Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988

Disruptive unblock requests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone revoke talk access from User talk:37.9.169.5 (a webhost); someone is filling the page with endless nonsense requests. Not notifying. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Widr beat me by a minute.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both my comments on Talk Page discussion and my RFC were removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After not receiving any additional outside input at Talk:Malcolm X#Assassination (for 3 weeks) outsideof the two users I was in debate with. I made an RFC on the discussion, along with leaving a separate comment to the thread saying I disagree, et al.

The RFC and my comment were both manual reverted in one go [1], with no attempt at informing me. Perhaps my RFC was indeed wrong to be included in that existing section (I did so because RFC etiquette asks that we start a discussion first, and then if no resolution start an RFC for outside input; perhaps it was my mistake to not create a separate section). But there was no reason to delete my own personal comment to the discussion thread as well, which goes against WP:TALKO.

User:EEng manual reverting my entire edit, which leaves me without notice, I feel the removal of my personal [non-Rfc] comment was completely without basis, and such excessive reverts is disruptive and against the spirit of WP:REVERT, which was an issue leading into the discussion. I hoped to resolve our disagreement because I did not want edit warring, but to then start reverting my Talk Page comment (which include no offensive behavior or errors) is uncalled for.

Was this a proper way of handling this? DA1 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• You prepended your RfC notice to a discussion thread already underway [2], making it look like other editors' comments were in response to that RfC, which they were not. If you have new comments to make in the ongoing discussion, make them; if you want to start an RfC (which I don't think is a very good idea, but knock yourself out) then do that. You added a new comment to the ongoing discussion and at the same time made a mess of the chronological sequence of others' posts, so I simply reverted you; it's not up to me to surgically salvage bits and pieces for you. EEng 19:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The RFC had a Signature and date assigned. If you thought it was still misleading, then leave a comment reminding me of pointing it out. If you were right in removing it, then that's acceptable. What's not acceptable is you removing my personal comments in violation of WP:TALKO, and making no attempt at informing me about this to avoid misunderstanding.

You did not "simply revert" me, you manually reverted me which means you could have chosen to selectively remove the RFC while leaving my personal comment untouched but instead went out of your way–via manual revert–to delete the perfectly acceptable comment (and leaving me without a notice, which a standard revert would have given me). DA1 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody explain the difference between "simply reverting" and "manually reverting"? Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just open an Rfc in a new section where it is supposed to go, and all will be well – exactly, but instead, as seen below, the OP wants to press this idea that he's been wronged somehow. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Manual reversions include using cursor and backspace to selectively choose text to remove (my two blocks of RFC and comment were in opposite ends of the discussion thread, so impossible to confuse). It's different from using the revert function on History Page which usually sends the original poster a notice. I received no notice, nor was there any attempt at a message/comment or ping to point out possible errors in my post. My comment was essentially censored or removed with haste. That's why it's an issue. EEng's over-eagerness to revert everything is becoming disruptive, when it should and can be worked in line with WP:COOPERATION. I specifically started the Talk discussion because I did not want an edit war on the main article (Malcom X). DA1 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thats 'nonsense'. your comment was removed because it was incompetently placed. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Which comment? The one as part of the discussion I'm objecting about? Please point out how it was incompetently placed. The RFC and discussion comment to the thread are two different blocks of text [3], and should not be conflated. Otherwise that opens the floodgate for any of my preexisting comments to be deleted once I open an RFC even in a new section (I intend to followup on that existing thread, but apparently my posting doesn't go there?). Note, the comment was placed completely separate from the RFC. The comment was part of the discussion thread following standard discussion norms, not part of the RFC in the section opener. DA1 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a hint: Help: pages are out of date, and even that aside they were often written by not-the-brightest editors who know less than you do. Sorry to disappoint but I didn't use my evil cursor and backspace, but simply went to the last good version before you made a mess and clicked Revert to this version; as already stated you're free to reinsert your comment, and your RfC notice, in appropriate places (since you're so big on reading instructions it's strange you missed where it says WP:RFCST says Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page). You can't expect others to move your stuff around for you; your somewhat huffy attitude in the discussion to date doesn't make me want to do you any favors; and your behavior in this very thread reinforces that feeling.

As for "leaving you without a notice", if you aren't watching a page to which you just added an RfC notice, I don't know what to say. In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post [4] won't work. EEng 20:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: As an experienced user yourself, you should have known that my comment was adding to the discussion and shouldn't have been conflating with removing the RFC. Perhaps this is all a big misunderstanding, but at that time when you see your regular comment being reverted when our discussion stems from reversions, that leaves much misunderstanding to be had. I have well early accepted the removal of my RFC, the reason I sought additional advice was because of my uncertainty, perhaps misplaced, that any comment I would make hereon would be removed (because I did not think my comment deserved to be). DA1 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

"In fact, smartypants, since you're so big on notifying people I'd have expected you to know that pings added post facto to an existing post" Let's not conflate these two issues either. Whether my ping worked or didn't (because I added it in after) isn't the same as telling a user in discussion you are removing their comments and possibly correcting them that their use of RFC formatting is incorrect. The issue is you shouldn't have removed my discussion comment to begin with, with or without a courtesy message. Although a message would have certainly avoided misunderstanding. DA1 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse revert Trying to turn a normal discussion thread into an RfC that makes it appear as if the comments in that thread were made during the RfC is deceptive. Expecting other editors to note and collate the timestamps on each individual comment during a thread when trying to read through it is ridiculous: Timestamps are only useful when looking at a very small number of comments. The edit that was reverted looks for all the world to me like an attempt to artificially weight a discussion, considering that the RfC question included a statement condemning the (perfectly acceptable) editing practices of those who disagreed with the proposed addition. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: This does not address the removal of my normal discussion comment. It is a conflation. For example: had a completely different user reverted my edit on another article, while cussing me out, and I brought the latter fact to admin attention. The justification of the former would not be a justification of the latter. In this case, my issue is with the reversion of my personal comment adding to the discussion. It should not have been removed by another user. DA1 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Then put the personal comment back, you twit. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I will now, now that I have certainty that this was likely a misunderstanding and not at attempt at removing me from the discussion. That provides some needed relief. You can fix your tone now. DA1 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

For the last time: there was no attempt to remove you from anything, just to undo the mess you made so that you could try again to do it right. You're wasting a lot of editor time trying to prove you've been wronged, which you have not. Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? EEng 21:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this 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)

User has issues with copyright

Nuobgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of adding copyvio plot summaries to anime/manga articles, most recently here (copied from here). Other examples include edits on July 4, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), April 11, 2018 (copied from here), December 1, 2017 (copied from here), January 12, 2018 (WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE from here), March 13, 2018 (copied from here), October 23, 2018 (copied from here), February 24, 2018 (copied from here), January 25, 2018 (copied from here), and August 15, 2017 (copied from here). This is not a comprehensive list, and other examples could be found with a bit of searching. I have warned them about this behaviour previously (see here and here), but they show no signs of stopping. They also are unresponsive to communications on their talk page (with a few exceptions) and hardly leave edit summaries. Additionally, they have a history of regularly adding unsourced information to articles (see warnings on their talk page) and sometimes remove parts of citations without explanation (I've seen them doing this in the past, so it's not an isolated incident). Given all this, it may be necessary to block them for at least a short while to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Failure to watch own talk page or blatant disregard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AnnaElizabethGray is having problems with one of these. At a loss on how to get thier attention abount the copyvois. It was a coin toss either here or 3RR. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Endorse blocking. Time to get them to talk or leave, I care not which. --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Also you should have titled it "failure to communicate". --Tarage (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

:P - FlightTime (open channel) 03:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have left them a final warning. Hopefully they will heed it, or the alternative is an indefinite block. I've also speedy deleted the obviously NFCC-violating non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unconstructive edits by anonymous IP

An anonymous IP user that goes by Special:Contributions/2402:8100:2009:548C:4733:8B35:2D89:CABE keeps making unconstructive edits on the Godzilla (1998 film) article. He/she has no talk page, so I can't send him a message to stop or anything. Armegon (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Armegon: it looks like he may have stopped, I am not sure why you think you can't leave a massage on his talk? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah! Just figured out how. Armegon (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe he is using 2402:8100:2009:548C::/64 which means he is using this one, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Deacon Vorbis is quick to attack editor(s) who disagree with their edits. See Talk:Potato. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In my defense, you kind of deserved it. I don't use that kind of language here very often, so when I do, there was probably a good reason for it. But as far as I'm concerned, the argument is over, so unless there's anything else to bring up, I'd be fine with letting this drop. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with an apology for that instance and this one also. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Any apology from me is going to be pretty insincere (which might be worse than none at all), but my willingness to let this all drop is genuine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, then maybe a block would deter you from going off on others in the future, I'll let the community decide. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis WP:TRHAT. It doesn't get much more trivial than using a hat note to point to a few sentences in an article that describe how 26 years ago a former US Vice President mis-spelled the word. Also, your edit summary definitely violates WP:ESDONTS. Nobody can force you to issue an apology, but what you did violated Wikipedia's code of conduct.— Maile (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 24 hours and made it clear that this behavior is unacceptable. I certainly hope that it does not resume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oceanside hate vandal needs rangeblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After seeing one instance of hateful vandalism from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:A3E1:D00:B500:9323:6DC5:6C96, I found that the entire /64 range of this IP from Oceanside, California, is filled with similar vandalism. Can we stop this guy? Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous removal of content in My Korean Jagiya article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Spacecowboy420 keeps removing content from the cast section,which makes it very incomplete. He claims that not every character should be mentioned when I already argued that the cast list is already incomplete. He has not seen the show to claim who's not notable enough in the said show. He also claimed that "its a minor show" yet its a primetime show in a major broadcast network in the Philippines. Then he tagged the article for being a "fan site" and the article not being neutral - which in my opinion are both false. The article is so small and tone is neutral. I've already brought this up to Edit Warring and Third Opinion and got no response in resolving this. The first time the editor edited the said article, he removed all the supporting characters and guest cast (including the only 1 cast photo) without explanation. This user has a history of threatening me in my talk page, and I find his edits in the article very suspicious. Could anyone please step in to resolve this?Hotwiki (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: (Non-administrator comment) This is a content dispute and it's not what this noticeboard is intended for. You could try the dispute resolution noticeboard which is intended for stuff like this. Kleuske (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already brought it up there, asking for a third opinion and no one commented except for the said editor who keeps removing content. I'm bringing this up here,since the said editor once again have removed content from the article.Hotwiki (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree that the cast list is too verbose. You are being awfully hostile as well. --Tarage (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've tried really hard to reach a compromise on that article. Every attempt to discuss this has been met with words to the effect of "NO, the article is fine - DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!" and comments such as "you clearly didn't watch the show " " you are clearly wrong" "try researching first" "You clearly have an agenda here" "See in you content dispute page" " You have an agenda here, and given the track record of your edit history and block history, I'm not surprised. You'll be reported for this." - so I decided to attempt a compromise without the other editor's cooperation. Sorry, but I'm finding it very hard to deal with this editor and their less than friendly/cooperative attitude. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Every time I made a point about the article, your reaction is always "you are making this personal". I do think you have an agenda here, as you threatened me before regarding my edit summaries when I had zero interaction with you at the time. Also, a lot of actors/characters listed are backed up by a reference, and the entire supporting cast are official billed by the show/network. Why remove that?. If the others (guest cast) are unreferenced (which isn't even your issue), it could be resolved by citing for references instead of just deleting them. You question the characters for their notability yet you Havent even seen the show. Hotwiki (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if people are saying your comments are too personal, then you should modify your tone and stop insulting people? It doesn't matter if they are backed up by a reference, it doesn't mean they are notable. More than anything, this is ANI - not the place for a content dispute. Just the same as the 3RR wasn't the place for a content dispute either. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you talk about my tone in the article's talk page, and yet you do the same thing in your talk page. Your edit summaries aren't exactly polite. Also there was no attack, an opinion isnt an attack. And you have not made it clear if you are really aware of the show or not.Hotwiki (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"User:HAYDEN ---NATALIE": [5]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently someone has been trying to create this username for quite awhile now and the edit filter is continuously blocking it (probably for good reason, though). Could an admin attempt to see what's going on here? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:D0E2:ECD3:B550:48E0 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Papahawwy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not a single edit that's not promoting "Papahawwy". Prank or manic selfpromotion, either way they're not here to help build the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I deleted the "article", again. I wanted to block the editor but if someone wishes to make further attempts at finding some way to communicate, knock yourself out. Tiderolls 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Seems like an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Doubt that people burning more time on them will significantly change things. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• User blocked for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still continued disruption by Mayerroute5 / 116.68.79.209

The user Mayerroute5 was blocked for a week by CambridgeBayWeather: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued disruption by Mayerroute5 Jul 14, since then he continued his disrupting editing as an IP: 2405:204:D287:B4A6:39E7:20E7:B92F:33AA, 116.68.77.209 and 116.68.79.209. It would be not approbiate if his ban ended tomorrow as scheduled and the pages he disrupts I think need to be semiprotected. That are

• 2017 Indian Premier League
• 2016 Indian Premier League
• right down to
• 2010 Indian Premier League.

--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the pages and protect them if it's necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected 2017, 2016, and 2015 as they seem to be the most vandalised. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but please do someone protect 2010 - 2014 as well.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The user is fresh from his ban and continous his editwar where he left!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

User Miska5DT

User:Miska5DT keeps blanking, doing disruptive editing, and removing contents from articles Societat Civil Catalana, Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, Josep Alsina and Catalan independence movement. Then he adds an AfD deletion template to Somatemps and after blanking the article states in the deletion discussion that there is not a single reference in the sources about the matter. Filiprino (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino Somatemps has been nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong with that. Its non-notable and no credible source discusses it. I am extremely concerned about your creation of an article about Catalan academic Josep Alsina in which you call him a Nazi without a credible source. Mr. Alsina is not a nazi he is an academic you dislike. Wikipedia is extremely strict about slandering living persons and you cannot use the platform to attack people you oppose politically. Equally, the article you created about Javier Barraycoa is dedicated solely to disparage his books which you dislike. Finally your recent nomination for deletion of Tabarnia, an entry which literally has hundreds of credible sources discussing it in various languages, shows you are not editing wikipedia in good faith and are here for spurious reasons. I really think this is a boomerang situation which requires admin attention. Particularly regarding Mr. Alsina who should be alerted of this online slander. I will contact him personally ASAP so he is aware of the situation. Miska5DT (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to recall you that this discussion is not to attack my articles nor myself but to defend yourself. Filiprino (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Filiprino: When you start a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, all sides of the issue in question are looked it. In many cases, that means the reporting editor's edits will be scrutinized. (See the essay WP:BOOMERANG.) Further, you complain that he removed content from an article; he replied that he removed it to comply with WP:BLP because you added material in violation of that policy. In that regard, Miska5DT's comments are appropriate (with the exception of taking this offline and contacting the subject of an article directly). —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that my edits will be scrutinised. And you won't find any of the violations he reports. Thanks for your attention. Filiprino (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I want to note that the user is now blanking and removing sourced content from the article Sardana. Diffs: [6] [7]. He claims it is not in the source, but it is. It's not in the quotation, but that's all. The source is an article from JSTOR with 59 references. It's a known peer-reviewed paper from Stanley Brandes. I was now going to add information from [8] (2015) but the user blanked the whole Wikipedia article. Filiprino (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Filiprino, (also pinging C.Fred) I note from your talk page you are in extremely problematic editor pushing a hyper nationalistic line, this is why I had a look through your recent edit history. Sardana is a traditional dance of Catalonia which, incidentally my mother was made to learn during the Francoist dictatorship. The rather sinister far-right, xenophobic edit you have included in what should be a nice, normal article about a fricking dance is the following:

Immigration is also a concern for Catalans due to possible cultural loss. Andalusian immigration in the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries introduced the Andalusian feria de abril and flamenco dancing. It has been perceived by some as a manipulated instrument of Spanish state domination. In fact, learning sardana can be considered a way of expressing solidarity with Catalans. Catalans consider that sardana has to be defended against possible incursions by the dominant Castilian culture. Failing to adopt Catalan culture might cause it to disappear, effectively annihilating Catalan people.

Filiprino, I am not even going to comment. Miska5DT (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Filiprino: "my articles" ? No one owns any articles here. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Where I wrote articles I wanted to write edits. Filiprino (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment:Both users have edit warred extensively in articles related to Catalonia, including over deletion templates. I think they've both offered valid critiques in places, but they have also both lain it on way to thick when citing criticisms. The Josep Alsina article is a good example: it's fair to describe him as far right, but it's probably not fair to create an entry on him primarily to detail that connection. I sympathize on some level with Filiprino's apparent frustration, but I think they might benefit from taking a step back from Catalonia issues and edit other areas for a time and/or working on writing for the opponent. I would offer the same advise to Miska5DT, but they've been blocked for sockpuppetry, making it kind of a moot point. Nblund ^talk 17:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect and defamatory statement on the Wikipedia page about me

On the Wikipedia page about me at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Brezsny, there is a statement at top that goes as follows:

"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

It is absolutely untrue that there have been payments from me to anyone to create or edit this page. Please remove this incorrect and defamatory statement.

I requested that this be removed three days ago, and no action has been taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement does not say who made the alleged payments, it only says that payments were allegedly made, so why do you assume it is about you? If, for instance, you have a publicist, which seems likely given your profession, the publicist could have made those alleged payments without you even being aware of them. Hence, there is no defamation here -- but in any case, you should be aware of our WP:No legal threats policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I checked Inspiratrix's edits on that page, and while they have a few edits, they aren't COI type edits. It's clearly other editors that created the issues. --Masem (t) 04:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The implication is that the article is biased in favor of the subject and that he paid for this result. There is no reason to believe that. There is nothing in the article that is biased for or against the subject. The tags should be removed. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No, the implication is that someone paid someone to write or edit the article. Your conclusion is an inference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree the notice creates innuendo that the subject is associated with unethical self-promotion. It is a BLP issue. If merely conjecture, the notice should go to the talk page. If based on evidence, the tag should point to the evidence, and we should respond in a timely manner to resolve the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• For what it's worth I think {{COI}} was a better template for this occasion, as despite of the promotional languages, it doesn't really have the hallmarks of the typical undisclosed paid editing in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, that conclusion was based on this edit. Kleuske (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• If we don't have any evidence for paid activity, or at least some sound reasoning based on credible suspicion, then I think the tag should be removed. It is a BLP after all, and the tag does imply nefarious activity. If it is based on this, then I don't see that as justifying it at all - creating an account and making suggestions on the talk page is exactly what the subject of a BLP (or other editor with a COI) should do. If there's evidence that the BLP subject has been editing the article directly rather than via talk page suggestions, then I see it as a COI thing rather than PAID. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, having properly read the very recent contributions of Ronald Joe Record at the talk page, I take that all back - "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" along with the rest of their way of arguing really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm now neutral on whether the tag is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Foremost in the decision should be respect and the dignity of the subject, per the WMF resolution. The complaint here is a reasonable one, and a vague suspicion of paid editing is a matter for talk page discussion, not appear to be a public allegation in a large notice. I have been bold and removed the notice diff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse the removal of the tag as a courtesy to the article subject, but not as a validation of the user who was edit warring to retain promotional content. I have issued them a DS alert as well as lengthy advice on the talk page, including warnings against continued disruptive behavior. Swarm ♠ 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• I would assume - and I may be wrong - that if you're going to slap a "undisclosed paid" template on an article you should explain why you feel that this is the case on the talk page, particularly if it's not immediately obvious. Fish+Karate 08:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• AfD time? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? It's not a copyvio, subject is notable and article asserts this, article is referenced reliably. Fish+Karate 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • See my comments on the TP about the reliability of the sources. At least two of them are not independent, discogs and allmusic are user generated and there's an op-ed. I'm not very impressed by that. Admittedly, there's one source I can't access. Kleuske (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been well handled by Jytdog and Melcous, appropriately, by editing the article and Fae removed the tag. I'm now having a crack at the associated World Entertainment War article. Nice work. Inspiratrix, if you do have a publicist, it might be worth mentioning to them that their best course of action is requesting edits on talk pages of any artists they represent, because publicists' efforts here often backfire, first on their client, and then, presumably, the client may get irritated enough to find a new publicist.

FWIW, I neither agree that the tag was defamatory (note the word "may") nor do I think your post here was a legal threat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And FWIW on my part, I never said that there was a legal threat made, I merely pointed an editor who had used the legal term "defamation" towards our NLT policy so they would know the limits of what was allowed. A courtesy more than anything else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

From Inspiratrix: There has been mention of a supposed publicist here when referring to me. Maybe I should have a publicist, but I don't, and haven't had one since 2005, when I hired a publicist for three months to help promote my book "Pronoia Is the Antidote for Paranoia."

As for the music references, I'm not sure what you mean when you say one is an "op ed," and when you say that two are not independent. The articles in the Good Times, Popmatters.com, and Gnosis magazine are not op-ed and are independent in every way I can conceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

{{ping}Inspiratrix}} Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and makes it difficult to tell who is saying what. I've moved your comment (just above this) to the correct placement. Also, please "sign" your comment at the end by using 4 tildes, i.e. ~~~~. The system will respond to this by adding your account name and a date/time stamp. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Damn! I can't do an f'ing ping correctly to save my life. @Insporatrix: Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

See what I mean? I give up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, You also wrote "Please do insert your replies into the middle of someone else' comment." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yikes! Obviously I meant "do not" - thinking faster than my fingers can type. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Inspiratrix asks Beyond my Ken: Thanks for your note of advice. I'm not sure where to put my comments so that it's clear they're a response to someone els'e comments. Can you offer guidance? Inspiratrix (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Just put your response directly after the end of the comment you're responding to. Use colons to indent: one more colon than the comment you're responding to is the norm. If there have been intervening comments from other editors, and you think it will be unclear who you are responding to, you can put the name of the editor at the beginning of the comment, as in: "@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your note..." And make sure you're posting in the correct thread - I rescued the comment above from a thread further down the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll say what I think is obivious--that if the subject of the article contacted an editor, and if that editor starts editing, and if then another editor jumps on that bus, and if then a third editor say "not so fast", sees a poorly written, non-neutral article with absolutely lousy sources and a bunch of linkspam, if all that happens it would be a good idea for the first editor to explain what this contact was about, and for the second editor to not start throwing accusations around. As usual, though, I'm sure sunlight is the best disinfectant: my thanks to all the editors who took an interest in the article, first of all Kleuske. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I swore off engaging with User:Drmies but that seems to have lasted about 5 hours. The narrative he constructs here is orthogonal to the one I perceived transpire rapidly over the course of the last few days. First of all, the Rob Brezsny astrological empire is not paying people to edit Wikipedia. He's not Trump. He's not even Beyonce. He's a writer with an astrology column, a few very good books under his belt, and credits for a couple of songs subsequently recorded by Jefferson Starship. Drmies came in and made such substantive deletions to the article that I initially thought it must be vandalism. I said so in the comment to my revert, taking the page back to the last agreed upon revision. I opened a discussion on the talk page to resolve this. The editor, who I subsequently learned is on the arbitration committee, provided sparse replies on the talk page and completely disregarded the main issue which was his tag bombing of the page including an Undisclosed payments tag. Most of all this has been resolved and I am posting this comment here only for the record. The editor, in my opinion, was combative, aggressive, and most importantly adversarial. There was little to no attempt at collaboration. I opened several sections on the talk page attempting to engage and even added a comment on his talk page attempting to lighten the tone and give him some respect. But all these overtures were met with continued vitriol. There is no evidence and no indication that anyone is taking any money for editing this article. It's ludicrous. The addition of the Undisclosed payments tag in the absence of ANY evidence or indication of ill will is, in my opinion, a violation of the assumption of good will policy. There are a number of really odd comments and maybe misperceptions in this comment thread I would like to comment on but do not have the time right now. One of them, however, I would like to get some clarification on. User: Boing! said Zebedee said that my comment "We are attempting to improve the content and citations" really does suggest marketing/promotional activity. I'm trying to understand how my statement of intent to improve suggests promotional activity. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• (1) Long unbroken paragraphs are difficult to read online, and you should consider expressing your thoughts in smaller sections. If you don't, expect to see comments such as "TL,DNR", meaning "Too long, did not read"
• (2) It's not in any way "ludicrous". Paid editing is a problem on Wikipedia, it's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake, and we take that very seriously. That you were momentarily discomfited is hardly of paramount concern.
• (3) Drmies is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, they are a former member of the Arbitration Committee, having served out their term and choosing not to run again. Nevertheless, Drmies is an administrator, a long-term editor, and a respected member of the Wikipedia community, with a great deal of integrity.
• (4) Your comments here and on the article talk page show quite clearly that you have a conflict of interest in regard to Rob Brezsny, in that you are obviously incapable of adhering to a neutral point of view concerning them. Whatever the reason is for this, I have no idea, but the inability to edit neutrally is very apparent. I would suggest that you follow the recommended procedures in the WP:COI policy and do not edit the Rob Brezsny article again, instead making suggestions for edits on the talk page, and allowing other, unbiased, editors decide whether to implement them.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• BMK, "integrity"? Ha! I appreciate it, though. As for Doctorfree--BMK, I have, on occasion, made fun of your BOLD and UNDERLINING, but I have always admired your paragraphing: a model to follow. I understand that Doctorfree is still having a hexagonal or orthogonal or diametrical issue with me, but I'm afraid it goes over my head. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I know that my bolding and so forth is idiosyncratic, and may put some people off, but as my son says, it makes the words on the page sound exaclty as I would say them, which is my goal: to avoid misinterpretation by providing in some small measure what is missing from words in print - tone of voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Just mentioning something in support/clarification of point 2, RJR you seem to have the misapprehension that only extremely rich and famous people have had paid editing for them. This isn't the case. Actually the biggest problem tends to IMO come from fairly unknown people. This may be because there are a lot more of them.

