Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 1 August 2018 (→‎Possible Gaming of the System and Abuse of Process: Response to DynaGirl). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Indef block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    By suggesting Clinton's quip I was not showing any political preference. Granted, once BLP concerns about the Trump quote were raised I pushed too hard on the quote. I realized that the Trump quote was outrageous, but to be honest there isn't much "hooky" material to work with at the IG report. Additionally, I reasoned in the Trump-era we are all sensitized to outrageous. I guess we're all not sensitized... When consensus formed against the Trump hook I moved on.– Lionel(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the three stubs, they are all 1 sentence long, they have multiple reliable sources present, and they are written neutrally. For example, "The Hope and the Change is a 2012 documentary film produced by Citizens United which is critical of the Obama administration." One of the sources is Politico. I was always under the impression that these stubs would be expanded neutrally. And if they went to DYK that some future reviewer would ensure that the hook was neutral.– Lionel(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between (1) using Wikipedia for political purposes (WP:PROMOTION) and (2) showcasing (advertising) political articles at DYK (WP:DYKAIM #1). If political articles or any articles are written in a biased way, then a case can be made for POV pushing. However our policies fully endorse neutrally-written political articles. The stubs I wrote need 1500 chars to qualify for DYK. I contributed one sentence to that. It is a stretch to suggest that I am POV pushing articles onto the Main page which for all intents and purposes haven't been written yet.– Lionel(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wondered why you couldn't be bothered to pad those non-notable IMDB listings yourself, and given the events outlined in points 1 through 6 above, I can see why: I'd say it's now the OPPOSITE of a stretch. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful, is this devolving into a delete WP:RIGHT discussion again?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to the historical context, Facto created the WP:Conservative notice board in June 2006, at the same time sending out a bunch of invitations like this, drawing in editors with a demonstrated conservative slant. Facto's notice board was soon recognized as a method for vote-stacking to promote American right-wing viewpoints, and it was deleted. At the MfD discussion, Nandesuka said, "It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view."
    Facto stopped editing soon after the notice board was deleted, and was indeffed three years later when a sock account, Favortie, was discovered. Five months before that, Lionelt registered his username, in January 2009. In February 2011, he created the WP:WikiProject Conservatism, which had been suggested, coincidentally enough, as a redlink at the MfD for Facto's noticeboard. Lionelt used the new platform to attack another editor who had opposed his conservative slant and his one-sided invitations to membership. Other editors at the talk page raised concerns about the project scope and its "mission creep", calling out the Amero-centric bias there and at "This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism". I raised the concern about invitations sent out in a skewed manner, sent only to fellow travelers, at "Establishing a guideline for inviting members". Nothing significant was done by Lionelt to correct these foundational problems, so I nominated his WikiProject for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Among the most convincing arguments voiced there was MastCell's "this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda," in the same manner as the previous Conservative notice board. Despite this, the MfD resulted was "keep". I was disappointed, and I blame myself for not spending the proper amount of time to gather diffs and make a stronger case.
    Now we are again faced with the question of Lionelt's bias skewing the encyclopedia. It's a lot larger than one DYK, and larger than the WikiProject instructions regarding conservative DYKs. I think it's a problem of bias and activism inherent in Lionelt, a bias he built into the fabric of the WikiProject. I would still like to see the WikiProject shut down, and it would help protect the encyclopedia if Lionelt was topic banned with regard to politics. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The mission of WPConservatism is to improve conservatism-related articles. Period. WPConservatism has a diverse membership of editors including several editors who could be described as left-leaning. The thing I am most proud of at WPConservatism is the new A-Class Review Program. This ambitious initiative helps with the backlog at Good Article (GAN) and gets promising articles right to the doorstep of Featured Article (FAC). WPConservatism is in good company, there is only one other Wikiproject with A-Class Review, MILHIST. The first article promoted to A-Class is Margaret Thatcher. The next candidate for A-Class Review is likely List of American conservatives. A-Class Review proves that the purpose of WPConservatism--which is also my purpose--that purpose being article improvement. – Lionel(talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The observations by Black Kite, Binksternet, and others above are consistent with my own. Lionelt has picked up where he left off five years ago, by using Wikiproject conservatism as a platform for advocacy and recruiting. Five years ago when LGBT rights were at the forefront of current events, Lionelt made a a habit of placing Chick-fil-A "sammies" on the talk pages of users he perceived as friendly to his cause:[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)[reply]
