it as I requested. This editor seems like they are trying to right great wrongs. Excusing the mass killing of Jews in Romania under a ruthless dictator and making racial slurs cannot be tolerated if we legitimately care about preserving a collaborative environment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spoke, my mind. Nothing of what I said, ever influenced any of my work. Why are you trying to have me banned from doing well-researched and well-sourced work because of my views? Alright, I apologize, okay? I wasn't quite aware this was such a big deal, truly. I guess I need to be more weary of others' sensitivities. I will know better from now on. But there is nothing I added on any Romania-related article to warrant any banning. I repeat but it seems I am talking to the walls: All that I write is basically what the source I provide says. I am very certain I have done nothing objectively wrong in my field of work, and if I did I assume my mistakes and apologize for them. I mainly expressed my views and beliefs, I never let them influence my work. That you don't like my views is another fish food. My motivations mean nothing, why should I be banned because I chose to focus on a specific point in a specific country's history? In fact, I let out all my beliefs in order to vent, really. To make sure I get them out of my system and not have them plastered over actual articles. All I did, and all I am doing, has but one goal: as much reliably-sourced info on Romania's WW2 military as possible, and as much control over my bias. What exactly is wrong about "righting great wrongs", if I have a reliable source for it? Why does my motivation matter, as long as, again, I write well-sourced easily-verifiable material? Anyway, I rest my case. I am tired. I regret my mistake of over-talking. I've wasted a whole day yesterday, which could be spent on constructive editing. This is all I had to say. If you want me banned over my views, it's the Wiki's loss, really. I have some big plans, truly extensive and sourced work. I have said, all that I wanted to say. Do as you may, I've had enough. Torpilorul, out. For real this time. Torpilorul (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Torpilorul justifying mass murder on a collaborative project like Wikipedia has nothing to do with other people’s “sensitivities”. It has nothing to do with whether I “like” your views. It comes down to trust. How can you expect anyone to trust you to edit on Romania in WWII when you are an admitted apologist for their hand in extermination? Besides that point, your editing has been brought into question here already above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block - If the consensus is a topic ban on Romania, I'd very reluctantly go along with that, but given the views the editor has expressed, and their unwillingness to edit within our policies, this is simply someone we don't need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • very weak opposeSupport The last one makes me less sure they will not be problem in the future. It was a defense of antisemitism (indeed genocide). Having said that so far I see no major indication they are letting that affect articles. As such I see little reason for a ban, but I do see a need for a very very close eye to be kept with ban understanding that if they do ever try to pedal antisemitism on Wikipedias articles (and keep it off talk pages) they will be a permaban. As long as they behave what lunacy they believe is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my post above. This editor is here only to push an agenda, and this is leading to false claims and bias being added to articles. This post arguing that the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews by the Romanian Government was justified is reason enough alone for this person to be excluded from Wikipedia: leaving aside the fact that such views are utterly repugnant, there is no way that such a person can edit encyclopedia articles in a neutral or reliable way. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nick-D: I believe he wasn't saying murdering Jews was justifiable, he said that antisemitism was endemic in the Romanian people as a whole, not just Antonescu (to defend Antonescu). He did glorify Antonescu regardless of the fact that he was complicit in the murder of Jews, though. I also have some issues with how you described the case here. The user isn't a SPA (he has created plenty of what seem like unproblematic naval articles[61] - are you a SPA for Australian military history then?). Yes, many of the edit summaries are inappropriate, but just asserting that Romania was a "major Axis power" isn't problematic or puffery. Also did you really think talking about the Romanian navy sinking Soviets military vessels is "dismissing the murder of Jews" just because many Jews were Soviet citizens (and thus seamen, I presume?)[62]. That's a rather extreme interpretation. Anyway, the example of "Muh Holocaust" as pointed by K.e.coffman is 4chan /pol/'s language for sure. Using such language here is just stupid, as is using Wikipedia as a forum for such controversial topics. If you really think that his extremist views pervaded even articles about Romanian ships, then the 46 articles created by him should be nuked.--Pudeo (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ...Except for the fact that I've been well editing and creating articles for almost a year now, and had the exact same views and beliefs throughout all of it. I finally choose to come out and be myself, and I'm being smeared and accused of things I haven't done. This was, besides me venting and getting things out of my mind, an experiment. I wanted to see if the Wiki would ban even a committed hard-working editor like me who uses reliable sources virtually all the time, based on his views and beliefs. Congratulations, you smearing ideologues proved my point. Torpilorul (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are not even able to keep your word about not posting here again I cannot think you will keep your word with what you agree not to do. You really are demonstrating exactly what people are saying is the problem very well. Especially as you seem to admit this was (and is) deliberate and experimental. We are not a lab for you to test your theories on.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support six-month TBAN What this series of tirades (and those on the Milhist talk page) show is that Torpilorul has faulty judgement. Based on their expressed views and the POV-pushing edits (in the ARBMAC area, I might add) highlighted above, I just don't trust them to edit neutrally in the topic area, but am not keen on a indef block in the first instance. I support a six month TBAN, for "Romania during WWII (broadly construed)". Perhaps they can edit articles on Romania in other time periods or in other topic areas for a while and show they can edit neutrally? Then I'd be willing to give them a bit of rope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if topic ban is a viable option at the moment unless if the user would cease to engage in further tendentious editing, something that appears to be unlikely. I have blocked Torpilorul indefinitely; my rationale can be found here. Alex Shih (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I think your rationale was incredibly gentle for someone who just ranted about how the killing of Jews with hammers was perfectly justifiable. I think any evaluation of the quality of their editing is immediately superseded by ugly hatemongering (or the justification of such). Grandpallama (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This is probably immaterial at this point, but changing to support indef block, K.e.coffman's allegation about possible socking from the blocked Romanian-and-proud account seems to be backed up by a quick look at intersect, where they both edited quite a few pages, including the Hetzer and Mareșal tank destroyer pages, which Torpilorul has mentioned on the Milhist talk page, this is a very specific point of interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Alex's actions here - at some point we have to say that purposefully rubbing other editors' noses in crap is something we shouldn't tolerate. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose such a severe sanction. To be clear - I find the political views here abhorrent. However the user has been creating fair Romanian / Black sea naval content and hasn't been warned previously. They clearly shouldn't have posted some of his more FORUMish posts and they have made some questionable edits in terms of puffery for Romania in WWII. I will however note that the lesser Axis players are often overlooked (part of this being whitewashing/denying their part) - and that in some Wikipedia articles the Romanian role is underplayed - Torpilorul, for perhaps the wrong reasons, has been rectifying some of this. They certainly dug themselves a hole in ANI. They should be severely warned, possibly blocked/banned for a short period, and then hauled back here if this persists.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support This action causes me considerable difficulty. I finally came to support as I doubt that Torpilorul would be able to comply with the terms of any lesser sanction. However it does feel like one strike and you're out and more importantly he is right that Romania's role in WWII is under reported or unacknowledged both here on wikipedia and in western sources generally. Without allowing someone to challenge that we will continue to give a NPOV solely based on the Anglo-American sources we are most familiar with. The victors write history (at least initially) so permitting someone to challenge this accepted history (using RS) allows other editors the opportunity to consider if the existing text (again sourced using RS) actually conveys the full and complete picture Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from Romanian World War II history and also all Jewish topics. Throw in Roma and Hungarian topics for good measure. Oppose site-wide ban. It seems widely agreed this user isn't contributing in a constructive way in this area at this point. A user with such views about Jews ("Muh Holocaust"...) from Romania also really can't be trusted to edit neutrally and constructively with regard to Hungarian or Roma topics either, imo. On the other hand, if he has interest in other, hopefully less controversial, topics and wishes to contribute there (say, to Romanian ecology, or Romanian folk culture) he could still be of use, so a site-wide ban may be premature.--Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – this editor has never been blocked previously, as Icewhiz says, that's pretty severe to go directly to indef. I'd vote for a shorter block per WP:ROPE. In the diffs provided in this proposal, #2 is taken out of context, and for #3, I participated in that discussion and Torpilorul was correct (I provided refs there showing Antonescu was not a fascist, and in fact purged the fascist elements from his regime). But the big one was #5. I understand the reaction (and the block by Alex Shih) – Torpilorul's remarks came across as very offensive. But remember he is a non-native speaker of English. Torpilorul has clarified his meaning on his talk page: "I am not saying Antonescu did the right thing, I am not saying the Romanian population did the right thing, I am not saying the local Jews deserved it. My point is very simple: the majority of the nation wanted it, and Antonescu made it happen. This is the reason for my stance. Such leaders are rare in Romanian history, most were up there for themselves." An improvement to the context, but still perhaps somewhat extreme – however, I am not very familiar with Antonescu, other than his anti-Semitic reputation. He doesn't seem overly respect-worthy to me, but I observed that Torpilorul's view of Antonescu, while extreme, seems similar to the admiration many Americans have for Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson (despite their roles in slavery and genocide) – severely flawed men, but they were men of their times and they do command some begrudging respect among many, despite their great misdeeds... Regardless, Torpilorul has proven he can contribute constructively, even in the topic area of Romania in WWII. I could also support a topic ban with exclusion of Romanian Naval articles. As Pudeo rhetorically points out, if you think Torpilorul's "extremist views pervaded even articles about Romanian ships, then the 46 articles created by him should be nuked". I don't think anyone here honestly holds that view. Mojoworker (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrase "I am not saying the local Jews deserved it" really jumps out at me. Antonescu's regime was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the USSR. This particular wording suggests that Torpilorul doesn't have a problem with those murders, especially given their ranting about how wicked the USSR was and how proud he is of Romania's role in invading it at multiple points. We really don't need people who want to excuse away and minimise the Holocaust on Wikipedia, especially when they're a SPA for editing in this area. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't believe that this is this user's first account. I'm reminded of an account of Special:Contributions/Romanian-and-proud that was blocked in 2016. That particular account was also hyper-focused on Romanian Navy of WWII and advanced the view that Romania was not getting its fair shake as a participant in the Axis war effort, although I don't recall outright antisemitism. If this is the same user, I wonder if this account's attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART can be viewed as legitimate.
    The RnP account was known for nationalistic and combattive editing, just like this one. See for example: ANI#Disruptive IP editor. I believe that behavioural evidence is pretty strong that this is the same user. Compare prior unblock requests:
    --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef based on their last comment here, as well as the polemic on their userpage, this user is merely here to promote their POV, not to build an encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef Block. I would have leant more towards a topic ban but for K.e.coffman's pointing out that this looks like a duck and a ban evasion.--Jorm (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef The old User:Romanian-and-proud account was increasingly bugging me, the similarities were so apparent. Disclosure. I emailed Nick-D 72 hours ago, with my suspicions that this was a previously blocked account and advised an SPI check. However it has panned out, I am glad this has come to light for the community. The user appears if anything, appears to have become more extreme. The antisemitic element of this person's world view appears to have become more prominent and stinky. Good riddance. Here is a conversation from 2016 which already raised my suspicions. It is from the Talkpage of the article Sloped armour

    Well, the Mareșal is not a very important example of sloping because its designers were hardly original in applying the principle and the type never became operational. It is outside the scope of the article to give a list of all vehicles with sloping armour. I have to admit the design is a very extreme case, the Mareșal looking like a tracked pyramid :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) It was still the first. And the idea to use the sloped hull without the turret, just put the gun in the front is 100% original Romanian ingenuity. Only months after the first Mareșal prototype, did similar German vehicles began to appear. It was original, and it was the first. I don't see why it shouldn't be added. It's the first sloped casemate TD, I'm pretty sure that means it's important enough to be featured, I really don't think it hurts anyone mentioning this little innovating guy. So...what do you say? Does it really bother if I put it back in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.130.48 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    79.113.130.48 (talk) Firstly I would be careful of casually throwing around accusations of "racist", or "having something against" something which is basically a piece of metal. I fully endorse MWAK (talk)'s points. Really the article is no place for a detailed list of specific types. I would suggest you further expand and improve the Mareșal article itself, bringing further sources to bear. Also I suggest you look at Leonardo's fighting vehicle. The concept of sloped armour is hardly new.. Irondome (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC) By that logic, what are the German TDs doing here? Huh? Just to hail the T-34's design? You are against adding the Mareșal, but you add the Hetzer which was made over 6 months later. This is what I mean by racism. Look, if you really want to be racist, and refuse to see Mareșal's importance as the first sloped casemate-style tank destroyer, then fine, be an ignorant racist. The world is full of likes like you. I am done though. No use for me to talk if you refuse to listen.