But it's probably also because for such a person, a wikipedia article is often a very important part of what people learn about them. The fact that the subject is here complaining is of course evidence that they do care, and I'm in no way saying I blame them or that indicates fault. Further the people who tend to be involved in promoting them are often a lot less informed about acceptable standards. They themselves are also probably more likely to want to get directly involved in getting the article on them, in their view, fixed or improved. I have no idea about the specifics of this case, so my comment in no way suggests that this actually happened but you mentioned books and music. There are often minor PR people in the publisher who occasionally do work to to promote the work and part of that is often promoting the person. </p

And as said, speaking generally even a direct payment isn't particularly surprising. It's not like it's tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, if someone in a developing country on a freelancer site is being hired, it could be less than the cost of a simple (i.e. not fine dining) restaurant meal in many developed countries without any alcohol served. Or a weeks worth of coffees.

And relatively unknown people are hiring people for PR and related work all the time. I had a quick look at the article in question and sure enough found a webpage. It's possible this was entirely self designed and hosted but I doubt it. In any case even if this is true, domain names nowadays can be cheap but still aren't free (well .com 2LD anyway) and the WHOIS on that fairly specific domain suggests it's been registered since 2000.

Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting any paid editing happened. I know hardly anything about the case. I'm simply suggesting your incredulousness that it could have happened simply because the person is relatively unknown makes little sense since it's happened for people who are even less known who are far poorer than this person.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Doctorfree, whenever someone says "we", there will be suspicion due to Wikipedia:Username policy#Shared accounts. I understand this is not the case, so naturally the next question would be, who are the other person(s) implied in your statement? Did the article subject (Rob Brezsny) ask you to improve the article back in 2008, and continued to ask you to monitor the article as of present? In either case, your conflict of interest should be apparent. Alex Shih (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply User:Alex Shih. Is it really the case that my use of the word "we" prompted other editors to reach the conclusion that the statement "really does suggest marketing/promotional activity"? The "we" I was referring to was the Wikipedia editors who were and are contributing to the article. No, the article subject did not ask me to improve the article back in 2008. No, the article subject did not continue to ask me to monitor the article as of present. Are we now in the inquisition phase? What the heck is going on? Look at my edit history. What do you mean that my "conflict of interest should be apparent"? How does one reach such a conclusion from the facts? Please point me to evidence that would support an assertion that I have a conflict of interest in this matter. Exasperating and disappointing, Wikipedia was such a wonder for so many years and has grown to become such a fine repository of information. What is happening to the editorial crew? Ronald Joe Record (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

From Inspiratrix: I have never asked anyone or paid anyone or even hinted around to anyone to edit or create anything on the Wikipedia page about me. On July 15, a few days ago, I put a notice on my Facebook page that the article was being edited back and forth after many years of staying the same.

There have been small inaccuracies on the page for years, but I let them alone, feeling it's not my place to intervene in any way. I don't even know who wrote the original article. I understand that this is a legitimate subject for Wikipedia editors to discuss and ask about any article on Wikipedia, so I'm certainly not angry about editors bringing up the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Someone isn't telling the truth apparently. Skyerise sounds like the subject contacted her but he has now denied that.

• "The subject has been in touch with me complaining about the recent removals." by Skyerise and "One of the past members of this band, Rob Brezsny, has contacted me about the removal of a few sentences about his musical career from his own article due to poor sourcing."

• "...about Skyerise. In fact, I did not contact him/her. (Not sure what gender he/she is.) He/she contacted me through my Facebook page. I certainly didn't offer him/her anything, and didn't even encourage him/her to edit the Wikipedia page about me." - Rob Brezsny Inspiratrix (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC) by Inspiratrix.

• This needs reconciled.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

From Inspiratrix: P.S. I'm sure that Skyerise would agree with my account of what happened. Please ask her/him if you like. On July 15, I made a post on my Facebook page saying that after many years, my Wikipedia page was being edited. Skyerise, who had never before commented on my FB page as far as I know, showed up and made some comments under my post, basically saying that the edits that had been made on my page were sensible and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We then had a brief back and forth. I never asked her/him to take any action at all in editing my Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiratrix (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Inspiratrix, as unlikely as this story is, I've heard stranger things and I'm fine with this. I wish that other user's tenacity was so easily explained. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Withdrawn

User:Doctorfree, who signs as "Ronald Joe Record", is editing disruptively here in this thread, on Rob Brezsny and, especially, on Talk:Rob Brezsny: He WP:Bludgeons the talk page constantly, questioning every edit by every editor except himself He insists on adding information to the article supported by sources that a child would know don't fulfill the requirements of WP:RS His fawning attitude towards the subject of the article - a barely notable horoscope columnist - shows that he is incapable of editing neutrally about the subject His editing and comments border on being WP:Tendentious editing His disdain for community standards hides behind the veneer of a WP:CPOV-pusher For these reasons, I propose that Doctorfree, aka "Ronald Joe Record", be topic banned from the article Rob Brezsny. Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Wihdrawn Since this has gotten no traction, it's clear that the community doesn't find Doctrofree's editing concerning Rob Brezsny as disruptive as I do; fair enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Process question on admin undelete/delete

KAVEBEAR made a request on my user page that I restore one of his user space pages that had previously been deleted at the user's own request. I made the undeletion. RHaworth immediately deleted the page again with an edit summary saying the request needs to go through WP:REFUND. My question is why is this such a hard and fast rule (if it is)? We may have various process boards, but users make requests directly to admins all the time. And admins may elect to take care of the request or not. Why this one? It was the user's own page. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be the standard summary for G7 deletion, not specific to undeletion. Could it be that the restored page was blank or had a deletion template on it? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the page that was deleted on February 21, 2017, was done so because the user himself placed a G7 template in the See Also section. I prefer not to engage in a Wheel War, but could we just get the July 3, 2016 version restored for the user? The user himself just wants his page restored. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth almost certainly deleted it because it appeared in the CSD category. If it was restored again and the tag was removed then I'm sure nobody else would redelete it. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

All right. I restored the correct version, with an edit summary link to this thread. Not trying to wheel war. Just trying to get it correct. If I erred, please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Per above. Maybe RHaworth should have checked page history (this doesn't always happen), or maybe Maile66 should have checked the CSD tag left intact (although it was buried in the content instead of being on top; I probably would have missed it myself)... In either case it was a good faith miscommunication, no wheel warning and no harm done. Alex Shih (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Page history wouldn't have helped since the tag wasn't removed; you'd have to check the logs. Userpages get G7'd all the time so it's understandable that it wouldn't be noticed. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been scolded a couple times for not checking page history when patrolling CSD; if I have checked the page history for this one (User:KAVEBEAR/Kepelino), I would have done a double take when I saw the date "02:21, 21 February 2017". Userpages get G7'd all the time, but it doesn't get unnoticed until a year and half later especially for someone that works tirelessly (that's the catch) almost daily in CSD. Alex Shih (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you don't check the history, how do you know if the user placed the tag themself? Natureium (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say both history and logs are equally valuable. If an admin clicks on the red link, it brings up the logs, which tells you who nominated it for deletion, who deleted it, undeleted it, how many times it's been deleted or undeleted, or any other pertinent logs. If you click on the more current view/restore link, it brings up the Page History. There might be something in that history that tells you if there is anything to indicate the delete nomination was in error. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless I've misunderstood something, I don't see how logs will tell you whether the author is the one who nominated it for deletion. E.g. [9]. I'm discounting someone noting it in the logs e.g. when deleting it, that this is what happened. It presumes whoever it is checked the history (so someone needed to) and obviously doesn't apply to the first deletion. BTW, in case there is some confusion, I think Natureium's point which also occurred to me is that it seems an admin should always be checking the page history before carrying out a G7 or alternatively relying on someone or thing they trust e.g. a bot to do it for them. Otherwise I could G7 tag this page and ignoring the fact that an admin should recognise without checking I'm not the only author of ANI, an admin would just G7 it. For a U1, a check of the specific diff where it was U1nd should be sufficient. (Well there is a minor risk there that someone else could revert to a previously placed U1, but probably too minor to worry too much about.) Of course checking the history for these details doesn't guarantee you will always notice the time frames. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Jason Spencer (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an edit war at the listed page in the wake of the controversy concerning Jason Spencer. Germany7to1 is posting Swastika and Confederate flag as his picture in the infobox. I have repeatedly reverted the charges to no avail and warned the user at least once. Please have the page protected and deal with the user in the most appropriate manner. Christianster94 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I just reverted him removing this post. Natureium (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And we have some move-vandalism. [10] Natureium (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And blocked indef. 10-ish edits, then vandalism spree? Bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

help needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin block the IPs that are harassing User talk:Tyw7 (and maybe protect the page)? L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be settled for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thar is a big edit war here, not quite sure what is is about, as I am not involved. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Update, the page has been protected. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP:108.54.92.30

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin block this for at least a year (previous blocks have been 1 month, 3 month etc) - almost all edits are vandalism or BLP violations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV pushing IP at Ben Swann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an IP who's been on a crusade to whitewash a notable conspiracy theorist for the past few weeks. Despite encountering significant pushback with very little support for their position, they've kept it, up, bludgeoning the talk page with wikilawyering and repeated claims that we're using sources that make false claims about the subject without evidence. This has been going on for too long, and needs to stop. There's no consensus for any changes to the article at best, and a consensus not to change for the majority of the IP's proposals. The IP has been made aware of DS, has been warned numerous times, and has even been blocked once already. The IP has since gained some support on one point, and as a result, redoubled their efforts. Can an admin please put a stop to this?

• Crying BLP
• Using decidedly unreliable sources
• Questioning decidedly reliable sources
• Attempting to wikilawyer reliably sourced statements out of the lede
• Falsely representing sources
• accusations of bias
• accusing me of being ignorant for apparently knowing more about Pizzagate than they do
• BLUDGEONING the talk page
• Slow edit warring over a number of edits: [11], [12] & [13]; [14], [15], [16] & [17]... Hell, just look at the IP's entire article-space editing history. It's all whitewashing and edit warring. I'm not being hyperbolic, this is an WP:SPA with a clear ideological agenda who has been claiming that the NYT is spreading lies about Benn Swann and that Swann is a trustworthy source whose credulous coverage of Pizzagate should be taken seriously. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this is in fact, hyperbolic. And much of it is inaccurate. I welcome anybody to check out the talk page and the edit history to see for themselves. The edit warring he highlights was among my very first edits when I was unfamiliar with a lot of the rules. I haven't repeated such behavior since then, however, I was able to clear up factually incorrect information from that exchange. All my edits have been from a NPOV and are consistent with the cited sources. I've tried to remove and modify poorly sourced contentious (and frankly false) claims about Ben because that is mandated by WP Policy. There are a few editors over there that seem hell-bent on discrediting Ben Swann and keep injecting their opinions and exaggerating what the soures say. despite many efforts (not just by me), the inflammatory claims and BLP violations continue and they have been actually getting worse since I first saw the page. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Indef PC added. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I understand your imposition of PC but I think in this case full prot is more appropriate. The IP has been POV pushing against MjolnirPants and Jytdog, who I hate to say (since I agree with them 90% of the time) have been equally POV pushing, if not more. I have sided with some (but not all) of the IP's edits that actually appear to be enforcing BLP. In particular, we have a talk page dispute over whether it's verifiable that Swann has repeatedly spread fake news. This certainly appears to me to lack appropriate sourcing. By imposing PC you're inadvertently allowing the BLP violations to stand. I suggest full prot to the last stable version, which I believe is this. I'm also disappointed MjolnirPants didn't notify me of this AN report when I was already actively involved in the dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

PS please don't take this as a request for a boomerang; MjolnirPants is an excellent editor who I believe has had a momentary lapse of reason. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's possible that full prot might have been a better choice, but I went with the option I believed would permit the most flexibility for all concerned. If another admin wants to up the protection level, that's fine -- but per WP:THEWRONGVERSION, I would oppose trying to choose a "stable version" at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought we always rollback to the last stable version when we impose full prot? The version I identified was last edited by Jytdog and I believe those edits have not been challenged. However if we wanted to rollback to an even older version that's fully stable, I suppose that would be this one. It would certainly be better than the existing BLP violations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

While WP:PREFER does urge finding a stable, non-BLP-violating version, I don't see anything that particularly fits that description. It hasn't been stable for more than about a month at any point in the past 2 years that I can see.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The content about Swann spreading fake news was originally added to the lead (as far as I can tell) here, back in June. It has moved around some. I adjusted that yesterday. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:DrFleischman has acknowledged that the concerns about BLP that they expressed above, did not take into account the changes made yesterday. It is hard enough dealing with FRINGE-pushing IP editors without this kind of sloppiness. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. In that same comment I said there are still serious problems. I could make similar below-the-belt comments about your behavior, but I choose not to because I think you're a fine editor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And those serious problems boil down to you taking issue with us not directly quoting the sources. So we should call Swann an "imbecile" and his work "boneheaded and irresponsible" because that would correct the BLP problems? Seriously? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for full prot

The BLP problems were somewhat ameliorated by Jytdog's edit and not as blatant anymore. I still think that imposition of PC ended up tipping the balance of a content dispute where there has been POV pushing on both sides, and full prot is warranted, with a rollback to some last stable version, which I do believe can be identified. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike your repeated accusations of POV pushing or provide some fucking evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't want to do this, but here's some evidence of your POV pushing. Again, I'm not trying to get you in trouble, this is just presented to support my call for full prot.

• Here's where you reinserted unsourced content connecting Swann to fake news and Russian disinformation.
• Here's where you compared your campaign to add this content to disputes over pseudoscience.
• Here's where you said your position was such common knowledge that no sourcing was necessary. (At least, you cited WP:SKYBLUE, and that's what it's about.)
• Here's where you said erroneously that "demonstrably false claims of fact" were the "very definition of fake news."
• Here's where you said you weren't going to waste your time arguing with me, and you told me to "fuck off."
• Here's where you called efforts to enforce BLP "bullshit whitewashing."
• Here's where you said you were trying to get me to "shut up" and alluded to me being "a fucking robot who can't engage in any thought whatsoever."
• Here's where you bizarrely objected to my RfC on the basis that I hadn't previously obtained any consensus for my position. (What would be the point of starting an RfC if I had already obtained consensus?)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, here we go:

• Sourced in the body, as explained by at least three other editors at talk: [18], [19], [20] and me.
• I did not add this content, I'm hardly on a "campaign" and so what if I compared it to pseudoscience? The notion that Swann is a legitimate reporter is clearly WP:FRINGE, according to the sources themselves.
• That was not my assertion, and I explained it rather clearly in detail in that post. I clearly said that if a source defines what Swann says in the same way that fake news is defined, it's not OR to call it fake news. Just like if a source describes something as "that color between red and yellow" we can call it "orange". It would be nice if you would read comments (as you have been advised to do by multiple editors at that page) instead of simply responding to what you think they say.
• That is not what I said, and you damn well know it. I even went back and bolded the very important point that you "conveniently" left out.
• Are you suggesting me being unwilling to engage with dishonest editors is a sign of POV pushing?
• "efforts to enforce BLP" is bullshit. It's efforts to WP:CRYBLP over widely reported claims about Swann's work, not himself personally.
• That's where I point out that your argument only works if all we do is quote sources instead of summarizing them. Yeah, robots who can't engage in any thought whatsoever would have a problem with summation. It wasn't an accusation; it was a characterization of how weak your argument is.
• That is not the reason I objected to your RfC (that I participated in, by the way), as is made explicitly clear in my comment. I quite plainly stated that I objected because you're dragging out a content dispute that has no basis in the RSes.

I want to point out that I could at least four different, policy based arguments against your objections that you've completely ignored, in favor of continuing to assert in the face of contradictory evidence that the material is not supported by sources. You are lying about what the sources say, either having read them yourself, or by refusing to read them and pretending to know already. I'm fairly certain you're not POV pushing, but you're certainly dragging out a content dispute that has no policy basis, and should have been resolved weeks ago.

Finally, as for your "case for full prot": I've edited the article exactly twice. Your "case for full prot" isn't stronger or weaker for anything I've done. I could be insisting that Swann is a child rapist and it wouldn't matter, because it's been the following list of editors opposing this change: Neutrality, Jytdog, Objective3000, NorthBySouthBaranof, Snooganssnoogans & Calton, far more than it has been I. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This will probably draw an objection, but this is my rough paraphrase of what you just wrote: "I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right that any removal of my content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"I didn't POV push! It's just that I'm so obviously right this change has been opposed by the clear majority of editors for such well-defined reasons that any this removal of my existing content is bullshit whitewashing and POV pushing, any this particular BLP argument is CRYBLP, any disagreement over what the sources say is lying you're lying if you claim you've made even one single attempt to characterize what the sources are saying, instead of just blindly insisting that they're not saying what me and others have quoted them saying, and any extended discussion is worthy of me telling my fellow editors to shut up, fuck off, and call them thoughtless robots this discussion has been going on for weeks with no consensus to make the proposed changes, and it's growing disruptive."
I made some corrections there, since you seem to be really bad at reading my comments, preferring to completely ignore them in favor of the kind of wild assertions I've never made on this site.

P.S. Here's me using the same basic line of argument to defend remarks by Trump as being racially inclusive. Because consistently using the same logic even when it contradicts one's POV is the halmark of a POV pusher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion @DrFleischman and MPants at work:. I am pretty good at doing line-by-line reviews of content to sources, paying particular attention to POV. I see that the article is tagged for {{synthesis}}. I would be happy to do a review and edit if that would be ok with both of you. It seems that there is aa lot of re-litigation of previous comments... and maybe having someone new come in and take a look at the content may help get to a "stable" version and one that you might both agree with (even if it wouldn't be your wording).–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that! Thank you! FYI there's a pending RfC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Ok, if it's ok with MPants at work, I will get started with that. I was going to also post recent examples: Isaias Afwerki‎, as a result of an ANI issue, and Ute people, which was essentially a rewrite and line-by-line review.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment

SarekOfVulcan, CaroleHenson I looked at the article, and it's not good. The term "fake news" is POV in and of itself, in the fact that it's bandied about by all sides, and probably everybody in the news is practicing POV pushing. Whatever the last stable version is, it should be one without that newly-coined term of "fake news". I do have a suggestion, short of an inter-action ban, topic ban, or the like. This worked on Battle of the Alamo, but that particular topic was not being argued all day and night on TV shows. Still ... a Full Protection was put on the article by TomStar81, initially to be a 6-month ban in July 2015. A duplicate of the article was created as a subpage of the article, and editors were instructed to work out their differences there. I can no longer find the subpage, but my memory of this, is that nobody edited on the subpage, and the issue quieted down.

What I see happening here, if a full protection doesn't happen, is the news media are dictating our content - either direction - and Wikipedia is not better off for it. What I see on the news, leaking over here, is that people are so duped by one position or another, that there is no middle ground, just complete chaos. Perhaps there is a better way at Wikipedia. If this can't be worked out, there should even-handed topic bans or inter-action bans. If it cannot be resolved here, then maybe it should go to Arbitration/Requests. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree about there being an issue with the term "fake news". I think that people can take it several ways. The term did come directly from the articles, so I see why it was used, but I don't think it's encyclopedic.

I am happy to start work on the article in a subarticle or as a draft, but I am not sure how the outcome will be different. But, I am happy to do it.

My goal was to do a full line-by-line review and editing of the article, though and summarize the nature of my edits / reasoning on the talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to put in that kind of work line-by-line, I support you. But what is the assurance that the situation will not immediately reoccur the moment it's done? Just my own POV, is that you get "real news" when your local media is reporting on your area. But on a national and international level, it's now tabloid journalism. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson if you are going to do that, I trust you will start with the body and the circle back to the lead when you are done Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Maile66, Yes, I may have to change sources along the way. Not sure that I agree about the difference between local and international/national news, but I agree that there may be some cases where I will be looking for a change in sources for more neutral, objective tones.

OK, fine with me. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, My approach is generally top-down starting with the intro... and then return to the intro to ensure it properly summarizes the article. So, if there is something problematic in the intro, my approach is to catch that upfront... but not rewrite the intro until the entire article is reviewed/edited. Does that make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

73.7.82.234

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Apparent hoax creation and suspicious wikilinking (to non-existing articles). I initially thought of AIV but it's not 100% unambiguous vandalism. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Cullen328--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I saw nothing useful in their edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ponyo insult: i dont think you're reading or comprehending any of the policies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was editing Ross Mathews and disagreed with FlightTime about it. Ponyo supports FlighTime. Another editor CFred is mediating. Now Ponyo is posting insults in the discussion between Cfed and I on Cfred page. Ad hominem attacks. This is the insult/. I feel Ponyo should be warned. Isnt it an admin or trusted editor supposed to know better? Do better. These titles shouldnot go to ones head. Thank you. 2601:155:8300:1659:4536:B605:9536:DB40 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: although this remark is probably worthy of a boomerang in itself... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

They have already been warned after that attack [21]. May be they could realize they need to stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean the warning that they blanked with the edit summary "stay away and read! your friend ponyo is the one attacking which i am sure you are happy about!" I'm not sure they are realizing they need to stop; their personal attack is absolutely uncalled for and I would have hoped for an immediate block to prevent further disruption. Lourdes 19:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not comfortable blocking this IP now (which can of course change in 10 minutes), but any other administrator can block if they feel this necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks. Just for information, they've already crossed 5RR on Ross Mathews, reverting every editor multiple times including the administrator discussing with them. I would hope such disruptive behaviour is immediately arrested. Lourdes 19:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Arrested? Are we cops? One day before retirement... I'm too old for this. --Tarage (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing a topic ban for Mark Miller

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

I am requesting that Mark Miller be topic-banned permanently from anything to do with Hawaii. His edits are often disruptive, and his attitude combative. WikiProject Hawaii is a very small project, and we need to encourage editors, not drive them off. My personal experience with Mark Miller has caused me to steer away from anything he's part of. It's just not worth it.

Today, I realized this needs to be aired out here, and uninvolved admins need to give input. There are other editors to consider, and the project as a whole to consider. It is a sad day at Wikipedia when an editor, in this case, Andy Dingley, has to submit an AFD on article that has been around since 2007 just to get some clearance to edit it. Please see AFD Grass skirt July 2018. Mark Miller's pattern there is pretty much how he operates.

