Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Julio Puentes

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

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

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

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

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

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I would say it's caused me a lot of disruption and others at NPP trying to sort these articles out, and the continued creation of these articles. Julio Puentes, you have continued to edit since this was opened, please comment here so we can get this resolved. Will you add references to these articles? Will you add references and respond to messages in future? Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Julio Puentes is continuing to edit but not to comment here, despite several requests to by different editors. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Respectfully, why hasn't an admin taken action on this yet? Consensus seems in favor of taking some action, and WP:RADAR encourages disciplinary action when editors refuse to communicate when necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

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

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

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

• Is there evidence of long-term approval of problematic hooks like mentioned in point 6? If so, the easiest way to deal with it would be using DS (and if there isn't, a logged DS warning might suffice to not do it again.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt consistently exhibits a very strong POV. As do many of us, of course, but he seems less self-aware than some. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was just this one, Tony, I'd have left it where it was (I removed his approvals of the hooks). It is the issues in point 8 that lead me to think this may become an ongoing issue that needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an serious problem. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, point 8 is certainly problematic.A logged warning might suffice and any further disruption will result in a topic ban from APOL32 per ACDS.∯WBG^converse 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There does rather seem to be a promotialism thing going on here. He seems to ber both saying, and encouraging, the Use of DYK to promote causes and products (all but ones of a political nature). It might be best to to issue a warning for now, and see if that does any good.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the essay is certinly more problematic than the hook (which garners enough attention to ensure it will never go anywhere in that form); but the essay has the appearance of an official page. Specifically, it would (probably) be fine in userspace but I'm not sure it should be giving the impression that it's endorsed by a Wikiproject. (Is it, btw?) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the essay would likely be fine in userspace. I think there are reasonable arguments for why you might want to promote figures on the right to DYK (en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing). The larger concern that both the essay and the hook in point 6 raise is that this is a systemic problem of trying to promote problematic hooks. If that is going on, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed very quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

What does autopatrolled have to do with POV DYKs? Now that you've suggested a DS topic ban and revoking autopatrol, it looks like you're just trying to punish him. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The articles which they created and which has now been AfDed would be best looked at by a new page patroller, though I am not sure any patroller would decide to go for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium:What? You need to read the entirety of the proposal.And if I've seen the articles, I would have sent all 3 to AFD, on grounds of failing to adhere to the notability guidelines. These are all stuff that shall be screened at NPP, (if reviewers are diligent enough).These coupled with his questionable motives make a fine case for revoking the flag, IMO. Also, kindly point out the exact phrase which led to you to think you've suggested a DS topic ban.∯WBG^converse 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Yes - but when you consider where it is, and then add "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion.", and then create a number of not-exactly-neutral political stubs "ready for expansion", it all looks very suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that. I'm just pointing out that the page is not problematic per se, except for the reliably (and in context, understandable) right-wing slant to the examples. And while suspicious is something I'd agree with, "slam dunk case for POV pushing" is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• FYI: the user Jerry the Bellybutton Elf is editing from the US State Department, as seen in this sequence – [1][2][3] – in which a spelling error is corrected in the draft version of the article by State Department IP 169.253.194.1, before the draft was moved to mainspace by Lionelt. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• It's very suspect, because a backwater DYK nomination page is the last place you'd expect a random IP to turn up, but I don't really want the identity of JerryTBE to derail this particular discussion, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make sure we are considering Jerry the Bellybutton Elf as a separate person from Lionelt, who, aside from his large number of right-wing POV changes to articles about politics, religion and abortion, has edited a fair number of articles local to Southern California. If Lionelt is in SoCal, then he's not Jerry the Bellybutton Elf in Washington DC. And Awilley, the State Dept IP is obviously used by a number of people, which is probably why you concluded it to be an independent editor. The linked sequence, though, proves my point, as the time between edits is so small, and the draft version of the article would have been virtually impossible for someone to find on their own. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• A couple things here. First, I would never live in DC. Too hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. No thanks. I've been to visit, but didn't make it to Foggy Bottom. This Binkster person should remove his conspiracy theory that I am illegally logging out to fix spelling errors from an anonymous IP, since that's an aspersion and I wouldn't to see him get blocked, per policy. You cant just go around making accusations of people using multiple accounts to edit without any evidence. Binkster should have the chance to convince the mods that he understands this before a block is placed on his account. Calton should also have the chance to show he understands that ANI is not a forum to be used to make complaints of unrelated editing, like Lionel helping users write DYK submissions. Calton should be made aware of the proper forum to file formal complaints, and this is not the place to air miscellaneous grievances about people not sharing his extreme left-wing worldview. I propose a warning for Black Kite to take content disputes to the editor in question, not try to get that editor punished by the mods for being a conservative by shopping for a mod to do the deed. After the above is complete, this posting should be deleted and everyone should go back to building the encyclopedia and working together in a friendly environment, rather than turning this into some liberal vs conservative battleground. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Actually (1) this posting isn't about you, really (as I said above) (2) I am an administrator, and I brought the issue here for further discussion, and (3) threatening other editors will not end well for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Calton should be made aware... And you should be made aware that I've filed no complaints, just provided information, that your mind-reading skills and/or political orientation detection skills need work, and that Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge. Also, please note that making stuff up about other editors to attack them can get you blocked. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's not necessarily wrong for a Wikiproject to focus on producing DYKs for topics within their area of interest, but this does have the appearance of a self-dealing attempt to shepherd new articles and DYKs through the process with little outside input. The part of "DYK for Newbies" that concerns me is the "When your reviewer is a meanie" section which directs users to the Wikiproject Conservatism talk page if the DYK is rejected. (on a similar note Lionelt also created a Discretionary sanctions FAQ to be used alongside DS alerts, which also directs any DS questions to the WP Conservatism page.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

I have vetted a few of Lionelt's nominations on the way to the main page and didn't detect any overt bias And would that include the one that opened this section?

Quite a few people, I'm sure, want to promote their pet causes through DYK And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? As for myself, I've come to the opposite conclusion, going by his actual article creations, edits, and talk page contributions. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If somebody has a political view I abhor, but whose contributions generally conform to all the relevant policies, why should I care about their politics? My point is simply that so far as DYK is concerned, the yardstick is the nomination, not the person's motivation for writing it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's nice. It's not an answer to the question I asked, though. Once again: And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? --Calton | Talk 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that depends on what they are trying to promote and how they are going about it. For example, we have projects dedicated to the promotion of more biographies of women, is that a bad thing? The bottom line, I think, has to be the quality of the end product. If the articles conform appropriately to all the relevant policies including NPOV, why should I worry about somebody's motives in creating them? If on the other hand the output is biased or otherwise substandard - if somebody is trying to promote a cause at the expense of NPOV or other policies - then that would clearly be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I just went back through my page creation history, and see that I started a number of biographies (of people who were no longer living) that I submitted to DYK. Of the ones who were alive in the 20th century, and were involved in politics or public opinion, all were known for political opinions that I agree with. I wasn't (consciously) pursuing a liberal agenda, but I was writing about people I admired. I do hope that all those articles were properly sourced with a neutral viewpoint. So, I can't get excited about what Lionelt did. - Donald Albury 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donald, I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all there, if you look at points 5, 6 and 8 in the original post, you'll see that this is a completely different issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

By suggesting Clinton's quip I was not showing any political preference. Granted, once BLP concerns about the Trump quote were raised I pushed too hard on the quote. I realized that the Trump quote was outrageous, but to be honest there isn't much "hooky" material to work with at the IG report. Additionally, I reasoned in the Trump-era we are all sensitized to outrageous. I guess we're all not sensitized... When consensus formed against the Trump hook I moved on.– Lionel^(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the three stubs, they are all 1 sentence long, they have multiple reliable sources present, and they are written neutrally. For example, "The Hope and the Change is a 2012 documentary film produced by Citizens United which is critical of the Obama administration." One of the sources is Politico. I was always under the impression that these stubs would be expanded neutrally. And if they went to DYK that some future reviewer would ensure that the hook was neutral.– Lionel^(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between (1) using Wikipedia for political purposes (WP:PROMOTION) and (2) showcasing (advertising) political articles at DYK (WP:DYKAIM #1). If political articles or any articles are written in a biased way, then a case can be made for POV pushing. However our policies fully endorse neutrally-written political articles. The stubs I wrote need 1500 chars to qualify for DYK. I contributed one sentence to that. It is a stretch to suggest that I am POV pushing articles onto the Main page which for all intents and purposes haven't been written yet.– Lionel^(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd wondered why you couldn't be bothered to pad those non-notable IMDB listings yourself, and given the events outlined in points 1 through 6 above, I can see why: I'd say it's now the OPPOSITE of a stretch. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Adding to the historical context, Facto created the WP:Conservative notice board in June 2006, at the same time sending out a bunch of invitations like this, drawing in editors with a demonstrated conservative slant. Facto's notice board was soon recognized as a method for vote-stacking to promote American right-wing viewpoints, and it was deleted. At the MfD discussion, Nandesuka said, "It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view."

Facto stopped editing soon after the notice board was deleted, and was indeffed three years later when a sock account, Favortie, was discovered. Five months before that, Lionelt registered his username, in January 2009. In February 2011, he created the WP:WikiProject Conservatism, which had been suggested, coincidentally enough, as a redlink at the MfD for Facto's noticeboard. Lionelt used the new platform to attack another editor who had opposed his conservative slant and his one-sided invitations to membership. Other editors at the talk page raised concerns about the project scope and its "mission creep", calling out the Amero-centric bias there and at "This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism". I raised the concern about invitations sent out in a skewed manner, sent only to fellow travelers, at "Establishing a guideline for inviting members". Nothing significant was done by Lionelt to correct these foundational problems, so I nominated his WikiProject for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Among the most convincing arguments voiced there was MastCell's "this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda," in the same manner as the previous Conservative notice board. Despite this, the MfD resulted was "keep". I was disappointed, and I blame myself for not spending the proper amount of time to gather diffs and make a stronger case.

Now we are again faced with the question of Lionelt's bias skewing the encyclopedia. It's a lot larger than one DYK, and larger than the WikiProject instructions regarding conservative DYKs. I think it's a problem of bias and activism inherent in Lionelt, a bias he built into the fabric of the WikiProject. I would still like to see the WikiProject shut down, and it would help protect the encyclopedia if Lionelt was topic banned with regard to politics. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The mission of WPConservatism is to improve conservatism-related articles. Period. WPConservatism has a diverse membership of editors including several editors who could be described as left-leaning. The thing I am most proud of at WPConservatism is the new A-Class Review Program. This ambitious initiative helps with the backlog at Good Article (GAN) and gets promising articles right to the doorstep of Featured Article (FAC). WPConservatism is in good company, there is only one other Wikiproject with A-Class Review, MILHIST. The first article promoted to A-Class is Margaret Thatcher. The next candidate for A-Class Review is likely List of American conservatives. A-Class Review proves that the purpose of WPConservatism--which is also my purpose--that purpose being article improvement. – Lionel^(talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• The observations by Black Kite, Binksternet, and others above are consistent with my own. Lionelt has picked up where he left off five years ago, by using Wikiproject conservatism as a platform for advocacy and recruiting. Five years ago when LGBT rights were at the forefront of current events, Lionelt made a a habit of placing Chick-fil-A "sammies" on the talk pages of users he perceived as friendly to his cause:[4][5][6] and more recently:[7][8]. 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 [9] and then awarding a "sammie" to editor who helped with recruitment[10]. And again, rewarding the defense against liberal POV. Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations with this gem. My favorite though is his declaration that Donald Trump is good for "the Blacks". And don't worry, that awkward anachronism is OK because he is black!- MrX 🖋 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not good to cherry-pick fragments of quotes. The last quote that you cite was something that Trump said---not me. And I repeated it in reference to the record low Black unemployment numbers since Trump took office. We don't sanction editors for being politically incorrect. – Lionel^(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

"Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations" is related to Trump topic area quantitative data analysis. If in fact irregularities are discovered at Arbitration Enforcement don't you think that would have far-reaching consequences? A research study was recently completed--ironically about AN/I--which found numerous issues. Is it that far fetched to try to determine if there are issues at AE?– Lionel^(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What's far fetched is calling that a quantitative data analysis. The only thing that you have discovered is the correlation between editors who blatantly violate our policies and the sanctions they receive.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• From what I'm seeing here, the problem isn't so much Lionel as it is Wikiproject Conservatism. And that makes sense to me: I can't imagine how we could have a Wikiproject Conservatism, or Wikiproject Liberalism, or Wikiproject Libertarianism without it predominantly being used to push a POV, even by well-meaning editors. How does one post a notification to one without canvassing? How does one request help editing an article with POV problems without canvassing and POV pushing themself? It just can't be done. So... See below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The DYK section has far less contributors and reviewers than during its heyday. Every once in a while I look at the main page and think there are some awful DYK hooks. But this case is just silly: a neutral hook was already presented there, the real issue seems to be whether the topic is wanted on the main page or not at all for political reasons. It's like downvoting or upvoting in Reddit, and there aren't enough DYK regulars to actually process the nom fairly. A broken process, but not something that can be fixed with complaining about one POV comment at ANI. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you might think this case is silly if you didn't read more than just the headline and formed an opinion without looking at the evidence provided. This is not about how DYK works. It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy. Here's another example: [11] related to [12]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to explicitly permit wikiprojects that promote a well-defined political POV (as per the below subsection), then I fail to see how efforts to grow and maintain that project can be demonized here.

Don't get me wrong: I do see the diffs you posted here (and above) as evincing a certain level of political POV pushing. But I just don't see how we can say "it's okay to have these sorts of wikiprojects, it's just not okay to use them, maintain them or grow them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy."...where is my emoji for spitting my coffee out?!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Late to the party) Point #8, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies is exactly the kind of activity that got me involved last time, and in a quandary about what to do. Of course, he disappeared for 5 years, so I didn't have to think about it again until now. Having a Wikiproject that focuses on Conservative topics isn't the problem. If anything, there is a lot of balance to be had by doing so, as I would argue that the editor pool here is skewed in the other direction. The problem is when you go from offering sources and information to balance articles to simply advocating a position as if the other side doesn't exist. This is combative in nature, even if done politely. Lionelt has a long history of doing just this, which again, is why I got involved. I don't think the failed ban of the project (below) was the right approach, as the problem is Lionelt and his lack of self-awareness regarding his own bias. As someone pointed out above, all of us have some kind of bias and that isn't a problem. The problem is when we think we don't and act as if we are the torchbearer for the Truth®, which is what Lionelt was doing before he left. The essay indicates a severe lack of clue, in spite of the fact that he is not dumb. I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. This type of subtle (yet not subtle) bias is best left to the community as a whole rather than a handful of admin to decide. Again, the problem is Lionelt, not the project. Let him edit other things and earn back the right to edit politics, no different than we would do anyone in any other topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

Show me the policy that states that the WikiProject Council is the only way to ban a wikiproject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

No. Not even close. I'm talking about banning only projects that state a political alignment. Look at the list by K.e.Coffman, below. That's pretty much it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

What the ever loving fuck are you on about? I explicitly called out any liberal wikiprojects as well. Maybe you should start reading before you !vote, FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Irondome, why do some people think it cute to sneer with "safe spaces"? Are you seriously trying to trigger the liberal snowflakes that you think can't handle debate? Will you combine this with clamoring for #civility at the same time you're trying to insult your opponent, whoever that may be? That you are a valued longtime contributor does not give you a license to troll. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Leaning oppose We should likely address the issues one project at a time when they arise rather than prevent them. Some could also argue that WP:SKEPTIC may be politically motivated, even if we know that there can be different standards... —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

-- that seems about it. There aren't that many of them; raze them all to the ground. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd. You can see it here, with editors and even mods citing a bunch of shit that Lionel has said that has nothing to do with the DYK nomination, trying to get rid of him so they don't have to worry about dissent anymore. I even got threatened by a mod for daring to say that Calton and Binkers should be given a chance to retract their aspersions and sloppy accusations of logging out to edit, lest they get blocked for openly flaunting the rules. Banning a project dedicated to help build articles related to conservatism does nothing to help Wikipedia rehabilitate its image. The mere suggestion is chilling. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Oppose Let's be realistic, if we are going to open the door to starting banning wikiprojects for trying to push agenda's that we dont agree with - thats going to kill every minority/special interest wikiproject out there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm only in favor of shutting down WikiProject Conservatism because of its demonstrated bias. I'm not in favor of doing the same thing to unproblematic WikiProjects. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much better to enable/support admins working in the relevant AE areas to deal with individual editors, and that would include editors whose POV seems obvious when they say bullshit like this, "Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd" (infamous? not in reliable sources; stop reading the things you read). Things like the DYK here can be handled in the usual way if indeed they are POV pushing/BLP violations etc. I am bothered by the trickery advertised on that DYK page--but surely a few experienced DYK editors can act on that. That leaves the matter of the editor who is center stage here, an editor who thinks it's acceptable to throw around coded barnstars, which one might well argue are a kind of harassment; arbitration is the most likely place to address that. Thank you Black Kite for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy you voted against this ridiculous proposal but just so you know I read the far-left stuff also. TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats, and I think he's even a mod. It's not bullshit. Don't believe me? I can go to the Donald Trump article, ping 50 editors from the talk page, and tell you exactly who agrees with you that Wikipedia is fair and balanced, and tell you who agrees with me and TonyBallioni. The vote will be along party lines. This is an editor driven project, and if most editors are liberal, of course the articles will slant liberal. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

My friend Drmies knows me well enough to know that I do not believe Wikipedia is promoting "liberalism" and "campaigns for Democrats", Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, but for those who do not know me as well as the good doctor, what I actually said was en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing (emphasis added). You'll notice multiple layers of nuance there. I really don't like being cited for saying something I did not say. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, you go from one false claim to the next, "TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats". Moreover, you repeat these post-truth kinds of things about editors' politics determining content, as if neutrality and reliable sources mean nothing. I'm thinking of a few things here. One is an alphabet soup containing FORUM, NPA, CIR, POV, and other such combinations. The second is, really, NOTHERE, and if you voluntarily go to the Trump talk page you're either a masochist or you need a hobby. The third is--well, I can't help but wonder who you are and who you were. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sammies were intended to be another type of Wikilove. Noone to my knowledge has ever complained. I never imagined it could be viewed as a form of harassment by my fellow editors. Now that this has been brought to my attention I will of course stop doing this.– Lionel^(talk) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt they were a kind of Wikilove; it's just that Wikipedia should be inclusive of all kinds of love, and you know as well as I do what mention of that restaurant in this kind of context means. Thank you for not doing that anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good idea. Wikiprojects that primarily exist as an avenue for politically like-minded editors to coordinate action ought not be a thing. Wikiproject Conservatism ought definitely be removed. It's worthwhile to examine whether the WikiProjects listed by K.e.coffman are similar, and if they are then they ought be removed too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support, practical (mild) oppose Politically oriented wikiprojects are the source of much debate and strife (not to mention bad content). But they have a use in helping us to identify bad actors and providing diffs to support imposition of sanctions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the general case, per Drmies, but also along the lines of SBHB above. There's no reason that the Conservatism project couldn't be a project that does what it is supposed to be doing, which is neutrally improving articles about conservative-related subjects, instead of being a political advocacy site within Wikipedia. If this has become the case, then the editors who have made it into that need to be dealt with by administrators with the tools available to them. Just as MILHIST is not a bad thing, despite the recent behavior of some of its coordinators, CONSERVATISM can be a useful part of Wikipedia, despite the editors who are using it as a power base -- but action needs to be taken against them whenever it is appropriate. The nuclear option is too radical at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I will also say that we need a better mechanism for monitoring what the numerous WikiProjects are doing. At this time it seems as if they are founded, and then no one from the outside pays any attention to them after that. The Wiki Project Council? Does it actually do anything? Does it even exist? Who's on it? What's its function? Does it have a co-ordinator, or officers of any kind? Even the puniest WikiProject has a list of people who has signed up for it, WPC doesn't seem to have anything like that. It doesn't seem to have any authority of any kind over anything. Where was the WPC when Kumioko was trying to usurp all state WikiProjects and fold them into WikiProject United States? There have been a number of ArbCom cases which have touched on the question of what WikiProjects can and can't do - why have I never seen a representative of the Wiki Project Council comment on those cases?
  If the Wiki Project Council is in that state of non-being, we should either get rid of it, or revitalize it into a vehicle for assuring that WikiProjects are doing what they're intended to do, and not turning into power centers for various ideological viewpoints. If conservative-leaning, or liberal-leaning, or socialist-leaning Wikipedia editors want to hang out with their ideological brethren, they can do so off-Wiki. Any on-wiki organization should be focused entirely on improving Wikipedia, not on political or ideological advocacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand why political wikiprojects may be a problem, but without them will POV pushers not just organize off wiki? POV pushers need to be dealt with by admins on an individual basis, I feel like the limited benefit of banning political wikiprojects will be outweighed by the can of worms that this could open (who decides which projects are political? I just see this creating a massive and unnecessary controversy). If we only ban certain political wikiprojects, but allow others, POV pushers (or just people with subtle biases) will try to ban the ones they disagree with, damaging the neutrality and credibility of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I think shutting down the wikiproject would actually result in the opposite of the desired outcome. Right-leaning editors who already feel they are under attack could easily interpret this as proof that Wikipedia is systemically biased against them, and I don't think that would improve the BATTLEGROUND feeling that has become normal at many political articles. On the other hand I could see myself supporting a topic ban of some form for LionelT specifically. They stated above that the purpose of the Wikiproject is to improve articles about conservatism, period; but that's not what I'm seeing. Looking at the latest two issues of The Right Stuff, in the June issue I see scorekeeping on which editors from either side got sanctioned recently under the story about the rouge admin who accused right-leaning editors of being Russian agents. In the July issue there is a story about Wikiproject Conservatism coming "under fire" at AN/I side by side with a story of how only 27% of editors are happy with the way disputes are resolved at AN/I, saying the dissatisfaction was due in part to "'defensive cliques' and biased administrators". I don't think fear mongering, score keeping, and one-sided cheer leading fits into our goal of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia. ~Awilley (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (non-admin editor) Everything is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism is political. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism is political. What is needed is enforcement of Wikipedia:Canvassing, and if that happens to depopulate a particular Wikiproject that's incidental. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: per above statements by Beyond My Ken and SBHB. They have stated the case far better than I could. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Political bias is one of the strongest biases there is. Rather than have people try and pretend that they don't have it, letting people be open about it can contribute to the WP:POLE process. If all sides of the political spectrum push then we can get something that approaches being balanced. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support - I understand the reason behind it, but I do not believe you will achieve the desired affects. If WikiProjects like the Conservatism Project are indeed being used for canvassing and POV-pushing, we need better mechanisms to effectively address them. We need to focus on specific editors and break up the little cliques they form.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Ideological categories don't exactly lend themselves to cohesive stylistic or assessment standards, which are major components of a Wikiproject. This type of project can cover anything from biographies to political parties to books to legislation, and it just doesn't make sense to write a style guide that would apply to all of these areas. If your goal is to improve biographies about conservative politicians, for example, it would make sense to work within the Biographies project which already has well-established practices and editors with relevant experience. This would also mean contributing your perspective to a diverse group of editors which is the stated goal of most of these political Wikiprojects.