    Is that you, RoumanianandProud? Irondome (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Irondome (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • From reviewing the two accounts in response to Irondome's email, I also judged that they appeared to be the same person (who, I note, was blocked under another account in 2011). The ideology both accounts were pushing and the editing pattern are remarkably similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Indef Block. Come on, the guy hasn't even ever been blocked, and now a proposal is made to eliminate him? Look, I see where a temp ban on Romanian topics may or may not be suitable, but are we to start nuking people just because we don't like how they think? That's the path to lack of diversity on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia, the place where all kinds of diversity are welcome, except those we don't like for good reason! XavierItzm (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    XavierItzm justifying genocide—the elimination of an entire ethno-religious group in Romania—is not “diversity”. Editing with that POV mindset is also not “diversity”. No, reasonable people would say that is the total opposite of “diversity”. I am beginning to wonder whether you opposed the block simply to be the guy who disagreed. Because logic certainly did not factor into your response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Diversity is diversity only as long as it is the kind of diversity we like! XavierItzm (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    XavierItzm okay I get it. You are trolling. Have fun with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Always assume good faith." XavierItzm (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am assuming good faith XavierItzm by classifying this foolishness as trolling. Bad faith would have me assuming you genuinely believe the garbage you are spewing and are grossly incompetent. Which do you prefer?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Until intention is demonstrated, then you don't have to assume any more. "don't assume it's a duck if it has four legs and a tail". Assumptions are made i lieu of facts. MPJ-DK 20:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @XavierItzm: Pedophilia apologists and various forms of Neo-Nazis (Holocaust deniers, apologists, etc.) are not the kind of diversity we, or any other rational group of people, would like. You're right about that. Why do you mention it like it's a bad thing? I am Neutral on this block (even slightly leaning to Weak Oppose because it may just been a misunderstanding), but I'm definitely against your ideas on who should be contributing to Wikipedia. byteflush Talk 03:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy is being witch-hunted in a cacophony of self-righteousness. The invective against him grows by the post, and now the term "paedophilia" has even been brought up on this thread. Classical escalation of inappropriate rhetoric. Look, someone else wrote here «frankly wish he was brutally murdered as an infant» (with regard to a historical subject contributed to by the editor to be burned at the stake), and yet no-one bats an eye. I see a bunch of criticism against the editor's personal beliefs, and not necessarily his actual contributions to content-space Wikipedia. Edit warring for "puffery"? Give him a warning for edit warring, or temporarily ban him for that, if necessary. Adding "puffery" in some other article? Take it to the Talk Page. Changing a photo? Talk Page, etc. Yet the chorus for his damnatio memoriae arises not from his content space work at Wikipedia, but from his politically incorrect personal beliefs. This is not right. XavierItzm (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax. I'm not calling anyone a pedophile here. I'm just saying that Wikipedia policies forbid those who self-identify as pedophiles OR neo-nazis to edit (which I'm pretty sure also covers Holocaust deniers/apologists). While I believe Torpilorul is neither of those, I'm just mentioning it because incorrect beliefs can get people blocked from editing. byteflush Talk 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I had wondered for some time if Torpilorul was Romanian-and-Proud - they have quite a bit of overlap in editing interest, and Romanian-and-Proud has a history of abusing sock IPs - it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to see him trying to use a clean start account. And obviously, comments like "Muh Holocaust" are abhorrent. Diversity of ideas is important, but that only goes so far. Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is engaged in block-avoidance, block him already. If he has questionable edits, revert/rollback those right away. But purging those whose opinions are abhorrent is abhorrent itself. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Full stop. We are creating a community here, and we have an obligation to ensure the community we create is not a cesspool. There are some ideologies that are so repugnant that they do not deserve a place in the sun, they need to be buried. One that excuses or minimizes the mass murder of millions of people is such an ideology. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty abhorrent to banish those with whose ideas one, perhaps justifiedly, disagrees, but it is even worse to fail to recognize just how abhorrent such behaviour is. XavierItzm (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Run along, troll. You’ve wasted enough of all of our time. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "We are creating a community here" (of monolithic-minded people!) XavierItzm (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a piece of work. --Jorm (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef If the rather obvious WP:NOTHERE was not enough, there is also the apparent socking. While we should allow various points of view to be expressed here, per their due weight, I believe the line of what is an useful point of view to include should come well before the line of "literally advocating for genocide", as I categorically fail to see what value such a point of view could possibly add to our encyclopedic endeavors. Icarosaurvus (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate on your invocation of WP:NOTHERE. How do you explain this? Mojoworker (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would explain it by saying that an apparent Romanian nationalist creating pages related to Romania in WWII is about as surprising as a tree growing leaves. While Romanian nationalism is not itself a problem, it coupled with the rather alarming views expressed above and the user's apparent willingness to bring these views into unrelated matters indeed creates a problem. Work in one area does not excuse the user's above comments. They found themselves in a hole, and decided that the Kola Peninsula was a great place to dig. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question for you all – Or several questions...but first, if he's a sock, he should remain blocked. And, I agree that holocaust denial (or minimization) should not be excused, but that's not exactly what Torpilorul was saying. If a hypothetical editor says they respect Andrew Jackson's leadership and generalship, and says "Meh Trail of Tears, I still admire him – besides, he was only implementing the will of the people", we should just purge that editor? Or not, since the genocide of Native Americans isn't a big deal, since they have no political power and it happened 180 years ago vs. a mere 75? How are these two situations different and where do we draw the line? Mojoworker (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why we need to get into those kinds of relativities. Holocaust denial and arguing that the Holocaust was in any way justified are utterly abhorrent in their own right. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Extremist political views—or really any political views—do not need to be expressed on Wikipedia. I do not mind if you have views, but when it blatantly influences one’s editing and is unnecessarily offensive to those you are meant to collaborate with, I think we should all be alarmed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did he say the Holocaust was justified? I agree with Pudeo, and see him defending Antonescu (and placing the blame with the Romanian people). I realize I'm Advocatus Diaboli here, but does the following objectively true statement generate the same response – if not, why not? "You know why Antonescu Jackson killed all those Jews Native Americans? Because he was the man of the country, he served the country, and did what the country wanted. And Romanians Americans - in their majority - wanted the Jews Native Americans out. It wasn't just him, it was most of the nation." Yes, Torpilorul didn't need to say what he did, but is it untrue? Mojoworker (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One, that statement is not objectively true. Secondly, I react rather more strongly to that statement than the statements about a Romanian politician I have never previously heard of, as I am of native descent. This is a reason I avoid editing articles related to the trail of tears, or Andrew Jackson, or even the Indian Wars, just in case it would affect my editing. I believe the man was evil, should never have been president, and frankly wish he was brutally murdered as an infant. One can and indeed must know one's biases, and if one feels one might have difficulty editing in an area because of these biases, one should, in fact, 'not' edit the area. It is as simple as that. If one believes that mass murder makes a politician a man of a people, perhaps one should avoid editing the subject in question, or indeed Wikipedia in general. The user in question seems rather unable to do this; he seems to neither be able to withhold his beliefs, or avoid areas where they could be problematic. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support/Endorse The "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him" statement unquestionably places this editor in bad company with certain hate groups and racists but in conjunction with their other statements this can, barely, be attributed to hyper-nationalism rather than frank racism and that seems to be what he is claiming and on which several 'Opposes' seem to hang. Providing a POV which lends historical context to historic events can be a valuable contribution, provided it is done for context rather than as apologia, even if the views expressed are repugnant to most people now. Torpilorul has evidently made some good contributions to the project and does not seem to be here to advocate for Antisemitism i.e. the comments causing the most consternation here are focused on the Antisemitism of the Romanians at the time rather than 'Yeah! Antonescu was right! Kill the Jews! We need another Antonescu!'. So I think this ban requires more consideration than a simple 'ban racist troll and move on'.
      Diversity of opinion and viewpoint, the linchpin of several 'Opposes', is valuable to the project and I do not think I would be supporting this ban if Torpilorul were simply providing a nationalist context, no matter how repugnant. Nor do I believe we should ban people simply for repugnant, non-criminal, views so long as those views do not leak disruptively into their editing or behavior. In this case though I do not believe we are simply dealing with a nationalist incidentally expressing Antisemitic views. The "Muh Holocaust" comment pretty much puts paid to that - it is evidently a term one picks up in places like Stormfront not while studying WWII. He also made it clear with "This was, besides me venting and getting things out of my mind, an experiment" that he would be disruptive over these issues. I can not recall ever running across an editor who claimed their disruption "was an experiment" who the project would not be better off without. Finally, if this account is a reincarnation of Romanian and proud/Iaaasi then all this discussion is really academic since they are a banned sock anyway. Jbh Talk 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