My exhaustion point with Mark Miller was reached on this editor when KAVEBEAR asked if I would help with Liliʻuokalani. Not a big deal, as KAVEBEAR and I often edit on the same articles related to Hawaii. As they say in Hawaii, "Ain't no big thing, bruddah." But it seems to have sparked something like paranoia in Mark Miller: My talk page Sept 2016, My Talk page October 2016. If anyone has time and the will, they can go through the archived talk page battles on that article. Below are some diffs on review processes:

• Liliʻuokalani/GA1 Oct 2017 Nominated at GAC by KAVEBEAR, Mark Miller argued on the template with the nominator throughout the process.
• FAC Liliuokalani October 8, 2017 Even though the article was not yet in shape for FAC, Mark Miller nominated it there on October 8, 2017, wanting it to be through the process and actually Wikipedia's main page Featured Article on November 11, 2017. Although neither KAVEBEAR nor I had been consulted before the nomination, we were named as co-nominators. Therein, Mark Miller began an argument with KAVEBEAR over issues that should have been ironed out before the nomination.
• DYK nomination Liliuokalani October 8, 2017 In an argument over the image, Mark Miller stated on the nomination, "OK, since there was no attempt to save that, I will make no attempt to save this. I am against this entire DYK and am prepared to request further comment from projects. Using DYK as an attempt to change long standing images is just wrong. I really think that it should have been mentioned when the image was suggested what would happen. Since I have too much good faith in Gerda. I have to conclude that this article is not ready for DYK or FA."

I've given you my experiences as an example. Others can answer for themselves. But there is no way to predict when and where this will happen next. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have enough experience of dealing with this editor (or Amadscientist (talk · contribs), which I understand to have been a previous identity) to justify an opinion. However their behaviour on Grass skirt (see the Talk: page and the AfD too) has been bizarre to say the least. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• I have no idea what's going on at Grass skirt, Mark Miller shouldn't participate in that discussion further without explaining themselves here. I think anything wider than that article is an over-reaction; an argument over an image last October isn't reason to justify a topic ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The Oct image stuff is minor. You should read the links and diffs. What he is doing on Grass skirt is how he acts everywhere. He's a very disruptive editor. Also, he has had previous blocks for editing warring, and for making legal threats. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

...four years ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violations Jzsj

Jzsj (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed. They may participate in deletion discussions related to these topics if they created the page(s) in question.

By now, he has already served two blocks for violating the topic ban. One for 1 "oversight", the second for 42 "oversights". And now, to my opinion he violated the topic ban again:

1. Margaret Mary Vojtko, an adjunct professor, here (and after a polite warning self reverted)
2. Gustavo Gutiérrez, a professor, here (6 edits).

I do not believe any more that these violations are plain "oversights". The Banner talk 11:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I was going to comment to the effect that the Vojtko edit should probably not be held against them as they retracted it, and the Gutiérrez edits are borderline since an article on someone who holds a professorship but is not known for his educational work. Until I noticed that one of the edits related specifically to his academic work,[22] and I dug a little deeper and noticed this: if it could be called wikilawyering to block the editor for editing articles on people who happen to hold professorships, it would be just as wikilawyer-ish to say that being technically permitted to "participate in deletion discussions" allows them to thank editors for saving the entire content of those articles by copy-pasting them verbatim several months after the deletion discussions in question have been closed. And then there're all these edits whose edit summaries or article titles include "school", "college", etc., and while an argument could be made that the last group was not specifically related to schools the group founded, education is apparently such an integral part of their raison d'être that it's in their name.

I'm really thinking that at this point the editor probably needs an IDHT/CIR indef block, or a broader TBAN that covers "Christianity" since it's so easy to skirt the boundaries of the current ban by editing articles on religious institutions that are very closely (only?) associated with education but the edits themselves might not technically look like they are related to education.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm editing dozens of articles and sincerely trying to avoid violations of the ban. Please note that it was imposed mainly for my effort to get religious post-nominals accepted in infoboxes. I have learned since then the meaning of consensus in Wikipedia, and I respect that. I was also involved in a dispute over religious organizations and the poverty background of Catholic schools, with some support but little consensus. These are the only places where I have run into problems, all since last January, which I fully intend to avoid in the future. I have over 27,000 edits and over 400 articles created and remaining in Wikipedia. With regard to extending the ban to other related areas, if these are grey areas then why not wait until my editing there results in the kind of dispute that brought on the ban? Jzsj (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Jzsj, the topic ban was mainly the result of time and time again ignoring consensus. And every time restarting a discussion when the consensus went against your desire. For example here. The Banner talk 13:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• You're citing the one example of where I went against consensus and was banned. The previous discussions had not reached consensus. I have since learned that consensus is determined by administrators very largely on the basis of pro and con votes. Your "time and time again" ignores that none of this took place before last January, when I first encountered these issues after 30 months of work in Wikipedia, 10 to 14 hours most days. I am determined to abide by Wikipedia policies and am sorry for slips, which I will make greater efforts to avoid. I have reverted the ref I added to the Gutiérrez article; you're correct about it dealing with schools. I would be a fool to deliberately touch school issues, even if I was not being so carefully watched. (Also, please reference what you mean by 42 "oversights" in your opening statement.) Jzsj (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• this. The Banner talk 19:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A kinder, and truer, interpretation of this was the one given there, leading to a reasonable, 72 hour block: "Thanks for reminding me, it was an oversight. I began just correcting the links to sisters, and got into the schools inadvertently." It was a single incident, on a single oversight, on a single day when I added the "Sister" link in 81 articles and regrettably strayed into the sisters at the schools in the sisters category. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• As to the "Wikilawyering" charge, I haven't dealt with that issue before, but when I looked up relevant material, this is all I found. Where does it say that I shouldn't thank an editor who on his/her own "merged" (not "saving the entire content") an article and mentioning that there are other articles of mine where this recommended merging was not carried out at the time of deletion. Jzsj (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how you conclude that I may not edit articles like all these edits, where the names of the groups do not mention schools, and where I was careful to avoid touching parts of their work related to education. Give me some credit! Jzsj (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Four edits on the section "Emphasis on education" did not touch education? The Banner talk 19:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I found no relation to education in the first and third examples. In the middle one I deliberately avoided touching on the work Fr. Garcia did in education. But you are right, that in one (and only one) of the four edits in the section on education the reference I added was to his being on the board of a social research institute, which was indeed an oversight on my part. I will try harder to note the verboten nature of such edits. All the trouble both of us are going through in this discourse here will have the salutary effect of bringing to my mind the matter of the ban while editing. Jzsj (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• You clearly do not understand what the meaning of your topic ban is in reality. To try to explain it one more time: you are not allowed to touch articles that are related to education or schools. This includes teachers, professors, buildings etc., no matter how remote related to education. The Banner talk 10:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: Please give us your decision on this. It seems to me that if one looks into the material behind the ban (acting against consensus on post-nominals) then such further generalization of it is unnecessary, especially in light of the fact that I had made c. 25,000 edits and this dispute at NDCRHS is the only time I ran into this problem, and learned from it. My present editings try to respect the ban. Please clarify the ban in this regard. Thanks, Jzsj (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  My interpretation of the ban, as per the "broadly construed", is that any article remotely related to education or covering education is within the scope of the ban. However, articles not primarily about education, universities, and similar topics, and are at best a few sentences in articles mentioning the topic, should not be including in the ban's scope.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sigh This is unfortunate to see. Clearly this editor is either unwilling to or incapable of staying far the hell away from education-related edits. Rather than trying to engineer a much broader TBAN to keep him as far away from the parts of the encyclopedia he's not supposed to be editing as possible, an indef block is in order. I would say escalating blocks (he's only been blocked for violating this ban twice so far, the latest for 72 hours), but he doesn't show the slightest sign of being willing to abide by the ban, so the escalating blocks so far have not been doing their job. If you are not going to appeal your ban, you have to abide by it; them's the rules. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I’ve stayed out of this until now, but I really do think it is entirely reasonable to make a distinction about biographies of academics and “education”. An article on a theologian and another about a decreased adjunct professor (where he self-reverted) are a bit beyond broadly construed for me, and I’d personally question if this is even a TBAN vio: if this sanction applied to me, I would not consider edits to an article on a theologian to be a TBAN, and would likely consider them well within what I could edit to the point where I wouldn’t seek clarification. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I would agree with you, as I said near the top of this thread, but everything we say before "but" is horse-shit, and one of the edits he didn't self-revert and apologize for was to amend and add a citation to the sentence Gutiérrez is a member of the Peruvian Academy of Language, and a founder of the Bartolomé de las Casas Institute. That's not a reasonable distinction between a biography of an academic and "education"; it falls so squarely into the area covered by the ban (editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed) that it would even fall under it if the ban was from "editing articles related to schools, narrowly construed". Also I should clarify that I have not looked into any of the background here related to the imposition of the ban or the original reasoning for it, and have only been looking at the ban as it exists and how it might relate to the recent edits; if, as may well be the case, the subject feels, rightly or wrongly, that he was subjected to an unfair and unreasonably broad ban, I sympathize (and Tony -- you know how much I sympathize), but such editors need to appeal through the normal processes, not try to find ways they can get around the ban and pretend it doesn't exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t consider that to be a TBAN violation, sorry. This could be because I view academics (including theologians) more as researchers than educators, but by this standard we’d be considering any edit to Daniel Dennett and Thomas Aquinas to be TBAN vios because they are/were both professors. Also add literally every MD at an academic medical centre who has never taught a day in their life but who holds the courtesy title of assistant professor (this is a common practice in the United States.) If we are considering every academic biography or everyone with academic honours or titles part of this TBAN then it might be the worst sanction I’ve seen on this website. A priest who was a liberation theologian who happens to hold academic appointments is pretty clearly outside the intent of the TBAN. It doesn’t appear either biography was about an academic who’s field of research was education. The former was a French professor and the latter is a significant figure in Liberation theology, one of the most significant theological schools of the 20th century. Neither of their fields of study are/were education. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m splitting hairs here, but to me this is an absolute no-brainer for “clearly allowed edits.” TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is definitely at odds with the topic ban topic banned from editing, discussing, or mentioning, any articles related to education or schools, broadly construed and the classic phrase when in doubt, do not edit. And it is in fact rewarding his skirting of the topic ban by narrowing his ban, something what was turned down only on the 19th of this month (see WP:AN). The Banner talk 06:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I have never tried to skirt the ban, and that is why I made a proposal, to allow me to restore deleted material to its source: I respected the ban and proposed a narrowing of it for a specific purpose. I accept the fact that the scope of the ban has not been narrowed. Jzsj (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no narrowing. Editing articles on the universities themselves is out of limits. Editing articles on academics who have primary fields other than education is not. The wideness you are attributing to this TBAN is far beyond what is reasonable to broadly construe. Especially in the case of the theologian, reading the topic ban this way would have the impact of functionally banning him from a significant number of articles on figures in the Catholic Church (Benedict XVI was a professor, and notable for being one, Alasdair MacIntyre is a moral philosopher who holds professorships, etc.) The TBAN was not a ban on editing about scholars. It was a ban on editing about education. People who happen to work at a higher education institution but focus on other fields are not within it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, professors are involved in education. The Banner talk 14:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Contrary to what you surmise, @Hijiri88:, I have never felt that I "was subjected to an unfair and unreasonably broad ban" and Tony is correct, I am trying to carry on work that at times led to overstepping the line without being aware of it. I have promised to be more alert as I edit. I just gave up copy editing Nguyễn Trường Tộ because, as a diplomat, he got into buying books and encouraging Western education in Vietnam. I think you should weigh the loss if I ceased copy editing these articles, against the damage from the few innocent oversights which I promise to try harder to avoid in the future. I had found an obvious pleonasm in the Tộ article (However, but) yet I left it and abandoned copy editing this article lest I slip into an edit dealing with "education or schools, broadly construed". And this was before I came here and found this new proposal. I insist that it would be a very unfair judgment on my actions, and without any evidence to prove it, if one would surmise that I was trying "to find ways they can get around the ban and pretend it doesn't exist". This is blatantly false. Jzsj (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought. When in ANY doubt, don't. If it even SOUNDS like it could be related IN ANY WAY to education, don't make the edit. Period. Hell, if the page has the word "education" on it, don't fucking edit. Don't edit if it has the word "learn" in it. Stay the fuck away from it. It's not THAT hard. --Tarage (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a church and with abbeys and with people all the time, and they do get involved in education. Unless the ban is extended to all things Catholic I propose to keep editing these articles, with greater care to avoid all things educational. The fact that I've edited so many article with education mentioned somewhere within them and had so few slips shows that I am trying. I have promised to redouble my efforts at avoiding the few verifiable slips that have turned up here. Jzsj (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

the few verifiable slips... Ow, goodie. You have been blocked twice for a total of 43 slips. And I have entered two more slips but when I read the discussion, there are many more. Are you kidding with "just a few slips"? The Banner talk 13:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• If you look carefully and count you will find that most of those "many more" are charges that turn out false or questionable. And I can hope that others will see as one slip my 42 quick edits on a part of one day, when I was editing sisters and religious congregations and slipped into linking their names in schools articles (to the article on Religious sisters that I had newly produced). I had reached those articles through the category congregations of sisters and for a small part of my long editing in that category slipped in to the articles on schools listed there. I avoided their names in schools articles after that, and am now avoiding schools as I copy edit articles recommended by the Catholic Project. Jzsj (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I have looked carefully and I have seen that you have 1001 excuses to "accidentally" ignore your topic ban. The Banner talk 19:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support You have to be some sort of thick not to understand that editing a section called "Emphasis on education" IS related to education and thus falls under the topic ban. But really, we shouldn't even be voting. Any admin could step in and enforce the damn topic ban. Why none have is a mystery to me. --Tarage (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it as obvious that we must go by the title of a section that discusses various issues, and we are tending to the issues that do not pertain to education. But I'll know to be more attentive in the future to the titles of sections, when I am editing matter that is not related to education. Jzsj (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with User:TonyBallioni. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: indef block is an extreme overreaction and Draconian sanction for an alleged TBAN violation. Even if a bona fide violation it is a borderline violation at best not warranting the most severe penalty the community can impose. – Lionel^(talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the level of disruption has risen to the point where an indef block is appropriate. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose broadly construed adj.

Phrase used in sanctions. Roughly translated, it means "We can't really explain what you're restricted from doing, but we'll know it when we block you for doing it." as the hilarious but often deeply wise Wikipedia:WikiSpeak defines this. I see no reason for such a drastic measure to be enacted at this stage. I would agree that any level of "disruption" so far perceived from this colleague in no way merits such a draconian step. Irondome (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ju Ming and Zhu Ming

• Ju Ming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article, a target of extensive efforts to cannibalize it on behalf of the unrelated Zhu, has been protected for two weeks--thank you, Widr. A few concerns can be addressed in the interim (one expects the vandalism will resume next month). First, the bio can use some clean up of unsourced and promotional content. But there's also been lots of peripheral damage, where Mr. Zhu's name has been added to maybe dozens of other articles; I've removed it from about ten. More eyes welcome in addressing this mass disruption. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This will needs quite a lot of watching. The account which first tried to turn this into Zhu Ming is User:Wirterss, an indef-blocked sockmaster. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wirterss. He's also indef blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for repeated cross-wiki attempts to spam Zhu Ming [23]. His Draft:Zhu Ming (thinker) is up for deletion. His IP socks have been variously blocked at WikiQuote for repeated spamming [24] and one of them has been at it at Commons too. I don't imagine he'll give up easily. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Communion and Liberation long term edit war, meat sock and User:Jasmir54 other behavior

• Communion and Liberation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• Jasmir54 (talk · contribs)
• Lzzy303 (talk · contribs)
• Lotuspwr33 (talk · contribs)
• GioA90 (talk · contribs)
• more ip users were omitted.
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lzzy303, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lzzy303 reported by User:Jasmir54 (Result: ), Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Communion and Liberation

Long story short, i first discovered the article by wiki-link from bank regarding the conspiracy theory (or accusation) on the society "controlling" the bank, which this historical version in June (846798991) is full of uncited borderline defamation material, so i tagged for maintenance.

And then "new" user Jasmir54 was created and at first it those edits were good faith edits (except removing one of the tag in one of the first edit Special:Diff/847293956) and again in Special:Diff/849739062. He never responded to my request (by tagging in article, talk page), to add back page number of the books he added, instead he started an edit war with GioA90 in mid-July, another new account that recently created. I can see the lengthy discussion (Talk:Communion and Liberation/Archive 1#Citations Usage and Talk:Communion and Liberation/Archive 1#NPV Violations and Factual Accuracy) on sourcing the content, and the wording difference between "court ruling" (which is a "fact" status version of the "story/history") and "accusation", but Jasmir54 just replied a bot like unrelated response such as "Thanks for your contributions, please proper source your references. Thanks you are invited to the Teahouse" instead of properly discussed with GioA90 for which source is good or bad (or tabloid journalism) or some sort. It get worse on assuming good faith is, he started to claim himself joined wikipedia many years ago, as well one of his very first edit, AFC submitting Draft:Amos Genish, which the original article Amos Genish, was actually created by blocked sock, which the draft is also associated with blocked Ultimateuserxx.

The case got even worse on the emerge with yet another account Lotuspwr33 (talk · contribs), which just use to send user talk message. Lastly, Lzzy303 entered the edit warring and may be a meat sock.

To sum up, how to deal with the edit war when the parties did not really use talk page to discuss the matter, as well as the behavior of User:Jasmir54 and his other vandalism edit such as this Special:Diff/852000698? Matthew_hk tc 19:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC) (19:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) comment edited by matthew_hk and Bbb23)

Good point, Matthew. I am more than open to discussion, if Jasmir54 tries to answer my points and tells me where and why he disagrees, I shall be all ears and see on what I agree, on what to change my mind, on what I disagree...but unfortunately this has felt like a long monologueGioA90 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the OP felt it necessary to bring this to ANI given that it's already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lzzy303.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a long term edit war between Jasmir54, GioA90 and Lzzy303 which one side never used the talk page properly to discuss and just spamming teahouse, mos, wiki guide (and don't even point out which source to which policy or which edit to which policy), and SPI case 1 only concern potential sock and sockmaster GioA90 and Lzzy303 . While SPI case 2 concern the potential linkage of Jasmir54 to already blocked Ultimateuserxx. Matthew_hk tc 19:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't know what's the problem, where is exactly a Wikipedia rule infraction that I did? Please keep a civitl tone, have a nice day Matthew_hk. Jasmir54 21:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Block request

This will soon go stale on AIV, so could someone please block Ondrabrod as a sock of Nsmutte; see Special:Diff/852105483. He was also using 2405:204:6519:2955:CD3C:A6B0:D4F8:6914 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I'm guessing the IP is probably different by now. Home Lander (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Junk edits from public library IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't think there's been enough recent activity for a block from AIV, but all recent edits from 24.89.136.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have been junk, and mostly outside of mainspace. The talk page suggests it belongs to a public library, so can it be blocked for a while? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a month to start with--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User biting newcomers with warning templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Starkarrow (talk · contribs) has been constructively reverting vandalism and unconstructive edits but has been giving out inappropriate warnings. After noticing that every single warning they gave was either a level 4 or level 4-im ([25][26][27] and more), and that a number of edits appeared to just be tests or minor disruption (nothing severe at all [28][29][30][31][32]), I gave them a notice about biting newcomers, to which they responded by likening the editors to criminals and then saying they deserve to be severely punished. I told them to read WP:WARN [33], removed the warnings they gave (and got reverted [34][35][36]) and warned them about the misuse of warning templates [37] after they reverted me. They templated me [38] and added sockpuppet tags to two userpages [39][40], which I reverted and then I pointed out WP:LOGOUT to them [41]. And then finally, they started giving out undue level 4 warnings again [42][43]. This behaviour shows a lack of WP:AGF along with a battleground mentality. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 03:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

([44]) This is not even remotely okay. User needs a time out. --Tarage (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Could this be another user:ItsLassieTime sock, carrying on where User:RandNetter96 left off? The rapid-fire reversion behaviour seems similar. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you're on to something. --Tarage (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Callanecc, Berean Hunter, some IP range's log whispered y'all's names. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indef pending whatever else needs to be done. ansh666 07:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OUTing attempt, aspersions - refusal to remove after being asked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have an editor here named Binksternet who tried to WP:OUT me as a resident of Washington, D.C. and falsely accused me of editing from the State Department.[45] Natureium and Awilley pointed out that this obviously doesn't make sense, but Binksternet didn't agree...in fact he doubled down[46], and said that his conspiracy theory is in some way supported by the fact that the IP edited my draft before it was moved to the main project. I said earlier that he should have a chance to retract his statement before he gets punished for what he did[47], but he seems to be under the impression that he did nothing wrong, and he can say whatever he wants about whoever he wants and it's the burden of the OUTing target to prove that they don't deserve aspersions. I don't know what the best solution is but at the minimum Binksternet's conspiracy theories should be removed, and he should demonstrate that he understands that this kind of behavior is just not acceptable on Wikipedia before he is permitted to resume editing. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you seem to have arrived here fully-grown, like Athena springing from the head of Zeus, with great knowledge about Wikipedia's ways, perhaps you'd like to assure us that you are indeed a brand new editor with no history of editing under any other account name before your account was created on 14 June 2018, when, with only your second edit to Wikipedia, [48] you created the fully-formed article Inspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Binksternet's comment, here's the chronology:

• On 22:11, 14 June 2018‎ you create the article noted above
• You go on to make 8 edits to it in the next 33 minutes
• Ten minutes after your last edit in that sequence, an IP editor makes a typographical correction [49], this to an article which has only existed for 43 minutes, and which no one else but you has edited, and no one else would have any reason to know exists
• The IP, 169.253.194.1, geolocates to the U.S. Department of State
• You continue editing the article 21 minutes later, making 8 more edits in the next half hour [50]

Now, editing Wikipedia, signing out, going back to make a correction without remembering to sign in, then signing in to continue editing is a very frequent sequence of events -- we've all done it at one time or another. It's pretty darn typical. So for Binskternet to assume that the IP was you is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence, and since the IP geolocates to the State Department, it's a matter of concern: we're always on the lookout for our articles being skewed by editors with a political agenda to serve, and those editing from within the United States government (especially this United States government) is a definite red flag for that, so I don't at all blame Binksternet for bringing it to the community's attention. Of course, the sequence of events does not prove that the IP was you, but it certainly is a very reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I have been reading Wikipedia for years. I went to go read the IG report article, saw there wasn't one, so took the initiative and created it. It's not that difficult. Nice to see you agree with Binkster, and you even somehow managed to sneak in a little cheap shot at Trump, but your grassy knoll/magic bullet timeline up there doesn't resolve the aspersions and attempted outing. I'll wait for a mod, thanks. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's one I have never heard before "I've been reading Wikipedia for years, that's how I know all the ins and outs and how to write a near-perfect article on my very first try." Uh-huh.

Oh: it's "Binksternet" not "Binkster" -- but you knew that. No, you're not a POV editor, not at all. But -- just so you know -- you're way off track with the "grassy knoll/magic bullet timeline" comment, since the timeline is completely straight-forward and very easy for anyone to read. Even the Warren Commission would have no problem with it, probably even Devin Nunes could figure it out (in time, anyway). There's really very little chance of your distracting attention from it by throwing magic confetti in the air and telling us to look over there. But keep trying if you like.

BTW, you never did comment on whether you've ever had another account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems kinda strange that in the thread above, you strongly deny any association with DC, but now you are being outed because it was written? Kinda almost demands that old standard prosecutor's question: Were you lying then or are you lying now? John from Idegon (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Attempted OUTing, John. Attempted. Kinda almost makes one wonder if you read the report or if you're here just to try to stir up some trouble to distract from Binkster's refusal to correct his mistakes. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, I didn't "out" Jerry the Bellybutton Elf. I said it appeared to me that he was editing from an IP associated with the US State Dept in Washington DC. There are a lot of people who use that IP – its edit history represents a dizzying array of topics, interests, styles, etc. So the identity of Jerry is not revealed.

Second, I did not accuse Jerry of using the notional State Dept position to edit in a biased fashion, though further examination of his work shows a distinct pro-Trump slant. It seems that Jerry is mad that I would say he was affiliated with the State Dept, but I don't understand why, since that department is huge, and it contains people who hold contradictory and opposing views. Personally, I don't care where Jerry is located and who he are his associates, as his contributions here speak for themselves.