If we're going to ban any project, it should be part of a larger conversation about the purpose of Wikiprojects and what sort of behavior is acceptable. I would prefer to first address the problematic editors and only consider sanctioning the project if the canvassing, POV pushing, etc. continues. WikiProject Firearms would be an example of a project that has made numerous positive contributions to weaponry topics while also using its style guide to impose a certain POV across a large number of articles. After community consensus was clarified and a few problematic editors were sanctioned, the POV pushing has largely died down and the remaining flareups don't have the pseudo-official support of the project. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies and Awilley and others. However, all WikiProjects need to be informed that their purpose must be to improve the quality of articles under their area of interest, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view. It is entirely legitimate for feminists (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable women, and for conservatives (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable conservatives. The same is true of monarchists, Marxists and liberals, if improving neutral policy-compliant content is the goal of their joint efforts. Using the main page to promote a political ideology is wrong. Scorekeeping on the basis of an editor's perceived or stated political ideology is wrong. That behavior must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Just having a certain politic focus is not a reason to block a project as that same logic could apply to any other ideologically driven project. We can judge if a project broadly is engaging in inappropirate activies and close it, but that should be based on evidenced behavior. --Masem (t) 04:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for a variety of reasons above. You don't think that Wiki Project Liberalism has POV issues? Why not work to make it more neutral instead of ditching it and stripping the members of the project of their hard work. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WikiProjects at their best attempt to improve articles, according to NPOV and all other policies and guidelines. There's no inherent reason to me a politically oriented WikiProject couldn't do that and in looking at the Talk Page and A Class review at WikiProject Conservative I don't see any subtext suggesting otherwise. If the DYK article has the support of the project members the advice there strikes me as aggressive but not out of line and in keeping with a project's hope to coordinate improvement to articles in its scope. The other WikiProjects named by Ke mostly seem dormant or inactive with Liberterian being the only one to raise eyebrows for me. But that alone doesn't just a ban on projects in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is a serious over-reaction. What this needs is admins policing the poor behaviour, not banning of WikiProjects. In any case, I think it would have to go to the WikiProject Council. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't seen him too much around but for the little I saw he looked really constructive. There's no reason we would ban an established editor for making too many DYKs about republican topics. I'ts the whole point of DYK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Community topic ban on post-1932 politics

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

---

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

• Oppose I've come across Lionelt's editing in politics previously and never found anything objectionable about it. Well, except for the general "I object to your POV". I'm unaware of any cases of Lionelt editing against policy (except for the catch-22 of promoting their wikiproject) or editing disruptively while keeping to the letter of policy. Such a TBAN would not solve any problem worth solving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Lionelt has some skills, worthwhile skills, but he has a blind spot to politics and the only reason it didn't cause problems for 5 years is that he wasn't here. As soon as he returned, the problems returned. He needs to contribute in other areas, which I'm convinced he can do without a problem. If he just disappears for 6 months and appeals, then that won't solve anything, so just taking a break won't help. I hate to get to this point, but there is some serious soul searching that has to be done, and currently, his participation in politics is causing problems with bias for the whole site. If he never learns to edit politics without injecting bias, then he can still continue to contribute in other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly as per MPants at Work, I think this is the wrong way to go and it might even be a slippery slope. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this appears to be searching for a solution to something that isn't the problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as Lionelt doesn't deserve this nor is his editing what I see as problematic. He does have some blind spots, but I've never felt it was intentional or with any malice attached. As a side note: I'm really getting tired of seeing only editors who are suspected or assumed to be politically/ideologically Conservative getting taken to AE repeatedly and/or nominated for political article topic bans while those who have an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias in their editing are protected and coddled. Ironically(?), it's usually the editors with an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias who are filing these reports and doing it only against those they see as their political enemy. Which is, of course, just more bias. Yes, I'm certain this comment will really piss some editors and admins off and I will likely now be further targeted for more insults and assumptions about my own political beliefs. What really needs to happen is a fair-handed and neutral approach by administrators at the political articles and DS applied to everyone who crosses the bright line. With the exception of one administrator, that's not been happening. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Lionelt's editing has not stood out for bias, as some would imply. Those who seek improvements should do so at a much broader level, as some have indicated above. Jzsj (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose their overall editing doesn't justify a TBAN. I might support a TBAN specifically on WP:DYK pages about post-1932 American Politics; there do seem to be some POV-pushing issues there, but they may simply be a symptom of larger problems with a lack of independent review/insufficient participation at DYK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, The editor in question has not violated any policies or guidelines, and has contributed positively to by editing within their area of interest by improving content, or to have others improve content in area where they share similar interest. What is next, a proposal to ban anyone who edits within the sphere of American politics post-1932? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Dennis, I don't doubt your intentions are good but you should withdraw this. A community ban of a partisan editor isn't in the cards because their fellow partisans will show up to defend them. There's really no point in such an exercise. (Before anyone gets in a lather please note that I am making a general point and not speaking to the merits or lack thereof in the present case.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that if I am a partisan, then I'm across the political isle from Lionel. That being said... This. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per User:RightCowLeftCoast's and User:Winkelvi's reasoning. Lionelt is a clear positive to Wikipedia, and he has been very helpful in improving articles related to conservatism. The hypocrisy here is astounding, since I could name several editors who exhibit a clear left-of-center bias while editing wthout needing to fear any community action for their POV and incivility issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's that bad take it to AE and provide proof of their disruption. It not surprising to me how this thread devolved from one to discussion to another and culiminates in this hypocrisy.--MONGO (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Will those editors whining about "hypocrisy" please knock it off? All you're doing is building up the battleground mentality of this topic. Plenty of left-wing editors have been dragged to AE and ANI over their editing. The difference is that they tend to not be sanctioned, because there is insufficient evidence at AE and insufficient support at ANI. If you want to address this imbalance, then working with your fellow conservative editors to reduce the POV pushing, use of unreliable sources and overall frustration and impatience would be far more productive than just whining about how it's not fair that your side gets sanctioned more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - If an admin judges that someone should be topic banned from American Politics, they can simply impose it as a discretionary sanction. If Dennis, or another admin were to do so, I believe it would be upheld if appealed. That said, I don't believe that Lionelt's conduct yet rises to the level that would merit such a harsh sanction. However, if he continues to encourage bad behavior in order to gain allies, or uses Wikiproject conservatism as recruiting ground, or uses the front page as a billboard, then I have no doubt that a trip to AE will result in a topic ban. Lionelt no doubt has contributed positively to Wikipedia, but he needs to remember that we're building a free encyclopedia for all people, not just for conservatives. - MrX 🖋 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Getting back to the original question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Small point of information: my recollection is that there used to be a WikiProject Liberalism, but it was shut down due to lack of participation. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I remember it had a yellow flag for the logo and am thus pretty sure I'm right. I'm a member of both the Conservatism and Socialism work groups. The latter is pretty much a shell with no focused effort of which I am aware. The conservatism group does a pretty good job keeping track of their subject but does have a fairly apparent "political" flavor, an "us against them" vibe. It needs to be closely watched so that it doesn't devolve into a political organizing tool. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Which is pretty much the point Imade in one of the sections above: there needs to be a mechanism whereby WikiProject Conservatism is kept on track to improve articles, and not be used for political action. The same goes for any other WikiProject, since biases are not limited to political subjects. As of now, there is absolutely no such mechanism, as the Wiki Project Council appears to be basically non-existent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor continually editing against consensus

Vjmlhds had continually made changes to the List of WWE personnel against the established consensus. The WWE currently has multiple brands, Raw being one of them, and 205 Live (for cruiserweights) being a division under the Raw brand. Vjmlhds keeps making changes to say it is its own brand and not a division, yet when asked for support from a WP:RS they give vague answers or provide a youtube video to someone calling it a brand. The WWE's official 10-K does not list it as a brand, only Raw, SmackDown and NXT. The cruiserweights tour as part of Raw, not on their own. The championship that they say is the championship of that brand, clearly is referred to as being on the Raw brand for the cruiserweight division, see [13]. Despite being warned about this and being informed that professional wrestling is under general sanctions here [14], this user continues to not provide any evidence of their stance and continues to make the same changes [15] and [16]. As you can see from their comments here [17] their argument is to just let it be, and they are doing their own thing. There is nothing verifiable that they are their own brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[18]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [19]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and you can see here [20], I summarized that the WWE's official published position is not a brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

32.213.92.177 while there is an active conversation going on here about his actions, and multiple people have explaining the same thing to him here, is continuing to make these edits against the established consensus, see [21]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by Stefka Bulgaria

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of these three editors have a rather.. neutral opinion of the Mujahiden [22] [23] [24]. It's time to stop ganging up on Stefka and get some actual neutral users involved. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad hominem by Expectant of Light

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

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

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

• I also think Icewhiz's pro-Israel biases influences his opinions towards this subject. [25]

and

• I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do. [26]

Namecalling:

• I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! [27]

Namecalling part 2:

• "Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior [28]

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! [29]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment-@everybody: I'm going to assume that some users are trying to Game The System by throwing completely unrelated comments into this thread. Although what follows could be uttered in a softer language, I don't think edits such as [32], [33], [34], [35] and some others can be deemed as violation of anything. Yes, this should be avoided as per BLP, but not the others. Needless to say that, that would be a good practice for the users to avoid tough words in their communications with other editors. Given the above warning by the admin closing the thread, I don't think continuing this thread will bring HistoryofIran what he passionately wishes by going to every one talk page. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Sock alert: @Ian.thomson, Icewhiz, and Stefka Bulgaria: might I suggest digging further into this, given the above diffs? I'm still convinced that Expectant of Light and Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person. Their tendency to post walls of text filled with Khomeinist rhetoric made it harder to find the missing dots when I filed this report, and I was extremely lazy back then. Still am to some extent. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

They pretty much speak in the same way. Both use the 'I am Muslim' card, put the blame on everyone but themselves, accusations of bias, personal attacks and the frequent use of exclamation mark. Not to mention the use of words like 'knee-jerk'. I could go on, but yeah, this defo needs to get investigated. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I had noticed that Expectant of Light's initial edits strongly suggested that this was not their first account: included edit summaries not characteristic of a new user such as "lead updated", "moving up template", as well as reverting editor Emir of Wikipedia. By the second time he logged in to edit he was using terms such as "adding new POV", "copy-ed the list of works", and "finally sortin' out the div col mess!". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

In addition to his (hypocritical) barrage of personal attacks launched at other users as allegedly biased agents of alleged US/UK/"Zionist"/Saudi initiatives, attacks on sources for being (allegedly) "Zionist" and soap, he also asserts attacks users based on their religious convictions or lack thereof-- his personal secular/atheist convictions tend to bias him [[36]] -- in this case it seems to have been pure speculation as the target of this attack, Icewhiz has never publically discussed with EoL (to my knowledge) how religious or not he is. Indeed, considering that in many Middle Eastern countries like Iran, irreligion is taboo enough to get you killed, I would consider this an WP:ASPERSION as well. This doesn't seem the behavior of someone who aims to maintain a collegial environment -- or even considers that to be something remotely important. --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• To add to this, Expectant of Light tends to work together with User:Mhhossein in reporting editors who disagree with them to ANI/admins, and reach consensus on topics (regardless of sources/input by other editors) (other examples: [38][39][40][41] ). This too is a problem. As noted above, there is a POV pushing in all of this too (e.g. "What a discusting edit"). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing to explain [42] (this is just one of the many other harrasments/personal attacks besides on the EN-Wiki). And stop accusing Stefka of disruptive editing, you're not helping yourself with that. Accusing me of apparently canvassing with Ladsgroup is not gonna help you either. You have a long story of personal attacks/harrasment, and you have already been warned before about accusing users of bias, just not on ANI. Furthermore, I did not jump on any 'bandwagon', I simply came and put my vote in a RFC, until you suddenly started your WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants and later made accusations towards me whilst writing in a aggressive tone simply because I did not share the same opinion as you. And you keep repeating that 'there has been reached no consensus'. Well obviously it's impossible to reach a consensus when you jump in everytime with your WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants that fills up the whole talk page. I have nothing more to say than that. Regards. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: TBAN for Expectant of Light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I was the one who opened up a talk to resolve the dispute and revert wars that I saw taking place between Stefka and Pahlevun for a prolonged period before I made my first edit to the page. See:
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• Despite the attempt at talk page resolution, Stefka's reverts continue before and despite consensus
• [48]
• Here he continues his reverts while accusing Mhhossein of "deliberately making false statements." [49] That's the accusatory tone. It was initiated by Stefka before I make any comments on him! Interestingly he later projects his own fault on me by putting my comments out of contexts here.
• His edits are reverted, he's accused of cherry-picking facts: [50] and [51] by Pahlevun who warns that he could be reported for continuing this. Now see the reason for my subsequent warnings which Stefka cites for victim playing.
• In the meantime, the talk page is ongoing and he continues against consensus, starting by this edit [52].
• Having relentlessly ignored consensus and Pahlevun's warning, my first warning to him is issued: [53]. This is the same warning he cites above for victim playing.
• The consensus against Stefka's disruptive editing is now clearly established [54] in the last two comments by me and Mhhossein.
• However Stefka doesn't back down. [55]
• He receives more warnings [56]
• But continues again: [57]
• More warning: [58]
• Continues! The page is now protected: [59] after my complain in ANI [60]
• An admin states that this is better to be taken in another ANI section and that they will probably ban Stefka for his relentless disruptive edits.
• However, an IP drops in accusing us of "ganging up" on Stefka!
• Stefka immediately picks up "the gang up" conspiracy theory and his victim playing goes into high gears. I suspect the IP who handed in the conspiracy theory might be himself. Sockpuppet investigations?
• However it Stefka who accuses me and Mhhossein of being sockpuppets. The investigation proves him wrong. [61]
• CaroleHenson despite clearing seeing Stefka's fault, is distracted by the sockpoppet investigation.
• We warn this is an attempt at distraction but the ANI is concluded without action.
• The the same story continues. CaroleHenson starts he attempt at arbitration... --Expectant of Light (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I just now noticed that Mhhossein altered my post without any indication that it was him who did it, or when he did it. This was out of line. Describing antisemites and Holocaust deniers as disgusting individuals is no more a personal attack than describing ... antisemites and Holocaust deniers as disgusting individuals. I literally can't think of any better comparison. Anyway, now that the butchering of my comment has been undone, now I am done. Goodbye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Unstricken in light of the sockpuppetry. Obviously it's all moot now, since EoL has already admitted to being subject to a site ban, but still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've stricken my above support. I think EoL is an ideological antisemite and the "anti-Zionism" defense is a facade. The "Jews control the media/Hollywood/government/academy/whatever" comments make this fact indisputable, in my opinion. To the best of my knowledge, no mainstream anti-Zionist literature associates Faurisson with Finkelstein; this association is made in antisemitic, fascist literature that seeks to legitimize itself by claiming to be a criticism of the historical revisionist, imperialist and genocidal actions of the state of Israel in recent decades, and it seems clear to me that EoL has been reading this fascist literature sympathetically because it agrees with his personal antisemitic views. However, this discussion has been overrun by the I/P crowd who either (a) want to destroy EoL because he is an anti-Zionist, without regard for his using Wikipedia as a platform for antisemitic views that have nothing to do with I/P, or (b) want to defend EoL, for essentially the same reason. I am sympathetic to most of the editors on side (b) when it comes to most issues, and I absolutely hate being put on side (a) by anyone on either side. I cannot understand how so many editors on side (b) can be so blind to the inflammatory "Jews control the media" rhetoric EoL has been engaging in, and I didn't know when I wrote the above that I was even getting into an I/P debate (Israel was not mentioned anywhere in the discussion linked, and "Palestinians" only in biased against Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuela or Russians for example). I still cannot read EoL's comments as being in any way about "anti-Zionism" since they are quite clearly antisemitic (the Jews controlling Hollywood would not seem to have any relation to Zionism), but Icewhiz's comment below that the significant overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is extremely well established in the literature has cemented in my mind that I'm not going to convince anyone of this and that this is not a fight I want to be having at this time. I still support Tony's block, but I'm not interested in continuing to try to convince editors who believe this dispute has anything whatsoever to do with the State of Israel that it does not, and it makes me sick to my stomach that so many people (on both sides) have apparently decided that I am on the "Israeli side" because I called someone out for antisemitic remarks in a dispute that had nothing to do with Zionism. For this reason, I am formally withdrawing my support for further sanctions against EoL. If there is "consensus" (hopefully involving at least one editor who isn't confused about the distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism) that the block should be overturned, I will accept that. But this has apparently been out of my hands since long before I even got involved. Goodbye. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't explored EofL's complete record, which is why I did not express an opinion on whether a ban is appropriate. I'm commenting only on process here, and what I see is that EofL was permablocked mostly because Hijiri88 refused to believe that EofL made a mistake and then drew conclusions from that assumption which mostly collapse to nothing if it was in fact a mistake. This is not a proper way to conduct a hearing. Zero^talk 03:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Sorry to be late -- I didn't get your ping. And no, I don't think my conclusions collapse to nothing if confusing Finkelstein and Faurisson had been done in good faith based solely on their names supposedly being similar. EoL has clearly been reading the massive volume of racist, antisemitic literature out there that conflates the views of academics and others who oppose the actions of the Israeli government with their own Holocaust-denying, virulently antisemitic views -- why else would he even know who Faurisson was? Mainstream sources don't associate him with more conventional "rebel" scholars. And you can't pretend that his continuing comments about Jews controlling the media have some alternative, good-faith reading that becomes more intuitive if one assumes he originally meant to write Finkelstein and had no intention of invoking up the Holocaust. What does he need to say at this point for you to recognize that a horse is a horse? If he had written the name of the Jewish comic author he quoted out of context here in triple parentheses would it suddenly become not okay, despite the fact that with or without the parentheses he is continuing to argue that "Jews control the media"? This is not a proper way to conduct a hearing. is not the proper way to engage editors who apparently more sensitive to these issues than you are; I went out of my way above to defend folks who didn't recognize the Nazi dog-whistle's on this guy's user page, since ignorance of these things is unfortunately a common, good-faith trait among non-Jewish people in Ireland, the United States, and probably a bunch of other places I don't know as much about, but my sympathy ends when you start attacking me for refus[ing] to believe something no one with an ear for these dog-whistles could possibly believe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: "why else would he even know who Faurisson was" --- after that masterpiece of logic, I'm sorry but I can't be polite to you. It is so sad to learn that I must be an antisemite too, because I also knew who Faurisson is. Oh dear, now I realize that I must be a super-super-antisemite because I even have books about Holocaust denial on the shelf behind me and Faurisson is mentioned extensively in them. And I can't even recognise those dog whistles despite having studied antisemitism extensively and for sure knowing far more about it than you do! Woe is me! Zero^talk 07:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, you have indeed asserted that other editors are "biased" by their (lack of) religious beliefs against Iran [[62]]. This is not NPOV, and you need to judge users by their actions, not their identity. I'm glad that you're acting more repentant about that now-- it would've been great if you apologized when it happened before it got brought up on this board, and better yet if it never happened, in which case we might not be here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diff throwing contest

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

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

. . . and some others:

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

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

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

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

Let's concentrate on a concrete thing

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

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

Indef'd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBC, I think the backlash the indef has got so far, such as it is, is in good faith if misguided. Kingsindian is one of our best, most even-handed and fair-minded ANI contributors[63][64][65] and I linked further up to an otherwise-unrelated case where an honest-to-god neo-Nazi had good contributors defending him until after he was indeffed, because they didn't "get" the dog whistles as quickly as I and others did. Because that's what a dog whistle is, and why it's so dangerous -- there are people out there in the real world who would be shocked and appalled if they saw English Wikipedia call Jews and Zionists "powerful interests" and "dominant interests", but it's very hard to get a clear majority of Wikipedians to support blocking the editors who write these things. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tonyballioni renders this as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) Indeed nobody mentioned a mere Zionist conspiracy -- perhaps the term was too mild mannered for our friend here. Instead he spoke of the much grander "entire secularist/Zionist/corporate order" [[66]] which the Islamic Republic of Iran was "challenging". --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment I don't think person that discuss "Jewish magnates" [67] should edit Wikipedia so block was totally justified.--Shrike (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support lifting the indeff: As per the Kingsindian and Seraphim System. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support lifting indef: I don't know how this kangaroo court is supposed to function, but I'm pretty sure of a "!voter opposing the TBAN, then reversing themselves, and indeed overcompensating for the reverse by indef blocking the person in the middle of the ANI", isn't how it's supposed to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: You know I wouldn't have written about you what I did above if I didn't really respect you and appreciate the work you've done for the project in the past, but you have to appreciate that being "the guy" who defends the free speech right of Nazis and Holocaust-deniers is not a good look, right? It was cute but relatively harmless when you were the one guy who kept insisting this guy shouldn't have been blocked, but now that your initial concerns that Tony and I were "misinterpreting" him and failing to "assume good faith" have been effectively disproven by things EoL has said since his block, I can't for the life of me imagine why you would still be defending him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for your kind words about me. On Wikipedia, there are no "rights" to do anything, so the question of defending the "rights" doesn't arise at all. Even if your charge that I'm ""the guy" who defends the free speech right of Nazis and Holocaust-deniers" and that this is not a "good look" were accurate; I wouldn't care a bit. Since you say that you are a fan of Chomsky, perhaps you might recall his words about the Faurisson affair. I certainly do not think my actions are "cute" in any sense.