    OK, this is a bit long, so I'm going to bullet point it

    I think it's quite clear that Lionelt appears to believe that DYK can be subverted for political use. However, I'm unsure what to suggest; a topic-ban from DYK would be reasonable, but that's not going to stop such articles being created and nominated by someone else. Discussion welcome ... Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is there evidence of long-term approval of problematic hooks like mentioned in point 6? If so, the easiest way to deal with it would be using DS (and if there isn't, a logged DS warning might suffice to not do it again.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lionelt consistently exhibits a very strong POV. As do many of us, of course, but he seems less self-aware than some. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was just this one, Tony, I'd have left it where it was (I removed his approvals of the hooks). It is the issues in point 8 that lead me to think this may become an ongoing issue that needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an serious problem. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, point 8 is certainly problematic.A logged warning might suffice and any further disruption will result in a topic ban from APOL32 per ACDS.∯WBGconverse 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There does rather seem to be a promotialism thing going on here. He seems to ber both saying, and encouraging, the Use of DYK to promote causes and products (all but ones of a political nature). It might be best to to issue a warning for now, and see if that does any good.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the essay is certinly more problematic than the hook (which garners enough attention to ensure it will never go anywhere in that form); but the essay has the appearance of an official page. Specifically, it would (probably) be fine in userspace but I'm not sure it should be giving the impression that it's endorsed by a Wikiproject. (Is it, btw?) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the essay would likely be fine in userspace. I think there are reasonable arguments for why you might want to promote figures on the right to DYK (en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing). The larger concern that both the essay and the hook in point 6 raise is that this is a systemic problem of trying to promote problematic hooks. If that is going on, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed very quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What does autopatrolled have to do with POV DYKs? Now that you've suggested a DS topic ban and revoking autopatrol, it looks like you're just trying to punish him. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles which they created and which has now been AfDed would be best looked at by a new page patroller, though I am not sure any patroller would decide to go for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natureium:What? You need to read the entirety of the proposal.And if I've seen the articles, I would have sent all 3 to AFD, on grounds of failing to adhere to the notability guidelines. These are all stuff that shall be screened at NPP, (if reviewers are diligent enough).These coupled with his questionable motives make a fine case for revoking the flag, IMO. Also, kindly point out the exact phrase which led to you to think you've suggested a DS topic ban.∯WBGconverse 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - but when you consider where it is, and then add "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion.", and then create a number of not-exactly-neutral political stubs "ready for expansion", it all looks very suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly understand that. I'm just pointing out that the page is not problematic per se, except for the reliably (and in context, understandable) right-wing slant to the examples. And while suspicious is something I'd agree with, "slam dunk case for POV pushing" is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very suspect, because a backwater DYK nomination page is the last place you'd expect a random IP to turn up, but I don't really want the identity of JerryTBE to derail this particular discussion, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to make sure we are considering Jerry the Bellybutton Elf as a separate person from Lionelt, who, aside from his large number of right-wing POV changes to articles about politics, religion and abortion, has edited a fair number of articles local to Southern California. If Lionelt is in SoCal, then he's not Jerry the Bellybutton Elf in Washington DC. And Awilley, the State Dept IP is obviously used by a number of people, which is probably why you concluded it to be an independent editor. The linked sequence, though, proves my point, as the time between edits is so small, and the draft version of the article would have been virtually impossible for someone to find on their own. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple things here. First, I would never live in DC. Too hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. No thanks. I've been to visit, but didn't make it to Foggy Bottom. This Binkster person should remove his conspiracy theory that I am illegally logging out to fix spelling errors from an anonymous IP, since that's an aspersion and I wouldn't to see him get blocked, per policy. You cant just go around making accusations of people using multiple accounts to edit without any evidence. Binkster should have the chance to convince the mods that he understands this before a block is placed on his account. Calton should also have the chance to show he understands that ANI is not a forum to be used to make complaints of unrelated editing, like Lionel helping users write DYK submissions. Calton should be made aware of the proper forum to file formal complaints, and this is not the place to air miscellaneous grievances about people not sharing his extreme left-wing worldview. I propose a warning for Black Kite to take content disputes to the editor in question, not try to get that editor punished by the mods for being a conservative by shopping for a mod to do the deed. After the above is complete, this posting should be deleted and everyone should go back to building the encyclopedia and working together in a friendly environment, rather than turning this into some liberal vs conservative battleground. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually (1) this posting isn't about you, really (as I said above) (2) I am an administrator, and I brought the issue here for further discussion, and (3) threatening other editors will not end well for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton should be made aware... And you should be made aware that I've filed no complaints, just provided information, that your mind-reading skills and/or political orientation detection skills need work, and that Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge. Also, please note that making stuff up about other editors to attack them can get you blocked. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily wrong for a Wikiproject to focus on producing DYKs for topics within their area of interest, but this does have the appearance of a self-dealing attempt to shepherd new articles and DYKs through the process with little outside input. The part of "DYK for Newbies" that concerns me is the "When your reviewer is a meanie" section which directs users to the Wikiproject Conservatism talk page if the DYK is rejected. (on a similar note Lionelt also created a Discretionary sanctions FAQ to be used alongside DS alerts, which also directs any DS questions to the WP Conservatism page.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lionelt doesn't even hide his attempts to use Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle very well, to go by this message he left on the User Talk page of a fellow axe-grinder* "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" --Calton | Talk 16:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a few people, I'm sure, want to promote their pet causes through DYK. It's not necessarily a problem, so long as their submissions conform with NPOV. I have vetted a few of Lionelt's nominations on the way to the main page and didn't detect any overt bias, although I wasn't necessarily looking hard for it. As long as they meet all the criteria, they are still eligible. Whether Lionelt or other users need a rap over the knuckles for other actions they have taken, I'll leave others to judge. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have vetted a few of Lionelt's nominations on the way to the main page and didn't detect any overt bias And would that include the one that opened this section?
    Quite a few people, I'm sure, want to promote their pet causes through DYK And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? As for myself, I've come to the opposite conclusion, going by his actual article creations, edits, and talk page contributions. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody has a political view I abhor, but whose contributions generally conform to all the relevant policies, why should I care about their politics? My point is simply that so far as DYK is concerned, the yardstick is the nomination, not the person's motivation for writing it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice. It's not an answer to the question I asked, though. Once again: And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? --Calton | Talk 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that depends on what they are trying to promote and how they are going about it. For example, we have projects dedicated to the promotion of more biographies of women, is that a bad thing? The bottom line, I think, has to be the quality of the end product. If the articles conform appropriately to all the relevant policies including NPOV, why should I worry about somebody's motives in creating them? If on the other hand the output is biased or otherwise substandard - if somebody is trying to promote a cause at the expense of NPOV or other policies - then that would clearly be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went back through my page creation history, and see that I started a number of biographies (of people who were no longer living) that I submitted to DYK. Of the ones who were alive in the 20th century, and were involved in politics or public opinion, all were known for political opinions that I agree with. I wasn't (consciously) pursuing a liberal agenda, but I was writing about people I admired. I do hope that all those articles were properly sourced with a neutral viewpoint. So, I can't get excited about what Lionelt did. - Donald Albury 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Donald, I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all there, if you look at points 5, 6 and 8 in the original post, you'll see that this is a completely different issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For some historical context, this isn't the first time that the activities of Lionelt and Wikiproject Conservatism have raised concerns of NPOV and WP:PUSHing an agenda – see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 8#NPOV edit requests and the concerns raised by DGG, User:Worm That Turned, User:MastCell, and User:Dennis Brown among others. Quoting Dennis: When a project goes from coordinating efforts to improve articles that have a common theme (an accepted use), to the point of promoting a philosophy (an unacceptable use), then the community has no choice but to step in and correct the problem. It isn't good practice for a Project to promote or endorse editing in a manner that is biased, no matter how subtle the endorsement. I think DGG's edits here have been mild (too mild in fact) and I'm concerned that if the members (particularly the founder User:Lionelt, who has been off wiki for several days) understand the concerns, or if a formal review by the entire community is required. While Project are given considerable leeway in determining their scope and purpose, they are not immune from policy. Like editors, they are accountable to and operate at the pleasure of the greater community. The matter died when those "several days" off wiki for Lionelt stretched into a disappearance from Wikipedia of 5+ years until returning this year (with only a handful of edits in the interim). Mojoworker (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the speculation about my motives is off-base. Regarding the hook in question, ""ringleader" of a "den of thieves"", there was no POV pushing, that was not politically motivated. It was in response to a boring ALT0 hook. My original suggestion to Jerry was:

    "The hook needs to be exciting. E.g. you could use Clinton's "But my emails" quote. Or Trump's "den of thieves.""

    By suggesting Clinton's quip I was not showing any political preference. Granted, once BLP concerns about the Trump quote were raised I pushed too hard on the quote. I realized that the Trump quote was outrageous, but to be honest there isn't much "hooky" material to work with at the IG report. Additionally, I reasoned in the Trump-era we are all sensitized to outrageous. I guess we're all not sensitized... When consensus formed against the Trump hook I moved on.– Lionel(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the three stubs, they are all 1 sentence long, they have multiple reliable sources present, and they are written neutrally. For example, "The Hope and the Change is a 2012 documentary film produced by Citizens United which is critical of the Obama administration." One of the sources is Politico. I was always under the impression that these stubs would be expanded neutrally. And if they went to DYK that some future reviewer would ensure that the hook was neutral.– Lionel(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between (1) using Wikipedia for political purposes (WP:PROMOTION) and (2) showcasing (advertising) political articles at DYK (WP:DYKAIM #1). If political articles or any articles are written in a biased way, then a case can be made for POV pushing. However our policies fully endorse neutrally-written political articles. The stubs I wrote need 1500 chars to qualify for DYK. I contributed one sentence to that. It is a stretch to suggest that I am POV pushing articles onto the Main page which for all intents and purposes haven't been written yet.– Lionel(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wondered why you couldn't be bothered to pad those non-notable IMDB listings yourself, and given the events outlined in points 1 through 6 above, I can see why: I'd say it's now the OPPOSITE of a stretch. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful, is this devolving into a delete WP:RIGHT discussion again?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to the historical context, Facto created the WP:Conservative notice board in June 2006, at the same time sending out a bunch of invitations like this, drawing in editors with a demonstrated conservative slant. Facto's notice board was soon recognized as a method for vote-stacking to promote American right-wing viewpoints, and it was deleted. At the MfD discussion, Nandesuka said, "It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view."
    Facto stopped editing soon after the notice board was deleted, and was indeffed three years later when a sock account, Favortie, was discovered. Five months before that, Lionelt registered his username, in January 2009. In February 2011, he created the WP:WikiProject Conservatism, which had been suggested, coincidentally enough, as a redlink at the MfD for Facto's noticeboard. Lionelt used the new platform to attack another editor who had opposed his conservative slant and his one-sided invitations to membership. Other editors at the talk page raised concerns about the project scope and its "mission creep", calling out the Amero-centric bias there and at "This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism". I raised the concern about invitations sent out in a skewed manner, sent only to fellow travelers, at "Establishing a guideline for inviting members". Nothing significant was done by Lionelt to correct these foundational problems, so I nominated his WikiProject for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Among the most convincing arguments voiced there was MastCell's "this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda," in the same manner as the previous Conservative notice board. Despite this, the MfD resulted was "keep". I was disappointed, and I blame myself for not spending the proper amount of time to gather diffs and make a stronger case.
    Now we are again faced with the question of Lionelt's bias skewing the encyclopedia. It's a lot larger than one DYK, and larger than the WikiProject instructions regarding conservative DYKs. I think it's a problem of bias and activism inherent in Lionelt, a bias he built into the fabric of the WikiProject. I would still like to see the WikiProject shut down, and it would help protect the encyclopedia if Lionelt was topic banned with regard to politics. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The mission of WPConservatism is to improve conservatism-related articles. Period. WPConservatism has a diverse membership of editors including several editors who could be described as left-leaning. The thing I am most proud of at WPConservatism is the new A-Class Review Program. This ambitious initiative helps with the backlog at Good Article (GAN) and gets promising articles right to the doorstep of Featured Article (FAC). WPConservatism is in good company, there is only one other Wikiproject with A-Class Review, MILHIST. The first article promoted to A-Class is Margaret Thatcher. The next candidate for A-Class Review is likely List of American conservatives. A-Class Review proves that the purpose of WPConservatism--which is also my purpose--that purpose being article improvement. – Lionel(talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The observations by Black Kite, Binksternet, and others above are consistent with my own. Lionelt has picked up where he left off five years ago, by using Wikiproject conservatism as a platform for advocacy and recruiting. Five years ago when LGBT rights were at the forefront of current events, Lionelt made a a habit of placing Chick-fil-A "sammies" on the talk pages of users he perceived as friendly to his cause:[66][67][68] and more recently:[69][70]. It appears this is intended to induce Pavlovian responses from the recipients. For example, this rather pointed one immediately followed the recipient being blocked for edit warring on the Chick-fil-A article and calling someone a pedophile! Here's an example of him inviting an edit warring editor (who is now topic banned) to join Wikiproject conservatism [71] and then awarding a "sammie" to editor who helped with recruitment[72]. And again, rewarding the defense against liberal POV. Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations with this gem. My favorite though is his declaration that Donald Trump is good for "the Blacks". And don't worry, that awkward anachronism is OK because he is black!- MrX 🖋 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good to cherry-pick fragments of quotes. The last quote that you cite was something that Trump said---not me. And I repeated it in reference to the record low Black unemployment numbers since Trump took office. We don't sanction editors for being politically incorrect. – Lionel(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations" is related to Trump topic area quantitative data analysis. If in fact irregularities are discovered at Arbitration Enforcement don't you think that would have far-reaching consequences? A research study was recently completed--ironically about AN/I--which found numerous issues. Is it that far fetched to try to determine if there are issues at AE?– Lionel(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's far fetched is calling that a quantitative data analysis. The only thing that you have discovered is the correlation between editors who blatantly violate our policies and the sanctions they receive.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I'm seeing here, the problem isn't so much Lionel as it is Wikiproject Conservatism. And that makes sense to me: I can't imagine how we could have a Wikiproject Conservatism, or Wikiproject Liberalism, or Wikiproject Libertarianism without it predominantly being used to push a POV, even by well-meaning editors. How does one post a notification to one without canvassing? How does one request help editing an article with POV problems without canvassing and POV pushing themself? It just can't be done. So... See below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The DYK section has far less contributors and reviewers than during its heyday. Every once in a while I look at the main page and think there are some awful DYK hooks. But this case is just silly: a neutral hook was already presented there, the real issue seems to be whether the topic is wanted on the main page or not at all for political reasons. It's like downvoting or upvoting in Reddit, and there aren't enough DYK regulars to actually process the nom fairly. A broken process, but not something that can be fixed with complaining about one POV comment at ANI. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you might think this case is silly if you didn't read more than just the headline and formed an opinion without looking at the evidence provided. This is not about how DYK works. It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy. Here's another example: [73] related to [74]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to explicitly permit wikiprojects that promote a well-defined political POV (as per the below subsection), then I fail to see how efforts to grow and maintain that project can be demonized here.
    Don't get me wrong: I do see the diffs you posted here (and above) as evincing a certain level of political POV pushing. But I just don't see how we can say "it's okay to have these sorts of wikiprojects, it's just not okay to use them, maintain them or grow them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy."...where is my emoji for spitting my coffee out?!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Late to the party) Point #8, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies is exactly the kind of activity that got me involved last time, and in a quandary about what to do. Of course, he disappeared for 5 years, so I didn't have to think about it again until now. Having a Wikiproject that focuses on Conservative topics isn't the problem. If anything, there is a lot of balance to be had by doing so, as I would argue that the editor pool here is skewed in the other direction. The problem is when you go from offering sources and information to balance articles to simply advocating a position as if the other side doesn't exist. This is combative in nature, even if done politely. Lionelt has a long history of doing just this, which again, is why I got involved. I don't think the failed ban of the project (below) was the right approach, as the problem is Lionelt and his lack of self-awareness regarding his own bias. As someone pointed out above, all of us have some kind of bias and that isn't a problem. The problem is when we think we don't and act as if we are the torchbearer for the Truth®, which is what Lionelt was doing before he left. The essay indicates a severe lack of clue, in spite of the fact that he is not dumb. I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. This type of subtle (yet not subtle) bias is best left to the community as a whole rather than a handful of admin to decide. Again, the problem is Lionelt, not the project. Let him edit other things and earn back the right to edit politics, no different than we would do anyone in any other topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see formal proposal below the archive box below.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Ban Wikiproject conservatism, as well as any existing or future politically-aligned wikiprojects

