Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Julio Puentes

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

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)

(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))

(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)

• I've commented on their talk page, linking WP:Communication is required, and explaining their options: either stop, communicate, or get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Blocks are to prevent disruption. I don't see this as rising to that level. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Julio Puentes, can you please comment here? Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Julio Puentes, you've edited again today - it's not acceptable to keep ignoring this discussion. You are taking up a lot of other editors' time by not communicating here. Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I support taking some sort of disciplinary action against User:Julio Puentes, per WP:RADAR. I had the same experience with him one time on a different article. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Support taking disciplinary action. Still making edits and refusal to communicate. I did not look to see how long these 13 messages (and a warning) have been ongoing but now ignoring other requests after a warning seems a pretty clear indication of clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. The needed "push" to create unreferenced, or especially IMDb only sourced articles (basically unsourced) is a serious problem. It seems to me that blatantly ignoring the community should be considered egregious resulting in more than a hand slap. Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My messages have been over the last two months, but he has been warned about creating unref blps by many editors, going back to 2010. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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):

• They have an avowed focus on giving a more positive slant to Wikipedia's coverage of Romania's history in World War II (as examples, please see their "manifesto" to this end at User:Torpilorul, as well as the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#The chronic "forgetting" of Romania discussion they starrted and especially the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of "weapons" to use against the deriding of Romania sub-section)
• Their edit history shows that they are very active in articles on this topic
• They have recently stated that they are an admirer of Romanian World War II-era dictator Ion Antonescu: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#How controversial is it really to be an admirer of Ion Antonescu?
• This extends to arguing that the mass killing of Jews by Antonescu's government isn't particularly problematic - their talk page sttes that "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him"
• As Ion Antonescu#Overall death toll and particularities rightly notes, Antonescu's regime was "second only to Nazi Germany in its antisemitic extermination policies", with the official Romanian figures attributing the murder of "280,000 and 380,000 Jews" to Antonescu's government (see also [1] [2] for expert summaries of the massive scale of the murders he was responsible for)
• Torpilorul has also repeatedly posted statements dismissing the murder of Jews by Antonescu's regime on a project talk page: [3], [4] [5].

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

• Inserting and then edit warring puffery of Romania's war effort into the Axis powers article: [6], [7], [8], [9],
• Adding similar puffery in the List of expansion operations and planning of the Axis powers article [10]
• Changing the infobox photo in the Siege of Odessa (1941) article with an extreme agenda in the edit summary ("That picture was a disgrace, a theft of the most abject type, and a lie") [11]
• Extremist edit summary and content [12]
• Adding material favourable to the Romanian Air Force to the Siege of Odessa (1941) article with an edit summary alleging some kind of conspiracy previously excluded it [13]
• Adding and then edit warring streets still named after Ion Antonescu into that article, despite other editors stating that this is OR and the sources aren't appropriate: [14], [15], [16], [17]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry I think you misunderstood, I am saying that you are not whitewashing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah...Okay, sorry. My bad. So what now? Am I getting blocked? Torpilorul (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Name me the sources, and what's the bias in them please. Torpilorul (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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." [18]

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." [19]

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: [20] and [21], with the same thrust. And finally, there's this jem immediately above apparently reveling in depictions of genocide: [22]. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Support This guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE. AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • There are many editors (on both sides) who make their political views very clear in whatever way (too clear, sometimes) who edit political articles. We trust them to edit those articles despite showing us what their personal views are. It's an excellent display of double standards to single out one of these many editors just because his views in particular are very unpopular. Besides, history is not black and white -- most leaders in history (in addition to being authoritarian) have done horrible things alongside their admirable achievements. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  @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[23] - 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?)[24]. 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)

...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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

Hmm. I hadn't noticed that Nick-D – the mention of "local" is an odd restrictive clause. I agree, that's troubling... Mojoworker (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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:

• User_talk:Romanian-and-proud#Unblock_me_please
• User_talk:Romanian-and-proud#'Sup_guys,_would_you_please_hear_me_out?

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• • 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)

• 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)

• XavierItzm is antisemitism the type of diversity (and apparent ban evasion as noted literally right above) you are looking for?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Diversity is diversity only as long as it is the kind of diversity we like! XavierItzm (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

XavierItzm okay I get it. You are trolling. Have fun with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Always assume good faith." XavierItzm (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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 Andrew Jackson, a President of the U.S. featured on the $20 bank note 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)

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)

I did not express any such opinion about some Romanian politician whom I frankly have scarcely heard of (Antonescu); I was using Andrew Jackson as an example, after Jackson was brought up by another user for reasons that are a mystery to me. I am going to assume that my statement was simply misunderstood, and that your assumption that I was referencing Antonescu was not trolling. What I was saying was that if one has an opinion about an individual that would prevent one from editing in an objective manner, such as I have on Andrew Jackson (as he trimmed a significant portion of my family tree, so to speak), or Torpilorul has on Antonescu (for whatever reason, Torpilorul idolizes Antonescu to the point where mass murder cannot taint his opinion), one should not make edits closely related to the subject in question. Torpilorul, however, has categorically failed to restrain himself. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Run along, troll. You’ve wasted enough of all of our time. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"We are creating a community here" (of monolithic-minded people!) XavierItzm (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are a piece of work. --Jorm (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

Please elaborate on your invocation of WP:NOTHERE. How do you explain this? Mojoworker (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Very strong oppose: Let me be clear, I have no sympathy for any anti-Semitism (Romans 9:4-5, ESV), and I think his behavior was inappropriate (also, I have had zero interaction with this editor). However, an indefinite block for this behavior is overkill (to put it very mildly), especially for an editor who has done good work on World War II topics and who has created many articles, and who otherwise has a clean disciplinary record. Instead of blocking him, he should be given a stern warning not to promote his personal views or to violate WP:NOTFORUM, and possibly a short block. Considering this editor's overall profile (article and content creation), banning him would be a net loss for this encyclopedia. We should help him improve in the areas where he is lacking so he can continue to make his strengths (which are considerable) of use to the encyclopedia.
  Also, I strongly oppose any kind of block/ban because of an editor's personal views. If an editor makes good edits, acts in good faith, and follows WP's policies to the best of their knowledge/ability, I really don't care what their personal views are, even if they're unpopular and fringe. If an editor voices viewpoints like the one we're discussing here, we should treat them the same way as an editor making FORUMy comments promoting Emmanuel Macron or Che Guevara, which is not to give them an indefinite ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, looking further, this editor's comments are not even that extreme when taken into context, even though he clearly violated NOTFORUM -- many Americans admire Andrew Jackson despite the trail of tears, as well as FDR despite the rejection of Jewish refugees and Japanese internment camps. Many relatively mainstream people also admire people like Che Guevara and Christopher Columbus. Also, most Eastern European countries were under foreign domination for decades (Ottomans, USSR, Nazi Germany, etc.), so they have few historical leaders to choose from in general, much less admirable ones. It seems that his Holocaust comments were him saying that he acknowledges that Antonescu did some very horrible things, but like FDR or Jackson for many Americans, he admires Antonescu for his overall actions and rule, definitely not because of the Holocaust. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef Holocaust denialism/apologism/denialist-apologism/whatever brings the project into disrepute. We can't have this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

These are statements made by a long-time editor with a clean record and with excellent content creation -- and the disturbing comments all happened in one incident. It's overkill. Besides, we should do what is appropriate, not what makes us look good in the eyes of the mob. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Torpolirul's first edit was less than a year ago, and his disturbing comments started in May and kept going until the day after this report was opened. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Guys, I think it is possible that this user is a sock puppet of the banned user Iaaasi. He was known for fringe and nationalistic edits relating to Romania and Hungary. I therefore filed a SPI report for this.Funplussmart (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Even though I happen to disagree with this user's perspective, I disagree that they should be blocked simply for holding unpopular opinions. ~~

Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

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

• 1. Recently a request appeared at the Did You Know talkpage here, asking for someone neutral to look at a DYK nomination which you can see here - Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election. So, I looked at it.
• 2. This is an article about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email by the FBI/DOJ, and the nominator (User:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf - henceforth JerryTBE - with a total of 142 edits, but that's a separate issue), suggested the hook - which would appear on the Main Page - ":... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election is the result of the review of over 1.2 million documents and interviews of over 100 witnesses?".
• 3. At this point, the nomination stated that the article was created by Jerry and User:Lionelt.
• 4. However, Lionelt then edited the nomination to say he really didn't have much to do with it, and he was going to review it.
• 5. JerryTBE then edited the nomination to the seriously problematic "... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election prompted President Trump to refer to FBI director James Comey as the "ringleader" of a "den of thieves""
• 6. Lionel then approved the new hook, with the comment "The hook is bigly winning!"
• 7. Since then a number of editors have objected to this hook, and the discussion continued until the request from (1) above appeared, at which point I commented on it.
• 8. Since then, I have found this, from Lionelt;
  • 8A. The creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies. I won't comment on that one, you can read it and make your own minds up.
  • 8B. The creation of stub articles criticising non-conservatives. The best example is this - Torchbearer (documentary), where at the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchbearer (documentary)) Lionelt suggests that "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion. Whether you call it showcasing, highlighting or even advertising, it's just semanics (sic)."
  • 8C. Other "stubs for expansion to 1,500 characters" can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle For America.

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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.∯WBG^converse 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment-And, he's into this stuff as an autopatrolled editor, which means the complete absence of a second pair of eyes to vet it.I guess, a revocation might be in order.∯WBG^converse 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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.∯WBG^converse 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that Lionelt's DYK essay would be considered just another editor's guide to crafting DYK hooks if the examples they use were changed and it was in a different page space. The actual contents are pretty unremarkable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• FYI: the user Jerry the Bellybutton Elf is editing from the US State Department, as seen in this sequence – [25][26][27] – in which a spelling error is corrected in the draft version of the article by State Department IP 169.253.194.1, before the draft was moved to mainspace by Lionelt. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• That IP looks like an independent editor to me. ~Awilley (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• That doesn't make sense. If he were the IP, why would he log out, make an IP edit, and then log back in? Natureium (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wonderful, is this devolving into a delete WP:RIGHT discussion again?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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:[28][29][30] and more recently:[31][32]. 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 [33] and then awarding a "sammie" to editor who helped with recruitment[34]. 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)

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)

Uh huh.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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: [35] related to [36]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

"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)

• (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)

Please see formal proposal below the archive box below.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

• Such a proposal would need to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. This talk page is not the appropriate place to propose WP Project bans. Please take this issue to WikiProject Council. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• MPants at work maybe you might want to narrow it to WikiProject Conservatism. You would be setting a precedence, but taking them all on at once, (Category:Politics WikiProjects) would probably be unfair, and a large effort to pull off. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Probably - Wikiproject conservatism is part of the problem because it's like a petri dish for cultivating bad behavior. The real problem though is a handful of editors using it to canvass, or to try to recruit a conservative cabal to fight teh libruhl POV. - MrX 🖋 23:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but are you contemplating "banning" all political wikiprojects in the list given? Irondome (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Sounds like a reasonable point, there are no clean hands. PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

*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)

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)

• 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)

• Oppose I am very uncomfortable with this. - Donald Albury 00:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

• Moral support, as such projects are most likely used as non-neutral canvassing boards. The other projects from the Category:Politics WikiProjects that would fit the same mould would be
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism;
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism‎;
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism and
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war‎

-- 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)

• 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)

*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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

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

Getting back to the original question

If we are done with Project Conservatism and similar issues, can we get back to the the issue Black Kite raised in the first place - that DYK discussion? I offered a hook in that discussion so I am WP:INVOLVED. Eventually I was one of the people who asked for help at the DYK talk page, because I felt the discussion had frankly become a train wreck. The problem was LionelT’s behavior - in particular, his refusal to step back from approving the item despite being asked multiple times by multiple people, and his repeated arguing/wikilawyering to insist that his approval should stand. The response I would hope to see in a case like that is “Oh, OK, I’ll let someone else do the final approval then, but I still support such-and-such version.” He actually did switch his approval to a less inflammatory, neutral hook, but he dug in his heels and insisted that he should be the one to approve the item for DYK. I’m not proposing any particular course of action, I just want people to evaluate this situation and see what they think. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as that question goes, I agree that Lionelt was in the wrong. They should have stepped back and let someone else approve the hook, instead of wasting editors' time arguing about it only for it to end up here, wasting even more editors' time. But since sanctions aren't punitive, the only thing we can really ask for is for Lionelt to apologize and admit wrongdoing. We can't compel that, but we can certainly remember it the next time, whether Lionelt chooses to acknowledge wrongdoing or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This goes to consensus building. If one editor believes a hook is OK, but another does not, then there is not consensus. Why was LionelT's approval seen as any more of a concern than any other random editors approval? What is this DYK discussion? Did the DYK nominations violate any of the DYK Rules?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I have read the DYK discussion, linked above. Does this mean that anything controversial should not be a DYK, even if there is a consensus that the article that the DYK is written neutrally (one of the things that an article must accomplish to pass DYK), and that the hook(s) are neutral as well?

It is OK for one editor to approve a hook, and another editor disapprove it. That has happened, even for non-controversial DYKNs. So what makes LionelT's editing so bad? If the editor wants to improve content in an area which they have an interest in, great. As long as that improvement in the main space is well referenced, written neutrally, and complies with our other policies and guidelines.

Is it civil to cast dispersions against the actions of LionelT, and then consider it against our guidelines about editor behavior when the accused attempts to defend their actions (even if it means pointing towards the policies and guidelines that they claim to not have broken). Should the editor only remain silent, and allow other editors disparage them and their actions? To what end?

LionelT may be the tall grass when it comes to wanting to improve content to subjects of interest with those who political persuasion is not left of the center in the United States, but that doesn't mean that cause the individual has interest in that part of the political spectrum that they can't contribute content to this project of WMF. If as a more active member of that editor community, they are silenced, what chilling effect will that have to others who may want to contribute well referenced neutrally written content improvement with that same, or similar, political persuasion? Does it reinforce the view by those who have gone to those alternative wikis, that our editing community is not actually inclusive, not actually diverse, and ultimately supportive of harassment of those who are not of a political persuasion that is in middle, or left of center in the United States?

Count me concerned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CASTINGDISPERSIONS. EEng 04:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From the discussions at both the DYK nomination and here, from what I can tell, the issue has less to do with his political beliefs but more with his actions in recent times. As it can be seen above, the proposals to shut down WP:CONSERVATISM and/or give him a topic ban were shot down precisely because implementing either on the basis of his beliefs was a slippery slope and would do more harm than good (and of course, discriminating against users simply because they're conservative, even if users personally don't agree with their beliefs, is just silly). On the other hand, it did appear that his repeated attempts to approve the hook, despite several users giving advice to the contrary, ended up being at the very least unconstructive. I think I have to agree here with MjolnirPants in that what is probably needed here is at least an acknowledgement of how the DYK nomination transpired and that Lionelt has to take it in mind lest he be brought to ANI again. At the very least, it is hoped that Lionelt can learn from this experience and can become more productive because of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the proposal was to shut down ideologically-driven political wikiprojects (conservatism, libertarianism, anti-war, capitalism & communism, plus blocking liberalism before it gets started) though no-one who commented except K.e.coffman seemed to get that. Everyone else seemed to think I was proposing either banning only conservatism, or all political wikiprojects, and neither was the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't able to participate in that proposal, but I would be opposed to it. There's nothing wrong with starting WikiProjects about Conservatism, Communism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Anarchism, etc., but promoting them of course would be another story. In which case the solution would not be shutting down the projects (that would only be at most a last resort) but to deal with unconstructive editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no Wikiproject:Liberalism (it redirects to Wikiproject Politics). So how would an editor -for example- use Wikiproject:Conservatism to notify other editors of a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump without being guilty of WP:CANVASSING conservative editors? It would probably be best to answer at my talk if you want to, to avoid sidetracking this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

See the appropriate canvassing section, one can notify individuals in related wikiprojects as long as it is follows the appropriate canvassing portion of the guideline. Also if promoting is against policy or guidelines for user activity, than we also need to shut down WP:GEONOTICE as that is a form of promotion.

We should want editors to promote their positive contributions on Wikipedia, that is part of what DYK is all about. An article there has to be written neutrally, and follow all the other policies and guidelines which apply to things in main space. It is part of the rules of DYK that hooks need to also be written neutrally as well. Controversial topics can be given a hook, see Template:Did you know nominations/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign. Otherwise if WP:NOTPROMOTE applys to actions of users, than it can be argued that DYK needs to be shut down as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. By definition, any such notification posted to WP Conservatism is targeting conservative editors, who will predictably all take one side of the issue, an obvious outcome which your response completely ignores. Your comment about WP:GEONOTICE completely misses the point, not only of my question but of the geonotice itself. It's not used for notifying editors of discussions, but of real world events relating to WP that editors in a specific location may have interest in. Hell, even if it were being used to notify editors of discussions, there's no inescapable correlation between living in a certain locale and having a certain opinion. Finally, DYK promotes articles. Not viewpoints, nor discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). Therefore, to say that it is targeting conservatives is an incorrect statement. That would be like saying only people who live in X join Wikiproject Y (which focuses on content improvement about region X). It's not like Wikiprojects are limited to only editors of B political persuasion or C regional affiliation. All of them are free to join.

Again see the appropriate canvass section, placing a neutrally worded notice, such as using Template:Please see, on a Wikiproject talk page is well within what is allowed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). There might be one or two, but it doesn't matter whether it's 100% conservative editors or 50% conservative editors: the editors called to action from such a notification will absolutely tend to !vote along conservative lines. Your implicit assumption that even one exception invalidates my point is pretty ignorant. Hell, you're a member, and right there next to your name is your own statement that you're using the project to counter a "liberal bias". Which means you're using the project for right-wing POV pushing. So... Yeah, I call bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading: there is a WikiProject Socialism. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Which, as far as I can tell, is interested in doing what WikiProjects are supposed to do, which is to help improve articles in their subject area. I see no indication that the members of WP:WikiProject Socialism are attempting to use their project to advocate for socialism. The claim -- which certainly has some truth to it -- is that WP:WikiProject Conservatism is not properly focused on improving articles about conservatism, but has staked out a political position, i.e. that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" and that their project needs to take steps to counter that bias; in other words, they are using the project as a base of operations for political advocacy within Wikipedia. That's not proper, and any indications that they are indeed doing that should result in sanctions for the editors involved. I have seen signs of that happening with certain editors, but not to the extent that I agreed that shutting down the project was justified. Still, to compare the Socialism Project to the Conservatism Project is not apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Socialism (and capitalism and communism) are more complex subjects than just politics. I may have erred by including them in my "ban" list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

WP:CIR. nableezy - 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Seconded.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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. [37] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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. Zero^talk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• As with many such editors, it's a good idea to inform them of disretionary and general sanctions and all that stuff. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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 [38]. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This was done. For example, here [39] 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 [40] which they circumvented by just creating a fork page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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 [41] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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?" Zero^talk 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

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)

@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)

Jane955 (who has clearly chosen not to respond here [42]) 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)

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)

Wikipedia:Competence is required. Says it all. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

It's not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience = suicide by admin? EEng 00:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue seems to be resolved; Jane955 just didn't know how to book a flight to Jerusalem since she wasn't sure where the city is located. However, she found an airport nearby. byteflush _Talk 00:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you aren't being serious. That thread is entirely typical of the way Jane955 uses talk pages as a soapbox, and frankly your participation in it achieved nothing beyond encouraging her. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course I'm not serious. I thought it would be obvious, but I realize that was my mistake: sarcasm can't be easily detected over the gool ol' tubes. Well, I'm semi-serious, though. Jane accepted the answer, and there has been no more disruption after that (well, no edits from her, too). However, regarding Talk:Modesty_guard, I don't see how my participation in it achieved nothing beyond encouraging her?? Could you please elaborate? byteflush _Talk 01:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

This sounds like the sock target at User:184.56.47.51 keeps tripping over their own block when they attempt to edit from other IP ranges (i.e. auto/cookie block is working as intended).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering about a cookie block part of the reason for my question. But I still don't understand how they made this edit unless it was with a different device or they used a different browser, and it was before they blocked themselves. It seems likely it's best if we never have to know. Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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 [43]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [44], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [45] and [46]. As you can see from their comments here [47] 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 גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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[48]. 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)

Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [49]. 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 גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Galatz said right thing about this issue, I'm also facing same thing regarding Keeping/Separating Raw and 205Live Cruiserweights, Even at the time I appealed protection for 3 days but didn't work, Before protection I added the tag of Confusing and Unclear, several times Vjmlhds reverted, this turned to an argument at my talk page, I just called sock edit to see how I got reaction by Vj, Me? I got 2 warnings for removing talk page messages and closing discussions that again results in initiation of arguments again and again. Second, Vjmlhds is not only the user, another user I'm gonna report is IP user 32.213.92.177 who also continuously doing same edit-warring as Vjmlhds did.CK (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make life real easy for everyone...if the 205 Live issue is causing this much consternation, I'll back down. Not worth the hassle and the fuss. If this were 2 years ago, I'd probably be on Def-Con 1 about now firing hellfire and brimstone...these days, not so much. Win some, lose some. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I think this should be close now that Vjmlhds has agreed to back down. If he/she does anything like this in the future, a voluntary Topic ban at the very least should be considered. JC7V-constructive zone 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After 10 previous blocks for the same thing? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor appears willing to cool it down. And I said 'at the very least' if he/she does it again which does not mean a slap on the wrist should he/she mess up again. 'At the very least' is like saying 'sentenced 10 to 20 years' meaning it's the lowest action that should be taken. I think with 10 blocks, a block if he/she breaks their word is more in line with what I was thinking. JC7V-constructive zone 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've heard that way too many times from this editor. We have no reason to believe him, he made these same proclamations in 2016 and 2017. He has already been given his last chances has continued the same behavior in the exact same disputes. For the record, the List of WWE personnel article should have more restrictions on it as well.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

LM2000 After being banished to Wiki Siberia for 4 months like I was last year, trust me when I say I'm done as far as this issue goes...I don't need to go through that again - truthfully, I didn't think this issue would go as far as it did. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Firmly disagree with this decision, as does the majority. The weekly program and the talent involved along with the person who runs the brand and co-runs the company calls it a brand. This needs to stop. Gala has a personal vendetta. That's all it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also: Gala is incorrectly framing this as going against the majority. The majority (check the talk page) want it changed, two people argue against it. NXT UK does not deserve a roster section if 205 doesn't have it's own when both are listed as separate brands on television and press interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@32.213.92.177: Firstly, a consensus is formed based on the quality of the arguments presented, not a simple count of votes. For example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The B-Team (professional wrestling) which had way more keep votes than delete but got deleted due to the quality of the arguments, not the quantity of the votes. You claim 205 Live is called a brand in a press release, so please provide it. Provide any WP:RS, not random youtube videos of passing mentions on TV, that support your stance. Seriously provide even one. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey

I've given numerous examples of different branding for the brand, I've given numerous examples of Triple H, the guy who runs 3/5s of the brands in the company, outright calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples of talent involved calling it a brand, I've given numerous examples as to why it /is/ a brand. You change the goalpost because you have some weird hard on with keeping it with RAW. That's it. Stop moving goalposts. It's unbearable at this point. They have a GM, they have exclusive call ups, they don't appear on RAW, they're not Main Event or a B show, they're their own brand and are regularly called that. The /only/ argument you have is that WWE.com hasn't updated the roster page completely. But if that's all we're using, then NXT UK shouldn't have a section either. Oh, and numerous credible websites like WWENetworkNews.com, PWInsider.com, etc. regularly refer to them as a brand too, likely because the second in command of the entire company does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

I am not moving goalposts. You don't read the information you are posting, to show that it doesn't support your case. For example, you stated Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live. https://www.wweperformancecenter.com/#!/journey yet that is not true. It says Check out the many Superstars who came through the Performance Center before making their mark on Monday Night Raw, SmackDown LIVE and 205 Live. This is clearly discussing TV shows not brands. I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY to see why secondary sources are preferred because you are drawing a conclusion based on what is said, there is nothing that directly mentions a brand on that website, yet you have concluded it does. You cannot do that with primary sources, you need a WP:RS to analyze it and draw that conclusion, yet you have been unable to provide any that does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You've moved the goal post many times since the discussions initially began, many of which mysteriously disappeared from the talk page. Curious. The issue is everybody who has an understanding of the company and listens to Triple H's press conferences know it's a brand, but it's something a few people (namely yourself) with a vendetta against the brand for existing wants to stop it from being acknowledged. It's very odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.92.177 (talk • contribs)

Nothing on wikipedia can disappear...perhaps you just got caught in a lie and are trying to weasel out of it? I ask you again and again provide a source that calls it a brand. The fact that you cannot proves that it isn't. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes. Back in 2016/2017 when the previous block happened, I was practically begging VJ to back down. At the time, his editing attitude was rotten and I supported a temporary ban. However, when he is focused, he has done some of the best editing work that I've seen. If memory serves me correctly, he received a 3 or 4 month ban and a warning to stop editing his own talk page during that time. He was told to remain civil for a period of time following the expiration of the ban as well as a no tolerance revert rule for a period of a few months. I haven't seen him do anything to violate this since his return. It appears he wipes -- not archives -- his talk page once in a while when there is a dispute of some kind. He may have a block history, but I haven't seen him be uncivil or draw any lines in the sand this time around. I oppose any ban whatsoever this time around. For what it's worth, I disagree with his stance on how the rosters should be listed, but it doesn't mean he can't argue his point. Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RESPONCE TO Here's my $.02 as far as all this goes LOL Another Sockpuppet gonna exist to clarify unsourced trivia that 205 Live is separated from RAW. Triple H Just took the names as RAW, SD, 205, NXT, UK so what if he takes, so what if CWCs are now appearing on RAW on television but seen in House Shows of RAW, It doesn't mean to argue the same trivial f****king junk here. It's officially cleared that there had been no official announcement made by WWE, not even tweets not even on website that they're separated. Infact Triple H is just a COO not E or chairman of WWE and WWE official source is not even old or glitch that had been accused for being old or glitch, Either official websites are not yet updated and have still old data will still be sourced EK SE EK BOSDIWALE BETHAY HUAY HAIN YAHAN EK HI BAKWAS CHERE JATE HAIN KAMINAY! Is this a strip club that money has thrown by mentioning currencies sign or it seems to be bribing done by Kjscotte34, Requested to one of fellow wikipedians to stop bribing for confirmation of source, if a content that is found unsourced is unsourced and cannot be sourced in any exchange or by bribing money. CK (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoa. Did you just accuse me of being a sock? Let's take a look at your history, and see what we have. Wow. Numerous blocks, some of them for sockpuppetry. Now, let's look at mine. Nothing. Autoconfirmed user. Longtime WP editor. In fact, the only edits that I have in common with VJ are the wrestling ones. He mainly edits Cleveland area stuff. I love in NY and edit stuff concerning NY. Keep stretching though, I needed a good laugh to begin my Friday. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Another $.02 (concerning challenged material): I keep seeing things that causes wonder. ""Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live.", and a website that contains "www.wwe", and if I read this right it gives an answer. To me there are too many arguments that this person or that said or stated something referring to "members" or leader, owners, etc... of WWE. An argument that seems to support that because a primary source states something there is grounds for inclusion. To me the inquiry should be where in reliable published sources" does it state the claims being offered. If these articles are so heavily sourced with Primary sources, or assertions of verbal proof (youtube, live TV, or other) then this seems to be a problem when challenged:
• "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
  • It goes farther to specifically include "published source".
• Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.".
  • Restoration of material
• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.".

There would also be concerns when regarding a BLP, as well as original research concerning the verifiability policy:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

The reason we don't count votes rather using consensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", understanding that article or local consensus, even "ignoring all the rules", "...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.".

I am going to posit that we cannot use "claims" made on live TV or youtube as reliable sources (if challenged), certainly when not published, because it is in violation of a host of policies, guidelines, or even broad community supported essays if not in contradiction with any policies and guidelines. ---- Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and you can see here [50], I summarized that the WWE's official published position is not a brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by Stefka Bulgaria

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

---

• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had filed a lengthy complain against @Stefka Bulgaria: in July 10. But unfortunately lack of action or even warnings in that case emboldened this user to come back and just continue his disruptive behavior. He is pushing his same old edits that were contested by three users along with another minor edit mixed in between. If you count the number of his reverts during the last month, they exceed a dozen. In the diff I just linked I told him that he should stop, but he continues with his usual habit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by citing irrelevant reasons like how his sources are reliable! I ping other the involved users including those who commented in the previous ANI. @Pahlevun, Mhhossein, CaroleHenson, and ImprovedWikiImprovment: --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is false. I've added new edits to the page, with numerous reliable sources to back up the claims, but these keep getting removed by the same 3 editors who work together in replacing these sources/statements with Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media, which are far from being neutral in this subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You still don't want to understand. The primary issue was not the reliability of you sources, but how content must be arranged in the page and that you should have consensus for your changes. Not listening and repeating your chorus doesn't help your cause but does question your WP:COMPETENCE to the very least. --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stefka changed information which clearly wasn't neutral and was from a IRI-controlled media POV (the same media that calls USA for the 'Great Satan' and so forth), nothing disruptive about that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you even check my diff? It was two sections gleaned by Stefka from the page content and lumped together. Three editors were opposed to this but he has reverted that edit over a dozen of times! If you don't know about the page record and have not checked the links provided your comment doesn't help. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I see a very long-running content dispute (and lots of activity on the talk page, including multiple RFCs), but nothing actionable here at this time. This may be suited to dispute resolution, as long as both editors are willing to participate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, yes, thank you for the advice. Will start the dispute resolution process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is Stefka participates but doesn't care about consensus. If he drops that behavior and is willing to reach consensus before reverting his changes we can move forward, otherwise we are facing a dead-end in this page. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have taken a look at this -- looks like a content dispute. If anything, it seems like Stefka Bulgaria is working hard to maintain the quality of our public resource and others simply disagree with how (s)he is doing it. Sanctions at this point for Stefka don't seem remotely warranted. --Calthinus (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Should I provide diffs showing how he reverted same edits several times against consensus and despite warnings? It's been going on for over a month now! --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Expectant of Light: Stefka doesn't have to reach consensus about an article that is written in a way that is simply not accepted by the Wikipedia rules. We highly value neutrality here on Wikipedia obviously, which wasn't the case with the Mujahedin article. You're reverting him/her because if the Mujahedin aren't portrayed as the big bad, then you're not going to go with it (which means we're never going to reach an consensus). Now this is not me making stuff up, I am just simply saying what you've been writing on the Mujahedin talk page about the group in a passive-aggressive manner. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear not willing to even read what the case is about, what the past case was about. You have not checked the links and have not been involved in this page. But suddenly dropped in the talk page today and started making personal accusations without even responding to specific points here. So you'd better leave this discussion to involved editors. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's incorrect, I have been watching the article for quite some time. Not to mention the RFC was created today, which I took part in, so I am in fact involved, whether you like it or not. If I had agreed with you, then you wouldn't have said this. What specific points exactly? Me refusing to take part in your off-topic discussion about Mujahiden being ISIS 2.0 because the IRI-controlled media says so? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No! You clearly have no idea what this ANI is about. I'm writing this in plain English: It's about a dozen reverts by Stefka for which he had no consensus. See this talk page.