Finally, my only intent was to address the possibility raised by Black Kite's initial report about Lionelt helping Jerry get his DYK together. One unspoken implication was that Jerry was a sockpuppet of Lionelt, and I felt that this could not be the case, so I expressed that view. I did not say there was a conspiracy between them. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just ignore this stuff. He's not fooling anybody, so the less attention paid the better. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how Binksternet did anything untoward here. The editing history they highlighted is publicly accessible to anyone who followed one of several links in the ANI discussion prior to and after that. The evasiveness of this "new" editor is suspicious, however. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not familiar with this page, I just saw it in the edit filter, but an edit war just escalated to a legal threat[51] and I am not sure how this kind of thing is dealt with. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: You've done the right thing, this is the noticeboard to report legal threats to. Linguist^unEins^uno (Linguist111) 03:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

per WP:DOLT, is there a problem with the article? Tornado chaser (talk)

Ruckman espoused a fairly extreme theological position so it is understandable that his supporters and his opponents are disagreeing intensely. Ruckman's son seems to have committed murder/suicide so his detractors would like to add that to his biography to discredit him. It ain't easy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk page unreadable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is what the page looks like to me

Is it just me, or is this user talk page completely unreadable? How is one supposed to communicate with someone when the page is unreadable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that's just a bug with my browser, but it must be a bug with the Wiki software then. I haven't done any changes which would have altered it that way, and I just opened a version of it from late 2016 and it had the same bug too, although it worked fine until recently. Weird, but that's not intentional from me.--Pudeo (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Well, that's good. I've noticed a recent difference in the way the software deals with unclosed tags such as <s> and <u> It used to close the tag at some point automatically, but now I don't think it does that -- someone (can;t recall who) has been going around closing tags in various places. I noticed it recently on User:Beyond_My_Ken/thoughts, which had been rendering fine, but suddenly had a bunch of text underlines and stuff. When I investigated I found unclosed tags, and once I closed them everything was fine.

In your case, since the text is getting smaller and smaller, it looks like there might be unclosed <small> tage -- maybe in your MILHIST newsletter notifications? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: With your permission, would you allow me to go through and try to fix this? I'm seeing some unclosed tags in some of the mass messages.. Nzd (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do so, or anyone for that matter. However, given that it worked fine until recently and now even the old versions don't work, there is a possibility some of the templates used have been vandalized or unintentionally broken. --Pudeo (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Pudeo the page is extremely long, you should archive or delete old sections that are no longer currently relevant. Twelve-year-old discussions are simply "clutter". Reducing the page size might actually resolve the font size problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't like how archives and removals are being used to sweep warnings or criticism under the carpet. Anyway, it seems to have been fixed, thanks. --Pudeo (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#HTML_formatting_issues_in_archived_talk_pages - the way the software deals with incorrectly closed out HTML tags has closed - I fixed some <small> tags but it looks like there is something else associated with the MilHist Bugle notifications.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, pre-Aug 11 Bugles had incorrectly nested span and center tags. Fixed for Pudeo, but this will affect many other talk pages. BethNaught (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and because they get subst'd rather than linked as a template, it becomes very hard to fix. Probably a bot job. Fish+Karate 09:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Looks fine to me now, thanks BethNaught. Coincidentally, I'm having a little trouble with my eyes right now, so I was not happy to see that teensy-weensy font size. @Pudeo: You can go ahead and delete my notice on your talk page about this, if you'd like to, glad it's cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done all. I only went to make some tea and you lot fixed it! Nzd (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

While we're here, are there any hard and fast rules about (user) talkpage size? I don't want to get the pitchforks out, but I have come across other very long pages in the past that would benefit from a spring clean. TIA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean the one visible from space? (EEng) It takes my computer a solid 30 seconds to save that page. Natureium (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agghhh! I'll make a note not to click that one again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More than 100 reverts on one article today

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is experiencing a very strong edit war today. Some admin intervention is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This article as well. The two editors might have warred against each other on other similar articles as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I could block them on the spot for that ridiculous behavior, but they haven't been warned about edit warring (nor did you notify them of this). So any revert after RIGHT NOW should be reason enough to block. Zabdas, KINGFEDORQc, you are warned. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see User:Sarahj2107 acted already. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) We're too slow, Drmies, they've both already been blocked by Sarahj2107. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• In my defense, I'm actually "cooking" lunch here at my desk, meaning I poured boiling water on some freeze-dried food. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And I protected the page for one day. Oh well, I'll go back and lift the protection. - Donald Albury 17:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This IP 207.253.2.17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been making many edits that mirror what KINGFEDORQc was making earlier today. I have submitted this to SPI, and will notify the IP. - Donald Albury 01:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I've left the ANI notification for the IP at their talk page due to the notification accidentally being placed by Donald Albury at Talk:207.253.2.17 instead - someone can delete that as housekeeping. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

These guys do not need warnings or notifications. That kind of warring is too strong and disruptive to lose time with warnings and advice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:QuanticNut

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

User:QuanticNut, as their name (and edit history) seems to suggest, is a single-purpose account making disruptive edits (close to breaking WP:3RR) on Detroit: Become Human, which is undergoing a WP:GOODARTICLE review. The edits are without consensus, as stated on the article talk page. In fact, there is a consensus between User:Sebastian James and I not to include the writer in question because, according to the syntax guide, the infobox is for lead writers; Adam Williams did "additional writing", per opening credits. Cognissonance (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This is largely a content dispute and better suited to WP:3RR or WP:3O. If you think it's disruptive editing, you could use the warning templates {{Uw-disruptive1}} in escalating levels, which could result in a block if they continue to edit despite not reaching consensus on their desired edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines don't rule out anybody but lead writers, they simply rule IN lead writers. We should ask ourselves why anybody would 'disruptively' want to credit the right people... I am active in the detroit community and we all know who the writers were as we've interviewed them together.

Incidentally I don't see how my username is pertinent to a specific edit, unless you're just playing an ad hominem? Please stick to the facts (QuanticNut (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

@CaroleHenson: The editor has made disruptive edits to the point where they broke the three-revert rule and reached level three of your cited template. It is clear these measures are not taken seriously and I would suggest a temporary block. Cognissonance (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: The same could equally be said of Cognissonance who broke the three revert rule first, by definition... He doesn't want to engage on substance, just keeps undoing a legitimate edit. He has stopped even disputing the substance, and just keeps suggesting that he gets to decide what is on the page not anyone else. (QuanticNut (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

QuanticNut, It is not equal. You are trying to make edits on your own without consensus and seem to have a vested interest in having this information included in the article. The reasoning for not including the information was given, but you are not listening.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the reason that william is not listed as a lead writer, or that i'm just a guy from a subreddit who isn't 'experienced' enough to make changes? Both were given...

The guidelines don't say it has to be a lead writer who goes in the writers box. so what's the reason?

i tried to find consensus by requesting an edit. was ignored (not disputed). moreover, how can you build consensus about a plain fact? he's credited, nobody disputes it. there was also no consensus to revert the original edit.

I do have a vested interest, I help out on the detroit subreddit where the two writers in question spend hours doing amas and giving us fans the time of day. i've watched them do interviewd all over the world. i wanted to get involved on here as i've gathered alot of knowledge collectively about the production process, creative process etc. i was so amazed at the reception of a valid edit that i couldn't believe it would be upheld... but Cog has made it clear people like me are not welcome editing 'their' page, even if the edit is correct and in the guidelines.

i can only assume you agree with cog on the substance of the matter? (QuanticNut (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC))

Actually, no, I don't have an opinion at all about whether the information should be added. But, you are not getting any support to add the information and there is support to not add it. That's the way things work in consensus-based decision making.

If you have a close connection with the subject, please read conflict of interest. If you want to create content that isn't subject to consensus-based decision-making or COI guidelines, have you thought about a blog?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A blog? Respectfully, are you aware of the information that I tried to add? It's adding a name to the credits which is in the opening credits and which meets the wikipedia guidelines. It wouldn't make for much of a blog.

There is support to add it and support to remove it, so no consensus either way. Yet one side gets its views reflected.

That being said, the issue isn't something you can have an opinion about: someone is listed in the credits and did media all over the world to support the game, but he's missing from the wikipedia page. Ultimately the page and wikipedia suffers, but at least the self-appointed 'owner' of the page gets to win the argument. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

I thought that there was consensus with Sebastian James to not add that information. I don't know 1) why this is so important to you and 2) why it's so important to the two others to not include it, except that I wasn't finding good sources for the added writer. Perhaps that's it. Anyway, this seems like a lot of effort expended for something not that important in the overall scheme of things. Which makes me more confident that your connection is a bit stronger than I first took your assertion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, the the good source is the opening credits of the game. Alternatively a simple google search turns up dozens of articles:

https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/ https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/ https://www.dualshockers.com/detroit-become-human-domestic-abuse/

Incidentally, it's not just this writer - it's two directors who are missing also (mentioned in the 2nd article here).

It means a lot to me because these people have spent hours engaging with us fans on the subreddit, running competitions, supporting fan art, streaming live from events. Thy are good people and we all like them for how engaged they are (especially Ben Diebling). Adding them was just a first step in many planned contributions I wanted to make but yes, it was an important one for me as these people contributed to the creation of a game that gave satisfaction to a lot of people.

That is why I am keen to add: the information is correct and it's a matter close to my interests. As to why Cog is so keen to keep it off... you can see on my talk page. He told me that I am just a 'random person from a subreddit' whereas he is an 'experienced editor'. He initially warned me off because he wanted good article status. I would honestly present to you that his motivation is ownership of the page. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

I have left a note requesting feedback about the article at WT:VG. --Izno (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I just thank you for this Izno? The debate continues (unbelievably) but, in my opinion, without directing senior editors to the page a new editor (me) would have been scared off wikipedia forever. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC))

Proposal (User:QuanticNut)

I am not seeing that an administrator has blocked this account, so I am guessing that they do not think that this issue has risen to the level that a block is required and/or it's a case of edit-warring among all the involved parties.

It is not clear the extent of the close connection between QuanticNut and the Detroit: Become Human article, but there definitely seems to be a vested interest in having content included in the article that is not in synch with the few other editors of the article and is affecting their ability to agree to consensus building. I propose a one-week topic ban of User:QuanticNut as well as requesting clarification of their connection to the article subject.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Anybody who followed the media of Detroit's promotion and launch, or indeed glanced at the opening credits, would be aware of the information I tried to add and which is sourced in dozens of cited articles. The information is plainly true and meets all guidelines.

To that extent, my 'closeness' is totally irrelevant, though it is also true I am a Detroit subreddit fan who has engaged with cage and williams on the boards there (which I stated from the beginning). It annoys me to see that plain facts about a game I adore and that means so much to millions of people cannot be recorded because 'a random person from a subreddit' wanted to add it (as I was disparagingly called).

Does that bother you at all? That wikipedia isn't open to the public anymore? Isn't the whole idea that true and guideline-meeting information can be added by anybody?

I've given up trying to improve the page, so discipline me away. The page will remain incomplete but at least it will belong to the person who reported me, and whose case you haven't scrutinized at all. But in future, why not discuss the substance of the issue instead of obsessing about process, bans and the exercise of reprimands? (QuanticNut (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Your approach to not edit the article works for me. Answers to your questions would mean repeating things I've already said.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Then there must be an equal vested interest in keeping it off, especially since nobody disputes the correctness of the information. (QuanticNut (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Why is there no discussion of this on the talk page? As far as I can tell both users have violated 3RR and both should be blocked for edit warring. Seems QuanticNut is trying to add something and there has been no discussion and no good reason not to despite some sources having been provided. Seems more like a case of ownership on Cognissonance's behalf. However still this should be discussed on the talk page for the article, or the article locked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, There was discussion of the edit on the talk page, including this edit, which means that there was tacit consensus between Cognissonance and Wrath X. You're right, it was not clearly discussed on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I submitted 2 edit requests some days ago which are on the talk page, along with sources cited. They were closed by Cog without any engagement whatsoever. He then warned me off on my talk page, telling me I was risking his good article status and that I am just a 'random person from a subreddit'. Then he threatened me with a ban. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

Cognissonance has no ability to ban you, they do not have that editing authority, so put that one out of your mind. I am actually quite concerned with Cognissonance's comments on your talk page. They are failing good faith here and, as you have stated on your talk page, pointed to guidelines that do not say what they said they say. I do think this should still go to the talk page, which I see you have opened a conversation at which is good. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interventions and for putting my mind at ease. The initial edit request was made on the 7th of July I believe. I have re-opened it but when I have done this in the past, it has simply been closed again with no response. As the article is currently being reviewed for GA status I fear that cog will continue to shut down the conversation, making the talk page ineffective (QuanticNut (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC))

@Canterbury Tail: QuanticNut said the syntax guide supports his view because of what it doesn't say. You have misrepresented me, saying I disregarded him as "a random subreddit user". I told him, after he said he would bring other subreddit users to the article, "Quality articles (of which there are only a few thousand out of five million) are not edited by random people from a subreddit". This is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. I made Interstellar a Good Article, but only after it was abandoned to the masses, effectively making it a bad article until I showed up. I clearly stated "I do not own Detroit: Become Human, but I have written most of it and vetted all of it", because, since there is no ownership, there better be some credit on Wikipedia. Also, I did not close the edit requests. That was someone else and it was done for lack of consensus, which didn't stop QuanticNut from adding it anyway. Cognissonance (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, your comments are there for all to see on my talk page. I know you know that you cannot own a page, but at the same time even this comment (which you present as evidence of a sense of ownership) refers to 'the masses' to which articles are 'abandoned'. This id quite denigrating language to refer to the people for whom wikipedia was created.

Also, the fact you are still fighting this suggests it has become personal for you. The guidelines don't say what you said they said; you can't ban me just for disagreeing with you; I've cited many sources to support my case. Wouldn't it be better to let this go and perhaps we could work TOGETHER to keep improving the page? :) (QuanticNut (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC))

On Wikipedia, the quality of an article is determined by hierarchy. Quantic Dream is a bad article, the result of unregulated editing; CD Projekt is a good article, the result of being checked against quality-based criteria. In cases such as these, the only way to reach a conclusion is to seek consensus on the talk page. Cognissonance (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to keep this discussion informed @Canterbury Tail:, Cognissonance removed this information once again, this time after the article passed its Good Article review and when debate was still on-going in the talk page [52]. He also deleted all the writers from another videogame article with no comment on their talk page Watch Dogs 2. (QuanticNut (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC))

User:Miss HollyJ brought up inappropriate comments/personally attacked in ANEW discussion

User:Miss HollyJ was put on the ANEW after they edit warred ~5 times (down below). The result was stale because "no further issues arose" (with edit warring). Inside the discussion the user said that "I shouldn't be calling for unjustified bans" and then brought up the fact that I've have "numerous blocks" and then displayed them all. The user later claimed that I "don't have any credibility" and that I made "baseless smears" and "lies". I never did any of that. My original comment on the discussion was civil. I do believe the user did personally attack me as they brought up accusations about my personal behaviour without evidence. Also, on the user's talk page they are telling others that they have "no authority to leave messages on their page and that they are violating policies. Tagging @TheDoctorWho:, as they were the original nominator on ANEW.
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 22 July 2018‎
2. 00:39, 23 July 2018‎
3. 00:48, 23 July 2018‎
4. 00:53, 23 July 2018‎
5. The following revert was a partial revert completed in three parts:
   1. 03:27, 23 July 2018‎
   2. 03:31, 23 July 2018‎
   3. 03:32, 23 July 2018‎

Computer40 «»(talk) 01:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

1) The edit warring issue has been resolved. I took the administrators (@EdJohnston: and @Black Kite:) deal without issue. So I don't understand why you had to copy and paste what @TheDoctorWho: originally said onto this post. 2) You literally made up lies about me and I called out every single one. How is that personally attacking you? It's clear this has now escalated into a personal vendetta against me to get me blocked because the previous discussion didn't result in that. 3) Yes, I was wrong to tell that user to not leave that template on my talk page. That was my mistake and I own up to it. 4) All I did was bring up the fact that you are a user known to make disruptive edits and receive blocks which is a fact. 5) And finally, no, you originally were not civil because you inappropriately accused me, without proof, of holding some sort of "personal grudge" when me and you have never even interacted before this.

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]

Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Hawkeye75, aka Computer40 has about used up all available rope. A look at the user's talk page shows clearly that the promises made in his unban request a little over a month ago were empty. It's time to realize a mistake was made and reimpose the site ban. John from Idegon (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make comments unrelated to this noticeboard section here. You are creating a problem out of nothing. I've already changed my signature. Plus, you were one of the only people that opposed my unblock, so it's clear you're not going to change you're opinion on me. Computer40 «»(talk) 05:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say you took the administrators deal without issue. Rather that you decided to argue with an admin and only when that very admin inquired if you were declining the deal did you agree to "Wait for consensus" (See diffs below).

For the record, i don't care what WP:Boomerang says. Unless it's an official Wikipedia policy (Which it is not) then i will not be following it in regards to this ANI report (Or any ANI report). My focus is solely on you and only you.

• Discussion between Miss HollyJ and EdJohnston:

1. [59]

2. [60]

3. [61]

4. [62]

• Statement by Miss HollyJ regarding the reliability of two sources (Only after TheDoctorWho reverted your edit did you clarify in the edit summary that you were referring to recaps which i'm going to go off on a limb here and say this was a misunderstanding):

1. [63]

2. [64]

In your defence, the TMZ article you mentioned "only listed the personal opinion of one former houseguest, Devin." which is hardly what i'd call a reliable source.

Regarding the diffs you provided about Computer40, those diffs are utterly stale as they were made in 2017 and 2016.

As for Computer40s insinuation that "This user clearly had some kind of personal grudge against the paragraph that they kept on reverting", i wouldn't say there was ever a personal grudge involved.

Be that as it may, you should have refrained from reverting after the third revert rather than breaking the 3RR rule.

• One last thing

Regarding John from Idegon's reply, i see the unban request was indeed over a month ago (May 28th 2018) but do not believe it applies in the here and now nor would a site ban be warranted in my opinion. AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

A couple of points:

• Reply to the above statement: @AryaTargaryen: I don't recall saying that Miss HollyJ had a personal grudge against it? (If I did please point it out to me)
• Computer40's previous blocks: I don't believe those hold any point or argument here whatsoever. This thread is about supposedly inappropriate comments made by Miss HollyJ an WP:ANEW report.
• The ANEW thread I personally disagree with the closure by Black Kite based on "no further issues have arisen". The reason no further issues had arisen was because there was an ongoing thread. Without the ANEW thread I believe the issues could've continued mainly because Miss HollyJ still preformed another revert following a warning and discussion on their talk page.
• Where to go from here: Miss HollyJ has begun a discussion on the article talk page. However, I believe a large portion of reasoning Miss HollyJ provided is irrelevant and completely violates WP:OTHERSTUFF:

• We don't do it for the Survivor articles, we shouldn't do it here either.
• Something as tame as Rockstar saying "On my daughters birthday" is nowhere near the levels of controversy regarding the comments Angela, Rachel, JC and Kaitlyn have made.
• If you ask me it looks ridiculous being listed next to something as serious as the JC-Bayleigh debacle.
• Brett was not a victim like Bayleigh was and we should stop treating it as such.
• It's actually insulting to actual victims of racism to think someone calling a white man "rich, snobby, white-privileged ass dude" is anywhere near the severity of being called the n word or other derogatory slurs.

all the above content violates WP:OTHERSTUFF by comparing what is in one paragraph to another. I believe that OTHERSTUFF could be used to some extent in some discussion only as a supplement to another point but to base your entire argument solely on it is invalid. Therefore I believe that this could use further discussion but NOT based on Miss HollyJ's original points.

• Personal attack or not?: The point that covers this in WP:PA reads as follows: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

• Why I'm bringing this up?: I believe that Computer40's original statement of Miss HollyJ having a "personal grudge" is not invalid because Computer40 provided diffs to why they believed that statement. But I also believe that the information is irrelevant as the point weather they had a personal grudge was not important it's that they violated WP:3RR.
• Miss HollyJ's response: I also don't think you should be calling for unjustified bans given your reputation on Wikipedia. You've been blocked times. I still believe this information is irrelevant as that discussion was about Miss HollyJ violating WP:3RR and should be considered irrelevant here as well.
• My overall point: Computer40 made a point to Miss HollyJ who took offense to the point and made a response back to Computer40 which took offense. Don't shoot yourself in the foot

What should happen now?: This report should be closed without prejudice to both sides pending discussion on the article's talk page. If Miss HollyJ edit wars again prior to a consensus being formed they can be reported to an administrator and blocked as they've been warned by multiple editors. Computer40 should be advised that if they make such accusations either with or without evidence that the editor Computer40 accused is likely to come back with a strong response and that Computer40 shouldn't come down like a ton of bricks.

In short: We should all drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on any of the ANI/ANEW reports so far and if Miss HollyJ edit wars again or if Computer40 and/or Miss HollyJ supposedly attack each other again new reports can be filed without prejudice to the recent ANI/ANEW reports. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging people who might wish to comment @Alucard 16 and OfficerAPC:. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Attack wise, I don't think saying that someone has a "grudge" is on the same level as telling someone they have "no credibility" and that they made "lies", but I assume the consensus is nominator close. Computer40 «»(talk) 07:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to @TheDoctorWho:

I looked back over the comment i posted and seem to have included your name by mistake since it was only Computer40 that made that statement. I've struck your name from my original comment.

Thanks for pointing that out AryaTargaryen (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

@AryaTargaryen: Thank you just wanted to clarify. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the second time we had to call out Miss HollyJ for edit warring without discussing. Therefore it's strike two and one more, she'll be "out". As a rule of thumb, in the event of a dispute, discuss it on the talk page. OfficerAPC (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery. You people are horrible at indenting. Trying to read this entire section and figure out who is replying to what is an exercise in futility. Please don't make another horribly formatted report like this again if you want something to actually be accomplished. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

•  

• • • • • Seems clear enough to me.

EEng 06:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, you are horrible at providing constructive criticism. Try explaining how to do things properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Page [redacted]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user has released personal information of another user at [redacted]. I have redacted the offending section. Please can an admin revdel this. This article has been receiving a fair bit of off-wiki attention. Polyamorph (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the top of the page that says "Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page" and the edit notice that says "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here."? Natureium (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oversight contacted. Please contact them in the future instead of posting here. Home Lander (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Natureium I missed that, I don't know how, but I did. Won't happen again. Polyamorph (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: Yes, in the future, please follow the instructions at WP:OUTING. Home Lander (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Politically-motivated and defamatory pages at Wikiquote being auto-linked here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thebow (talk · contribs) has been making a small number of apparently benign edits on Wikipedia, but their main area of interest is creating WP:COATRACK pages over at Wikiquote, where they created:

• a page on James Gunn that consisted of a decade-old tweet that appeared to be making light of rape/pedophilia (which I've requested speedied, but apparently things move slower over there),
• a page on Jeffrey Epstein that consisted of a benign non-quote by the subject himself and a quote from Bill Clinton about what a great guy he is (coming from five years before Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution),
• a page on Huston Huddleston that similarly served no purpose but to artificially smear Gunn by associating him with a person who had been charged with child pornography and contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony,
• a page on James Clapper that consists of a single quote from a right-leaning newspaper article entitled "Did Obama, Brennan And Clinton Illegally Collude To Take Trump Down?",
• and so on.

I'm not sure if anything can be done about the editor responsible here, nor am I asking for such (I already did ask how to address it at Wikiquote, and have yet to receive an answer because apparently no one watches the Wikiquote village pump...), but the Wikiquote pages he is creating are getting linked from our articles, apparently automatically, by Risto hot sir (talk · contribs) and perhaps others, apparently acting in good faith.