    Not going to happen. ansh666 07:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I wouldn't ban newsletters such as Lionel's The Right Stuff, or punish editors who have participated in them, but such wikiprojects are inherently incapable of being neutral, and cannot help but encourage POV pushing. Therefore Support as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Show me the policy that states that the WikiProject Council is the only way to ban a wikiproject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Not even close. I'm talking about banning only projects that state a political alignment. Look at the list by K.e.Coffman, below. That's pretty much it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    *Deeply sinister. The most massive oppose possible Oh and why pick on Project Conservatism? Should we set up a safe space FFS??!! Irondome (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What the ever loving fuck are you on about? I explicitly called out any liberal wikiprojects as well. Maybe you should start reading before you !vote, FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irondome, why do some people think it cute to sneer with "safe spaces"? Are you seriously trying to trigger the liberal snowflakes that you think can't handle debate? Will you combine this with clamoring for #civility at the same time you're trying to insult your opponent, whoever that may be? That you are a valued longtime contributor does not give you a license to troll. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning oppose We should likely address the issues one project at a time when they arise rather than prevent them. Some could also argue that WP:SKEPTIC may be politically motivated, even if we know that there can be different standards... —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    -- that seems about it. There aren't that many of them; raze them all to the ground. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd. You can see it here, with editors and even mods citing a bunch of shit that Lionel has said that has nothing to do with the DYK nomination, trying to get rid of him so they don't have to worry about dissent anymore. I even got threatened by a mod for daring to say that Calton and Binkers should be given a chance to retract their aspersions and sloppy accusations of logging out to edit, lest they get blocked for openly flaunting the rules. Banning a project dedicated to help build articles related to conservatism does nothing to help Wikipedia rehabilitate its image. The mere suggestion is chilling. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment Very Swiftian of you K.E! Kill them all and let God sort them out springs to mind also..Irondome (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Let's be realistic, if we are going to open the door to starting banning wikiprojects for trying to push agenda's that we dont agree with - thats going to kill every minority/special interest wikiproject out there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm only in favor of shutting down WikiProject Conservatism because of its demonstrated bias. I'm not in favor of doing the same thing to unproblematic WikiProjects. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Much better to enable/support admins working in the relevant AE areas to deal with individual editors, and that would include editors whose POV seems obvious when they say bullshit like this, "Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd" (infamous? not in reliable sources; stop reading the things you read). Things like the DYK here can be handled in the usual way if indeed they are POV pushing/BLP violations etc. I am bothered by the trickery advertised on that DYK page--but surely a few experienced DYK editors can act on that. That leaves the matter of the editor who is center stage here, an editor who thinks it's acceptable to throw around coded barnstars, which one might well argue are a kind of harassment; arbitration is the most likely place to address that. Thank you Black Kite for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy you voted against this ridiculous proposal but just so you know I read the far-left stuff also. TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats, and I think he's even a mod. It's not bullshit. Don't believe me? I can go to the Donald Trump article, ping 50 editors from the talk page, and tell you exactly who agrees with you that Wikipedia is fair and balanced, and tell you who agrees with me and TonyBallioni. The vote will be along party lines. This is an editor driven project, and if most editors are liberal, of course the articles will slant liberal. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend Drmies knows me well enough to know that I do not believe Wikipedia is promoting "liberalism" and "campaigns for Democrats", Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, but for those who do not know me as well as the good doctor, what I actually said was en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing (emphasis added). You'll notice multiple layers of nuance there. I really don't like being cited for saying something I did not say. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you go from one false claim to the next, "TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats". Moreover, you repeat these post-truth kinds of things about editors' politics determining content, as if neutrality and reliable sources mean nothing. I'm thinking of a few things here. One is an alphabet soup containing FORUM, NPA, CIR, POV, and other such combinations. The second is, really, NOTHERE, and if you voluntarily go to the Trump talk page you're either a masochist or you need a hobby. The third is--well, I can't help but wonder who you are and who you were. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sammies were intended to be another type of Wikilove. Noone to my knowledge has ever complained. I never imagined it could be viewed as a form of harassment by my fellow editors. Now that this has been brought to my attention I will of course stop doing this.– Lionel(talk) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no doubt they were a kind of Wikilove; it's just that Wikipedia should be inclusive of all kinds of love, and you know as well as I do what mention of that restaurant in this kind of context means. Thank you for not doing that anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Wikiprojects that primarily exist as an avenue for politically like-minded editors to coordinate action ought not be a thing. Wikiproject Conservatism ought definitely be removed. It's worthwhile to examine whether the WikiProjects listed by K.e.coffman are similar, and if they are then they ought be removed too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral support, practical (mild) oppose Politically oriented wikiprojects are the source of much debate and strife (not to mention bad content). But they have a use in helping us to identify bad actors and providing diffs to support imposition of sanctions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the general case, per Drmies, but also along the lines of SBHB above. There's no reason that the Conservatism project couldn't be a project that does what it is supposed to be doing, which is neutrally improving articles about conservative-related subjects, instead of being a political advocacy site within Wikipedia. If this has become the case, then the editors who have made it into that need to be dealt with by administrators with the tools available to them. Just as MILHIST is not a bad thing, despite the recent behavior of some of its coordinators, CONSERVATISM can be a useful part of Wikipedia, despite the editors who are using it as a power base -- but action needs to be taken against them whenever it is appropriate. The nuclear option is too radical at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will also say that we need a better mechanism for monitoring what the numerous WikiProjects are doing. At this time it seems as if they are founded, and then no one from the outside pays any attention to them after that. The Wiki Project Council? Does it actually do anything? Does it even exist? Who's on it? What's its function? Does it have a co-ordinator, or officers of any kind? Even the puniest WikiProject has a list of people who has signed up for it, WPC doesn't seem to have anything like that. It doesn't seem to have any authority of any kind over anything. Where was the WPC when Kumioko was trying to usurp all state WikiProjects and fold them into WikiProject United States? There have been a number of ArbCom cases which have touched on the question of what WikiProjects can and can't do - why have I never seen a representative of the Wiki Project Council comment on those cases?
      If the Wiki Project Council is in that state of non-being, we should either get rid of it, or revitalize it into a vehicle for assuring that WikiProjects are doing what they're intended to do, and not turning into power centers for various ideological viewpoints. If conservative-leaning, or liberal-leaning, or socialist-leaning Wikipedia editors want to hang out with their ideological brethren, they can do so off-Wiki. Any on-wiki organization should be focused entirely on improving Wikipedia, not on political or ideological advocacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I understand why political wikiprojects may be a problem, but without them will POV pushers not just organize off wiki? POV pushers need to be dealt with by admins on an individual basis, I feel like the limited benefit of banning political wikiprojects will be outweighed by the can of worms that this could open (who decides which projects are political? I just see this creating a massive and unnecessary controversy). If we only ban certain political wikiprojects, but allow others, POV pushers (or just people with subtle biases) will try to ban the ones they disagree with, damaging the neutrality and credibility of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think shutting down the wikiproject would actually result in the opposite of the desired outcome. Right-leaning editors who already feel they are under attack could easily interpret this as proof that Wikipedia is systemically biased against them, and I don't think that would improve the BATTLEGROUND feeling that has become normal at many political articles. On the other hand I could see myself supporting a topic ban of some form for LionelT specifically. They stated above that the purpose of the Wikiproject is to improve articles about conservatism, period; but that's not what I'm seeing. Looking at the latest two issues of The Right Stuff, in the June issue I see scorekeeping on which editors from either side got sanctioned recently under the story about the rouge admin who accused right-leaning editors of being Russian agents. In the July issue there is a story about Wikiproject Conservatism coming "under fire" at AN/I side by side with a story of how only 27% of editors are happy with the way disputes are resolved at AN/I, saying the dissatisfaction was due in part to "'defensive cliques' and biased administrators". I don't think fear mongering, score keeping, and one-sided cheer leading fits into our goal of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia. ~Awilley (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (non-admin editor) Everything is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism is political. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism is political. What is needed is enforcement of Wikipedia:Canvassing, and if that happens to depopulate a particular Wikiproject that's incidental. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: per above statements by Beyond My Ken and SBHB. They have stated the case far better than I could. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Political bias is one of the strongest biases there is. Rather than have people try and pretend that they don't have it, letting people be open about it can contribute to the WP:POLE process. If all sides of the political spectrum push then we can get something that approaches being balanced. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moral support - I understand the reason behind it, but I do not believe you will achieve the desired affects. If WikiProjects like the Conservatism Project are indeed being used for canvassing and POV-pushing, we need better mechanisms to effectively address them. We need to focus on specific editors and break up the little cliques they form.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ideological categories don't exactly lend themselves to cohesive stylistic or assessment standards, which are major components of a Wikiproject. This type of project can cover anything from biographies to political parties to books to legislation, and it just doesn't make sense to write a style guide that would apply to all of these areas. If your goal is to improve biographies about conservative politicians, for example, it would make sense to work within the Biographies project which already has well-established practices and editors with relevant experience. This would also mean contributing your perspective to a diverse group of editors which is the stated goal of most of these political Wikiprojects.
    If we're going to ban any project, it should be part of a larger conversation about the purpose of Wikiprojects and what sort of behavior is acceptable. I would prefer to first address the problematic editors and only consider sanctioning the project if the canvassing, POV pushing, etc. continues. WikiProject Firearms would be an example of a project that has made numerous positive contributions to weaponry topics while also using its style guide to impose a certain POV across a large number of articles. After community consensus was clarified and a few problematic editors were sanctioned, the POV pushing has largely died down and the remaining flareups don't have the pseudo-official support of the project. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Drmies and Awilley and others. However, all WikiProjects need to be informed that their purpose must be to improve the quality of articles under their area of interest, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view. It is entirely legitimate for feminists (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable women, and for conservatives (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable conservatives. The same is true of monarchists, Marxists and liberals, if improving neutral policy-compliant content is the goal of their joint efforts. Using the main page to promote a political ideology is wrong. Scorekeeping on the basis of an editor's perceived or stated political ideology is wrong. That behavior must stop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Just having a certain politic focus is not a reason to block a project as that same logic could apply to any other ideologically driven project. We can judge if a project broadly is engaging in inappropirate activies and close it, but that should be based on evidenced behavior. --Masem (t) 04:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for a variety of reasons above. You don't think that Wiki Project Liberalism has POV issues? Why not work to make it more neutral instead of ditching it and stripping the members of the project of their hard work. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose WikiProjects at their best attempt to improve articles, according to NPOV and all other policies and guidelines. There's no inherent reason to me a politically oriented WikiProject couldn't do that and in looking at the Talk Page and A Class review at WikiProject Conservative I don't see any subtext suggesting otherwise. If the DYK article has the support of the project members the advice there strikes me as aggressive but not out of line and in keeping with a project's hope to coordinate improvement to articles in its scope. The other WikiProjects named by Ke mostly seem dormant or inactive with Liberterian being the only one to raise eyebrows for me. But that alone doesn't just a ban on projects in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think this is a serious over-reaction. What this needs is admins policing the poor behaviour, not banning of WikiProjects. In any case, I think it would have to go to the WikiProject Council. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I haven't seen him too much around but for the little I saw he looked really constructive. There's no reason we would ban an established editor for making too many DYKs about republican topics. I'ts the whole point of DYK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: Community topic ban on post-1932 politics