It sounds like this needs to be taken up as a content dispute. If an RfC was created, I'd follow that route.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, three editors had already opposed an old edit by Stefka which he aggressively reverted each time. See the talk page linked just above. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Both of the RFCs are about the lead. While the reported user is edit warring to insert/remove some other staffs. He insists on adding materials even when 3 other editors are objecting their inclusion. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

One of these three editors have a rather.. neutral opinion of the Mujahiden [51] [52] [53]. It's time to stop ganging up on Stefka and get some actual neutral users involved. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely don't have a neutral opinion about a vicious terrorist cult with its neck deep in fraud. This is not my view. It is what the page says! Stefka though has been trying to paint them in a positive light by edit warring and against consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is your own personal POV though (and the POV of the IRI-controlled media, which also has its own derogatory terms for USA and Israel, I guess we should them add as well?), and if you can't keep a neutral POV, then you shouldn't take part in anything related to the article. You can read more about it here WP:NEUTRAL. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are basically wring about WP:NEUTRAL. Read it once, it does not say the users should be neutral. You could not edit, if it was the case, since you have obvious POVs. However, WP:NEUTRAL says: " Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information." --Mhhossein ^talk 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

He's doubly wrong for I like said it is what RSs covered in the page says, as well as IRI sources not covered in the page! So he again he has no idea what he talks about. I'm sure he has not even read the page content. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying he is in fact striving in good faith to provide complete information? Lol okay. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you do by supporting a terrorist cult that has murdered 10 thousand Iranians! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never stated that I support this so called 'terrorist cult who has murdered 10 thousand Iranians', but if you keep talking in a such a tone and making baseless accusations just due to the fact I don't agree with you, then I'll have to report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You did state that because you are good at passing baseless accusations against me. You have done that several times already so you can't dislike my accusation against you either! By your standard, I can keep accusing you of all vices without having you the right to complain because it was you who started personal attacks on me! What goes around comes around! So take my advice! Don't get your nose into a dispute you have no idea what it is about! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But I didn't though? Again, you are making stuff up in your head, just like you do with MEK. If you can't write in a proper non-aggressive tone towards other people, and can't edit articles without mixing it with your own NPOV, then you should really sit down and think about if Wikipedia is actually for you. Also, I am going to continue to take part in these disputes, so you better get used to it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I create stuff up my head but somehow several researchers and academics agree with me that MEK is a cult, and RSs also agree with me that they have murdered over 10 thousand Iranians, making them terrorists, with Western governments having listed them as terrorists for many years. And you stand there and lie into my face that you didn't accuse me of being biased several times here and on the talk page based on pure knee-jerk! And really ponder about whether this ANI was for you to nose-dive into it like that! 'nough said! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What does that then make the IRI ;)? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Btw, Stefka is continuing edit warring against our past consensus. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have fully protected People's Mujahedin of Iran for one week to stop the edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But this page already got once fully protected in the past to prevent the exact same behavior by Stefka! Once the protection expired he was back pushing his contested edits. This was the exact reason for this ANI complaint. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to the version backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran sources. As Icewhiz has explained on the article's Talk page, should we add "imperialists" or Great Satan to the lede of United States per coverage in Iranian regime controlled sources? As noted, I'll take this to Dispute Resolution, but there are 3 editors that keep ganging up on me on this article despite my using of neutral reliable sources/statements, which is making it very difficult to work on the article altogether. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure! That's because Islamic Republic of Iran controls Wikipedia and users that disagree with you! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my. This has really been getting nasty and I'm not sure what to make of it. I admit upfront that I am not very familiar with the subject, but I am willing to try to help by researching the issues with reliable sources.

Also, have you been in touch with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Can summarize the issues on the article talk page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is some of the text that keeps getting removed from the article without explanation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It has indeed got convoluted to uninvolved editors, @CaroleHenson:! But you have to only warn all parties to stick to consensus building process and everything would be resolved! If Stefka is willing to take an oath not to revert his changes before consensus building I may consider taking back my second complaint about him in ANI! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It has become really confused what is going on - and it doesn't seem entirely as if it's a Stefka vs. everyone else issue. I started a list here. So far, no admins have thought that it's necessary to block the user. It could be because it's not clear to them either what's really going on.

I am a fast learner and pretty good at this kind of thing and can help you out if you want. Will it take some effort? Yes, but having fresh eyes may help. If you don't want help, that's fine.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's pretty much interesting that the Stefka feels others are ganging up against him just because others are objecting him. So, if they obey his cherry pickings, there will be no ganging. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• I am hoping that we can 1) stop making personal comments about people and their intentions and 2) work the specific issues. (That doesn't mean I don't understand everyone's frustration, but it just makes things worse and harder to get to a good resolution.)

The issues are being tackled at a workpage here after getting things started at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Article issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad hominem by Expectant of Light

Although I've been a major contributor to Wikipedia for years, I'm still not sure how these kind of threads works. Oh well, here goes:

Expectant of Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been making several personal attacks whilst writing in a passive-aggressive manner against several users. Not to mention he makes countless baseless accusations as well as resorts to name-calling. All of them uncalled for. He was recently blocked for 3 months on the Persian Wikipedia for the same kind of behaviour. Here are some examples:

Accusing a user of being biased and having a lesser right to vote because... he is from Israel?:

• I also think Icewhiz's pro-Israel biases influences his opinions towards this subject. [54]

and

• I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do. [55]

Namecalling:

• I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! [56]

Namecalling part 2:

• "Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior [57]

Randomly accusing me of supporting of what he perceives to be a terrorist cult:

• No, you do by supporting a terrorist cult that has murdered 10 thousand Iranians! [58]

For most of the time he writes in a passive-aggressive (sometimes threatening-ish) manner against users who disagree with him, the same kind of writing style he used in the Persian Wikipedia, which eventually had its consequences [59]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Redacted) I have had conversations with Icewhiz in the past and his pro-Israel biases wre clear and in one conversation I actually remember he admitted that he has "his own political biases." So I am not sure how pointing out political biases of users in a respectful manner and how they may influence their strong opinions may be uncivil.
• I agree my comment on "pretending deaf and blind" may pass as uncivil especially if read out of context. But there were other users who also saw Stefka's insistent ignoring of comments and arguments in the talk and his disruptive conduct, i.e. his relentless case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and edit-warring.
• When you came in accusing me of supporting IRI, I just responded in kind. And that MKO is a terrorist cult is a fairly established fact. See People's Mujahedin of Iran#Designation as a cult and People's Mujahedin of Iran#Designation as terrorist. I just found it odd that some people were opposing well-sourced content in this page simply because they conformed to IRI's position against MKO! HistoryofIran I suspect has not even checked the page's sources but came in accusing me of having or intending to writing a biased page despite the fact that I have added almost zero content to the page and were engaged in talk discussions. I think you don't leave a good impression by just dropping in and accuse an editor of bias without even looking at their arguments. --Expectant of Light (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally, I have also found Expectant of Light's passive-agressive comments to be a problem. Here are other such comments by Expectant of Light:

• This time condemning you in ANI would be pretty much a slam-dunk Stefka!

• Bret Stephens is a hawkish Neocons and not an academic!)

• Who is this guy @GTVM92:? He seems to be dragging the protesters' rage here to this page! lol! I restored photos of pro-government rallies, but he restored them without any explanation! If he doesn't respond to talk page pings, we may need to report him for his disruptive behavior.

• @Signedzzz: So far you've been engaged in edit-warring in bad-faith while ignoring the discussion in which two of us clearly supported inclusion of material. The other has refused to comment so far. WP:Competence is required definitely. But you seem to lack good-faith to accurately represent the talkpage discussion and accuse your party.

• I don't see why of all the vile things that the MKO have done in the greater period of their history a description of their original goals must be cited without qualification considering their later transformations.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another comment by Expectant of Light. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC):

• I was talking about political bias resulting from strong existential hostility between two countries. That's about it.

Oh! No! Don't "gang up on me"! You did manage to get away with sanctions in that ANI discussion for you had confused everyone by aggressive pushing of your edits against three users after lengthy discussions! And what's next? You once dog up all my record to accuse me of being a sock-puppet and are now digging it up for another framing. Stop the witch hunt! --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am so surprised to see your posting Expectant of Light. Did you forget we just had this discussion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why should you be surprised? Stefka's accusations against me are irrelevant to that discussion. --Expectant of Light (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

My comments are related to the topic of this entire section and two specific examples. One of which was partially redacted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the moderators' failure to act effectively in the past ANI complaints have lead to this current situation. There was no way we could proceed forward by Stefka's refusal to respect consensus and introduce his changes step by step. Now that he found an encouragement from HistoryofIran he is trying to frame me for pointing out his disruptive pattern. The wrong lesson all this is giving me, is that I should have done like Pahlevun did. Continue to revert his changes without attempting a talk page resolution. I would have saved myself a lot of time and energy, instead of ending up accused myself! --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Another comment by Expectant of Light. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, sure! That's because Islamic Republic of Iran controls Wikipedia and users that disagree with you!

Mind you, the 3 month block that Expectant of Light has recently received in the Persian Wikipedia is not the first time - he has been blocked multiple other times for "personal attack" and "harassment" [60]. Seeing as how he is now doing the same thing here, he doesn't seem to have learned. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you drag Wikipedia Persian to this debate? That's relevant to the problem here. Many Persian editors would testify the shoddy state of that Wiki, in that even disruptive users can obtain administrative privileges and that many moderators don't have a good command of policies. And that Muslim users are often pressured while their opponents easily get away. My block in that case was imposed by an admin who ended up getting blocked himself for violating etiquette in my discussion with himself and he had a history of making rude comments on Muslim users' beliefs. He got a strong support from two admins otherwise, his administration rights would be revoked in addition to his temporary block. --Expectant of Light (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment-@everybody: I'm going to assume that some users are trying to Game The System by throwing completely unrelated comments into this thread. Although what follows could be uttered in a softer language, I don't think edits such as [61], [62], [63], [64] and some others can be deemed as violation of anything. Yes, this should be avoided as per BLP, but not the others. Needless to say that, that would be a good practice for the users to avoid tough words in their communications with other editors. Given the above warning by the admin closing the thread, I don't think continuing this thread will bring HistoryofIran what he passionately wishes by going to every one talk page. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I too have noticed both the rather large amount of reverting by this account, and comments, at times quite aggressive, on several different contributors. They also threaten they will go to various administrative boards (e.g. ANI) quite often. There are also possibly POV/NPOV issues as well. I'd like to note that this is a long running pattern (and this from an account with 1,430 edits). See for instance -
  1. 08:02, 5 January 2018 I'm not personally attacking but your unnecessary fault-finding to me indicates bias - after being asked to stop PAs.
  2. 16:39, 6 January 2018 As you wish! But remember next time you may have to respond but in ANI for violating WP:Be nice!.
  3. 06:56, 7 January 2018 Ok, you're now well beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so nobody cares about what you say any longer!.
  4. 17:10, 8 January 2018 Please drop once and for all this senseless "regime-controlled" rhetoric. Step a little out of your narrow Eurocentrim world and get some sense of post-modern humility before Eastern cultures and their unique social systems. Not all nations have to form their society according to your liberal dogmas..
  5. 04:36, 10 January 2018 Bret Stephen is a Zionist Neocons' hawk with a history of supporting illegal lie-based wars in his background. And now he is drawing non-existing links between the protests and the Setad. You don't give space to warmongering hawks who are looking for opportunity to demonize their enemies to justify regime change.
  6. 04:41, 10 January 2018 Having been a political sciences MSc student and an avid observer of Iranian politics for the last 10 years, I believe I may know far more about Iranian politics than everyone else on this page. ... . You probably need a better grasp of Wikipedia content policies.
  7. 04:59, 10 January 2018 Zionist can also mean advocates of extreme/right wing pro-Israeli policies which involve among other things illegal settlement expansions, taking over Jerusalem/Al-Quds, vetoing UN resolutions against Israel's human rights violations, advocating wars against enemies of Israel (that is Muslim countries). Bret's record seems to be a prime example of this attitude!
  8. 07:39, 10 January 2018 @Elektricity: You're not a fair arbitrator. I have already explained why this should not be in the article at all, without you even commenting on it!
  9. 08:01, 10 January 2018 You are being only desperate here! ... You don't seem to have a chance of pushing your anti-Iranian bias in this case!
  10. 08:29, 10 January 2018 It's unreasonable if you insist on violating this key policy in support of a POV-pusher.
  11. 12:45, 10 January 2018 You are again in violation of BLP and WP:Be nice! Next time you will have to respond in ANI! Everyone could claim to know stuff but knowledge is demonstrated by citing facts and sound arguments not letting out your bigoted opinions without substantiation and expecting everyone else to just accept them!
  12. 13:11, 10 January 2018 Again, a false propagandist description by an infamous partisan source who sits on the American plutocracy and advocates resource wars against Muslim countries. You either don't know what kleptocracy means or know nothing about widespread charity and infrastructural works of Setad that have rendered invaluable benefits to dozens of underdeveloped regions in Iran! (You can actually don't know either!) At any rate, there's no way you can include Bret's or Reuters' POV by any stretch of WP:NPOV.
  13. 18:35, 10 January 2018 Drop your senseless regime-controlled rhetoric once and for all. I have seen nobody harboring such an egregious bias against the Iranian government except probably Donald Trump!
  14. 13:31, 11 January 2018 @Icewhiz: has proven to be single-minded anti-Iranian campaigner here with his unqualified "regime-controlled" nonsense! ... Yet his personal secular/atheist convictions tend to bias him against an Islamic Republic ... Just drop your bigoted, unqualified "regime-controlled" rheotric.
  15. 04:57, 12 January 2018 So no! You have to drop your secular prejudices against an Islamic Republic.
  16. 18:55, 16 April 2018 @LylaSand: Like I said in my talkpage, I didn't break the 1R rule but you seem intent on forcing your (mis)interpretation of the BBC journalist's tweet by ignoring my edit descriptions
  17. 15:33, 8 June 2018 There is also no consensus on what is and is not Antisemitism and Zionists tend to stretch and bend the term to cover as many critiques of Israel as they can. It is basically a propaganda concept mostly..
  18. 06:19, 9 June 2018 @Nableezy: this was disingenuous to remove "Pro-Israel" along with your other edit despite knowing this specification was accurate!.
  19. 06:23, 9 June 2018 Problematic edits by Nableezy. Why do you push your edits without considering discussion and past edit summaries? ... Lets put it this way - this is a highly interesting interpretation of Nableezy's editorial stance.
  20. 06:25, 9 June 2018 Yes, I also identified other problematic edits by Nableezy. See the last section.
  21. 07:00, 9 June 2018 And I explained anti-Semitism is mostly a propaganda term that partisan Zionist sources use to discredit any criticism even by Jews who are critical of Israel accusing them of "self-hatred" which is laughable. And if you check most sources that develop the literature about this concept you find they are mostly Jewish sources with strong bias towards Israel.
  22. 12:20, 10 June 2018 They do! Because when you want to demonize an enemy you need excuses..
  23. 20:38, 11 June 2018 Drop your Zionist prejudices for a second! It's not Israel here where you have your opponents either shut up or shot up!
  24. 20:40, 11 June 2018 edit summary informed opinions are. Don't remove sourced material just because you hate the subject!
  25. 06:23, 18 June 2018 @Wikiemirati: Unfortunately your recent removals also don't appear to be based on a good understanding of policy.
  26. 09:41, 21 June 2018 @Wikiemirati: Your being disingenuous
  27. 21:28, 23 June 2018 So perhaps you should accept the ugly truth and back off! It's been overdue already!
  28. 00:38, 24 June 2018 It's good to love your country, but justifying your rulers under any and all circumstances discredits your claim to neutrality.
  29. 04:54, 1 July 2018 Don't dare to say that. Because there's no guideline that material in the page has to be "representative" but only relevant. As for the Neturi Karta participating in Quds rallies, it is quite relevant. And you have too heed the guideline WP:IDONTLIKEIT and perhaps considering your checkered record as a partisan Zionist editor you have not to openly talk about your urge for edit warring.
  30. 16:35, 1 July 2018 .... And I also see you don't want to read and learn.
  31. 04:05, 2 July 2018 @Panam2014: I'm afraid you know little about Houthis
  32. 13:21, 2 July 2018 Who is this guy @GTVM92:? He seems to be dragging the protesters' rage here to this page! lol! I restored photos of pro-government rallies, but he restored them without any explanation! If he doesn't respond to talk page pings, we may need to report him for his disruptive behavior.
  33. 16:09, 2 July 2018 @Stefka Bulgaria: If you want to be reported in ANI, continue your disruptive behavior in this page.
  34. 15:06, 4 July 2018 I see that you are still persisting on disruptive editing. Discuss your changes before pushing them so aggressively like this.
  35. 15:43, 4 July 2018 I likewise think Stefka Bulgaria is being disruptive in this page and strongly POVish. He appears intent on organizing the page and its content in a way that renders this notorious terrorist cult that has somehow bribed its way into Europe in a finer light.
  36. 03:32, 6 July 2018 @Wikiemirati and Panam2014: First, we don't remove biased sources in Wikipedia. Second, none of you specifically responded to my argument: "The page is not biased. The problem is that the coalition are not reporting on the war whereas Houthis report on a daily basis. That's not our fault." I'm glad to see your response. You can't push for an opinion without engaging in a discussion explaining and defending your opinion.
  37. 18:05, 6 July 2018 . But I don't know what to do with Stekfa's reverts. I'm going to report him in ANI if he repeats this behavior.. (what about EoL's reverts?)
  38. 13:14, 8 July 2018 Undid revision 849356861 by Mikrobølgeovn (talk) it not speculation but a POV - when adding Israel as combatant based on a non-RS after this was contested by other editors.
  39. 21:06, 9 July 2018 edit summary - More revert will take you to ANI.
  40. 21:12, 9 July 2018 Repeating this disruptive trend will land him on ANI.
  41. 21:01, 9 July 2018 Why do you keep parroting your baseless accusation? .... Is that so difficult for you to understand or you are so obsessed with WP:DONTHEARTHAT? ... . So I'm going to revert you. Should you revert back, you will face a complaint in ANI for disruptive editing. ...
  42. 20:47, 9 July 2018 If what I say by citing some credible reasoning is irrelevant, then how can what you say without any credible argument be a basis for your proposed edit?
  43. 17:26, 9 July 2018 You apparently mistake Wikipedia with a detective or an investigator platform! ... ther than that I don't see any policy-based argument in your opposition to this piece other than your strong conviction that this POV must be a falsehood.
  44. 21:24, 9 July 2018 You claim the view is far-fetched and I argued that it is not but you repeat your own empty claim that it is without any reasoning.
  45. 11:09, 10 July 2018 Can you understand @GTVM92: that there was a consensus on talk right above to remove June protest contents to a separate page? Do you understand insisting on reverts against consensus will land you in ANI where you might be temporarily blocked for your restless disruptive editing?
  46. 14:31, 29 July 2018 edit summary - Undid revision 852513769 by יניב הורון (talk) Personal attack is not what you do in Wiki! Revert again to be reported!

To summarize - after going over the last 1,000 edits of this user - in just about every article they have been involved in, rhetoric ends up being rather heated, with various assertions on the other side, and in some cases ANI threats. This is versus many different users, of different backgrounds, in different pages.Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to be brief in discussing the NPOV issues here (and this example is not the worst, though it is succinct) - in this diff EoL dismisses Antisemitism as "It is basically a propaganda concept mostly".Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I want to just point out that "Expectant of Light" has a very long block log in Persian Wikipedia for homophobic comments and Ad hominem. The user is currently blocked from Persian Wikipedia for three months Ladsgroup^overleg 12:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of these comments are snarky and personal comments during content disputes. There are some, though, that are especially troubling comments about Israel, Zionism, etc. There are two recent posts to their talk page... one by me and one by an admin. Is that sufficient for right now? Or, should there be a block for some period of time due to the nature of some of the comments and the lack of feedback that they intend to stop behaving this way?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson he has indeed campaigned to remove any and all sources written by "Zionists" from one page in the past, in addition to repeated WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants on talk pages about "colonialists" and the like. This sort of behavior has gone on quite awhile and it is quite disruptive. I'm not going to pretend to know what the best solution is here but we cannot pretend these issues do not exist. Additionally, I'm sorry a user who clearly doesn't seek controversy like yourself had to become entangled in this mess.--Calthinus (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to his (hypocritical) barrage of personal attacks launched at other users as allegedly biased agents of alleged US/UK/"Zionist"/Saudi initiatives, attacks on sources for being (allegedly) "Zionist" and soap, he also asserts attacks users based on their religious convictions or lack thereof-- his personal secular/atheist convictions tend to bias him [[65]] -- in this case it seems to have been pure speculation as the target of this attack, Icewhiz has never publically discussed with EoL (to my knowledge) how religious or not he is. Indeed, considering that in many Middle Eastern countries like Iran, irreligion is taboo enough to get you killed, I would consider this an WP:ASPERSION as well. This doesn't seem the behavior of someone who aims to maintain a collegial environment -- or even considers that to be something remotely important. --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's another -- [[66]] ...No! In fact nobody has to this date! Pro-Israeli/secularist/corporate sources are at best reliable for their own POVs and some definitely not worth any weight. This is due to the fact that Islamic Republic has challenged the entire secularist/Zionist/corporate order. And again, if we are to acquiesce to including these misinformed, disingenuous, biased POVs, then the other standard wikipedia guideline WP:NPOV comes into force which means we have to balance the section by sources by the other side. Are you people just willing to acknowledge application of this standard universal Wiki guideline. Your refusal so far to acknowledge this shows we are facing a prime case of WP:BIAS in this article. -- to be clear, he is attacking sources because their authors happen to hold Zionist views and/or be irreligious (secularist) -- the source in question, Bret Stephens, is not known to be New Atheist or anything of the sort (he is a anti-Trump righty from a secular Jewish family born in Mexico-- I strongly disagree with some of his views especially on global warming, but this is clearly not an acceptable way to express objection to a source, as it smacks of sectarian baiting, in this case both Jewish-Muslim and "secular" vs Muslim). Additionally, how was it constructive to rant about the "secularist/Zionist/corporate order"? Let me suffice to say that I found that cringey beyond belief.--Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Once you throw out Zionist (meh, ok, still have sources), corporate (dang - left with BBC and NPR and that if we narrowly interpert this), and secular (there goes NPR, though maybe we still have BBC due to the Church of England? It is a state church) - you aren't left with a whole lot of NEWSORGs.... Well, you do have Iranian Islamic Republic sources (with censorship /freedom of speech issues) and The Christian Science Monitor... A tad restrictive in sourcing.... Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• To add to this, Expectant of Light tends to work together with User:Mhhossein in reporting editors who disagree with them to ANI/admins, and reach consensus on topics (regardless of sources/input by other editors) (other examples: [67][68][69][70] ). This too is a problem. As noted above, there is a POV pushing in all of this too (e.g. "What a discusting edit"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Retracting per CaroleHenson (below). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I get your point, but I think it's probably because of the back-and-forth between you and these two editors that has kept the admins away who might make a decision. You are not entirely without fault here. But from what I have seen, the issue of personal attacks and bias by Expectant of Light should be dealt with as a separate issue from the content disputes and edit wars - and how all three of you have tried to resolve them on various noticeboards.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

U Stefka Bulgaria: Stop these nonsense accusations of 'A works with B against me' or they ganged against me. Don't repeat it anymore. You were told about your cherry picking, among other things, by another user (who were neither me nor Expectant of Light). So, instead of accusing people in your surrounding, take a small look at your disruptive behaviour in the article. When you failed to build consensus for your favored materials, you started to accuse others. Stop it...--Mhhossein ^talk 19:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Argh, seriously? You really want to go there? You are not without fault, either. You tend to pile on... and that can seem like ganging up. Again, though, this particular discussion is about language used by Expectant of Light. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

...and Stefka could game you beautifully, too. I saw your valuable efforts for settling down the issues and thank you for them. But, users like you (U CaroleHenson!) supported him and that's why he acts in this manner (see your edits in SPI). Another thing, try to AGF and don't act/decide based on things which just "seem like" they are. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You are missing many of my comments, it seems, Mhhossein, based on your comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Wow! Just wow! I didn't check this ANI complain for a day and it seems that Stefka and Icewhiz got a good reign of "ganging up" on me for, among other things, having views that they just don't like! But to others reading this: Listen folks! My biggest concern in Wikipedia is WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV! These are tricky guidelines but it appears that with contribution of more open-minded editors we can progress by discussion and understanding as evidenced by this ongoing attempt at dispute resolution. If you believe these are Wikipedia guidelines and are relevant, then you allow users like me to work within guidelines, otherwise just block me indefinitely and I'll be happy not to be further deluded into thinking that these Wiki guidelines were serious and honest! For it seems that pointing out bias of Zionist and secularist sources against controversial topics like Iran, Islam or religion have irritated a good handful of editors here! --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup: It would be cool if you talked about yourself getting blocked as an admin because of passing rude remarks on Muslim users' beliefs! As I have said earlier, Persian Wikipedia moderation is in a sorry state in terms of neutrality and there are others who can testify to this! But it would be also telling if you were canvassed by HistoryofIran to come here and support his complain on me perhaps wishing a ban here too. Then you could be happy that you fully kicked out one of three users by whose complain your administration privileges in Persian wiki were about to be fully taken away! --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: No, those guidelines are not hard to follow, as long as you have WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and a few other policies in mind. However, why talk about abstract things? We have specific diffs that concern your behavior. Those should be addressed first. Care to explain? Your "pointing out bias of Zionist and secularist sources" quote doesn't really make much room for assuming good faith. What did you mean by that? byteflush _Talk 00:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Secularist" bias in my case concerns bias against Islamic Republic of Iran as a theocracy or a religiously-guided democracy. Coming from a Muslim background, culturally, religiously and philosophically, I recognize liberal democracy is not taken granted as an undisputed or evident value by religions and within the philosophical community. But due to the political and economic dominance of the Modern West, that's basically a granted value by the average secular citizen in the West and other parts of the world, which is normally fine, except when the subject happens to be an anomaly to the Modern paradigm, such as Islamic Republic of Iran's government, ideology, philosophy and culture.

As for "Zionist" I think it must be quite clear: pro-Israel! And it's a matter of concern when such a source is making a claim about Islamic Republic of Iran. The two countries have been basically hell bent on destroying one another, and this has been becoming all the more apparent over the recent years. --Expectant of Light (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, do you realize that secular, liberal and Western approach is the mainstream view in English-speaking countries? Reliable sources and publications all suffer from that bias; only a few WP:FRINGE sources give WP:UNDUE weight to your alternative PoV. We cannot accept every viewpoint in every article - that'd be a mess. So, aside from your upbringing, is there any encyclopedic value to the POV you're pushing? byteflush _Talk 01:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure! Such encyclopedic value as not writing biased articles on Iran by excluding major POVs inside Iran. That's what we've been debating recently. --Expectant of Light (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: From what I have understood from EoL: everyone is wrong but him, he is just simply misunderstood, he has no bias (many others, however, are biased, because reasons). The reason he got a long block (one of many) in the Persian Wikipedia was not because of his homophobic harassment (which I am honestly utterly disgusted by), but because the Persian Wikipedia is 'corrupt'.--HistoryofIran (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is the right place to discuss problems of Persian Wikipedia. If one day I decide to take the things to Meta Wiki, because we failed to tackle matters in Persian Wikipedia administration board, then you shall come in and comment. Likewise I don't know whether others are interested in the story behind my bloc. If so I shall explain the whole thing so as to see whether there is truth to your fallacious representation of my ban and its underlying causes. For this ANI complain, I believe, we shall focus no three things: 1) disruptive editing by Stefka against three users, 2) trumped up charges against me, 3) your jump on the bandwagon of my dispute with Stefka and canvasing Ladsgroup in. Having said that, I understand some of my comments were perceived to be personal. Honestly I have never seen WP:ASPERSION until I was referred to it by the admin concluding the past ANI. It explains how accusing editors of policy violation or bias, may be perceived as aspersion under circumstances. I shall keep this in mind in possible future disputes. --Expectant of Light (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

--Expectant of Light (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to explain [71] (this is just one of the many other harrasments/personal attacks besides on the EN-Wiki). And stop accusing Stefka of disruptive editing, you're not helping yourself with that. Accusing me of apparently canvassing with Ladsgroup is not gonna help you either. You have a long story of personal attacks/harrasment, and you have already been warned before about accusing users of bias, just not on ANI. Furthermore, I did not jump on any 'bandwagon', I simply came and put my vote in a RFC, until you suddenly started your WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants and later made accusations towards me whilst writing in a aggressive tone simply because I did not share the same opinion as you. And you keep repeating that 'there has been reached no consensus'. Well obviously it's impossible to reach a consensus when you jump in everytime with your WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants that fills up the whole talk page. I have nothing more to say than that. Regards. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no personal attack in that you know it very well. I don't want to translate the whole thing here. I was pointing out the source of bias in an iron-fist decision by an admin with a history of rude remark's on Muslims' beliefs, while explaining why banning for perceived BLP violation was totally undue. Simply because I said the person's homosexual tendency may explain his past rude remarks and his decision to ban me on bogus charges, an allied moderator came in banning me further on civility charges without taking action on the moderator's ill decision. Let's get over this now! --Expectant of Light (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You said the person's homosexual tendency may explain his past rude remarks and his decision to ban me on bogus charges... an allied moderator.... Wow. I can't even begin to unravel all the ways this post is problematic. You do not have a right to assert that someone's "homosexual tendencies" have anything to do with parts of their life that clearly are not sexual. It is your right I suppose to defame admins as being in some conspiracy to ban you -- at your own risk of digging your hole rapidly deeper.--Calthinus (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do to refute your hyperboles if you have made your mind. Otherwise the point in my statement is clear. First of all among Iranian public and in Islam, homosexuality is a taboo. So our cultural sensitivities are sharply different than in the West. Now the person was making very rude remarks on Muslim's beliefs for which he got banned. What I did was only draw a link between these two things that it appeared I had better not to. But other than this, the reason behind this negative atmosphere here I believe is my political views which happen to be substantiated and verifiable but simply because they go against the mainstream perceptions, people react strongly. So if you want to keep Wiki for only the mainstream political views outside Wiki, then go ahead an ban me. But if policies such as WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV matter then I must be welcome. I have done more than enough to demonstrate my good faith by apologies and explanations as well as show the questionable conduct of the filers of this complaint. What comes next I don't care so much. I did all I could to explain myself in good conscience. Peace! --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You're actually trying to somehow justify what you said by throwing all Iranians under the bus? We're not like you, this is IRI-mullah behaviour, where you get executed/jailed for being non-Muslim/homosexual etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop your accusations please! You don't prove anything by passing such ridiculous canards. It's got already over the top! You don't realize how arrogant it is to speak on behalf of all Iranians. There's no automatic indication that you as an individual represents the opinion of Iranians across the board, neither that I do. It only happens that there are polls and statistics that show Iranians by and large have a favorable view of Islam and its enforcement as law in Iran. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there is no problem with you thinking whatever you want about people who happen to be gay, or about international politics -- in fact on the latter point I would agree with you that Iran has been unfairly treated in the past (such as what Trump did reneging on the deal to end sanctions). I myself have some fringe viewpoints, like hating peanut butter :), and I'm also fairly far left economically for the country I live in -- as are a disproportionate number of Wiki editors. The difference is the unfair labelling of other individuals as automatically unreliable due to aspects of their identity. --Calthinus (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep highlighting the gay thing? That's never been my concern and that's not the issue here. We've been having content dispute, discussion on sources, and trumped up civility charges against me. That was only brought up by editors uninvolved in the disputes to smear me. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

EOL:...Didn't you just speak on the behalf of Iranians though? Hypocrisy at it's best. Also, I honestly doubt that the majority of Iranians are homophobes / dislike atheists. I don't care about your random poll: Iran is a economic broken country that doesn't even have basic human rights, what person in his right mind would support a regime that kills/jails atheists, homosexuals, and just generally people who criticize them? I don't want to derail this section further, so that's the last thing I have to say, for now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Prove your charges before carrying on your rants against me. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN for Expectant of Light

I propose a topic ban on Expectant of Light regarding international relations and politics of the Middle East, broadly construed. This user obviously has strong opinions on this topic, and their conduct on article Talk pages has not been acceptable. Icewhiz presented a very large number of diffs in the above section; I note Talk:Quds Day, Talk:Battle of Al Hudaydah, and Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran specifically. The dispute resolution at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, and the above comment where he said a person's homosexual tendency may explain his past rude remarks and his decision to ban me on bogus charges give me no confidence in this editor's ability to participate on controversial topics. This is a milder proposal than a community ban; I feel the editor should have one chance to demonstrate competence and civility on less-heated topics. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have made hundreds of comments on the talkpages. Readers must not be biased by a handful of out-of-context evidences presented here by two editors with whom I have had content dispute who have dog up hundreds of my past edits to frame me here. Diagrammatically contrary to the impression that is being created here by the accusers, I have received positive feedback for being civil and constructive in the talk page discussions particularly when the discussions got heated! How the proposer of ban explains this? This is the exact opposite of what I'm being accused for here. Other than that I see a tendency for banning me simply for my views which is not a rightful excuse. However, I already admitted, I have never been familiar with WP:ASPERSION. Otherwise I would have been careful when I was accusing some editors of policy violation or bias. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, in that homosexual reference I was only representing that dispute over Wikipedia Persian, not commenting anew on the person's tendency anymore. The admin btw had himself questionable conduct like I said for which he received a temporary block as an admin and was about to lose his administrative privileges. I think the proposer must take these into account. --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban mentioned, and the topic ban suggested by Calthinus seems even more appropriate. Unfortunately, I agree with everything summarized here. I hope that they would have success on topics that are less sensitive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Amended my vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We've been moving forward through the dispute resolution I think that's why I'm surprised by your vote. What shall I do to remove the concerns about me? --Expectant of Light (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We have been trying to move through the dispute resolution process, but you and Mhhoissen have been fighting it each step of the way without providing evidence to support your personal opinions... and you both have tried to discount the view or votes of others. I would like to say that if you at least acknowledged that your behavior, that would solve the problem, but you have been warned about personal attacks and continue to ignore the warnings and discount or not address what you've said to others.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I did apologize for some of my comments that were seen as violating WP:ASPERSION. Btw, did you notice my summary of Stefka's disruptive editing which shows the bogus nature of his accusations as well as the monstrous wall put up there by Icewhiz? As for supporting my opinions with sources, I already have and I will provide more sources. But we need to resolve this in talk page discussions. Supporting topic ban on me came as quite shocking when we've been having friendly conversations in good faith to resolve disputes. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia does not need such an extreme BATTLEGROUND editor in these contentious topic areas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Battleground editor? Ok, you all gave me motivation to document the whole dispute with Stefka which grew into this so that it can be read in proper context not out of context.