Any idea how problems like this are normally addressed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikiquote has always been subject to this kind of POV coatracking. Personally, I've long felt we should generally deprecate links to Wikiquote, or even better, simply delete the {{wikiquote}} template. Wikiquote is an external website with no functioning NPOV or notability policies, no editorial oversight, and most crucially, no possible encyclopedic or educational value whatsoever. Let's face it, collecting "quotations" without embedding context, without contextualization, and without any overarching guiding principle, simply isn't a worthwhile intellectual endeavor that promotes knowledge in any reasonable sense. Just because that site happens to be run by the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't mean it should be exempt from our content criteria for external links, which it falls short of by a couple hundred miles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well judging from the response to Hijiri88's comments, people at Wikiquote seem to think that use of their site to host attack pages is perfectly acceptable behaviour - we should remove all links to Wikiquote.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Would support a proposal not to link to Wikiquote in Wikipedia articles if this is acceptable (it isn't the first time I've seen Wikiquote used this way). If sister sites simply aren't holding content to the same kinds of standards as Wikipedia, the basic fact that they are also hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation should not be a loophole through our content policies. Wikiquote serves a useful purpose, but it's not building a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Pinging the names I recognize as Wikipedians among the enwq admins, in case they have insight on the matter: @Koavf, FloNight, and BD2412: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ah. I see now that my only other edit to enwq was to open a section on this topic on the village pump here. A user whose attempts to introduce a conspiracy theory and related insinuations into the Khizr and Ghazala Khan article were reverted then went to Wikiquote to add the relevant quotes there, linked from our article. It got no response. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly disagree with the suggestion that Wikiquote lacks editorial oversight. The vast majority of Wikiquote pages are useful collection of quotes relating to a variety of subjects for which such a collection is reasonable (I have personally overseen the integration of the complete pre-1921 editions of Bartlett's and Hoyt's quotations into the project, as well as several other public domain compilations). Our notability criteria is actually stricter than Wikipedia's, since we generally use inclusion in Wikipedia as a baseline, and require quotability on top of that. To the extent that the collection contains a handful of pages for which the quotes are selected with obvious biases in mind, I would point out that just like Wikipedia, anyone can edit Wikiquote, including to provide balance to pages by removing unsourced quotes, adding further relevant quotes, or providing missing context for sourced quotes. bd2412 T 18:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@BD2412: Sorry for my previous (now deleted) comment that asked a stupid question for which a stupid answer was readily available. As for I would point out that just like Wikipedia, anyone can edit Wikiquote, including to provide balance to pages by removing unsourced quotes, adding further relevant quotes, or providing missing context for sourced quotes, on Wikipedia anyone can't create new pages without permission from experienced good-faith users, and obvious coatrack pages that don't meet the inclusion criteria (none of the individuals listed above are "quotable" in the sense you allude to) and only exist to attack/defame the individuals in question (or other living persons) are very quickly deleted. I asked several days ago for the worst offender (the James Gunn page) to be deleted, brought my concern to the village pump, and so far no one has addressed the problem, except that you (an admin on Wikiquote who could delete the pages in question and/or block the user) have now basically implied that the problem should be addressed by adding more context to the quotes, despite the fact that the individuals in question aren't known for their quotability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Further comment from OP I'd support deprecating Wikiquote links in BLPs when the Wikiquote pages in question are new and haven't been checked for defamatory content. I honestly can't imagine any justification for Wikiquote not having the same standard we do in preventing new accounts from creating articles, but apparently they don't. Given that Thebow has gotten away with creating a dozen pages at this point, including one on Roseanne Barr (which exists to promote the popular alt-right troll-myth that what she did was equivalent to what Gunn did, and what happened to them was equivalent), one on Valerie Jarrett (same reason), and one on Rian Johnson (who has been similarly targeted by right-wing internet trolls), it seems highly likely that Wikiquote doesn't even have a process whereby new pages are patrolled for this kind of stuff. So until they get their act together on these issues I'd say only link long-standing, reputable Wikiquote pages, and be especially careful with BLPs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In my experience, Wikiquote has usually been well-patrolled for new pages, though the patrolling is to determine whether the subject is notable and the quotes are sourced. If Wikiquote has fallen off in that practice, then by all means, editors here can volunteer at Wikiquote and assist with this task. Since Wikiquote is less than one half of one percent as many pages as Wikipedia, and a much smaller flow of new pages, it should not be too great of a challenge. bd2412 T 23:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The fact that "the quotes are sourced" does not necessarily fit in with NPOV, however. It is very easy to cherry-pick quotes by, or about, a subject to show them in a positive or negative light. It should not be the task of Wikipedia editors to patrol an external site, so my recommendation is that if a Wikiquote page doesn't pass our policies on NPOV, then the link should simply be removed, as I see it has been in some of these cases. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I would like BD2412 to comment on the "quotability" of the people mentioned, since they specifically stated that was an important criterion for Wikiquote inclusion, but have thus far ignored its application to the specific context of this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I think that there is little doubt that Valerie Jarrett and Roseanne Barr are quotable figures - they are highly public persons who have said things that have in fact been quoted in widely disbursed media. To the extent that the quotes contained on those pages have been cherry-picked to push a particular viewpoint, any editor can expand those pages with additional quotes presenting a broader picture of those viewpoints. bd2412 T 19:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, yeah, except that both Wikipedia and Wikiquote are for most of us voluntary activities that we engage in because we enjoy it, and if we don't think editing Wikiquote (and familiarizing ourselves with their policies and guidelines, and so on) would be fun for us we have every right not to do so, while continuing to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia by banning links to Wikiquote pages that are clearly meant to defame the individuals in question. I made a speedy deletion request on Wikiquote, which I assumed would work similarly to Wikipedia, and have yet to see any response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Would a useful middle course be for a guideline to advise that generally Wikiquote should not be used for living people? That could be at WP:BLP with a footnote explanation that people copy cherry-picked and misleading quotes to Wikiquote? Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Confused WP:RS says "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable." It goes on to specifically mention "most wikis including Wikipedia" among such sites. So why are we even having this discussion? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not about citing Wikiquote as a source, but linking to it as a resource. Basically, linking to a Wikiquote page is no different in that regard than linking to another Wikipedia page in a "See also" section. bd2412 T 01:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

...except that other Wikipedia pages are subject to our content policies such as BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I may be dense but I fail to see the distinction between "source" and "resource" in this context. Per Hijiri88, linking to a site beyond our control is much different than linking to another Wikipedia page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE allows us to link to unreliable sources, web directories, Wikimedia sister sites, etc. We can't cite these sources, but the guideline says that it might be worthwhile to link to them if they still have useful content. An example of this would be the IMDb, which has been repeatedly found to be a useful external link but an unacceptable source for a citation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris:: Wikiquote is no more "beyond our control" than is any Wikipedia article. I started out as a Wikipedian, and then I started adding content to other projects also. I'm still a Wikipedian, and I regularly edit Wikiquote also. The more volunteers we have there, the better it will serve Wikipedia as a means of expanding the information we offer and the subjects we cover. bd2412 T 19:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• There is a NPOV policy on Wikiquote. It seems like this is the most relevant part:

Since Wikiquote is a collection of quotations, NPOV writing is less frequently required. This does not mean that NPOV is any less an official policy, or that it does not apply on Wikiquote. Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual; however, all non-quote text on Wikiquote (excluding userpages and with limitations in the Wikiquote namespace) should conform to NPOV. This includes intro text on quote pages, templates intended for the main namespace (they should not express preference for or against any view, etc.), and where relevant, the contents of the Wikiquote namespace.

I don't see anything in there about selection of quotes, which makes it problematic with regard to our policy of the same name, which covers WP:WEIGHT. If the only remedy to POV-pushing by quote selection is to go in and add a bunch more quotes, that's problematic. In the case I mentioned above, there is a little acknowledgement in a paper Khizr Khan wrote in 1983 that has been taken by conspiracy theorists as a sort of smoking gun showing that he is actually a Muslim extremist. He is a quotable person, indeed, and according to the wq NPOV policy any non-quote text would need to be NPOV, but the quote itself is fair game, even though it's only significant to conspiracy theorists. It was repeatedly added to our article and rejected. But there it is prominently on the Wikiquote page -- right by the top -- added by the same user who tried to add it to Wikipedia. Given this, I tend to agree with the sentiment that our default should be not to include links to Wikiquote, but that consensus on a given page can do so for certain individuals. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thebow's COATRACKing spreads to Wikipedia

I just noticed this and this. Given that the user's activity on a sister project demonstrates that they are WP:NOTHERE, and their possibly-benign edits to other articles here (which do, I will admit, appear to show a tendency toward whitewashing, which is a little concerning even if it is removal of unsourced content[65][66]) are not good enough to justify this kind of BLP-violating COATRACKing even in a small number of edits, I'm wondering if it would be safer to just block them. Also pinging User:Doug Weller whose DS notification drew my attention to this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block as nom, per WP:NOTHERE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal to my XFD topic ban

Moved to WP:AN

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ledinhvuchelsea refusal to use edit summaries

At article 2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season, User:Ledinhvuchelsea has made hundreds of edits and has not once used an edit summary. Despite requests on their talk page (to which they haven't responded) and in my own edit summaries, they seem unwilling to alter their practice. Flat Out (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dorglorg edit-warring at List of oldest living people

Despite a specific edit-warring warning on their talk page this user has continued to edit war and in doing so has also violated WP:BLP. Despite clear advice that implying someone has died without a WP:RS stating that this is the case and also violating the criteria for inclusion for the list article concerned they have followed the "GRG trumps Wikipedia" line (for those unaware of this subject, this attitude has resulted in multiple topic-bans, of which this user should be aware). See the relevant talk page for the discussion of this matter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not edit warring, I made two reverts and gave an additional reason for the second one, and I did not imply that anyone died. I was following the guidelines for the article that if someone isn't confirmed alive in one year, they are removed.--Dorglorg (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me, and I see that both users know where the talk page of the article is. If both of you agree to not edit-war any further but continue discussing at the talk page instead, I guess we can close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is now that the multiple pages show incorrect information and with 3RR already violated this won't be corrected for another 24 hours. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

3RR is not an encouragement to edit-war once the 24h term has passed. All such issues must be resolved by consensus. I do not see any obvious vandalism here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh good, agecruft. Always a fertile source of fights. Incidentally, why do we have over 700 links to grg.org? Guy (Help!) 12:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it's more reliable than Wikipedia or its policies! 12.171.137.4 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock? Serbian IP song vandalism

Someone using Serbian IPs has been making unreferenced claims about various songs being based on the same melody as various other songs. The person often self-reverts, but not always. Other music vandalism is sometimes thrown in.[67] Can we get a rangeblock? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• 87.116.177.196 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.116.178.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.116.178.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.116.176.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.116.179.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 87.116.178.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I found this same kind of WP:NOR violation happening many times in the past five years, for instance this assertion that a song by R.E.M. was copied from a Serbian singer, and this conjecture that a Rolling Stones song inspired a Serbian song. Special:Contributions/94.189.140.17 was used by this same person in March 2016, and the range 94.189.136.0/20 was used in August 2013. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked 87.116.128.0/18 for a week. Let us know if there's more we can do--one wonders if there is an SPI or an LTA case. Thanks Binksternet. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further activity. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: That may be a bit overkill. I think you blocked a huge part of the largest Serbian ISP's range. My IP at work is probably also inside that range, I'll check tomorrow. Perhaps block 87.116.176.0/20 instead? byteflush _Talk 22:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm wouldn't want to anger too many Serbs. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor rapidly creating new accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Likely one person creating an account, doing a few edits then creating another account. So far, the following have been created:

• Ruggy515 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dirtgy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quacgz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Qwqwqw5155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jim1138 (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I blocked all of these, but I am not sure what else could be done at the moment. An edit filter may be so that they could not continue editing?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: seems to have locked the editor out. Could use a talk page access revocation. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess formally another administrator should decline an unblock at User talk:Qwqwqw5155 and then possibly decide to revoke the talk page access. Even though I believe it is a continuation of pure vandalism, formally I am not allowed to act on this anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raghu Acharya vandalism needs rangeblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A childish vandal has been disrupting various articles, often inserting the name "Raghu Vir Acharya"[68] or "R. Acharya"[69] into the text. The disruption has been going on for more than three years.[70] A couple of times the person has used Saint Paul [Minnesota] Public Library IP 156.99.40.14,[71][72] but far more often the IPs are 174.255.0.0/20. Can we get one or more rangeblocks without too much collateral damage? Recently active IPs are listed below. Binksternet (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• 174.255.0.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.0.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.0.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.0.134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.0.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 36 hours)
• 174.255.0.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.1.57 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 36 hours)
• 174.255.1.127 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.1.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.1.175 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.1.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 31 hours)
• 174.255.2.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.3.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.3.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.3.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.3.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.3.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.4.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.4.129 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.6.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.7.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.8.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.8.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.9.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.9.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.9.83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.9.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.10.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.10.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.10.245 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.11.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.13.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.14.147 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.255.15.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Hmm. There's quite a lot of activity there, some useful, some not. My immediate first suggestion would actually be an edit filter testing for the relevant strings. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Outside of one or two very minor copy edits, I see nothing useful aside from the unsourced-and-therefore-dubious claim here. This vandal has been reverted, warned, and had individual IP's briefly blocked over a long period of time. An edit filter looking for "Raghu" or "Acharya" would stop many of these edits, but not others, such as [73], [74], [75]. I support a rangeblock of 174.255.0.0/20, with the expectation that it would need to be renewed until vandal becomes discouraged. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Also they're common names so edit filter just looking for one or the other wouldn't be good I think, too many false positives...(unless edit filter can only apply to the relevant /20?)Raghu_(given_name); Acharya_(surname) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 19:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. If there was an edit filter for "R. Acharya" then it would stop edits which include "N.R. Acharya" who was a Bollywood film director/producer. There was also a Tamil filmmaker named K.V.R. Acharya, a biochemist named K.R. Acharya, and a dance teacher named C.R. Acharya. But an edit filter for "Raghu Vir Acharya" would work on some of the vandalism, as would "Raghu Acharya", unless it also catches the Bodhidharma book author Acharya Raghu. As an aside to Hobbes Goodyear, I think Black Kite was saying that "useful" activity could be seen in the range Special:Contributions/174.255.0.0/20, not in the above-listed IPs which are within the range. As an example, stuff like this, from 174.255.3.154, is helpful, not harmful. So a rangeblock big enough to catch all of the IPs listed above would also block a great many beneficial edits. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that the block would be temporary and that there is the option to create and edit under a username, I think it would be worthwhile. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dude is back from his block. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Now another 174.255.4.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - someone please block this one too as apparently the range block didn't work. Can't we accept some temporary collateral damage with a bigger short-term range block and perhaps discourage this jackass? Tvoz/talk 02:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

http://whois.domaintools.com/174.255.0.0 shows those addresses are in the range owned by United States Rolfe Verizon Wireless, and is actually a large address block 174.192.0.0/10 (4 million addresses) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Requested an edit-filter. Please comment at EFR if you have any suggestions for better targeting. Abecedare (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor not responding to concerns on their talk page

• Nhatminh01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Admittedly, this edit also makes me question intentions. Home Lander (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

Constantly restoring content which is being discussed Here Here

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

• • One should simply look at the edit history of the page to see who is edit warring, and that is user Dralgos. I made only one revert during last four days. With all due respect, I think the editing by Dralgos (talk · contribs) is very problematic. This is an SPA who currently edits only one subject. They are making edits like that, for example. Here, he places in the infobox a claim that the poisoning was committed by unknown "Russians" and ...the British government, while sources tell that was done by Russian GRU people [76]. He is promoting a conspiracy theory [77] on WP pages. He repeatedly removes well sourced info [78] directly relevant to the subject [79]. He edit war to remove such well sourced information from the page: [80],[81],[82],[83]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Dralgos (talk · contribs) seems to be boomeranging. I think that a topic ban for Dralgos (talk · contribs) on all Russia related topics may be in order. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dralgos: My inclination when seeing someone level a charge of socking w/o showing any evidence, especially when accusing a long term user with whom they are in a conflict, is to request a CU for the accuser or to just block them for disruption. We'll se how this plays out and what the regulars here find in their investigations.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section of suspected perpetrators is being discussed on the talk page and was forwarded for mediation here for it to be resolved. You are part of the mediation and even made comments yet still kept here editing the section while the rest of us repectfully awaited a decision. @Dlohcierekim: I wrote possible puppetry and did not mention any other accounts for that reason. I've simply highlighted it based on suspicion, however I could be wrong and the user doesn't behave like a long term user. @JC7V7DC5768: What do you mean by boomeranging? Also Russia is a hot topic on the planet at the moment, bit hard to avoid. DRALGOS ^♕ 16:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely in bomerang turf. One would expect strong sources to back up British involvement. The article should be in its stable version during DRN and not contain far our claims.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Good block. Courcelles (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ligma, etc

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

I thought this might be over, but this diff [84]makes me question that (look on urban dictionary, 4th answer down, [85] bofa has to do with ligma). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And I thought we hit peak Deez Nuts in 2016. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It’s a joke. pewdiepie made a video where he made a joke about Ninja catching “ligma”, so his fans are now trying to goof on us. It’ll die in a week, whatever.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

And then there's the numerous ones who made their guest appearances when reported at AIV. Do a user Contributions name search under Deez and Deeez and Deeeez and Deeeeez. Just keep adding an "e" to the name in the search, and more names pop up. Some of the edits never made it past the filters, but they had fun. Perhaps not all went thru AIV. Must be a lot of people out there who think this is the funniest thing they ever saw, or thought of. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Money emoji: Ah. I suspected this was something like the Todd Howard incident that happened a few months ago. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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

@Tarage: to be fair, he doesn’t actually ask his viewers to vandalize the article in the video, they did it themselves... also ligma=lick my balls, so dont y’all fall for it.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 05:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

He should know better. --Tarage (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I watched the video (funny skit about how to insult people on Roblox). He doesn't mention Wikipedia, let alone encourage vandalism. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted Draft:Ligma. If this doesn't die down soon, an edit filter might be potentially useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, I reported a few ligma vandals today. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still happening as of now. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I just reported Da G0od sUcC. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How surprising, it was recreated. Natureium (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Salted Draft:Ligma for a month. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

@168.70.81.77: (Non-administrator comment) ...and the content you like is of course vandalism, right? That's Clubot NG's job in a nutshell; to revert vandalism. Of course, if the content isn't actually vandalism, but it false positives it and removes it, then you have a point. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

60.246.161.253

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I recommend posting diffs, as that is the general means of presenting evidence that is used on this page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend range blocks.  Done. I revdel'd the worst edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Artificial intelligence
• Statistical classification
• Deep learning
• Random forest
• Decision tree learning
• Decision tree
• Pruning (decision trees)
• Predictive analytics

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

n.b. Draft:Decision stream -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I remarked yesterday that this (BustYourMyth) is the first time I've seen an account created only to remove a specific citation (rather than the common accounts that only spam a paper all over). And this is not a new issue (see 62.119.167.36). Natureium (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

IMHO you are doing a good service. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

BustYourMyth, It's more that it's atypical for a new editor. Have you edited Wikipedia before? The problem with what is going on is that you and these IPs are in an "edit war" over this article, which is disruptive. I left a message about edit warring on your talk page. Unfortunately, the IPs are not stopping either. Natureium (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Natureium Not really. If it is disruptive, I guess I will stay out of it since it is now a known problem. BustYourMyth (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

BustYourMyth, I agree with the other two users that what you're doing is substantively good. You can read about our policy on edit-warring (and what one can do instead) here. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

"Thanks for your comprehensive massages."... And yes, I noted above that that one IP goes back to at least last year. Natureium (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• There's now a spam campaign underway [86]. EEng 10:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandal from South Carolina needs rangeblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I range blocked Special:Contributions/99.203.16.0/23 for 72 hours. That seems to be where all the music-related vandalism is coming from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! That should send a message. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

huh? John from Idegon (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

He's asking that administrators lock the article he just edited so no one can change it from his version, which is better, since the previous version was based entirely on primary sources and told from a Baha'i perspective, while his includes totally unsourced and coatrack-y statements to balanced it out. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very tempted to undo the changes but also either put in quotes or make more clear that the religion considers homosexuality a handicap, not that it actually is one, which is horrible in it's own right. There's a middle ground that can be established here, and it is NOT what this editor has done or is requesting. --Tarage (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also the talk page needs a massive cleanup because holy hell those walls of text. --Tarage (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Lots of big red numbers in the history - X201 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the persistent inclusion of Baha'i related sections in many articles, the articles about the group and its doctrines themselves are a dark corner where few editors have interest but adherents. Related articles are often not encyclopedic (I did not check their state very recently). One that I remember was a rant against the fact that it is synchretic, supported by citations of an author of the movement. Another was about calling their proselytism "teaching"... About inserting references to it everywhere, they tend to be presented as a separate major world religion (rather than under Islam); but some sources also consider them separate. This often introduces a weight issue where a small article has a section dedicated to an obscure group (except on Wikipedia). This has been a concern of mine but is something I felt powerless about, other than when seeing new material inserted in articles where it seems out of place and I can contest that particular case. Some articles that do not appear related to the movement were also initially created based on a source from it, such as Comparison of the founders of religious traditions. I assume that all this might better belong at a non-admin noticeboard, but this was also an opportunity for more experienced eyes... —PaleoNeonate – 02:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate I agree with your assessment. If you AFD Comparison of the founders of religious traditions I'll support it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WHOA! That is problematic, not least the "Event starting ministry" column. And no "founded what religion" column. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that a complete failure of WP:SYNTH? Fish+Karate 11:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. Likely there are sources that deal with "founders of religious traditions" as a topic. But the topic is complex and opinion-y, and I don't think this article/table is a good form for it. Perhaps with much more basic data, like point in time, geographic location, founded what religion etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• For anyone having difficulty finding the article in question, it is this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith The majority of sources are from Baha'i in-house texts starting in the 1950's. AnonNep (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

He's right that the reference to "handicap" is not clearly part of the quote. I can fix that. He also introduced some problems that need cleanup. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Impersonation

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

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

@Amoymonarch: I gave your talk six hours of semi. Hopefully that should stop the vandalism. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amoymonarch: FYI they've also added a clever comment to Shangking's talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

71.174.234.187 violating MOS:CONTRACTIONS

It seems silly to request a block over this, but 71.174.234.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a history of doing so to the point that they have received not one but two blocks for this in the past, including a 1-month block released only 4 days ago. They have a similar record as 71.174.231.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The latest violations include [87] and [88], just to name two.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for three months this time. I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to intentionally violate the MOS like that, especially after several previous blocks. Weird. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This kind of sounds like the Bambifan101 LTA, fwiw. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The geolocation on these IPs does not suggest Bambifan, who per the LTA case is from Mobile, Alabama. Home Lander (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

StarWarsGlenny & IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• StarWarsGlenny (talk · contribs)
• 2601:1c2:4a00:ea99:6566:38d1:2bc9:eeb5 (talk · contribs)

StarWarsGlenny has been repeatedly adding incomprehensible blurbs to articles (last 5 edits: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]) They've also been editing from the above IP off and on. I've issued a couple warnings, but I'm not sure they speak much English, and it's been getting fairly disruptive. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ihardlythinkso, AKA IHTS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 30 January 2018Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AKA IHTS was blocked with the listed reason "chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem". There are 25 entries in his block log. There are 14 blocks in his block log.[94]

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

• "Bug off"[95]
• "There's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge."[96]
• "The fact is, it's your continued personal/WP:OR interpretations of same that I've repeatedly objected to, when you're uninformed and wrong. But yeah, the fact "[you] don't care" has been repeatedly demonstrated by you WP:IDHT-style. "[97]
• "here you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again)... I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions."[98]
• "Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argumment."[99]
• "You dont' know what you're talking about... You, are dishonest here, harassing me once again. Your arguments have to be taken in that context, since you're repeating old arguments already refuted, without new argument, as though you haven't read the thread. You like to start more shit between us whereby I have to ask you to stop badgering me again, after all these years?? Don't pretend none of this is true. You have even documented elsewhere how to harass others and still be under the WP radar of 'policy'. Go blow."[100]
• "Since you're "into" making assumptions, there's plenty here to guide your assumption-making"[101]
• "And why aren't you put your xxx where your mouth is, by responding at Talk:Three check chess#Test your mettle? You are oh-so confident here in this thread, but strangely absent from replying Yes or No in that Talk sec. Lacking confidence much?"[102]
• "Your arguments are all bogus. Plus you're an insulting jackass... You know nothing what you're talking about... What a blowhard in-the-dark argument!... What an argument! Don't make me laugh so hard I throw up. "[103]
• "If you editors really had confidence in your assertions, instead of OR and bullying, and if you cared about encyclopedic value, then you'll agree with the following:"[104]
• "Gosh, such a real convincing argument, that! What a joke. You don't know waht you're taking about."[105]
• "Quit destroying articles."[106]
• "Your arguments are bull.... You have no idea."[107]