    (non-admin closure) Looks like a SNOW close to me. Revert the close if you think otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I think Dennis Brown's points above are good, that it's the blind spot that's the problem, rather than Lionel's editing in general. Therefore, I support his suggestion of a topic ban on post-1932 politics, and suggest that it be indefinite, with 6-month appeals allowed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose I've come across Lionelt's editing in politics previously and never found anything objectionable about it. Well, except for the general "I object to your POV". I'm unaware of any cases of Lionelt editing against policy (except for the catch-22 of promoting their wikiproject) or editing disruptively while keeping to the letter of policy. Such a TBAN would not solve any problem worth solving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Lionelt has some skills, worthwhile skills, but he has a blind spot to politics and the only reason it didn't cause problems for 5 years is that he wasn't here. As soon as he returned, the problems returned. He needs to contribute in other areas, which I'm convinced he can do without a problem. If he just disappears for 6 months and appeals, then that won't solve anything, so just taking a break won't help. I hate to get to this point, but there is some serious soul searching that has to be done, and currently, his participation in politics is causing problems with bias for the whole site. If he never learns to edit politics without injecting bias, then he can still continue to contribute in other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose mostly as per MPants at Work, I think this is the wrong way to go and it might even be a slippery slope. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this appears to be searching for a solution to something that isn't the problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose as Lionelt doesn't deserve this nor is his editing what I see as problematic. He does have some blind spots, but I've never felt it was intentional or with any malice attached. As a side note: I'm really getting tired of seeing only editors who are suspected or assumed to be politically/ideologically Conservative getting taken to AE repeatedly and/or nominated for political article topic bans while those who have an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias in their editing are protected and coddled. Ironically(?), it's usually the editors with an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias who are filing these reports and doing it only against those they see as their political enemy. Which is, of course, just more bias. Yes, I'm certain this comment will really piss some editors and admins off and I will likely now be further targeted for more insults and assumptions about my own political beliefs. What really needs to happen is a fair-handed and neutral approach by administrators at the political articles and DS applied to everyone who crosses the bright line. With the exception of one administrator, that's not been happening. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Lionelt's editing has not stood out for bias, as some would imply. Those who seek improvements should do so at a much broader level, as some have indicated above. Jzsj (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose their overall editing doesn't justify a TBAN. I might support a TBAN specifically on WP:DYK pages about post-1932 American Politics; there do seem to be some POV-pushing issues there, but they may simply be a symptom of larger problems with a lack of independent review/insufficient participation at DYK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose, The editor in question has not violated any policies or guidelines, and has contributed positively to by editing within their area of interest by improving content, or to have others improve content in area where they share similar interest. What is next, a proposal to ban anyone who edits within the sphere of American politics post-1932? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dennis, I don't doubt your intentions are good but you should withdraw this. A community ban of a partisan editor isn't in the cards because their fellow partisans will show up to defend them. There's really no point in such an exercise. (Before anyone gets in a lather please note that I am making a general point and not speaking to the merits or lack thereof in the present case.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that if I am a partisan, then I'm across the political isle from Lionel. That being said... This. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose per User:RightCowLeftCoast's and User:Winkelvi's reasoning. Lionelt is a clear positive to Wikipedia, and he has been very helpful in improving articles related to conservatism. The hypocrisy here is astounding, since I could name several editors who exhibit a clear left-of-center bias while editing wthout needing to fear any community action for their POV and incivility issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose If it's that bad take it to AE and provide proof of their disruption. It not surprising to me how this thread devolved from one to discussion to another and culiminates in this hypocrisy.--MONGO (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Will those editors whining about "hypocrisy" please knock it off? All you're doing is building up the battleground mentality of this topic. Plenty of left-wing editors have been dragged to AE and ANI over their editing. The difference is that they tend to not be sanctioned, because there is insufficient evidence at AE and insufficient support at ANI. If you want to address this imbalance, then working with your fellow conservative editors to reduce the POV pushing, use of unreliable sources and overall frustration and impatience would be far more productive than just whining about how it's not fair that your side gets sanctioned more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - If an admin judges that someone should be topic banned from American Politics, they can simply impose it as a discretionary sanction. If Dennis, or another admin were to do so, I believe it would be upheld if appealed. That said, I don't believe that Lionelt's conduct yet rises to the level that would merit such a harsh sanction. However, if he continues to encourage bad behavior in order to gain allies, or uses Wikiproject conservatism as recruiting ground, or uses the front page as a billboard, then I have no doubt that a trip to AE will result in a topic ban. Lionelt no doubt has contributed positively to Wikipedia, but he needs to remember that we're building a free encyclopedia for all people, not just for conservatives. - MrX 🖋 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The article of the bahai faith (before I edited it moments ago) called homosexuality a handicap, called conversion therapy "overcoming homosexuality", it labeled it as liberal

    I think most would reach the conclusion it's a deeply biased article that at one point (during the "Overcoming of homosexuality" [conversion therapy] section) describes homosexuality as "a handicap". If It described being black, Jewish or a woman as a handicap the bias would be clear almost immediately and condemned by everyone. That is their opinion, it is not the opinion of most medical professionals, zoologists, scientists and historians, and people in general.

    Before editing it called homosexuality "liberal sex" and the Abrahamic sexual ethics as traditional, despite homosexuality predating Liberalism, Abrahamic religion and modernity by thousands of years. I don't think a monkey or lion having sex with another male monkey or lion in the wild are Liberals. They're using modern and superstitious human outlook on these things to declare them a creation of modernity and rejection of tradition, which makes absolutely no sense.

    The article also argued homosexuals are treated fairly by the religion when they objectively aren't. When you have heterosexuals who can marry, have sex and enjoy life, but homosexuals need to go through conversion therapy, remain lonely and abstain from all sexual urges, that isn't equal and the same for both of them. It's objectively the opposite. They need to say what they actually believe and not write biasedly.

    Finally, the greatest gem, it said "on his behalf encouraged those with a homosexual orientation to overcome the handicap " Homosexuality isn't a handicap. It isn't a mental disorder, it's found in 1500 species, predates the laws of Abrahamic cultures and the concession on that has changed among most medical professionals, international bodies, zoologists and historians, and people on the planet in general.

    Before editing they had a section called "overcoming homosexuality", which describes using doctor assistance and spiritual practices to become heterosexual. That is literally just conversion therapy, and again, by calling it "overcoming homosexuality" and portraying it as something innocent the article displays indefinite bias. If your religion endorses the practice (which it does), say it does, don't tap dance around the issue and write articles saying it doesn't.

    To put the cherry on the top, they argue constantly they are against discrimination against gays, while calling it an aberration, promoting conversion and celibacy.


    –I call on the administrations to lock this article from further editing and correct any bias they find. Gay people and their rights are now being seen akin to that of Jews, and these sorts of biased articles are utterly unacceptable.– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msdgsdgwer134234 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    huh? John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He's asking that administrators lock the article he just edited so no one can change it from his version, which is better, since the previous version was based entirely on primary sources and told from a Baha'i perspective, while his includes totally unsourced and coatrack-y statements to balanced it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very tempted to undo the changes but also either put in quotes or make more clear that the religion considers homosexuality a handicap, not that it actually is one, which is horrible in it's own right. There's a middle ground that can be established here, and it is NOT what this editor has done or is requesting. --Tarage (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the talk page needs a massive cleanup because holy hell those walls of text. --Tarage (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Lots of big red numbers in the history - X201 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the persistent inclusion of Baha'i related sections in many articles, the articles about the group and its doctrines themselves are a dark corner where few editors have interest but adherents. Related articles are often not encyclopedic (I did not check their state very recently). One that I remember was a rant against the fact that it is synchretic, supported by citations of an author of the movement. Another was about calling their proselytism "teaching"... About inserting references to it everywhere, they tend to be presented as a separate major world religion (rather than under Islam); but some sources also consider them separate. This often introduces a weight issue where a small article has a section dedicated to an obscure group (except on Wikipedia). This has been a concern of mine but is something I felt powerless about, other than when seeing new material inserted in articles where it seems out of place and I can contest that particular case. Some articles that do not appear related to the movement were also initially created based on a source from it, such as Comparison of the founders of religious traditions. I assume that all this might better belong at a non-admin noticeboard, but this was also an opportunity for more experienced eyes... —PaleoNeonate – 02:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:PaleoNeonate I agree with your assessment. If you AFD Comparison of the founders of religious traditions I'll support it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WHOA! That is problematic, not least the "Event starting ministry" column. And no "founded what religion" column. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a complete failure of WP:SYNTH? Fish+Karate 11:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. Likely there are sources that deal with "founders of religious traditions" as a topic. But the topic is complex and opinion-y, and I don't think this article/table is a good form for it. Perhaps with much more basic data, like point in time, geographic location, founded what religion etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right that the reference to "handicap" is not clearly part of the quote. I can fix that. He also introduced some problems that need cleanup. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hostile behavior in the Middle East section