• I was the one who opened up a talk to resolve the dispute and revert wars that I saw taking place between Stefka and Pahlevun for a prolonged period before I made my first edit to the page. See:
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]
• Despite the attempt at talk page resolution, Stefka's reverts continue before and despite consensus
• [77]
• Here he continues his reverts while accusing Mhhossein of "deliberately making false statements." [78] That's the accusatory tone. It was initiated by Stefka before I make any comments on him! Interestingly he later projects his own fault on me by putting my comments out of contexts here.
• His edits are reverted, he's accused of cherry-picking facts: [79] and [80] by Pahlevun who warns that he could be reported for continuing this. Now see the reason for my subsequent warnings which Stefka cites for victim playing.
• In the meantime, the talk page is ongoing and he continues against consensus, starting by this edit [81].
• Having relentlessly ignored consensus and Pahlevun's warning, my first warning to him is issued: [82]. This is the same warning he cites above for victim playing.
• The consensus against Stefka's disruptive editing is now clearly established [83] in the last two comments by me and Mhhossein.
• However Stefka doesn't back down. [84]
• He receives more warnings [85]
• But continues again: [86]
• More warning: [87]
• Continues! The page is now protected: [88] after my complain in ANI [89]
• An admin states that this is better to be taken in another ANI section and that they will probably ban Stefka for his relentless disruptive edits.
• However, an IP drops in accusing us of "ganging up" on Stefka!
• Stefka immediately picks up "the gang up" conspiracy theory and his victim playing goes into high gears. I suspect the IP who handed in the conspiracy theory might be himself. Sockpuppet investigations?
• However it Stefka who accuses me and Mhhossein of being sockpuppets. The investigation proves him wrong. [90]
• CaroleHenson despite clearing seeing Stefka's fault, is distracted by the sockpoppet investigation.
• We warn this is an attempt at distraction but the ANI is concluded without action.
• The the same story continues. CaroleHenson starts he attempt at arbitration... --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question I don't oppose this in principle (I'm not crazy), but this strikes me as another of those "Why are we TBANning a disruptive SPA? Do we have any reason to assume they will start contributing constructively to other areas of the encyclopedia?" cases I was talking about here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Because I have and do contribute constructively as evidenced by my attempt at talk page resolution of differences even with disruptive editors, my valuable contributions to Battle of Al Hudaydah and other pages for which I've received complementary remarks, and our ongoing productive discussions here. --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all proposed sanctions against EoL. I was hinting above that I thought a community indef (= de facto site ban), and they responded by citing their conduct in this thread specifically as showing their exemplary ability to engage in collaborative discussion and problem-solving, which is indicative of either (a) deliberate trolling or (b) a serious inability to engage in self-reflection. Claiming that Robert Faurisson [is] an [sic] skilled academic who got fire [sic] for challenging the dominant Zionist narrative in US shows not only a gross misunderstanding of how American academia works (Noam Chomsky has been challenging said "dominant Zionist narrative" for decades and never been sacked -- and Chomsky actually is American and works in America, apparently unlike Faurisson) but a gross and disgusting contempt for Jewish people. This editor is literally equating Holocaust denial with courageous challenging of an imperialist political narrative. I think a TBAN is much too light for such (Redacted), but it's a start. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh! My! Robert Faurison is not the one I wanted to cite. He is not an American academic but a French one! But rather I had Norman Finkelstein in mind. I confused their names as they sound similar. Finkelstein was fired from DePaul university for challenging fallacies of Zionist historical narrative. See his page. As for Noam Chomsky he has an interesting comment on his feud.

I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you.

So Chomsky basically confirms what I just said. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) You had a Freudian slip and accidentally defended someone notable primarily for being a Holocaust-denier and for being fired for that reason, and you meant to claim someone else was fired for opposition to Zionism? ... Except that Finkelstein wasn't fired, so you clearly did mean to refer to Faurisson, and Finkelstein lined up as a backup in case anyone called you out. And yes, my mind went to Chomsky because literally everything about his career conflicts with your basic point that academic freedom in western universities doesn't exist (and because when I hear Faurisson's name I quickly think of Chomsky, because I only know about Faurisson as a result of my being a Chomsky fan). There's a huge difference between criticizing someone's being fired for denying the Holocaust on academic freedom grounds and claiming that the reason such individuals can be fired is because of a massive Zionist conspiracy. I don't doubt you had that Chomsky quote ready beforehand so you could "prove" that a Jewish academic "supports" your disgusting theory, even though nothing in the above quote implies Chomsky actually agrees with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, you proceeded to call me a disgusting individual! I didn't notice that! I hope you strike it out soon or I will file a complaint against you! --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you insist that people who are stigmatized for Holocaust-denial were actually stigmatized for "challenging the Zionist narrative", that is disgusting. You need to strike it or I can guarantee you that you will be the one who winds up blocked. Seriously. I'm giving you an out here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been recently reading about academics who have challenged the mainstream discourse including the Zionist discourse. Among them are extreme cases such as Robert Faurrison (a liberal professors btw) who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus. But there are ones who don't challenge Holocaust, but the Zionist narrative of Arab-Israeli conflict. I can name many other names such as Alison Weir (activist) and even Israeli professors such as Avi Shlaim. So I had many names on the top of my head, and I just let out Faurrison inadvertently even though I had the American professor Finkelstein in mind. Now you can claim to read my mind and intentions. But I think your rude remark is telling that you are just being emotional and are not willing to even strike it out. Interesting that people accuse me of WP:APERSION when they attack me personal like that! --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to know which sources about academics who have challenged the mainstream discourse including the Zionist discourse you've been reading that associate the scholars you are mentioning with a Holocaust-denier. Your doing so here is bordering on BLP-violation, by the way, and I would urge you to stop immediately. It is disgusting that you would refer to Holocaust denial as "challeng[ing] the mainstream discourse including the Zionist discourse", and I would be very, very surprised if you didn't come out of this with some kind of sanction now that you have twice doubled down on this assertion despite several warnings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Finkelstein was indeed effectively fired. He was denied tenure and he left the university soon after with a settlement. To split hairs over whether he was "fired" or not is silly. Absent any evidence, one should WP:AGF and take EoL at their word that they were talking about Finkelstein (who is American), and not Faurisson (who is French). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Noticed the above by accident after replying to you below. You may be right that he was effectively fired. But that doesn't really matter because the two men don't have remotely similar names, and EoL's associating them in the manner that he continued to do above shows clear bad faith. And even if it was a simple misunderstanding, writing of Faurisson, not Finkelstein, that he is a liberal professors [...] who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus is still an explicit defense of Holocaust denial, from an editor who's been going around the project talking about Jews and Zionists as the dominant interests: I don't recall if you were involved in the Zaostao Incident a couple of years back, but he too had a fair few good-faith, long-term contributors in good standing arguing against a gradually building set of evidence that it was all just a good-faith coincidence, and they wound up with a lot of egg on their face when the whole affair was over and we had rid our community of a literal Nazi. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course "Faurisson" and "Finkelstein" really are quite similar names; about that part you are simply wrong. Not similar people, though, of course. Zero^talk 13:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Are you being facetious? I honestly can't tell. The two surnames both begin and end with the same letter, and contain an "s" and some vowels, but that's as far as the similarity goes; and he also called Faurisson by his full name, with "Robert" and "Norman" being further removed from each other still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hikiri88: If I was presented with that paragraph (I assume you refer to this one) with only the letter "F" as a clue, I would say "Finkelstein" immediately. Even without the clue Finkelstein would be one of my first 2-3 guesses. There are two references to the US, versus none to France. What Finkelstein is most famous for ("challenging the dominant Zionist narrative") is stated but there is no mention of what Faurisson is most famous for. He even refers to a book "The Professors" that lists Finkelstein as one of 101 evil professors but doesn't list Faurisson. The paragraph has "mistaken identity" written all over it. Why deliberately refer to someone in France as being in the US and give a wikilink so everyone can instantly check that US is wrong? Despite your effort you didn't come up with any explanation of why he would want to make so many mistakes. The only scenario that explains everything is that he got the name wrong and didn't click on his own wikilink. Zero^talk 14:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Zero I'm sorry but I have to agree with Hijiri here, as has Tony on his tp. This incident did not occur in isolation, but after months of him ranting about the "entire Zionist/secularist/corporatist order". You may not be Jewish, and my feelings are not matters taht should replace policy, but I'll let you know that these sorts of rants have made me -- and probably other users as well -- quite uncomfortable, to say the least.--Calthinus (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban -- sadly given this user's past behavior including in this discussion, it appears this is clearly necessary for the sake of maintaining a modicum of civility in affected topic area. I'm not sure I'd go for community ban just yet, but let me propose revision of scope -- ban from all Middle Eastern politics, Middle Eastern history, religion topics, atheism topics, Jewish topics and LGBT topics. The user has demonstrated an inability not only to be objective on these topics, but also to even attempt civility. Ironically they accuse others of being irremediably biased in favor of the "Zionist/secularist/corporatist order" to which they attribute the vast majority of sources available to Anglophones -- even fighting with one user who is a supporter of Hezbollah. With regard to the scope, power~enwiki, I'd like to point out that a ban from politics alone could risk him moving on to disrupt other topics that aren't explicitly political (listed) with political relevance to his very strong views, so I think preempting this might be useful. I have never seen him actually writing pages or really doing anything besides fighting others, but if he would like to, I see no problem with him editing articles about trees or geology or food (as long as its not hummus), for example. --Calthinus (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) --Calthinus (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you care to read my dispute with Stefka? How is it that this disruptive user who claimed three others "ganged up on him" and falsely accused us of being sockpuppets to get away with sanctions on his account can get away with all of this, yet you want to topic ban me even though I've been patiently participating in discussion and dispute resolution? Is that you don't just like my views or something else? I produced evidence that most of Stefka's charges against me were made out of context and don't qualify as aspersion. But I realize in two or three cases I am reasonably see to have violated WP:ASPERSION and I apologize for that. I never knew about this guideline. Does that solve it or what else do you recommend I should do to gain the confidence of community beyond restricting my freedom of thought and participation? Btw, I have no interest in LGBT topics and have never worked on them. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The real issue for me is that apparently for you an editor or a source is automatically not trustworthy if they are "secular" or "Zionist". Sources are governed by WP:RS. As for editors, they should be judged only on the content of their character.--Calthinus (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No that's not true. That's context-specific as I explained here. The subject area has been Islamic Republic of Iran. I stated that those sources can be influenced by their ideological/political biases when it comes to this subject, so their views are preferably treated as POVs while Iranian views must also be used for WP:NPOV. That's it. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed asserted that other editors are "biased" by their (lack of) religious beliefs against Iran [[91]]. This is not NPOV, and you need to judge users by their actions, not their identity. I'm glad that you're acting more repentant about that now-- it would've been great if you apologized when it happened before it got brought up on this board, and better yet if it never happened, in which case we might not be here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban revision - I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I agree with Calthinus suggestion for the topic ban, based upon the nature of EoL's comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC) - incorporated in my vote above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What kind of nature? Having "wrong" views? It is really turning into a witch hunt now! --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I checked the diffs and I support the topic ban as proposed by nominator. -Shrike (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The diffs have been exposed as bogus and fraud above and below! --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I’ve been semi-following this and to be honest, I’m not impressed with anyone’s conduct. There has been a recent shift of ARBIPA disputants out of ARBIPA to fight about other things in countries that are not Israel or Arab, and thus are outside of the AE sanctions, and I see this as part of that trend. What I see is an editor, who while he may have views I disagree with and who may have acted inappropriately, started editing in an area when the tensions on-wiki started to flare, and has felt ganged up on from the begining.
  I’d encourage editors here to look at the history of Houthi movement, which I found at AE. I full-protected because it was a multi-party edit war that seriously looks like a tag-team revert war with EOL. In those circumstances I generally prefer full protection to blocks, but I was very seriously considering blocking everyone involved as a normal admin action. This isn’t to say that EOL has behaved great, but I don’t think he’s the only one behaving inappropriately here and I don’t think he should be sanctioned because ARBIPA has worked well enough that disputants there now have to find other articles to fight on. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: While I respect your opinion, there is only one editor besides EoL here who has been involved in a dispute at Houthi movement, and he (Icewhiz) hasn't even cast a vote yet. I have edited at Houthi movement but only to implement a widely supported page move -- one I believed EoL also supported -- not edit warring and not part of any "tag team". Indeed [this is visible from the history of the page].--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, I was referencing Icewhiz and Yaniv, not you. That article history over the last week is not pretty, and I can understand why EoL might feel ganged up on (and yes, I’ve blocked Yaniv before, but I’ve also closed meritless reports against him and revdel’d anti-Semitic content on his talk and also stepped in during this dispute for some privacy things, so I can hardly be called biased against either of them.) I think this is a very difficult area and one where content disputes often get turned into behavioral issues, which is something I don’t like. My ideal here would be for EoL to take a chill pill and stop engaging other editors personally before we get to a TBAN. I certainly wouldn’t cry if one passed, but I prefer second chances in difficult areas before sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I agree with you that there are a lot of people in this dispute whose hands are not clean, but EoL is literally pointing to a talk page discussion in which he claimed a Holocaust denier was fired for challenging the Jewish orthodoxy as an example of his engaging in constructive, civil discussion. He's allowed be frustrated with other parties in a content dispute, but when Holocaust denial enters the discussion that's ... another level, and one we don't usually tolerate regardless of whatever the other parties may be guilty of. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My vote decision became clear after 1) EoL said that because someone was Jewish their vote shouldn't count in a dispute (their comment was redacted but I posted a message to them here) and 2) after I read the comments on Persian wikipedia where they were blocked for three months for improper comments about someone's homosexuality. I agree that they shouldn't be blocked on English WP for something said on Persian WP, but it gets to state of mind and supports my horror about the statement about someone's heritage/religion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and CaroleHenson: can you link to those diffs (on en.wiki), there is a lot going on here, and I missed those. If your representations are true, I’m prepared to indefinitely block as a regular admin action. Antisemtism and racism of any form is incompatible with Wikipedia. Edit: actually, I’m familiar with the redacted content and left a warning about it. The thing Hijiri is talking about I’m not familiar with though, so I’d like to see a specific diff. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Here he referred to a Holocaust denier as an skilled academic who got fire for challenging the dominant Zionist narrative in US or challenging the narrative of powerful interests there. Referring to Jews who promote the idea that the Holocaust was a thing that happened as "powerful interests" is something of a dog whistle. When challenged, a little above here, on this, he attempted to back down and say he meant to refer to a different academic, himself of Jewish heritage, who was apparently denied tenure (and later resigned) because of his opposition to Israeli policy or some such (I'm not that familiar with the whole affair, but neither apparently is EoL), and implied he got the two mixed up because he was doing research on scholars who challenge the establishment narrative. I don't know what sources he has been reading that lump Finkelstein, Chomsky, Weir and Shlaim (all names he dropped a little bit up this thread), who all oppose Zionism to varying degrees, in with the Holocaust denier Faurisson (Chomsky in particular quite famously called Faurisson's view reprehensible, while defending his right to express it on academic freedom grounds), but his reading, and trusting, such sources is quite disturbing, and per BLP if nothing else he really shouldn't be allowed parrot them on-wiki. And yes, he still has not apologized for or retracted his original (highly inflammatory and disgusting) statement that Faurisson was fired for challenging the Zionist historical narrative, instead insisting that I was the one who was "rude" and should apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and his claiming the discussion in which he cited a Holocaust denier was an example of him engaging in civil discussion that would shoot down the idea that he has been causing disruption was here. I honestly had not looked too deeply into this whole affair, and merely posted a comment about the procedural issue of TBANning an SPA, and when he responded with the above I skimmed the discussion and saw that his most recent comment included a citation/defense of a Holocaust denier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've indef'd. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadened topic ban per Calthinus The subject's habit of accusing everyone else of bias whilst refusing to acknowledge one's own POV looks like a rather severe case of WP:IDHT to me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support in addition to the indefinite block I have placed on the account. In case it ever gets unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support (modified broadened topic ban per Calthinus - ban from all Middle Eastern politics, Middle Eastern history, religion topics, atheism topics, Jewish topics and LGBT topics<) - while this user could possibly work on articles in other topic areas, his notions regarding sourcing (opposition to "Zionist", secular, and corporate sources) as well as the personal attacks in charged areas are not conducive to improving articles.Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff throwing contest

I know there are a wall of edits thrown by some editors here and I know it's a boring practice to check them all. However, to prove some of them (if not all of them) were merely thrown, I'd like to address just some of them. Just imagine, what follows are violation of something:

• 16:39, 6 January 2018 As you wish! But remember next time you may have to respond but in ANI for violating WP:Be nice!.
• 06:56, 7 January 2018 Ok, you're now well beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so nobody cares about what you say any longer!.
• 21:06, 9 July 2018 edit summary - More revert will take you to ANI.
• 21:12, 9 July 2018 Repeating this disruptive trend will land him on ANI.
• 21:24, 9 July 2018 You claim the view is far-fetched and I argued that it is not but you repeat your own empty claim that it is without any reasoning.

. . . and some others:

• This time condemning you in ANI would be pretty much a slam-dunk Stefka!
• 18:05, 6 July 2018 . But I don't know what to do with Stekfa's reverts. I'm going to report him in ANI if he repeats this behavior..
• 21:12, 9 July 2018 Repeating this disruptive trend will land him on ANI.

Please come with something when you're making such walls. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I find statements like no one cares about what you say any longer! to indeed be clear breaches of both Wikipedia civility and basic social norms. --Calthinus (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for that if it is necessary. But that's for a discussion in remote past, and nobody found it inappropriate back then. I also remembering a policy saying that digging up a user's past contributions to frame him/her in an unrelated present dispute is a policy violation. But that's what Stefka (and Icewhiz) has been doing all along. I mean it's a bad lesson if people learn they can get away with policy violations by accusing others of sockpuppetary or for just passing critical remarks on their disruptive behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on a concrete thing

A few editors did all they could to frame me over these days, from Setfka accusing me and two other editors of "ganging up" on him, sockpuppet allegations, bogus diffs, accusations of homophobia, having fringe views, or that I dislike sources because they are secular or atheist!!! All of these clearly shown to be bogus or gross distortions of the real issues. But I invite everyone to look at this ongoing conversation about the real issues one of which was bias of sources. I've been subjected to a witch hunt but the interesting is that two other editors (Seraphim System and Mhhossein) basically support my view, two others (oddly Icewhiz and CaroleHenson who have supported my ban) minimally accept my views about Western media bias, and another one Stefka being singly opposed to me. So there are two editors on my side, two in between, and one opposed? So probably four of us must be topic banned if my views are the problem! Time to conclude this misguided ANI! --Expectant of Light (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe then that should tell you the problem is not your views.16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Indef'd

After seeing the diff that Hijiri88 posted above involving the dog whistle about a Holocaust denier losing a job because of challenging a Zionist narrative based on powerful interest, and then further defending a Holocaust denier and portraying him in sympathetic terms, combined with the clear anti-Israeli stance that delved into suppressible material, I have indefinitely blocked User:Expectant of Light. This behavior is incompatible with the English Wikipedia, and while I'm aware a topic ban is likely to pass, this type of behavior and treatment of others is toxic enough to our community that I felt that an indefinite block as an individual admin action was justified. If any admin feels like reversing it, or if the community wishes to overrule it here, I won't object, but since this is at ANI, I thought I would explain my reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What the hell? They say quite explicitly above that they mixed up the names: they meant to reference Norman Finkelstein (who was an American academic), not Robert Faurisson (who was a French academic). Indef blocking in the middle of the ANI is highly inappropriate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, given the total context of this account, including the interactions with editors who typically are seen as having a pro-Israeli point of view, those comments as a whole are totally unacceptable, and if they had been presented in a clear fashion with less back and forth would likely have lead to an individual block quickly. That type of behavior just isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You sidestep the fact he was not talking about any Holocaust denier, or any dog-whistling or whatever bilge you wrote above. But now you want to indef the account because of some other vague bilge you conjured up. Am I supposed to take this kind of argument seriously? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The post in question, originally claimed that a Holocaust denier was fired because of powerful interest a known and recognized Semitic meme. Even if you take them at their word that they did not mean to say that a Holocaust denier was fired because they challenged the Zionist narrative, the post in question is saying that a Jewish academic was fired because Jewish interest groups exerted control over the process when he challenged a Zionist narrative. That is also completely unacceptable. This is also from an account that calls anti-Semetism propeganda and who told an Israeli editor t's not Israel here where you have your opponents either shut up or shot up!. This is in addition to posting content recently, which as is noted above, has been suppressed. The totality of this is why I blocked.

Even in his defense, he downplayed what Robert Faurisson said, claiming ...Robert Faurrison (a liberal professors btw) who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus. In contrast, this is how our article describes what Faurisson believes: [his publications] contradict the history of the Holocaust by denying the existence of gas chambers in Nazi death camps, the systematic killing of European Jews using gas during the Second World War, and the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank.}

It is also worth noting that Faurrison was dismissed from his academic work as well, and was given an award by Iran, EoL's focus area on-wiki, for courage. So yes, taking the context of the entirety of this account's interactions in areas around Israel, his interactions with Israeli editors, and his downplaying of Holocaust denial even when denying he meant to link to a Holocaust denier in this ANI thread, I do think that blocking was justified. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that at this time this makes sense. EoL will have a chance, though, in a couple of months to return to Persian WP and hopefully address the issues that they have been warned about many times here and there. If so, they can always come back and make a case to get unblocked and I would think that mending their ways there would be helpful to show a track record of communicating in a more objective and civil manner.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni: It seems that Expectant of Light has some words to say. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: He defended a Holocaust denier (Faurisson), in an anachronistic fashion that was easily noticed and called out, and then he said he meant to refer to someone else (Finkelstein), but what he said still wouldn't have made sense if he had been talking about Finkelstein to begin with (correct me if I'm wrong, which I might well be, but as I understand it Finkelstein resigned, rather than being "fired"). And it wasn't an accidental slipup that could happen to anyone; why did he even have Faurisson on his mind? This completely sets aside the fact that he is smearing the names of several good scholars by claiming either that he got their names mixed up with that of a Holocaust denier or that they challenge the academic establishment in the same way a Holocaust denier did. He explicitly said that he was reading about them as a single discrete group (I've been recently reading about academics who have challenged the mainstream discourse including the Zionist discourse. Among them are extreme cases such as Robert Faurrison (a liberal professors btw) who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus. But there are ones who don't challenge Holocaust, but the Zionist narrative of Arab-Israeli conflict.) and rather than immediately retracting and apologizing for his explicit defense of a Holocaust denier (the above quote postdates the "misunderstanding") he doubled down and demanded that I apologize for being "rude" in calling him out for it. And you can't possibly pretend that talking about Jews and Zionists as "powerful interests" doesn't reek of antisemitism... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So he's guilty of having Faurisson on his mind or reading about them? That's enough... --Mhhossein ^talk 06:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also (I just noticed this) his first attempt to justify himself on his talk page after the block included the claim that antisemitism is banned by Iranian state law (a curious statement that raises questions of the definition of antisemitism -- he cited our article on the history of the Jews in Iran, which doesn't appear to say anything on the matter one way or the other, and given that Iran's former president is somewhat notorious for questioning the historicity of the Holocaust I strongly doubt that Holocaust denial itself is banned in Iran) and claiming that some interpretations of Islam being relatively philo-semitic somehow means he as a Muslim cannot be an antisemite. He still has not apparently apologized for referring to Jews as "powerful interests" or even hinted that he intends to retract these statements. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, Israel is viewed as an 'illegimate terrorist state' by the Islamic Republic and has been referred to 'Little Satan' as well (guess what country they call the 'Great Satan'). The Supreme Leader of Iran have made several comments where he questioned the Holocaust as well. Also why am I not surprised to see Mhossein coming to the defense of EoL. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

TBC, I think the backlash the indef has got so far, such as it is, is in good faith if misguided. Kingsindian is one of our best, most even-handed and fair-minded ANI contributors[92][93][94] and I linked further up to an otherwise-unrelated case where an honest-to-god neo-Nazi had good contributors defending him until after he was indeffed, because they didn't "get" the dog whistles as quickly as I and others did. Because that's what a dog whistle is, and why it's so dangerous -- there are people out there in the real world who would be shocked and appalled if they saw English Wikipedia call Jews and Zionists "powerful interests" and "dominant interests", but it's very hard to get a clear majority of Wikipedians to support blocking the editors who write these things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I went back and checked. It turns out Kingsindian was the last editor to oppose the block of the aforementioned Nazi dog-whistler, but following the block did so weakly (without even a bolded !vote) and was in a negligible minority (the only one?) who continued to do so after the block. That's fine, and KI is entitled to that opinion, which I respect, but it should be treated as a well-intentioned minority opinion that is very much out-of-line with community consensus on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would have been better to wait for a community consensus before indeff'ing. There is a stronger case here for personal attacks, and there's a good chance there would have been consensus for an indeff based on the discussion above, but I think it should have been discussed.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just noting "antisemitism is banned by Iranian state law" is plain wrong. I have seen "Mein Kampf" and pro-Nazi books being sold and getting approval by the government and officially endorsed by them or the state TV. Ladsgroup^overleg 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this enough conversation about this? It seems that the prevailing opinion is that EoL should be topic banned or blocked and continued conversation about why that is appropriate could be seen as piling on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

EoL seems to have a clean block log. I would have supported a topic ban under these circumstances, but I didn't see any need to pile on. However, I have mixed feelings about an indeff-ing a user with a clean block log. This is because an indeff is usually based on evidence that less severe sanctions have already been tried and haven't been effective... Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We indef users with clean block logs whenever it is clear that a time-based block won’t solve the underlying issuse: EoL is unlikely to change his way of interacting with Israeli editors and his defense of Holocaust deniers (which he did do, even after he claimed it was a slip-up) is not suddenly going to change because he has a 31 hour block. This is a regular admin action, not one based on consensus or AE, and indefinite does not mean infinite: if he can convince someone that the problems won’t be problems going forward, he can be unblocked by any admin, but given the blatant misrepresentation (as noted above) and sidestepping of the actual issues in his response to me on his talk page, I don’t think unblocking at this time would be in the interest of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, as for my definition of "powerful interests" or "dominant narrative", depending on the context, it can be the Israel lobby, the Jewish lobby (controversial), any concerted effort by Jewish interests against a critique or opponent, and the mainstream Zionist narrative of history (like the one partly challenged by Norman Finkelstein). --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2018 Yeah. I stand by this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If every editor who interacted poorly with editors he disagreed with was indeff'd we might end up short on editors. Is the issue here defense of fringe theories (holocaust denial)? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This is in reply to TonyBallioni's statement here which claims that this diff is anti-Semitic, dog-whistle and other various nonsensical statements which TonyBallioni keeps writing for some reason. Let me quote the statement (with the appropriate name correction).

Example Robert Faurisson Norman Finkelstein an skilled academic who got fire for challenging the dominant Zionist narrative in US.

Tonyballioni renders this as:

a Jewish academic was fired because Jewish interest groups exerted control over the process when he challenged a Zionist narrative..

I note the wholly unjustified addition of "Jewish interest groups" into the quote. But let's leave that aside. Is such language common in academic sources?