    Not good to cherry-pick fragments of quotes. The last quote that you cite was something that Trump said---not me. And I repeated it in reference to the record low Black unemployment numbers since Trump took office. We don't sanction editors for being politically incorrect. – Lionel(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations" is related to Trump topic area quantitative data analysis. If in fact irregularities are discovered at Arbitration Enforcement don't you think that would have far-reaching consequences? A research study was recently completed--ironically about AN/I--which found numerous issues. Is it that far fetched to try to determine if there are issues at AE?– Lionel(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's far fetched is calling that a quantitative data analysis. The only thing that you have discovered is the correlation between editors who blatantly violate our policies and the sanctions they receive.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I'm seeing here, the problem isn't so much Lionel as it is Wikiproject Conservatism. And that makes sense to me: I can't imagine how we could have a Wikiproject Conservatism, or Wikiproject Liberalism, or Wikiproject Libertarianism without it predominantly being used to push a POV, even by well-meaning editors. How does one post a notification to one without canvassing? How does one request help editing an article with POV problems without canvassing and POV pushing themself? It just can't be done. So... See below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The DYK section has far less contributors and reviewers than during its heyday. Every once in a while I look at the main page and think there are some awful DYK hooks. But this case is just silly: a neutral hook was already presented there, the real issue seems to be whether the topic is wanted on the main page or not at all for political reasons. It's like downvoting or upvoting in Reddit, and there aren't enough DYK regulars to actually process the nom fairly. A broken process, but not something that can be fixed with complaining about one POV comment at ANI. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you might think this case is silly if you didn't read more than just the headline and formed an opinion without looking at the evidence provided. This is not about how DYK works. It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy. Here's another example: [35] related to [36]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to explicitly permit wikiprojects that promote a well-defined political POV (as per the below subsection), then I fail to see how efforts to grow and maintain that project can be demonized here.
    Don't get me wrong: I do see the diffs you posted here (and above) as evincing a certain level of political POV pushing. But I just don't see how we can say "it's okay to have these sorts of wikiprojects, it's just not okay to use them, maintain them or grow them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy."...where is my emoji for spitting my coffee out?!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Late to the party) Point #8, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies is exactly the kind of activity that got me involved last time, and in a quandary about what to do. Of course, he disappeared for 5 years, so I didn't have to think about it again until now. Having a Wikiproject that focuses on Conservative topics isn't the problem. If anything, there is a lot of balance to be had by doing so, as I would argue that the editor pool here is skewed in the other direction. The problem is when you go from offering sources and information to balance articles to simply advocating a position as if the other side doesn't exist. This is combative in nature, even if done politely. Lionelt has a long history of doing just this, which again, is why I got involved. I don't think the failed ban of the project (below) was the right approach, as the problem is Lionelt and his lack of self-awareness regarding his own bias. As someone pointed out above, all of us have some kind of bias and that isn't a problem. The problem is when we think we don't and act as if we are the torchbearer for the Truth®, which is what Lionelt was doing before he left. The essay indicates a severe lack of clue, in spite of the fact that he is not dumb. I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. This type of subtle (yet not subtle) bias is best left to the community as a whole rather than a handful of admin to decide. Again, the problem is Lionelt, not the project. Let him edit other things and earn back the right to edit politics, no different than we would do anyone in any other topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see formal proposal below the archive box below.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Community topic ban on post-1932 politics