    The editors in this section are rude and unhelpful. This one in particular seems to be on every page and is very confrontational and rude.This is what he wrote on my page: "Well, you know, I looked at the article and changed my mind. It is a piece of crap and should be deleted. There is nothing in it that can be usefully merged anywhere either. As for your editing, imagine moaning about one editor who didn't know about the fires, while not even mentioning the 136 people, mostly unarmed civilians, who have been shot dead and hundreds more maimed for life on the Gazan side of the border. That is exactly the sort of extreme bias that we don't want around here. Go away." Zerotalk 15:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) --Jane955 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR. nableezy - 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the article referred to as 'crap' the one created by Jane955 as '2018 Gaza–Israel conflict' (now a redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests? If so, I'd have to suggest that while the word used to describe it might not be appropriate, the sentiment was. Not only does it appear to have been a POV fork of an existing article, but it seems to have consisted almost entirely of material copy-pasted in violation of copyright. [75] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the bolding is not mine. This editor created a POV-fork at 2018 Gaza–Israel conflict (now redirected to a different article by Galatz) with material that might have come right out of the mouths of the Israeli government. In fact, lots of it did. She didn't even adopt the least pretence of balance: "The UN that did not defend Israel against the ravaging fires was quick to criticize Israel for closing the Kerem Shalom crossing." A large amount of the article was later deleted and revdelled by Diannaa as copyright violation. Some was just arrant nonsense: "Attacking Israel is a good financial investment for Hamas". Editing in the Mideast part of Wikipedia is difficult enough without having to waste time on this type of rubbish. As for my choice of words, when I saw that she ignored over a hundred deaths on one side but included damage to a chicken coup on the other side, I got annoyed. Yes, she should go away; that's my honest opinion. Zerotalk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already been done. For post-1932 politics of the United States, BLPs (in relation to Jane955 using talk pages as a forum, which was the reason for a one-week block), and the Arab–Israeli conflict [76]. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This was done. For example, here [77] they were informed of the 30/500 rule and told they could not edit anything on this subject. They admitting knowing about the rule here [78] which they circumvented by just creating a fork page. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say a minimum of a final warning should be given, but it seems the editor now has ECP status Special:Log/Jane955 so it's a bit pointless. Ironically they don't actually currently have 500 live edits [79] due to deleted edits I presume some are that now deleted article. However they're so closed that it doesn't seem worth worrying about that either. As for the original violation, if they had clearly admitted to intentionally bypassing ECP I might say a block was justified but the above comment seems ambiguous whether they actually understood ECP applied to all Israel/Palestine articles, or they just thought it applied to those which it had been applied to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What has number of edits got to do with this? The question is, is abusive, rude and vulgar behavior tolerated on Wikipedia? and what will happen when a new editor trys to write on this section? It seems like Galaz & Zero work together to create a hostile environment for new editors. And by the way, the editors of Gaza-Israel border 2018 are having a problem because the page is too long and they will anyway need to create a new page. I would like an answer about the abusive behavior, because so far I just hear you trying to justify it.--Jane955 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When a new editor runs around bumping into things and doing things against Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors are generally pretty tolerant, and try to steer the newbie in the right direction. If the new user won't listen, and just keeps getting into trouble ignoring the advice, sometimes experienced editors get less than perfectly polite with them. Generally the Wikipedia community is going to be harder on the person running around breaking policies left and right, and less hard on the person who gets snippy with the new editor.
    I can't speak for the community, of course, but let me make a wild prediction: nothing is going to happen to Zero because he used the word "crap" and told you to "go away". Wikipedia generally requires a higher level of abusive behavior before it brings down the hammer. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most new editors are not retired. They do not have the time to read all the regulations. If an older editor steps in, he should do so to help and also enforce regulations and not just police the page. What will happen now is that the Israeli editors on the Gaza-Israel protest page will open a new page, will probably rename the page, will talk about the fires, and everything I set out to do. And I bet the Zero-Glatz gang won't even talk to them. Thank you Alephb for the clarification that abusive behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia. When I wrote the page I focused on the events and less on the editing. Of course the page needed improvement and more editing. Things were moving fast and I wanted to capture the moment. Anyway, the Israeli editors will probably do a better job and no one will harass them.--Jane955 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples of "won't listen": Here Jane955 is arguing that she shouldn't be bound by WP:CANVASS. Here, after being informed by Galatz (and not for the first time) that there are rules about article talk pages, Jane955's response was "Galatz, who hired you to be the Wikipedia police?" Zerotalk 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further issues with Jane955's behaviour.

    Looking through Jane955's edit history, I saw that some time ago she had created a article on the subject of Modesty guards: various groups (of varied legal status) who enforce standards of dress. The article is something of a stub, and as it stands only covers two topics within the Middle East. While there is nothing particularly problematic with the article as a whole, beyond possibly needing expansion and better sourcing, I did note what seemed to me to be a minor NPOV issue: a section header entitled 'Modesty Guards at the Western Wall, Israel'. As contributors are no doubt aware, the status of Jerusalem in general, and the Old City (where the Western Wall is located) in particular is a subject of much contention. Accordingly, I amended the section header to read 'Modesty Guards at the Western Wall, Jerusalem', and posted an explanation for the change on the article on the talk page. Jane955's response sadly consisted of a reply on the talk page that entirely failed to address Wikipedia policy, and an edit to the header to now read 'Modesty Guards at the Western Wall, Jerusalem (Israel)'. Given this, I posted a further comment on the talk page, and one on Jane955's talk page, where I made it clear that I considered the non-neutral section header a violation of policy, and advised her to revert unless she wished to have the matter raised here on WP:ANI. Jane955's response (see User_talk:Jane955#Modesty_guard) consisted of what I can only describe as a soapboxing rant: "Who are you? what is your user name? Wikipedia is about facts and not conspiracies. In this century, at this time the Western Wall is under Israeli sovereignty. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. (This page is not about East Jerusalem.) and by the way the Arab party is the third largest party in the Knesset, that is located in Israel's capital: Jerusalem.--Jane955 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)" Jane955 then followed by making a post on User talk:Alephb: "Can you tell me who this is: 86.147.197.31 He obviously has some kind of political agenda and is trying to change things on the "modesty guard" page". I have also now been informed (bizarrely) on Talk:Modesty guard that I "don't even exist on Wikipedia", which makes me wonder whether Jane955 has even the slightest grasp of how Wikipedia works.[reply]

    As should be readily apparent, I have at no time made any political commentary whatsoever, and nor have I advanced any 'conspiracy'. Instead I have pointed out the obvious: that it is a simple incontrovertible fact that the status of Jerusalem (and of the Old City in particular) is contested, and accordingly a section heading asserting that the Western Wall is in Israel (as opposed to say under Israeli control) is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is apparent however that Jane955 is intent on pushing her personal opinion regarding the status of Jerusalem into an article where it need not be discussed at all, and doing so in a manner that not only fails to address Wikipedia policy, but consists almost entirely of soapboxing and personal attacks. Since this is clearly a continuation of the behaviour discussed above I would have to suggest that some form of sanction against Jane955 is necessary. As to whether a block or perhaps some sort of topic ban might be appropriate, I will leave that for others to propose. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jane955: Jane95, as someone who ran head first into one of those rotating blades called 'established editors' when I first arrived on Wikipedia, I want to offer you some sympathy for your frustration and some hard won advice.
    First, notice that the people pointing out problems here have offered examples with links. If you are going to dispute something, you have to do that as well or no one will accept your claim. I had one especially rude editor who claimed my references were predominantly from a single point of view. I went back to the article in dispute and showed that he had reviewed those references and found 9 out of 53 from that point of view. Facts demonstrated he was wrong. That doesn't mean he won't show up making the same kinds of claims somewhere else, but at least, that time, facts shut him down. That's what you must have--facts. And you must be willing to acknowledge facts as well--if you want to edit on Wikipedia. That's the way Wikipedia works--everything that goes on here is recorded. That can work for you--or against you. But it demonstrates reality one way or the other.
    This is a digital world, of written language only, without any nuances or body language or facial expression to soften anything said here. Another editor is allowed to call your writing crap--so long as he doesn't attack you personally as a piece of crap. Your writing is not you. That's how Wikipedia works. If your writing is not crap, you better be able to support that--and Wikipedia provides ways and means. At one point with that one editor, I did what's called an RFC--a request for comment--on that same editor's claims of my writing's crappy "badness". I received unanimous support that one change needed to be made and the rest kept. That dispute ended right there. That is how Wikipedia works.
    By complaining about someone else's behavior, you are implying you want an acknowledgement of their error. You have to be willing to give what you want to get. That is the way Wikipedia works--and may I add--the way life generally works as well. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.
    Whether an editor is rude or not--he may still be right in his observation. That's what you have to focus on--the substance--rather than the method. This demonstrates a willingness to learn--a willingness to be taught--which by definition means accepting criticism. Criticism is worth much more than compliments where learning is concerned--and there is so much to learn when someone first comes to Wikipedia. It is quite overwhelming, I know, and there is always lots of criticism and correction to receive. There are people here that I know are willing and patient and even kind to newcomers who demonstrate a genuine desire to learn. I know that because they were kind and helpful to me when I was clueless. But the truth is, no one has patience for long with someone who strikes them as not listening. Demonstrate a willingness to learn by acknowledging error when it is recognized by those more experienced than you and you will find Wikipedia is filled with many truly great people.
    It's hard not to be defensive. That same rude editor (when I first got here) said of something I had written, "This is bad, it is chock full of bad, is irredeemably bad, and should be totally trashed." Then he proceeded to attack me personally. It was harsh, but I still learned from his various comments. I have been here a little over a year now and have taken my first article to good article status, am working on my first featured article status, and have had my first 'Do you Know article' as well. Someone helped me through my early "badness" to get me to this point. And that's how Wikipedia works. It's a community of people who can be really, truly, great and helpful. There are--honestly--only a few who are notoriously harsh with newcomers. But you still have to meet the good ones part way. Which comes down to demonstrating a willingness to learn from what they ALL say instead of reacting to how they say it. I want to encourage you to hang in there. But only you can decide if editing Wikipedia is worth what you will have to learn to do so. If it helps, remember you are not alone in that. All of us have had to do so. When we try to pass on some of it to you, it would be smart to accept it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane955 (who has clearly chosen not to respond here [80]) is continuing to use Talk:Modesty guard as a soapbox for promoting her personal opinions regarding the status of Jerusalem, and shows no sign whatsoever of acknowledging Wikipedia policy regarding this issue. At this point I can only suggest that a block is necessary, if only to get her to acknowledge that she is required to comply with policy. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jen, It’s not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience. I have been to India, South America, Egypt and have had to deal with plenty of hardship. I can also be rude. The question is: What is the Wikipedia standard and should people donate to Wikipedia if it’s an unprofessional, online educational institution? I honestly cannot write in English. I have never lived in a city that is predominantly English speaking. I have to go over a paragraph 10-15 times. But I do have access to information that non-Israeli editors do not have and I am willing to make the effort. Anyway, this is not about me. I want to know what will happen to the next editor who writes in the ME section. It’s not about good/bad sources. The topic in the problem. I wrote now something that criticizes the Israeli government. You can be sure that no one will say that I used bad sources or that my writing is crappy.
    I asked for help from the editors and started a dialog so we could decide together what should be written on the page but I quickly realized they had a combative and insulting attitude. Obviously I will not be “learning” from these type of editors. Thank you for sharing and have a great day.--Jane955 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Competence is required. Says it all. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience ... I can also be rude ... I honestly cannot write in English ... Obviously I will not be "learning" from these type of editors ... At this point, I don't see why the Wikipedia community should continue dealing with this. The editor is being clear about her unwillingness to take advice and claiming not to have the required competence in English. Personally, my impression was that the editor's English was excellent, and that the problem was behavioral, but if the editor doesn't consider herself to have the competence required to edit here, perhaps we should take her word for it. Alephb (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jane955: If it is not your goal to survive the Wikipedia experience why are you here? It seems the only other option is to demonstrate your superiority and your right to speak from your soapbox. And of course, you do have a perfect right to have any soapbox you like, absolutely, but not on Wikipedia. Try Quora instead. Alephb and 86.147.197.31 are correct I'm afraid. The "hostile behavior in the Middle East section" is clearly yours. So sad, but I support the call to block. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience = suicide by admin? EEng 00:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation

    Previously, my accounts (ShangKing, Sh2ngKing) have been compromised. Then I created a new account with a stronger password and everything.

    But now, if you look at my talk page (especially its history page), you'll see some IP address impersonating me and vandalizing my talk page. Can you please take appropriate measures? I have reverted the vandalism. The account is 68.193.214.11Amoymonarch (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amoymonarch: I gave your talk six hours of semi. Hopefully that should stop the vandalism. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amoymonarch: FYI they've also added a clever comment to Shangking's talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI in user

    Hello,

    User:Xbrunckova has been making several edits to promote a company that is likely to be in COI with the user. The user created a whole page for the company (tagged for CSD and Copyvio) and has promoted the company on other articles. Please address the COI and possible blocking of the user.