We read this Routledge source, which discusses the case of Steven Salaita. It contains the sentence Perhaps the most recent expression of the challenge to the dominant Zionist discourse .... Later on, there's a reference to the "pro-Israel lobby" in the US. Here's another source, which uses the term "Zionist narrative" in the title. I can easily multiply sources. Would TonyBallioni call these sources anti-Semitic, and ban the authors from Wikipedia? Here's a final one, which talks about "Zionist narratives" in journalism, and there's plenty of "dominance" references, including the "dominant role of the Holocaust" in the narrative. This author must surely be an anti-Semite, right? The author is ... wait for it ... at the Israeli Netanya Academic College. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to retort that Netanya college has a poor reputation (which is correct - this is a 3rd rate institution). However more on point the excusing above of the inexcusable shows how low the discourse on Wikipedia has sunk. Plain antisemitism is tolerated (though the antisemite label is considered a gross offense - a blockable one). Now, it would seem, that support for a holocaust denier and claims western media are influenced by a Zionist conspiracy are tolerated as well. As for the examples above, it never reflects well on the poser who chooses Jews (or Israelis) to say "even they say it". More on point both examples are irrelevant as they discuss Israeli media, where indeed Zionist discourse is common, and not Western media as a whole where this is far from the case.Icewhiz (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about Zionist conspiracy. The first example talks about discourse in the US, so you're factually wrong. And if you want to call me an anti-Semite, please feel free to say so directly. I never mind plain speech. I detest slimy insinuations though. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He openly admitted that is indeed what he meant and that it could be a reasonable interpretation of his views. I’ve linked the diff above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed nobody mentioned a mere Zionist conspiracy -- perhaps the term was too mild mannered for our friend here. Instead he spoke of the much grander "entire secularist/Zionist/corporate order" [[95]] which the Islamic Republic of Iran was "challenging". --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is the diff? This one? Where does it say anything about Zionist conspiracy? What are you people talking about? Maybe I have a reading problem.

This discussion is now worse than useless. I'm out. Please forget I said anything. My mistake. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian: However I think your comments were good enough at showing how questionable the sudden block by TonyBallioni was. That's enough to see that at least three editors have questioned the action. In short, Tony believes that Every thing Expectant of Light says is wrong and he's always lying, while every thing Hijri says is right. Under the circumstances, I think that would be much better for the Expectant of Light to stop commenting since Hijri et al (those whom Tony calls "Israeli editors") are able to find something against him. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I was referencing a specific comment that I linked to in diffs above: Hijiri88 is not Israeli. I have no clue the ethnicity or location of most editors in this thread. This entire thread is an absolute mess, and you will note I originally opposed the TBAN. I saw the specific diffs, and then I took individual admin action, which EoL’s subsequent statements have only further shown to me was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I don't think person that discuss "Jewish magnates" [96] should edit Wikipedia so block was totally justified.--Shrike (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment On his talk page following the ban, EoL, in essence, blamed everyone but himself, and stated that editing restrictions would be unfair if he were to return. I feel TonyBallioni's block was correct, but even if one assumes that the editors who stated his views are antisemitic are wrong/liars/whatever you wish to say, EoL has a terminal case of WP:IDHT. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support lifting the indeff till the end of the discussion Irrespective of the appropriateness of it and the fact that perhaps I also would have indeffed the editor (had this ANI discussion not been going on), I don't think we should sidestep an ANI discussion; especially one where Tony himself is a person participating in the discussion. Lourdes 00:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I won’t be lifting it given the behavior on the talk after the block, and I don’t think there is an issue with blocking when specific diffs are given, especially since I was actually opposing any action until then (and the point of this board is for admins to take needed action), but as I said, if another admin wishes to lift it, they can, I just can’t possibly do it myself since they’ve basically just doubled down on the antisemitism since being blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right here. Lourdes 00:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Undoing bad nominations by User:Shadowowl

Shadowowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made a great many bad AfD nominations for stub articles created by Starzynka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Typically, these were articles without references derived from articles with references in Wikipedias in other languages. Those AfDs are being dealt with, one by one, but there is an additional issue. Earlier, Shadowowl also tagged articles for speedy deletion or for prod or sometimes draftified them, focusing on stub articles lacking references for notable topics. Some but not all of these were eventually deleted by admins who may not have been aware that the corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias might justify keeping the articles. I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted articles. I would appreciate it if an admin could review Shadowowl's logs and the red links at User_talk:Starzynka with an eye to restoring articles that should not have been deleted in the first place. I am trying to improve articles that Shadowowl draftified, but I can't see the deleted articles. Starzynka (talk · contribs · count) was eventually blocked, but their admittedly brief and often unreferenced articles were generally for notable topics. Shadowowl (talk · contribs · count) has posted a "Retired" message on their user page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I stopped nominating those, I apologized, but still its not enough? Now you want to resurrect valid deletions? Come on. » Shadowowl | talk 17:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

How were they bad nominations? I had a look at a couple and at the time of nomination, they were un informative stubs. Plus isn't WP:REFUND a better venue? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Eastmain. It seems to me that the deletion process was correctly followed, at least since 2015. If you notice any red-linked names at User talk:Starzynka for which adequate articles are available on other Wikipedias, consider offering them at WP:REFUND. In most cases there was nothing much in the deleted enwiki article, but you could go ahead and create an article by translating the content you find on the other wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin post) I would agree with Eastmain as there have been many PROD nominations I've seen which have been reverted for proper reasons. However, there appears to be a PROD log available: [97]. Also, there have been a number of articles nominated (including ones nominated since the Starzynka purge) where Shadowowl didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE search or made very brief statements for deletion (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estadio_Tetelo_Vargas, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dünya_Yalan_Söylüyor, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellis_Auditorium, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Facta_Loquuntur, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Sahel_SC amongst others) - not all of the nominations have been bad, but failing to do a before search means there's a lot more work for us, and some of the articles I've seen that were PROD-ded have been un-PRODded for good reasons. SportingFlyer talk 18:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Taken individually, some of Shadowowl's nominations may seem to make sense. Taken as a group, and remembering that Starzynka's stub articles often corresponded to longer articles with references in other language Wikipedias, all of Shadowowl's nominations ought to be undone for failure to do WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I find the premise of this thread questionable. Yeah, Shadowowl probably "made a great many bad AfD nominations", but most of the ones I've looked at were not bad AFD nominations, since regardless of notability or potential to become sourced, none of the actual content in the articles was not already included, in a more optimal fashion, in other articles with which the AFD-nominated pages were linked. This was no doubt also the case with the majority of the pages that have already been deleted, and so perhaps the only thing Eastmain wrote in their OP comment that was relevant was I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted articles: I too am not an admin, but it's a safe assumption that every single one of those "articles" was between one and three sentences, and if any of them were not content forks of other articles, can be easily reproduced by doing a quick Google check and copying the resulting "X is a book by Y. It was first published in 20XX." onto Wikipedia in some fashion. (Note that doing so would probably also prevent cases like In der Falle where non-fiction works are incorrectly classed as "novels".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As a point of information, Shadowowl's AfD record currently stands at 93% delete votes and 17% accuracy. › Mortee _talk 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Responded below. The high rate of "delete" !votes is irrelevant and says more about SO's general editing interests than any serious issue with their !voting record, and the low accuracy rate is a result of all the "speedy keep"s (and equivalent) that resulted from the July 21 clumsy mass nomination for which he already apologized. That said, User:Mortee, I too am an AFD-Stats advocate, and would be interested in your opinion on these statements that use of that tool, in and of itself, constitutes "battleground behaviour" and "hounding": I have not yet received an apology for, or even retraction of, these accusations, and seeing such attacks go unremarked upon makes me highly reluctant to support any AFD-related sanctions against editors for relatively minor infractions like nominating a lot of pages for the wrong reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: This is a sidetrack, but since you asked: James500 objected to the repeat accusation that they try to avoid scrutiny of their AfD comments, not the use of the tool. In e.g. the 21 July AfDs, they do bold their !votes. In their comment above your second diff, they were actually arguing your point: 'notable' doesn't imply 'keep', and 'merge' was a live option. I'd suggest dropping it. › Mortee _talk 09:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a very unintuitive reading of the comments, as I've literally never heard of someone referring to "accusations of avoiding scrutiny" as hounding. He was referring to action of engaging in that scrutiny, specifically by means of using that tool (which, yes, he was obviously trying to trick -- I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was specifically outlined in his manifesto on the subject). It was only following a lot of pressure from me and several other members of the community that he recently started bolding his !votes. And your attempting to justify honestly some of the most disgusting battlegroung/harassment behaviour I've seen in a long time (including but not limited to requesting an unblock for an editor who was blocked for trolling a bunch of users just because I happened to be one of the trollees, and insisting that someone who was site-banned for off-wiki harassment of me was "blocked for sockpuppetry, not harassment") based on the fact that in some instances he ceases his disruptive behaviour without ever acknowledging that it was disruptive, while never apologizing, makes me seriously question your good faith. If you are just playing devil's advocate for the sake of argument, that is valid (although I would question your doing so in relation to a "sidetrack" from the main thread), but you need to say as much so no one gets the wrong idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having closed most of the 100+ AfDs Shadowowl started on 21 July, I'd say a very small proportion of them were actually valid. Maybe something in the order of 5%, and frankly you'd expect better from blind luck. Unfortunately I suspect more than that were deleted because he managed to flood AfD and nobody was able to check for sources. I don't think there was anything ipso facto wrong with creating lots of nominations, but the evident lack of care and attention in applying the deletion process became disruptive. Almost uniformly, he failed to consider WP:ATDs; failed to apply WP:BEFORE; created AfDs where PRODs or CSDs would have been more appropriate; nominated articles on related topics individually with cookie-cutter noms rather than grouping them; etc. Yes, he apologised in the last ANI, but unfortunately since then he has continued to demonstrate a lack of regard for the deletion process and for the editors that have to deal with his nominations, with continued rapid, bad nominations [98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112], hasty renominations, incivility [113][114], and an out-of-process DRV.

Overall I don't think he can be trusted to exercise proper care in deletion, especially not in less-visible processes like CSD and PROD, and it isn't fair to expect other editors to spend more time reviewing his nominations then he spends making them. I guess I'm WP:INVOLVED at this point, but I'd support a topic ban from deletion.

@Eastmain: I'd be willing to batch-restore any deleted Starzynka stubs for you, if you want to review them. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support a TBAN. I spoke up for User:shadowowl when this first came up, but this has gotten totally out of control. It's one thing to not understand process and do something weird. That's where we were before. But, the DRV he opened demonstrates an unwillingness to let it go. When I first commented on the DRV, I didn't realize it was connected to the earlier ANI thread. At this point, his user page indicates that he's retired anyway, so a TBAN shouldn't really be an imposition. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't fair to expect others to spend more time reviewing your nominations then you spend making them. Yep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

---

This ANI as started & written by Eastmain, appear to be a pure re-run of that ANI, regarding an attempt (by Shadowowl) to cleanup the Starzyka mess.
I see no reason to repeat what I and others wrote in that ANI (please do go read it), so let's look at Eastmain.
In WP terminology - WP:BOOMERANG:
Eastmain does, as far as I can tell, only ever vote "Keep" in AfDs.
- And Eastmain's above argument about other languages WPs and references, is what I can find Eastmain also doing in AfDs.
Claiming that notability is established by another WP merely having an article, is circular argumentation. Picking up references from other WPs, and independently evaluating them, is required. One example of Eastmain failing that, is in this AfD, where I got so fed up that I wasted time addressing Eastmain, by scrutinising the junk-reference Eastmain picked out from another WP. But Eastmain is worse than that. Here's another AfD (which I have looked at, but not posted in): Eastmain (again) does not dig into the references, there provided by the Norwegian WP (FYI: Those references are just putting the articles' topics' on a map, and some trivia, i.e. prove existence, not notability), but Eastmain takes it a step further in arguing to keep, by saying "and additional references probably exist" (mind officially blown; what's next: flying pigs are real because references probably exist; yeah, OK, I should admit being wrong, because such references aren't just probable to exist, they actually do exist and so here's a hamswan).
-- DexterPointy (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Eastmain states " Starzynka (talk · contribs · count) was eventually blocked, but their admittedly brief and often unreferenced articles were generally for notable topics.". Looking at their deleted contributions, I see things like:

• The Inner Worlds, deleted in 2011 for lack of notability, French article suffered same fate in 2016
• Ne vous disputez jamais avec un spectre, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ne vous disputez jamais avec un spectre, French article deleted in 2016 for lack of available sourcing
• Gornshall Grange, deleted in 2011 because "no evidence of the existence"
• Runcton Priory, deleted in 2015 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runcton Priory
• Immingham Franciscan Friary deleted in 2013 for "zero references"
• North Scarle Preceptory deleted in 2013 as "blatant hoax"
• Gainsborough Preceptory deleted in 2013 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainsborough Preceptory because "there is no such thing"
• Brackenholme Priory deleted in 2013 because "no evidence this ever existed"
• St. Mary of the Angels Friary, Canterbury deleted in 2013 as "not notable"
• Au rythme des déluges deleted in 2012 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au rythme des déluges (Frech article deleted in 2012 as well)
• Vieux Système (and 10 other cheese articles) was deleted in 2010 for lack of notability
• Čokovac deleted in 2013 as "no such place"
• Linijska Nacionalna Plovidba deleted in 2010 as "G1 patent nonsense"
• Rapska Plovidba deleted in 2011 as G1 patent nonsense

and so on and so on, all this from her 100 most recent deleted edits alone.

In reality, her "admittedly brief and often unreferenced articles were" way too often for utterly non notable and often completely mistaken subjects (misspellings, companies insteda of villages, ...). Some were for somewhat notable subjects, but even in those cases nothing is lost by letting these stay deleted. In fact, when th extent of very problematic articles by this editor became clear, the prudent thing would have been a mass nuke. Talking about a mass refund is a very bad idea. Fram (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking only at the contributions that were deleted has some selection bias to it. To assess Shadowowl, which is the topic of the thread, you'd have to look at pages nominated for deletion that were then kept and to assess Starzynka's remaining contributions you'd have to look at the pages that have been left alone as well. › Mortee _talk 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that Eastmain's efforts "saving" content harms Wikipedia -- what I find is that they want to save blatant promotion.
  • See this especially crabby AfD I posted after Eastmain removed a speedy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SteatoTest.
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Smarter_Lunchroom_Movement was another case where they stripped a speedy tag and made a bad !vote
  • This comment is just silly.

I can respect people who want to save content who do competent, careful work but this kind of "every sperm is sacred" stripping, voting, and editing to "save" pages just wastes other people's time and what is worse, leaves abusive promotional content in WP or even makes it more promotional as happened in SteatoTest. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I also find that both Shadowowl and Tyw7 are doing very bad work in AfDs recently. (i have however agreed that things they want deleted should be.. but how they are doing it, is not good) Given how closely they are working together I have wondered about SOCK/MEAT/team. (look at the series of nominations around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martín Deiros (3rd nomination), where Shadowowl and Twy7 take turns trying to get these deleted. I find this where Tyw7 wrote Deletion review had already been opened by the norminator of the first AFD Shadowowl and this, where Tyw7 opens the deletion review especially weird - that is something a sock would do if they forgot which sock did what. Or it could just be a mistake. Or not. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 31 DR was a mistake on my part. I wasn't aware that User:Shadowowl had already opened one days ago (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 29). I would blame Shadow for not following proper procedure to make the DR more obvious. There was no notice on the page or the 1st deletion request as the DR review process dictates. I deleted it after I was aware of the first DR but was told that I should have struck out my request as withdrawn. Lesson learned.

  And for gods sake look at the time stamps. Due to comments to follow DR procedure, I withdrew the third nomination at 10:00 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Education_Not_for_Sale_(3rd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=852777784. Then I opened the DR review at 10:08 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_31&diff=prev&oldid=852778470. I found out Shadow's DR at 10:39 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_July_31&diff=next&oldid=852778470. Therefore, I changed my "withdraw vote" to procedure keep at 10:42 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Education_Not_for_Sale_(3rd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=852777784. I had also updated the notices I placed at the article at 10:45 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_Not_for_Sale&diff=prev&oldid=852781746. Therefore, you can see it's an honest mistake (and more of the case of Shadow not informing of an ongoing DR) and not a meatpuppet situation. If I had known of Shadow's DR, I wouldn't have opened the 3rd nomination in the first place. As you can see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination) I had my own reasons for doubting the notability of the article, in addition to the fact that I think the first AFD was mishandled.

  Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martín Deiros (3rd nomination) was closed because a proper deletion reason was not given. Therefore, I re-nominated using the reason that it fails WP:NARTIST and so far that AFD have THREE independent editors participating. That means that perhaps the first and second one was improperly closed.

  But I am not a sock of Shadowowl or his meat puppet. Heck, I've never had prior editing records with him. Check my contributions.

  As mentioned below I was only involved in nominations after seeing the aftermath of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (see below). That prompted me to open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination). --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Also I am NOT a new editor as typical of a meatpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tyw7&dir=prev&target=Tyw7. I was previously involved with several WikiProjects and vandal fighting. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• So I support a TBAN for Eastmain, Shadowowl, and Twy7 from deletion matters at least for a while. Say 6 months. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see sufficient grounds for a TBAN for Eastmain. I'm not completely sure that either Shadowowl or Twy7 are in TBAN territory yet, but they are getting close. Furthermore, there may be merit to Jytdog's concerns about a SOCK/MEAT situation. Lepricavark (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • here is another jaw-droppingly incompetent !vote from Eastmain. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Does Eastmain even read what he is voting on? Here he voted to keep after the article had already been CSD'd. He couldn't have read and evaluated the article (unless he sat pondering before voting) . The article was CSD'd after the nominator gave into the pressure from several people telling him that the article was not notable and should not have been created on the chance that it become notable in the future. Natureium (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Yep that it the kind of thing I keep seeing. The CRYSTAL nature of the vote is invalid in any case.Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have never argued that the existence of an article in another language Wikipedia is proof of notability in English. What I argue is this: Checking the appropriate other language Wikipedia is an important part of WP:BEFORE because the other Wikipedia may have a better article that can improve the English article. Mountains are inherently notable, and a national mapping agency is a reliable source for that country's geography. And many good articles started out weak, and that problems with articles can often be handled better by editing than deletion. And this is one important way that I try to make Wikipedia better.

It is interesting that @DexterPointy: makes reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myši Natálie Mooshabrové, where I helped improve the article, and the article was kept at AfD.

To be fair to @Starzynka:, Gormshall Grange, deleted as "no evidence of the existence" appears on this list: Abbeys and Religious Buildings in Surrey. Historical buildings, such as the abbeys and related buildings in Lincolshire, are generally the subject of references in reliable sources and may also have "listed building" status, which I think justifies creation of a series of stubs that can be expanded later. Another of Starzynka's articles, Rapska Plovidba, deleted as G1 patent nonsense, is a ferry company with an article in the Croatian Wikipedia at hr:Rapska plovidba. I think that Starzynka was working in good faith, and any topics for which references couldn't be found were caused by faults in the source material, not any malice on Starzynka's part. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

>>It is interesting that @DexterPointy: makes reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myši Natálie Mooshabrové, where I helped improve the article, and the article was kept at AfD.<<
Eastmain's full "improvement" was to add one source and it was exactly the one I dismantled in the AfD. The article today still only have that same single unreliable source.
Sorry, but Eastmain is either grossly incompetent or trolling.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Starzynka used a bot to create 25k unreferenced microstubs. That there is a other wikipedia article, fine. The stubs are usually not more than the format X is a book/film by Y published in Z or X is a village in Y with Z inhabitants and should be remade/retranslated from scratch. Especially the unsourced ones. I was wrong with the nomination speed, now don't misuse this to keep this crap in Wikipedia. If a TBAN is nessecary, I will not protest against it. » Shadowowl | talk 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Eastmain, Rapska Plovidba may well be a ferry company, but what Starzynska created was "Rapska Plovidba is a village in Croatia." (that's the full text of the article, the remainder was a settlement infobox and some cats). And they created a whole bunch of similar "settlements" which weren't settlements at all. Whether they were working in good faith or not is completely irrelevant, if the end result is so untrustworthy, deleting them all is the best solution by far. "any topics for which references couldn't be found were caused by faults in the source material, not any malice on Starzynka's part." No, they were not caused by "faults in the source material" nor by malice, they were caused by lack of competence or lack of care by Starzynska. Wikipedia is an unreliable source, and an unsourced article in another wikilanguage version is a terrible source to base an article on (never mind that another wikilanguage may have completely different notability standards for e.g. books and plays). The examples I gave are from the end of their editing career, long after they had received lots of advice and warnings about their problematic editing (see for example this version of their talk page, especially the last 4 sections (by 4 different editors) all listing serious problems with their articles. They removed these unanswered with the edit summary "moan moan moan". These articles were not the result of errors by some well-meaning newbie, but the result of an editor who didn't care about our standards, reliability, correctness, ... and only was interested in mass-producing microstubs any which way. Fram (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to support up to a 14-day "cool-down" moratorium on AFD nominations (but not participation) for Shadowowl; the constant flow of nominations makes it difficult for this situation to calm down. I feel that sanction is not much more than a WP:TROUT in severity. I don't think any sanction against Eastmain would be beneficial at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I am NOT related to User:Shadowowl. I have seen so many bad faith name callings on both sides. And I only got involved by reopening Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks_(2nd_nomination) cause I disagree with how it was handle. In addition, there were further issues in the inclusion criteria, which resulted in an all out edit war and spat in the talk page. I presented new arguements, which I think merited a new AFD. And in regard to the mountain AFD, I had a look at the WP:GEOLAND, which states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." None of the references in the Norwegian or the english article goes beyond saying WP:ITEXISTS. Anyway why are we arguing the merit of the AFD here rather than at the article itself. Plus User:Andrew_Davidson had assumed bad faith for my re-nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks_(2nd_nomination). And thirdly, I only called for a REDIRECT of the stub articles not a deletion. While the author maybe notable, the is no content for the individual books to suffeciently expand the article. As User:DexterPointy earlier said there is no encyclopedic contents in the stubs. I called for a redirect, which can allow the article to be expanded at a later date.

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martín Deiros was improperly handled as the closing reason was that Shadow did not give a proper reason for the AFD. I re-opened with a proper reason and as of now, there is onethree INDEPENDENT editor that had voted for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martín_Deiros_(3rd_nomination). Also, I had done a before and couldn't find any sources for those re-opens. So I was not trying to be disruptive or tag team Shadow or Pointy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Notability doesn't matter I can't understand why so many editors on both sides of this "debate" aren't getting this. Articles consisting of a single sentence either (a) duplicating content taken from longer articles, (b) probably containing more bullshit than verifiable fact, or (c) both, should be redirected or deleted because they hinder the encyclopedia's readability and utility, regardless of supposed "notability" concerns. This is in accordance with our deletion policy, specifically WP:DEL5 and kinda WP:DEL6; one of the worst aspects of our deletion process is that most of the editors who frequently take part in the process seem to think DELREASON consists exclusively of WP:DEL8. I even once encountered a highly experienced editor (an admin!) who was actively denying the authority of WP:DEL9. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(b) and (c) aren't proven, and the AfD record is prima facie evidence against them. DEL:5 doesn't strictly apply to the pages brought to AfD since redirects were often possible, and DEL:6 doesn't apply because even the unreferenced stubs were typically - not always - accurate. Whether such short stubs are worth having is a bigger question than one thread at ANI can answer (I tend to think they have value in pointing out where work remains to be done, but they should have at least one reference to provide a starting point; editors should try to provide such a reference and only nominate if they can't find one). I'm not sure what the right venue is for the broader debate, but I doubt it's here. › Mortee _talk 22:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mortee: I already proved (b) further up this thread by alluding to In der Falle, which claimed a non-fiction essay collection was a "novel" for years until I fixed it because of the AFD started by Shadowowl. Everything in the article that wasn't bullshit was alread in our article on the author, which is (c). Anyway, someone who normally only uses AFD to nominate articles that he feels should be deleted in accordance with our deletion policy, and doesn't try to balance out their "record" by !voting "keep" in other AFDs will by definition have a high rate of "delete" !voting. DEL:5 does apply since AFD is the prescribed venue for discussion of potentially controversial "redirect, not merge" proposals one doesn't want to implement unilaterally. From what I've seen DEL:6 only doesn't apply in cases where where DEL:5 does: again, the only accurate/verifiable information in the In der Falle article was that taken from another article. I don't think it really is a big question: most editors would almost certainly agree the encyclopedia doesn't benefit from such short stubs, since only readers with extremely high internet speeds or very low literacy levels would find the time needed to load a page that includes one sentence of information worthwhile. Blocking/banning someone who already apologized within a day or two of the original incident, more than a week after the fact, when it's not even like the basic principle they were acting on was an unambiguous policy violation, is unnecessary and arguably disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: One misdescribed book isn't strong evidence that the whole batch is majority bullshit. Counterpoints include The Strangers in the House, Pan Theodor Mundstock and My Companions in the Bleak House. Of course that's also anecdata. No-one's suggested a block. Eastmain is asking for admin help reviewing potentially faulty deletions, and others have suggested topic bans to limit the chances of more wasted time. › Mortee _talk 09:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

At the time that Shadow created the AFD, a lot of them were useless, un-encyclopedic stubs like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Companions_in_the_Bleak_House&oldid=380032897

I think it may be unfair upon Shadow that later editors participating in the AFD see an expanded article and think that was the version that Shadow nominated.

A mass undeletion articles that was the result of Shadow's AFDs is likewise disruptive since they were the result of other editors agreeing with Shadow that they were indeed not notable. I'm sure nobody is going around blindly agreeing with Shadow and mass vote delete on each and every AFD that Shadow creates.

In fact, I'm seeing the opposite. Many of the AFDs have comments like speedy keep. Bad faith nomination, without even considering whether the articles should be deleted or not. That means people are saying to keep the articles on the basis that Shadow nominated them. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Tyw7 my point was limited to Hijiri's (b) - the expansions verified what was in the stubs, so those examples didn't contain "more bullshit than verifiable fact". That's all. › Mortee _talk 16:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

the expansions verified what was in the stubs No. You are wrong, and I will not allow statements like that to stand unchallenged. The expansions falsified and removed what was in the stubs. The fact that In der Falle contained more bullshit than fact at the time of nomination is indisputable, and given that fact deletion would have been preferable to keeping as is. It was me who fixed that article, so your telling me that there was nothing to fix is downright insulting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

No one's suggesting a block, but a lot of people have suggested a ban. Banning something for a good-faith mistake, even a massive good-faith mistake, for which they had already apologized more than a week before the ban was proposed is counter-policy. And please bear in mind that this is coming from the person who was perhaps the second or third to call SO out on the clumsiness of his mistake. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think one of the reason is that notability is the strongest argument as anything less of proving the article is unnotable usually ends in a keep. As you can see with Shadow. He nominated a bunch of stubs as unencyclopedic but they were kept on the grounds that sources exist. However, usually, nobody bothers to make the article encyclopedic after the vote. It remains a useless stub and any attempts to remove it are speedy kept on the grounds that the previous AFD resulted in a keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7:Maybe, but arguing that an AFD should be closed as "keep" because the topic is notable, when neither the nominator nor any of the other "delete" !voters invoked notability, is disruptive (I know this doesn't technically apply here since Shadowowl did make notability arguments), and as far as I am concerned if we are not going to sanction the editors who engage in this, sanctioning other editors for occasionally saying "delete: not notable" when the articles should be deleted/redirected despite the topics being notable (which does technically apply here) is a very dangerous precedent to set. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying but I don't know enough of User:Eastmain to endorse the topic ban on him.

But I think that intent matters as well, as what I can see User:Shadowowl's mass nomination was done in good faith. In my view, a bunch of those articles are unencyclopedic stubs that provides little information. While they can be expanded later, in the meantime, they would better be redirected to the author page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about TBANning Eastmain. I wasn't even talking about them specifically (I actually don't even know if they made bogus notability arguments to shoot down legitimate arguments that had nothing to do with notability); my concern was about dozens of users over several years, who to the best of my knowledge have never been called out, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

I agree with you on the latter point, and I think almost all reasonable Wikipedians would too if quizzed on this or that particular sub-stub "article", which is why I think SO made a bad call mass-nominating those pages at AFD rather than redirecting the content forks with obvious redirect targets and nominating the ones for which he could find neither a good redirect target nor sufficient sources to expand.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My bad. I must have gotten confused as there were calls for a TBan against East and Shadow. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered that Eastmain also moved two Starzynka drafts to mainspace immediately before creating this 2'nd ANI against Shadowowl.
So, Eastmain isn't just trouble in AfDs, but also doing bad draft to mainspace moves.
-- DexterPointy (talk)
@Fram: Would it make sense to suggest a permanent ban on Eastmain from all AfD activity, and possibly also from creating articles?
: As I see it, then: A temporary ban seems like banning the well intended blind veteran from driving a school bus for only a limited amount of time.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Those were the drafts I draftified, before I found out that PROD was a better idea. Also Eastmain posted an ANI notice on Starzynka's page, ignoring the fact that an 8-year-long banned user probably wouldn't respond. Also see [[115]], an AFD for an article that User:Heliosxeros declined, but Eastmain moved it to mainspace anyways. Source 2 is a translation of source 5, and source 1 is a garbage clickbait article. I've removed those sources. » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamuna_Boro&oldid=851859315 is the decline reason by the way. That does seem worrying as there was little change in the article between the decline and the move. Here's the link to the move done by Eastmain https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamuna_Boro&diff=prev&oldid=851873514 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment)(as a neutral AFD Patroller) I still hold the previous closing statement[116] to be correct and perfectly sensible. If the 2 contributors above, would have spent a fraction of the time spent above on their Afd Contributions instead of spending on repeatedly long (may I say litigation, per WP:BATTLE), Wikipedia would be better off. AFAIK Shadow owl has not violated the conditions of the previous closure statement.
• Now coming to the topic of Quality of AfD comments on the nominations of both Eastmain and Shadowowl. Although I have seen only a few comments /noms of both during my AfD patrolling.

1. I believe Shadowowl (is a deletionist Afd Counter) is nominating them in good faith. and The his nominations are regularly being deleted as well. If the article does not deserve to be deleted it will survive AfD. as always.
2. I believe Eastmain is a keeper (inclusionist Afd Counter) per his AfD vote count check. He almost always votes for Keep. And often based on my observation there is a visible lack of a genuine reasons in many of his AfD keep !votes (some examples above, I can add more but I choose not to) that I have come across during my AfD patrolling.

That said, everyone is human and fallible. we should assume good faith. Shadowowl should not only religiously follow WP:BEFORE WP:ATD but also should be seen by others following the same. Eastmain should avoid commenting on Shadowowl in Afds and focus his comments "ONLY" on the topic. Ad hominem unnecessarily poisons the atmosphere of AFd debate.