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

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

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Hostile behavior in the Middle East section

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

    WP:CIR. nableezy - 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded.--WaltCip (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the article referred to as 'crap' the one created by Jane955 as '2018 Gaza–Israel conflict' (now a redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests? If so, I'd have to suggest that while the word used to describe it might not be appropriate, the sentiment was. Not only does it appear to have been a POV fork of an existing article, but it seems to have consisted almost entirely of material copy-pasted in violation of copyright. [37] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the bolding is not mine. This editor created a POV-fork at 2018 Gaza–Israel conflict (now redirected to a different article by Galatz) with material that might have come right out of the mouths of the Israeli government. In fact, lots of it did. She didn't even adopt the least pretence of balance: "The UN that did not defend Israel against the ravaging fires was quick to criticize Israel for closing the Kerem Shalom crossing." A large amount of the article was later deleted and revdelled by Diannaa as copyright violation. Some was just arrant nonsense: "Attacking Israel is a good financial investment for Hamas". Editing in the Mideast part of Wikipedia is difficult enough without having to waste time on this type of rubbish. As for my choice of words, when I saw that she ignored over a hundred deaths on one side but included damage to a chicken coup on the other side, I got annoyed. Yes, she should go away; that's my honest opinion. Zerotalk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Already been done. For post-1932 politics of the United States, BLPs (in relation to Jane955 using talk pages as a forum, which was the reason for a one-week block), and the Arab–Israeli conflict [38]. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This was done. For example, here [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 גאליץשיחה Talk 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say a minimum of a final warning should be given, but it seems the editor now has ECP status Special:Log/Jane955 so it's a bit pointless. Ironically they don't actually currently have 500 live edits [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)[reply]
    What has number of edits got to do with this? The question is, is abusive, rude and vulgar behavior tolerated on Wikipedia? and what will happen when a new editor trys to write on this section? It seems like Galaz & Zero work together to create a hostile environment for new editors. And by the way, the editors of Gaza-Israel border 2018 are having a problem because the page is too long and they will anyway need to create a new page. I would like an answer about the abusive behavior, because so far I just hear you trying to justify it.--Jane955 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When a new editor runs around bumping into things and doing things against Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors are generally pretty tolerant, and try to steer the newbie in the right direction. If the new user won't listen, and just keeps getting into trouble ignoring the advice, sometimes experienced editors get less than perfectly polite with them. Generally the Wikipedia community is going to be harder on the person running around breaking policies left and right, and less hard on the person who gets snippy with the new editor.
    I can't speak for the community, of course, but let me make a wild prediction: nothing is going to happen to Zero because he used the word "crap" and told you to "go away". Wikipedia generally requires a higher level of abusive behavior before it brings down the hammer. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most new editors are not retired. They do not have the time to read all the regulations. If an older editor steps in, he should do so to help and also enforce regulations and not just police the page. What will happen now is that the Israeli editors on the Gaza-Israel protest page will open a new page, will probably rename the page, will talk about the fires, and everything I set out to do. And I bet the Zero-Glatz gang won't even talk to them. Thank you Alephb for the clarification that abusive behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia. When I wrote the page I focused on the events and less on the editing. Of course the page needed improvement and more editing. Things were moving fast and I wanted to capture the moment. Anyway, the Israeli editors will probably do a better job and no one will harass them.--Jane955 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples of "won't listen": Here Jane955 is arguing that she shouldn't be bound by WP:CANVASS. Here, after being informed by Galatz (and not for the first time) that there are rules about article talk pages, Jane955's response was "Galatz, who hired you to be the Wikipedia police?" Zerotalk 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further issues with Jane955's behaviour.