    Thank you for improving the encyclopedia AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Which article is the problem? Miniapolis 22:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Miniapolis: I have rollbacked and successfully CSD'ed the articles this user has created. He did some edits on CAMP and Camp. He also created one of the most promotional articles I have ever seen which was a huge copyvio and directory (CSD'ed). It was Draft:CAMP - Center for Architecture and Metropolitan Planning. No COI was ever disclosed. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I see only four edits by this editor (all about the organization in question, though), and left a note with links to COI guidelines on their talk page. Please keep WP:BITE in mind, and be careful with rollback; it's for vandalism, not stuff like this. We also have a conflict-of-interest noticeboard. All the best, Miniapolis 15:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and censorship at Sporting CP by newly created account

    OctopusFactCheck (talk · contribs) has been playing advocate of Sporting CP by removing sourced information, adding bias and unsourced content. I have requested page protection and previously reported the user for sockpuppetry (109.173.150.131 (talk · contribs)) and, more recently, for vandalism, but no action has been taken.

    I didn't warn the user about editing warring and vandalism in its talk page because I knew it would be in vain, as I'm suspicious that person has used other IP addresses and accounts in the past to edit Sporting related articles. SLBedit (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, there is a long-time issue due to the use of Sporting Lisbon in the article's lead. I have made a compilation of edits made by IPs and accounts that tried to remove "Sporting Lisbon" or add POV to it by saying that it's "wrong", "erroneous", "incorrect", "offensive", etc:

    109.173.150.131

    2.82.61.115

    178.2.118.37

    194.176.192.164

    79.168.247.134, 79.168.247.134

    94.133.49.209

    62.28.17.222

    82.41.121.19

    2001:8a0:6a0e:301:3832:3a70:df7f:541f

    89.115.41.36

    BrunoLxxx, BrunoLxxx

    93.34.89.117

    109.51.151.151

    195.245.160.226

    Crowsus

    46.189.249.169

    88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130

    Royk14 (user even admits that "fans have long been trying to get rid off"), Royk14, Royk14 (again, "it is incorrect and the club's board and fans have long been trying to aware foreign media to stop using it")

    94.252.8.108

    2a02:c7d:1a19:a00:7c23:4567:2cd:e6d0

    2001:8a0:7e4c:c501:4861:b0f7:ac7b:8e83

    Diogoncm, Diogoncm

    89.180.157.48

    46.140.29.250

    95.136.34.40

    SportingCP1906 , SportingCP1906

    94.60.231.86

    24.212.197.171

    RealDealBillMcNeal, RealDealBillMcNeal

    72.89.30.210

    81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106

    It took me some time to make this list, so please don't ignore it. SLBedit (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    What I removed was not true and was not backed by any scource you know it and you are lying. It was bias and you try to shihe a light to the club your username shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctopusFactCheck (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User: My very best wishes - Disruptive editing. Possible puppetry.

    Filer indef blocked for disruptive editing (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting block of user : My_very_best_wishes for constant disruptive edits on page Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and possible puppetry.

    User is restoring content constantly with very little discussion and more importantly restoring content after it has been forwarded for mediation.

    User has made several other edits with little mention on the talk page:

    Here Restoring large amounts of disputed content during it's discussion.

    Constantly restoring content which is being discussed Here Here

    Warning was also issued however were ignored by user. DRALGOS ♕ 16:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • One should simply look at the edit history of the page to see who is edit warring, and that is user Dralgos. I made only one revert during last four days. With all due respect, I think the editing by Dralgos (talk · contribs) is very problematic. This is an SPA who currently edits only one subject. They are making edits like that, for example. Here, he places in the infobox a claim that the poisoning was committed by unknown "Russians" and ...the British government, while sources tell that was done by Russian GRU people [81]. He is promoting a conspiracy theory [82] on WP pages. He repeatedly removes well sourced info [83] directly relevant to the subject [84]. He edit war to remove such well sourced information from the page: [85],[86],[87],[88]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dralgos (talk · contribs) seems to be boomeranging. I think that a topic ban for Dralgos (talk · contribs) on all Russia related topics may be in order. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dralgos: My inclination when seeing someone level a charge of socking w/o showing any evidence, especially when accusing a long term user with whom they are in a conflict, is to request a CU for the accuser or to just block them for disruption. We'll se how this plays out and what the regulars here find in their investigations.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section of suspected perpetrators is being discussed on the talk page and was forwarded for mediation here for it to be resolved. You are part of the mediation and even made comments yet still kept here editing the section while the rest of us repectfully awaited a decision. @Dlohcierekim: I wrote possible puppetry and did not mention any other accounts for that reason. I've simply highlighted it based on suspicion, however I could be wrong and the user doesn't behave like a long term user. @JC7V7DC5768: What do you mean by boomeranging? Also Russia is a hot topic on the planet at the moment, bit hard to avoid. DRALGOS ♕ 16:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely in bomerang turf. One would expect strong sources to back up British involvement. The article should be in its stable version during DRN and not contain far our claims.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I just checked Dralgos' recent contributions, and the warnings that have been deleted from their talk page, and have blocked Dralgos indefinitely for disputive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 I was just about to call for something similar. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They made a malformed unblock request, I fixed it. --Tarage (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Large campaign to hammer a particular author, assertion and paper into several articles

    All of the articles have previously been protected due to the same issue. For that reason, I have semi-protected all eight articles for three months. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a pretty large campaign in progress to hammer a particular author, assertion, and paper into several articles. The known articles are:

    There have been at least 6 IP's and brand new account(s) doing the same insertion and the list keeps changing / exanding, so there is nobody specific to converse with or notify, and this is NOT a report on any of them. My estimate is that between them they have inserted the same thing about 30 times into these articles. There's another brand new account doing some of the removals of these and they have put info / discussion regarding this on the talk pages. The only discussion from the inserters has been to criticize that individual. Would it be possible to give those articles a few weeks of semi-protection? Artificial intelligence already has pending edits protection. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    n.b. Draft:Decision stream -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I remarked yesterday that this (BustYourMyth) is the first time I've seen an account created only to remove a specific citation (rather than the common accounts that only spam a paper all over). And this is not a new issue (see 62.119.167.36). Natureium (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I was the one who noticed this happening, and I made an account not just to remove the material but also to inform others on the Talk pages that this was happening. Did I do something wrong? BustYourMyth (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO you are doing a good service. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BustYourMyth, It's more that it's atypical for a new editor. Have you edited Wikipedia before? The problem with what is going on is that you and these IPs are in an "edit war" over this article, which is disruptive. I left a message about edit warring on your talk page. Unfortunately, the IPs are not stopping either. Natureium (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Natureium Not really. If it is disruptive, I guess I will stay out of it since it is now a known problem. BustYourMyth (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BustYourMyth, I agree with the other two users that what you're doing is substantively good. You can read about our policy on edit-warring (and what one can do instead) here. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not new; here is an old discussion from when this happened last year. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "Thanks for your comprehensive massages."... And yes, I noted above that that one IP goes back to at least last year. Natureium (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor not responding to concerns on their talk page

    Earlier today I noticed a bulk creation of "Today's Featured Article" pages going out at least five years in advance (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023 for example) and wondered if this is particularly necessary to have them so far out. I left a message for the creator, Nhatminh01 (talk · contribs), but it appears the editor is not addressing any concerns about their editing at all per the lack of responses to anyone on their talk page. This shows the large amount of pages created. I wouldn't drag this to this noticeboard if they would respond, but based on previous editing concerns and a lack of response from them, I would appreciate this having a further look. Home Lander (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Admittedly, this edit also makes me question intentions. Home Lander (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a potential WP:CIR issue as well as a severe language barrier, but they are not meeting the minimum requirement of discussing their edits. My normal action in that case is to indef block until they display some willingness to respond to concerns about their edits, and I have done so here. --Laser brain (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    71.174.234.187 violating MOS:CONTRACTIONS

    It seems silly to request a block over this, but 71.174.234.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a history of doing so to the point that they have received not one but two blocks for this in the past, including a 1-month block released only 4 days ago. They have a similar record as 71.174.231.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The latest violations include [90] and [91], just to name two.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for three months this time. I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to intentionally violate the MOS like that, especially after several previous blocks. Weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of sounds like the Bambifan101 LTA, fwiw. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The geolocation on these IPs does not suggest Bambifan, who per the LTA case is from Mobile, Alabama. Home Lander (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A bicyclette

    A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked. Per [92], the user admits using 74.58.148.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette, however the contributions also show edits to the articles where their disruption originally triggered the block.

    There's an open unblock request, I think it should be closed as declined based on this evasion. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    60.246.161.253

    This user is gross misuse of the internet at it’s finest. He is adding a gross, inappropriate, offensive, and just plain awful image to a large number of pages. Please, someone needs to oversight that person’s edits. ~SML • TP 23:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend posting diffs, as that is the general means of presenting evidence that is used on this page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend range blocks.  Done. I revdel'd the worst edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zabdas at it again

    Zabdas started reverting edits made by KINGFEDORQc as soon as his block for edit warring ended. I have blocked him for 36 hours. I will notify him. - Donald Albury 23:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC) - corrected caps in user name. 23:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, these guys don't stop. Full protection would make them discuss the issue, but it would also inconvenience everyone else who wanted to edit the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching the 3 articles they were edit warring over, and am prepared to block if it starts again. I don't know what else to do for now. - Donald Albury 12:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP behavior

    This user *2607:FCC8:BDD0:8E00:2C93:B595:2B27:294D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been changing manufacturer names by adding the parent company to the articles in quick succession recently. His/her edits are wrong based on the reverts. Some of his edits appear legit on closer examination of me and another editor but he is taking it too far, refusing to comment here or on RTShadow's talk page or talk page of the cars. Some examples include this and this. Another editor (RtShadow) requested that I do something, and I can't figure out what to do. I thought AN/I may solve this quickly and fairly. The ip has refused to discuss the changes with said editor. I.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was the other user, and from viewing other pages (aside from my reverts) there are other editors reverting some of his changes too. Now as I got further, some of his edits are in fact legit, or appear to be so, good corrections. But on some, I don't know after review if this is a legitimate attempt to vandalize or if he simply feels his way is the best way to set up pages. I have noticed on some other pages that the way he is setting up specific automobile pages is how they've always had them set up. This isn't so on a lot of the other pages. He needs to go to discussion and request the change, wait for others to voice their opinions, and get a consensus, or at least a general feel for how others feel about the changes he wants to make. For instance, the SRT-4 page, where I first noticed his work, he changed the manufacturer of the car to Daimler Chrysler only, removing Dodge from the manufacturer line. This, imho, is not correct. Dodge is in fact the car maker, Daimler is simply the parent company. However, I await and respect the opinions of others on this matter. RTShadow (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User is reverting changes back now, can someone please IP block this person, as I write this he is going back in where we corrected his work and redoing it all again, with no discussion on the talk page for any articles he is making these changes on. ***EDIT: He's stopped with one change, just on the Neon SRT-4 page, for now. I've fixed it. RTShadow (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now using *2607:FCC8:BDD0:8E00:19A3:87CC:DBEC:9ABC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The frustrating thing is that this could likely be resolved with a discussion and user consensus with other vehicular content editors, but he/she is choosing to ignore requests for discussion and now focused (so far) on reverting back the first change I made, now 3 times, on the Neon SRT-4. This isn't so much deliberate vandalism to be mean spirited, it is more of a narcissistic way of editing in which IP user assumes he is correct and doesn't have to ask anyone else or wait for any discussion on his edits.RTShadow (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @RtShadow, the ip hasn't edited in a few days so it's dying down. I will put in another warning on his user page to be careful when he/she edits in the future. Thanks for the lookout. JC7V-constructive zone 04:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal from South Carolina needs rangeblock

    (non-admin closure) Vandal blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone from Taylors, South Carolina, is persistently vandalizing a wide variety of articles. One example is the famous Elton John song "I Guess That's Why You Don't Trust The Jew's" {sic}. There's a lot more where that came from at Special:Contributions/99.203.16.0/21. Rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I range blocked Special:Contributions/99.203.16.0/23 for 72 hours. That seems to be where all the music-related vandalism is coming from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That should send a message. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nonresponsive user Kaushwiki formatting

    Single purpose account, adding trivia about postage stamps to various articles, always badly formatted. Was asked to adhere to standards on their user talk page by editors Anita5192, Peaceray, KIENGIR and myself. User never responded. This edit caught my attention. After cleaning it up, I looked at their other contributions, and had to undo all of them.