My attitude is far older than the "rights" talk which seems to be fashionable nowadays, where people will inevitably reply that "Wikipedia is a private website, so you have no right to do anything". That objection is true but totally irrelevant. From John Stuart Mill On Liberty (my emphasis): When there are persons to be found, who form an exception to the apparent unanimity of the world on any subject, even if the world is in the right, it is always probable that dissentients have something worth hearing to say for themselves, and that truth would lose something by their silence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is so upsetting to me. I have loved contributing to WP, and although I don't always agree with decisions, they are generally right. I don't know if I could continue to contribute to WP if it's considered ok to tell someone that because of their country / heritage their vote doesn't mean as much. That's the issue that got me so fired up. And, now to defend themselves, EoL has lumped someone into their beliefs. As I said below, I don't think that it was meant maliciously, but the fact that they don't even consider how that might be taken - that it was more important to score one more point - tells me a lot about their character. I cannot believe we have talked about this for so long. Persian WP didn't need to talk about it when they EoL said something improper about someone's sexuality, they blocked them immediately. And, I didn't see dissenting votes/comments there. Please tell me that the English WP is just as offended by discriminatory comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I agree with you, the community standard is that this is a red line. Editor's contributions are not discounted because of their national origin. EoL should have immediately struck the comment and apologized instead of doubling down on it ... which is what led the discussion down the path that has ended us here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I am not an admin, and have no more say than you on anything. Suffice it to say that I am usually in the minority on these things. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian Thanks, Kingsindian for your reply. Your quote helped me understand where you are coming from. It's just my personal opinion that there are some things that we should be outraged about and to be quiet is to be complicit. Anyway, thanks for your comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Restart the case from the beginning with Hijiri88 banned from participation. In a nutshell, what happened here was that EofL accidentally used the name of a Holocaust denier in a paragraph which (obviously, in my opinion) refers to someone else. Hijiri88 claimed to know for sure that it wasn't an accident and then proceeded to dominate the discussion on that basis. This served to provoke EofL into digging a deeper hole. Meanwhile, people who think that phrases like "Israel lobby" are antisemitic got into the act, further lowering the standard of debate and further provoking EofL. (I have right now on my computer more than 50 items, mostly academic books and journal articles by US, UK and Israeli scholars, that discuss this non-existent lobby; people who want to read serious work on the subject could start here.) Practically the entire discussion has been dreadful. Some of the things EofL has written, especially on his talk page, offend me, but then there are lots of views held by Wikipedia editors that offend me. EofL may well deserve the block, but I don't believe he has had a fair hearing. Zero^talk 08:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Please strike that personal attack. I never "claimed to know for sure that it wasn't an accident" -- I explicitly stated numerous times that it probably was an accident, brought on by EoL's clumsy conflation of various people who either oppose the Israeli government or engage in Holocaust denial. The problem was never the original accident, but the apparent antisemitic ideology that led to it, including but not limited to his repeated claims, even since being blocked, that the Jews are "powerful interests" who control the media/academia/governments/whatever. You really, really need to step away from this discussion if you are not going to stop putting words in my mouth. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW: until you posted the above baseless accusation against me, I had already decided, and publicly stated, that I intended to step away from this discussion (which I had happened across by accident, initially posted a simple procedural question, and only got further involved after EoL started actively baiting me) and not post here again, so saying that I should be "banned from participation" in a discussion I already said I wanted nothing more to do with, in a manner that essentially forces me to come back and call you out for lying about me ... well, even if it weren't annoying to me personally, it would run counter to your own stated goal. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hijir88: your words "you clearly did mean to refer to Faurisson" can be found above along with your reasons for not believing him. So you should review your own words before accusing someone else of lying. In my honest opinion, that point in the debate set the tone for everything that followed. Then, EofL dug a deeper hole for himself by associating Faurisson with some respectable scholars (a serious distortion) but you were still making statements that a reasonable reader would take as confirmation that his original paragraph had not been an accident (the second part of that diff). Later still you again argued that it wasn't an accident. I never claimed to be presenting a chronology of all your later twists and turns. Zero^talk 02:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Bullshit. You know full well that the first thing I wrote after Finkelstein's name was mentioned was that EoL had "a Freudian slip", i.e. that he had accidentally defended a Holocaust denier because he believes Holocaust denial is just a different "level" of anti-Zionism, and I made similar statements a lot more than three times even before you started accusing me of having said things I definitely didn't say. My multiple references to his reading antisemitic literature that conflated Chomsky/Finkelstein/etc. with Faurisson clearly assumed he had made a mistake for that reason. Your cherry-picking less carefully selected words from later on in this "discussion" (none of which amount to me saying I "knew for sure that it wasn't an accident", and some of which were me arguing against your bogus assertion that "Norman Finkelstein" and "Robert Faurisson" are similar names) just shows how desperate you are to smear me, and your choosing to lie about me and ping me each time I try to walk away from this just shows you are more interested in harassing me than in solving this problem. If you really thought I was some Zionist hack trying to get one up on an opponent by lying about them and smearing them, and that this discussion would go smoother if I left, then you would have let me leave on the multiple occasions I have tried. Just drop the stick already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't at all mind being vehemently disagreed with, but I do mind being called a liar. In case anyone cares, here is Hijiri88 supposedly admitting that EoL had made an accidental Freudian slip. My emphasis added and don't miss the question mark: "You had a Freudian slip and accidentally defended someone notable primarily for being a Holocaust-denier and for being fired for that reason, and you meant to claim someone else was fired for opposition to Zionism? ... Except that Finkelstein wasn't fired, so you clearly did mean to refer to Faurisson, and Finkelstein lined up as a backup in case anyone called you out." Case closed on that one. No ping this time. Zero^talk 04:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are taking things out of context. Nothing I said after that point could have made sense if I thought it had not been an accident. (Why would I have repeatedly talked about antisemitic literature conflating them if I wasn't assuming he had made the mistake for that reason? Your first involvement in this thread was to respond to my saying EoL's associating them in the manner that he continued to do above shows clear bad faith) But your claiming the accident was totally reasonable and understandable given their supposedly similar names rather than indicating that EoL is a virulent antisemite who thinks opposition to the Israeli government and denial of the Holocaust are related. (Ironically, this is a view shared by the pro-Israel folks who want to smear their opponents by calling them antisemites.) And you definitely did lie about me above -- Hijiri88 claimed to know for sure [emphasis added] that it wasn't an accident -- and bolding a question mark doesn't make that any less of a lie. If you do not want to be called a liar, then retract and apologize for the above lie. (I've been involved in enough disputes on here to know the standard arguments: someone who writes an untruth might not necessarily be "a liar", but by that logic I didn't call you "a liar"; I called what you wrote a lie. I am not saying you are going to make that argument, just that in the past I've never seen anyone who had written something that was not true and refused to retract it when asked to say "I'm not a liar" without following it up in such a manner.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you really believe that accusing me of writing lies is different from calling me a liar you need to brush up on your English. The meaning is identical because "lies" are intentionally false statements. Regarding my first involvement, I invite anyone who cares (probably nobody) to click on your link and check what I was replying to and what I actually wrote. I deleted a further rebuttal of your claims because I am fucking sick of this. I honestly believe my understanding of what you wrote would match the understanding of most readers. You could have disagreed with my analysis of the situation as loudly as you liked, but these personal attacks are not cool. Zero^talk 09:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you really believe that accusing me of writing lies is different from calling me a liar you need to brush up on your English. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I only said that in case you tried to claim that writing a lie doesn't make you a liar. You very clearly wrote above that I "claimed to know for sure that it wasn't an accident", and have refused to strike this lie despite my asking you to do so three or four times at this point. Whether I thought it was an accident or intentional, or whether it actually was an accident or intentional, doesn't matter (it's clear now that the David Duke fan you were defending was a Holocaust-denying antisemite the whole time), but I definitely never claimed to know for certain one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"the David Duke fan you were defending" -- so now you add a disgusting associative smear to your deliberate violations of NPA. There goes the last drop of respect I have for you. I'm seriously thinking of breaking my 16-year long policy of not filing complaints against people who attack me personally. If it was just the words "for sure" you objected to, you could have said "even though I wrote that I didn't believe him, I wasn't sure about it", then I would have replied "fine, but please take more care with your wording next time" and the affair would have ended right then. But no, you preferred to deny everything. Zero^talk 10:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to look over this by Hijiri, who is perplexed at Zero and Kingsindian's positions. As I told Hijiri by email, 'If he said 'Jews control the media' he's an antisemite', and a ban is warranted. On the other hand, I think there is little doubt that Zero and Kingsindian are the most reliably neutral and meticulously fair assessors of evidence in the I/P area, and find their respective arguments persuasive. I am also annoyed that the indeffing admin appears to be unfamiliar with the fact that highly respectable scholars, with the tenure denied Finkelstein because he called a spade a spade in several books, have documented intense coercive lobbying by pro-Zionist and Israeli lobby groups (which does not mean 'Jews control the media'. It means that pro-Zionist pro-Israeli groups organize, as do business lobbies, petroleum lobbies, ethnic-interest lobbies everywhere, to get the perceived interests of their constituency brought to bear on policy makers and legislators, a point made by Mearsheimer and Walt). And the persistent hectoring harassment of academics who challenge this with regard to the dominant US-Israeli discourse is far too well attested to permit denial. My own list of cases of tenured academics who have fallen foul of these lobbies, whose representatives in the media are experts in distorting evidence by shouting 'anti-Semitic' at every sign of non-compliance with the Zionist interpretation of events, extends to over 40 people. It's understandable that people unfamiliar with the brutal 'niceties' of these issues confuse 'Zionist lobby' with the anti-Semitic fantasy 'Jews' control the media. Most Jews are, like all of us, utterly uninfluential when it comes to the corporate world. The best remedy for this impasse is to start from scratch again. Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you for your detailed and well-reasoned comment. I still don't agree that the things EoL said were not antisemitic -- the out-of-context quotation of Joel Stein as though to defend the assertion that the Jews control the media cinched it for me -- but as usual I'm happy to agree to disagree with people who aren't attacking me personally. Anyway, I just want to clear this up, since my email to you is not public and others can't see: I never said I was perplexed by Kingsindian's position: per his quoting of On Liberty above he believes that Wikipedia should be a marketplace of ideas, even when it comes to outright fascists like Zaostao, and he's entitled to his opinion. The only continued problem here (for me) is the attacks against me -- Zero has not, apparently, retracted his claim that I "claimed to know for sure that it wasn't an accident", even though I explicitly stated numerous times that my argument was based on the assumption that it was an accident. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your observation above is correct. You mentioned in the text no names, but I looked at the thread and assumed your worry was about a position which I identified with those very similar readings advanced by Zero and Kingsindian. As to the email. These are private, but I felt obliged to mention that my appearance, intervening in a kind of argument I try to avoid like the plague, arose from a private notification, innocuous in itself. It was a legitimate request for help, but other editors should know. As I told you, getting sucked into these humongous complaint threads is a waste of time. We are here to edit texts, not to waste time on boards, and, though I didn't have the time or patience to wade through all the diffing, my impression was that EoL wasn't damaging articles, which is the crucial thing, but rather being taken to task for talk page comments. There are a lot of editors who patently show by their editing of articles an extremist, distasteful, perhaps even racial weltanschauung, but who manage to sedulously avoid revealing this in talk page comments. My bias is conditioned by the ongoing farce of newspapers trying to screw a democratic party's chances at elections by endless insistence that they endorse what is a definition of anti-Semitism whose implementation would infringe our right to free speech. I may be wrong on the specifics here, but I still see a disturbing reflection of that trend here.That's all I have to say on the matter.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't find much to disagree with in the above, except that the subject line mentioned Zero0000. (I wouldn't expect you to remember my past, generally positive, interactions with Kingsindian, but I also didn't think a glance at this discussion would make it appear I was talking about him.) Anyway, you are of course right about the ongoing farce, but I don't think we need to worry about that here: the editor in question may or may not also have the benefit of the Palestinian people in mind, but he's also a fan of the writings of David Duke, so calling him an antisemite doesn't really smear the non-bigots who support the Palestinian cause like it might otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Said the editor that recently equated Jewish as political.[68]. This process was started with other incidents - including OUTING, not adhering to RS policy, personal attacks, and discounting editors' opinions on the basis of alleged nationality and (in this very ANI thread) sexual orientation.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Struck - off-topic and unneccessary.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop trolling. That is the kind of fuckwitted distortion of a reasoned argument, calibrated to smear, that suggests you cannot evaluate evidence, particularly on a topic like this. It is a palmary example of the constant slinging of the anti-Semitic accusation at any form of dissent that should make admins very careful of rushing to judgment in this regard on Wikipedia. I don't believe in ethnic categories. There is no intelligible meaning to any statement attributed to 'the Jews', 'the Japanese', 'the Americans', 'the Persians', 'the Chinese' etc.etc., despite what people with a collectivist mentality or ethnic fixation think. Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing WP:NPA. While perhaps many in this discussion should, as well, and was indeed one of the things that EoL ran firmly afoul of, seeing one editor call another "fuckwitted" certainly leaves a bad taste. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Learn to read. I called his comment 'fuckwitted'. In logic saying 'you are stupid' belongs to a different class than saying 'what you did was stupid.' The first is an ontological proposition, the second a judgment on the quality of an act. I don't assume bad faith when, as in this case above, it is contrafactual. Read icewhiz's link to what I wrote, and his 'deduction' I equate 'Jewish' with political. It's a nasty insinuation. One of the reasons why these topics, in the media as on Wikipedia, end up as stories of absurdity rather than histories of realities is that no one really cares any more about logic or facts Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A user politely recommends that you not insult other users, and you proceed to insult them, as well. I strongly recommend you think about your actions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I slung nothing. As for the comments above - the significant overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is extremely well established in the literature - they aren't the same - but there is quite some overlap.[69] As for the editor in question here - even if one accepts he mixed up Faurisson with Finkelstein - he subsequently doubled down on it (at AN/I - after claiming mixup) - and said "I've been recently reading about academics who have challenged the mainstream discourse including the Zionist discourse. Among them are extreme cases such as Robert Faurrison (a liberal professors btw) who has challenged some aspects of the Holocaust and got physically beaten for it on uni campus" diff. Not a "holocaust denier" - but a liberal professor who "challenged some aspects of the Holocaust" and got beaten for it. And this from an editor who refers to antisemitism as It is basically a propaganda concept mostly diff. The topic ban proposal started rolling after he said (diff) Simply because I said the person's homosexual tendency may explain his past rude remarks and his decision to ban me on bogus charges - referring to an editor who posted here in AN/I - and this after personal attacks and OUTing elsewhere. The editor's subsequent comments at AN/I, and subsequently, after being blocked, on his user page, were in the same vein.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

'the significant overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is extremely well established in the literature'. No it isn't, for the simple reason that, as Timeline of anti-Zionism, which I basically wrote, will tell you that anti-Zionism's basic texts are nearly all Jewish polemics against Zionism, and, however successful lobbies may prove to be in trying to get legislation to blur anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and thereby not only imply that any Jew who is appalled by the Israeli occupation is anti-Semitic, but that they can be incriminated in Western countries for their exercise of freedom of speech, such legislation still flies in the face of the historical record, apart from creating a paradox, by making dissenting Jews legally answerable to the charge of being anti-Semitic simply because they oppose an ethnocratic ideology, something that an overwhelming number of Jewish thinkers have consistently done for two centuries, precisely to fight against antisemitism. Jeezus!Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the bizarre description of Faurisson as "liberal" was not invented by EofL. It is a quote from Chomsky. Zero^talk 02:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think TonyBallioni's offer of a topic ban in place of the indefinite block is a generous one [70] [71] then I don't know how much further discussion would alter the outcome here. It's very unlikely the community discussion would conclude with a sanction less severe then the offer that has been extended on the talk page. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting indef - Not only is EoL very likely a sockpuppet of Strivingsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (as I mentioned above), this user is also an unrelenting POV pusher who has been tremendously disruptive in other Iran-related topics as well, namely on Battle of Al Hudaydah where they edit-warred to retain terms like "aggression" and "mercenaries" when describing the Saudi-led intervention and the national militaries involved respectively. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef per Fitzcarmalan. EoL has one of the worst cases of IDHT I have yet seen, and has a rather persistent habit of blaming everyone but themselves for any issues that arise. At this juncture, their actions after the block have reached the point where I am not sure it matters if EoL is antisemitic or not; there are clearly persistent behavioral issues that need addressing before I am convinced that EoL is a net positive for the encyclopedia. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Struck first bit; Upon further reflection, Fitzcarmalan and I have different reasoning for similar conclusions. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef - EoL has made many different types of personal attacks/harassments, such as homophobic comments (and actually trying to justify it on this very ANI), accusing every user of bias but himself, accusing someone of supporting a 'terrorist group', loads of anti-semitic comments (which he also tries to justify), aggressive behaviour, turning every article talk page into his own little forum with his repeated WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants (and now his own talk page), discounting editors' opinions on the basis of alleged nationality. And yet he still continues to blame everyone but himself, which is some next level WP:IDHT. Furthermore, as Fitzcarmalan said, he is very much likely to be a sockpuppet of Strivingsoul (this should defo get investigated, they literally speak/think exactly alike, who knows if he has more accounts). I am honestly baffled how this is still an ongoing discussion after all the ill-mannered comments this user has made. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef - This user tend to echo partisan comments from a pro sided source using non neutral words and name calling in Wikipedia articles such as using words like "Coalition of aggression", "mercenaries", and "death camps" to refer to a particular party, nation, or soldiers involved in a conflict in an Iran-related topics, such as Battle of Al Hudaydah. He has been involved in multiple edit warring and has refused to accept consensus received and agreed on by the majority on talk page. His non neutral edits are nonconstructive in Wikipedia and has warranted the use of an unbalanced template on the article he edits. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strivingsoul TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef. EoL's previous account, linked above me, was even more blatantly anti-Semitic, and more combative generally. This is not someone who I suspect is capable of editing in a collaborative environment, or adhering to Wikipedia's core principles. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef Jesus. Sockpuppetry!? If there's one thing worse than EoL's behaviour, it's the fact that apparent good-faith users whose involvement in this dispute is limited to the tenuous connection between EoL's antisemitism and the Israel-Palestine issue have been demanding that I defend my accusing the guy who kept talking about "powerful interests" of being an antisemite and still have not apologized for lying about me. But it doesn't matter now; he's definitely not getting unblocked, and I can't possibly imagine any good-faith defender not backing down after this. Also, SS is subject to an SBAN, so the notion that his confessed sock would be unblocked is ridiculou. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BTDubs, it turns out I was probably 100% correct in speculating that EoL was getting his ideas regarding the supposed association of various anti-Zionist academics with a Holocaust-denier from his reading racist, antisemitic literature that attempted to claim legitimacy by associating itself with the Palestinian movement; Strivingsoul was a big fan of David Duke, as came up numerous times in the original CBAN discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting indef. It is quite shameful that anti-Israeli personal attacks, views and blatant bias are not only considered acceptable by some editors, but would seem to also excuse outright antisemitic, anti-LGBT, and general personal attacks by this editor. This user isn't here to contribute constructively.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef - I haven't read through all of the above interminable back and forth but I do see that it is discussing an editor who uses "Zionist" as an insult and admits to making homophobic attacks. Utterly unacceptable and should have been indeffed long ago.Smeat75 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting indef socketpuppet of a banned contributor and he made POV pushing for Iran. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Redact comment from user's talk page request

Is it possible from someone to redact/hide a comment about another user per [72]. EoL is trying to lump them in with their beliefs and I believe that this is unfair to them, especially as they gave them sound advice about how to resolve the situation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Which portion is uncivil? As for other users, they can defend themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that the comment may malign the user. I explained the issue above.

It may be that my calling it out on the talk page is enough. And, yes, they can speak up for themselves - but their name wasn't linked/pinged, so they would have had to have come to the talk page on their own and read through the comments to know they were talked about. It just seems a very unfair thing to do to them. I absolutely don't think that it was done maliciously. EoL is trying to substantiate their position, and they thought the point was a good one. It wasn't thoughtful, though, about the effect it might have.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Added underlined part.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole incident (the antisemitism/Holocaust-denial thing, not the dispute that led to the original ANI report) began when EoL repeatedly smeared the names of multiple real-world scholars by directly associating them with Holocaust denial and "Jews control the media" conspiriology. (That may not be why Tony blocked him, but it's certainly why I wanted Tony to block him, and it's why a number of other admins might have been willing to block him if it weren't for the reasons Tony directly cited.) Now he's smearing Wikipedians by associating them with him, after he's already been blocked for one of the most toxic and heinous reasons Wikipedia editors can get blocked. That said, continuing to make worse antisemitic remarks than before he was blocked is reason enough to remove talk page access, so I don't see the point of complaining about his smearing people by pretending they took his "side". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• CaroleHenson: Take this advice from a colleague. That's enough. Looking at your edits here and on the user's talk, you're just trying to add to the heat of the already heated discussion, which seems to be an attempt to K.O a rival who objected some of your suggestions in MEK article and related pages. That's enough, he's already blocked. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I don't need advice from you. Thanks anyway.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, "Kings don't need advice; From little hornbills for a start". You're welcome, I felt the need to say that. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:, thank you for letting me know about this. I would appreciate if these comments could be redacted. I don't agree with the personal views EoL has expressed, which I have found difficult to follow at times. The other editors who raised the issue of the Gayssot Act during the discussion did so only to question the wisdom of banning sources based on their country of origin. A link between laws against holocaust denial and media bias against Iran certainly can not be assumed, or taken as evidence of a monolithic conspiracy. I'm not sure arguments about antisemitism are necessary to dismiss this type of reasoning as not appropriate for Wikipedia. Media bias against Iran is observable, and documented by various sources, but there are many parties involved, including Saudi Arabia which has recently complained about favorable media bias [73]. The question of what interests it actually serves, what interests it is perceived to serve, how effective it is, etc. is separate from the verifiable observation that a bias exists. I have not seen sources during the discussion or while doing research for the discussion that support strong conclusions about effects. I understand why EoL might think these issues were related, but I hope if it the error in reasoning is explained he will understand why so many editors have objected to this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully an admin will see your comment and redact that portion of the discussion from the diff above. I agree that it makes sense to do so due to the nature of the comments. Another option is that Expectant of Light could strike out that portion of his comment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access should be revoked

When an editor is blocked for antisemitic comments, and then on their talk page after the block writes things like How shall we talk then if we want to talk about Jews residing outside Israel who are strongly pro-Israel? [...] [T]o every conspiracy theory there could be grains of non-exaggerated truth. When you have a Jewish author literally bragging about how "Jews totally run the Hollywood" and that "I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them." [...] then probably you can't only complain about those anti-Semites who come up with conspiracy theories. Perhaps who need to ask [redacted] to keep their mouth shot when boasting about their control. You can also then explain the reasons behind USA's strong unconditional support for Israeli terrorism that you are also angry about., I can't think of any valid reason for their talk page access not to be revoked. He has made no attempt to appeal his block, and has just continued his antisemitic ramblings, going so far as to smear a Jewish journalist who was joking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And he's continuously harassing me on his talk page, despite my having stated numerous times that I want nothing more to do with this affair.[74] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Hijiri: this has become really long. EoL is now turning his talk page into his own personal forum by resuming his WP:SOAP-y WP:FORUM rants now that he can't do it on article talk pages. Even after all this time he is still putting the blame on everyone else but him, which again shows a major case of WP:IDHT. Also, let's not undermine his homophobic comment above (which he ACTUALLY tried to justify by more or less saying that all Iranians are 'like him') and generally his aggressive ad hominem behaviour (besides the heavily anti-semitic part). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ِDisagree with him: There's no harassment. He's the one who fabricated began the whole things, so he's naturally mentioned in the comments. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: [Hijiri88] fabricated the whole things Kindly retract that. I didn't fabricate anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Your change didn't help, as I didn't "begin" anything either. Even if it was an accident, suddenly insisting that a Holocaust denier was "fired for challenging the establishment historical narrative" in a supposedly civil discussion of the reliability of sources is the kind of abominable mistake that, if it had been made in good faith, he would have immediately apologized profusely, not continued to assert that the Holocaust denier in question is "a liberal professors btw", etc. I simply came here and made one, simple, policy-based remark, and was badgered for it by EoL. Pretending that I started this whole thing when my original question came three days into this thread, which was opened by EoL, is just ... argh. Not using the word "fabricated" is a step in the right direction, I guess, but you're still accusing me of things for which you have no evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Hijiri: since his block, EoL has used his Talk page to only re-affirm what he was reported on. He's continued canvassing is also dragging this on. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Close now?