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

• Support indefinite ban! I know I'm jumping the gun here even before IHTS has had a chance to respond. But in my review, I think this is a lost case and a waste of our community time to allow this editor to continue disrupting the project with this kind of mentality – which can be summarized with the statement, "you're an insulting jackass" used by this editor. Enough is... Lourdes 11:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• IHTS is frustrating. On one hand, I feel like we should get along as two of the rare people who care at all about chess variants (IHTS is almost certainly the most active editor in that area). If he were banned, I would miss having someone so passionate about the subject on Wikipedia. On the other hand, his tendency to treat other editors badly and turn even minor disagreements toxic is well documented in the AN archives, AE, other noticeboards, talk pages, etc. I don't think I've been part of any of them in the past, and if it were just a matter of IHTS having a problem with me in particular (many of the quotes above were directed at me), I wouldn't be leaving this comment. But it's an awful lot of people -- and untold others that were put off of editing those articles (or from Wikipedia) after accidentally drawing IHTS's ire or seeing it on various talk pages. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a place where one can reliably work autonomously. Content disputes will come up, and it's necessary to the collaborative process to be able to stick to the content without lashing out at people. If it were just on rare occasion, that would be one thing, but when it's persistent, it creates not just toxic environment, but discourages participation. I'd have a hard time !voting to indef, but certainly wouldn't oppose it -- I just don't know what other lesser approach would have any meaningful effect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  Guess what?: I find you frustrating. (But just like at Talk:Three-check chess, just like at CV article, my views count zero, your views must be implemented, right??) --IHTS (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Let's give Ihardlythinkso a chance to respond, of course, but, pending said response, I'm in favor of a months-long block, say, three months or so; steady escalation of blocks over slapping an indefinite block, in my opinion, properly balances the history of the editor (as a chess enthusiast) with, well, the history of the editor (insofar as the block log and invective is concerned). —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Arbitration Enforcement (AE):
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202#Ihardlythinkso
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive214#Ihardlythinkso
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224#Ihardlythinkso
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225#Doc9871

• Administrators' noticeboard (AN):
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed topic ban of Pigsonthewing
    • "Another typical example of irresponsible reading and comment. Read it again... Good grief - go back to school and learn to read. Hint: words have meaning. Not your ridiculous imagination."
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Clarification on IBAN (or, perhaps more timely, please get admin Sjakkalle off my back)
    • "But this is how things are done on the ever-so-pleasant Wikipedia. How fucking nasty!"
    • "More fucking shit on the abusive irresponsible AN board. I considered my opinion carefully and can back it up. You wanna make this personal with your patronizing ad hominem insult as if I were a vandal or a sock. Go stuff it [redacted] and consider your contribution to the nastiness of these boards."
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive276#User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Yobol (Result: Locked)
    • "What I see is IHTS's stubborn warring against a larger consensus, so their deletionism/whitewashing amounts to IDHT, TEND, and BATTLE. Their arguments are generally not based in policy, and when they mention any PAG, they reveal they don't understand them, and multiple other editors call them on it, but then they do their IDHT thing and keep on battling. It's very tiring. Even a superficial examination of their claims usually shows them to be groundless wikilawyering or blatant IDon'tLikeIt. They also throw around BLP claims as if BLP means that no negative content is allowed, and that's BS. Note that the diffs above are only a fraction of a repeated pattern, with many editors resisting IHTS's removal of sourced content they don't like... A topic ban would be helpful."
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Protected)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Request review of Black Kite's conduct by uninvolved admin
    • "Clear consensus that Black Kite's block was justified. OP [Ihardlythinkso] has retired in a fit of pique (although we all know how that often goes). There's nothing more to do here." Error: It wasn't Ihardlythinkso who "retired in a fit of pique".
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive294#User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Blocke)
    • "This appears to be a deliberate, pointy attempt by the user [Ihardlythinkso] to harass [redacted] during her RFA"
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317#User:ChessPlayerLev and User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result:Page protected 3 days)

• Administrators' noticeboard/Incident (ANI)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#Name-calling accusations
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Continued Abusive Behavior from Ihardlythinkso
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Ihardlythinkso's disruptive conduct
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Topic ban appeal Error: appeals are allowed, and this was just a question asked by IHTS on a page where another user was appealing.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#Apparent anti-female bigotry
    • "Your arguments belong on The Jerry Springer Show. (And so does ANI generally. It is a cesspool of irresponsibility here, and cat-fighting is the accepted norm of quality of argument -- you've done nothing but provide additional demonstration of same.)"
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive837#Ihardlythinkso violating his IBAN
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Request for sanctions on Ihardlythinkso
    • "You're pathetic [redacted], filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly... In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd. Why don't you tell the world again here, how the name-call of classic narcissist is *not* a personal attack. You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do." ... "Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great"
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#More IBAN violations by Ihardlythinkso
  • sanctions on Ihardlythinkso for violation of Interaction ban]
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:Ihardlythinkso and User:Objective3000: Time for an IBAN?

• Battlegound behavior when responding to a good-faith attempt to disengage
  • Interaction (2nd request)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban

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

• Huh, I remember the whac-a-mole stuff now but I'd forgotten you and IHTS were the editors involved. His tirades have been going on way too long. Maybe a talk page ban would be the way to go, since that- rather than IHTS's article work- seems to be the problem. If he then starts screeching at people in edit summaries we can rethink. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• That's a really interesting idea! Other than edit warring (which a 1RR or 2RR restriction would fix) has he ever been disruptive when editing articles as opposed to talk pages? Or maybe a limit of one talk page comment per talk page per 24 hours would be sufficient. On the other hand, I haven't had a lot of success with carefully crafted sanctions designed to keep an editor editing without being disruptive. The admins usually ignore the suggestion and either apply an indef block or decide to wait for further disruption before acting. I can't say that I blame them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Without comment on the merits of applying it to the current issue, I have long been a believer that some editors would be better topic-banned from the subject of "other Wikipedia editors (broadly construed)". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not an option. Collaboration is required. If you ban someone from article talk pages not only can they not collaborate with anyone else, when they get into a content dispute it also means other editors can't possibly resolves it with them. If we have got to the point where banning them from talking to others is considered a solution, then it needs to be a complete ban as that is a core requirement to edit here. Play nice with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

We have already reached the point where if another editor gets into a content dispute with Ihardlythinkso they cannot possibly resolve it with him, except by letting him have his way. All you can do is stop editing the page, as I and many others have done with the chess pages. Alas, even that didn't work, because Ihardlythinkso started being disruptive on the reliable sources noticeboard and on an AfD. I like chess. I miss being able to edit the chess pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Tough questions. Can't have the continued personal attacks and angry rambling, but you don't want to lose the content contributions. But I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there. Reyk _YO! 10:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"I wonder how much good work would get done in chess articles if other people were allowed to edit there." If we're even having to ask ourselves that question, that to me is a clear sign that a topic ban or equitable sanctions are in order. Nobody owns a page.--WaltCip (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban is unlikely to be effective. His previous topic ban was "Ihardlythinkso is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed"[108][109] and he couldn't or wouldn't abide by it.[110][111] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Guy Macon's massive collection of diffs of IHTS's apparent misconduct is somewhat misleading. "Your arguments belong on the Jerry Springer Show" is hardly the worst insult that's ever been lobbed at a wikipedian for example, while this one was just a simple question, so not sure why this was highlighted. Believe it or not, IHTS has mellowed in the past couple of years, and his contributions to chess articles are appreciated at WikiProject Chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Plus, the "OP who retired in a fit of pique" in this diff was not IHTS but User:MaxBrowne.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching my errors, and I apologize to IHTS. I have stricken those from the list. Please let me know if anything else that is misleading snuck in; I want to be fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am unaware of the previous blocks of IHTS and the prospect of reading all the associated walls of text is not enticing, but in my experience he has been reasonably amiable and of course has made many useful contributions to chess-related articles. So since he is HTBAE I oppose an indefinite block but he needs to be less combative in discussions as it does seem to be a recurrent problem that is not helpful to anyone. Whether this change is a realistic expectation, I do not know. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #20545

Ihardlythinkso's block log has the following entries:

• 17:45, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (chronic battleground mentality, misuse of talk page while blocked, topic ban violations, multiple prior blocks have not solved the problem)

• 17:52, 30 January 2018 Floquenbeam changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Additional note to say that the block extension is not AE enforcement; the original 2 week duration, and talk page access removal for those 2 weeks, *are* arbitration enforcement. Any UTRS admin can unblock after 2 weeks without fear of desysop.)

• 16:30, 11 February 2018 Alex Shih changed block settings for Ihardlythinkso with an expiration time of 13:56, 27 February 2018 (account creation blocked, email disabled) (Reducing the block extension to 2 weeks per UTRS appeal #20545, making this a one-month block. TPA turned back after both UTRS discussion and consultation with blocking administrator)

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

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

@Floquenbeam and Alex Shih:

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

Guy Macon, the UTRS discussion was mostly about unblock conditions, in which I have posted on their talk page after ([112]). Unfortunately I did not explicitly ask for commitment on their behaviour, partially because I thought it was already implied when they apologised for several instances of their misbehaviour in the incident that led to the indefinite block. I would endorse re-blocking Ihardlythinkso indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• I believe this is the last discussion I've had regarding IHTS: [113]. Here were the unblock conditions: [114]. I never saw the UTRS appeal, I just defered to Alex's judgement. I recall being skeptical at the time; IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has.

I'm just responding to the ping, I have not (and will not) looked at IHTS's latest interactions to see what's happening now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The unblock conditions were:

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

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

• • I don't think so. It's been nominated for deletion before and kept: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong_to_article_lower-quality_statuses. Reyk _YO! 08:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• "IHTS does not interact well with people he disagrees with. His reaction to GoldenRing (who was just enacting a very clear consensus of admins at AE) was typical of almost every interaction he has." I think this comment by Floquenbeam sums things up very accurately and precisely. IHTS has a clear, pervasive, and very long-term CIR problem which he refuses to correct or modify. No matter how valuable his content work, if he cannot adjust civilly to Wikipedia's collaborative environment, he needs to be shown the door, per WP:CIR. I support a site ban; the indef blocks have not worked because he always weasels his way out of them, and his promises to change are empty. The community has wasted far too much time on his problematical behaviors already. Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. When he laid into me in 2013 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban, I disengaged, figuring that eventually either he would shape up or end up indefinitely blocked, but here he is, five years later, laying into me again at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliable sources regarding the rules of a chess variant and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess. The phrase Loose Cannon comes to mind. In the age of sail, sometimes a cannon weighing as much as three and a half tons would come loose and would roll back and forth as the deck pitched, crushing anyone who got in the way. Meanwhile, the fuse was still lit and after a short while the cannon would fire in some random direction. In my considered opinion, Ihardlythinkso is a loose cannon which has overcome all previous attempts to tie it down and needs to be rolled overboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban or indef - This user has proven time and again that he is unable or unwilling to participate in the project in an acceptable manner. His combative attempt to bargain with Alex an his talk page underscores exactly why removing him from Wikipedia is in our best interest.- MrX 🖋 11:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Stalking my Talk!? Gosh I wonder why! (Not a long-term grudge-holder, for sure.) p.s. Your comment when I correctly stated that words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are neither race nor even ethnicity, as "obtuse" -- I really didn't get that. I thought I was as clear as a person can be. --IHTS (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  "Combative attempt to bargain". Not try and say the truth as best I can, and asking consideration for same, right? And Softlavender, not liking to see any past block lifted, says "he always weasels his way out", even she was never witness to any block lift rationale, discussion, or argument. (Both your behaviors are not vindictive-nasty??) --IHTS (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Normally this is the point where I tell you that you need to examine your own behavior and inform you that blaming other people is an ineffective way of avoiding a block, but in this case you are pretty much an expert on what gets you blocked and what gets you unblocked, so In won't bother telling you what has been told to you so many times already.

That being said, a new user may run across this discussion, so I will say for the new user's benefit that we are each responsible for our own behavior, and that pointing to bad behavior by someone else -- even if it is true -- in no way excuses bad behavior on your part.

I expect that we will now an example of the Law of holes in action as Ihardlythinkso explains in entertaining detail what an evil and vindictive person I am, but I will be very disappointed if this turns into yet another game of Whac-A-Mole.[115]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was impressed favorably by IHTS's handling, in March of this year, of the discussion of how MOS:NICKNAME was to be handled in the lead paragraph of Bobby Fischer. (Now in archive #8 of the talk page.) Moreover, I would have to say, in the two and a half years that I have been editing Chess on Wikipedia, I have never had so much as a difficult moment with this guy. I concur with some other editors that his competence is not at issue -- his edits to chess articles are exemplary, and he edits a lot. Nevertheless, I can see that there is a serious problem; I've watched him get into hot water on several occasions, and it baffles me how quickly it seems to happen. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support block, not sure how long, but maybe indef. Really starting to think IHTS's name might be better as WP:IDHT... --Tarage (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block. Such a block should not be done lightly, and if it is to be imposed, it should be done by ARBCOM, not by the chaotic free for all environment that is ANI. A cool-down block of 2 or 3 days might well have been imposed at the height of the dispute between 19-21 July, but to impose it now would be WP:PUNITIVE. This all stemmed from a content dispute between IHTS and LukeSurl at the page Three-check chess. There were testy exchanges on the Talk page (ok mostly by IHTS) but a compromise was eventually hammered out. Meanwhile LukeSurl had raised the issue at the RSN, leading to Izno nominating the article for deletion (or more likely merging with List of chess variants). This is where Guy Macon became involved, apparently forgetting that he had 5 years ago requested an interaction ban with IHTS. Since then Guy Macon has refused all requests from IHTS to refrain from interacting, and in my opinion has been unnecessarily provocative. He has even used direct personal attacks e.g. [116] "Sorry, but it is difficult to remember every ******* on Wikipedia." - it is a fair assumption that the asterisked 7-letter word here is "asshole" or similar insult, and he has the nerve to link to WP:CIV in the same breath. Referring to someone's block log is also an irrelevant personal attack. The behaviour continued at the Afd, with some unnecessary baiting here, here and here, despite IHTS's stated desire not to interact. In raising the ANI he took a scattergun approach, highlighting threads from several years ago, some of them perfectly reasonable interactions. He also for some reason thought it necessary to publicize the ANI in multiple forums [117] [118] [119]. This is the editor who has been the most strident in pushing for an indefinite block. Rather than jumping on the mob bandwagon, please examine Guy Macon's provocative behaviour. I question his motives in raising this ANI. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree an indef shouldn't be taken lightly, but this is where it typically happens. The community, chaotic as it may sometimes be, does resolve long-term behavioral issues sometimes. It's only if this process fails (repeatedly) that it goes to arbcom. I'd be 98% sure that a case request would just kick it back here, especially since there seems to be a consensus forming that something is necessary. I'd probably be inclined towards a fixed-length long-term block (6m/12m) over an indef or a site ban. Indefinite is not infinite, but practically speaking only in certain cases -- it's hard to find consensus to come back when the block was based on activities over a long period of time. A 6m/12m block would be the last step before site ban, I guess, as it builds in the ability to come back for another chance. I completely disagree with your assertion that this is punitive. I don't think anybody here is supporting a block/ban based just on the recent events, but on a demonstrated pattern over the course of years. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I just don't like how this is being handled at all. Guy Macon repeatedly provoked IHTS, and now he's the one pushing so hard for a site ban. He's bombarding us with the sheer volume of old links, not all of which are valid examples of misconduct on IHTS's part. Why isn't this behaviour being examined? This whole thing just has a nasty smell to it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"he's the one pushing so hard for a site ban" – There are many editors pushing hard for a site ban/block, and Guy wasn't even the first, I was. "He's bombarding us with the sheer volume of old links, not all of which are valid examples of misconduct on IHTS's part." – Multiple editors have reviewed the links and have reached the same conclusion separately, without being canvassed by Guy; trust their intelligence please. "Why isn't this behaviour being examined?" – You or any interested editor are free to list out links where you can point out Guy's egregious behaviour; I'm not sure you'll find any where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff (and no, "*****" doesn't make the cut; your imagination of what ***** may mean holds no relevance here), but do please list any you find problematic; however, while it may invite strictures against Guy (that is, if such links can be produced), that will not in any way reduce IHTS's culpability. "This whole thing just has a nasty smell to it." – One guess where all the nasty smell started from. Lourdes 19:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you'll find any where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff. Here is one: "go fuck yourself, asshole." on 9 June 2018. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson, how is this an attack by Guy against IHTS, whose name is not there on the whole archive of the page you link? Perhaps placing ad hominem page links, which have no relevance to the IHTS-Guy Macon story, is not of any benefit. If you want to pull up Guy for general behaviour issues against other editors, I would suggest that you may please go ahead and open a new thread and place your general links there. This thread is about IHTS – and if you want to prove that IHTS' behaviour was exacerbated by Guy's attacks on him, then it'll be good to be relevant. Lourdes 03:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not an attack by Guy against IHTS, it's a diff "where Guy is calling other editors encomiums like "jackass" and stuff". I took your comment as a request for diffs of insults towards other editors, not just towards IHTS. I thought it also might add one possibility as to what the seven asterisks could mean. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Give me a break, it is disingenuous to claim that "Sorry, but it is difficult to remember every ******* on Wikipedia." is not a direct insult. Why would you replace a word with asterisks unless the asterisks were a stand-in for something offensive? It could be "asshole", it could be some other 7-letter insult, but it is definitely an insult. What makes it even worse is that he links to WP:CIV even as he breaks that policy himself. Very hypocritical. I gave several examples of deliberate provocation on Guy's part. Since when has taunting someone over their block log been considered civil behaviour on wikipedia, for example? Knowing IHTS's tendency to lash out, Guy ignored all requests to stop and continued to goad and poke IHTS. (Yes, I know he shouldn't take the WP:BAIT) On the occasion when he didn't take the bait he was taunted with [120] "sound of crickets". Deliberately provoking someone known to be volatile despite requests to stop, then reporting them to ANI and pushing for a site ban, is nasty, vindictive, and system gaming of the worst kind. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, I originally wrote "but it is difficult to remember every annoying POV-pusher on Wikipedia", but when I hit the preview button (and keeping in mind how Ihardlythinkso has literally spent years complaining about me once saying "I think we are playing Whac-A-Mole here") (Again, Ihardlythinkso does not consist of 6.02214179(30)×10²³ atoms), I replaced it with a random-length string of asterisks. Given MaxBrowne2's claimed ability to read my mind and thus determine with absolute certainty what I really meant based upon how long I held down the repeat key, I am glad that I didn't randomly type **** (or even worse, *************!!) instead of *******. I do invite MaxBrowne2 to list how many times I was uncivil in a recent three-day period or to post my block log, as I did with Ihardlythinkso -- but please keep in mind that my rather small number of blocks was stretched out over 12 years and 40,000 edits.

While we are at it, Ihardlythinkso's oft-repeated claims that I "pledged no contact years ago" are factually incorrect. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Request interaction ban did I make any such "pledge". The closest I came was saying "I have been avoiding interaction with him ever since". In fact, I clearly stated "I am inclined to close this and come back only if the problem continues". The problem continued, so I came back to WP:ANI as I promised to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I originally wrote "but it is difficult to remember every annoying POV-pusher on Wikipedia", but when I hit the preview button....I replaced it with a random-length string of asterisks.. This is about as convincing as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't'". Your use of misdirection, misrepresentation and hyperbole is also noted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: you calling me a liar and comparing me to politicians (but I repeat myself...), I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(For the benefit of those who don't know the code, he's telling me to fuck off... and I'd respect him more if he'd just come out and say it in as many words instead of using this weaselly formula. Fake civility, you can be as offensive as you want as long as you don't actually say the f word.) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no desire for "respect" from someone who calls me a liar without evidence. vdYgEc}&Ep$f~JUaMb_m\|Q;_p5&@0H#. _{(Psychic ability test: Let's see how good he is at assigning meaning to an encrypted, padded-to-32-characters string...}} --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block with a very clear message that indefinite does not mean infinite. I have no doubt that IHTS is a genuine chess expert and a productive chess contributor. Other chess editors attest to that. However, IHTS's repeated combative and extremely insulting behavior is simply not acceptable. IHTS can act like a jackass on Twitter or Reddit or 4Chan but not on Wikipedia anymore. So, IHTS should be blocked and then unblocked only if they make a rock solid personal pledge to abandon battleground behavior on Wikipedia forever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban This user is the only user to have, effortlessly, make their way onto my hit list. He is the only user, and first person, where I've felt frustrated/annoyed/upset enough to support a site ban. With that being said, I stay away from these users, but I will not hesitate to vote to indef/ban them if the discussion comes up. Given that the behavior has not changed since I've banned this user from my talk page, I'm inclined to believe he is still a net negative to the project.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Cyberpower678, but I think your comment here is a bit strange. Why would you maintain a "hit list", and since banning someone from your talk page means you prefer not to interact with them on personal basis, it's not really a reason to suggest that they are net negative to the project (gives the impression that you are saying "I don't like you, therefore I believe you are net negative" or the reverse, which is still a bit strange?). Might be the wording. I do agree that the belligerent approach by IHTS whenever they are in a dispute is extremely frustrating. Alex Shih (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Alex Shih: You're right, that may be a bit strange. I really don't maintain a hit list, nor do I want to. For lack of a better way to phrase it, this user got on my bad side for reasons that led to this discussion now. Also to make a point, it's really not easy to get on my bad side, case in point IHTS is the only one. One would really have to leave me with a lasting negative impression to pull that off. My reasons to ban this user from Wikipedia is roughly the same reason I banned them from my talk, where, for years, the exact same behavior has continued elsewhere, where this user alienates others. I have avoided this user, successfully, since, but the behavior has got to stop. So it's not because I don't like them, it's because the behavior he has towards others is just appalling. I hope that helps clarify things.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
      • A "hit list"! (What if *I* said anything like that!?) Am I allowed similar feelings? No? Just you? I see. I've totally forgotten you as editor, and what exchange that got under your skin. But we don't need to go back & examine it, your undissipated hot hate tells us that you were "innocent", I was "guilty". Right. --IHTS (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban at this time. Guy Macon engaged IHTS on his talk page, and IHTS has apologised and pledged to be better. A fixed-term block may be appropriate, but I'm not calling for it and this isn't a black and white issue of "everything IHTS does is bad". If he can temper his rank incivility and just step away whenever he feels himself getting wound up, he could return to being a great contributor after some (likely inevitable) time off. Also, on a separate issue (or is it?), Guy Macon and Max Browne need to stop trying to bait one another, as they are above. Fish+Karate 12:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • He only apologized to "every or any editor I was uncivil to in the Three-check chess dispute and at the related WP:RSN item." [121]. I do not see any acknowledgement of the more than 6.5 years of endless BATTLEGROUND and STICK behavior, even on matters and conversations completely unrelated to chess. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

    Softlavender, I'm a much better editor than 6.5 years ago, in a lot of ways. I'm not proud of several past interactions, but I can't erase them. Going back and finding and individually apologizing for past posts w/ be unprecedented on the WP, I've never seen anything like that. And it wouldn't satisfy those, perhaps you too, who are just looking for blood. The WP way has always been forward-looking. As part of continued evolution, I could promise to you now to be completely professional and never make an uncivil post again, to anyone under any circumstance. But that wouldn't be sufficient either, would it. --IHTS (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I asked him to do the following:

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

He didn't do that.

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

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

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

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

He didn't do that.

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

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

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!"

• Attempt to convince us that you finally "get it" and are at last willing to change your ways.