We need both deletionist and inclusionist for a successful AfD. So I dont support any block or BAN or IBAN on any of them. That said, If an admin digs deeper and finds anything disturbing and worth blocking they may go ahead to establish peace. I still dont support blocking a Trouting is still ok. --DBigXray 19:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: This. Eastmain voted for keep on a 12 year old spam article because he found a promotional mention. He always votes keep. » Shadowowl | talk 10:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The continued existence of this ANI thread about an issue that had already been apologized for and resolved before it was opened, and the fact that none of it has apparently been retracted or apologized for, indicates a degree of BATTLEGROUND and IDHT on Eastmain's part, and the statistics support the idea that he/she is doing so based on a personal ideological bias rather than a sincere attempt to resolve a problem based on our policies and guidelines, so I would tentatively support a TBAN on Eastmain until he/she withdraws this frivolous ANI complaint and perhaps apologizes for the excessive/unnecessary attacks on Shadowowl. Ping me if/when there is a formal proposal so I can reiterate this opinion in a context where it might actually matter for something. And yes, the JangleBox !vote is very troubling, and in an ideal world (read: one where other editors guilty of the same policy-violations, on a much larger and more disruptive scale, didn't constantly get off with wrist-slaps because AFD is ... messy) I would say by itself it would merit at least keeping an eye on them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Eastmain: some of the above comments show that there is a case of WP:BOOMERANG here. Can you clarify your stand and respond to some of the troubling questions above by several editors. Also appreciate if you can outline what steps "YOU" are going to take to prevent recurring of such allegations on yourself. May be self imposed restrictions will help your cause. --DBigXray 11:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: suggested that I reply. I started this thread because Shadowowl made a series of disruptive nominations without doing WP:BEFORE and initially refused to stop. Some nominations may have been valid, in the same way that a broken clock is correct twice a day. JangleBox has a review – not a "promotional mention" – in a reliable source. My moves from draft to article space were correct. Neve Tzahal and Neve Barbur were stubs created by Starzynka. both topics are notable and I improved the articles before returning them to article space. Stubs have been part of Wikipedia since the beginning and have value. For Vestre Hestlægerhøy] and other mountain articles, I added details from the Swedish articles. Geographic features are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that response to some of the above raised criticisms, is a fudge having WP:IDHT and WP:CIR as ingredients.
  -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  You have added nothing beyond stats. [117] [118] [119] [120] These are your "additions".
  In fact that article is the very definition of exception to WP:GEOLAND named natural feature rule. It states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  Eastman brought up a completely different topic at this RFC. We were talking about stubby articles about Israeli neighborhoods and he brought up the AFD about Norwegian mountains. (diff). Also his tone seemed a bit belegerant to me, accusing those who try to nominated those articles as vandals. DBigXray and Hijiri88, what do you think of this? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Eastmain: A promotional review then. It was unreliable and promotional anyways, which you should have seen (instead of nitpicking on that I called it a mention). Eastmain thinks that making a WP:NCORP failing article notable exists of adding 1 promotional source and nothing else. I suggest a 6 month (at least) TBAN for Eastmain on voting at AFD. » Shadowowl | talk 23:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  And it could be seen as a type of canvassing. Bringing like minded people onto the AFD by bringing it up at the place where everybody is in support of keeping stub articles. The focus on that review was nothing to do with Norwegian mountains but he brought it up. That will cause a few people to search for the mentioned mountains and vote for keeping it. Might be a far stretch but I thought I might share my thought. And Shadow, what do you mean by promotional review and that I should have seen it? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Tyw7: It was a message for Eastmain » Shadowowl | talk 00:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Merphee

Merphee is a relatively new editor who seems to be rather problematic.

This talk page edit contains the expression "Discuss content and the effort I made or shove your personal attacks up your arse!" which, all else aside, shows a remarkable disregard for irony.

Talk:Emma_Husar has a veritable wall of invitations for other editors to "fuck off" and a "Don't you care that this talk page is being disrupted by this childish bullshit". Also, as far as I can make out, there's a wall of IDONTHEARTHAT against multiple other editors there.

Generally this editor's talk page style is in a familiar unhelpful pattern where if they are asked not to engage in (say) disruptive editing their every response is then to accuse everyone else of the same thing, and they seem largely incapable of dropping any stick.

Their edit summaries are also insulting and needlessly inflammatory (and the content of these edits isn't great, either).

Talk:David_Leyonhjelm#$55,000_in_donations_from_tobacco_company has another problematic interaction. It seems clear to me that Merphee was initially responsible for the degeneration from a discussion of content to a mud-slinging contest and then continued that mud-slinging contest enthusiastically, not without shedding the occasional crocodile tear about their supposed desire to discuss content.

I am completely uninvolved in any of these disputes (or any other disputes with the editors concerned). While the conduct of some of the other editors involved is also problematic, I think it is less so, it seems to me all the other editors are clearly actually HERE to build an encylopaedia not to have talk-page dustups, and I can see how an otherwise reasonable person might well become utterly exasperated with Merphee's approach to discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I need to make it very clear that my only reason for using that language on one single day and not since was because editor HiLo48 told me to "fuck off" first and I was both shocked and offended thinking that an administrator would have stepped in. I would never have told another editor to fuck off like HiLo48 did and if I did I would have assumed that OI would be reprimanded. But it all seemed fine with other editors. My use of the F-bomb was a direct result of that to prove a point. I asked for an interaction ban with this editor HiLo48 as we have obviously had hostile interactions ever since they told me to fuck off. The issue at the Emma Husar article was resolved a week ago. So why reported now Pinkbeast? Are we or are we not able to tell other editors to fuck off?Merphee (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you saying that when I was told to fuck off by HiLo48 who has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. Apologies again for being human and finally cracking after being constantly abused, demeaned, attacked and told to fuck off by hiLo48 without them apologising.Merphee (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Just had an Edit conflict there.) Yes, I for one am utterly exasperated with Merphee's approach to discussion, AND editing. Here is today's example.... Merphhee pushes a somewhat right wing point of view in his editing, trying hard to add negative content about politicians on the left (but only slightly so) and removing criticism of those on the right. In an earlier discussion I had correctly pointed out to him that The Australian, being a Rupert Murdoch publication, is politically at the right hand end of the spectrum of mainstream news outlets in Australia. (I am sure this will surprise no well-informed reader here.) He argued and blustered about this at the time, not even recognising the possibility that this could be so, and demanding proof. He seemed unaware of global Murdoch editorial policies. This morning he edited the article for that newspaper, with no discussion, removing a quote that said pretty much what I have just written. As an experienced editor I have, time after time, encouraged Merphee to use Talk pages BEFORE he makes controversial or POV edits, with no success. Actually, I don't think he recognises that, like the rest of us, he has a POV. He's certainly not good at keeping it out of his editing. Merphee is incredibly hypocritical when he does get to talk pages. He roundly abuses other editors, then when they respond in kind, insists they stick to discussing content, then he returns to abuse, and lies. (There are lies in that comment from him above.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is my normal response to The Drover's Wife, who I found very reasonable and neutral in their editing and interactions with other editors. [121] I apologise for any disruption to the article because of my conflict with HiLo48 who first told me to fuck off and has belittled and demeaned me constantly until I finally cracked and hit back. I'm only human.Merphee (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I also discovered HiLo48 has been blocked from editing for a month in the past for similar personal attacks and abuse toward other editors.Merphee (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit seems germane to the idea that Merphee has not had difficulties with The Drover's Wife, along with much of the start of Talk:Emma Husar ("I have asked you numerous times The Drovers Wife to show civility, knock off the personal attacks and only discuss content", etc). The impression Merphee is trying to give here of being able to work reasonably with some editors does not appear accurate. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I can 100% corroborate what HiLo48 and Pinkbeast have said, through my own similar experiences with Merphee. They are a "problem editor" to say the least, but they are always outnumbered by more normal editors so the disruption is fairly contained. To my knowledge they have been warned by an administrator. I considered making an incident notice like this but I wasn't sure on what terms to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip worked as a team with HiLo48 and was just as abusive and childish as I admittedly was. As I said in my interactions with The Drover's Wife for example I was very civil. They are an excellent and unbiased editor in my opinion.  [122] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, nobody hit you. The disruption was not only your bickering with Hilo48, it was mostly the edits made that were against consensus. HiLo48 would absolutely not be blocked for anything they have said to you. I've never even heard of HiLo48 before I encountered you. You're entitled to report myself or HiLo48 if you think we have been disruptive. If you want to respond to me, please use my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No I have never been warned by any administrator on any article onetwothreeip. Why would you say that? Can you please show me where?Merphee (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I also note that it was only the Emma Husar article that I had this conflict with other editors. No other articles I have ever edited have I had any conflict with any other editors at any point in time apart from with HiLo48 who has constantly belittled me and told me to fuck off. I admit the Emma Husar article talk page was appalling but it was a week ago? So just as onetwothreeip lied about an administrator warning me before, when they never have, why would onetwothreeip also lie about other articles when said "they are always outnumbered by more normal editors" There has only been one article where multiple editors were involved. Also The Drover's Wife agreed with a number of edits I planned to make. I decided to let things go and accept consensus. But that was a week ago. So why now? is this reported?Merphee (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Leyonhjelm, Talk:The Australian, Talk:George Christensen (politician), Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Talk:Sarah Hanson-Young. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't see where onetwothreeip said you have been warned by an adminstrator?is it here, or on another talk page? Curdle (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

On this talk page, in this thread about me Curdle they lied about saying an administrator has warned me in the past. [123]. No they haven't ever on any article. I don't lie. Also onetwethreeip falsely accused me of "they are always outnumbered by more normal editors". As I just said apart from the Emma Husar where other editors like The Drover's Wife also agreed with some of my points there has only been one editor I've had conflict with and that is HiLo48 the person who originally told me to fuck off and has continually belittled me and attacked me. You just posted these articles onetwothreeip but as I just said it's conflict with one editor HiLo48. Talk:The Australian, Talk:George Christensen (politician), Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

Never mind the thing about being warned by an administrator then, I qualified that by being to my knowledge. The conduct is certainly not contained to the talk page for the Emma Husar article. Even when the insults are only directed at one editor, that is still bad. Being outnumbered by other editors, I was referring to the Emma Husar talk page. Very silly move to claim they are supported in their endeavours by The Drover's Wife. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see it there, I think it was an honest mistake on Onetwothreeip's part Merphee, although in the interests of fairness, they probably should strike that out in their original statement. Curdle (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I was thinking of a user from David Leyonhjelm, to which Merphee also edited, who I suspected was operated by the same person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And there you go again trying to discredit me further by saying I was another user from the article that disagreed with you. Other editors can disagree with each other onetwothreeip. You knew I'd never been warned by an administrator. The Drover's Wife did agree with some of my points on the Emma Husar article as you and HiLo48 know. And I have not been outnumbered on the articles I've just proved you are lying about to try and discredit me here when you listed them above. As I keep saying my conflict has been with the one editor HiLo48 who was banned for a month for personal attacks and constantly demeans me, belittles me, abuses me, tells me to fuck off, reverts good edits I've made and then refuses to discuss them like on the talk pages Talk:The Australian and of course told me to fuck off which you onetwothreeip thought was perfectly ok. I'm sorry I disagreed with some of your opinions on the Emma Husar talk page over a week ago now, but that's no reason to come on here and spread lies that I've just proven are lies and misinformation.. On the Emma Husar article it was you and HiLo48 that I had conflict with and given I've never ever been warned by an administrator before this on any article at any time and the Emma Husar article was a week ago and I kept trying to move on while you continually antagonised me, why are we here? I apologise for anything I said on the emma husar article. It's not ok to tell other editors to fuck off. I only said it to prove a point that if HiLo48 could get away with it and you condoning it I could say fuck off too. Is it ever ok to tell other editors to fuck off like HiLo48 did? You said it was ok to tell other editors to fuck off onetwothreeip. I don't think it is. It creates hostility and is against policy. It has led to the report being made here.Merphee (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your main defence is now that one person thinks that not all your edits are completely rubbish. All I'm doing here is saying that HiLo48 and Pinkbeast are correct, all evidence shows this. I don't want to argue with you any more, but if you have anything to say about me, please take it to my talk page. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Main defence? I'm wondering why you said it was ok to tell another editor to fuck off? It's never ok to tell other editors to fuck off is it? And on the final point on the Emma Husar article The drover's Wife and I agreed on an edit, and we were just trying to get the wording right, as you know, and you and HiLo48 disagreed. The Drovers wife also warned us, all three of us that our bickering was disruptive. I agreed and walked away. The Emma Husar article was over a week ago. Why is it brought up now? Ever since it has just been HiLo48 and I on other articles like The Australian where HiLo48 reverts for no reason and then refuses to discuss content as you know onetwothreeip. What I don't like is you coming on here and openly lying as I've proved you've done on each of your points to try and discredit me simply because I disagreed with you on the Emma Husar article. Anyway I'm done defending myself. You can lie all you like onetwothreeip and HiLo48 can go and keep bullying, demeaning, belittling other editors and continue telling them to fuck off and telling everyone on his talk page and how corrupt and terrible he thinks all of the hardworking administrators are on Wikipedia as he talks about on his talk page.Merphee (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)  

Since Merphee is so obsessed with it, I shall tackle the fuck off story. I said this to Merphee once, and once only, for two reasons. One is that I have found that the precious sensitivities of some here to one naughty word, while ignoring all sorts of other appalling behaviours, means that using that expression actually draws attention to those other behaviours. Secondly, I truly was frustrated with Merphee's repetitive behaviour of attacking other editors quite aggressively, and then in the same thread, often even in the same post, telling everyone else to do nothing but discuss content. Can't be bothered looking up my precise words, but they were to the effect of "You can fuck off with your demands of others to discuss content, while doing entirely the opposite yourself." HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not true at all HiLo48 and you know it. Could you please provide diffs where I supposedly attacked other editors. And I will go about collecting about 100 recent diffs where you attacked, demeaned, belittled, abused me and also told me to fuck off. This has been put here because an uninvolved editor just saw the last end of our horror discussion and constant bickering on the Emma Husar talk page. I just don't think you should go around abusing other editors in the way you do. Anyway that was a week ago and The Drover's Wife politely asked you I and onetwothreeip to stop bickering but you refused. You also revert my edits on other articles and then when I take it to the talk page you refuse to discuss it. Just as you did today at The Australian. I've learnt not to get involved in a ridiculous bickering match as we did on the Emma Husar article, but you appear unrepentant User:HiLo48. I also noted you have a habit of abusing many other Wikipedia editors too and hate administrators who you believe act in gangs and are corrupt and were banned for a month for personal attacks. All I've ever asked is we just discuss content, rather than you making personal and demeaning comments about me while i try to do so. You also were warned about posting comments on my talk page and an administrator Drmies told you to stop. [124] You didn't you kept following me around provoking me thinking it's all very funny. I don't think attacking and abusing other editors is funny HiLo48.Merphee (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not following you around. You keep turning up and making POV edits in articles on my Watchlist. They are on my Watchlist to pick up just such behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah right, why don't you assume some good faith. Your POV editing and abuse of other editors is very disruptive. You also certainly dpo undo good edits and then when I try to discuss them on the talk page you refuse to do so and tell me how on earth they are POV. You then launch into the personal attacks once again and then disappear when I try to bring up policy like you've done on the ABC and The Australian articles., Stop telling anyone who doesn't agree with your POV editing that they are POV editing. This whole thread is ridiculous. You shouldn't be telling other editors to fuck off HiLo48.Merphee (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And you sure as hell didn't just say "You can fuck off with your demands of others to discuss content..." which is bad enough it was bluntly telling me to fuck off. Is it ok on here to tell others to fuck off HiLo48? It's not called the F-bomb for nothing.Merphee (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned you don't seem to be taking on board that its not just two editors that are having problems with your edits. In the last month, you have been to the Dispute Resolution Board, the BLP board and now someone completely uninvolved in either of those disputes has taken you to ANI. This is not a sign that things are going well. Pretty much noone has agreed with your edits, a lot have been reverted. I checked your edits at the Australian, and sorry, I would have reverted them too. You cant just charge into articles like a bull in a china shop and expect to rework them to your own views, all the while insisting that you are the only unbiased one. You need to respect other editors work, and try some WP:AGF that everyone is working together to build an encyclopedia. Your edit summaries diff illustrate your complete lack of insight into your own biases. I reverted an edit you made a few days back; you removed a study on the ABC page supporting the statement that journalists found the ABC generally reliable as a source of information, saying the link was dead, the study was old and that you had searched for sources, but not found any diff. I thought it was odd, because the link was archived and worked perfectly, so reverted you pointing out the link worked. You then cherry picked negative info out of the same study and put it into the article. (so one minute its no good old outdated, next its ok to take negative info from? you didnt check the link at all before deleting it?) Then came further removal of "pro" ABC and addition of "negative" ABC material. This is not neutral editing! And Btw, the only reason you didnt have a "conflict" with me at that time was because I checked your contributions, saw the trainwreck at the Emma Husar page and was kinda horrified at the thought of attempting a discussion. I am saying something now because I don't think you are listening when others are telling you you can't keep going on like this. Your edits are getting reverted, you are fighting all over the place, but it is every other editors fault. Perhaps give politics a rest? Curdle (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

When you reverted I did not revert again but included another section from the same study. I had thought it was a dead link. There are 2 PDFs in the source. One of them is active and one is a dead link. I clicked on the dead link one that's the only reason I deleted it. As soon as I realised I agreed with you!And I sure as hell wasn't the only one involved in the trainwreck either at Emma Husar. There are 3 articles that I have edited in the last 24 hours that have not had edits reverted. I am relatively new here and willing to learn but instead am being accused of bad faith editing. I have never engaged in edit warring. I have been told to fuck off. I have been belittled, abused and demeaned. What the hell ever happened to civility. Can't editors treat new editors with a bit of kindness instead of telling them to fuck off. Geez.Merphee (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, yes, thats an archived link! Thats what they look like! They are not that uncommon; there are several other archived links used in that article. It even says it there "archived from the original". There are not "two Pdfs at the source", just the one 4 paged PDF. I dont quite know what to say...you don't seem to acknowlege that it could be a problem that because you didnt properly check what you were doing you removed a perfectly good source that just happened to be one that you thought did not support the slant you wanted in the article.

You didnt get reverted on those other 3 articles because your edits were all pretty minor and none were political so no POV pushing!Curdle (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Every editor who has been bickering and battling and repeating the same argument for the umpteenth time should remain quiet for 48 hours, so that uninvolved editors can ponder how pointless and obsessive this dispute actually is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A credibility problem?

Claim from Merphee - "There are 3 articles that I have edited in the last 24 hours that have not had edits reverted."

Truth - Merphee has edited only in this thread, and at The Australian, where I reverted his POV edits because of his failure to discuss them beforehand.

There is much, much more in his claims above with equal levels of truth.HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

LIE Sorry HiLo48 who is fond of telling me to fuck off and constantly belittling other editors and lying about me. These 3 articles Ray Meagher, Bruce Highway and Soccer in Australia 48 hours then. This is ridiculous and it was the same bickering that you HiLo48, onetwothreeip and I were doing on the Emma Husar article and we were all told to stop doing. You don't listen. It was the same when you wouldn't listen to Drmies who told you to stop harassing me after I'd asked you multiple times to stop posting on my talk page but you wouldn't and you ignored Drmies too. I should have reported you then. Or when you told me to fuck off.Merphee (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And my edit today on The Australian was not a POV edit. Stop assuming bad faith!Merphee (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Please just report us if you think we should be reported. I want to let the community look at this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week for socking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

By my count, Merphee has informed us 27 times in this thread that HiLo told them to fuck off. I think we get that by now. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can we know which account is the sockpuppet(s)? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Onetwothreeip. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_violating_BLP_at_various_articles --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on further input, I have rescinded the sock block. Behavior can continue to be discussed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say I have learnt from this experience and although the sockpuppet accusations were overturned, it gave me a chance to reflect on my own behaviour here and my own civility toward other editors and my own need to become more familiar with and adhere to policy rather than point fingers at anyone else. I would appreciate an opportunity to start afresh and move on?Merphee (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Last night Australian time I posted on your Talk page with sincere advice. You seemed to accept it positively at first, and then turned on me with massive amounts of abuse. I still don't understand why. (And no, I will never go near your Talk page again.) I saw no sign there of starting afresh. (To any Admin wondering what I'm talking about, Merphee deleted the entire conversation, which he had turned into multiple sections. I recommend a look at it to see some typical problems with his behaviour.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

All that has happened today is NeilN and Awilley and myself asking you to please stop posting on my talk page and stop the personal attacks. [125] on me and you refused. That was it. Drmies and others have also asked you to stop as well in the past but you refused. I am genuinely trying to learn here and ask for a chance to move on especially given I was accused of something I wasn't guilty of and have let that go. Why can't you just drop it HiLo48. You are far from innocent here HiLo48 but I did say I don't want to point fingers. NeilN made the decision to unblock me and I respected that. I just want to move on but you've got me by the throat here HiLo48 and won't let me go. [126]Merphee (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously these promises of civility should be accepted, but this must apply to editing as much as it applies to talk page conduct. If behaviour does not change, I anticipate pursuing the 26 times Merphee told HiLo48 "fuck off" or something to that effect. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"I am genuinely trying to learn here." And last night I was genuinely trying to teach, as well as help, but got abused for it. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If you really want to learn, you have to accept that it isn't always going to be someone you like teaching you, and take it where you can get it. Sometimes you have to accept that education doesnt come in the way you like it packaged, especially if you wont make the effort to teach yourself. You have been editing here just over a year but didnt recognise a dead url that had been archived. I didnt quite believe that at first, but seeing you are still dumping bare urls into articles, instead of constructing proper references, I assume its possible. Not sure what else there is to say, after reading all of your talkpage - just trying to WP:AGF.Curdle (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Or, or, how about you two just stop poking each other and go your separate ways? I'm just about to nominate an interaction ban if you two don't stop bickering. --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MediaMation MX4D

User:MediaMation MX4D joined Wikipedia just hours ago, and edited the MX4D article. One of edit summaries from the user was "Updated list of movies (by MediaMation staff)". MediaMation developed MX4D, a 4D film presentation format. Isn't it against WP:COI? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 04:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I just warned him after I read your message above. You have to warn potential COI first. JC7V-constructive zone 05:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's no "potential" CoI, here. This is the textbook definition of WP:COI/WP:PROMO. The username also violates username policy. Reported a such. Kleuske (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: By the looks of it, you've been around for a grand total of two weeks. Perhaps it's wiser to stay off AN/I until you get a firm grasp of policy. Kleuske (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation in warning the user not to do COI editing and if they agree not to do it on their talk page, to give ask them nicely to change their username. I've reported a lot of COI/shared use usernames to UAA, so stop biting me, bite the person who filed this AN/I (i didn't file it) Don't single me out (which you unfairly did), I didn't file this AN/I. I am sure there has to be users here who started with 'username violations' and went on to be productive editors after either changing their username or keeping it. I do have a decent to above good grasp of policy. You have no right to keep me from AN/I. I will AGF and leave it at this.JC7V-constructive zone 06:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I provided some good advice. There's a lot of pages to frolic around on. WP:ANI is not one of them. Especially if you do not make it clear you are not an admin. Kleuske (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@JSH-alive: You are obliged to notify the user you bring up here, per the big red banner at the top of this page. I've done that for you. Kleuske (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn't notice it. Thanks for the tip. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 06:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, User:Melacous (sp?) told me on my talk page to warn the COI users first before reporting them to COI (which is a similar noticeboard) and he/she said leave a warning template on their talk page before bringing them to these boards. I've never reported a potential COI to AN/I before and all the ones I do report go straight to UAA. I figured this particular user should have been warned instead of being here (I didn't feel UAA was right in this one case, so trout me for that). JC7V-constructive zone 06:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

to Kleuske and all readin this, When I said "you have to warn potential COI first." i meant warn them about their COI editing before taking them to one of these noticeboards. I didn't mean warn them about their COI before taking them to UAA. I suggest all COI accounts go to UAA, I have reported many there. I didn't report this one to UAA because I felt I was involved. So trout me JC7V-constructive zone 06:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you're making stuff up as you go along. That's not how things work, around here. Kleuske (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Melcous warned you here for an improperly filed report at WP:COIN. I strongly suggest you follow the advice in the last sentence. If you can't find (or interpret) that entry on your own TP, perhaps you're not ready to advise other users on anything. Perhaps a topic-ban for notice-boards is called for. Kleuske (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think a blanket topic ban on noticeboards is a bit much. JC7V7DC5768 clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, even if they are a touch overzealous at times. Someone should work with them to bring them along better, if they intend to be a consistent contributor on the noticeboards. Strikerforce^Talk 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not making stuff up as I go along. I have been fighting vandalism and improving dozens of articles here. My advice was not wrong per say. I meant 'warn the potential COI user before taking them to COI/ANI'. I didn't mean warn COi accounts before taking them to UAA. You are biting hard. I was just sharing advice with a user that I had gotten about my mistake (not warning a coi account before taking them to a noticeboard). I am not 'making stuff up' you have no proof or basis for that personal attack. I suggest you strike it. I will reread policy to have a firm enough grasp to post on these boards in the future. DON'T BITE THE NEWBIES.JC7V-constructive zone 07:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are either an experienced user, in which case WP:BITE isn't applicable, or you're a newbie who should not be dishing out advice on AN/I in the first place. If that's too complicated, maybe WP:CIR is an issue, here. Besides, invoking WP:BITE here and requesting my mentorship on my TP is a strange combination. Kleuske (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OK i gave bad advice to the user about COI. I will not give advice out until I grasp the policies a lot better than I do now. I am sorry for my attitudes .I will strive to be better. It won't happen again. Thank you for pointing out what I need to work on. You didn't bite. JC7V-constructive zone 14:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@JC7V7DC5768: That's all I wanted to hear. Don't worry about it, beginners mistake. Kleuske (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible Gaming of the System and Abuse of Process

TaylanUB has apparently been causing problems that, while not urgent, are chronic or intractable.

• After failing to convince his fellow editors in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the lead of Trans woman (which has been supported by consensus) should be changed, he began edit warring, making three[127][128][129] edits against consensus within 24 hours and a fourth[130] less than a day later.
• Note that the fourth war edit came after being warned[131] that edit warring violates policy, that Wikipedia encourages collaboration, and that he should not edit war even if he believes he is right.
• Rather than taking a collaborative approach, TaylanUB said that he intended to break the "'hold'" other editors had had over the article and said that he had already done so in other articles (I do not know which ones).[132]
• He also seems to have threatened to respond to attempts to hold him to Wikipedia's rules by turning records of other editors' "biased behavior" into a "'formal complaint'".[133]
• Less than five days after his most recent attempt to change the lead through edit warring TaylanUB submitted a report to NPOV/N without linking to a discussion on Talk:Trans woman as prescribed on the page.[134]
• After more than a few editors objected to his RfC on procedural grounds, citing WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:SPA among others, TaylanUB offered a defense[135] that to my eyes looks like an explanation of civil POV pushing from the perspective of someone who is "civil"ly pushing a POV, and he says that his strategy has allowed him to revise other articles (I do not know which ones, but apparently they are related to trans people or gender) in accordance with his "'trans-critical'" perspective. (There also seems to be an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in this diff as it had already been pointed out to him that public opinion polls cannot be used as reliable sources in this context.[136])

Please look into what can be done about TaylanUB's editing behavior not only for the sake of Trans woman but also for the sake of other articles to which he has employed his strategy. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 07:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The other articles referred to may be Feminist views on transgender topics and Transphobia, where long discussions eventually resulted in a consensus acceptable to most parties. If those are the articles then I don't know what he means by his approach as it did not really work, it just happen to coincide with more eyes being drawn to those articles. From my experience at those articles Taylan can be difficult, but they generally listen to advice. He shouldn't edit war though and knows no better than that. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: is there a stray 'no' (knows no better) in your last sentence or was it intentional? Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for pointing it out. AIRcorn (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My only interaction with TaylanUB to date is via the WP:NPOVN where he recently began a discussion regarding the neutrality of the article Trans woman. The discussion has become quite lengthy [137] and it appears his suggested wording change has received significant support from previously uninvolved editors as well as significant opposition from previous article contributors. I recommended a formal RfC as a means to avoid any future edit warring over this issue [138] While I have no comment on Taylan’s past editing, as I didn’t follow it, his current editing appears to involve utilizing dispute resolution, and I think that may actually be the problem here, because the outside input appears to sometimes be at odds with the status quo, which Marie Paradox appears to support. If Taylan agrees to open a formal WP:RfC instead of simply inserting his suggested changes into the article, I think this report should be closed and admins should keep an eye on Taylan to make sure he continues to use dispute resolution instead of edit warring and also keep an eye on the filer of this report, Marie Paradox. DynaGirl (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Point of Information: DynaGirl, are you suggesting that I am using this forum simply to uphold the status quo at Trans woman? If so, does WP:PA, particularly the part that says that accusations about personal behavior should be supported by evidence, apply here? -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 15:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Why would the observation of facts be a personal attack? TaylanUB has edit warred against the status quo, you have brought that editor to ANI in order to end the edit warring and maintain the status quo, TaylanUB has been advised to take their content concerns to an RfC where such content disputes should go, and DynaGirl has observed that the current talk about this issue has shown that uninvolved editors are not always seeing eye-to-eye with involved editors. Recasting those very neutral observations as a personal attack is not an appropriate response. Grandpallama (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted edit history at Trans woman shows TaylanUB has not edited the article at all since initiating dispute resolution at NPOVN over a mounth ago [139]. With no edits to the article in over a month, as well as active participation in dispute resolution, it seems odd that Marie Paradox would file an ANI report for Taylan at this time. It should also be noted that Marie’s statement above of "After more than a few editors objected to his RfC on procedural grounds" is erroneous, or at the very least misleading. There is no current RfC, rather an RfC was suggested to Taylan as an option at NPOVN following lengthy discussion and input from multiple editors. The discussion involved possible wording for a future RfC and Marie Paradox objected to editors discussing possible wording for a future RfC [[140]],[[141]], [[142]]. DynaGirl (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

DynaGirl, is it just me, or is it the case that once you cast aspersions at me, you remain entrenched in your position, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, but when I ask questions about your behavior, you become evasive?

What good comes out of failing to mention that the first time[143] you suggested that I was trying to shut down discussion came shortly after I had started a WP:BRD cycle on Trans woman aimed at replacing an inappropriate POV tag with a more appropriate POV tag that links to an appropriate section of the talk page and that I explained[144] that while I felt I should not be the one to do so, I would welcome the insertion of an appropriate tag with an appropriate link? What good comes out of failing to mention that before you posted the accusation above I requested[145] that you replace the tag with an appropriate one, that Mathglot inserted a POV tag with a link to a section of the talk page with a prominent link to the discussion at NPOVN[146], and that when I replaced[147] the tag with one I felt was more appropriate I left the link intact? (For anyone who does not know, TaylanUB had not left a link to the discussion at NPOVN at the talk page. Though other editors had made commendable efforts to compensate, it would have been easy for new readers to miss links to NPOVN before Mathglot's edit.) I think most people who looked at the whole story would see this series of events as prima facie evidence that I believe people should have easy access to the conversation at NPOVN.

There are two things I firmly believe about the discussion at NPOVN. First, as I have explained to you before, I believe that it happened prematurely. It is my understanding that when it comes to dispute resolution, there is an order to doing things; being open to compromise and and seeking consensus is supposed to happen before taking it to the resolution noticeboard. On a related note, I believe forum shopping is something that the Wikipedia community frowns upon. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.) The second thing I firmly believe about the discussion (and this is also something I have told you before) is that other people should be able to find it and participate as they see fit, whether they "oppose on procedural grounds" as I did or use it more in the way that you hope people will. I realize my view of the situation is nuanced but only slightly so, and I am having a hard time seeing how it has exhausted your ability to assume good faith.