Since EofL admitted to being a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strivingsoul and User talk:Expectant of Light#Past account, can we close out this discussion?–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with how sockpuppetry checking works, so I got a lil' noob question: Isn't there a way to check if he has more than those two accounts? I think we all prefer to not go through something like this again in the near future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point! I believe it's based upon the location of the IP addresses associated with the accounts. I don't think that it works in reverse, though, (i.e., take the IP address location and find all accounts associated with that location) for a number of reasons (technical, "big brother" (see related WP:NOTFISHING), legitimate use of multiple accounts from the same location, etc.). I noticed that there were about 12 traits, though, that were similar between these two accounts and I think it would be easier next time having two accounts to check against to identify it as a sock puppet take that route of exploration first, rather than ANI. I find it very likely that if they were to create another account that their modus operandi and topics that they are interested in would be very evident.

It would be good to hear from someone that has a better technical and procedural take on this, but that's my understanding.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps documenting that traits that are similar between the two account in the sockpuppet invesstigation report would help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If EoL is having a look at this conversation, and he probably is, then he may take care of avoiding modus operandi on new accounts that will link them to previous accounts (though I agree he'll likely be drawn to similar topics as his two previous accounts). I'm also a noob with these procedures, so hopefully there is a (technical?) way of avoiding this again. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder about that, too - i.e., that they become a more stealth, sophisticated user). However, if they stop exhibiting the behaviors / communication style of the sockpuppet accounts, they would be a better user (although still a sockpuppet, which is not allowed). I just don't think that's going to happen. I think the underlying beliefs are too strong. I suggest we: 1) close out this discussion and 2) take this to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations to see the best way to handle the concern about a new account being set up and how to quickly and less dramatically resolve the issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Undoing bad nominations by User:Shadowowl

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

---

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

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

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

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

(non-admin post) I would agree with Eastmain as there have been many PROD nominations I've seen which have been reverted for proper reasons. However, there appears to be a PROD log available: [75]. Also, there have been a number of articles nominated (including ones nominated since the Starzynka purge) where Shadowowl didn't do a proper WP:BEFORE search or made very brief statements for deletion (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estadio_Tetelo_Vargas, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dünya_Yalan_Söylüyor, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellis_Auditorium, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Facta_Loquuntur, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Sahel_SC amongst others) - not all of the nominations have been bad, but failing to do a before search means there's a lot more work for us, and some of the articles I've seen that were PROD-ded have been un-PRODded for good reasons. SportingFlyer talk 18:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Having closed most of the 100+ AfDs Shadowowl started on 21 July, I'd say a very small proportion of them were actually valid. Maybe something in the order of 5%, and frankly you'd expect better from blind luck. Unfortunately I suspect more than that were deleted because he managed to flood AfD and nobody was able to check for sources. I don't think there was anything ipso facto wrong with creating lots of nominations, but the evident lack of care and attention in applying the deletion process became disruptive. Almost uniformly, he failed to consider WP:ATDs; failed to apply WP:BEFORE; created AfDs where PRODs or CSDs would have been more appropriate; nominated articles on related topics individually with cookie-cutter noms rather than grouping them; etc. Yes, he apologised in the last ANI, but unfortunately since then he has continued to demonstrate a lack of regard for the deletion process and for the editors that have to deal with his nominations, with continued rapid, bad nominations [76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90], hasty renominations, incivility [91][92], and an out-of-process DRV.

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hijiri88 I agreed above that In der Falle was wrong. The ones I said were verified were The Strangers in the House, Pan Theodor Mundstock and My Companions in the Bleak House. › Mortee _talk 09:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, for that matter I never said that the whole batch is majority bullshit -- I gave three valid deletion rationales that collectively covered all of the Starzynka AFDs, but I never said all three of them applied to every single one; (b) (the bullshit one) applied to In der Falle and, I am sure, many others (example: your expansion of The Strangers in the House added a source that called its author "French", the article has always said the book was published in Paris, and the question ultimately arises what makes it "a Belgian novel"), but (a) (the useless content-fork one) is perfectly valid by itself and definitely applied to all three of the articles you link. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those were the drafts I draftified, before I found out that PROD was a better idea. Also Eastmain posted an ANI notice on Starzynka's page, ignoring the fact that an 8-year-long banned user probably wouldn't respond. Also see [[93]], an AFD for an article that User:Heliosxeros declined, but Eastmain moved it to mainspace anyways. Source 2 is a translation of source 5, and source 1 is a garbage clickbait article. I've removed those sources. » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Comment (Non-administrator comment)(as a neutral AFD Patroller) I still hold the previous closing statement[94] to be correct and perfectly sensible. If the 2 contributors above, would have spent a fraction of the time spent above on their Afd Contributions instead of spending on repeatedly long (may I say litigation, per WP:BATTLE), Wikipedia would be better off. AFAIK Shadow owl has not violated the conditions of the previous closure statement.
• Now coming to the topic of Quality of AfD comments on the nominations of both Eastmain and Shadowowl. Although I have seen only a few comments /noms of both during my AfD patrolling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  You have added nothing beyond stats. [95] [96] [97] [98] These are your "additions".
  In fact that article is the very definition of exception to WP:GEOLAND named natural feature rule. It states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Ah OK. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Tyw7:, @Hijiri88: and others. In continuation to my Proposal above, I have left some suggestions on the talk page of both ShadowOwl[99] and Eastmain[100]. I hope these suggestions I proposed improve some of the concerns raised in this thread.--DBigXray 21:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The only answer you got from Eastmain was the non-answer of "Thank you.".
As of writing this, the last two edits done by Eastmain, is 1 and 2. Strongly suggesting that Eastmain does not understand or does not care to understand (the mo is typical, no surprise that Jane's might not be a reliable source, and only slightly surprising that Eastmain goes a little further, saying: "that's a broken link, but I think even the broken link is an improvement.").
Anyway, it's pretty clear (to me) that Eastmain will keep on churning, and so I have to ask: Is it possible to boot Eastmain out for anything less than attempting to kill Jimbo Wales(?)
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

George Bell (Bishop). Appeal for impartial help.

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

---

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

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

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

[Edit conflict]:A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.[101]

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

Note also that Clockback is Peter Hitchens [102] (note JzG's first link above), who writes for The Mail on Sunday and is involved in the topic itself. --Calton | Talk 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

...is probably a conflict of interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block review re Barbara_(WVS)

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

• Having read the very stubby article, I don't see where a bacteria found in the spine of an iguana has anything to do with either health or medicine, however broadly they are construed, but I'm willing to be persuaded if SilkTork would like to present their reasoning here for review by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is a very unreasonable block by all means. Blocks should never be punitive, and blocking for 24 hours three days after the alleged topic ban violation simply does not make any sense. I will also echo the comment by SlimVirgin and The Earwig: The block rationale by SilkTork ([103]) was certainly a strong assumption of bad faith by accusing Barbara (WVS) of gaming, and given SilkTork's extensive previous involvement with Barbara and in the relevant AN/I thread ([104]), I personally do not believe they should have been the administrator to carry out unilateral actions even if this was a straight forward case, in which it is not. The only way to justify that Mycoplasma iguanae is covered by the scope of the already-clarified topic ban is to take the "broadly construed" grossly out of context while completely disregarding the entirety of that AN/I discussion, which never once mentioned anything, anywhere, about animal health in the main discussions nor in the clarification section. Like Sarah said, if we would like Barbara's topic ban to include animal health, this needs to be specified in WP:RESTRICT after a discussion, not to be creatively imposed by the discretion of an involved administrator. This block needs to be reversed immediately. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wording of the TBAN is: "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed", and Barbara was already warned in May to ask first rather than testing the boundaries of the TBAN: [105]. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unblocked

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

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

Here is the link to the warning to check first: [106]. Also, the TBan says "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" (emphasis mine), and nothing in the TBan specifies human health and medicine. There are two citations on the article Barbara created: the journal title of one includes the word "medicine", and the title of the other includes the word "disease". Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Topic ban scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see that consensus is that people feel the wording does not include animals. However, it's worth pointing out that I was the one who worded the ban, and I did intend it to include animals. I became aware of the problems with Barbara's editing when waiting to review Vagina for Good Article. Like others not familiar with Wikipedia anatomy articles, I thought this would only deal with the human vagina, and raised that as an issue during the GA review. However, it is standard to include discussion of both animal and human in such articles, unless specified otherwise - such as Penis and Human penis. Barbara did insert material on animals into that article, as here: [107] (that edit was later removed as unhelpful), so when looking to Topic Ban her we were not differentiating between human and animal, but were only concerned with her poor understanding, in general, of health, medicine and anatomy. Our (my) mistake was in not clarifying that in the original wording, and this was possibly because we were all too close to it that we couldn't see that people might not be aware that both animal and human are included. As this has now run so far that it is clear that people feel the ban wording does not make it clear that animals are included, I will propose new wording to the Topic Ban to make it clear that animals are covered. SilkTork (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article isn't about animals. Bacteria are not animals. (Neither are they plants. They are bacteria.) Lizards are animals, but the article isn't about lizards. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No If veterinary medicine was intended to be part of the TB it should have been spelled out. From the wording that was !voted on, is clear that in that context "broadly construed" refers to human medicine, broadly construed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. This particular bacteria has absolutely nothing to do with human health. And of course such topic ban does not prevents anyone from editing pages about bacteria in general or even such as Escherichia coli which is relevant to human health. If it were a specific edit that relates Escherichia coli to human health, that would be a topic ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. We should allow Wikipedia to be improved. Articles about about animals, veterinary topics, non-human animal anatomy, non-human animal sexuality, and bacteria (excluding anything that lives on a human) should be permitted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, unless someone can bring significant evidence for arguing that she's been disruptive with non-humans as well. Clearly the original intent was human, not extending to all organisms. You might as well argue that her ban from sexuality topics means that she could be sanctioned for editing an article about flowers, because a plant's flowers are its sexual organs. Barring evidence of botany disruption, such an argument would be ludicrous. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for close

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

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

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

Yes, you're right, any further proposal which might be made by anyone else after the clarification would be a separate issue. I've struck the relevant part of my comment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal is ready to be closed - couldan uninvolved admin (preferably) do the honors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've kept myself uninvolved on the content of the ban itself (remaining neutral on it) and have only acted in an admin/procedural role, specifically so that I could do the close. SilkTork is happy with me closing it, and I intend to do so later today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Close rationale/consensus

• There's a strong consensus here that when used alone, the word "medical" should be construed as referring to human medical topics, and so the scope of the topic ban on Barbara (WVS)/Bfpage does not extend to veterinary or other non-human topics. The meaning of the ban is, therefore: "By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."
• Several editors have raised the potential problem of editing human-dominated medical or anatomy articles, and editing only non-human (eg "Other animals") portions, and none has contested that concern. However, the original wording of the ban said "medical articles", and the subsequent amendment was clearly meant to broaden the scope and not narrow it, and so I read the ban as still covering articles which cover human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, even if editing non-human sections.
• One further concern was to clarify whether Barbara is allowed to create non-human animal anatomy articles. As the consensus is that the ban does not extend to non-human animal topics, then there is no restriction on editing or creating non-human animal anatomy articles.

That's my reading of the consensus, and I will now close the sections above. I'll leave closing of the entire ANI section to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Late comment from SilkTork

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

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

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

While I can't speak for everyone, Biology would have been in the minds of some of us in the Topic Ban discussion as concerns had previously been raised about Barbara editing in that area, as well as areas regarding bacteria - as here: [108]. For clarity, User:Bfpage is also User:Barbara (WVS). The difficulty then as now has been how to encompass the areas of concern, and what is clear is that we did not do it well. So we now need to address that. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Afterthought: ArbCom

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

I strongly disagree. The sanction was a community sanction. How it is to be interpreted is a community matter, and it is quite clear what the community consensus about it is, despite the opposition of some respected and well-known editors, who have every right in the world to be wrong occasionally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The sanction was a community sanction. If the community can agree on how to interpret and enforce it, we don't need ArbCom involvement. I said that if this case comes back here again, it will be because it divides and polarizes the community. If the community can handle it, good. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking up, it seems as if the community handled it OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Late to this

I've been offline for a couple of days and have just caught up with the discussion here and on Barbara's talk page. It is not at all clear that the topic ban extends as far as vet medicine and I'm very disappointed to see this block applied three days after the creation of the article without a word to the target - an obviously good-faith, long term contributor. What exactly did you think the block was achieving, User:SilkTork?

Is seems from a comment on Barbara's talk page that she wasn't able to edit her talk page for 13 hours after the block. Is that so, SilkTotk? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The block log indicates whether talkpage access was disabled as part of a block. In this case it was not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you NYB. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question User:Anthonyhcole. Barbara was topic banned from health and medicine and sexuality articles. After the ban was in place she edited a sexuality article, and I warned her that if she edited within the topic again it was likely she would be blocked, so it was best, if in doubt, to ask first. It was brought to my attention that she had created an article which she herself had tagged as being part of Microbiology and part of Veterinary medicine. I checked if she had discussed this with anyone, and noted that she had not. Given that the topic ban was applied because there were concerns about Barbara's editing in the fields of medicine and biology, I felt that she had edited within the topic ban, and had ignored the advice to consult first if unsure. There is some division of opinion as to if the topic ban applied only to humans or to animals. From my point of view as the main article I had viewed her editing and introducing errors to was Vagina, which is about the vagina in both humans and animals, and she had edited it with information about cows, the topic ban covered animals. Most others disagree, and feel that the wording only applies to humans. As such the block was overturned, and a discussion has arisen as to what to do next. SilkTork (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

But what exactly was the puropse of the block? What exactly were you hoping it would achieve, three days after she created the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The post facto attempts to justify this block are absurd. Silk Tork's original block notice to Barbara [109] was:

I understand you may not have been clear that the health topic covers animals as well as humans, but I see no evidence of you having asked first, so I assume the creation of the Mycoplasma iguanae article was a test to see if it does include animals. It does because animal health and anatomy does merge with human health and anatomy in places, such as in Clitoris where both human and animal anatomy is discussed.

Now, this is quite interesting.

• Clearly Silk Tork did not think that "health and medical topics" includes, per se, animal health, because he felt he had to give this strained justification that animal health "merges" with human health because there are articles that discuss them both.
• Since that's too ridiculous, now we're being told that, of course, "health and medical topics" includes animals, even though clearly most editors – intelligent folks all – don't see that as a natural interpretation.
• And what evidence was there that this was "a test" on Barbara's part?

Especially since Silk Tork recognized that I understand [Barbara] may not have been clear, all this trouble could have been avoided had he, instead of being so hot to lower the "gotcha" boom three days later, simply said to Barbara, "Listen, I really think that this edit of yours [etc etc etc]. Perhaps we better talk a bit to clarify your topic ban." But that would have been too much like common sense.

I think when this is all over I'll create a shortcut WP:IGUANAPUS to point to this discussion, to be used as a shorthand when admins get all high and block-mighty instead of just having a quiet word with the editor in question. EEng 04:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, how about let’s not do that. The next time someone disputes a block, I don’t want to read that it’s a WP:IGUANAPUS violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on those blocks, then, especially when talk-page abscess is removed. EEng 06:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Eergh. I really don't need that pussy eyeball image, EEng. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve removed the image. It was distracting, and inappropriate for the context. Please do not restore it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pussy eyeball

-EEng

Oh, for heaven's sake! What's inappropriate about a pussy eyeball? Maybe you'll like this one better. EEng 15:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for closing that section. SilkTork, could you clarify how you see your involvement in this going forward? I was thinking it would be helpful to have fresh admin eyes on future warnings or sanctions. Anthonyhcole, are you happy to continue as Barbara's mentor? It's important that she has someone to speak on her behalf when she's being discussed but feels unable to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Very. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Anthony. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin - I'm not sure how much you have read back into the history of my involvement with Barbara, but I have been a reluctant participant in this. I preferred Barbara to have withdrawn herself from both her problematic editing and her problematic long term engagement with Flyer, and offered to assist Barbara with an alternative solution. However, when faced with Barbara's declining of an alternative solution and the history of both Barbara's accounts, I could not avoid the issue, and supported the topic ban. I am not watching her edits, nor do I regard myself as the lead on this. However, I have responded to concerns raised to me. This is what happens when an admin gets involved in an issue, and we tend not to shrug it off. While it is clear that the consensus is that the wording of the Topic Ban did not cover animals, it is not clear that the consensus is that she should be allowed to edit animal articles. I feel a further discussion would be helpful, though as there is some hostility regarding my blocking of Barbara, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to be taking the lead on looking into such a consensus discussion, so I feel someone else should take the lead on that. I have approached Boing!, as he has remained neutral in this matter, and is handling the matter fine so far. But if someone else feels they can lead such a discussion, I think that would be fine. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page, but having thought about it some more, I'll expand here. If people think the topic ban should mean something different, well, they're welcome to think so - but I don't see how that would change what it actually does mean, as decided by consensus above. To change what it means would surely require a proposal for a change, wouldn't it? And I'm sure it's obvious why I would not make such a proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• SilkTork, I'd appreciate an answer to my above question. What was the block meant to achieve? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been waiting for an answer to this same question since the beginning. EEng 05:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To enforce the ban, as part of the blocking policy. If someone is banned from doing something, and then continues to do it, we enforce the ban by blocking them - I gave a short block as I did not think this was an egregious incident, but felt the block was appropriate as she had previously broken the ban and had been advised to seek advise before editing in what might be a grey area or a block would be likely. Consensus is against me in this being a breaking of the topic ban. I'm not sure, had I had a chance to explain the rationale earlier, if people would have agreed that she edited in a grey area and should have consulted first, but as things stand, the consensus is that this was an inappropriate block. I accept that. I hope you will accept that the block was not malicious, but done within what I felt were the terms of the topic ban and the earlier warning. SilkTork (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What I can't see, yet, is the damage or disruption your block prevented. What harm were you expecting Barbara to do to the project in those 24 hours, that your block prevented? I see in the lede of WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Is that statement contradicted or ammended in the body of the policy (which I haven't read)? If, so, would you please point me to it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay this is getting a little ridiculous. Topic ban violations are the disruption and are flatly allowed to be enforced via blocking, according to both blocking and banning policy. The obviously-inherent preventative aspect of such blocks is to prevent future violations. The policy considerations here are not remotely enigmatic, so I'm not sure where this line of questioning is trying to get to. ST has stated that they were attempting standard enforcement of what they believed was a topic ban violation, which they felt was intentional. This was challenged in the appropriate forum and overturned by the community, and the scope of the ban was clarified to ensure that a similar block doesn't happen again. If we're assuming good faith, nowhere in this chain of events should the blocking admin be grilled for mistakenly making an out-of-scope block. They genuinely thought it was an intentional violation, and they did not have the current clarification of the ban's scope until after the fact, so at face value, they are guilty of making an honest mistake that could happen to anyone. It's not convoluted, it's not complicated, and it shouldn't be hard to understand. So, that begs the question, why are you not simply forgiving a misinterpretation of the TBAN's scope? Do you not believe the simple explanation behind this block? If you have some sort of suspicion of a hidden bad faith motivation, either come out with it or please step away from the equine carcass. If this is just you being defensive over your mentee, I get it, but whinging about a situation five days later is not constructive. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for the response. The aim of dispute resolution here is that Flyer and Barbara can both edit in peace, without Flyer feeling she needs to monitor Barbara's contributions, and Barbara feeling she might be blocked for edits that fall outside the ban. To achieve that, I think it would help if admins with no prior involvement were to deal with the issue from now on.

I haven't read much about how the dispute originated. The earliest I can see of your appearance in it is January 2018 when Flyer invited you to do a GA review of Vagina, where she and Barbara were in conflict, because you had reviewed previous GAs for her. You didn't edit the article (except for two minor edits later), and you didn't review it until May, but you were there in an editorial rather than admin capacity. On 13 March you suggested that Barbara not edit the article but instead send you her edits by email and you would propose them. Shortly after this, Flyer complained about Barbara on AN/I, and you proposed a medical topic ban. Flyer requested clarification of the scope, and you suggested an amendment, which was accepted. In May, when Barbara edited Violence against women in the United States, Flyer drew attention to it, and you warned Barbara that "another mistake of this nature will likely result in a block". On 28 July she created Mycoplasma iguanae; you wrote above that someone alerted you to this (I assume it was Flyer), and on 31 July you blocked Barbara without discussion.