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

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

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

Rather pompous and self righteous to set up a list of demands. Fact is he *has* improved his behaviour over the last few years, and I say that as a former enemy. And obliquely insulting people by substituting asterisks or "referring them to arkell vs pressdram" is not "civil", it's just dishonest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares what you think. Feel free to file an ANI report on me if you think you have a case. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block this has gone on long enough. IHTS has had ample opportunity to change and there's no reason to believe he finally will. Lepricavark (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note that I no longer endorse re-blocking IHTS indefinitely. I'd support 3–6 months block with indefinite civility restriction. Alex Shih (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban Anyone who thinks they are actually going to change is naive at this point. Block may solve the problem in the short term, but even with a civility restriction it's just delaying it until later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. This user doesn't need an nth chance to behave with the decorum and professionalism that the rest of us manage every day without threats hanging over our heads. Just reading their rhetoric on chess article talk pages is enough to make me never want to participate there—how many other editors have they had that effect on? Their behavior creates a battleground and chilling effect on people who might disagree with them. Net negative. --Laser brain (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose indef This is my first experience with ANI, and it's not turning out the way I want. Most of the people that are discussed in ANI, as far as I can tell, are actively destructive in articles. IHTS is, sorry to rain on anyone's parade, constructive.

What can I say? Although I have been involved in one discussion (early 2016) in which IHTS and another editor were misbehaving, I have not had a problem with him, and indeed, we have interacted cordially at least a couple of times on his talk page and some article talk pages, and we have edited many of the same articles, often one of us right after the other. Editing is a collaborative activity, and I am about to lose an important collaborator, and it's annoying. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that IHTS can do good article work. And I understand your frustration at losing a collaborator. However, some of us are annoyed when IHTS chooses to be combative instead of collaborative. He may collaborate well with you, but he treats some of us like dirt. And we've had enough. Lepricavark (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"he treats us". That's present tense. When I've avoided contact w/ you for years. (Yet you hounded & badgered me at RfA, e.g.) Ditto some others here, e.g. the OP, specifically have avoided contact for years. Can't erase the past, used as drum-beat for revenge/wiki-kill/blood. (That's the WP-way!?) --IHTS (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't recollect the RfA incident(s) in question. I do, however, recollect that our most recent encounter was less than a year ago. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If so, and was negative, I guarantee I didn't initiate it. (Were you the editor who came to my Talk and apologized? I remember being cordial in response.) --IHTS (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I would not encourage you, either of you, to continue this unpleasant dialogue. I had already read your earlier comments.

I do not have any magic that wards off evil aggressive editors. If I have gotten along with any other editor, including IHTS, it is only because I respect that editor, and that editor respects me. I do not have a lot of helpful advice about how to get to that point, but I know that there are times when it requires a lot of forbearance, cautiousness, slow reaction, and backing off. I think that most of the people reading this know that, but knowing it and doing it are two different things. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block Having read through the above, it seems that this user has been given multiple chances to correct his behavior and he refused to do so. While I haven't had any interactions with this editor, I can imagine why those on the receiving end of his incivility would say he's a net liability. Davey2116 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block and site ban per Cyberpower678 and Cullen328. I have been aware of this user's propensity for toxic behaviour for years but I was not aware of its full extent. It has to be stopped now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Your years-long divisionist "anti-admin brigade" campaign wasn't "toxic"?! --IHTS (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There you go again - you don't even need provoking. There were no personal attacks, no incivility, and no campaign, nothing toxic, just a reference to a vague group of people who constantly issue toxic comments at and about admins - from a cowardly corner knowing that admins are not allowed to defend themselves. If you self identify with an "anti-admin brigade" that's up to you - note that all the other admins and editors calling for your ban posted here before I did. The time is over when abusive users thought their prolific content creation or expert-subject knowledge gives them the right to abominable behaviour with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what I think. Many criticized your bad-faith campaign, not only me. And about abusiveness, see WP:ANI. --IHTS (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh how I wish that the time was actually over when abusive users were given a free pass because of their content creation. But the fact that this report is still open after 7 days and an 18 to 3 consensus for a ban says otherwise. Anyone else would have been blocked at...

"You're pathetic [redacted], filled w/ bull and always have the last word of paper tiger. You should shut up and don't address me directly... In my book you are supreme hypocrite and your accusations are never subject to scrutiny or examination, so you can exhibit as much blowhard behavior as you like and you know you can get by with same. You have no moral and especially no intellectual authority, you have only your pathetic admin badge and blocking bat, which you've already used on me. Your Wikistalking accusations are spurious and untrue, you are IMO an abusive admin and need to be de-sysop'd... You have no credibility what is or isn't PA after that, and should stop the condescending wikilinking of same as if you do." ... "Just more cesspool enemy detractors at the infamous ANI cesspool board that gives the entire WP a great reputation. So just keep it up, you're doin' great"

...instead of being given chance after chance for so many years. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block and site ban. Enough is enough. The multiple chances IHTS has been given are above and beyond what most people would get. Being "constructive" in articles is no license to constantly mistreat others, and IHTS has been given numerous chances and has shown no sign of changing. Nihlus 10:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. IHTS' contributions cannot be weighed against the harm he does with personal attacks. Quoting WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians." He has been given numerous chances to change his behavior but at this point I don't think he is willing and/or able to change his ways in this regard. --Count Count (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of the closing admin; summarizing comments

Boldly hatting comment summary, which is starting to become a discussion in itself -- anyone interested can expand
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just summarised the comments of editors in order of gravity in alphabetical order, below; please correct liberally if I've made a mistake. Thanks, Lourdes 07:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC): The closing administrator is requested to necessarily look at the apology posted by IHTS at User talk:Ihardlythinkso#One last try before taking any action. Thanks, Lourdes 11:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Oppose block I oppose an indefinite block: Hrodvarsson Oppose indefinite block: MaxBrowne2 I oppose an indefinite block--and I point out that some of the opinion posted in the support section also oppose an indefinite block but support lesser action. They should not be seen as support for an indefinite block any more than my comment is. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Support block/ban Support indefinite block: Cullen328 Support indefinite ban: Cyberpower678 I'm in favor of a months-long block, say, three months or so: Javert2113 Support indefinite ban: Lourdes Support site ban: Guy Macon Support site ban or indef: MrX Maybe a talk page ban would be the way to go: Reyk I'd have a hard time !voting to indef, but certainly wouldn't oppose it ... I'd probably be inclined towards a fixed-length long-term block (6m/12m) over an indef or a site ban: Rhododendrites I would endorse re-blocking Ihardlythinkso indefinitely.: Alex Shih I support a site ban: Softlavender Support block, not sure how long, but maybe indef: Tarage Discussion I think just quoting the first three words of Cullen328's comments is a bit misleading. And I think this whole section probably isn't helpful, the closing administrator will, I'm sure, be reading the whole of the content to form their conclusion. Fish+Karate 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC) What, exactly, do you find misleading? His entire comments was: Support indefinite block with a very clear message that indefinite does not mean infinite. I have no doubt that IHTS is a genuine chess expert and a productive chess contributor. Other chess editors attest to that. However, IHTS's repeated combative and extremely insulting behavior is simply not acceptable. IHTS can act like a jackass on Twitter or Reddit or 4Chan but not on Wikipedia anymore. So, IHTS should be blocked and then unblocked only if they make a rock solid personal pledge to abandon battleground behavior on Wikipedia forever. (emphasis in original). That's pretty much the standard advice that anyone who is indefinitely blocked gets. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC) !Vote tallies/summaries of ongoing discussions are generally frowned upon and not particularly helpful. At worst, they may be seen as an attempt to influence other editors by implying that the outcome is already decided or inevitably leaning one way. I find it odd that Lourde placed their own new, non-summarized comment at the top of the "in order of gravity" list. That said, I don't see this section as having any significant influence on the outcome and I trust the closing admin to assess consensus appropriately. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC) I alphabetized the list to avoid any appearance of bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC) There wasn't the appearance of bias, it was actual bias, because the list was ordered "in order of gravity", which is an entirely subjective measurement. I actually removed the list as well-intentioned but unhelpful earlier, but Lourdes re-added it. That's fine I guess, but I expect the reviewing admin to simply ignore the tally and all it has succeeded in is is people discussing the merit of it rather than the actual subject at hand.--Atlan (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Without opining on the particulars of the above, I'm going to boldly hat this. Summaries like this can be controversial, and regardless of the merits of doing so, it's starting to distract from the actual subject. Anyone interested in a summary can expand it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Seems moot at this point to revisit this hatting, given the additional comments above by others and you... Lourdes 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but wish that IHTS, instead of focusing on a minor issue such as the above hatting, would instead provide some indication that he understands why seventeen different editors all came to the conclusion that he should be blocked or banned. Hint: it isn't just because of the comments during the three days that I checked, and it isn't because someone else besides IHTS misbehaved. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death threats by ip

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I'm contacting WP:EMERGENCY - please do that in the future instead of coming here. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

For future reference, there's an emergency link at the top of this page. EEng 03:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting them. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry. I will take note just in case this thing happens again. Thanks for helping me Home Lander and EEng. Cheers JC7V-constructive zone 04:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bicyclette

A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked. Per [122], the user admits using 74.58.148.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette, however the contributions also show edits to the articles where their disruption originally triggered the block.

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

• Support Miniapolis 22:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block should remain. Mztourist (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible COI in user

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Indian Institute of Technology Bombay being hit by countless IPs ...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

... mass childish vandalism that seems to have been going on for two days now, so can someone please protect it? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Already  done by Oshwah. Lourdes 18:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RDX451 -- still doing what he was blocked for in May and has received multiple final warnings for

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the course of his 2.5-month wiki career, RDX451 (talk · contribs) has received an enormous rap sheet of warnings and final warnings on his talk-page, and was blocked for 72 hours in May for WP:DE [123], but he's still at it despite further final warnings. The latest final warnings, in the past couple of weeks, were from Oshwah and ScrapIronIV, but the user is still carrying on placing abundant incorrect and uncited material in articles on actors and films. He needs to be stopped, perhaps permanently. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A bit overdue, but blocked indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zabdas at it again

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

Man, these guys don't stop. Full protection would make them discuss the issue, but it would also inconvenience everyone else who wanted to edit the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching the 3 articles they were edit warring over, and am prepared to block if it starts again. I don't know what else to do for now. - Donald Albury 12:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonresponsive user Kaushwiki formatting

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

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

User continues ([124], [125], [126]) after final warning. - DVdm (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't really have a "house style" for citations, though they should be readable. WP:CITE says: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. Kaushwiki's early edits were pretty messy, but this edit looks fine to me. I think it would be best to fix any remaining formatting errors rather than reverting it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Cleaning up Kaushwiki's edits is a pain in the butt, but those edits appear to be done in good faith and I think the information is useful. Many edits by other editors are helpful, yet rough, and need additional touches.—Anita5192 (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that Kaushwiki's citations are poorly done (I wish that they had at least the http or https protocol proceeding the URL; that would make conversion easier), this editor is at least doing a service by finding the appropriate URLs to cite. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's just hope someone will take the trouble to verify their edits and put them straight. As far as I can see user KIENGIR made some corrections that resulted in useless links too: [127] and [128]. - DVdm (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I checked and the first link worked by me, in the second a point remained by mistake. Please correct then them, if I made something wrong, or should I try again?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

The link works when manually copy-pasted into the browser, but there is no link to click in the article. See for instance [129]. It was explained to them how to do it, but I think they don't understand what is required, or even what they are doing. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Racist behaviour of Jeromi_Mikhael

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) Throwing the term "racist" around on the drop of a hat isn't going to gain you any sympathy, I think. I see a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS being cast and an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality . That's on both sides, btw. The title of the thread is certainly beyond the pale, but this very request makes me wonder whether or not the writer may be correct with respect to the "butthurt" part. What remains after filtering out all the noise and tantrums, is a content dispute. Take it to he &*(^&*(^* talk page. That's what they're for. Mind the WP:BOOMERANG, please. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Ke an:Well, is butthurt a racist term? Well, then I'm sorry for that.But my major concern comes from this two edit conflict :

• The first edit, on which I put in the anthem of the USSR alongside the anthem of Lithuania that indicates a prove that at a certain point, Tautiška giesmė is used as the anthem of the Lithuanian SSR, was reverted. The revert was made with a note "Insignificant"
• The second edit, on which I change the photograph of the young Jonas Žemaitis to a more recent photograph in 1953, was reverted.

Decide it yourself moderators.

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

Let's see. The WP:TEAHOUSE describes itself as "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." So naturally you thought that starting a section entitled Butthurt Lithuanians would be a good way to show your friendliness. Got it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and Ke an: I'm sorry for that. To all Lithuanians in the world that may have seen, or being affected by this, I am sorry to disrespect the Lithuanian ethnic. I regret about my bad words, and in bad or good conditions, I promise not to do it again. What we're discussing here is about the two edits. Can the edit be reverted with good negotiations? I'm avoiding to revert it to avoid edit wars. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to go to the talk pages of each article to work out content disputes.Curdle (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Rape link on talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hmm, maybe not link to it on this popular page. I've emailed OS for you. There are instructions at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: thanks already for your actions. The template family {{uw-defamatory}} was what I was looking for. - DVdm (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are lying, I posted the sex offender database entry after you vandalised my talk page section the first time. And now Natureium removed it again, WTF!!!!!! How is an entry in official sex offender databases not a valid source?!! By the way, this is the relevant page: [redacted] [redacted Angry IP] 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not permitted to post potentially defamatory content anywhere in Wikipedia, including on this noticeboard. I suggest you chill. We are aware of the content you are trying to add, and the question is being considered, but you will not help your case at all by accusing anyone of lying. See WP:AGF. General Ization ^Talk 21:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it being considered here? Or on the relevant talk page? Or some closed communication channel? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

See your Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 22:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Ongoing vandalism by suspected sockpuppet user Muhammad Ammar Ba'asyir at Sonia Fergina Citra

User Muhammad Ammar Ba'asyir is a suspected sockpuppet: [130] and is persistently vandalizing the page at Sonia Fergina Citra by changing her year of birth: . IP user 114.124.237.211 is also involved. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Timetin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User:Timetin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Inserts god-related or atheist related single-sentence rants in many articles, demonstrating a WP:NOTHERE attitude, despite an editor's attempt to explain. Their talk page is full of warnings. A few select diffs: [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] and it goes on and on... —PaleoNeonate – 07:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTHERE should be the correct assessment for this case. Blocked indefinitely. Alex Shih (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elon Musk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Some attention would be nice. I dont particularly want to have to revert every 3 minutes, but after stating there is a BLP issue, I am quite willing to do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You certainly broke the 3RR rule! Govvy (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After warning both parties, they continued to revert. It must not be edit warring if you're "right". Natureium (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO. Mrathel has been told repeatedly they need to gain consensus that is not a BLP violation to include it. I cannot find the material even excluding the diver's name passes BLP as the policy protects against individuals regardless of if they are named. BLP protects against *companies* that have small enough staff to be identifiable. It certainly protects a non-notable individual when we constantly link to tabloid gossip about them even if we do not name them explicitly in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." If it's sourced is it a clear BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not that its sourced, its that the sources themselves contain material we wouldnt allow for non-public figures. If this was Elon Musk and say, Trump, there would be no issue as they are both clearly public figures. Its already on the BLP noticeboard, and the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, if you edit a comment after it's been replied to, you should at the very least add a new time stamp so the chronology is apparent. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I edit conflicted 6 times attempting to do that. Aside, its been protected. Talkpage currently has an open discussion if more opinions want to be given. So NFA is needed here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

OID, you're both blatantly editwarring; I don't see how this content could reasonably be said to qualify for a 3RR exemption under WP:Edit warring#EX7. (It's not libellous to report that somebody alleged something as long as we're not claiming in Wikipedia's voice that the allegations are true, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "unsourced" given that the Thai cave incident was headline news in about 90% of the world's press for weeks.) Unless there's something glaring I'm missing, this is purely a content dispute over whether a particular story is being given undue weight, and as such (a) not something on which ANI can or should rule, and (b) liable to get the pair of you blocked if it keeps up. I can briefly protect the page if you both feel it would help, but bear in mind that depending on exactly which stage of the editwar it happens to be at, there's a 50-50 chance that I'll lock The Wrong Version. I don't buy the "material we wouldnt allow for non-public figures" argument in the least; that's like saying we shouldn't cover a battle because the individual soldiers are individually non-notable. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung already locked it (on OID's preferred version). Natureium (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Its already been protected (which I requested significantly into that) the battle example is hardly relevant. A battle has hundreds-to-thousands of participants. BLP is about preventing harm to identifiable individuals - and its really impossible to cover this without identifying the individual Musk decided to libel. I'm quite happy to not revert when consensus is that it is not a violation, but that discussion has to be had *first* before including the material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Well I did request 'temporary'. I was thinking 24 hours... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent, try reading reading what I said. Keep yourself civil and use your own admin discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think "what the hell" is "incivil", I really don't know what to say… To recycle a week-old comment of mine as it's just as relevant here, Every person who either tries to make a good-faith IP edit or creates an account for the purpose of correcting a problem, only to be confronted by this aggressive and incomprehensible template when they try to actually make their edit, is a potential long-term contributor who will almost certainly never attempt to edit Wikipedia again, and we're not in the position where we have the luxury of driving away even more contributors than we already do. Elon Musk, as a high-profile figure who's of broad popular interest particularly among the type of college-age people most likely to become new Wikipedia editors, is just the sort of article most likely to recruit new editors, and you've unilaterally protected it for an obviously inappropriate period (to a degree that even the editor requesting the protection considers it inappropriate), to address an edit war taking place between just two people, rather than considering asking the participants to stop. (Incidentally, if you think "hell" is uncivil you may want to try actually reading the thread in question.) ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I will point out that Natureium had already issued 3RR warnings to both editors, and that I also asked them both to stop on the article's Talk page. I find it somewhat troubling that the full protection of the page seems to have been the end of the administrative response to what was clearly an edit war, whether or not one or the other editor was justified under policy. As it stands, one editor believes it was entirely justified under BLP, and the other believes just as fervently that BLP should not apply to their edits (under a rather unique theory, but nevertheless). At this point, neither has been given guidance here, nor has the edit warring behavior itself been addressed; they have simply been left to work it out (and an RfC has been started concerning the underlying issue). Had the article not been protected when it was, I believe the war would have gone on indefinitely. General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Both were warned about edit warring, both continued, and both have been around long enough to know better anyway. This should be addressed. Natureium (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expectant of Light (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both. Did you have a question or comment to share? General Ization ^Talk 21:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know - I FP'd Cristiano Ronaldo (150K daily pageviews) for 14 days two weeks ago because the volume of IP bollocks and account-based edit-warring in the wake of his transfer to Juventus was swamping the article. Sometimes it's necessary. This might not be the same. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ​Sure, protection is a valid option when a page is Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option (my emphasis). Locking down a page for two weeks owing to an edit-war between just two users, not so much. ‑ Iridescent 06:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

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

WTF is this here? The article talk page hasn't been edited since 10th July ignoring the vandalism and reversion and bot edit [138]. How can either of you actually listen to what each other has to say if neither of you are talking to one another (no edit summaries don't count) Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can see, he's technically right. "lit" is a contraction of "literally" and therefore needs the full stop. However, you actually don't need it at all, because it's obvious that the phrase in brackets is a translation of the Latin motto. Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that's completely different from my A-level latin... I was taught that Lit or litterae (letter of an alphabet) in Latin when translating Latin to English use (Lit: Translation from Latin.) Govvy (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I haven't studied Latin, (Lit.) means nothing to me. Perhaps it can be rephrased. - Donald Albury 13:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

These kind of discussions are a great thing, now if only they were held in a suitable place..... (Even better if before the edit warring.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Could this be a sock?

User:FastEddieo007 has made 2 edits, a typo correction [139], and an apparent POV push [140], the combination of questionable edits and a username ending in 007 makes me wonder about David Adam Kess, but I don't think this is enough evidence to post this on the SPI page. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Self-report

I am self-reporting following this close by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise. I removed a self-published source from the article (lulu.com) which was added by a CheckUser blocked account. I provided the diff on the talk page [Talk:Pastirma#Suggested_compromise] which the closer indicates he has seen [141]. Did I do something wrong by removing SPS and requesting dispute resolution? The IP has not responded to requests on the talk page for additional sources, so I thought a mediator would be able to help. I didn't expect him to "resolve" the content dispute in favor of one party based on his own reading of the sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• DRN volunteer~ see this DRN closing. The editor was not reported or suggested they were going to be reported. The dispute at DRN was referred to ANI because it is possible administrative attention is needed more than DRN assistance.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The ip also indicated a willingness to participate in mediation on my talk page, though he hasn't edited since then. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I also found Mark's reverting another editor's removal of an unjustified NPOV tag as a "dispute resolution volunteer" inappropriate [142].Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick block needed for autoconfirmed image vandalism

• GN10Gaming2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

...and now he needs his talk access revoked, image vandalism in unblock requests. Also, I put in a request at the talk for WP:BIL for this image to be blacklisted if someone can take care of that. Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reported to SRG for continuing cross-wiki vandalism (see eswiki contribs). theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the same person who appears to be using proxies and uploading a grotesque image to commons (over and over) and putting it in articles. I've replaced the image and tagged it for deletion whenever I find it, so then he resorts to using images already uploaded. It's becoming an LTA case at this point. Home Lander (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Image vandalism

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

Hrodvarsson, thank you for the catch. I've blocked the user here; Jon Kolbert has deleted these images and blocked the user on Commons as well. Alex Shih (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP behavior

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

I was the other user, and from viewing other pages (aside from my reverts) there are other editors reverting some of his changes too. Now as I got further, some of his edits are in fact legit, or appear to be so, good corrections. But on some, I don't know after review if this is a legitimate attempt to vandalize or if he simply feels his way is the best way to set up pages. I have noticed on some other pages that the way he is setting up specific automobile pages is how they've always had them set up. This isn't so on a lot of the other pages. He needs to go to discussion and request the change, wait for others to voice their opinions, and get a consensus, or at least a general feel for how others feel about the changes he wants to make. For instance, the SRT-4 page, where I first noticed his work, he changed the manufacturer of the car to Daimler Chrysler only, removing Dodge from the manufacturer line. This, imho, is not correct. Dodge is in fact the car maker, Daimler is simply the parent company. However, I await and respect the opinions of others on this matter. RTShadow (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User is reverting changes back now, can someone please IP block this person, as I write this he is going back in where we corrected his work and redoing it all again, with no discussion on the talk page for any articles he is making these changes on. ***EDIT: He's stopped with one change, just on the Neon SRT-4 page, for now. I've fixed it. RTShadow (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User is now using *2607:FCC8:BDD0:8E00:19A3:87CC:DBEC:9ABC (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The frustrating thing is that this could likely be resolved with a discussion and user consensus with other vehicular content editors, but he/she is choosing to ignore requests for discussion and now focused (so far) on reverting back the first change I made, now 3 times, on the Neon SRT-4. This isn't so much deliberate vandalism to be mean spirited, it is more of a narcissistic way of editing in which IP user assumes he is correct and doesn't have to ask anyone else or wait for any discussion on his edits.RTShadow (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@RtShadow, the ip hasn't edited in a few days so it's dying down. I will put in another warning on his user page to be careful when he/she edits in the future. Thanks for the lookout. JC7V-constructive zone 04:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations at Eric Landon

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

I've given 24.20.12.208 a last warning. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

And I've semi-protected the article for a week. By then, hopefully, we will have reliable secondary available, or this all will have just blown-over. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) However, I now see Abecedare has semi'd. I kind of disagree, as only the one IP is adding the allegations; several other IPs are helping remove them. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

(edit conflict)Realized that I had misread the article history, and there was only one IP insisting on adding the information. So if any admin wishes to undo my semi-protection, you are welcome to do so. Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected. Hope no more IPs crop up to re-add the bit, in which case I may have to wheel-war with myself. :) Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I wouldn't have done the same if I could have, I'm not holding my breath that more won't show up. Home Lander (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The semi-hammer is quite a heavy tool, and I think it would be kind of discouraging for the other, helpful, IPs to be shut out of the article at this point. Iff there's another IP doing the same thing, it'll be needed, I agree. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

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

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

Accusations of trolling

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

My edits to the page Draft:Luke Nash-Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) have been neutral, focusing on fixing citation errors, beginning with [143]. I've also attempted to fix the caption in the infobox [144], based on the caption on Commons. I started to think that I made made an error, so I left his last reversion [145] alone.