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruptive editing and censorship at Sporting CP by newly created account

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

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

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

    109.173.150.131

    2.82.61.115

    178.2.118.37

    194.176.192.164

    79.168.247.134, 79.168.247.134

    94.133.49.209

    62.28.17.222

    82.41.121.19

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

    89.115.41.36

    BrunoLxxx, BrunoLxxx

    93.34.89.117

    109.51.151.151

    195.245.160.226

    Crowsus

    46.189.249.169

    88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130

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

    94.252.8.108

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

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

    Diogoncm, Diogoncm

    89.180.157.48

    46.140.29.250

    95.136.34.40

    SportingCP1906 , SportingCP1906

    94.60.231.86

    24.212.197.171

    RealDealBillMcNeal, RealDealBillMcNeal

    72.89.30.210

    81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106

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


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

    In checking the first IPs, they are from Poland, Lisbon, and Germany. It doesn't look like they are all coming from the same person.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zabdas at it again

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

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

    Disruptive IP behavior

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

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

    Nonresponsive user Kaushwiki formatting

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

    User continues ([43], [44], [45]) after final warning. - DVdm (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't really have a "house style" for citations, though they should be readable. WP:CITE says: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. Kaushwiki's early edits were pretty messy, but this edit looks fine to me. I think it would be best to fix any remaining formatting errors rather than reverting it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Cleaning up Kaushwiki's edits is a pain in the butt, but those edits appear to be done in good faith and I think the information is useful. Many edits by other editors are helpful, yet rough, and need additional touches.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that Kaushwiki's citations are poorly done (I wish that they had at least the http or https protocol proceeding the URL; that would make conversion easier), this editor is at least doing a service by finding the appropriate URLs to cite. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's just hope someone will take the trouble to verify their edits and put them straight. As far as I can see user KIENGIR made some corrections that resulted in useless links too: [46] and [47]. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I checked and the first link worked by me, in the second a point remained by mistake. Please correct then them, if I made something wrong, or should I try again?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    The link works when manually copy-pasted into the browser, but there is no link to click in the article. See for instance [48]. It was explained to them how to do it, but I think they don't understand what is required, or even what they are doing. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist behaviour of Jeromi_Mikhael

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

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

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

    Decide it yourself moderators.

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

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

    User:184.56.47.51‘s block is effecting others

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

    @172.232.11.155: (Non-administrator comment) Doesn't look like 184.56.47.51 is rangeblocked. Any other IPs mentioned? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, do you mean you can't edit the mobile site with your device but you can edit the normal site with the exact same device? Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @172.232.11.155: @Nil Einne: (Non-administrator comment) My new theory is that when this user is using the mobile site, they get assigned the IP address that was mentioned to be blocked above (or was autoblocked). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone can't just be using a different IP address when using the mobile site through the same device and same browser unless there is some very odd setup (e.g. the browser is setup to only proxy the mobile site or the non mobile site, or the proxy they are using is set up to only proxy or not proxy the mobile site). Also the IP mentioned appears to belong to a wired home broadband connection, compared to the IP they used to post this which belongs to a mobile network. So it's quite confusing what's going on. If these were different devices, it would make much more sense. It's not clear to me who the OP is so sure that the above IP is not theirs. Ultimately without clarity on precisely what is going on, it's difficult to offer any help. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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 Ponyobons mots 18:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kintetsubuffalo

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

    WTF is this here? The article talk page hasn't been edited since 10th July ignoring the vandalism and reversion and bot edit [49]. How can either of you actually listen to what each other has to say if neither of you are talking to one another (no edit summaries don't count) Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as far as I can see, he's technically right. "lit" is a contraction of "literally" and therefore needs the full stop. However, you actually don't need it at all, because it's obvious that the phrase in brackets is a translation of the Latin motto. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's completely different from my A-level latin... I was taught that Lit or litterae (letter of an alphabet) in Latin when translating Latin to English use (Lit: Translation from Latin.) Govvy (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I haven't studied Latin, (Lit.) means nothing to me. Perhaps it can be rephrased. - Donald Albury 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These kind of discussions are a great thing, now if only they were held in a suitable place..... (Even better if before the edit warring.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick block needed for autoconfirmed image vandalism

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

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

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

    BLP violations at Eric Landon

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

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

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

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

    Could this be a sock?