Given that chain of events, I suspect that Barbara sees you as an involved admin, and she's likely to be looking over her shoulder waiting for the next block. That nervousness alone will mean she'll make mistakes, which will feed into a negative perception of her. I suggest that we try to break that cycle by having other admins deal with any warnings and sanctions from now on, and Anthony continuing as Barbara's mentor. Is that something you'd be willing to go along with? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't keep up with Barbara's edits. And by that, I mean that I usually do not look at her contributions. If I do see her, it's usually because she has edited an article that is on my watchlist, has commented on a talk page (an article, WikiProject, or an editor's talk page) that is on my watchlist, or because my page patrolling has made it so that I've spotted her. I've also been alerted to her edits more than once via email, and not by SilkTork. SilkTork would rather that Barbara's edits to veterinary medicine articles be monitored, if she is to edit them. I do not intend to be the one monitoring them or reporting back to SilkTork or anyone else on the matter if I see an issue there. If I do somehow see a problem, it is easy enough to post about it at WP:VET, but I am likely to leave the matter to someone else to handle (even if they do not see the problem until months or years down the line). I can't state that Barbara and I will not cross paths if she intends to edit and create non-human animal anatomy articles. If I see editing problems in that case, I would first bring it to the attention of WP:Animal anatomy and/or WP:Anatomy. WP:Anatomy is significantly more active than WP:Animal anatomy. And the only reason I'd be more likely to get involved in the case of non-human animal anatomy articles is because they are more likely than veterinary medicine articles to be on my radar and affect a human-related article (for example, an editor wanting to add material from them and/or link to them). But it's not common for me to edit non-human animal anatomy articles; so I don't expect that Barbara and I will cross paths often in that case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be wise for me not to be involved in sanctioning Barbara in future; though I am disappointed that you view me as such an ogre! ;-)

As this matter now appears to be closed, I am signing off. I am away from home, and getting access to Wikipedia to respond to queries is very difficult. I will check in when I am back home next week, and will answer any follow up queries then. SilkTork (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, thank you for agreeing to that, and I don't view you as an ogre at all! Flyer, I'm glad to hear you won't be watching Barbara's edits; that'll help to reduce the heat. I intend to leave a note on Barbara's page at some point summing up this discussion. Given that Silk isn't available, that's probably all there is to say for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Lepidoptera~plwiki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oooooh! COIbot has revealed something interesting. I think we need some further explanation regarding this: Special:Contributions/Chris_lepidoptera User_talk:Chris_lepidoptera
The user had enough warnings over the course of multiple years now. Could we please get a topic ban? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification, to avoid a misunderstanding: I am not requesting a ban about the general article topic, butterflies and moths. I have something like this in mind instead:
(This is a proposal, not an actual ban!) "Lepidoptera~plwiki, as a person, is prohibited from adding external links to any website they are affiliated with, to main namespace articles of the English Wikipedia. This includes using such a site as a reference."
Proposed ban duration: indefinitely, until explicitly unbanned by the community.
Reason for duration: There is no reason to allow them to do it again after a specific amount of time.
Alternatively, the site could be added to the local spam blacklist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that this is an ongoing problem, and I'm definitely concerned given the discovery of the account Chris lepidopter, which has also made similar edits to Lepidoptera~plwiki by adding lepidoptera.eu as a reference to numerous articles. This behavior (as I said on Lepidoptera~plwiki's user talk page) represents original research and a conflict of interest, and it's not okay that it continues despite the numerous warnings and conversations with Lepidoptera~plwiki. My thought is: either this behavior stops, or Lepidoptera~plwiki receives an indefinite block until they agree to stop. Minus the edits adding this domain to articles, what other significant edits have these accounts made? Is this all that these accounts have been doing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A timeline and summary of the link removal has been added at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mass_addition_of_lepidoptera.eu_links_by_website_owner (permalink).
A sockpuppet investigation to formally acknowledge the connection between Lepidoptera~plwiki, Chris lepidoptera and 62.121.64.89 has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chris_lepidoptera.
My very specific topic ban proposal appears to be good to me, even if Lepidoptera~plwiki has allegedly stopped editing for now. The history of 30 abusefilter warnings, 9 talk page warnings, and 2 mass reverts before the ANI even started, over a duration of more than 8 years, should justify telling the user to never do this ever again or be blocked. This is especially true because they have still disagreed with our viewpoint and complained about our treatment of the issue in their "last" message. There was no sign of acknowledging their guilt, there have only been bad excuses and strange protests.
Because of their autoconfirmed status and "minor" edits, it took the community more than 2 years to notice this editor. They did not even receive a welcome message until 2018. And how did we notice them in the end? Because they forgot to mark their edits as "minor" one day.
I fear that they might come back with a new username in a few years, this time completely denying any affiliation with the website, and even more stealthily, having "learnt" from their errors in a very unwanted way.
Enough is enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added the lepidoptera.eu domain to the spam blacklist. This is a problem that needs to stop, and it's clear given the numerous attempts to talk to the user that it won't. Should the use of the domain be approved by some process, removing it from the blacklist is a simple process. This will not only stop the issue right now, but will resolve the concerns expressed that this issue will continue with more accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this appears to be a good long-term solution. Maybe they'll move to another domain one day, but the entry can simply be updated then. I hope we will not need two years to notice them again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lepidoptera~plwiki: please note that I will not hesitate to blacklist this domain globally if you were to decide to move to other wikis to perform similar edits. As far as I can see, you are the ONLY editor across hundreds of wikis using this link. Please be careful with how you proceed to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if the copyvio issue is solved what about the BLP issue? Both of these issues are serious especially from the foundations point-of-view. Otr500 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank Diannaa for acting on the COPYVIO issue, and I hope that Bastun takes note that an uninvolved administrator with substantial experience in COPYVIO issues found that (a) there was a COPYVIO issue and (b) the close paraphrasing repair that s/he made was insufficient. As for the BLP issue, Otr500, I hope that a consensus can be reached and thus that it can be resolved through discussion at the article talk page. Addressing the COPYVIO has reduced the BLP issue, in my view, as has including direct statements from Freeman. There is a connection between Freeman's family's views and their ability to muster support for her campaign, as has been recognised in some sources, so I see the remaining issue as more one of NPOV and DUE. I intend to propose a new form of words for discussion at the talk page when I get the time – I had hoped to do that over the weekend but that didn't work out – and I hope that it or a consensus-tweaked version will be suitable for the article and clearly policy-compliant. I do wonder whether the RfC should be hatted, though, given that it is presenting a form of words that cannot be implemented no matter the local consensus (as Diannaa as already noted)... but equally I don't want to create hostility by acting on that without a concrete proposal to offer. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "(b)", EdChem? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:24.185.76.170

User:24.185.76.170 is a new IP [[110]] that has not only jumped straight into editing controversial topics, but also their second edit was this [[111]] a post that implied a long standing ed who is aware of my interactions with 72bikers. It was however this [[112]], the PAs and soapboxing that has led me to report them. The fact I also suspect bolck evasion or (at least) a second account being used for civility breaching is besides the point [[113]]. We also have a nice dose of whataboutism [[114]], [[115]]. I think it is clear this user is not here for any other reason then to POV push.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A clear indication they have nothing but contempt for both out polices and other users [116], they practically admit that is why they do not use a named account. Because they "not subject to the opinions of people like yourself.", a clear statement that they are not interested in cooperation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "edit a controversial topic," "Steven." I added a comment to the talk page, about patterns of non-neutral behavior with specific examples. You tried to argue but couldn't address those examples and instead went here to try to silence my account. Just like you do with your editing, you dishonestly try to use phrases that suggest that I was vandalizing the page itself, just like you dishonestly try to suggest that I criticize wikipedia as a whole. That's not going to work, "Steven." Trying to silence people who disagree with you by attacking random IP numbers is not going to work either. You attempt to clothe improper behavior as "protecting wikipedia," which is a subconscious method of projecting one's own biases while pretending to be objective. Just like emphasizing negative information about politicians that a "labour voter" would dislike and concealing negative information about political topics and people who you do like is how non-neutral POV creeps into articles about Trump, Fox, CNN, the Russia investigation, and other things, many of which I've commented on and pointed out specifically, with the only responses being things like "it's not disproven," or "you think Trump is honest??" Attack numbers all you want, that's not going to fix the situation. The non-objective editing is there, I can and will continue to point it out with clear examples on the talk pages, as is appropriate on this site. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Muwatallis II reported by User:Caminoderoma because the user made Disruptive editings, to starts another Edit warring about British in Latin American independence. He was blocked (x2) by the same reason [117]

Diffs of the Disruptive editings:

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]
6. [123]

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

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

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

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

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

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

T*U

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides it, he removes my editions arguing that are not reliable sources. Take a look and have your own opinion: [124] is an open source, in the spirit of the original WP. It deserves, at least, to be one of the sources in such articles, much of them are just newspaper biased opinions (from both sides).

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

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

I'm not playing any game. I provide an independent reliable source to add information to these articles. I don't remove other sources (and some are strongly biased, even are fake-news). This is a test on WP plurality: if the vandalisation of that link prevails, biased POV and censure prevails. Just check out the link I add, there are no opinions on it, just videos and facts: [125] But some people don't want information to be shared, they are afraid of truth. Joan sense nick (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've blocked Joan sense nick for 31 hours. [126] But Impru20 and others, edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. There was nothing stopping you from opening a conversation on any of the affected articles' talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Davidbena

After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior. What alarmed me from the get-go—other than taking a content dispute to ANI straight away—is David attacking Huldra by accusing her of being a staunch pro-Palestinian writer for disputing a questionable source. Davidbena doubled-down after Huldra’s explanation, again referring to her editing as “POV”.

• The dispute in question is over the reliability of a self-published author. Again, at RSN David avounched that they “know” Huldra and made more unsubstantiated accusations on her “clear tendency for POV editing”; he again described her behavior as POV-based editing. At no point did he indicate any understanding of why the source is not preferred here. In an earlier discussion at RSN on 25 July, more of the same from David: It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information.
• David’s also advocates for fringe theories during discussion. At this recent one, David commented 16 times—despite editors insisting he is clearly incorrect and should stop [127][128][129][130][131]—on there not being an occupation of the West Bank, ignoring the majority view of reliable sources. Just read the discussion; honestly, a single diff cannot do his blocks of text supporting a fringe view any justice.

Recent discussions with David indicate an editor who does not hear the advice and constructive criticism of others; when challenged about an edit, he assumes bias on part of the disagreeing editor. I hope editors with more familiarity with David come foreword because these diffs only touch on an alarming concern. Perhaps a warning or a t-ban from the I-P area would do David—and the encyclopedia—some good because this trend cannot continue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to respond one-by-one to any allegations that editors might have against me. My suggestion is to make bullets, with each separate allegation (complaint), and there I'll post my reply and give explanations for my conduct. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

• I propose that Davidbena be indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed. It is not reasonable to require people working in an area where every stone is argued over to engage in such pointless discussions. Anyone can have a bad day so it was not a big deal when Davidbena started at ANI, but the inability to hear the responses was alarming. Then it was raised again at RSN where Davidbena asks for an opinion from a "Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel". Davidbena's claims of reliability of the source in question seem to rely on personal knowledge and the fact that the book is catalogued in a university library. After all that we see concern about "User:Huldra's POV-based editing" (diff) (Huldra removed the source as unreliable, as confirmed at RSN). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand why, if the ANI has been closed, it is now being brought-up again. After realizing that I made a mistake to bring my complaint before them, I immediately complied to their suggestions to raise the issue with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The very first words above are After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior [emphasis added]. What alarmed me from the get-go...

In other words, the very first words EXPLICITLY say it's not the ANI "being brought up again": your behavior there triggered a further inquiry about your pattern of behavior overall. Your claim of not understanding is therefore a sign of not listening, not being competent, or of being disingenuous. Would you like to revise your statement? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It may possibly be seen as relevant that Davidbena was blocked [132] back in 2015 for accusing Huldra of "pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel". [133] There seems to be a pattern here. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he was not blocked for what he called me, he was blocked for violating 1RR (and yes, I was the one who reported him) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - While David's behavior hasn't been optimal (but whose is?) - the proposed remedy is out of proportion to the editing. Not everything needs to be at AN/I - especially when this was discussed here a couple of days ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) clarified !vote seeing this turned into a proposal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Any editor who is active in the ARBPIA-area is bound to loose their temper once in a while, make an edit that wasn't optimum, or write an edit-summary that was less than courteous. We have all been there, and yet we all together make this project better. Huldra is an pro-Arab editor, as I am pro-Israel. We try to make good edits, but sometimes our POVs show. That is normal and that is legit. We have all been blocked at one time or another, yet we are all veteran editors, with thousands of good contributions. Let's not make a big deal of nothing, forget the talk about bans, block and all those things, and just continue to work on together. Especially in this case, where I feel something close to nothing is being blown up out of proportion. All in all, this project is benefiting from the varied input from all editors. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, background: Davidbena and I first met at Talk:Bayt Nattif in early 2015, at which time he admitted that he knew "absolutely nothing " about the Arab history. Since then I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...).

Lately he has, however, used some rather partisan Hebrew sources.

I wasn't going to support a topic ban...until I saw this edit by him, made after this thread was opened(!) Here Davidbena inserts a Joseph Tabenkin source again....after just being told by a virtual unanimous crowd on WP:RS/N that it wasn't acceptable(!). He seems to suffer from an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Therefor;

I support a 6 month topic ban, and if it is implemented, then I strongly urge Davidbena to use that time to read some books from "the opposite side"...and not only hear the viewpoints of Haganah commanders, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. This is incorrect. The view of some editors there was that Joseph Tabenkin could indeed be used as a source if it were first premised with the words, "According to Joseph Tabenkin, etc.," and supported by a Secondary source. I did just that. This was in accordance with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread seen here.Davidbena (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, people can see here, what the RSN said about this. Benny Morris, 2004, never mentions Joseph Tabenkin, except on p. 464, where he mention that Tabenkin was "a major proponent of transfer in the Israeli political arena". Or Ethnic cleansing, as that would be called today. Tabenkin might be mentioned in Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jérusalem; alas, they were not academics; if you want O Jérusalem accepted as a RS on 1948 war related topics, then I'm afraid you will have to go WP:RSN again, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose I do not support the ban of Davidbena here at ANI as it seems more like an anarchic attempt at democracy. I find that David is highly partisan and, within the very limited contact I've had with him, seems to be here to promote Pro-Israeli POV without any attempt at NPOV. But I feel also that my, albeit limited, interaction with David would make me seem, to any reasonable outside observer, biased. As this relates to ARBPIA, I feel it is going to be a disorganized mess full of Pro-Israeli partisans and Pro-Palestinian partisans, making it hard to determine the over all consensus on this matter. I take this as a request to apply ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and I take from WP:ACDS that WP:ARE would be the appropriate venue for this. While I can't say that ANI here can't take this action, I question if ANI should, and my opinion is no.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:AE is totally unsuited for this kind of problem. At AE, two or three diffs of clear violations of discretionary sanctions are required. ANI is the place to handle a case where someone consistently shows WP:CIR problems in a sensitive area. The problems (see OP) include the WP:RSN debacle and repeatedly using phrases like "clear tendency for POV editing" to describe other editors. The problems might be excusable for a newish editor or one not working to push a partisan view in a sensitive area, but Davidbena has been editing for five years and has over 20,000 edits. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

::*I was assuming above there was more than three clear examples and an over all longterm pattern that has developed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Davidbena's problem is the total lack of clue as shown, for example, in the RSN discussion about whether a self-published source should be used for a non-trivial fact in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Combined with that were the attacks on the integrity of the editor who did the right thing by removing the inappropriate source. It's impossible to provide a couple of diffs which show the problem because each diff would be dismissed as just showing bad judgment with a "minor" issue of casting aspersions. AE requires much clearer issues such as diffs of edit warring or strong personal attacks. At ANI, the big picture can be considered—is Davidbena's overall behavior such that a topic ban is warranted, regardless of the rules of AE? The answer is yes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Having just finished our Sabbath-day of rest and coming back to my computer to see this barrage of attacks, well, you can imagine my surprise. Frankly speaking, I think that you are being a little too harsh with me. Anyone looking at my edits and my communications with our fellow co-editors will see, without any doubt in my mind, how that I have persistently pursued a course of balance and neutral editing in all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I cannot understand why anyone here would think that this is wrong, after all, Wikipedia policies support WP:NPOV. As for my worries about our co-editor, Huldra, and what I thought may be somehow related to a POV-based edit (based on many previous conversations I've had with her and her clear pro-Palestinian Arab stand, versus my own pro-Israeli stand) - although in all my edits having emphasized our need to remain unbiased and to paint a broader neutral picture, I can see nothing wrong with a person turning to those in a position of authority for addressing such suspicions (whether they be founded or unfounded) and without that person having to fear reprisals because he had turned to them for their impartial judgment. In the final analysis, my conscience is clear. I wish for us to work together in perfect harmony and without misrepresenting facts.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based off WP:CIR issues as shown at RSN, plus inappropriate musings about editors' ethnic backgrounds, requests for admins of specific national origins, etc. Link: [134]. Too much disruption from this editor, in a sensitive topic area where editors are expected to have a clue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban Just another attempt to remove editor with certain WP:YESPOV that some other editors don't like and goes against their own WP:POV. --Shrike (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - based on the evidence presented by Johnuniq and K.e. coffman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban after reading the discussions linked above. Everybody has a POV in some area or other, it's part of being human, but the issue here seems to be a persistent refusal to listen to any arguments that contradict his own POV, combined with disruptive/chilling comments about other editors and their backgrounds. It is not just a temporary loss of cool, which again is a common and human thing, but a long-term pattern from what I can tell. --bonadea contributions talk
• Support - Unless this stops: [135][136][137][138] Xavexgoem (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. An indefinite topic ban is way too hard. David has great difficulties in grasping the fact that different views can legitimately exist, and that the best guide is not independent or personal research, but looking at the consensus of professional academic sources. He does however read a lot, and that commends the idea that we should encourage him to take time off, reflect on policy and practice, and hopefully return to work here. I think 3 months is fair. If thereafter, there is no improvement, the indefinite ban would kick in. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of you may not know it, but despite my differences with User:Huldra, we have often worked together to improve many articles here, working together in a collaborative spirit. I think that she can attest to this (e.g. Allar, Jerusalem, Surif, Az-Zakariyya, Khirbet al-Deir, etc.). Our cooperation has been far greater than our disputes over content. Still, should two editors working on the same article be afraid to express their views about each other on Talk-Pages? I don't think so. We have often spoken about our private views and dislikes in these Talk-Pages (e.g. Talk:Husan, Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis/Archive 1, Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names, Talk:List of military occupations). Sometimes callow editors hoping to make their first impression can be quick to judge others without looking at the full picture. Sad is the day if, on Wikipedia, we cannot discuss freely with our fellow co-editors our concerns and raise with them our suspicions without being punished. At least I can remember being taught that "open rebuke is better than secret love." Until now, my opinion of Wikipedia has been a good one. I sincerely hope that it remains that way. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Having considered all that was said and done by me, and since there is no man who sees his own disabilities - and I being no exception - I wish to apologize if I wrongly insulted a person here, among my fellow co-editors. I deeply apologize for coming across as rude, and believe me when I say that I respect every man's contribution here. Every man/woman has his/her special talents and abilities, whose mission here cannot easily be filled by others. I'm fully convinced of that. Perhaps, too, my upbringing as a Yeshiva student may have something to do with how others perceive me here, since we are taught to revel in debate and to challenge certain views in order to get to the truth. This should not be seen as a detriment (in my humble opinion), but something peculiar to a group of people who sincerely want to know the truth. Again, please accept my sincere apologies.Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from ARBPIA topics. This is an extremely sensitive area of the project, and editors who volunteer there should not have to wrangle with someone who, despite 5 years and over 21,000 edits to Wikipedia, seems to lack basic comprehension of what it means to be a reliable source. Efforts to educate Davidbena otherwise appear to be unproductive. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, no one has ever accused me of tendentious editing. And while we do discuss heated topics on the articles' Talk-Pages, I have ALWAYS conceded to consensus. Here, in fact, the reason I am being brought before this board for an alleged "breach of etiquette" is because I filed an ANI complaint against User:Huldra for deleting material of historical importance without first referring the matter to the article's Talk-Page. My mistake. From there, everything blew out of proportion. Whatever the case might be, I humbly submit myself to any verdict that the jurors of this board may decide fitting for me, in hopes that I will not offend anymore.Davidbena (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would Huldra have to "refer the matter to the article's Talk-Page" before making an edit? Unless the matter had been discussed before, and there was a standing consensus against the removal, Huldra is perfectly free to make a WP:BOLD edit without consulting with other editors. If his edit is disputed, then -- in the best of all possible worlds -- WP:BRD kicks in an Huldra should discuss it with other editors on the talk page to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, but there does not have to be a consensus beforehand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, again, that was my mistake. I'm sorry about that. I'll know better next time.Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It's not that any single conversation is incredibly egregious (though that stuff about someone being married to an Arab was really out there). It's that the user keeps having these repeated run-ins, especially over reliable sources, and does not seem to change their behavior at all. Their problems with repeated long-winded discussion about reliable sources go beyond just what would pop up searching "Davidbena" over at WP:RSN. It also shows up all over talk pages: [139] (where they first argue for the Bible as an "authenticated historical source" and then suggest a first-century (!) writer's retelling of biblical stories as a "secondary source"), [140] (where they try to argue that the Bible plus personal Yemini friends add up to an authority on the etymology of an ancient place-name), [141] (where he argues that only a Yeminite source (!) can falsify a particular claim about someone's birthdate -- other sources don't count). The stuff just goes on and on. All you have to do is type "Davidbena" and "reliable" into a Wikipedia talk page search and it just rolls out. Repeated enough times, this kind of stuff has a corrosive effect on collaboration here. A whole bunch of different editors, over and over, haven't been able to get through on this. Competence isn't optional. Alephb (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Orlando rangeblock for MusicLover650

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

---

Relative to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, the range Special:Contributions/2603:9001:985:7B00:0:0:0:0/64, from Orlando, Florida, has been active for the past two weeks. Can we stop the disruption? This person often engages in genre warring, and is especially persistent in puffing up the "associated acts" parameter of the musician infobox. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Done for one month. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass edits by IP address

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

---

User 2605:E000:9149:A600:B0BD:BEA8:89BB:89CD [142] is going around mass editing articles referring to Companions of the Order of the Bath and other orders of knighthjood in the mistaken belief that they were knights. (ie does not understand the subject it is editing.) Can someone please run a mass revert of its edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think all those ones have been undone. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

More eyes on Steve Gottwalt, please?

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

---

97.88.37.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would appear to be whitewashing Steve Gottwalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Would someone else please take a look at the edit history? Much of the conversation is on my talk page: user talk:Jim1138#Edits to Steve Gottwalt Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - There's definitely issues with the edits made by this user (namely, unexplained removal of content and the replacement of referenced content with unreferenced content). This user has been warned for COI and is on a final warning basis for disruptive editing to the article. At this point, the user will be blocked if any such disruption occurs again - but I cannot block the user now; they're not currently disrupting the project at this time so a block is not justified. If you see the user cause disruption again, file a report at AIV (or file another report at ANI), or let me know and I'll be happy to step in and take action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Steve6187 also stated he is Steve Gottwalt and has been using an edit request. Other editors familiar with BLPs have cleaned up the article. So the issue seems resolved at this time. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Cool deal; thanks for letting me know. I'll go ahead and close this discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Despite numerous requests to get User:Qexigator to discuss his edits in relation to WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE) whose conclusion included:

• Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption.

and

• it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section off this small amount of almost unrelated content.

As a result I politely repeated my original questions and specifically reminded him to discuss the contribution and not myself diff. I also pinged other major contributors to the article to gather additional viewpoints.

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

• Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. diff

again discussing me rather than his contribution and implying that I am not interested in NPOV, and in removing a thread (which he opened) on his talk page diff his edit summary says, rmv previous (TVF incursion]). - definition of incursion.