So why have you been so persistent in building a false narrative of me? One possibility I have considered is that you have gotten a bit OWNy about NPOVN -- more specifically you think that you can intimidate me into not expressing "oppose on procedural grounds" and perhaps any other sort of opposition in future discussions of this sort. If that is your thinking, it is all the more important that people be able to freely express that they "oppose on procedural grounds". But I try to assume good faith, especially when it comes to an accusation as serious as this one, which is why I have repeatedly[148][149] asked you about your behavior. I would give the diffs of the responses in which you have not evaded my questions about your apparently OWNy behavior, but you have given no such responses.

I can see how anyone but you might think that my timing of this ANI request was odd. But coming from you I believe your statement is disingenuous. It has become all the more important to discuss the appropriateness of skipping other means of dispute resolution when AFAICT the current means have put you into a better position to intimidate me from expressing a viewpoint contrary to yours.

-- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 00:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Taylan is tendentious, but derailing the discussion immediately like this isn't at all helpful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to knock it off, because the continued assertion that you're being personally attacked by someone because they don't agree with you is increasingly the only personal attack I see. Someone has disagreed with you about content and about how that disagreement has been handled, and you have now suggested that they not only have engaged in personal attacks (without any substance), but also offered suggestions of intimidation, lack of good faith, and WP:OWN behavior. Start providing clear diffs that support those accusations, or stop making them. Grandpallama (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

DynaGirl, you are right. When I said, "RfC", I used the wrong word. I apologize for my error. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment on the "disingenuous" comment by Marie Paradox about DynaGirl. While this might seem like a failure to AGF, I would point to a comment DynaGirl directed at me <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=852708991&oldid=852700890&title=User_talk:DynaGirl> as a possible explanation. It certainly seems odd to me that an editor would state that any behavioural issues by TaylanUB should be sent to AN3 or ANI, and then to react to the ensuing ANI thread essentially with "I haven't looked into his editing history, but he seems to be behaving at the moment so this ANI ought to be closed".

I would also note that Taylan's case seems like a very pure example of a self-professed SPA civil POV pusher pulling the levers on the system in support of a single, strongly-held belief. As noted in the essay WP:SEALION, this is not a situation WP procedures handle very well, q.v. this thread itself. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m going to try to ignore the personal attacks and focus on issues & content. I think what’s being referenced here is during Marie Paradox’s 'oppose on procedural grounds' to editors at WP:NPOVN discussing the wording for possible RfC, Marie cited Taylan’s past edit warring as the reason for her opposition [150],[151], [152], [153]. Newimpartial supported Marie here [154] calling Taylan a "Sealion”. I responded that if Taylan continues to edit war or if he continues to edit disruptively, that should be brought to AN3 or ANI, but stated that discussing wording for possible RfC at NPOVN seems appropriate [155],[156]. As of yet, Taylan has not continued to edit war. Edit history shows he has not edited the article at all in over a month, and that he actually hasn’t made any edits at all to the article since he brought the issue to NPOVN as part of dispute resolution. In light of no editing at all at Trans woman by TaylanUB in over a month, I do think this ANI report should probably be closed, but I do hope this ANI report prompts more editors to add the article to their watchlist. DynaGirl (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

George Bell (Bishop). Appeal for impartial help.

• George Bell (bishop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am in dispute with another editor who repeatedly reverts legitimate changes in the entry and will not engage in discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)

I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.[157]

Why yes, that certainly looks like a legitimate change to me.

Note also that Clockback is Peter Hitchens [158] (note JzG's first link above), who writes for The Mail on Sunday and is involved in the topic itself. --Calton | Talk 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Should have guessed. If only his brother were here instead. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that I know Guy is no fan of the Daily Mail, and consequently indefinitely blocking an established Mail journalist is probably a conflict of interest and a misguided move. The Mail would be only to keen to ham up the “Wikipedia banned prestigious journalist!” angle, which could be a PR disaster for the WMF. Does anyone else endorse an indefinite block? For the record, I think Clockback’s edits are wholly unsuitable for a neutral article and should not be allowed to stand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Except, of course, Guy didn't know who Clockback really was when he blocked him. Read a few lines above: Guy learned this when I posted the information after his block of Clockback.

...is probably a conflict of interest

This will be good: what, exactly, is Guy's conflict of interest here? Did he get a job as journalist while no one was looking? Is he working for the Church now? Hitchens, on the other hand, is no stranger to conflicts of interest, considering that one of the two articles he created was about his own book.

The Mail would be only to keen to ham up the “Wikipedia banned prestigious journalist!” angle

I fail to understand why anyone on Planet Earth should give two shits what the Daily Mail thinks. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• AFAIK the WMF has never issued any guidance to admins to treat journalists or journalistic organizations with any extraordinary degree of sensitivity. Not sure why’d you introduce a narrative, without evidence, that the block was motivated by personal malice, if you were so concerned about PR. 🙄 Swarm ♠ 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not (and it’s fairly obvious which my view is), the Mail is either one of the biggest or the biggest selling British newspaper, and can influence public opinion that can spill onto WP. I’m not saying a block wasn’t deserved, as it obviously was, rather I just wish somebody else had done it. I think the relevant essay is WP:REALWORLD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

...rather I just wish somebody else had done it.

Because...? --Calton | Talk 10:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. I had no idea who this user was when I blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not difficult , any admin following due care when blocking should have discovered , it's easy, you hover your mouse over his wikipedia name and you see revealed the details, This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens (confirmation). - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would he do that? The objections and second-guessing are sounding stranger and stranger. --Calton | Talk 09:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Gonna have to agree with Guy on this one. WMF already has plenty of PR nightmares in far-right political circles as well as any fringe-theory-friendly communities. If the RfC that determined that the Mail was generally unreliable (read: WP declaring war on the DM) was a survivable event, this will be, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• A suggestion to unblock Peter, a topic ban from George Bell and from editing his own biography, he can request edits to his biography on the talkpage. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI: there is a block review at WP:AN now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

IP violating BLP at various articles

Can an admin please block 110.22.50.32 for serial BLP violations? This IP has been making seriously questionable edits about Marcus Bastiaan for weeks and seems to be getting worse - this utterly unacceptable edit at Matthew Guy warrants putting a stop to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm busting to learn what a branch staker does. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Drover did not notify me since starting this discussion.110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32 I apologise for that edit. 110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32 When staring a discussion about a editor you must notify them on their user talk page.110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32R <redacted>I am sorry for the comment all i ask is that I am not blocked.110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32

This IP has been repeatedly warned by a diverse range of users and has not only kept behaving in the same way but gotten worse (and continually deleted warnings from their talk page). The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I will accept the punishment if it is placed on me I can accept I did wrong.110.22.50.32 (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32

I hope Drover can learn when making a complaint about a user to notify them and not do it behind the editors back.

I hope you can learn about indenting, signing, spelling, and being more careful with edits involving dates, etc. I have tried to give you similar advice on many occasions. You don't seem to learn. I find this very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the accusation of being a suspect in a crime was made against a suspected mafia figure (as reported in reliable sources), not against Matthew Guy himself. I'm familiar with people in the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party and the content that has been written about Bastiaan, others such as Tim Wilson, the article for the upcoming Victorian state election, and the Victorian branch are very much in the POV of the moderate faction of the state Liberal Party. Most of this squabbling isn't even well known among people who follow politics. 100% violations of BLP here. I suspect there is some level of organisation going on, especially with this acceptance of sanction. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh well all I was saying was that I can take punishment. What I ask now is that the Droverswife be blocked for not notifying me about this complaint? 110.22.50.32 (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32

Yeah, people get blocked for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not punishing anyone today. What we will do is act to stop repeated disruption. You've just said that you understand what you did was wrong, are willing to accept that you are wrong, and are willing to learn from your mistakes and learn to do it right. If you do agree to all of that, then we don't need to stop you from editing Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife will also not be punished, because we don't punish people here. We stop repeated disruption. As far as I am aware, Drover's Wife has not made a repeated habit of making spurious posts at ANI and then refusing to notify people, people do sometimes forget stuff, and maybe they forgot to notify you. We don't block people for honest mistakes. Which has no bearing on anything because it is clear you are aware of the discussion so no harm no foul there. In summation 1) no one will ever be punished because we don't punish people at all 2) no one needs to be blocked if everyone agrees to learn from this discussion and return to their work ensuring that they will do better in the future. --Jayron32 13:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I see some quacking here, having just read through Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_editing_by_Merphee. The fact that the named editor in question in the previous complaint and the IP here both are in conflict with the same editors, and both happen to use boldface for emphasis, merits a look. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP definitely appears to be Merphee editing while logged out. Here's a Merphee edit summary and here's the same style of edit summary by the IP (there are a number of examples of this similarity), combined with the odd bolding mentioned by Grandpallama above, it's pretty duckish. There' no specific prohibition of editing while logged out unless you're doing so disruptively. Given that there is a current AN/I report on both the named account and the IP, I would say it's a WP:SOCK violation. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Both registered account and IP blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I too wondered about socking here, but largely dismissed it because of the geographical areas of attention from the "two" editors. Merphee mostly came to attention with an obsession over a local Sydney based politician, Emma Husar. This is in the Australian state of New South Wales. The IP editor concentrated on state politics in Victoria, Australia, and its capital of Melbourne. Sydney and Melbourne are 900 km (550 miles) apart. Sydney people generally show no interest in local Victorian affairs, and vice versa. So I decided they probably weren't connected. But thanks for the action here anyway. It won't do any harm. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Emma Husar is a federal politician though, hardly local. The issues concerning the IP editor seem to be so specific that they go beyond any normal interest in politics to being personally involved in Liberal Party politics, which would give them a reason to create a negative point of view on a page for a federal Labor politician. Their interest in Husar doesn't extend beyond the national news. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, both the account and the IP apologize for their edits but both are very keen to see the other editor sanctioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee has now declared he is Adelaide based, so my theory about geography was wrong. And I agree there are huge similarities in behaviour. How such an inexperienced user knows so much about Checkuser is interesting too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit threat

• 47.137.154.218 (talk · contribs); [159]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:47.149.14.222 this again? Natureium (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, same guy. Seems to be random in his disruption, so we're stuck playing whack-a-mole with his socks. If someone wants to start a page at WP:LTA it may make a centralized location to gather evidence for a rangeblock and/or an edit filter to limit damage. I've blocked the most recent one. --Jayron32 15:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking a filter would work well here. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm still loving that somehow USDA regulations apply to an Australian cricketer. Was he cremated and his ashes used in cattle feed in Wisconsin? Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's where the kuru comes in. EEng 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So if the IP gets his way, you'll eat your words? And your grandparents? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Just these two IPs alone are two large of a range for a rangeblock; it won't even generate edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Block review re Barbara_(WVS)

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

---

I'd like some community eyes on the block at User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)#July_2018, which seems beyond reason to me. EEng 02:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not a fair block. Barbara created Mycoplasma iguanae, an article about a kind of bacteria found in the spine of the green iguana. SilkTork has blocked her on the grounds that it violates her medical topic ban, which he argues covers all animals, not only humans. I've left a note for him on Barbara's talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban was "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having read the very stubby article, I don't see where a bacteria found in the spine of an iguana has anything to do with either health or medicine, however broadly they are construed, but I'm willing to be persuaded if SilkTork would like to present their reasoning here for review by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is a very unreasonable block by all means. Blocks should never be punitive, and blocking for 24 hours three days after the alleged topic ban violation simply does not make any sense. I will also echo the comment by SlimVirgin and The Earwig: The block rationale by SilkTork ([160]) was certainly a strong assumption of bad faith by accusing Barbara (WVS) of gaming, and given SilkTork's extensive previous involvement with Barbara and in the relevant AN/I thread ([161]), I personally do not believe they should have been the administrator to carry out unilateral actions even if this was a straight forward case, in which it is not. The only way to justify that Mycoplasma iguanae is covered by the scope of the already-clarified topic ban is to take the "broadly construed" grossly out of context while completely disregarding the entirety of that AN/I discussion, which never once mentioned anything, anywhere, about animal health in the main discussions nor in the clarification section. Like Sarah said, if we would like Barbara's topic ban to include animal health, this needs to be specified in WP:RESTRICT after a discussion, not to be creatively imposed by the discretion of an involved administrator. This block needs to be reversed immediately. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex, I was hoping that SilkTork would have responded by now, but he hasn't posted since shortly after the block. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) this doesn't seem like a good block to me. Even if broadly construed, this doesn't fall under that ban imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think that an edit about a bacteria that affects iguanas falls into the topic of "health and medicine." Admins should have substantial discretion to enforce topic bans, but this seems unreasonable to be. The fact that the block was imposed three days after the edit at issue puts this in a still poorer light. SilkTork, will you please explain here? Neutrality^talk 05:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have had my disagreements with Barbara but this does not seem like a justified block to me. I would like to hear a more detailed explanation from Silk Tork. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a better idea. How 'bout if he just skips the explanation and unblocks (with a clear unblock message along the lines of "Unjustified block; what was I thinking?")? As most here know I've been the subject of some pretty stupid blocks, one of which someone characterized as "Hands down the worst block I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" but (while I hate to give up the distinction) I think this one now takes the all-timer prize. EEng 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they're online -- only one edit after the notification of the block on the user's talk page, so they have yet to see these requests for explication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but if he doesn't show by noon UTC August 1, someone else should just unblock based on the unanimous comments here and on Barbara's talk page. I'm tired of unjustified blocks going uncommented in the victim's block log because it simply expired while hands were wrung over giving the admin a second chance to justify the unjustifiable. EEng 05:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This block is ridiculous and could easily be seen as bordering on an abuse of the tools. @SilkTork: please remedy this immediately. If SilkTork is not present or unwilling, please some other admin do the necessary. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• It’s a defensible block, the scope question is a reasonable one. Equally I think we should unblock as it plainly was not malicious and there’s no evidence of gaming the system here. I would encourage Barbara to ask before editing if there’s any doubt, but I sincerely doubt she thought this was in scope. Barbara is lovely and I really can’t see her as a malicious actor, notwithstanding the issues that led to a justified TBAN. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • One thing that I find frustrating (generally speaking) is that, while topic banned editors are encouraged to ask and double check before editing a page that could be under their banned topic area in potentially borderline cases, I believe administrators should also engage in a similar good practice and ask before blocking borderline cases. And I don't think this is even close to being borderline; defensible? Perhaps, as I commented above, but only in unreasonable ways. Alex Shih (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• While I tend to assume that 'broadly' can often cover topics that some might consider tangential to the topic from which a user was banned, this is most definitely over the top. I support EEng's proposal that, if SilkTork is not around to unblock Barbara, another admin do so. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Without piling on here or defending the block, I think a ban from “medicine, broadly construed” would inherently encompass “veterinary medicine”, according to common sense. Swarm ♠ 07:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Swarm; "broadly construed" would obviously cover bacteria that creates abcesses in pets. The user is free to appeal her TBan to allow her to edit on veterinary medical topics, but right now "broadly construed" would of necessity cover veterinary medicine. That's why we have the term "broadly construed" -- so that the ban wording does not have to spell out every single permutation of the subject matter. The user is also free to appeal her block (which she hasn't as of this writing). Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. The article's about a bacterium, and the last sentence is "It has been recovered from abscesses of the spine of the green iguana, Iguana iguana." So because of that it's a medical article? But if she'd left that sentence out she'd be OK? Is psychology off limits too, because psychology is related to psychiatry, and psychiatry is medical? What about cars? Without even looking I'm sure that talks about safety and road accidents, so I suppose that's medical too? C'mon.

But let's forget that, even. An involved admin makes a punitive block 3 days after a "violation" which is, at worst, equivocal, and throws in an AGF-failing comment while doing so. That's OK with you? EEng 07:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there actually any doubt that human psychology is covered by a topic ban on "health and medical topics"? I would have thought it's a clear cut case. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That would need to be assessed on an individual basis. The psychology behind say games theory or psychological warfare are not health or medical topics. Granted most articles I would expect to be related to psychological disorders, which would be covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of stuff like Dunning-Kruger effect. EEng 15:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The wording of the TBAN is: "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed", and Barbara was already warned in May to ask first rather than testing the boundaries of the TBAN: [162]. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm normally against people testing their limits, I would have assumed a topic ban on health and medical topics was intended to only cover human health and medical topics. Yes this may be a bit human centric, but it's also reflective of the way things are generally handled in the real world. For example does WP:MEDRS even cover veterinarian medicine? I would say no since it mentions animal models without talking about how this applies to veterinarian medicine. (For example, a study on the effects of drug A in cows is not an animal model if you're talking about the effects of drug A in cows.) Therefore I would suggest at the very least an unblock while clarification is sought on whether the topic ban is intended to cover non human health and medical topics. Also even if the topic ban doesn't cover non human health and medical issues, Barbara WVS should be aware that given the connections made between non-human health and medical issues and human health and medical issues, there is a risk that their edits even though nominally concerning non human health and medical issues could be seen crossing the line. (For example, I wouldn't suggest they touch anything to do with sexuality, even if it concerns dolphins or chimpanzees to give 2 examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think its reasonable to assume vetinary medicine could be covered by a health and medicine topic ban, I think its just as easily assumed it wouldn't be. Certainly there should have been a warning in this case given the time since the alleged infraction, and probably a discussion somewhere to see if it actually does cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure if my comment is really all that useful at this point but I have to agree with the above I would've said the topicban was for humans only .... not animals, Regardless of the scope they should've been warned at most not blocked. Glad to see common sense prevailing here for once :). –Davey2010^Talk 11:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that it was clearly not abuse of admin tools, and could easily be argued as falling within the broad construction of the topic ban, especially since the only references referred to "disease" and "medicine". I also support Boing!'s unblock, per clear consensus above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked

• I read a consensus developing for unblock, here and on the user's talk page. Those who see it as a bad block are pretty unequivocal, very few see it as unequivocally good, and some opine there is room for uncertainty. Given that it's only a 24-hour block, we shouldn't be sitting here arguing about it all day, so I've taken a bold action and have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Just by way of context, and in SilkTork's absence, it might be worth noting that SilkTork warned Barbara back in May about editing Violence against women in the United States, which was seen as within the bounds of her TBAN, and advised her to check before making an edit. Girth Summit (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that was noted above, and I considered it when I judged the consensus. But I don't see that anyone has suggested she needs to check before every edit, and there seems to be sufficiently strong argument from a number of people here that she could be excused for not seeing this one as controversial. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link to the warning to check first: [163]. Also, the TBan says "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" (emphasis mine), and nothing in the TBan specifies human health and medicine. There are two citations on the article Barbara created: the journal title of one includes the word "medicine", and the title of the other includes the word "disease". Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and I read your opinion above and I gave it due weighting. If you disagree with my action, what you need to do is show that I have misjudged the consensus, not just continue with the same argument. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with your action, it was clearly in-line with the consensus. I thought the earlier warning was notable context, given some of the criticism being directed above towards SilkTork, but I didn't spot that it had already been mentioned. Apologies for the disruption. Girth Summit (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for unblocking. For future reference, have we established that Barbara's topic ban covers only human health?

The topic ban was proposed on 19 March 2018 by SilkTork as "a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles". Sandstein closed the discussion on 25 March as "topic-banned from medical articles". After the close, it was felt that more precision was needed to clarify the scope (discussion), so SilkTork proposed new words: "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". This gained consensus, and Sandstein reclosed the discussion on 27 March as "amended as proposed". Pinging Barbara's mentor, Anthonyhcole. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't see any clarification of that. I've suggested at my talk page that clarification would be a good idea. Maybe we should do that here to save further bureaucracy? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, so that it's in one place. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I'll start it...

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

Topic ban scope

To try to minimize further uncertainty, let's see if we can get a consensus on the scope of this topic ban. The original ban discussion is here and the wording was adjusted following a discussion here. Neither explicitly mentions veterinary medicine, and the original dispute seems to have been about human medicine and sexuality, together with clashes with another editor. So, simple question, should the topic ban on User:Barbara (WVS) be taken to include veterinary medicine? Yes it covers veterinary medicine, or No it doesn't. (I'll offer no opinion so I can act solely in an admin capacity.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. If there is no evidence of disruption in veterinary medicine, and if they were never discussed, then it should not be included in the scope. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. No evidence has been presented of problems in veterinary-medicine articles. The dispute that led to the ban was about human health and sexuality. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've been pinged about this issue. This is just to note that my role was limited to establishing that consensus existed for the wording of the topic ban. I have no particular opinion about or authority to determine whether the ban covers or should cover veterinary medicine. Sandstein 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Like others, I would think that the scope of the topic ban applies to animal health as well. A number of our medical articles, such as Cancer, include an "Other animals" section. And it's common to see an "Other animals" section in our anatomy articles. For reference to this format, see WP:MEDSECTIONS. Barbara likes to create spin-off articles, and she has created a number of unnecessary ones. With regard to medicine, including anatomy, we typically only create spin-off articles for non-human animals when needed. Tom (LT) and Iztwoz can attest to that. I wouldn't want to see Barbara unnecessarily creating spin-off articles for non-human animals. So if she is free to edit veterinary medicine topics, that would be my concern. My concern would also be Barbara showing up to human-dominated medical or anatomy articles and editing the animal content, which would likely have our paths cross, when the interaction ban concerns the two of us. If she is free to edit veterinary medicine articles, as opposed to non-human animal medical and/or anatomical content in general, that's different. As long as the veterinary medicine freedom doesn't give her access to the human-dominated medical and anatomy articles, the freedom might be fine. But I do not see why she would be any better at editing such material than she was at editing the human material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, the purpose of this discussion is not to impose a new topic ban on Barbara, but to clarify the scope of the current one; that means looking at the discussion to see what it covered. I can find no mention during that discussion of non-human animal health. Medical topic bans are usually understood to apply to human health. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Slim, and I'm not trying to impose a new topic ban. I'm trying to ensure that there are no loopholes that will cause problems, like this supposed loophole has the potential to do. Barbara and I extensively disagreed on a non-human animal matter regarding the Vagina article, and I mentioned this in the GA review when it came to noting the lack of research on female genitalia, especially with regard to non-human animals. After all that debating I did with Barbara about lack of research, we can see that this important fact is currently in the lead of that article and sourced lower. I would not want to see an unnecessary article on non-human vaginas. I certainly am not a fan of stub or stub-like articles. I prefer to create (usually build rather than technically create) comprehensive articles, and that includes keeping the "Other animals" section in the article and only creating a spin-off article for other animals when needed. I state "supposed loophole" because it's clear that some editors (me included) feel that the original topic ban does extend to non-human animal health. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, the problem is that in the effort to close all loopholes, you're leaving her very little she can edit safely. No human medicine, health, bodies, sexuality or psychology; even certain political articles are off-limits, it seems, given that she's been told not to edit violence against women. That means few women's issues are open to her. Now she has been blocked for creating Mycoplasma iguanae, bacteria found on the green iguana. So no animal medicine, no animal health, no animal bodies, no animal sexuality, no bacteria, no viruses. Is that reasonable? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a suggestion from me on the process here. This isn't intended to close any loopholes, improve the original ban, or decide what we now think should be banned and what should not. It's just to attempt a re-reading of the original ban and decide on what it was actually intended to cover. If there are any loopholes, they should be addressed as and when they become a problem (if they actually do), not here and now. Whether the ban originally was intended to cover veterinary medicine or not, that is all this is about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, if the point, in addition to getting fresh commentary, is to find out if the scope was meant to extend to veterinary medicine articles, then I think the editors who voted in the previous topic ban aspects should be pinged. I already pinged Tom (LT) and Iztwoz above. And Davey2010 has commented below. The others are: Cullen328, Johnuniq, Gandydancer, Rivertorch, Winkelvi, Clayoquot, Natureium, KMF (now Lojbanist), Robert McClenon, Swarm, Bishonen, SandyGeorgia, D4iNa4, and Literaturegeek. Swarm also commented above. And, of course, SilkTork has already been pinged. If I missed pinging any others, then please ping them. Jytdog provided evidence, but he technically didn't vote. Plus, he keeps up with ANI and likely already saw this thread; so I didn't ping him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a good idea to ping those who took part in the original discussion, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, given how she edited medical articles and my history with her, yes, I find it reasonable. I'm clearly a biased party, with good reason. And "violence against women" is undoubtedly a health topic. Despite my feelings on all of this, I haven't voted "yes" in this section. I have simply noted issues that might come up, given my knowledge of how Barbara edits and her history with me. I know that you support her. I clearly do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I neither support nor don't support her. I'm commenting because the block was unfair, as is extending the scope after the fact. There was no mention of animals during the topic-ban discussion. That was the time to raise the issues you've mentioned here. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That was not the time, since as Softlavender stated more than once above...the topic ban says "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed." If I thought this meant "But, oh, veterinary medicine articles or any non-human animal medical and/or anatomical content is okay," then I would have stated something. And if this exception becomes a problem in the future, I most certainly will be stating something then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Like Softlavender noted, this type of lawyering is exactly why we include "broadly construed" in topic bans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think "broadly construed" should be given carte blanche to freely interpret whatever that can be remotely connected; broadly within reason, not openly and creatively. Alex Shih (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm stated above, "I think a ban from 'medicine, broadly construed' would inherently encompass 'veterinary medicine', according to common sense." Emphasis mine. Again, we state "broadly construed" to keep this type of thing from happening. It's why the ones who are topic-banned are advised to ask if they are unsure. There have been a number of cases of topic-banned editors trying to test the waters and find a loophole in their topic ban. All that stated, as long as "veterinary medicine" is not interpreted by Barbara to mean she can go into the human-dominated medical or anatomy articles and edit the "Other animals" sections or create non-human animal anatomy articles, both of which would put her back in my orbit, I don't have a big issue with giving her some rope to see how she does with veterinary medicine articles. If she is allowed to create non-human animal anatomy articles, then that should be clarified. But I obviously would be worried about her using that freedom to create something like a non-human animal vagina article, when she knows I'm against it (at this point in time) and it would give her somewhat of an excuse to edit the "Other animals" section of the Vagina article or other anatomy articles I'm involved with. After what I stated here about such a thing, and she's seen what I stated, I would view it as her trying to provoke a response out of me if she were to go through with editing in a way that is likely to involve me. Yes, the interaction ban is one-way, but if I want to explain why I reverted, all that will happen (unless others weigh in) is me posting about it on the article's talk page without the other party weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer User:SlimVirgin's question "So no animal medicine, no animal health, no animal bodies, no animal sexuality, no bacteria, no viruses. Is that reasonable?" Yes it is, because the consensus was that Barbara is an unreliable editor who inserts errors into medical articles through misreading or misunderstanding the sources. A good number of editors were consulted before the topic ban was proposed in order to clarify that there was widespread concern about her editing. This is not just about a clash between two editors, it is about safeguarding the reliability of some of Wikipedia's most sensitive articles. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was the intent of the ANI discussion which resulted in the sanction to have a ban which was as all-encompassing as that, then they would have levied a much broader sanction against her, rather then a topic ban from specific topics, "broadly construed", or they might even have considered a site ban. It seems that you're inclined to interpret the sanction as being intended to be an extremely broad one which was, for some reason, only narrowly defined. I do not believe that such a radical re-interpretation of a sanction falls within the leeway provided to administrators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. It seems obvious to me that the original problems and original scope had nothing to do with veterinary medicine. Paul August ☎ 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - From my understanding the topicban was purely for human health (etc) and doesn't seem to have been intended for vet medicine, They're not disruptive in that area so seems stupid topicbanning them from that area. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Miniapolis 22:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Let's give Barbara a chance to work in areas in which she might contribute productively. Writing about animals requires a bit of a different skill set from writing about human health. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No -Nothwithstanding the problems which resulted in the topic ban -- which I do recall -- "medicine" means "human medicine" and does not include "veterinary medicine" and, in any case, including the article under discussion in "veterinary medicine" is a stretch in and of itself. If Barbara_(WVS) edits within veterinary medicine, and her contributions are problematic in that subject area, an additional topic ban can be levied, but the current ban most certainly does not include that subject, no matter how broadly it is construed. (On the other hand, Violence against women is certainly within the scope of the "sexuality" part of the ban.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No When people talk about "health care" and "health insurance" and "medical coverage", they're not talking about dog health or veterinary insurance or medical coverage for pets. EEng 23:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral but the question is Irrelevant - In view of Barbara's inability to discuss her edits and inability to accept consensus as consensus, I favor an ultra-broad interpretation. I do not consider Barbara to be an editor who makes positive content contributions. However,the article in question isn't about either medicine or veterinary medicine. It is bacteriology. The article isn't about the iguana. The article is about a species of bacterium that may be commensal to or parasitic on the iguana. Every documented species of bacterium (and of any other kingdom of life) should be in Wikipedia if verifiable. The discussion here is off the point. The article isn't about a liazard. It's about a bacterium. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Commensal – I learned a new word today. EEng 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:EEng - If you have an iguana in a terrarium in your house, it is a commensal. It benefits from you feeding it, and it does you no benefit and no harm. Commensalism is one of the nine types of biological relationships based on benefit/harm, although one of them, which is no interaction, is usually ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you cleared the bit up about the terrarium, because the second sense of commensal is eating at the same table, and though I love my iguana I really don't want him eating at the same table. EEng 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the article's talk page is currently tagged as being within the scope of veterinary medicine. That stated, what is relevant to a WikiProject does not necessarily equate to the topic being about what its talk page is tagged with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer: According to SilkTork's comment below, it was Barbara (WVS) herself who added the VM Project tag when she created the talk page, here. I believe she was incorrect in doing this, but it does indicate that she, at least, thought the article was relevant to veterinary medicine. That does not change my mind that a topic ban from "medicine", even "broadly construed" means "human medicine" and does not include medicine for animals. As for the shortcomings of Barbara (WVS)'s editing, I cannot argue against it, but feel that if she edits in the field of veterinary medicine as she did in the field of human medicine, many eyes will be on her, and a further topic ban, or even a site ban, would not be long in coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