    User:FastEddieo007 has made 2 edits, a typo correction [50], and an apparent POV push [51], the combination of questionable edits and a username ending in 007 makes me wonder about David Adam Kess, but I don't think this is enough evidence to post this on the SPI page. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-report

    I am self-reporting following this close by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise. I removed a self-published source from the article (lulu.com) which was added by a CheckUser blocked account. I provided the diff on the talk page [Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise] which the closer indicates he has seen [52]. Did I do something wrong by removing SPS and requesting dispute resolution? The IP has not responded to requests on the talk page for additional sources, so I thought a mediator would be able to help. I didn't expect him to "resolve" the content dispute in favor of one party based on his own reading of the sources.Seraphim System (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The ip also indicated a willingness to participate in mediation on my talk page, though he hasn't edited since then. Seraphim System (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found Mark's reverting another editor's removal of an unjustified NPOV tag as a "dispute resolution volunteer" inappropriate [53].Seraphim System (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image vandalism

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

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

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

    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 [54]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [55], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [56] and [57]. As you can see from their comments here [58] their argument is to just let it be, and they are doing their own thing. There is nothing verifiable that they are their own brand. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[59]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [60]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    After 10 previous blocks for the same thing? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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 גאליץשיחה Talk 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "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.

    Accusations of trolling

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

    My edits to the page Draft:Luke Nash-Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been neutral, focusing on fixing citation errors, beginning with [61]. I've also attempted to fix the caption in the infobox [62], based on the caption on Commons. I started to think that I made made an error, so I left his last reversion [63] alone.

    I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, but he continued the allegations. [64].

    I hope this can be settled.

    Diffs:

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

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

    Notified.--Auric talk 13:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Auric talk 14:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruptive editing by Stefka Bulgaria

    This should continue at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Regardless of the possible villainy of the Mujahedin, User:Expectant of Light is reminded of WP:ASPERSIONS. Sanctions can be given for over-the-top criticism of other editors: 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! EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Power~enwiki, yes, thank you for the advice. Will start the dispute resolution process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    One of these three editors have a rather.. neutral opinion of the Mujahiden [66] [67] [68]. It's time to stop ganging up on Stefka and get some actual neutral users involved. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    No, you do by supporting a terrorist cult that has murdered 10 thousand Iranians! --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What does that then make the IRI ;)? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Can summarize the issues on the article talk page?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some of the text that keeps getting removed from the article without explanation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Ad hominem

    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. [69]

    and

    • I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do. [70]

    Namecalling:

    • I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! [71]

    Namecalling part 2:

    • "Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior [72]

    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! [73]


    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 [74]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • (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)[reply]


    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:

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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" [75]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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: [76]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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 [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91], hasty renominations, incivility [92][93], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • here is another jaw-droppingly incompetent !vote from Eastmain. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    >>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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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 one 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)[reply]