    User continues ([93], [94], [95]) after final warning. - DVdm (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't really have a "house style" for citations, though they should be readable. WP:CITE says: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. Kaushwiki's early edits were pretty messy, but this edit looks fine to me. I think it would be best to fix any remaining formatting errors rather than reverting it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Cleaning up Kaushwiki's edits is a pain in the butt, but those edits appear to be done in good faith and I think the information is useful. Many edits by other editors are helpful, yet rough, and need additional touches.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that Kaushwiki's citations are poorly done (I wish that they had at least the http or https protocol proceeding the URL; that would make conversion easier), this editor is at least doing a service by finding the appropriate URLs to cite. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's just hope someone will take the trouble to verify their edits and put them straight. As far as I can see user KIENGIR made some corrections that resulted in useless links too: [96] and [97]. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I checked and the first link worked by me, in the second a point remained by mistake. Please correct then them, if I made something wrong, or should I try again?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    The link works when manually copy-pasted into the browser, but there is no link to click in the article. See for instance [98]. It was explained to them how to do it, but I think they don't understand what is required, or even what they are doing. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist behaviour of Jeromi_Mikhael

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Butthurt_Lithuanians

    I think it should be stopped in some way. -- Ke an (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Throwing the term "racist" around on the drop of a hat isn't going to gain you any sympathy, I think. I see a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS being cast and an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality . That's on both sides, btw. The title of the thread is certainly beyond the pale, but this very request makes me wonder whether or not the writer may be correct with respect to the "butthurt" part. What remains after filtering out all the noise and tantrums, is a content dispute. Take it to he &*(^&*(^* talk page. That's what they're for. Mind the WP:BOOMERANG, please. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)@Ke an:Well, is butthurt a racist term? Well, then I'm sorry for that.But my major concern comes from this two edit conflict :
    • The first edit, on which I put in the anthem of the USSR alongside the anthem of Lithuania that indicates a prove that at a certain point, Tautiška giesmė is used as the anthem of the Lithuanian SSR, was reverted. The revert was made with a note "Insignificant"
    • The second edit, on which I change the photograph of the young Jonas Žemaitis to a more recent photograph in 1953, was reverted.

    Decide it yourself moderators.

    By the way, I'm from Indonesia. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see. The WP:TEAHOUSE describes itself as "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." So naturally you thought that starting a section entitled Butthurt Lithuanians would be a good way to show your friendliness. Got it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and Ke an: I'm sorry for that. To all Lithuanians in the world that may have seen, or being affected by this, I am sorry to disrespect the Lithuanian ethnic. I regret about my bad words, and in bad or good conditions, I promise not to do it again. What we're discussing here is about the two edits. Can the edit be reverted with good negotiations? I'm avoiding to revert it to avoid edit wars. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to go to the talk pages of each article to work out content disputes.Curdle (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:184.56.47.51‘s block is effecting others

    I can’t edit mobile, it keeps saying that I’m block despite not being User:184.56.47.51. I think Ponyo might of made User:184.56.47.51‘s block incapable of letting other users not related to him not edit on mobile view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.232.11.155 (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @172.232.11.155: (Non-administrator comment) Doesn't look like 184.56.47.51 is rangeblocked. Any other IPs mentioned? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, do you mean you can't edit the mobile site with your device but you can edit the normal site with the exact same device? Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @172.232.11.155: @Nil Einne: (Non-administrator comment) My new theory is that when this user is using the mobile site, they get assigned the IP address that was mentioned to be blocked above (or was autoblocked). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone can't just be using a different IP address when using the mobile site through the same device and same browser unless there is some very odd setup (e.g. the browser is setup to only proxy the mobile site or the non mobile site, or the proxy they are using is set up to only proxy or not proxy the mobile site). Also the IP mentioned appears to belong to a wired home broadband connection, compared to the IP they used to post this which belongs to a mobile network. So it's quite confusing what's going on. If these were different devices, it would make much more sense. It's not clear to me who the OP is so sure that the above IP is not theirs. Ultimately without clarity on precisely what is going on, it's difficult to offer any help. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

    (non-admin closure) What a silly thread. Closing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It purposely removed material I liked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.81.77 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @168.70.81.77: (Non-administrator comment) ...and the content you like is of course vandalism, right? That's Clubot NG's job in a nutshell; to revert vandalism. Of course, if the content isn't actually vandalism, but it false positives it and removes it, then you have a point. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kintetsubuffalo

    He has come along and started being disruptive on Tottenham Hotspur F.C., he didn't listen to why I reverted him and basically wanting to edit war and not listening to what I have to say. First he removed (lit:) for the Latin translation to English you use (lit:). He hasn't listened to my comments accused me of claiming ownership of the article and changing what has been used for years with out so much as a sneeze from anyone else. Can I please get some help to restore the content with the correct use and get Kintetsubuffalo to stop edit warring with people thanks. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF is this here? The article talk page hasn't been edited since 10th July ignoring the vandalism and reversion and bot edit [99]. How can either of you actually listen to what each other has to say if neither of you are talking to one another (no edit summaries don't count) Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as far as I can see, he's technically right. "lit" is a contraction of "literally" and therefore needs the full stop. However, you actually don't need it at all, because it's obvious that the phrase in brackets is a translation of the Latin motto. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's completely different from my A-level latin... I was taught that Lit or litterae (letter of an alphabet) in Latin when translating Latin to English use (Lit: Translation from Latin.) Govvy (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I haven't studied Latin, (Lit.) means nothing to me. Perhaps it can be rephrased. - Donald Albury 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These kind of discussions are a great thing, now if only they were held in a suitable place..... (Even better if before the edit warring.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick block needed for autoconfirmed image vandalism

    User rapidly keeps adding this image to random articles, and also removing my AIV reports on him. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and now he needs his talk access revoked, image vandalism in unblock requests. Also, I put in a request at the talk for WP:BIL for this image to be blacklisted if someone can take care of that. Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported to SRG for continuing cross-wiki vandalism (see eswiki contribs). theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same person who appears to be using proxies and uploading a grotesque image to commons (over and over) and putting it in articles. I've replaced the image and tagged it for deletion whenever I find it, so then he resorts to using images already uploaded. It's becoming an LTA case at this point. Home Lander (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we put that image on the bad image list to prevent this from happening again? Funplussmart (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations at Eric Landon

    An IP is insisting on inserting misconduct allegations to this page citing only Instagram; I removed them per WP:BLP as an unreliable source but they insist on re-adding them. Not finding any reliable coverage on it and am not willing to edit war with them. Would appreciate someone having a look. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given 24.20.12.208 a last warning. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    And I've semi-protected the article for a week. By then, hopefully, we will have reliable secondary available, or this all will have just blown-over. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) However, I now see Abecedare has semi'd. I kind of disagree, as only the one IP is adding the allegations; several other IPs are helping remove them. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    (edit conflict)Realized that I had misread the article history, and there was only one IP insisting on adding the information. So if any admin wishes to undo my semi-protection, you are welcome to do so. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. Hope no more IPs crop up to re-add the bit, in which case I may have to wheel-war with myself. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say I wouldn't have done the same if I could have, I'm not holding my breath that more won't show up. Home Lander (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The semi-hammer is quite a heavy tool, and I think it would be kind of discouraging for the other, helpful, IPs to be shut out of the article at this point. Iff there's another IP doing the same thing, it'll be needed, I agree. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Bishonen and Abecedare, someone else re-added the allegations with only an Instagram source. I have reverted them again. Home Lander (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And so we semi again. A bit like a dance, isn't it. Sorry about the delay, Home Lander; it looks like they caught both Abced and me in the timezone squeeze. Bishonen | talk 06:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Could this be a sock?

    User:FastEddieo007 has made 2 edits, a typo correction [100], and an apparent POV push [101], the combination of questionable edits and a username ending in 007 makes me wonder about David Adam Kess, but I don't think this is enough evidence to post this on the SPI page. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-report

    I am self-reporting following this close by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise. I removed a self-published source from the article (lulu.com) which was added by a CheckUser blocked account. I provided the diff on the talk page [Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise] which the closer indicates he has seen [102]. Did I do something wrong by removing SPS and requesting dispute resolution? The IP has not responded to requests on the talk page for additional sources, so I thought a mediator would be able to help. I didn't expect him to "resolve" the content dispute in favor of one party based on his own reading of the sources.Seraphim System (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The ip also indicated a willingness to participate in mediation on my talk page, though he hasn't edited since then. Seraphim System (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found Mark's reverting another editor's removal of an unjustified NPOV tag as a "dispute resolution volunteer" inappropriate [103].Seraphim System (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image vandalism

    Hypervenom259 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added numerous images with photoshopped noses to Jewish biographies. See for example: this and this. The diff of adding the modified image to the article is here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hrodvarsson, thank you for the catch. I've blocked the user here; Jon Kolbert has deleted these images and blocked the user on Commons as well. Alex Shih (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Alex Shih: This is a long-term abuse case, though I don't recall who the master is. Following a trail through Commons, I was able to find this account that was doing the same thing last November. Pinging Sro23 who's probably the king of LTA identification... Home Lander (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats by ip

    This ip user 87.226.35.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made 2 death threats in 2 different articles like this one for instance. Please make sure they're not legit . JC7V-constructive zone 02:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm contacting WP:EMERGENCY - please do that in the future instead of coming here. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, there's an emergency link at the top of this page. EEng 03:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reporting them. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry. I will take note just in case this thing happens again. Thanks for helping me Home Lander and EEng. Cheers JC7V-constructive zone 04:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    StarWarsGlenny & IP

    Blocked both. Their edits are also COPYVIOs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    StarWarsGlenny has been repeatedly adding incomprehensible blurbs to articles (last 5 edits: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]) They've also been editing from the above IP off and on. I've issued a couple warnings, but I'm not sure they speak much English, and it's been getting fairly disruptive. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor continually editing against consensus

    Vjmlhds had continually made changes to the List of WWE personnel against the established consensus. The WWE currently has multiple brands, Raw being one of them, and 205 Live (for cruiserweights) being a division under the Raw brand. Vjmlhds keeps making changes to say it is its own brand and not a division, yet when asked for support from a WP:RS they give vague answers or provide a youtube video to someone calling it a brand. The WWE's official 10-K does not list it as a brand, only Raw, SmackDown and NXT. The cruiserweights tour as part of Raw, not on their own. The championship that they say is the championship of that brand, clearly is referred to as being on the Raw brand for the cruiserweight division, see [109]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [110], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [111] and [112]. As you can see from their comments here [113] their argument is to just let it be, and they are doing their own thing. There is nothing verifiable that they are their own brand. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[114]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [115]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of trolling

    Wikibossmaninit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has accused me of being an "anti-Semitic troll" with, AFAICT, exactly zero evidence. I have made no such edits and am puzzled by the accusations. @Smartin Mellner: has also been tarred with this brush.

    My edits to the page Draft:Luke Nash-Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been neutral, focusing on fixing citation errors, beginning with [116]. I've also attempted to fix the caption in the infobox [117], based on the caption on Commons. I started to think that I made made an error, so I left his last reversion [118] alone.

    I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, but he continued the allegations. [119].

    I hope this can be settled.

    Diffs:

    [120], with the edit summary "Auric and Smartin Mellner are anti-Semitic troll".

    --Auric talk 13:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified.--Auric talk 13:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Auric talk 14:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=852666834"