Please note this matter was previously subject to a 3RR report: 3RRArchive372#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale).

Additional info: These threads may also be informative Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote and Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Genesis and branding of the Brexit and, as background to both of those, Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated: And now User:Qexigator is insulting me behind my back - an unduly uptight or humourless person (unlike the equable undersigned) might take offence, as if it were a "Personal attack" and persist with pointlessly vendetta-like conduct diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Please could someone look at possibly rangeblocking the 86.99 (and possibly the 2.49) address on this list. They pop up pretty much every single day between 10am and 2pm (UK time) making the same disruptive edits time and time again. They were previously rangeblocked under their 39.57 range in May 2018. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I range blocked Special:Contributions/86.99.16.0/21 and Special:Contributions/86.99.216.0/21 for a month. It's harder to figure out workable range blocks for the other one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this person doesn't care about German sports clubs, it might be Special:Contributions/2.49.184.0/21 and Special:Contributions/2.49.8.0/21. I didn't range block them. Let me know if there's more disruption from 2.49 IP editors. If I'm right about this, range blocks should be workable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, NRP. It's saved myself, @Spike 'em: and @Widr: some precious extra minutes of work each day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User:RK

This user added to article Semitic neopaganism content about Cohenet Institute. Because it isn't neopagan organisation, it was deleted. Currently he started to insulting users who delete his spam as vandals and pathological liars, and he try to convince me that I think that CI are Ortodox Jew, what is completely irrational, because I don't think so and never wrote something ever close to that. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The false vandal-name-calling is going both ways here, see this edit by the filing party, over this garden-variety content dispute. Both editors should be admonished to stop talking about one another, to try to work the matter out on the article talk page and, if that doesn't work, to use dispute resolution once they can show that they've made enough effort to discuss it that the DR processes will take the request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:HenrikStyle

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

---

HS has been contacted by me and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. I have sent them seven messages about this - in between all the messages, HS was editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response. They have beThey have been editing for 10 months and do know how to add references accurately, but often don't do so. After trying for a few weeks, I'm opening the discussion here in the hope they engage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another WP:RADAR user. They don’t appear to have been around since this discussion was started, but if they return without addressing any of this a block is in order. Refusing to communicate is essentaially a rejection of the idea that this is a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-opening; was auto-archived. HenrikStyle stopped editing briefly when I opened the ANI but has returned and still not responded to the messages or added references. They have continued to add pieces of unsourced information like [143] to articles. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An indef would help here to prevent further disruption until they respond on their talk page explaining their position. Lourdes 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've indeffed them until they explain. I've watchlisted their talk but if you need me more urgently, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Warning - potentially compromised account (mine!)

Long story short - if any editor sees unusual activity on this account such as completely deleting a new section as per [144], please undo immediately & apologise on my behalf. I have a years long edit history & demonstrates I'd never delete sections/comments on Talk Pages (other than another similar, mysterious, delete in the last fortnight). I've changed email/Wiki passwords but if the security issue is at my end that may not be enough. Asking at Helpdesk as to how to obtain IP & device data [145] but if my account is 'RAT'ted that may not help. Have updated User Page as 'potentially compromised account'. Thanks AnonNep (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as compromised. Based on my check, the likely scenario is someone used AnonHep's computer while they were logged in, or someone has access to AH's computer and knows the password. Changing passwords may not resolve the situation. Also, the recentness of the example AH gives above makes it clear that the account should not be unblocked without very convincing evidence that the account is no longer vulnerable. Assuming that's not forthcoming, AH should create a new account with a declaration on their userpage of the connection with their old account.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps they should also format their device as it may also be likely that someone's placed a keylogger on their device (one reason why, despite changing passwords, they weren't able to avoid the account getting compromised repeatedly). Maybe they should change their device altogether... (or the obsessive girlfriend :D I've done it to my beau, so can imagine). Lourdes 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you've put a keylogger on your significant other's device? Natureium (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone? EEng 21:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not on the "significant other's device" :D Lourdes 00:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Then there was that time I put a keylogger on the significant other... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The edit was a rollback. You have edited the page many times in the last month so I guess it's on your watchlist. At the help desk you said "I was online but elsewhere with only watchlist open." The watchlist for users with the rollback right has a [rollback] link which only requires one click with no confirmation. I and many others have made accidental rollbacks. That seems more likely than a compromised account. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I installed User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js in my preferences. - Donald Albury 17:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Primehunter is probably right and in all probability, that's what may have actually happened. The problem is, one can't be too(less?) careful about such an incident. Lourdes 00:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I unblock? I've just tweaked the block, since even if AnonNep's account has been compromised, there's no reason to autoblock her IP or to restrict her ability to create new accounts. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Based on the post by the account on their Talk page, I don't think an unblock is a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I'd missed that. Thank you for the pointer. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the truly exceptional situation explained in that post, I've restored autoblock and re-prevented account creation. Obviously we don't want to prevent account creation if a random person has merely guessed your account's password, but when it's a matter of gaining access to your network to cause harassment, WP:IAR. My reblock summary has a reminder that an unblock can be requested via email if desired and a note that it should be accepted readily. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

<Redacted> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage!!! Absolutely uncalled for and ridiculous comment! I am sorry but I should suggest you strike it immediately. Lourdes 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, post anything like that again and you get blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm off out for a few hours now, but can I just offer a thought before I go? We often have immediate reactions when we examine a situation, but before offering our thoughts in public (particularly on one of the most widely read of Wikipedia's noticeboards, which already has a reputation for toxicity) we should really exercise a little judgment on the way. We should ask ourselves is it a fair way to treat someone who, while having problems of their own, has cared enough to put Wikipedia's security first? Is it something that will actually help the situation in any way? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't saying it as an insult. Was saying it as "<redacted>" But I guess trying to explain irrational behavior is ban worthy... --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You have just done it AGAIN! Come on, Tarage, THINK before you open your mouth! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

NLT warning

I just received a warning that my editing on Steven Kunes would get me reported to Wikipedia legal, by "several editors". I've given the editor an WP:NLT warning, but would appreciate further eyes on the situation. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have started a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard discussion concerning the article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Editing_at_Steven_Kunes.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: - I've notified the editor of this topic. I tried to engage them on your talkpage, but no reply as of yet. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor seems to be disengaging from the topic, and I don't think these legal threats are serious. We should definitely keep an eye on that article but I'm unsure administrative action will achieve much at the moment. -- Luk ^talk 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who worked a bit on that article ... last year, I think? ... I think the semi-protection was wise, but I'd like to reiterate the call for more eyes on it from the opposite angle, that of BLP. I've posted to the talk page about my strong feeling that we now have an attack piece. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:46.49.81.19's disruptive editing

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

---

Hello, everyone. I'm asking you for assistance in taking action against User:46.49.81.19. This user constantly removes rows from "Airlines and destinations" tables in Minsk National Airport and Tbilisi International Airport articles, while never leaving edit summaries. All of his ~40 edits has already been reverted, and here is this user's contributions history. Also, 3 comments have been left on the user's talk page in May, July, and August, but there is no single reply and, as I understand it, the user hasn't taken into consideration neither of this comments. I'm not sure if the user's actions represent vandalism or disruptive editing because of my relatively little experience in Wikipedia, so I hope you'll take the necessary decision. Thanks! Flexovich (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have left them a warning. If the behaviour continues, a long term block on that IP might be more effective since they do not seem to be willing to engage. -- Luk ^talk 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sarah Jeong: Potential disruption and potentially inappropriate (as controversial and non-notable) edits to a protected, contentious page

I would really appreciate if an administrator could step in and review what's going on in this talk page: Talk:Sarah Jeong. I would also request that the edits which have been hastily pushed through in the past two days (without community consensus on a locked, contentious page) be reverted so they can be voted on as they are supposed to be and so that consensus can be reached. It would seem appropriate to revert the page back to this version [146] at this time so that those edits pushed through can be reconsidered; I would have personally argued against many of them as being non-notable bits of information designed to fluff up an article about a controversial figure (See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight).

See my first request for administrator attention here: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Request_for_administrator_attention_Re:_article_protected_status

Thank you kindly, Ikjbagl (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a content issue, which ANI doesn't deal with. You can seek dispute resolution, but if you open a case there you will need to point out what it is in the current version that is controversial, in comparison to the old version you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at the article talkpage is a mess with editors apparently retreating to their ideological corners and talking past each other (contrast the proposed additions and the sources being discussed in these two sections), unfortunately reflecting the real-world response to this controversy. And, while additional admin attention is welcome, User:Drmies and I are already are keeping an eye at the page and what is really needed is involvement of neutral editors experienced with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I'll re-post a request at WP:BLPN.

As for the edits made after the page was protected, those are routine non-controversial improvements (implemented by me in response to open {{edit-protected}} requests on the page) that I believe shouldn't be held hostage to the unrelated dispute over the tweet-controversy. If any other admin disagrees, please let me know here or on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Abecedare, I saw the good work you were doing there and I thank you for it--and I saw you got shit for thanks in response to your quick response to edit requests. I have taken a less active approach than you, since my first foray into the article. For one, it's all so hot off the press, and there's so many new editors coming from a very specific angle, and so many of them simply aren't aware of our policies, that frequently diving into that talk page is just a waste of time. I wanted to leave a single note the other day and spent ten minutes first wading through the history just to figure out who wrote what among all those unsigned, undated, unindented messages. In the meantime someone opened up a thread at DRN (because NOT-NOTNEWS...), and I just dropped a note on the ArbCom noticeboard since this has GAMERGATE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hydra sprouting tentacles a la Gamergate! Since I logged on an hour back, I've responded to related posts at the article talkpage, my talkpage, here at ANI, and at BLPN. And that's leaving aside discussions at Talk:Kevin D. Williamson, DRN, the arbcom talkpage, and who knows where else. <smh> Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, Ikjbagl. If you think that the difference between this and this is fluffing, you don't know much about article writing. For starters, compare the leads: the one is just a collection of loose factoids followed by the acme of weakness, "and has also written articles ..." with links to, guess, what, those articles, not secondary sources; the other is short, elegant, and summarizes the article. I see what you're doing, though, and wish you good luck with it. Let me just note that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and blackballing the admin who made the uncontroversial edits that improved the article and were suggested on the talk page is not a good way to start this off. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies and Abecedare, I'm seeing a serious problem here. There's a quite substantial amount of coverage about racism here, and not just from partisan references. ([147], [148] (CNN isn't exactly known as a right-wing mouthpiece), [149] (the BBC is hardly noted as being partisan either). When the material is that well-covered, it is not a BLP issue, it is a content dispute. Full protection and suppression of the issue is absolutely inappropriate here. That's use of protection in a quite legitimate case of a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The protection has been applied not to suppress mention of the issue, but to allow editors to arrive at a consensus on how to mention it. See the note I left on the article talkpage when I raised the protection level from semi to full. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Seraphimblade: Judging from the amount of edit warring that was going on I fail to see how full protection can be called "absolutely inappropriate". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It was an edit warring and BLP issue. If you think (as you seem to suggest below) that the BLP is satisfied as long as content is verified, then you are wrong. Moreover, kindly look at this edit, for instance, and note that there is no secondary sourcing. And afterward, when some secondary sourcing is in, all while this matter is piping hot and nothing is settled in the press, there is a serious question of UNDUE.Seraphimblade, surely you know, as an admin, that the BLP is much more complicated than just "it's verified". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Drmies, the question is always "Verified by whom?" If an editor puts into an article "John Doe molested 50 children", with no source, that's most certainly a BLP issue and should be handled as such. If they put in the same edit "referenced" to a crappy, unreliable source, same applies. On the other hand, if they put in "Doe was accused of molesting children", and reference that to highly reliable sources indicating Doe does indeed face such an accusation, that is not a BLP issue. In this case, highly reliable sources cover the accusation of racism regarding this individual. How and whether to present those accusations are a content question, not a BLP question, and are properly resolved by discussion on the talk page, not use of protection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Seraphimblade, but for the duration of that edit war they were "verified" by the tweets themselves, with editorial commentary thrown in for good measure. You know that's not acceptable. Secondary sourcing came later--with the "UNDUE" accusation in response, which also needs to be taken seriously. And "highly reliable source" is also a misnomer in this case, as first of all coverage is still developing and second corrections and modifications are made--didn't that happen to the NYT article? It sounds as if you're speaking in general, not about this article in specific. But in general, if that's what you prefer, in BLPs we should err on the side of caution, as editors and as admins. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tossed a suggestion based on NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM to wait it out two weeks to see if the coverage is still there.

As a broader point, we need this type of hold-off-and-wait approach on a LOT more of these ideologically driven controversies, regardless which way the wind is blowing in them. While externally the controversy seems manufactured, internally, I think the increased interest in the article from new/IP editors, based on comments there, is due what would appear to be hypocritical nature in how WP covers these types of controversies (we rush and have no problem including criticism of the right, but take a lot of care to consider criticism of the left), which I think needs to be taken into account in how this overall editing behavior and content problem should be handled. Hence the wait-and-see delay. --Masem (t) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "amount of edit warring" was mainly by one editor who repeatedly reverted (way over 3RR), falsely claiming "BLP" when in fact the issue is well sourced. There are administrative actions which are appropriately suited to handling that, but full protection of the article on that editor's preferred version aren't it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Look again. Edit warring just continued right on happening after the one editor was blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See also this related thread on BLPN (not about the same subject, but others in the same recent campaign, it seems). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the protection should be allowed to expire tomorrow. Anyone who cares to get blocked under discretionary sanctions is welcome to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t dug to deep into this but this sounds like the kind of “cut the crap” approach I am generally in favor of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That is how I intended it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

At least worth a try. I'll alert the current participant of the applicable BLP ruling later today (anyone is welcome to beat me to it). Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note - A thread was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard by the filing party for this dispute. It has been closed for various reasons, including lack of an identified content dispute, and that it is forum shopping when this thread is also open. Also, if an editor doesn't know how to determine what administrator has been making non-contentious edits through protection in response to edit requests, please ask for advice at the teahouse or the Help Desk rather than dragging the whole community to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you place it in the passive voice when you closed it? Asking for a friend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did I state in the passive voice that it was closed rather than in the active voice that I closed it? Because two other editors had said that they thought it was not an appropriate dispute for DRN, so that I was not merely acting on my own but with (I think) their concurrence. In any case, it isn't a good dispute for DRN, whether or not it is a good dispute for ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Were these from neutral editors or people who had participated in the edit war?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the other two editors was User:Drmies, a respected administrator who was trying to resolve the edit war. The other editor was another DRN volunteer, entirely neutral, who thought that it was not a good fit for DRN. DRN isn't designed to handle cases with 28 named editors. The one dispute resolution procedure that is appropriate with 28 or more identified editors is a Request for Comments, in which all of the editors can !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone and checked out the article history and the participation of the people you name. Thank you for your candor.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the kind adjective--that's the second time today, so it must be true! Srsly, your note made me realize that indeed there was supposed to be (sorry for the passive, Wehwalt) dispute resolution with 28 PARTIES. Holy moly! So I guess you closed it? That makes sense. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I closed it for multiple reasons, including the 28 parties. The only method of dispute resolution that works with 28 parties is an RFC. Normally a dispute resolution request with more than about 8 parties is a device by an editor who wishes to fight a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Drmies, in case you didn't notice, my previous edit brought peace to AN/I for nothing less than 51 minutes. Given that, who can say what is possible? Ta,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: The disruption has spread to Andrew Sullivan. Can some admins and experienced editors watchlist both pages? Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Andrew Sullivan. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The talkpage is full of agenda-pushing, non-neutral point-of-view pushers. Even discussions on AfD are hastily closed by non-admins, when the article itself is fully protected. This article deserves more neutral-admin involvement. Nergaal (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Nergaal seems determined to continue personal attacks ("go push your agenda elsewhere troll", "Continous vandalism. this is a request for discussion that is silenced by a small group fo whiteknights.", etc) and to keep what seems to me a very spurious AfD on her open, violating WP:3RR in the process. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin stepping in. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would like an admin to comment how an AfD on a fully-protected article is allowed to be hastily closed by a small group of non-neutral, involved editors that are not admins themselves. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal - When an article is fully protected, that doesn't mean that you get to go to the article's talk page and throw the AFD template there. The point of full protection is that you discuss the issues and disputes on the article's talk page and work things out. Why couldn't you just wait until the full protection expired before tagging the article? And why did you result to uncivil personal attacks (such as with your edit here) in the AFD discussion? Your recent edits have absolutely been over-tenacious, disruptive, unneeded, and uncivil. The 24 hour block I imposed upon you will probably be seen as much too short, but I'm hoping that it's all that's necessary to get this to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Only noting that the fact that the lack of any coverage of the controversy is now hitting (conservative) news sources [150] which means that we're going to start seeing even more IP/new editors there. --Masem (t) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: See the subthread I have started on the related thread down below: [151]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• If you liked the first AfD, you'll love the second! (The nominator, ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs), seems to really want the discussion to spill over onto my talk page, too [152], in a borderline-personal-attack-ish way [153].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs) removed a "keep" !vote from that AfD, claiming it was a personal attack [154], and isn't bothering to read the article being debated [155]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, and they modified another user's comment with a deceptive edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated edits against consensus by GTVM92

The user has a history of edit warring in 2017–18 Iranian protests. I had reported him at ANI:3RR for his problematic editing pattern (Case 1, Case 2) Consequently, He was warned by the admins against continuing his edit wars. For instance, see the latest warning. However, I think he's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT since he still edits against the consensus persistently:

• Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#June protests, [156] and [157] show there's a consensus on not adding further protests to this page.
• GTVM92's edit wars [158] and [159] although he was told about it.

Admins please take care of it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) :Article is fully now protected. Everyone involved will need to discuss the disputes at-hand and come to a consensus before editing can continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

...and the current version is against the former consensus on the article talk. Do you always neglect edit warrings by a user whom you've already warned? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Forgive me. I think I got my wires mixed up here. I've removed the protection I applied. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah: Many thanks for unlocking the article. Although I know you're always kind with editors, I should say that the reported user has acted against your last warning at least two times. That would make him put no value for the consensus made by others. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Yeah, sorry about the protection. My brain got itself into a stupid mix-up earlier... *sigh*. Checking... Taking another look at this user's talk page and other factors - stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome Oshwah: Never mind. In my eyes, you were trying to do the right thing and there's always a chance of having mistakes. Thanks for taking care of it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Since it's been many hours since the user's last edit, applying a block to this user right now wouldn't be a justifiable action. Let's keep this discussion open. I've asked GTVM92 to explain himself below, and I'll leave a comment on his user talk page. If the user modifies the article against the established consensus again, my options outside of enforcing a block will be limited - especially if they don't participate in this discussion and respond to my question below... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning and notice has been left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah: I saw that, thank you. Although I think his persistent acts against the talk page is clearly observable, your final decision on this is certainly respected. You're really kind just as your photo shows. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

GTVM92 - What's the deal with the repeated edits and despite being told about a consensus that you're editing against? It's been pointed out to you that there's an existing discussion on the article's talk page here where consensus has been reached regarding what protests belong on this article and which don't... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why you warned me?! I only add the REAL news to the article and Mhhossein are removing them. All we know that in Iran are a series of the protests since last December but Mhhossein are tries to deny it! Why he do this?! Because he tries to cover the truth. I REALLY did not understand what different is between the protests! In one persons wants regime change and in other praised the regime?! What is different between economic and political issues protests?! If you see other protests, they have different causes. GTVM92 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here, on Wikipedia, we do not right WP:great wrongs, or get to the WP:truth. We edit based on well-sourced facts, with consensus. The latter part is important; even if we feel we are right, we must abide by what the community has decided. Regardless of what one feels is right, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and must be treated as such. Now, note that consensus can change, but the correct way to work on establishing consensus is to use the talk page. Edit warring is unacceptable. You could be correct; these could be a continuation of the previous protests. But using the talk page is the way to go about it, not edit warring. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about an almost unanimous consensus, not a personal viewpoint. Oshwah: Can you see the user's personal attack against me? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

GTVM92 should discuss - however they are now particpating in the discussion. The previous discussion had one editor that is now known to be a banned sock. It was also closed improperly by a particpant in the discussion itself. The current discussion (per the present RSes which seem to be changing and linking more) at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#Why separate pages?! is ongoing.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion close - [160] by Mhhossein less than an hour after reverting GTVM92 [161], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[162] Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had problems with this too! I said it here. It was just one of Mhhossein's unfair edits. GTVM92 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz:Are you going to say that there was no consensus? You have made numerous reverts based in the discussion I closed and it's now bizarre you're questioning my closure. That was certainly in accordance with what the users, including YOU, said. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have indeed reverted GTVM92 per the consensus at the time, and indeed I supported the position these should be separate (though my present opinion - given coverage of the August events which does, in part, treat the current events jointly with Dec/Jan - is on the fence). Closing discussions - per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure is to be performed by "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions" - which was most certainly not the case here - the close was highly improper - closure should not be done by an involved party when another party shows up and challenges the situation - that's the sort of situation where discussion should continue, and such a closure hampers discussion. I also think that taking this to AN/I was premature - both in terms of GTVM92's edits and in terms of the strength of consensus (which has decreased since the improper close). I do not endorse GTVM92's editing practices - he should be discussing more - however he has been engaging in talk.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)fs

My English is not good as must be for discussing professional :( GTVM92 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Your comment is highly misleading; That I have closed the discussion does not touch the already built consensus on the talk page. You're position is not definite here and seems you're merely opposing me, since, if you admit there was a consensus (based on which you yourself made some reverts), then GTVM92 had been edit warring given his lack of participation in TP, specially in the period after my closure and the recent August developments, and given the previous warnings he was given, it was correct to report him here. FOH, if you don't admit there was a consensus, why did you revert the users referring to he consensus. So, don't try to deflect this discussion. However, I'm not saying new consensus can't be built, since there might be new sources with different contents than we saw in the past. So, yes GTVM92 was edit warring, since he was acting against a consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This report was filed after GTVM92 attempted, following developments in August (and there have been developments - new protests which seem to be linked by RS to the Dec/Jan ones), to extend the protests to present 3 times on the page. This was in contravention of an inappropriately closed talk-page section (not a RFC) in which one of 4 participants was a banned sock, dated back to 2 July 2018. This is a low threshold for filing an AN/I report. As for the actions by Mhhossein - inappropriately closing a discussion [163] (closely after reverting [164], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[165]) - would seem to be actions that strongly inhibit discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Another misleading comment by Icewhiz. No, at least one of his reverts were done before attempting to build consensus. Btw, stop repeating "inappropriate", "inappropriate",... that does not make your comments sound appropriate. You're supporting an edit warrer. Drop the stick. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of TFD, ignorance of consensus, and mass reverts by Sportsfan 1234