But, Beyond My Ken, it is not uncommon for us to include bacteria topics within the scope of medicine. The Bacteria article itself is tagged as within the scope (for obvious reasons). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the entire field of bacteriology has an obvious connection to health, because many bacteria impact human (or animal) health, but that doesn't speak to the impact of any specific bacterium, such as the one in the article in question. There are scads of bacteria which do not present health concerns, either positive or negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Broadly construed" would indicate all health and all medicine. If veterinary and/or animal health is not included in the TBan, then the TBan wording should be altered to indicate either specifically "human health and medicine", or the words "broadly construed" should be dropped or changed to "narrowly construed". There's a reason we use the terminology "broadly construed", and it should not be used lightly or as a matter of course, and it should mean what it means. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No with caveats. I endorse the comments by Beyond My Ken but want to make some additional comments. Barbara needs to be cautious and not stretch the limits. Venturing into topic areas of the sort described by Flyer22 Reborn would be a big mistake at this time. Please be cautious and please be impeccable with your referencing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for hearing out my concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, Flyer22 Reborn. I always take your concerns seriously because I believe that you have earned our concern. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No with a but I think the original ban discussion dropped the ball on this one, and we should perhaps be asking the question whether bans from broad topic-areas are being imposed too lightly based solely on localized disruption in a narrower, related area. It's a bit late/redundant to be endorsing the unblock at this point, but I am wondering if, when the original ban discussion was shallow enough that it did, in effect, ban her from veterinary topics (it is a branch of medicine) when we now have overwhelming consensus that it shouldn't have done so, and Barbara has now suffered a block that she shouldn't have, based on a ban that was ill-considered in its earlier incarnation. I am uncertain regarding whether simply clarifying the wording will adequately address this, and don't think simply unbanning is in order (that would only provide incentive to other users to push the boundaries of their bans so they can be subject to unjust blocks and be unbanned as a result), but I'm wondering if at this point we should maybe have a discussion about forbidding bans from broad topic areas when disruption is localized to a specific, identifiable sub-topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neither. We should keep the topic ban as is. Most anatomy and physiology articles contain parts relevant to animals, so I am doubtful that this proposal will actually help clarify things - I think the problem here was the application of the topic ban, not the topic ban itself. I do not think the block given was warranted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Question, if you don't mind, as I don't really understand. This discussion is to try to determine what the topic ban currently covers, and you appear to be saying that it neither covers veterinary medicine nor doesn't cover veterinary medicine? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think what Tom (LT) is saying is that no matter how much we clarify a topic ban, there will always been rooms for discussion (which is the argument for "broadly construed" by several editors above). The actual application of the "broadly construed" topic bans will depend on the discretion of the administrator, which was clearly misinterpreted in this case judging by the emerging consensus. Looking back, this looks to be a problem with "broadly construed" on broad topics, so I do maintain that another clarification would be helpful. Alex Shih (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not misinterpreted. Interpreted differently. Above, the closing admin said he has no opinion on whether the ban should extend to veterinary medicine. And SilkTork, the admin who proposed the ban, clearly felt that it should extend to veterinary medicine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah yes, it makes sense as "Don't clarify the wording of the ban either way". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like User:SilkTork's got a sudden case of ANI flu. Huh. I've often wondered why the Centers for Disease Control doesn't look into the etiology of that. EEng 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. A significant part of the reason Barbara was topic banned is that she did not understand the health and medicine topic fully, and misread or misunderstood her sources. She could not be trusted to edit in these areas without making errors. While mistakes in the bulk of our articles is understandable and reasonably harmless, mistakes in the areas of health and medicine can be damaging. I would not want to see Barbara entering into editing veterinary medicine articles and inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. Veterinary medicine is a subset of medicine so is included in the topic ban by default. It covers the same sorts of anatomy, medicines and treatments. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• As has been noted by several people, the article in question really isn't included in the subject area of veterinary medicine at all, so while your argument -- which has also been made by others here -- concerning the scope of "medicine" broadly construed, is certainly a valid one (although I disagree with it), it still doesn't, in my opinion, pertain to that article you blocked Barbara (WVS) for. That makes it an overreach of the "broadly construed" concept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me give you my thinking here as to why I blocked, and what I feel my mistakes were. I was alerted to Barbara having created the article, and having looked at the article and that Barbara put it into the Category:Veterinary medicine stubs cat, which is a subcat of Category:Medicine, and also tagged it on the talkpage as under the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine which sees itself as related to WikiProject Medicine, I felt that she had broken the terms of her Topic Ban as she was editing in a medicine area, and that if she was uncertain if editing in this area was allowed that she should have clarified that before editing. She had tested the boundaries of her Topic Ban previously by editing first rather than clarifying, and had been warned that if she did it again a block was likely. I looked into her editing history, and didn't see her seeking clarification, so issued the block. I am concerned that people feel this was an inappropriate block, and feel that my mistake was in not fully explaining that thinking, and linking to her warning, so that others looking into it could see my reasoning and the earlier warning I gave. I then compounded that error by being offline for the last two days so was unable to answer questions and explain my thinking in a timely manner, which allowed the incident to develop as it has. This has been in relation to personal circumstances, not health related, but family. I apologise to everyone concerned with this incident that I have been unable to answer questions until now. There are other family matters that I have to focus on in the next few days, but I will log in at least once a day to answer any questions or give further clarification as requested. I have previously always responded promptly to queries, and feel rather bad that this incident has happened at a time when I was unavailable to respond. SilkTork (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, which certainly makes your thinking very clear. It was good to find out the Barbara (WVS) herself put the article into the category of veterinary medicine, and that she tagged it for the VM project. In these actions, I think she was totally wrong (as in, mistaken about the scope of the article), but I can see where her actions in doing so would lead you to consider the articles to be within the "broadly construed" scope of her topic ban, as it certainly would look very much like she was gaming the edges of her sanction. That makes the block much more understandable to me. I still think that the article is not in scope, and that "medicine" conventionally means "human medicine" and not "veterinary medicine"; perhaps the lesson here is for sanctions in this and related areas to be very explicity about what they cover and are not intended to cover. In any case, given past incidents of editors gaming the edges of similar sanctions, your actions are clarified by your statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

But, Beyond My Ken (like I stated above), it is not uncommon for us to include bacteria topics within the scope of medicine. The Bacteria article itself is tagged as within the scope (for obvious reasons). Why do you consider bacterial topics outside the scope of medicine? I've seen you and Robert McClenon argue this, but I'm trying to understand why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are how many types of bacteria on Earth?, and not all of them present health problems to humans or animals. Those which do, and for which the health issues are part of their articles, cen reasonably be considered as within the penumbra of "health (broadly construed)". Those for which there is no evidence of health concerns -- probably the majority of them -- should not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. To me, it's clear that "health and medical topics ... broadly construed" includes veterinary medicine. But even if others disagree, I hope Wikipedians will focus on the spirit, and not the letter, of the topic ban. The ban is because Barbara has difficulty accurately summarising technical sources, so she introduces errors that could have harmful real-world consequences. The concerns that led to the ban apply to veterinary medicine. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. The ordinary meaning of "health and medicine" is human health and medicine. I understand that the reason for the ban also dealt with human medicine, and the prior discussion never contemplated that bacteria affecting non-human animals would be covered. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No "Health and medicine" within the context of the original TBAN clearly refers to humans, to try an twist it to include verterinary medicine is an abuse of process, IMHO. In any case, the edit that triggered the block wasn't even about verterinary medicine. It was one about a bactieria, an article that is within the biology field, an edit that does not even mention the subject of the health of the animal concerned. IOW, even calling it a vetinary health issue is a stretch in this case. Lets stop trying too bash the square peg into the round hole here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see that consensus is that people feel the wording does not include animals. However, it's worth pointing out that I was the one who worded the ban, and I did intend it to include animals. I became aware of the problems with Barbara's editing when waiting to review Vagina for Good Article. Like others not familiar with Wikipedia anatomy articles, I thought this would only deal with the human vagina, and raised that as an issue during the GA review. However, it is standard to include discussion of both animal and human in such articles, unless specified otherwise - such as Penis and Human penis. Barbara did insert material on animals into that article, as here: [164] (that edit was later removed as unhelpful), so when looking to Topic Ban her we were not differentiating between human and animal, but were only concerned with her poor understanding, in general, of health, medicine and anatomy. Our (my) mistake was in not clarifying that in the original wording, and this was possibly because we were all too close to it that we couldn't see that people might not be aware that both animal and human are included. As this has now run so far that it is clear that people feel the ban wording does not make it clear that animals are included, I will propose new wording to the Topic Ban to make it clear that animals are covered. SilkTork (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out, SilkTork, that your intention in wording the ban is not definitive, it is the intention of those !voting on it that defines it. As for "it is standard to include discussion of both animal and human in such articles", then I'm seeing suggestions from several people here that "broadly construed" should cover such mixed cases even if the ban means "human medicine" etc. if you want to propose new wording for the ban to include veterinary topics, I think you would need to wait and see if the consensus really does support your contention that the ban already does cover them. If this discussion concludes that it does, then such a change of wording will should probably be the result here. And if the consensus is that it does not, then you will have to propose an extension of the ban to cover veterinary topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just one more comment, because I think you are totally missing the point here. You say "...it is clear that people feel the ban wording does not make it clear that animals are included..." But that is the wording that people !voted on, so if the !vote was made on wording that the consensus decides does not include animals (regardless of your intention, which is not what people !voted on), then animals are not included! It's not that people don't understand that animals are included, they really are not included. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, like I stated above, bacteria is within the scope of health and medicine. The reasons why should be obvious from simply reading the Pathogens section of the Bacteria article. And, obviously, humans are not the only ones negatively affected by bacteria. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I beg to differ. This is a slippery slope argument. The article in question does not discuss any health issue whatsoever, only the bare fact that the bacteria is found on a certasin animal. Yet you wish to conflate that with some unidentified and unstated vetinary health issue which itself is arguably not even within the bounds of the TBAN. There are any number of bacteria living on the surface of your eyeball right now that are having no effect on your health. The mere presence of a bacteria is not health related, unless some other factor intervenes. Given that no such factor is stated in the article and Barbara has not made mention of any, continuiing to try and make the facts of Barbara's edit fit the within the boundaries of her TBAN by stretching the context of those edits beyond recognition raises question of the impartiality of those doing thee stretching. Given your past history with the editor I hardly think you can claim to be uninvolved. I am no fan of Barbara's editing in the medical/health article and although I didn't comment on the discussion to impose the TBAN, I supported it at the time. What I find very unappealing however, is the attempt to re-write history to make the TBAN include something that was nowhere included in the discussion that lead to its imposition. If you wish to extend the boundaries of their TBAN then fine, show us the evidence, supported with diffs, that this is nescessary, otherwise it is just hounding the editor. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, a "slippery slope argument" that bacteria is clearly within the scope of health and medicine and is therefore often subject to WP:MEDRS in a number of cases? Then we will have to agree to disagree. There is good and/or harmless bacteria and there is bad bacteria. My point was that bacteria does fall within the scope of health and medicine for a number of reasons. The article in question (Mycoplasma iguanae) deals with the bacteria being "recovered from abscesses of the spine of the green iguana, Iguana iguana," and yet you state this has nothing to do with health and medicine? I could understand if the article was about the bacteria alone and there was no pathological aspect to the topic. But an abscess is a pathological aspect. The article doesn't yet go into detail on what the bacteria has to do with the abscesses, but the abscesses aspect is there. And, like the Abscess article notes, abscesses are usually caused by a bacterial infection. There is no attempt to "rewrite history" just because of an odd interpretation that "health and medicine" excludes "veterinary medicine" and that "broadly construed" would not cover "veterinary medicine." It is also odd that one would trust Barbara to edit veterinary medicine articles, given the issues she demonstrated editing human-centered medical articles. But, clearly, people are willing to give it a try. As for impartiality, I already stated that I am a biased party, and for good reason. Anyone who reviews the topic ban case will understand why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn well, at least you recognise your own bias. Please understand that I am not saying that I am in favour of Barbara editing any science related article, given their editing history, but what I am concerned about is that sanctions imposed here need to say what they mean and only mean what they say. It is anything but clear that the TBAN included animals, when it could easily have said so if that was intended. For my money, it would have been better if the TBAN was on any science related article since all science articles depend on correct use and interpretation of reliable sources, but it did not. Perhaps that is a lesson for future instances like this. Now, if we wish to extend the TBAN, we need to show, with diffs, why this is necessary lest it becomes punitive. In no sane universe can Barbara's edit on the bacteria be considered problematic except for the supposed TBAN violation which is highly questionable. It most certainly cannot be used as evidence that the TBAN needs to be extended. If the editor begins to behave in the same manner as before in these general biology article, or any other science related article, then, sure, have at it. We are not there yet. Sometimes we just have to live with the consequences of poorly thought out previous decisions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee. Some good points. I will wait until the end of this discussion before looking into the need to reword the Topic Ban.

And, yes, you're right, it is the group intention then and now which counts. I just wish to make clear that I did not intend it to mean that animals were not included.

I've looked through and noted that some of those involved have commented here and indicated that they did not feel the TB excluded animals (SilkTork, Swarm, Flyer, SarekOfVulcan, and Tom), some have no opinions either way (Sandstein and Robert McClenon), and some feel that animals were not included (Davey2010, Cullen, and Clayoquot). It seems that the intention to either include or exclude animals was not clear and explicit at the time. As such, it is fair to say that you are right, my assertions that animals were included is simply my opinion, but it also follows that assertions that animals were not included is also just an opinion. It is appropriate, as such, whichever way this ivote concludes, to see if there is consensus on should the TB include or exclude animals. And the reality will be, if the consensus is that animals are not included, that Barbara's edits in the area of veterinary medicine (if she decides to pursue that) would need to be monitored. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The article isn't about animals. Bacteria are not animals. (Neither are they plants. They are bacteria.)

Lizards are animals, but the article isn't about lizards. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for close

After a suggestion from SilkTork on my talk page, I intend to evaluate the consensus and close this review of the current topic ban scope in approximately 24 hours, unless there's any significant development before then. That will probably result in a provisional clarification of the currently perceived meaning of the ban's scope, and anyone will then be free to propose any changes to that scope if they wish (and the indications suggest that such a proposal will be made). The whole process is perhaps a bit drawn out, but it's clearly something that is dividing people who have a significant commitment to the relevant topic areas, and it's surely better to spend a few days now so that people know exactly where they're working. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Be sure to include food and dining in the topic ban, because they're related to medicine and health, and basketball, because it's a form of exercise and that's related to human health, and travel, because people sometimes travel for their health, and insurance because of the health insurance aspect, and Donald Trump because he makes people want to throw up. EEng 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I'm concerned about this. The point of this discussion is to decide what the topic ban meant. If other people want to open a new topic-ban discussion, that's an entirely separate issue that shouldn't be confused with this one. The consensus on the matter at hand seems clear. The longer this is dragged out, the harder it is for the person at the centre of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Late comment from SilkTork

I have been offline, so unable to respond until now. I apologise for the inconvenience this has caused. I clearly didn't assess that a 24 hour block for someone topic ban and previously warned to check before entering a area they are uncertain was covered was going to be this controversial. At most I thought there would be an unblock appeal which would be considered and either accepted or dismissed. However, now that the eyes of the community have been on the block, we have entered into a discussion to narrow the scope of a broadly construed topic ban of an unreliable user. I'm not seeing the benefit to the community of that. The topic ban covers "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed." It does not narrow it to humans, but allows the "broadly construed" to cover the entire topic of health and medicine (which includes veterinary medicine by default). I would not want to see Barbara entering into editing veterinary medicine articles and inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. So I will be commenting above on the proposed narrowing of the topic ban and opposing it on those grounds. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article about biology, not health or medical matters. Secondly, what you personally would want Barbara to be entering into editing of is entirely beside the point. The TBAN was iVoted for on the basis of the words in the proposal, not what thoughts were in your head. It would have been a trivial thing to have included "animal/human" before "health and medical". I note that the topic ban reads as follows: "By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN). " Because the TBAN was modified to include anatomy and sexuality, the TBAN became more specific and less general. So things to be included in the "broadly contrued" need to be more than tangentally related to the health and medical topics, anatomy and sexuality. The more you get specific when writing instructions, the more you restrict the scope of what you are writing. If you really wanted to include animal health, then it should have been specified, otherwise the normal usage of those terms applies. You may not have intended this when you drafted the TBAN and it was subsequenly modified, but that is the effect of the words used. The "letter of the law" is what matters, not what you meant, but failed to actually state. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the intention behind the Topic Ban not being clear, as I have indicated above in my response to Boing!

While I can't speak for everyone, Biology would have been in the minds of some of us in the Topic Ban discussion as concerns had previously been raised about Barbara editing in that area, as well as areas regarding bacteria - as here: [165]. For clarity, User:Bfpage is also User:Barbara (WVS). The difficulty then as now has been how to encompass the areas of concern, and what is clear is that we did not do it well. So we now need to address that. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but.... The article that Barbara created wasn't about veterinary medicine, or about the lizard. It is about a bacterium, which has been identified in an abscess in the lizard. The article isn't about what the germ does to the lizard, only about the bacterium. Every documented species of every form of life should be included in Wikipedia, and she wasn't talking about any illness that the bacterium causes to the lizard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: ArbCom

On the one hand, I concur with any proposal to get this dispute resolved in a timely manner, first by agreeing on what the scope of the topic-ban is, and then by deciding whether the scope of the topic-ban should be revised. On the other hand, this dispute has demonstrated that it is the sort of dispute that divides the community in a way that the community cannot dispose of it cleanly. That is, unfortunately, this is the sort of case that should, if it recurs, be sent to ArbCom for unhurried fact-finding and conclusions. It involves two editors who have a history of bad blood, and the drama boards do not provide effective resolution as to where the fault lies in such cases. It involves a topic area that is specially sensitive because Wikipedia has an obligation to be as accurate as possible, and in which the editor in question has a history of not editing accurately. While I would like to see this dispute resolved, it is likely to have to be referred to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A user should be blocked

This User:Pedrojohan14 should be blocked for his disruptive behavior in this article European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics, you can read the talk section and edit history of the article to see how I afford him assistance to solve the issues of unsourced content but he kept reverting the edits over and over and over and over ... again ! I wonder what the admins are doing to allow such madness to occur.

I kindly ask to block this user for good, because he refuses to cooperate and keeps spamming the article by deleting sourced content with his own info. 110.163.134.17 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Article reverted to last 'good' version (with no comment on the content dispute); article protected; both Pedrojohan14 (talk · contribs) and 110.163.134.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) warned for 3RR. If either violate again I'll block. This dispute needs to be dealt with on the talk page. GiantSnowman 16:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User keeps tampering to reflect a POV

• RahulRamchandani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been tampering and attempting to engage in an edit war, most recently on the Hindi and monsoon articles, by non-constructively changing articles and making inaccurate and unfounded claims that a word is not part of a language. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Foreverknowledge one edit today on each of those pages is not an attempt "to engage in an edit war". You didn't post to their talk page advising them that you had opened this. Nor did you try to discuss the edits with them or on the articles talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. I was suspicious of that user's activity based on his/her history of edits, and was using the two articles as recent examples. But I didn't realize the steps you listed must be taken before reporting. Thanks for clarifying. --Foreverknowledge (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The issues are easily resolved and hardly need to be escalated or edit-warred over. Please see the edit-summaries for my two edits and take it to the respective articles' talkpage, if you believe there is anything more to discuss. Don't see any need for admin intervention at the moment. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hate speech by IP editor

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

---

• 212.8.51.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 81.90.230.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On Talk:Ukraine, Talk:Ukrainians, and Talk:Blond, this user has added hate speech links referring to Ukrainians as "shit skins" and saying they belong in gas chambers multiple times (see [166] [167] [168]) as well as other trolling and bigoted comments ([169] [170] [171] [172]).

Given that this IP has been doing this for over 2 months from the same IP address, I suspect it's a static IP and am requesting a lengthy block on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just saw another IP, 81.90.230.250. Adding to list. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 212.8. for a month. The other IP hasn't edited since July 11, so leaving unblocked for now. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Lepidoptera~plwiki

• lepidoptera.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

In a nutshell: Lepidoptera~plwiki has confirmed being the owner of the website he is repeatedly adding into the External Links section of articles. They have already been warned by an administrator, responded to the warning and are now sadly continuing in the same fashion.

Please have a look at User talk:Lepidoptera~plwiki and the recent contributions from August here: Special:Contributions/Lepidoptera~plwiki. Diffs: 1 2 3 4

Oshwah tried and failed. I tried and failed. They appear to be continuing to make promotional edits for their own website, marked incorrectly as "minor edits", flying under the radar of most editors because they're extendedconfirmed.

I think that there is a strong conflict of interest involving link additions to this type of articles. A topic ban might be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This does seem to be someone who's spamming his website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They are still saying we're "wrong". I'm copying this new message from the talk page of SWL36 (diff): ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are wrong removing all my last updates. From the end user perspective I've added really valuable data, it's not a fake, spam etc. I really wonder if any of you just tried to verify at least one of those links... The website "involved" in this problem has the new name and new link structure. I know that but 95% of the existing links (created BTW by different users) are wrong, part is even marked as a "dead links". I was trying to update all data like that but it seems that I shouldn't do that...
OK, noted but I think the way you've selected is wrong. It's take me some time to update data but it seems it's not worth of my time. Thank you for all warnings :-(

(Lepidoptera~plwiki (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC))

Emphasis on the date by me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would take the time to undo all these external link additions, with an appropriate edit summary, linking to this discussion, also taking the time to fix edits that are not the "current" version of the pages anymore. I just need a confirmation here that doing so is okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard would be place to get consensus for that, really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you -- I had only considered the COI noticeboard, and then saw that it is meant for one specific article only. I have now created the following section on the external links noticeboard: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mass_addition_of_lepidoptera.eu_links_by_website_owner. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oooooh! COIbot has revealed something interesting. I think we need some further explanation regarding this: Special:Contributions/Chris_lepidoptera User_talk:Chris_lepidoptera

The user had enough warnings over the course of multiple years now. Could we please get a topic ban? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification, to avoid a misunderstanding: I am not requesting a ban about the general article topic, butterflies and moths. I have something like this in mind instead:

(This is a proposal, not an actual ban!) "Lepidoptera~plwiki, as a person, is prohibited from adding external links to any website they are affiliated with, to main namespace articles of the English Wikipedia. This includes using such a site as a reference."

Proposed ban duration: indefinitely, until explicitly unbanned by the community.

Reason for duration: There is no reason to allow them to do it again after a specific amount of time.

Alternatively, the site could be added to the local spam blacklist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a discussion started about BLP in relation to the article on Joan Freeman, a candidate for the upcoming Irish Presidential election. I saw it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist). The questionable content has been added and removed several times in an ongoing edit war. When I looked at the content, I noted that it is lifted nearly verbatim from a newspaper article in The Times. I posted this on the talk page and another user removed what I believe is a COPYVIO before I had the chance. I have also edited the article to include the reference in a way that I see as BLP compliant as well as not including a COPYVIO. Bastun (talk · contribs) has reverted my changes and restored what I believe is a COPYVIO with the edit summary "Restore. There is an RfC ongoing, You CANNOT remove material during an RfC."

I ask that an uninvolved administrator have a look at the situation and take whatever action is appropriate and necessary. If I am incorrect about the COPYVIO, I am happy to be told so and to understand my error. If I am correct, however, it is my understanding that a COPYVIO should be removed on sight irrespective of whatever discussions are in progress. If the consensus on the BLP issue is that the information be restored, I can accept that, but I believe it would need to be rewritten so as to comply with policy.

I will post to Bastun's user talk page momentarily. EdChem (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Background: The article in question has attracted a suspicious number of "new" and WP:SPA accounts (something noticed by Spleodrach also), who seem intent on removing the section in question. Several editors oppose that removal. A thread was opened on the BLP noticeboard by one of the new accounts, and an RfC was subsequently opened today on the article's talk page. A user involved in the dispute removed the content again while the RfC was ongoing. I restored it as there's an RfC underway (my previous experience of RfCs about content is on the likes of the Donald Trump articles, where no changes can are made while the RfC is ongoing). The alleged copyvio (which I would dispute, but hey) has 'already been substantially changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it rather strange that a RFC is used to protect negative, irrelevant information that is clearly at odds with WP:BLP. The Banner talk 01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the copyvio aspect, as a result of a request on my talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Huldra and her deletion of reliable sources, without referring the matter to the RS Noticeboard

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

---

A fellow Wikipedia editor, User:Huldra, whom I've worked with on collaborative editing for several years now, has done today and a few days earlier what I have never seen her do before, namely, to deliberately delete vital historical material from the Wikipedia article Operation Ha-Har, simply because she does not know the author whose work we are citing. Huldra is known to be a staunch pro-Palestinian writer, and she, therefore, may have felt it her bounden duty to intervene in an article that treats on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I have written to her on the Talk-Page (see: Talk:Operation Ha-Har#Heally Gross (author), requesting from her NOT to delete well-sourced material simply because of her dislike of the material or the author, until such time that she first lodges an official inquiry into the venue that is meant to handle such issues as "reliable sources." My request from this board is that our co-editor, Huldra, be given a fair warning about such disruptive editing (i.e. deletion of sources), and that if she has any doubts whatsoever about the source being used as a reference and/or cited in our online encyclopedia that she consults the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for their professional assessment of the situation.Davidbena (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Before I deleted the "Heally Gross" source, I googled her name...and I found no academic credentials online, the closest I found to a "Heally Gross" is a film curator in Israel? This is about part of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; needless to say there is a myriad of high quality academic sources, also in English. So far, Davidbena has failed to state her qualifications (other than that she is a "third generation writer", and is "highly regarded" in Israel), sorry, but IMO that simply isn't good enough for such a highly contentious area as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. (And I really do not appreciate the personal innuendos about me: Davidbena should know me well enough by now to know that I remove any sources which are not up to RS standard.) Huldra (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that the author has more academic credentials than either you, or I, but this is still no reason for you to delete well-documented sources, simply because you are unaware of their credentials before actually referring the matter to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Huldra, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are not the free-roaming "do-as-you-like" judge in matters related to RS. An example of your POV editing can be seen here. Here, you use the words "ethnic cleansing" to describe the Palestinian people's plight. You have been greatly disruptive here.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Since when is anyone required to get anyone else's approval to remove content from a page? Is Huldra under some type of sanction you failed to mention? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena this looks like a content dispute and that you are going fishing if you are bringing up diffs from 2014 and 2017. I am not sure if you are more upset about the dispute or Huldra being an apparent “staunch pro-Palestinian writer”; either way I would close this yourself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the dispute is one concerning "reliable sources." Her edits were very, very disruptive and should have been discussed before deleting content.Davidbena (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

She made an edit you didn't like and you reverted it. Now you are discussing it on the talk page. Where is the disruption? This board is for behavioral problems, not for you to whine that someone disagrees with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No! No! No! You got it all wrong. Huldra made no edit, but only complained about the sources as being unreliable, and therefore deleted them without referring the matter to the Wikipedia "Reliable Sources" Noticeboard, or without first discussing the subject matter with other co-editors who contributed in this article in the Talk-Page before deleting reputable and vital sources. Huldra is known for her views, as shown by a couple diifs for the sake of brevity, but one may freely look at her edit history in the Palestinian-Israeli articles. Here, Huldra was being disruptive.Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're referring to this five part edit. Regardless of what you want to call that, there is no rule that says Huldra has to go to RSN before she can delete sources from an article. There is no rule that says that people who disagree with Davidbena get dragged to ANI. I recommend you just drop this, and stick to the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Davidbena: if you feel strongly about the source in question, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN. Bringing a content dispute here was premature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 DoneDavidbena (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So, in your view, User:Someguy1221, is it better to restore the original edit and discuss changes in the Talk-Page before making any changes in the article (since, after all, the matter involves "Reliable Sources"). Or should we first consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard over the editor's concerns, meanwhile restoring the edit until there is a verdict from the jurors on that board?Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)03:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to read what is written above and respond to the substance. This is not the place to debate the source, but after reading "I found no academic credentials online" there are only two reasonable responses: post evidence of academic credentials, or say "I see what you mean, sorry for raising this". Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(EC) It's better if you just shut up here and start talking about it in RSN or somewhere else appropriate. Whether it's necessary to implement the R step in BRD after whatever the hell happened is not something anyone here is interested in discussing. Also how long have you been here? Some of the above comments make me think you've been here a while, but then you say stuff like "verdict" and "jurors" and "professional assessment" which make it sound like this is your first day here since they seem to indicate a complete lack of understanding of how things work on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done By the way, I mean no offense, but I am sometimes quite formal in my language. Resolution boards do, in effect, comprise those who will judge the sum and bearing of one's complaint. But isn't this a diversion from our topic?Davidbena (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Davidbena: Umm ... the first place to take a dispute over article content is the article talk page, RSN is step two or three, and ANI is ... never, as long as the dispute remains purely content-based. And you seem to have a bit of a misunderstanding regarding the nature of RSN: we don't provide a "professional" assessment of a source's reliability, since contributors there are just as much volunteers as everyone else except paid editors and WMF employees, and your statement on the talk page that Wikipedia's policy is to accept foreign publication is wrong in a couple of ways: we accept reliable sources regardless of their language, but we don't assume a source is reliable just because it's in a foreign language; rather we assume sources are unreliable until demonstrated otherwise. I cite Japanese sources more than English ones, but if anyone ever challenged me on their reliability I would point to the editorial/peer-review processes, the prestige of the institutions the authors teach at (virtually all of them are university professors), their being cited by other reputable scholars, etc., not just claim that Wikipedia's policy is to accept foreign-language sources.

I would recommend this thread be closed as a content dispute that definitely hasn't come anywhere near the point where administrative action is required.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(I should probably also disclose that the title of this thread, specifically deletion of reliable sources, triggered my PTSD from a long and very unpleasant interaction with a certain site-banned editor. If the concern is removal of content, please call it that; "deletion of sources" is not actually a thing, and removal of citations because of redundancy, etc. is not a violation of any policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC) )

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

Disruptive editings and sockpuppeting by Ayu Nabila in Jakarta article

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

---

User:Ayu Nabila editings in Jakarta article are disruptive. She insists to delete the Jakarta Cathedral photo in the religion section. I don't know what is her problem, since Istiqlal mosque picture is shown at the top already. Maybe she just doesn't like a picture other than a mosque to be featured in that article. Also she may be sockpuppeting. Rantemario (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rantemario, your "Are you Christianophobic?" slur is not acceptable, and if you have a content dispute you must not attempt to solve it by making personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rantemario is always hostiling me. He is always kneeling me. Every my edit, NOT ONLY IN Jakarta or Indonesia article. HE'S ALWAYS REVERTING AND DELETING ALMOST OF MY EDITS. ALSO, HE'S ALWAYS ATTACKING ME WITH SOME RUDE STATEMENTS.

But i don't use this account. I use account User:J-lorentz, 2 years ago. And i got some traumatic experiences because of this GAY and this Islamophobic person! But it was happened 2 years ago. Now, i will not give up to attack him!

I NEED A JUSTICE.