    Elon Musk

    Original request addressed. FP 2 weeks without prejudice to the right version. Can be reduced when the issue is resolved when the FP should revert to the very long SP again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone please full protect this until consensus has been gained to include (or exclude) the material in discussion on the talkpage. Request at RPP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some attention would be nice. I dont particularly want to have to revert every 3 minutes, but after stating there is a BLP issue, I am quite willing to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly broke the 3RR rule! Govvy (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After warning both parties, they continued to revert. It must not be edit warring if you're "right". Natureium (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RRNO. Mrathel has been told repeatedly they need to gain consensus that is not a BLP violation to include it. I cannot find the material even excluding the diver's name passes BLP as the policy protects against individuals regardless of if they are named. BLP protects against *companies* that have small enough staff to be identifiable. It certainly protects a non-notable individual when we constantly link to tabloid gossip about them even if we do not name them explicitly in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If it's sourced is it a clear BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not that its sourced, its that the sources themselves contain material we wouldnt allow for non-public figures. If this was Elon Musk and say, Trump, there would be no issue as they are both clearly public figures. Its already on the BLP noticeboard, and the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, if you edit a comment after it's been replied to, you should at the very least add a new time stamp so the chronology is apparent. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I edit conflicted 6 times attempting to do that. Aside, its been protected. Talkpage currently has an open discussion if more opinions want to be given. So NFA is needed here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OID, you're both blatantly editwarring; I don't see how this content could reasonably be said to qualify for a 3RR exemption under WP:Edit warring#EX7. (It's not libellous to report that somebody alleged something as long as we're not claiming in Wikipedia's voice that the allegations are true, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "unsourced" given that the Thai cave incident was headline news in about 90% of the world's press for weeks.) Unless there's something glaring I'm missing, this is purely a content dispute over whether a particular story is being given undue weight, and as such (a) not something on which ANI can or should rule, and (b) liable to get the pair of you blocked if it keeps up. I can briefly protect the page if you both feel it would help, but bear in mind that depending on exactly which stage of the editwar it happens to be at, there's a 50-50 chance that I'll lock The Wrong Version. I don't buy the "material we wouldnt allow for non-public figures" argument in the least; that's like saying we shouldn't cover a battle because the individual soldiers are individually non-notable. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung already locked it (on OID's preferred version). Natureium (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Its already been protected (which I requested significantly into that) the battle example is hardly relevant. A battle has hundreds-to-thousands of participants. BLP is about preventing harm to identifiable individuals - and its really impossible to cover this without identifying the individual Musk decided to libel. I'm quite happy to not revert when consensus is that it is not a violation, but that discussion has to be had *first* before including the material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Full-protected an article with over 5000 edits and 40,000 pageviews a day for two weeks? Kudpung, what the hell? Anything over an hour would be excessive. We don't even dish out that level of protection for TFAs. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I did request 'temporary'. I was thinking 24 hours... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent, try reading reading what I said. Keep yourself civil and use your own admin discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think "what the hell" is "incivil", I really don't know what to say… To recycle a week-old comment of mine as it's just as relevant here, Every person who either tries to make a good-faith IP edit or creates an account for the purpose of correcting a problem, only to be confronted by this aggressive and incomprehensible template when they try to actually make their edit, is a potential long-term contributor who will almost certainly never attempt to edit Wikipedia again, and we're not in the position where we have the luxury of driving away even more contributors than we already do. Elon Musk, as a high-profile figure who's of broad popular interest particularly among the type of college-age people most likely to become new Wikipedia editors, is just the sort of article most likely to recruit new editors, and you've unilaterally protected it for an obviously inappropriate period (to a degree that even the editor requesting the protection considers it inappropriate), to address an edit war taking place between just two people, rather than considering asking the participants to stop. (Incidentally, if you think "hell" is uncivil you may want to try actually reading the thread in question.) ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that Natureium had already issued 3RR warnings to both editors, and that I also asked them both to stop on the article's Talk page. I find it somewhat troubling that the full protection of the page seems to have been the end of the administrative response to what was clearly an edit war, whether or not one or the other editor was justified under policy. As it stands, one editor believes it was entirely justified under BLP, and the other believes just as fervently that BLP should not apply to their edits (under a rather unique theory, but nevertheless). At this point, neither has been given guidance here, nor has the edit warring behavior itself been addressed; they have simply been left to work it out (and an RfC has been started concerning the underlying issue). Had the article not been protected when it was, I believe the war would have gone on indefinitely. General Ization Talk 21:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Both were warned about edit warring, both continued, and both have been around long enough to know better anyway. This should be addressed. Natureium (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expectant of Light (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, both. Did you have a question or comment to share? General Ization Talk 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't know - I FP'd Cristiano Ronaldo (150K daily pageviews) for 14 days two weeks ago because the volume of IP bollocks and account-based edit-warring in the wake of his transfer to Juventus was swamping the article. Sometimes it's necessary. This might not be the same. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • ​Sure, protection is a valid option when a page is Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option (my emphasis). Locking down a page for two weeks owing to an edit-war between just two users, not so much. ‑ Iridescent 06:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rape link on talk page