Sportsfan 1234 opposes the implementation of the {{Olympic events sidebar}} sidebar series on articles pertaining to Olympic events, which replaces outdated sidebar templates made years prior. To my knowledge, they have not once stated why they disagree with them, other than that there was no consensus for these templates to be updated. Two years ago, he made a comment that "I do not agree with the change. However, there needs to be a discussion on this." See Figure 1. Two years later, Sportsfan 1234 had indeed started a discussion on TFD on 17 July 2018, but instead of having a good faith discussion on the purpose of the templates, they instead attempted to mislead TFD by removing all uses of the templates and then simply claiming that the templates were "unused", not mentioning that they were the one that put them out of use. See Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 from 17 July, hours and minutes before the discussion began. The discussion resulted in a keep on 25 July, with a consensus that the templates would be useful, especially with some accessibility fixes. Primefac, who closed the discussion, stated that "Bad faith removals in order to claim it is "unused" will result in administrative sanctions", and that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held at a centralized location". However, Sportsfan 1234 has ignored both the consensus of this discussion and Primefac's advice, opting instead to once again make mass reverts without raising a second discussion at WikiProject Olympics. Not only this, but they have seemed to have blindly made reverts to all my recent contributions to Olympic event articles, and not just contributions that added the new sidebars. In Figure 5, we see that they have reverted by fixes to the syntax of {{Infobox Olympic event}}, including new images, and updates to the formatting of dates, venue names, event names, ect. according to today's standards by WikiProject Olympics, and additions of {{Use dmy dates}}. Similar things can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

In addition, these actions have caused collateral damage to other users' updates to articles that don't necessarily have anything to do with me or {{Olympic events sidebar}}. In Figure 8 we see that Sportsfan 1234 has reverted a completely reasonable update to a wikitable in Archery at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team by Jonel as part of his revert spree. Some of these edits have been reconciled, as we can see in Figure 9, but none of my contributions have been reconciled, leading me to believe that this was not a user simply trying to remove uses of {{Infobox Olympic event}} and cleaning up after to save face, but a directed attack at my contributions regardless of whether or not they involved {{Olympic events sidebar}}, removing all updated {{Infobox Olympic event}} templates and additions of {{Use dmy dates}} without explanation or reason. This behaviour is malicious and is a massive, unnecessary roadblock in my ability to update articles to modern standards. I'd want to see some disciplinary action be made against Sportsfan 1234, if anything, so that the consensus from a discussion that they started can be upheld and that otherwise uncontroversial updates that I and other users make to aging articles can also be upheld. Jonel has started a discussion on WikiProject Olympics in lieu of Sportsfan 1234 not doing so, but given he's already ignored one consensus, who's to say he won't ignore the consensus of this one too if it also ends up reaffirming support for the new templates? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Its completely disruptive to edit against consensus as per [166]. Such a huge change requires a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Bringing them to TFD was an obvious mistake, I admit. It wasn't done with mallicouness, but rather ignorance. I genuinely thought the discussion from two years ago was against the use of these templates. I left you a message (twice, once at TFD, and at your talk page) to start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion. All I know is that they were not "approved" per consensus at WP:OLYMPICS. "But given he's already ignored one consensus", can you please point out where I ignored consensus?? I am not sure and would like to know, because a) had I known there was a consensus would not have violated it at all. That's why talk page discussions are helpful!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As for figures 5/6/7, pictograms of the respective sport is used in infoboxes, as per standard. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As detailed above, the TFD discussion you started resulted in a keep. Primefac stated that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held". You ignored both Primefac and the consensus reached at TFD and started reverting edits once more, without raising a second discussion to properly challenge the consensus reached at TFD. The burden is on you to challenge the consensus. You can't logically expect somebody to start a discussion to challenge against a consensus in favour of a change they support. Jonel had to bring up a discussion because you wouldn't. You keep bringing up your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics from two years ago, but that was a four-line dialogue that essentially agreed on holding a discussion. In your words, "However, there needs to be a discussion on this." There was no discussion, however. Not until you raised one at TFD two years later which resulted in a keep. Your excuse that "I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion" is bizarre, especially considering the fact that you eventually did start a discussion which, need I remind you once more, resulted in a keep. Also, edit summaries like this one don't help your case. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I did not follow the tfd discussion till the end. In any case, per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and its up to you to discuss, "the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page". You created the template, and have reasons for implementing it. I do not have any inclination of why it was created nor its benefits/drawbacks, which is why I never started the discussion. There is no way I would be able to summarize a template I have no knowledge of why it was created. I find it odd you can start a discussion here but could not start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a case of WP:BRD because a consensus to keep the template and replace the old ones was reached. Just because you didn't pay attention to the outcome of the discussion you started doesn't mean you can ignore it completely. If you really wanted to know what a template does, you could've either inquired about it or read the documentation, and definitely not making disruptive edits against consensus and administrator advice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely not call that TFD a consensus to replace the old templates. Precisely three people supported that explicitly, on a template that will be transcluded on what, thousands of pages? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying Sportsfan's actions were justified simply because a consensus was reached, but by only an average amount of people? Also for the record, it was five people, not three. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Sportsfan 1234: "Editing without consensus" is encouraged as a matter of policy. The lack of a formal consensus is not itself a reason to revert edits. Unless there are specific objections (the lack of which is considered a consensus), reverting edits without a reason is disruptive. I'm still not seeing any specific reason you're reverting this editor beyond the very shaky argument that preliminary approval is needed from WP:OLYMPICS. If there's a specific dispute, WP:OLYMPICS would be an ideal location for an RfC, but perhaps you'd like to explain what your problem with the edits exactly is, for starters? Swarm ♠ 05:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is a template is being mass replaced across thousands of articles without any sense of consensus from the Wikiproject. Besides the concerns raised at the TFD about the template, I don't have any concerns at all. In fact, I think consensus for such a big change should be required. Is that too much to ask for ? I don't think a discussion at rfc is required, but a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS, which has already been started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It baffles me why you’re so insistent on having the discussion be held at WikiProject Olympics as when you brought up a discussion, it was at TFD and not WikiProject Olympics. You constantly repeat time and time again your wish to have a discussion at WikiProject Olympics... but you never did that, and went instead to another place to hold the discussion. Why is that, exactly? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm partly with Swarm here. I think there is a difference between being bold and being reckless. If someone is going to mass replace a template across thousands of pages, they should have some discussion first otherwise their editing tends to be disruptive. And I don't think the TFD nor the 2 years old discussions is really sufficient.

However at the same time, reversion should often not be used just because an editor didn't seek consensus. Especially if it involves a lot of pages. If someone has specific concerns and the change wasn't really discussed, it may be acceptable to carry out mass reversion. But not simply because the other editor didn't engage in sufficient discussion. Instead they can ask the other editor to stop and discuss the proposed change. If the editor does then the immediate problem is solved. (If they don't then this is when it's probably okay to bring the discussion to ANI.)

Since no one is aware of any specific problems with the edit, there is no urgent problem needing to be fixed so no reversion. The discussion should be held in good faith with the hope that consensus will be reached. (If consensus really can't be reached, it may be then reasonable to say that the template should be reverted to the former stable one but this is not something to worry about before hand, at most it can be noted at the beginning you think this should happen.) If significant problems are mentioned during the discussion, it may be acceptable to suggest and carry out a mass reversion while the discussion is ongoing but again this needs to be in response to an actual problem, not simply 'it wasn't discussed'. (Remembering also that in the actual discussion, if the editor proposing the change gives reason and the other side simply says 'it wasn't discussed' consensus is in favour of the change.)

Note that this also gets to the heart of another issue. I often say BRD disputes where each side is waiting for the other to initiate discussion are dumb and reflect poorly on both sides. I stick by this here. It's true that Sportsfan 1234 can't explain the advantages etc of the template but they should be able explain the problems and therefore they should be able to initiate discussion. The fact they can't is indication they should not have reverted.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Irrational actions

I do not have a large beef but experience shows that it might be a good idea to throw a little light on the edits of User:JC7V7DC5768.

They have been following me around today complaining that three references I removed (two that failed verification and were tagged as such five years ago, and a third that was a Huffpost source used with four others to support a single claim-- removed per WP:OVERICTE) should have been discussed first on the talk page. Now they have reverted the Huffpost removal again, and removed three Google books references that I had just added. Anyway, small potatoes/potatos. The main point of concern here, whee some light is required is their last message on my talk page: "I believe and know that your edits are not the right format and should not stand, but I am too new to change Wikipedia policy on that. Your edits may technically meet policies of this site, but those policies that allow your edits to stand are wrong." Meanwhile I am manually restoring the good refs s/he deleted.96.127.244.201 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just added 3 new references to the article and added new info. The IP went to my talk page after I dropped the stick to continue to feud with me. I told the IP to discuss his/her ref removal on the talk page per guidelines on WP:Overcite, even if they added new stuff between edits. They didn't listen. I was going to put back the things they added once they went to the talk page but they didn't. I eventually allowed them to add the things they wanted and i expanded the article just now in my last 3 edits.JC7V-constructive zone 05:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, i meant the ambiguity in talk page of article discussions. Removing refs is a big deal and i wish this would get clarity. That's what i want change. All the ips edits are still in the article i just added more sourced stuff. JC7V-constructive zone 05:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

as seen here :

e from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) (cur | prev) 05:51, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,974 bytes) (-4,687)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 05:45, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,661 bytes) (+4,803)‎ . . (→‎1900s) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:39, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,858 bytes) (+322)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 05:34, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,536 bytes) (+325)‎ . . (→‎Recent history: source and update) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:28, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (9,211 bytes) (+142)‎ . . (replace source removed by other editor) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:21, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (9,069 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎1900s: ce) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:19, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (8,920 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎1900s: source) (undo)

I didn't revert any change Mr ip made after his last edit to the article, i added new stuff and sourced it 3 times. I ended the feud but they continued it EVEN AFTER I LET THEIR EDITS STAND. JC7V-constructive zone 05:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly your comment above does not make a lot of sense, nor does the one on my talk page about you not liking that I am following policy, nor does the your recent 5,000 byte addition to the article. If you are new here, why not pull back a bit until you learn more about how it works, rather than leaving pointless warnings, removing excellent sources and bickering? Just leave me to edit the article, don't start a fight. You want to edit it, come back tomorrow and it's all yours. It's a common courtesy not to follow other editors around.96.127.244.201 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't follow you around, your edits come up in the recent changes list. You removed refs and cited WP:Overcite; But WP:Overcite states that you have to discuss certain removals on the article's talk page. I was going to readdd the stuff my reverts took out that you added but you reverted me too quick for you to see that. You came to my talk page after I let it go remember?? And yes I just sourced 1 citation needed thing in the article and added some more recent sourced info to the article. WP Policy on overcite needs to be changed so editors don't use it as an excuse to remove references.JC7V-constructive zone 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we're using Wikipedia as a battleground. JC7V7DC5768: When you remove sources added by another and then state, "your edits may technically meet policies of this site, but those policies that allow your edits to stand are wrong" - this definitely tells me that you're not making these changes to follow policy and with the project in-mind, but to enforce your own agenda and your vision of what you think should be allowed and what shouldn't. That's completely disruptive and needs to stop.

Stop reverting one another, stop this bickering, and leave each other alone. JC7V7DC5768, stop reverting the IP user's changes to the article. 96.127.244.201, please don't continue dragging on issues on JC7V7DC5768's user talk page if things appear to be simmering down or that everyone has moved on. If you two have a dispute, follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and work things out. My main concern is the article... if any edit warring continues or if disruptive editing occurs as the result of this battleground, blocks are going to be handed out, which is something I really don't want to have to be the bad guy and do... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left edit warring notices for the both of you - if any kind of battlegrounds, bickering, edit wars, and tit-for-tat continue to spill over into the mainspace, edit warring blocks will be applied and without any further warnings beforehand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please take a look at this. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for edit warring. I should not have reverted the IP ever. The ip is right i am wrong. WP:Overcite is confusing to me .I am not furthering an agenda, my agenda is helping other editors not to make the mistake i made and to do that, i want WP:Overcite to be made clear to newbies like me and others. to Biwom, yes that's how us people from Tottenville talk, it's a joke 'kill' means baptizing ourselves in the polluted waters of Staten Island when we are angry. But you are not from Staten Island so you won't know. I left that message on the ip's talk page to lighten the mood for him/her after i saw they were upset about Sarah Dejong being protected and them not being able to edit it. I am a Christian who was saved by the lord Jesus in 2005. I've given my life to the lord and he knows how good I am. I've had stage 3 cancer for a year ,so i can't always be mourning. I never edit warred before today either. WP:CITE is very confusing and i do feel that some people can use that as an excuse to wrongly remove references (the ip in this case was right). . JC7V-constructive zone 08:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

JC7V7DC5768 - I completely understand that you're new here and that you're still learning how things work, what all of "the rules" are, and what the right decisions are given situations. We were all new here once, and I'm not going to hold mistakes against you so long as you take the feedback well and you work to let us help you if you get stuck, have questions, or feel frustrated. I don't want you to get the wring impression: reverting an edit made to an article is a normal part of the process and is certainly okay to do. However, we need to be doing so for the right reasons, with the project's best interest in mind, and in situations where an edit war isn't in progress or will become the result. It's a sign of very good decency to apologize and commit to doing what you can to learn and improve. It's okay to have questions or to not fully understand policy - just make sure that you ask someone so that we can help you. The behaviors you don't want to demonstrate are those of someone who makes changes without making sure that they fully understand the relevant policies and guidelines first, or someone who tenaciously edits article content and then gets into edit wars, disputes, and battlegrounds with other editors and over policies or procedures that they don't understand. Please know that we're here to help you, and that we'll be more than happy to do so. All you need to do is ask :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads up: Zhu Ming biography with name variations

To note that I have recently semi-protected Zhu Ming, which was/is currently a redirect. The contributor in that history has been repeatedly creating xwiki biographies at enWQ, enWQ, and other wikis of this "philosopher", "thinker", and other variations of name and contents of parentheses (examples: Ming Zhu, Zhe Zhe, Zhu Zhe). It is my hearty recommendation that any attempts to create a biography are thoroughly considered prior to letting them remain in the main namespace. The user generally edits as IP address, and has yet to communicate (well, that is except with abuse, for anyone with undelete rights at enWQ see this edit summary)

• enWQ deletion log search for Zhu, from early July about 100 hits!
• enWS deletion log search for Zhu, 10 hits

If anyone gets these, please ping me, as they like to reuse references and we can get COIBot to watch for us. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

typical biography, states born 1967 in China; and history — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

These are some of the variations that were deleted at enwikiquote:

• Zhu Ming
• Zhu Ming (thinker)
• Zhu Ming(thinker)
• Zhu Ming （Chinese philosopher）
• Zhu Ming （Zhu Zhe）
• Zhu Ming (ZhuZhe)
• Zhu Ming (Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Ming(Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Ming（ZhuZhe）
• ZhuMing (Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Zhe
• Zhu Zhe (thinker)
• Ming Zhu
• Ming Zhu（thinker）
• 朱明
• 朱哲

See also enwiki SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wirterss. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be difficult to regex salt. [167] is a start. MER-C 08:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

MER-C shouldn't you want it to be .*zhu\s*ming.* to catch things like ZhuMing too? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I added another one to catch the Zhu Zhe variants. I expect there to be false positives and negatives, so feel free to tweak as necessary. MER-C 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be talking about this out of sight of the guy you're trying to block with the filter? EEng 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Henrypenn1 (low key, long-running) vandalism

Henrypenn1 has been removing templates on Trans woman without explanation. Looking at their edit history, this account has existed since 2010, but appears to be more or less exclusively dedicated to low-key sporadic vandalism. They've never left an edit summary, cited a source, or participated in a talk page discussion, they just do stuff like remove templates or write unsourced nonsense. They've received several warnings, but I guess they've edited sporadically enough that they've flown under the radar, except for a one week block for sockpuppetry that expired in 2015. Regardless of socking, it seems like WP:NOTHERE behavior.

Examples of disruptive edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3

Nblund ^talk 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear why he is focusing so much on this particular edit, but this is clearly edit warring, over integral Wikipedia article space guidelines, without any signs of engaging with other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor made their 4th revert after the ANI notice was posted on their talk page (1, 2, 3). The article has been controversial, but considering that they've never even left an edit summary, it seems more like troll behavior than a content based edit war.Nblund ^talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

OUTING, OWNership, bullying

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

BrillLyle and I have intersecting interests in music and politics. When I first came across her edits I noticed that there was text unsupported by the sources attached to the text in an article and took it to the Talk page.[168] Since then, I went to a few pages she'd edited and was up front about having done so.[169] Since then, I've tried to avoid her except when necessary but have still come across pages she'd worked on, most recently The Hideout. She alleges that I'm following her but I'm not. I'd deleted the Discography section[170] and taken it to the talk page,[171] and later tried to find some kind of compromise with her.[172] She reacted... badly.[173][174] I later made some changes to the article[175] which she reverted without a content-based reason (I think because it was me who made the changes).[176] After some back and forth on the Talk page where she tried to bully my off the page and reiterated her statements that I need help and I'm sick and I'm the problem[177], I offered to go through the content I'd changed with the hopes we could work together.[178] Her response was to say that she refuses to discuss content with me and to attempt to OUT me (since suppressed).[179] I attempted to focus on changes I thought were necessary and again she's reacted by calling my edits toxic and refusing to work with me.[180]

We obviously have different approaches to content but I've tried and tried and tried in good faith to work with her when I do run into her because I don't want to be bullied off of a page. I do try to avoid her but the reaction I'm getting from her is totally disproportionate to my edits. After the attempted OUTING, I'm at my wit's end. Ca2james (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle, you're within a hair's breadth of being blocked for not only the behavior I'm observing on Talk:The Hideout Inn today, but for the outing of Ca2james' personal information... What is going on here? .... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The level of article ownership, intimidation, incivility, and battleground conduct is ridiculous. Given the outing of personal information that occurred as well, a block is absolutely justified here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle is blocked for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely warranted. I was repulsed by the very first diff from January where she suddenly, and for no apparent reason, became hostile and combative after two replies. That alone looks like straightforward bullying. The rest of the diffs leave me in disbelief that she's maintained a clean block log for this long. This is the level of conduct that people (who aren't established) get indeffed for without a second thought. Outrageous. Swarm ♠ 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good block. This sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. SQL^{Query me!} 18:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. I'll continue to try to avoid her in the future. If we cross paths (honestly, I hope that doesn't happen) and it gets bad again I guess I'll come back here. Ca2james (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ca2james - Yup, that's exactly what you should do if anything continues and without any kind of provocation on your end. I'm sorry that the outing happened to you. If you want to talk about anything, or if you have questions or personal concerns - please know that my email is always open to you and you're welcome to contact me any time you need to :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Outing sufficient to trigger oversight is very often met with an indefinite block or siteban. If BrillLyle is not a model Wikipedian henceforth, I for one will fully support the award of the Order of the Boot. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle was brought to ani in April for battleground conduct. At that time she agreed to stop harassing a couple of people and to assume good faith of other editors so wasn't blocked. Ca2james (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring this.→StaniStani 02:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a one-way iban perhaps be useful in this instance? Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the problematic interactions are not confined to those with any one editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that were at that point yet. This is the first administrative action that's been taken upon BrillLyle. Should repeated reports to ANI and subsequent repeated blocks prove to not be resolving the matter, this may perhaps be something to consider... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated violation of BLP

FkpCascais repeatedly violates WP:BLP.

I noticed this kind of their behavior at Phillip J Cohen, and tried to explain to them that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Their reply was blatant and deliberate violation of WP:CIVIL (link to discussion) but I hoped that it will be the end of their problematic behavior.

I was obviously wrong. In this discussion (link to discussion on their talkpage) FkpCascais used wikipedia to write offensive comments about living people on Serbian language.