A BIG THANK YOU IF YOU CAN HELP ME. Ayu Nabila (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've no idea what this dispute is about (and I've no real interest in finding out), but Ayu Nabila, it is absolutely not acceptable for you to make unsupported personal attacks like calling someone "this GAY and this Islamophobic person!" It's compounded by the "GAY" slur, which is pure homophobia, and we do not tolerate homophobia here either. If I see you making personal attacks like that again, you will be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• To both of you, you are edit warring and insulting each other over a content dispute about the inclusion of a photo in the article. Stop that, and go and discuss it on the article's talk page and seek a consensus - neither of you has engaged in any discussion on that talk page at all. If I see either of you continuing the edit war or making further personal attacks, I will be issuing blocks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• And, Ayu Nabila, you immediately continued the edit war. I was about to block your account, but User:Bbb23 has beaten me to it with an indefinite block for a variety of reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have indefinitely blocked Ayu Nabila for admitted socking (J-lorentz), ongoing abusive IP socking, personal attacks, creating attack pages, and incompetence. I have deleted their userpage per U5 (which doesn't strictly apply) and G10 for the following: "I am a heterosexual woman or just called me as normal who is very hostile towards LGBT. For me, LGBT should not have a place in Indonesia even the world, since Indonesia is a Muslim majority country. Also, LGBT is not in accordance with Indonesian culture and values. In Islam, LGBT people are more despicable than just an animal or even trash! May ALLAH (الله) condemns these cursed people!" --Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Canterbury Tail talk 15:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:24.185.76.170

User:24.185.76.170 is a new IP [[173]] that has not only jumped straight into editing controversial topics, but also their second edit was this [[174]] a post that implied a long standing ed who is aware of my interactions with 72bikers. It was however this [[175]], the PAs and soapboxing that has led me to report them. The fact I also suspect bolck evasion or (at least) a second account being used for civility breaching is besides the point [[176]]. We also have a nice dose of whataboutism [[177]], [[178]]. I think it is clear this user is not here for any other reason then to POV push.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Their comments appear to include, besides obvious soapboxing: personal attacks; scattered and off-topic subjects that can be included under the umbrella of OTHERTHINGS; no clear suggestions to improve article content; comments which indicate a familiarity with Slatersteven and are targeted harassment of him. They are NOTHERE and should be blocked. A CU would also be nice to block the real account behind these attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I had not thought about a CU, as I said I think they already are blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That would make the case for a CU even stronger, IOW they deserve a lengthening of their block for block evasion. The blocked human being behind any username or IP must not touch edit buttons at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What "controversial topic" did I edit, "Steven?" Besides simply pointing out non-neutral and inappropriate standards of evidence on several talk pages? In fact, I don't think I've even made a change to an actual article in a very long time (yes, I post on whatever IP is associated with my internet connection, no point in having an account). Also, what "block" did I evade? Never happened. And if you think I'm lying, why don't you demonstrate it. The only account I did use has no blocking/suspension or any type of disciplinary action associated with it, ever. And you can look at every edit I ever made. I just don't like the lax and extremely non-neutral standard of evidence that you and others introduce on certain political topics, which I demonstrated with exact examples. You just seem to struggle with those and try to reply with empty threats and claims of personalizing which go nowhere. I don't care about you personally except for a bad standard of editing, and I don't care if you don't like me pointing it out. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A topic can just as much be the topic we are talking about (I.E the Trump stuff). I think the above shows the user is here to right great wrongs, and I think this is in fact being used to sock now. Keep the main account clean whilst using IP's to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A clear indication they have nothing but contempt for both out polices and other users [179], they practically admit that is why they do not use a named account. Because they "not subject to the opinions of people like yourself.", a clear statement that they are not interested in cooperation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I very rarely say this for a first offence (in fact never have) but I think the attitude is such that they will continue to be disruptive (and have said as mush. I think therefore a site ban is needed. But then I am positive this is not a first offence, and (the user themselves admits) they are an experienced ed (and are using the IP just to be able to use language they are not allowed to). The fact we cannot verify what other accounts they may have had (or any bans) makes it clear that we need a CU, and maybe a range block.09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I've seen you doing that before, Steven. Claiming that someone "hates wikipedia as a whole," when they are criticizing your own behavior. With examples. It didn't work for you then either. Your own lax standards are not wikipedia's standards. As I also said, I use whatever random IP I get at the time because there's no point in me having an account. I didn't see it so stopped bothering. If the side effect is that I'm not friends with you, I don't care. you're welcome to try to ban the random IP's of people who disagree with your demonstrated bias, but it won't actually do anything. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editings for another Edit warring about British in Latin America Independence

User:Muwatallis II reported by User:Caminoderoma because the user made Disruptive editings, to starts another Edit warring about British in Latin American independence. He was blocked (x2) by the same reason [180]

Diffs of the Disruptive editings:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]
5. [185]
6. [186]

The consensus in Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military history is not put scattered soldiers in belligerents, but put the troops as belligerents if the soldiers were a military unit with a recognizable identity, as they were British Legions.

--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This matter was already discussed earlier in Talk:Capture of the Esmeralda and Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military history. A consensus was reached that the mercenaries integrated into the army are inclusive and not separate entities. Both the military units of an army and the soldiers among their ranks.

I should add that the British legions were not strictly British military units and were not recruited as a unit either. The individuals were recruited by individual contracts and brought to Venezuela to form their army integrating into mixed British and local battalions.

All the information on the nationality of the people of a military force should be made in the body of the article and not in the infobox, as already clarified in previous discussions.

With respect to the insistence of putting "British support" on the information table of the Spanish-American wars of independence, it is partial and out of place. The United Kingdom is not belligerent in the war and did not support any of the parties. The sale of arms was a business carried out by private companies for business reasons, and they sold weapons to realists and revolutionaries alike. The foreigners (not only British) who came to fight for the revolutionaries did so as mercenaries, for other people's reasons, not at the will of their countries. Therefore, that information must be deleted. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:LumaNatic

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

---

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

Yesterday, I posted the following at ANI, only to find that the user was blocked while I was typing, so I removed it. They used this time while blocked to (unsuccessfully) argue that timestamped edits weren't accurate. Their block has expired, and instead of contributing, and are more interested in accusing people of being a digital WP KKK LynchMob and the digital version of tiki torchers and Proud Boys, and asking Is this your version of #PermitPatty? (I have no idea what it means, but I doubt it's kind).

"I started a thread yesterday at NPOVN about User:LumaNatic inserting "enslaver" into the first sentence of articles on a number of historical figures, despite being told that is is WP:UNDUE by multiple people. Now that I've looked back further at their contribs, I'm finding that this is basically their only purpose for editing wikipedia, and ANI is a better place for this. Ignoring warnings on their talk page and at NPOVN, including links to relevant policies and guidelines, they're continuing to add this and use ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees. They are edit warring until they hit 3 reverts on any one page, and don't appear to be interested in discussing beyond repeating the same things.

This editor is clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia. Natureium (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)"

I'm resurrecting this so someone can either help them understand civil editing, or help everyone else by preventing them from continuing to do whatever it is they're trying to do. Natureium (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

False -just pointing out that systemic practices here in the digital have a basis in the real world. Nothing happens in a vacuum. If it went over your head, no worries. Was just a play at breaking the ice that seems to have formed. In any event, will just stick to the facts moving forward (I've seen others banter and snark back and forth, I had no idea such was off-limits [to me?])LumaNatic (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)16:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing others of being racist is not banter or snark. It's entirely inappropriate. Natureium (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are, but we are here to simply report...what other peoples say are facts, not what we think they are. I believe you were asked to provide RS supporting your "facts" and produced none.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I will say I found my interaction with LumaNatic at George Mason disconcerting. Their view is widely shared among part of the public at large, as is their confrontational language, and we have all read of people having problems in their lives after being accused of racism. I intervened only once and rather reluctantly, and was glad when other editors took the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

He's justifying his "confrontational language" by arguing on his talk page that WP:BOLD applies to insulting people. It doesn't seem like he's interested in editing collaboratively. [187] Natureium (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is all patently false, I may be new and just learning how things are done here, but i have no agenda and am just sticking to facts.LumaNatic (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Per this edit, particularly the claim "It is well documented that racialized chattel enslavement is what made these people notable - they and their ancestors committed treason and took up arms against their country to continue the practice." in reference to the following individuals: George Washington‎, John Washington, Augustine Washington, Robert E. Lee, Henry Lee III, George Mason I, George Mason II, George Mason, George Wythe, Lawrence Washington (1718–1752), Lawrence Washington (1659–1698), I would support an indef block. This editor is either here to push an agenda, or so amazingly incompetent as to make no difference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

False - I may be new, but, I was giving my reason for my edits. Wait, is this banter or snark?LumaNatic (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You are permitted to make such accusations at an ANI, about the only place you are asa general comment about a user.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, more rules to know. Thanks.LumaNatic (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Before you get clever, you will get blocks for just using ANI as a place to post insults.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is fairly straightforward. LumaNatic looks to have no consensus for their proposed changes and any further edit warring will likely result in lengthier blocks. Any further accusations or implications that editors disagreeing with their changes are racist will also result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How does one know when consensus is over? And I may be new, but as far as threats of blocks and apoloptics over discussions of systemic and instituional issues - I've only suggested that virulent attacks may be indicative of deeper platform and cultural biases, and I will continue to expose such systemic and instituional biases as they occur, especially when it interferes with the consensus discussions I'm engaging in - there are whole conversations being had about these issues on the platform, as they should be. It can only make WP more factual and effective. Shutting them down and threatning blocks are ineffective and unecesssary. Creating an edit war over identifying people who enslaved others as such, and the ensuing discussions is indicative that there may be some of these issues at play. They do need to be discussed if they do appear.LumaNatic (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It was not a threat, it was a warnings issued in the hope you would not be so stupid as to ignore it. It really is hard to see how you are not going to get a lengthier block now for just saying you are going to continue to be disruptive. You might as well have just written "block me".Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

When multiple editors disagree with your edits and no one agrees with you then it's probably time to drop the stick. Otherwise, you're probably heading into this territory: "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

False. I may be new and learning how things are done, but i have no agenda and am just sticking to facts.LumaNatic (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just following up with replies to all of the messages I missed - I thought I was being courteous by responding, and not ignoring. As far as "instead of contributing" - this is false, but stay posted, there are a few upcoming reveals.LumaNatic (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You were being courteous by responding with insults and accusations? You probably want to rethink your "upcoming reveals" and work on gaining consensus before making changes. Natureium (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he was refering to his insertion of a reply in the middle of another users reply. It is clear he is not wholly conversant of our polices and MOS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Context is everything. Every owner of a planatation in that area during the time periods in question was a slave-owner. I am not aware of any plantations (outside of Georgia for a short period of time) which did not use slave labor. Given that, "slave owner" is not a defining characteristic for those who owned plantations at the time, and including that description with no context in the lede of their articles is neither useful nor informative. I do not object to including in the lede the fact that they owned slaves if it is presented with context (see my re-write of the lede of Lawrence Washington (1659–1698)), but saying someone was, for instance, a "lawyer, soldier, politician and slave-owner" is not encyclopedically appropriate. LumaNatic needs to stop that behavior immediately, and work with other editors to include the information in a contextually appropriate manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

T*U

T*U seems used 2 accounts (see 96.55.... in Southern Europe article; he "used" Croatia to change Switzerland) to edit and for vandalism. His history smells of sock too.And not only at my eyes.Maxim3377 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is 96.55? And some diffs would help. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

MaximMaxim3377 is referring to the IP editor at 96.55.23.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I fear MaximMaxim3377 is aiming for a WP:BOOMERANG here, as their editing on Southern Europe is approaching an edit war. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(User link above corrected; Maxim3377, not Maxim) Dorsetonian (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Only off by som 7000+km. "Using Croatia to change Switzerland" is a weird accusation. However, the accusing account is (probably) a new account not used to Wiki ways. Please do not bite them too hard. --T*U (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not clear timing in it.Why should have changed a 96.... Switzerland?Nothing to do with Croatia.He acted more on Switzerland than with Croatia even if he mentioned always this one.You seem very practice in Noticeboard administrator site.You also move very well in Wiki.It means in my opinion you know it well and since very long time.It's in favour of sock.Maxim3377 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Legal

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

---

An IP has used an edit summary to request legal department review here[188] not a direct threat, so not sure if this belongs here. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty borderline (not to mention that there is no Wikimedia Legal Department, as far as I know). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Erpert WMF does have a legal department but not for ridiculous crap like that. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope that is not a threat. The IP feels wiki editors are legally illiterate for that particular edit and all he is trying to say in his edit summary is that someone who understands the legal concept of Convicted vs "alleged" should decide that particular edit. nothing to be worried about. Close this thread. --DBigXray 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Djedamrazuk - abusive post

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

---

Will someone please block this user to prevent any repeat of the seriously abusive post they left at User talk:Randykitty and the vandalism to her talk page. PamD 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done SQL^{Query me!} 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks, disruptive editing, POV pushing and edit warring

Joan sense nick has recently engaged in a very aggressive editing style on Catalonia-related articles, which included removing some content from Quim Torra, based on an unexplained and unjustified unapplicability of the "monarch" infobox parameter in those (diff). User repeated the same edit in the Carles Puigdemont article with no explanation at all (diff). I tried to explain the situation (diff1 diff2), but got reverted (diff1 diff2). User has been unable to reply with anything other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-based arguments. Sunsequently, the user has engaged in a personal attack behaviour against me throughout several talk pages, including my talk (diff1 diff2), which has continued (diff) even after I warned the user about it (diff). The user has also engaged in a potential edit-warring at History of Catalonia over the addition of WP:OR material and the use of sources which do not seem no meet the condition of reliable (diff1 diff2). User has also been shown to add content to History of Catalonia, Catalonia and Catalan independence movement under a tendentious wording and without any sources (diff1 diff2) and has kept reverting me under new personal attacks whenever I tried to justifiedly undo these edits (diff). This includes a weird edit at Crown of Aragon replacing Valencia by Barcelona as de facto capital of the realm with no explantion either (diff). I have refrained from engaging in further reverts with the user so as to avoid a likely edit war spanning several articles.

The user's contribution history also does show that it is a sleeper account which has been dormant for nine years (link), then suddenly re-activated today and started editing a set of Catalonia-related articles by either adding or removing information indiscriminately, with the aforementioned disruptive behaviour, which also seems very weird. So far it looks like a POV pushing-only account. Impru20^talk 21:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some of this (cursorily-- I do edit and watch Catalonia pages, but infrequently) and I have to agree that Joan sense nick has to change certain behaviors to be more in line with what a good editor does, which includes especially not posting comments like Boring and stupid behavior, man. A ridiculous spanish nationalist POV on users' talk pages. Having interacted with Impru20 in the past-- including one dispute that I think we were both able to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on-- I'd have to disagree strongly with Joan's rather unfair characterization: Impru clearly strives for NPOV in the mainspace. Joan seems newish but really, these sorts of behaviors on currently "hot" topics (because of relevance to Catalan separatism) really are not acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Joan sense nick (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC) said:

Unfortunatelly I'm not very familiar with the WP standards on talk pages, I´m sorry if I type it in the wrong places, or if I've repeated it.

As user:Impru20 says, today is my first day in WP after a long period. And probably, it will also be my last day. I've neither the time nor the mood to discuss with this user that is bullying me. But let me, at least, respond to his demand of my "punition".

I've done some minor edits in Catalonia, my country, since I realised that the History section contents ended in late 2017. I've added some fresh data (note that I do not removed content). I provided some sources. That's all.

When providing links to president Quim Torra article, I noticed that in the box there was a strange line stating "monarch" as a parameter. In my opinion, this parameter make no sense here. I checked out that this was not present in other "Catalan President" boxes, nor in other "spanish Regional President" boxes. So I realised that this should be a vandal addition of a spanish nationalist, in order to make the name of the king visible in front of the catalan president's name. So I cleaned it, and I typed the reason (maybe not in the right place, I assume it).

In a few minutes, this agresive user reverted all my editions (not only this particular one). And the funny thing is that he is now adding this line "monarch" to ALL the spanish regional presidents of the last 40 years! Ridiculous.

It's ok, you can change it all, I give up, I give more value to my time. But it's a pitty that a nice project like the original WP is corrupted by such an unkind behavior. This user usues his position in WP to sweep me out, to expulse me.

Besides it, he removes my editions arguing that are not reliable sources. Take a look and have your own opinion: [189] is an open source, in the spirit of the original WP. It deserves, at least, to be one of the sources in such articles, much of them are just newspaper biased opinions (from both sides).

Best regards. I leave it for, at least, nine yers more... Joan sense nick (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that Joan sense nick is repeating the exact same behaviour with Asqueladd at Catalonia after trying to add weasel and tendentious content there (diff), again resorting to personal attacks (diff1 diff2). User is pushing POV content at Catalan independence movement and Catalan independence referendum, 2017 as well (diff1 diff2 diff3). Also note that all of this is happening after the user's victim game in this discussion. Impru20^talk 23:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not playing any game. I provide an independent reliable source to add information to these articles. I don't remove other sources (and some are strongly biased, even are fake-news). This is a test on WP plurality: if the vandalisation of that link prevails, biased POV and censure prevails. Just check out the link I add, there are no opinions on it, just videos and facts: [190] But some people don't want information to be shared, they are afraid of truth. Joan sense nick (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also add WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to the list. Impru20^talk 00:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Further POV pushing at Catalonia (diff), this time reverting Crystallizedcarbon, who also pointed out the NPOV and RS issues of the added content. Impru20^talk 11:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also note that this last revert means a violation of WP:3RR, as more than three reverts have been conducted within less than 24 hours (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4). I have proceeded to revert the fourth revert (though I will be unable to conduct further reverts in the Catalonia article without violating 3RR myself) and warn the user appropriately (diff1 diff2). Impru20^talk 12:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Joan sense nick for 31 hours. [191] But Impru20 and others, edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. There was nothing stopping you from opening a conversation on any of the affected articles' talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well, I tried it at first in the first contested edits in Talk:Quim Torra#monarch ??, but not only did I receive no response other than further reverts and personal attacks elsewhere (diffs above), but the same POV pushing was attempted in other articles without discussion and dubbing others' edits as "vandalism", so any attempt at discussion seemed moot at that point. Impru20^talk 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

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

---

It is obvious that writing credits added to subject's profile have been repeatedly deleted by Wikipedia editors so his misdeeds stand out. A simple internet search of subject is all one needs to see he is an accomplished writer who has made his share of mistakes, not unlike a good number of those in Hollywood. Life is often if not always a mixed bag. Where's the fairness in the editing of this subject? Answer: it's not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.149.66 (talk • contribs) 23:03 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Insults, abuse, and edit warring for putting in reputable scholarly sources

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

---

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

I placed in reputable and scholarly sources in Ibn Arabi's article to indicate that factually speaking, Ibn Arabi, was a Sunni Muslim [192] [193] [194]. user:HafizHanif, without justification removes these sources and rather than dialogue he resorts to ad-hominem attacks by calling me a "sockpuppet" as seen here [195] [196]. At first he seemed like he was willing to dialogue, however, when I academically disproved what I consider to be biased assertions, these insults followed. I believe that user:HafizHanif exaggerates the role of Jesus in Ibn Arabi's doctrine. He references a book which's topic is Jesus and not Ibn Arabi's doctrines. I made my arguments clear in the talk page [197]. However, he has made no attempt to discuss this issue. The references in reality relate that the dominant figure in Ibn Arabi's ideology of Al-Insan Al-Kamil (The Perfect Man) is Muhammad (references are here [198]) and that all other people who attain such a rank (i.e. he called Moses, Noah, Abraham and even himself as Al-Insan Al-Kamil) can only attain this through Muhammad. He places a rather, out of place, statement solely about Jesus, which is considered to be one of many Al-Insan Al-Kamil and not the central figure of the belief [199]. I want to know why he singles out Jesus and not Moses or Abraham or the many other Prophets? This seems like bias to me. I believe that the sources that indicate he is Sunni should remain and that Jesus's role in Ibn Arabi's beliefs should not be exaggerated. But he is not involving in dialogue and resorts to insults and I do not want to engage any more in an edit war. Nuralakbar (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you have posted a message here after you were warned about edit warring and needing to discuss changes on the talk page. See this posting to your talk page by EdJohnston. I am seeing that HafizHanif has tried to engage with you on Talk:Ibn Arabi and your talk page (currently blanked, see history) and explain the issues with the edits, including using sources not deemed reliable sources and perhaps are not understanding how to identify reliable sources. It seems like you have made assumptions about his intentions that I am not seeing.

In addition, a lot of this seems to be content disputes. Did you see HafizHanif's post at this section?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Davidbena

After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior. What alarmed me from the get-go—other than taking a content dispute to ANI straight away—is David attacking Huldra by accusing her of being a staunch pro-Palestinian writer for disputing a questionable source. Davidbena doubled-down after Huldra’s explanation, again referring to her editing as “POV”.

• The dispute in question is over the reliability of a self-published author. Again, at RSN David avounched that they “know” Huldra and made more unsubstantiated accusations on her “clear tendency for POV editing”; he again described her behavior as POV-based editing. At no point did he indicate any understanding of why the source is not preferred here. In an earlier discussion at RSN on 25 July, more of the same from David: It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information.
• David’s also advocates for fringe theories during discussion. At this recent one, David commented 16 times—despite editors insisting he is clearly incorrect and should stop [200][201][202][203][204]—on there not being an occupation of the West Bank, ignoring the majority view of reliable sources. Just read the discussion; honestly, a single diff cannot do his blocks of text supporting a fringe view any justice.

Recent discussions with David indicate an editor who does not hear the advice and constructive criticism of others; when challenged about an edit, he assumes bias on part of the disagreeing editor. I hope editors with more familiarity with David come foreword because these diffs only touch on an alarming concern. Perhaps a warning or a t-ban from the I-P area would do David—and the encyclopedia—some good because this trend cannot continue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to respond one-by-one to any allegations that editors might have against me. My suggestion is to make bullets, with each separate allegation (complaint), and there I'll post my reply and give explanations for my conduct. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I propose that Davidbena be indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed. It is not reasonable to require people working in an area where every stone is argued over to engage in such pointless discussions. Anyone can have a bad day so it was not a big deal when Davidbena started at ANI, but the inability to hear the responses was alarming. Then it was raised again at RSN where Davidbena asks for an opinion from a "Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel". Davidbena's claims of reliability of the source in question seem to rely on personal knowledge and the fact that the book is catalogued in a university library. After all that we see concern about "User:Huldra's POV-based editing" (diff) (Huldra removed the source as unreliable, as confirmed at RSN). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand why, if the ANI has been closed, it is now being brought-up again. After realizing that I made a mistake to bring my complaint before them, I immediately complied to their suggestions to raise the issue with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The very first words above are After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior [emphasis added]. What alarmed me from the get-go...

In other words, the very first words EXPLICITLY say it's not the ANI "being brought up again": your behavior there triggered a further inquiry about your pattern of behavior overall. Your claim of not understanding is therefore a sign of not listening, not being competent, or of being disingenuous. Would you like to revise your statement? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It may possibly be seen as relevant that Davidbena was blocked [205] back in 2015 for accusing Huldra of "pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel". [206] There seems to be a pattern here. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he was not blocked for what he called me, he was blocked for violating 1RR (and yes, I was the one who reported him) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

While David's behavior hasn't been optimal (but whose is?) - the proposed remedy is out of proportion to the editing. Not everything needs to be at AN/I - especially when this was discussed here a couple of days ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Any editor who is active in the ARBPIA-area is bound to loose their temper once in a while, make an edit that wasn't optimum, or write an edit-summary that was less than courteous. We have all been there, and yet we all together make this project better. Huldra is an pro-Arab editor, as I am pro-Israel. We try to make good edits, but sometimes our POVs show. That is normal and that is legit. We have all been blocked at one time or another, yet we are all veteran editors, with thousands of good contributions. Let's not make a big deal of nothing, forget the talk about bans, block and all those things, and just continue to work on together. Especially in this case, where I feel something close to nothing is being blown up out of proportion. All in all, this project is benefiting from the varied input from all editors. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, background: Davidbena and I first met at Talk:Bayt Nattif in early 2015, at which time he admitted that he knew "absolutely nothing " about the Arab history. Since then I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...).

Lately he has, however, used some rather partisan Hebrew sources.

I wasn't going to support a topic ban...until I saw this edit by him, made after this thread was opened(!) Here Davidbena inserts a Joseph Tabenkin source again....after just being told by a virtual unanimous crowd on WP:RS/N that it wasn't acceptable(!). He seems to suffer from an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Therefor;

I support a 6 month topic ban, and if it is implemented, then I strongly urge Davidbena to use that time to read some books from "the opposite side"...and not only hear the viewpoints of Haganah commanders, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not support the ban of Davidbena here at ANI as it seems more like an anarchic attempt at democracy. I find that David is highly partisan and, within the very limited contact I've had with him, seems to be here to promote Pro-Israeli POV without any attempt at NPOV. But I feel also that my, albeit limited, interaction with David would make me seem, to any reasonable outside observer, biased. As this relates to ARBPIA, I feel it is going to be a disorganized mess full of Pro-Israeli partisans and Pro-Palestinian partisans, making it hard to determine the over all consensus on this matter. I take this as a request to apply ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and I take from WP:ACDS that WP:ARE would be the appropriate venue for this. While I can't say that ANI here can't take this action, I question if ANI should, and my opinion is no.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:AE is totally unsuited for this kind of problem. At AE, two or three diffs of clear violations of discretionary sanctions are required. ANI is the place to handle a case where someone consistently shows WP:CIR problems in a sensitive area. The problems (see OP) include the WP:RSN debacle and repeatedly using phrases like "clear tendency for POV editing" to describe other editors. The problems might be excusable for a newish editor or one not working to push a partisan view in a sensitive area, but Davidbena has been editing for five years and has over 20,000 edits. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was assuming above there was more than three clear examples and an over all longterm pattern that has developed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Orlando rangeblock for MusicLover650

Relative to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, the range Special:Contributions/2603:9001:985:7B00:0:0:0:0/64, from Orlando, Florida, has been active for the past two weeks. Can we stop the disruption? This person often engages in genre warring, and is especially persistent in puffing up the "associated acts" parameter of the musician infobox. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass edits by IP address

User 2605:E000:9149:A600:B0BD:BEA8:89BB:89CD [207] is going around mass editing articles referring to Companions of the Order of the Bath and other orders of knighthjood in the mistaken belief that they were knights. (ie does not understand the subject it is editing.) Can someone please run a mass revert of its edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think all those ones have been undone. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Eagles hard rock vandal again

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

---

Just like last time, reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Eagles_hard_rock_genre_warrior, there's an active range of IPs disrupting music articles about Eagles band members and the hard rock and glam rock genres. Can we stop Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA02:2E00:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the last rangeblock we had on this guy was for three months on 2600:8805:AA03:0:0:0:0:0/48, the block performed by NinjaRobotPirate. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

More eyes on Steve Gottwalt, please?

97.88.37.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would appear to be whitewashing Steve Gottwalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Would someone else please take a look at the edit history? Much of the conversation is on my talk page: user talk:Jim1138#Edits to Steve Gottwalt Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Despite numerous requests to get User:Qexigator to discuss his edits in relation to WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE) whose conclusion included:

• Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption.

and

• it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section off this small amount of almost unrelated content.

As a result I politely repeated my original questions and specifically reminded him to discuss the contribution and not myself diff. I also pinged other major contributors to the article to gather additional viewpoints.

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

• Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. diff

again discussing me rather than his contribution and implying that I am not interested in NPOV, and in removing a thread (which he opened) on his talk page diff his edit summary says, rmv previous (TVF incursion]). - definition of incursion.

Please note this matter was previously subject to a 3RR report: 3RRArchive372#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale).

Additional info: These threads may also be informative Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote and Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Genesis and branding of the Brexit and, as background to both of those, Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Hi. Please could someone look at possibly rangeblocking the 86.99 (and possibly the 2.49) address on this list. They pop up pretty much every single day between 10am and 2pm (UK time) making the same disruptive edits time and time again. They were previously rangeblocked under their 39.57 range in May 2018. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I range blocked Special:Contributions/86.99.16.0/21 and Special:Contributions/86.99.216.0/21 for a month. It's harder to figure out workable range blocks for the other one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this person doesn't care about German sports clubs, it might be Special:Contributions/2.49.184.0/21 and Special:Contributions/2.49.8.0/21. I didn't range block them. Let me know if there's more disruption from 2.49 IP editors. If I'm right about this, range blocks should be workable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, NRP. It's saved myself, @Spike 'em: and @Widr: some precious extra minutes of work each day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Eyeballs on apparent vandalism IP

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

---

212.233.170.62 (talk · contribs · 212.233.170.62 WHOIS) appears to be adding unsourced and sometimes clearly invented data tables to diverse articles. Qwirkle (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this IP editor just got off a one-month block for adding unsourced statistics, so I've blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:RK

This user added to article Semitic neopaganism content about Cohenet Institute. Because it isn't neopagan organisation, it was deleted. Currently he started to insulting users who delete his spam as vandals and pathological liars, and he try to convince me that I think that CI are Ortodox Jew, what is completely irrational, because I don't think so and never wrote something ever close to that. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The false vandal-name-calling is going both ways here, see this edit by the filing party, over this garden-variety content dispute. Both editors should be admonished to stop talking about one another, to try to work the matter out on the article talk page and, if that doesn't work, to use dispute resolution once they can show that they've made enough effort to discuss it that the DR processes will take the request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:HenrikStyle

HS has been contacted by me and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. I have sent them seven messages about this - in between all the messages, HS was editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response. They have beThey have been editing for 10 months and do know how to add references accurately, but often don't do so. After trying for a few weeks, I'm opening the discussion here in the hope they engage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another WP:RADAR user. They don’t appear to have been around since this discussion was started, but if they return without addressing any of this a block is in order. Refusing to communicate is essentaially a rejection of the idea that this is a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-opening; was auto-archived. HenrikStyle stopped editing briefly when I opened the ANI but has returned and still not responded to the messages or added references. They have continued to add pieces of unsourced information like [208] to articles. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An indef would help here to prevent further disruption until they respond on their talk page explaining their position. Lourdes 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've indeffed them until they explain. I've watchlisted their talk but if you need me more urgently, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning - potentially compromised account (mine!)

Long story short - if any editor sees unusual activity on this account such as completely deleting a new section as per [209], please undo immediately & apologise on my behalf. I have a years long edit history & demonstrates I'd never delete sections/comments on Talk Pages (other than another similar, mysterious, delete in the last fortnight). I've changed email/Wiki passwords but if the security issue is at my end that may not be enough. Asking at Helpdesk as to how to obtain IP & device data [210] but if my account is 'RAT'ted that may not help. Have updated User Page as 'potentially compromised account'. Thanks AnonNep (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as compromised. Based on my check, the likely scenario is someone used AnonHep's computer while they were logged in, or someone has access to AH's computer and knows the password. Changing passwords may not resolve the situation. Also, the recentness of the example AH gives above makes it clear that the account should not be unblocked without very convincing evidence that the account is no longer vulnerable. Assuming that's not forthcoming, AH should create a new account with a declaration on their userpage of the connection with their old account.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps they should also format their device as it may also be likely that someone's placed a keylogger on their device (one reason why, despite changing passwords, they weren't able to avoid the account getting compromised repeatedly). Maybe they should change their device altogether... (or the obsessive girlfriend :D I've done it to my beau, so can imagine). Lourdes 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you've put a keylogger on your significant other's device? Natureium (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone? EEng 21:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not on the "significant other's device" :D Lourdes 00:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The edit was a rollback. You have edited the page many times in the last month so I guess it's on your watchlist. At the help desk you said "I was online but elsewhere with only watchlist open." The watchlist for users with the rollback right has a [rollback] link which only requires one click with no confirmation. I and many others have made accidental rollbacks. That seems more likely than a compromised account. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I installed User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js in my preferences. - Donald Albury 17:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Primehunter is probably right and in all probability, that's what may have actually happened. The problem is, one can't be too(less?) careful about such an incident. Lourdes 00:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

NLT warning

I just received a warning that my editing on Steven Kunes would get me reported to Wikipedia legal, by "several editors". I've given the editor an WP:NLT warning, but would appreciate further eyes on the situation. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have started a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard discussion concerning the article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Editing_at_Steven_Kunes.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: - I've notified the editor of this topic. I tried to engage them on your talkpage, but no reply as of yet. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)