    Good faith, though misguided, addition by new user. Conversation explaining wikipedia polices continuing on their talkpage. No immediate admin action required. Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    With [redacted] edits [redacted] added some negative (and i.m.o. irrelevant) content to a BLP talk page. I had undone the edit and warned the ip on their talk about such content, even on talk. User promptly restored the content, twice. Can someone please advice and/or act appropriately? TIA. - DVdm (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, maybe not link to it on this popular page. I've emailed OS for you. There are instructions at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natureium: thanks already for your actions. The template family {{uw-defamatory}} was what I was looking for. - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You are lying, I posted the sex offender database entry after you vandalised my talk page section the first time. And now Natureium removed it again, WTF!!!!!! How is an entry in official sex offender databases not a valid source?!! By the way, this is the relevant page: [redacted] [redacted Angry IP] 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    You are not permitted to post potentially defamatory content anywhere in Wikipedia, including on this noticeboard. I suggest you chill. We are aware of the content you are trying to add, and the question is being considered, but you will not help your case at all by accusing anyone of lying. See WP:AGF. General Ization Talk 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it being considered here? Or on the relevant talk page? Or some closed communication channel? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See your Talk page. General Ization Talk 22:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Just wanted to say, if you're trying to expunge all mention and link to it... you did a really bad job of it. --Tarage (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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. [94] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.  [95] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    On this talk page, in this thread about me Curdle they lied about saying an administrator has warned me in the past. [96]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)  [reply]

    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)[reply]

    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. [97] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Blocked a week for socking. --NeilN talk to me 17:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @NeilN: Can we know which account is the sockpuppet(s)? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Onetwothreeip. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_violating_BLP_at_various_articles --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Static Canadian IP was blocked for two weeks on May 26 for vandalism (user:Widr). Talk page access removed May 27. On return from block immediately returned to vandalism, and started making legal threats. Blocked one month on June 18 (user:Sergecross73). Talk page access removed June 19 (user:DMacks) for legal threats (one of which included the claim that the IP was being shared with the user's lawyer [98])

    On return from block immediately started legal threats again in talk page edits or in edit summaries: [99], [100], and [101]. It's obvious from the edit contents that this is the same editor as previously blocked. Various users have explained that it is not a copyright violation to edit the IP's talk page, that we are not disrupting the IP's free speech rights, and that it is not illegal to remove disruptive material form the IP's talk page.

    Call it WP:CIR or just plain trolling (it's more than a bit difficult to think that anyone actually believes they can get all of Wikipedia deleted) but enough is enough. While I "wait for the summons to court" (and more importantly, while we all wait for "Wikipedia's time to be deleted for it's illegal violations of free speech laws") let's have a nice long block..Meters (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked one month for WP:NLT violations. --Jayron32 02:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Didn't notice it. Thanks for the tip. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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) [reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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. StrikerforceTalk 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @JC7V7DC5768: That's all I wanted to hear. Don't worry about it, beginners mistake. Kleuske (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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[102][103][104] edits against consensus within 24 hours and a fourth[105] less than a day later.
    • Note that the fourth war edit came after being warned[106] 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).[107]
    • 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'".[108]
    • 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.[109]
    • 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[110] 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.[111])

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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 [112] 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 [113] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [114]. 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 [[115]],[[116]], [[117]]. DynaGirl (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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[118] 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[119] 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[120] 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[121], and that when I replaced[122] 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 NPOV.
    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[123][124] 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)[reply]

    George Bell (Bishop). Appeal for impartial help.

    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)[reply]
    [Edit conflict]:A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.[125]
    Why yes, that certainly looks like a legitimate change to me.
    Note also that Clockback is Peter Hitchens [126] (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)[reply]
    Should have guessed. If only his brother were here instead. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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 Ponyobons mots 16:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both registered account and IP blocked a week. --NeilN talk to me 17:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Lawsuit threat

    User talk:47.149.14.222 this again? Natureium (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I was thinking a filter would work well here. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    That's where the kuru comes in. EEng 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=852882936"