To avoid posting negative comments anybody can open my comment in edit mode and see the problematic comments in edit line below this sentence and take it to google translate from Serbian to English:

I am afraid that this kind of behavior will continue untill somebody with appropriate tools stops it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't trust google translate for this, google says it is Bosnian, not Serbian, and the translations are too incoherent for me to tell what anyone is saying. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP & consensus violations by Abecedare

To summarize my removal of contentious BLP content here:

I removed content for which Abecedare themself admits that there is no consensus for including. Read Talk:Sarah Jeong#Proposal/question – "In my tentative read, in the above survey the rough order of support is 2>3>1 at this moment." this comment by Abecedare has to do with the number of support votes, not necessarily consensus; "in interest of time" is no excuse because BLP; With regards to Abecedare's comment "And by discussion, I do mean establishing consensus." it's not okay because Abecedare unilaterally forced editors to remove it with consensus without having consensus to add it themself (and basically admiting it) which violates the WP:NOCON for BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Since this concerns the discretionary sanctions I implemented under the BLP AE, I believe WP:AN would be the right venue to appeal the restrictions I implemented at Sarah Jeong. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare, I can't even figure out what "this" is, it's so poorly written. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I posted elsewhere and think I should mention again here that I think controversial and inappropriate edits were allowed to the page without any sort of discussion or consensus after the page had been locked. The only edits that were NOT allowed to the page were edits about the reason the subject was controversial; edits that fluffed up the subject's career were seemingly added without discretion or discussion. I would have opposed many of them as being WP:TOOMUCH or WP:UNDUE, or possibly even WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but time for discussion was not allowed if the edit was a positive one about the subject. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that the false claim of the article having been "fluffed" was countered well enough. Ikjbagl, since you seem to be unable to drop that ball, and you're bringing it into this wider forum, are you even aware that you are hereby accusing Abecedare, an admin since 2015 with a clean block log and over 27,000 edits, and author of 32 articles, of having an agenda in editing the article? "Fluff"--meaning non-neutral editing? Do you think they're on the take? Whereas you have spent 1/3 of all your edits on this project, which you joined two months ago, on this one single article? Are you familiar with WP:SPA and WP:NPOV? I think you've been warned about the discretionary sanctions, and I'm hoping that one of our admins will judge whether any apply to you. It may well be that such an admin says that you are too new to be punished very harshly for your disruptive, timesinking, and accusatory battlefield editing--by the same token, you should consider that maybe editors with many times more the edits you've made actually know our policies better. Wikipedia is not a place to unload your partypolitical buzzwords on living people. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I think your comment here is really unnecessary. I don't know what you mean by my claim being "countered", and there is no reason for you to go digging through my history to disparage my edits to the page. I have worked very hard to find neutral, non-opinionated sources on this issue and have mostly cited BBC, CNN, NBC, etc., reputable news organizations. I have also tried very hard to propose neutral, non-opinionated language to add to the page. I did not accuse Abedecare of having an agenda, all I said is that I don't think his edits were appropriate, and I explained why (because there was no consensus reached). I think it's incredibly rude for you to accuse me of having "disruptive, timesinking, and battlefield editing" when I have tried very hard to propose neutral edits to a contentious page. The fact that I am a new editor should not matter one bit; if I am misunderstanding or misstating the policies, then it is certainly possible for someone to point that out politely without going off like you have done here. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Additionally, it's ridiculous for you to judge me based on the fact that many of my edits have been to this page- of course they have! This is a contentious page right now, and this is the first time I have been involved in a page like that. But if you looked at my userpage, you would see very quickly that I have worked much harder on other articles, mostly this one: Utilis Coquinario, but I have also worked on Meristem and Trophic state index. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're totally missing the point. If you don't know how a place works and what the rules are, don't barge in and start pretending you lived there forever. If you worked harder at other articles, keep at it: this is obviously not your forte. As for your BS accusation of fluff, which you've made in various places, I responded here, the last time you wasted everyone's time on this noticeboard. If you don't know what "fluff" means, and what associations it has in a place like this, and if you can't understand what the burden is of administrators who try to protect the BLP while simultaneously accede to reasonable editor request and implement consensus requests, then don't drag them off to noticeboards--and don't use the word "fluff". Yes, a third of your edits are to this article and related matters. Yes, you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm participating in a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to be here and read this and leave rude comments about me; you may leave at any time, or you may ignore my responses and stop responding to me. And if you're really that concerned about wasting people's time, maybe you had better stop doing it. Nobody is forcing you to post these long critiques of me here; if you've got a problem, message me or put it on my talk page, you're doing nothing productive posting this here but talking crap about me. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments at ANI should attempt to correct problematic behavior, and that's what Drmies is doing. Dismissing the advice is a typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. What you should do is work out what point is being made and strive to fix the problem. No one gets points for clever debating tactics here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, then make your own topic about me if you really think my behavior is that problematic. If you think it's appropriate to post things like this about users who have tried very hard to contribute neutral content, then I really don't want to be part of Wikipedia anyway: Ikjbagl (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Across all the different proposals, there is a rough consensus for the inclusion of the matter at hand. The incident involving her tweets I mean. It is currently properly sourced by reliable sources, complies with WP:BLP with impeccable sources such as BBC, Associated Press via ABC, and citing the New York Times article itself. What is disagreed upon is the actual wording of the content in the article and perhaps the significance to her biography. Before the article was given full protection, there was a lot of edit warring, name calling, claims of bias, etc. Administrator Abecedare definitely had authority to enact these discretionary sanctions per WP:BLPDS, and I am thankful for them. The actual instituting of this version of events satisfies the immediate concern for editors who wanted to see -any- version of the events in the article. There are no less than 8 different proposals for different wording. That is rather insane given the context and its single event. Tutelary (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect the authority to enact the sanctions, but to me the sanctions seem like a breach of WP:ADMINACCT, for not following this part of WP:NOCON policy:

However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

So if there is disagreement on the wording (therefore multiple proposals to modify the imposed status quo), the material should be removed. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For those not steeped in the Sarah Jeong talkpage discussion, here are my observations as an uninvolved admin who had protected the article on Aug 2, and have been following the talkpage discussion since then:

• As Tutelary says, there was clear consensus about including something properly sourced and BLP-compliant in the article about the tweet controversy
• There was IMO a tentative consensus that among the options for how exactly to include the material, Option 2 was the best one (and, certainly BLP compliant)
• As I explicitly spelled out on the talkpage, I implemented the tentative consensus, while the discussion continues possibly for a few more days to determine the stable consensus. This was done so that the article could be reopened for editing by non-admins and the other sections improved (see previous discussion on this page as to why that was desirable).
• At the time the page was to be unprotected, I implemented a BLPDS to prevent editors from warring over the tweet-controversy without discussing the issue on the talkpage.
• User:Wumbolo disregarded the edit-restriction despite being aware of it, but I let it go with just a warning
• They filed this complaint against me for purportedly violating BLP!

Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention: User:Ikjbagl is another editor who violated the editing-restriction, but let off with a warning instead of a block. So of course, they are here too. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I did apologize and say that I missed that, did I not? I can apologize a second time: I'm sorry, I missed that- I saw the silver lock and I thought that meant auto-confirmed users could edit. And it looks like you TOLD wumbolo on their talk page to initiate this here if they disagreed; accordingly, wumbolo has done so. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my words to me. What I told Wumbolo was: You can appeal the editing restriction I implemented at WP:AN, but you cannot simply flout it. This is neither the suggested venue nor the subject of their complaint. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Oh geez, I'm sorry, I guess I'll apologize one more time: I didn't realize that this was not WP:AN. I just saw that this was also called "Administrator's Noticeboard" and figured they were the same thing, didn't realize there was a separate "Incidents" page. I just looked them both up to learn what the difference is. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the content has already been substantially delayed by the full protection, despite an obvious consensus to include it in some form. Nothing unreasonable about finding a rough starting point to go from while the details are hammered out and the consensus restriction was obviously never meant to delay the inclusion longer. This is a baseless complaint, IMO, and Abecedare is doing the best they possibly can to maintain order in a shitshow of a situation. Swarm ♠ 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would like to comment on the following sequence of events:
  1. The page was blocked by the subject editor for 3 days, expiring 19:38 5 Aug.
  2. Editors contributed several proposals seeking consensus for inclusion of the twitter controversy, at least as early as 23:18, 2 August.
  3. During this time, the subject editor continued to monitor and edit the article (based on proposals on the TP), and to encourage consensus-building, for example, at 16:40, 3 August .
  4. At 16:47 on the day of the expiration, i.e., less than three hours before the expiry of the block, another editor created a "Survey" of the proposals, effectively starting from zero, as he pinged none of those who had been contributing for three days. One must underscore the starter of the "Survey" proposed "his own tweak" as candidate #2. Before he reset the score, his proposal had 4 favorables/2 negatives; another proposal had 17 favs/7negs
  5. The subject editor, who was participating quite actively in the TP in these final hours, raised no objections to this "Survey" process.
  6. At 19:22, the subject editor tallied the !votes on the "Survey" and since #2 had 5 favs/2 opposed, the subject editor pasted #2 into the article.
  Were the contributions of many editors for several days properly respected? XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The "Survey" implemented by Galobtter (mentioned by XavierItzm above) is less than 24 hours old, and did not even include some of the options discussed (Winkelvi's for example). Perhaps it is premature to choose any of them and insert them into the article (unless as a provisional stop-gap), especially since there is as of yet no clear consensus. Perhaps remember that there is no rush. Maybe let things gel, especially on a BLP. If necessary, create an official WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender A provisional stop-gap is exactly what the current version is intended as. See my note on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Except the "stop-gap" does not reflect the work of the community at large. And the community was not afforded courtesy pinging, nor a timeline. With just 16 minutes in an artificially-created deadline, all of the sudden, with no forewarning, the subject editor picked up the result of a made-up "survey" that had been in place for exactly 155 minutes, and despite the community toiling for days on end. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment 2: I think Abecedare is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort and monitoring discussions while still ensuring that Wikipedia policies are complied with. Someone has to be watching over that article and talkpage, because it's full of people up in arms about things that were in the news cycle less than 24 hours, and a lot of those editors appear to be very POV and do not understand the importance of WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and so on. Even if there is a head-count that "approves" a certain wording, something should not go into the article if it violates WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. If all else fails, the article should be reported at WP:BLPN if the talkpage hysteria gets overwhelming. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to compliment User:Abecedare for doing an excellent job in a tough situation. He's responsive, and as balanced as seems possible on this polarized talk page. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• As would I. Being an Admin in areas such as this one makes you a target of every pov editor. No wonder we have problems getting good people to run. I agree with User:Softlavender that even if there's consensus of a wording, it isn't acceptable if it violates our policies. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Me too; thanks to all admins, including Abecedare, for answering FPERs and doing the closing and archiving, making the talk page less unmanageable. wumbolo ^^^ 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor(s)

• Comment: ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked six times in four years for disruptive editing [181], and in July received an indefinite topic ban from Linda Sarsour and related pages as well [182], is engaging in endless WP:IDHT WP:POV WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:DE on Talk:Sarah Jeong (just do a Control+F for his name). He has already received usertalk warnings about it from Paul Erik and Sangdeboeuf [183], [184], but instead of listening he is doubling down with his disruption. At this point I think it's actually a WP:CIR issue and that he cannot be rehabilitated (since July 2017 he has received a total of 50 usertalk warnings in addition to his blocks and TBan), but at the very least I think he merits a topic ban from Sarah Jeong at this point. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Sarah Jeong or from anti-racism activists, broadly construed. Or longterm block for WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, and WP:IDHT. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL! "anti-racism activists, broadly construed"? So, would that be, people like Sarah Jeong then? Mel Gibson perhaps? :D Sorry to appear flippant, but you've gotta laugh at the absurdity of this. In addition to WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, and WP:IDHT, what Softlavender doesn't know is that I also eat babies. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from edits involving BLPs. There was no recent DS notice on his page until this morning, so it would have to be a community action. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note: account blocked for a month by User:Bishonen for disruptive editing. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. ZinedineZidane98 has been warned enough and disrupted enough and wasted enough of constructive editors' time IMO. I've blocked for a month, and if any admin wants to up it to an indef I'd be fine with that. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC).
• I'd support an indef, considering that Bishonen has previously blocked for a month without effect. Zinedine only has 800 edits, but all of them are on controversial topics and all it seems in problematic ways (edit warring and personal attacks in Antisemitism in the Labour Party, just previously, and so on). Any topic ban would have to be far broader, would try including all hot button issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross violations of topic ban

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

---

On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed.

On 3 August 2018, Cross made a series of five consecutive edits to the BLP of British journalist Decca Aitkenhead.

According to our BLP, Aitkenhead in 2009 won Interviewer of the Year at the British Press Awards, having "particularly impressed the judges with her remarkable encounter" with Alistair Darling, a Labour Party politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007–2010. Before moving this month to The Sunday Times, Decca Aitkenhead wrote for The Guardian, where she most recently (27 Jul 2018) interviewed Salisbury MP John Glen, an incumbent British Conservative Party politician. Such professional activity puts Aitkenhead squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

On 5 August 2018, Cross made a series of fifteen consecutive edits to the BLP of British actor and politician Andrew Faulds. According to our BLP, Faulds entered British politics in 1963. His obituary in The Telegraph, cited in our BLP, reports that as a Labour MP, Faulds twice served as front-bench arts spokesman in the British House of Commons. He held that post until sacked in May 1982. Such professional activity puts Faulds squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

This ANI discussion is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just nine days after it was imposed. KalHolmann (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

We really need semi prot at The X Factor (UK series 15)

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

---

The X Factor (UK series 15) - The vandals have taken over, and it's getting really hard to find a revision to revert to. Could we please get a semi protection? byteflush _Talk 22:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semiprotected for 2 weeks. SQL^{Query me!} 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. [185], [186], [187], [188] were created minutes after each other, and were doing the same thing, unsourced changes/vandalism acts. This is a patent sock puppetry case and maybe the accounts should be blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Three of them blocked. Thanks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Extended confirmed cheating...

Special:Contributions/Annothumaho, fresh off of a 24-hour block for edit warring, appears to be using their sandbox as a means to quickly gain extended-confirmed status per the many useless edits they are making there. Unless they can offer a really good explanation of what they are trying to do, that is. Home Lander (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

:( :) --Annothumaho (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• How 'bout if the 500 edits needed for extended confirmed only counted edits in article or Talk space? EEng 12:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Now that would be a good idea. Please implement it immediately. And on a lighter note, it would mean that Annothumaho would have completely wasted their time  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the idea. More specifically, the change proposed would force the 500 to be out in the open where there are plenty of eyeballs. In fact we could take it a step further and require that the 500 touch a minimum of 20 different articles (counting Article X and Talk:X as one). That's the kind of experience we want to trust someone as x-confirmed anyway. A further enhancement would to make it so that edits by editors not x-confirmed would be specially marked in edit histories, thereby bringing even more scrutiny. (I suspect someone could work out for us what % of edits fall in that category, minus IP edits which of course we already can identify immediately anyway.)

If I get a few positive comments here I'll take it to Village Pump (or maybe someone who spends more time there will do it for me). EEng 13:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea - it will force potentials gamers out into main space, where this can actually be harder to detect if "done right". An extended confirmed user with an edit counter like this and contributions like this - sticks out like a sore thumb (especially when they hit a few hundred edits doing it). Might as well discover this once they become extended confirmed (after wasting time doing 500 edits to their sandbox).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that's some weird logic. EEng 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirects, improper page moves

Could a sysop please review the contributions of Brandon5015 (talk · contribs). This user has created what appear to be multiple unnecessary redirects (Ashboro, NC (even spelled incorrectly), Greenville, TN, and others), has blanked talk pages, and is making copy>paste page moves. The overall editing pattern is disruptive and some cleanup needs to be performed. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ima leave the indef block to someone else, but I stopped the disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Here is the list of page creations from this user. Some redirects may be useful, but others are quite unnecessary. Home Lander (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, the redirects look like plausible search terms for the most part, in my opinion (the user's other issues aside). The only ones I'd consider obviously unhelpful are "Dirty Words (Rock band)" and "Dirty Words Rock band", because they refer to an album rather than a band. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

IP user WP:NOTHERE to contribute

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

---

95.145.233.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as they are only attempting to police their talk page. They continuously added {{Edit semi-protected}} templates to their talk and warned anyone who removed them that they "could be blocked from this page for 24 hours or 72 hours." I removed the template, after which I recieved this message saying that I was banned from their talk page for 72 hours. They later followed up at User talk:104.129.196.175#104.129.196.175, August 2018 by saying "I am sorry to say this but we are closing down your talk page for not obeying the Wikipedia rules." I warned them to start editing the articlespace to prevent a WP:NOTHERE block to no avail. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:CIR issue as well.198.58.175.190 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Washington DC area IPs inserting biased political analysis

Someone using IPs from Arlington, Virginia, has been slyly emphasizing Republican Party voting results in articles about American places and people. The additions are either unreferenced,[189][190][191][192] or a purely statistical reference does not support the political analysis provided in prose.[193] Note that the removal of this person's unreferenced prose analysis often leaves a bare chart of voting statistics, which goes against WP:NOTSTATS. Involved IPs listed below. Any suggestions as to what we can do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• January–July 2018: 64.132.42.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked once in May)
• January–May 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:141:0:5FD0:0:0:0:0/64 (One IP blocked[194])
• May–August 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/43 (One IP blocked[195])
• September 2017 – August 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:644:8501:4BA:0:0:0:0/64

This has turned into an edit war between 64.132.42.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:644:8501:4ba:adf1:2b7c:4ddc:eb69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - suggest a cooling off period - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The one adding unreferenced analysis is the worse offender. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

By which I mean IP 64.132.42.50 which is registered to Hanover Research, a marketing research firm in Arlington. This Wikipedia editing is apparently one of their projects. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Footballinbelgium

Previous ANI was here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Footballinbelgium. It was for repeatedly creating unreferenced/unclearly referenced articles (including blps) and refusing to communicate. It was closed because they had been given a warning by a different editor. I have sent 11 messages over the last 4 months but haven't got anywhere and since the ANI they have not addressed the referencing issues in the identified articles and have continued to add unsourced content to existing articles (see User talk:Footballinbelgium for full details).

They responded once, to say: 'I put sources like FootballDatabase.eu or Soccerway' but didn't respond to the further messages trying to clarify their sourcing. I'm hoping that this time they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat at Nicolas Senzemba

An IP user, 86.218.37.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), issued a legal threat at Nicolas Senzemba writing "si vous changez à nouveau le texte, vous ferez l'objet de poursuites judiciaires. cordialement !" in their edit summary which translates to "if you change the text again, you will be prosecuted. cordially !". Robby.is.on (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson article

FreedomGonzo (talk · contribs) admits to canvassing at Reddit because " A few far-left political activists are trying to change that page to fit their narrative. "[196] Please read their entire post there for for context and to be fair to the editor. The discussion about this is at Talk:Jordan Peterson#Canvassing on this page. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia:Expert help#Public requests on external websites. wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. A user cites a political motive as justification to violate WP:MEAT, and you're going to cite a how-to guide as if they're not just asking for a flood to edit-war? They're clearly not asking for good-faith reasoned discussion of sources. Maybe if you didn't have such a bad habit of completely misreading things to suit your your obvious POV (such as interpreting almost everyone here calling a source "not RS," "partisan," as somehow being "judged reliable"), this would be clearer to you. And now you're defending meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I have neither the time nor the interest to go through your contribution history, but I'm just going to tell you to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONs at me that I was "defending meatpuppetry" when I neutrally linked to the relevant how-to guide, which explains exactly what is appropriate, and what is not. If you actually read the how-to guide I linked, you would realize I wasn't "defending meatpuppetry" but rather providing an argument against it based on what's established on Wikipedia (but you did accuse me of POV when I attempted to adhere to WP:PAGs). wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you meant what Girth Summit points out, then sorry, however you did not make that clear at all that you were saying "this is how he should have done it instead." The diffs and links I provided are cases where you'd be the only person to think you're adhering to P&Gs. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per their own words, they "invited Peterson fans, that are Wikipedia editors and happen to be on reddit page to join the conversation." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert help#Public requests on external websites is explicitly about getting subject-matter experts to assist with the Wikipedia project. He's not doing that - he's explicitly canvassing for people who have a particular political to weigh in on the page. He is not only asking for people who are already Wikipedia editors - he asks anyone who 'wants to help' to learn the policies first so they can use the rules to maintain the articles current POV. From WP:MEAT: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. Girth Summit (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Gateway Pundit and Fox News

I have reason to believe that Snooganssnoogans is targeting my edits and reverting them out of personal malice. Please see their most recent reversion of the Fox News page to my edit, with the only justification as "yes, and?". Also see their Talk page for numerous conflicts with other Wikipedians. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Targeting your edits? Absolutely not. I'm one of the most active editors on both pages, and frequently revert edits that I consider bad. Your edits on both pages were bad, and thus were reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, please.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that has been edit-warring at Racism to the point the page has just been protected. And, your recent edits have violated WP:BLP by calling a woman a racist while leaving out the fact that her “racist” tweets appear to have been mocking racists. I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry much? -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See Psychological projection. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be the one that keeps adding mentions of Sarah Jeong to articles. I'm not sure if a news site covers the whole Sarah Jeong thing is so notable that it needs its own section on its article. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from from fresh new 253-edit user Noto-Ichinose (talk · contribs)

• for Racism - [197], [198], [199]

• For The Gateway Pundit - [200], [201], [202]

You might be noticing how a certain name and obsession keep cropping up. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, immediately after someone reverts the user's edit, the user warns the person for edit warring. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've come across Noto-Ichinose several times recently in an entirely different set of articles. He/she seems fond of adding/expanding "controversies" to BLPs and then edit warring to reinstate them when removed (and nearly all of them have been removed in the articles I saw). Below are just the ones that I saw — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At Trevor Noah: 1 2 3 4

At Michael Ian Black: 1 2

At Dan Harmon: 1 2 (and related material added, tangentially, to Adult Swim: 1 2

And while this very thread was ongoing, edit warring at Incel. I haven't looked closely at what's happening in the original articles, but it seems a boomerang is likely in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible Implicit Threat??

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

---

I apologize for bringing this here, as I am not quite sure where to bring this. Over the past day or so I've been working off site on assisting in the current political situation in Bangladesh (primarily with telling individuals how to protect their anonymity as the government has arrested individuals for speaking out, as well as how to circumnavigate government blocks on websites and in setting up a quantifiable system for classifying criminal acts so actual metrics on how much damage the government has done can better be calculated). But anyway, as of today I logged into this account (of a similar name to the one I used in that political group) see I had received a greeting from the Bengali Wikipedia website, despite having never made any editing on it whatsoever. I'm not sure if this is coincidental, or intended as an implicit threat from someone but regardless I'd like to bring it up here to your attention. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Many Wikipedias send welcomes to any new accounts, including those automatically created because one visits the wikipedia (see bn:বিশেষ:লগ/Jyggalypuff). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, sorry for the confusion. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

John of Kronstadt‎

I ask to return the consensus version of article John of Kronstadt‎. It was written on the propagandistic Soviet sources by user Wlbw68, who has been unlimited blocked in Russion Wikipedia. Aleksei m (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I left edit warring notices on both editors' user talk pages a few hours ago... as of the time of this writing, neither of these two users have made an edit to the article. I sincerely hope that it stays this way and that the dispute is worked out between the two of them... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion must begin at the consensus version. Now the version is not consensus. Aleksei m (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where was this consensus established? I can't see any discussion on the article talk page. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus version is the version before the war of edits. Aleksei m (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in English-language Wikipedia policy that says that a single contributor can unilaterally assert that his preferred version of an article is 'consensus'. If you have specific policy-based objections to edits made to the article, raise them on the article talk page.

And by the way, you are obliged to notify people when you start threads about them on WP:ANI. You have not done so. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CONS. User Oshwah, can I return the consensus version from 15 Jule 2018? Aleksei m (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

From WP:CONS "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." I can see no evidence whatsoever that you have discussed this article on any talk page. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aleksei m - Can you provide the URL to the location of the discussion where this "consensus version" of the article was discussed and closed with consensus to use? This will help us by verifying that such a discussion and consensus exists, as well as give us information that we can use to figure out the best thing to do here is... Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And what is the consensus version now? Aleksei m (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated nationalistic disruptive editing

I sometimes run into editors that make me wonder why on earth they have been allowed to continue editing, and Ke31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of them. The account was created on 19th May, immediately starting to push Turkish propaganda on articles related to Turkish activities in Syria, edits that led to them being blocked for 24h on 20th May, for 72h on 22 May and again, now for a month, on 31 May, that is getting blocked three times in less than two weeks. They then stayed quiet until a week ago, when they again started to make nationalistic edits, and edit war on List of main battle tanks by generation and List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces over the national origin of the Altay-tank, removing mention of South Korea and claiming the tank is 100% Turkish, in spite of there being plenty of sources saying it's not only based on the technology of the South Korean K2-tank, but that large parts of it are built under license in Turkey. In an obviously never ending slow-motion edit-war that doesn't reach 3RR-levels, but is nevertheless very disruptive. So would someone with the bits please look at it? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro multiple moves

This article was created by Anna Frodesiak has been subjected to several moves without consensus and move requests on the talk improperly closed. Anna Frodesiak created this with one name and then moved it a few times to Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro. Moves after that were without consensus, so it should be moved back regardless of any policy and locked in place until consensus is reached. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)