I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, but he continued the allegations. [146].

I hope this can be settled.

Diffs:

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

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

Notified.--Auric talk 13:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have given User:Wikibossmaninit a short block for the personal attacks, and I have given User:Smartin Mellner a firm warning for their own personal attacks at User talk:Wikibossmaninit. (If any other admin feels anything different is warranted, please feel free to modify this). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  And I see User:Wikibossmaninit has now been checkuser blocked as a sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Auric talk 14:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and censorship at Sporting CP by newly created account

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

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

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

109.173.150.131

2.82.61.115

178.2.118.37

194.176.192.164

79.168.247.134, 79.168.247.134

94.133.49.209

62.28.17.222

82.41.121.19

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

89.115.41.36

BrunoLxxx, BrunoLxxx

93.34.89.117

109.51.151.151

195.245.160.226

Crowsus

46.189.249.169

88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130, 88.157.219.130

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

94.252.8.108

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

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

Diogoncm, Diogoncm

89.180.157.48

46.140.29.250

95.136.34.40

SportingCP1906 , SportingCP1906

94.60.231.86

24.212.197.171

RealDealBillMcNeal, RealDealBillMcNeal

72.89.30.210

81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106, 81.90.52.106

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

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

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

user:100.43.120.146 making legal threats again

Static Canadian IP was blocked for two weeks on May 26 for vandalism (user:Widr). Talk page access removed May 27. On return from block immediately returned to vandalism, and started making legal threats. Blocked one month on June 18 (user:Sergecross73). Talk page access removed June 19 (user:DMacks) for legal threats (one of which included the claim that the IP was being shared with the user's lawyer [148])

On return from block immediately started legal threats again in talk page edits or in edit summaries: [149], [150], and [151]. It's obvious from the edit contents that this is the same editor as previously blocked. Various users have explained that it is not a copyright violation to edit the IP's talk page, that we are not disrupting the IP's free speech rights, and that it is not illegal to remove disruptive material form the IP's talk page.

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

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

User:MediaMation MX4D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuit threat

• 47.137.154.218 (talk · contribs); [152]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP has used an edit summary to request legal department review here[153] not a direct threat, so not sure if this belongs here. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steven Kunes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:184.56.47.51‘s block is effecting others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

@172.232.11.155: (Non-administrator comment) Doesn't look like 184.56.47.51 is rangeblocked. Any other IPs mentioned? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, do you mean you can't edit the mobile site with your device but you can edit the normal site with the exact same device? Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@172.232.11.155: @Nil Einne: (Non-administrator comment) My new theory is that when this user is using the mobile site, they get assigned the IP address that was mentioned to be blocked above (or was autoblocked). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone can't just be using a different IP address when using the mobile site through the same device and same browser unless there is some very odd setup (e.g. the browser is setup to only proxy the mobile site or the non mobile site, or the proxy they are using is set up to only proxy or not proxy the mobile site). Also the IP mentioned appears to belong to a wired home broadband connection, compared to the IP they used to post this which belongs to a mobile network. So it's quite confusing what's going on. If these were different devices, it would make much more sense. It's not clear to me who the OP is so sure that the above IP is not theirs. Ultimately without clarity on precisely what is going on, it's difficult to offer any help. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP violating BLP at various articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A user should be blocked

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

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

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

User keeps tampering to reflect a POV

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

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

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

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

Hostile behavior in the Middle East section

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

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

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

Is the article referred to as 'crap' the one created by Jane955 as '2018 Gaza–Israel conflict' (now a redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests? If so, I'd have to suggest that while the word used to describe it might not be appropriate, the sentiment was. Not only does it appear to have been a POV fork of an existing article, but it seems to have consisted almost entirely of material copy-pasted in violation of copyright. [154] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that the bolding is not mine. This editor created a POV-fork at 2018 Gaza–Israel conflict (now redirected to a different article by Galatz) with material that might have come right out of the mouths of the Israeli government. In fact, lots of it did. She didn't even adopt the least pretence of balance: "The UN that did not defend Israel against the ravaging fires was quick to criticize Israel for closing the Kerem Shalom crossing." A large amount of the article was later deleted and revdelled by Diannaa as copyright violation. Some was just arrant nonsense: "Attacking Israel is a good financial investment for Hamas". Editing in the Mideast part of Wikipedia is difficult enough without having to waste time on this type of rubbish. As for my choice of words, when I saw that she ignored over a hundred deaths on one side but included damage to a chicken coup on the other side, I got annoyed. Yes, she should go away; that's my honest opinion. Zero^talk 15:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Already been done. For post-1932 politics of the United States, BLPs (in relation to Jane955 using talk pages as a forum, which was the reason for a one-week block), and the Arab–Israeli conflict [155]. Doesn't seem to have had much effect. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This was done. For example, here [156] they were informed of the 30/500 rule and told they could not edit anything on this subject. They admitting knowing about the rule here [157] which they circumvented by just creating a fork page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say a minimum of a final warning should be given, but it seems the editor now has ECP status Special:Log/Jane955 so it's a bit pointless. Ironically they don't actually currently have 500 live edits [158] due to deleted edits I presume some are that now deleted article. However they're so closed that it doesn't seem worth worrying about that either. As for the original violation, if they had clearly admitted to intentionally bypassing ECP I might say a block was justified but the above comment seems ambiguous whether they actually understood ECP applied to all Israel/Palestine articles, or they just thought it applied to those which it had been applied to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What has number of edits got to do with this? The question is, is abusive, rude and vulgar behavior tolerated on Wikipedia? and what will happen when a new editor trys to write on this section? It seems like Galaz & Zero work together to create a hostile environment for new editors. And by the way, the editors of Gaza-Israel border 2018 are having a problem because the page is too long and they will anyway need to create a new page. I would like an answer about the abusive behavior, because so far I just hear you trying to justify it.--Jane955 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

When a new editor runs around bumping into things and doing things against Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors are generally pretty tolerant, and try to steer the newbie in the right direction. If the new user won't listen, and just keeps getting into trouble ignoring the advice, sometimes experienced editors get less than perfectly polite with them. Generally the Wikipedia community is going to be harder on the person running around breaking policies left and right, and less hard on the person who gets snippy with the new editor.

I can't speak for the community, of course, but let me make a wild prediction: nothing is going to happen to Zero because he used the word "crap" and told you to "go away". Wikipedia generally requires a higher level of abusive behavior before it brings down the hammer. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Most new editors are not retired. They do not have the time to read all the regulations. If an older editor steps in, he should do so to help and also enforce regulations and not just police the page. What will happen now is that the Israeli editors on the Gaza-Israel protest page will open a new page, will probably rename the page, will talk about the fires, and everything I set out to do. And I bet the Zero-Glatz gang won't even talk to them. Thank you Alephb for the clarification that abusive behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia. When I wrote the page I focused on the events and less on the editing. Of course the page needed improvement and more editing. Things were moving fast and I wanted to capture the moment. Anyway, the Israeli editors will probably do a better job and no one will harass them.--Jane955 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of "won't listen": Here Jane955 is arguing that she shouldn't be bound by WP:CANVASS. Here, after being informed by Galatz (and not for the first time) that there are rules about article talk pages, Jane955's response was "Galatz, who hired you to be the Wikipedia police?" Zero^talk 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Further issues with Jane955's behaviour.

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

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

@Jane955: Jane95, as someone who ran head first into one of those rotating blades called 'established editors' when I first arrived on Wikipedia, I want to offer you some sympathy for your frustration and some hard won advice.

First, notice that the people pointing out problems here have offered examples with links. If you are going to dispute something, you have to do that as well or no one will accept your claim. I had one especially rude editor who claimed my references were predominantly from a single point of view. I went back to the article in dispute and showed that he had reviewed those references and found 9 out of 53 from that point of view. Facts demonstrated he was wrong. That doesn't mean he won't show up making the same kinds of claims somewhere else, but at least, that time, facts shut him down. That's what you must have--facts. And you must be willing to acknowledge facts as well--if you want to edit on Wikipedia. That's the way Wikipedia works--everything that goes on here is recorded. That can work for you--or against you. But it demonstrates reality one way or the other.

This is a digital world, of written language only, without any nuances or body language or facial expression to soften anything said here. Another editor is allowed to call your writing crap--so long as he doesn't attack you personally as a piece of crap. Your writing is not you. That's how Wikipedia works. If your writing is not crap, you better be able to support that--and Wikipedia provides ways and means. At one point with that one editor, I did what's called an RFC--a request for comment--on that same editor's claims of my writing's crappy "badness". I received unanimous support that one change needed to be made and the rest kept. That dispute ended right there. That is how Wikipedia works.

By complaining about someone else's behavior, you are implying you want an acknowledgement of their error. You have to be willing to give what you want to get. That is the way Wikipedia works--and may I add--the way life generally works as well. Otherwise it's just hypocrisy.

Whether an editor is rude or not--he may still be right in his observation. That's what you have to focus on--the substance--rather than the method. This demonstrates a willingness to learn--a willingness to be taught--which by definition means accepting criticism. Criticism is worth much more than compliments where learning is concerned--and there is so much to learn when someone first comes to Wikipedia. It is quite overwhelming, I know, and there is always lots of criticism and correction to receive. There are people here that I know are willing and patient and even kind to newcomers who demonstrate a genuine desire to learn. I know that because they were kind and helpful to me when I was clueless. But the truth is, no one has patience for long with someone who strikes them as not listening. Demonstrate a willingness to learn by acknowledging error when it is recognized by those more experienced than you and you will find Wikipedia is filled with many truly great people.

It's hard not to be defensive. That same rude editor (when I first got here) said of something I had written, "This is bad, it is chock full of bad, is irredeemably bad, and should be totally trashed." Then he proceeded to attack me personally. It was harsh, but I still learned from his various comments. I have been here a little over a year now and have taken my first article to good article status, am working on my first featured article status, and have had my first 'Do you Know article' as well. Someone helped me through my early "badness" to get me to this point. And that's how Wikipedia works. It's a community of people who can be really, truly, great and helpful. There are--honestly--only a few who are notoriously harsh with newcomers. But you still have to meet the good ones part way. Which comes down to demonstrating a willingness to learn from what they ALL say instead of reacting to how they say it. I want to encourage you to hang in there. But only you can decide if editing Wikipedia is worth what you will have to learn to do so. If it helps, remember you are not alone in that. All of us have had to do so. When we try to pass on some of it to you, it would be smart to accept it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jane955 (who has clearly chosen not to respond here [159]) is continuing to use Talk:Modesty guard as a soapbox for promoting her personal opinions regarding the status of Jerusalem, and shows no sign whatsoever of acknowledging Wikipedia policy regarding this issue. At this point I can only suggest that a block is necessary, if only to get her to acknowledge that she is required to comply with policy. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Jen, It’s not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience. I have been to India, South America, Egypt and have had to deal with plenty of hardship. I can also be rude. The question is: What is the Wikipedia standard and should people donate to Wikipedia if it’s an unprofessional, online educational institution? I honestly cannot write in English. I have never lived in a city that is predominantly English speaking. I have to go over a paragraph 10-15 times. But I do have access to information that non-Israeli editors do not have and I am willing to make the effort. Anyway, this is not about me. I want to know what will happen to the next editor who writes in the ME section. It’s not about good/bad sources. The topic in the problem. I wrote now something that criticizes the Israeli government. You can be sure that no one will say that I used bad sources or that my writing is crappy.

I asked for help from the editors and started a dialog so we could decide together what should be written on the page but I quickly realized they had a combative and insulting attitude. Obviously I will not be “learning” from these type of editors. Thank you for sharing and have a great day.--Jane955 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

It's not my goal in life to survive the Wikipedia experience ... I can also be rude ... I honestly cannot write in English ... Obviously I will not be "learning" from these type of editors ... At this point, I don't see why the Wikipedia community should continue dealing with this. The editor is being clear about her unwillingness to take advice and claiming not to have the required competence in English. Personally, my impression was that the editor's English was excellent, and that the problem was behavioral, but if the editor doesn't consider herself to have the competence required to edit here, perhaps we should take her word for it. Alephb (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jane955: If it is not your goal to survive the Wikipedia experience why are you here? It seems the only other option is to demonstrate your superiority and your right to speak from your soapbox. And of course, you do have a perfect right to have any soapbox you like, absolutely, but not on Wikipedia. Try Quora instead. Alephb and 86.147.197.31 are correct I'm afraid. The "hostile behavior in the Middle East section" is clearly yours. So sad, but I support the call to block. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• They have an avowed focus on giving a more positive slant to Wikipedia's coverage of Romania's history in World War II (as examples, please see their "manifesto" to this end at User:Torpilorul, as well as the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#The chronic "forgetting" of Romania discussion they starrted and especially the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of "weapons" to use against the deriding of Romania sub-section)
• Their edit history shows that they are very active in articles on this topic
• They have recently stated that they are an admirer of Romanian World War II-era dictator Ion Antonescu: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#How controversial is it really to be an admirer of Ion Antonescu?
• This extends to arguing that the mass killing of Jews by Antonescu's government isn't particularly problematic - their talk page sttes that "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him"
• As Ion Antonescu#Overall death toll and particularities rightly notes, Antonescu's regime was "second only to Nazi Germany in its antisemitic extermination policies", with the official Romanian figures attributing the murder of "280,000 and 380,000 Jews" to Antonescu's government (see also [160] [161] for expert summaries of the massive scale of the murders he was responsible for)
• Torpilorul has also repeatedly posted statements dismissing the murder of Jews by Antonescu's regime on a project talk page: [162], [163] [164].

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

• Inserting and then edit warring puffery of Romania's war effort into the Axis powers article: [165], [166], [167], [168],
• Adding similar puffery in the List of expansion operations and planning of the Axis powers article [169]
• Changing the infobox photo in the Siege of Odessa (1941) article with an extreme agenda in the edit summary ("That picture was a disgrace, a theft of the most abject type, and a lie") [170]
• Extremist edit summary and content [171]
• Adding material favourable to the Romanian Air Force to the Siege of Odessa (1941) article with an edit summary alleging some kind of conspiracy previously excluded it [172]
• Adding and then edit warring streets still named after Ion Antonescu into that article, despite other editors stating that this is OR and the sources aren't appropriate: [173], [174], [175], [176]

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

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

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

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

If the editor kept their politics to their user space it would be not particularly problematic. But this is clearly motivating their editing, leading to POV content which reflects these views being added to articles and editors who try to stop this being subjected to edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Motivating? Yes, certainly, I'm not gonna deny that. Influencing it? Not at all. All you have to do, is check the book links I provide. They say precisely what I write. I've been very open since day one of why am I here. What my work focuses on. If trying to engage with my fellow editors and seek their opinions/advice was a mistake, or at least doing it too much so I became a "pain in the area", again, I'm sorry. And yes, I did have some edit wars, but they were ended amiably. We all have edit wars from time to time. Torpilorul (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing in the above that is anything other then a very nationalistic editor feeling his nation is being sold short on coverage. Apart form the (trivial) street name issue I see nothing that could be said to be motivated by his opinions of Antonescu (there was a while back, but only the use of the word fascist, he never attempted to deny any of Antonescu's crimes). Indeed quite the opposite is true, he seems to have no issue trying to whitewash the Antonescu regime. As I said it rather appears to be rampant nationalism that is the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you properly define "white-washing" in this case please? I never denied his crimes, I just: 1) Don't agree of the Soviet Union being an appropriate judge, and 2) Prefer to focus on what he did for the country. That is simply what I choose to focus on, same like others choose to focus on his crimes. We're talking here strictly of my view of him, not article editing. The "Elephant in the Room" when bringing Antonescu in the discussion is huge, hence why I tend to stay away from the topic. And focus more on the technical part of Romania's WW2 campaign (war weapons and vehicles, and battles involving them) rather than the biographical one. That being said, am I supposed to be forced to care about his crimes as much as his deeds for the country or care even more, am I obliged to share the majority point of view? This is exactly why I made the today's thread on the WP: inquire if my views will get me into trouble. Judging by the hit piece on me based on them, I see I was right to make that thread. Torpilorul (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Not yet, it has not been long enough for most people to comment. Blocks are however not the only outcome, and at this time I think a stern warning is all that is needed (with the understanding that if you do any of the above again it is a TBAN (and note unlike most people who would suggest that here I will back it up)).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

...Do what exactly? Just so I get this straight: is there anything objectively wrong with my article working style? Because not bothering the WP Talk unless needed for an article and not writing anymore "extremist" edit summaries, that can be arranged. Out of my own volition, I'm willing to take everything to the talk page if I get reverted twice. Any other issues? Torpilorul (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul, It may be useful for you to read Wikipedia:advocacy and Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. from your user page it would seem that you are on a mission to correct what you perceive as injustices in historiography, or the way your nation has been depicted historically. That may be a path to future problems. My advice would be to widen your editing scope. I have no comments on the political points made by the O.P at this stage, however the statement "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him" does not bode well. I suspect it's probably unprecedented on any Talkpage on WP at the moment. ANI would be buzzing if there were I bet.Irondome (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul, I'd also recommend you to follow the advice from Irondome. Your approach is wrong and is not what Wikipedia is about. Our vision of balanced overview must reflect their due weight. We all have our own bias, and the best way to avoid that bias is to compare and discuss what mainstream reliable sources consistently summarises, not to cherry-pick a source that fits in your narrative. If you cannot adjust your editing approach right now, you will be blocked very shortly, and that will be a shame because you are certainly editing in good faith I think. Alex Shih (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I am a Romanian and I find Torpilorul's political views objectionable (unfortunately, such views are more common in Romania than one would expect). Regarding his editing, except his edit summaries and talk page messages, which account to baiting and soapboxing, his article edits are not particularly destructive (even if too bold sometimes). While the topics he edits are generally much too technical for me to have an informed opinion, I suspect his edits may suffer from undue weight in favour of Romania (again, boasting the few Romanian military successes and dismissing/minimising its failures is not that uncommon in Romanian scholarly research dealing with the military, especially the one pertaining to WW2 and published after ca 1980). As far I know, undue weight, as long as is based on sources reliable in form (not necessarily in content, but, unless the source or the author has been the subject of a scandal, it's hard to prove unreliability in practice), is not actionable. Regarding the extremist rantings in userspace and on project talk pages, I don't know how the community deals with such things these days, but Torpilorul should really find better ways to spend his time on WP.Anonimu (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Brother, you're accusing me of things I haven't done. You are inherently convinced that my work must have some undue weight in favor of Romania, because of my beliefs. Doesn't that go against a Wiki principle too? Judge the work, not the creator? Well anyway, for your information, Romania's military successes weren't few, and I'm not maximizing anything, for the simple fact that there was nothing to maximize to begin with, until I came around. Our Navy did great, our Air Force did great, our armour performed well and even parts of our infantry (the vanatori de munte) performed admirably as well. Me writing about this stuff is not called maximizing, if you bother to check the sources in any of my work you will see that there is no hyperbole, I write basically the exact thing said by the source. Torpilorul (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced you do it, it is just an assumption given the bias I’ve noticed in some of the sources you used. You can use sources that technically fit WP:RS and still have a biased article, without necessarily being your fault (you may lack access to sources providing a different perspective that could balance the POV, or you may choose to ignore them; I assume you’re in the first situation, and sloppy documentation is not something that gets you blocked on WP). Anonimu (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Torpilorul I suggest you strike this—with the upmost haste. Wikipedia is not a platform for your beliefs. Advocating for the mass killing of Jews in Romania typically is frowned upon here—and in all walks of civilized life.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So have a lot of other people (and I am damn close to it). This was an unnecessary escalation that will almost certainly earn you a b block...well done.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

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

• "Shouts like "Fascists, Antisemitic, war criminal" - they're literally gibberish to most of us. We won't see the point, all we'll see is our anti-Communist heroes and martyrs being attacked, and we won't like it." [177]

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

• "Call me paranoid, but to me there is clearly an "old guard" in Milhist who wants to keep things as they are now, and not make things right for Romania. Probably because of "Muh Holocaust" or something." [178]

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

Also see: [179] and [180], with the same thrust. And finally, there's this jem immediately above apparently reveling in depictions of genocide: [181]. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There is still nothing objectively wrong with the content and sourcing of my edits, though. That being said, I am determined to not talk about this anymore. I'm again sorry if I offended anyone, I just spoke my mind, and tried to be as honest as possible. I still have an important contribution to make to the Wiki, doing - as until now - stuff that virtually no-one else would do, pour the hours of research and stuff. If the community will decide I need a "forced break" then I will comply. But I'd strongly advise against an indefinite block. I still have a dozen of Google Books links stored, for the following week alone. I'm sorry I've wasted anyone's time, and I promise I'll get back to work and do it correctly. I truly wish to remain among the ranks of the editors, and I promise to revise my behavior if allowed. It's not like I have much more to say anyway, already spoke just about all of my mind. Torpilorul (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support This guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE. AryaTargaryen (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen
• Support or at least an indefinite t-ban from Romania in WWII (broadly construed). I was going to propose this myself after the editor’s comment above, but wanted to see if they would strike it as I requested. This editor seems like they are trying to right great wrongs. Excusing the mass killing of Jews in Romania under a ruthless dictator and making racial slurs cannot be tolerated if we legitimately care about preserving a collaborative environment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I spoke, my mind. Nothing of what I said, ever influenced any of my work. Why are you trying to have me banned from doing well-researched and well-sourced work because of my views? Alright, I apologize, okay? I wasn't quite aware this was such a big deal, truly. I guess I need to be more weary of others' sensitivities. I will know better from now on. But there is nothing I added on any Romania-related article to warrant any banning. I repeat but it seems I am talking to the walls: All that I write is basically what the source I provide says. I am very certain I have done nothing objectively wrong in my field of work, and if I did I assume my mistakes and apologize for them. I mainly expressed my views and beliefs, I never let them influence my work. That you don't like my views is another fish food. My motivations mean nothing, why should I be banned because I chose to focus on a specific point in a specific country's history? In fact, I let out all my beliefs in order to vent, really. To make sure I get them out of my system and not have them plastered over actual articles. All I did, and all I am doing, has but one goal: as much reliably-sourced info on Romania's WW2 military as possible, and as much control over my bias. What exactly is wrong about "righting great wrongs", if I have a reliable source for it? Why does my motivation matter, as long as, again, I write well-sourced easily-verifiable material? Anyway, I rest my case. I am tired. I regret my mistake of over-talking. I've wasted a whole day yesterday, which could be spent on constructive editing. This is all I had to say. If you want me banned over my views, it's the Wiki's loss, really. I have some big plans, truly extensive and sourced work. I have said, all that I wanted to say. Do as you may, I've had enough. Torpilorul, out. For real this time. Torpilorul (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Torpilorul justifying mass murder on a collaborative project like Wikipedia has nothing to do with other people’s “sensitivities”. It has nothing to do with whether I “like” your views. It comes down to trust. How can you expect anyone to trust you to edit on Romania in WWII when you are an admitted apologist for their hand in extermination? Besides that point, your editing has been brought into question here already above.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
      • There are many editors (on both sides) who make their political views very clear in whatever way (too clear, sometimes) who edit political articles. We trust them to edit those articles despite showing us what their personal views are. It's an excellent display of double standards to single out one of these many editors just because his views in particular are very unpopular. Besides, history is not black and white -- most leaders in history (in addition to being authoritarian) have done horrible things alongside their admirable achievements. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block - If the consensus is a topic ban on Romania, I'd very reluctantly go along with that, but given the views the editor has expressed, and their unwillingness to edit within our policies, this is simply someone we don't need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• very weak opposeSupport The last one makes me less sure they will not be problem in the future. It was a defense of antisemitism (indeed genocide). Having said that so far I see no major indication they are letting that affect articles. As such I see little reason for a ban, but I do see a need for a very very close eye to be kept with ban understanding that if they do ever try to pedal antisemitism on Wikipedias articles (and keep it off talk pages) they will be a permaban. As long as they behave what lunacy they believe is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my post above. This editor is here only to push an agenda, and this is leading to false claims and bias being added to articles. This post arguing that the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews by the Romanian Government was justified is reason enough alone for this person to be excluded from Wikipedia: leaving aside the fact that such views are utterly repugnant, there is no way that such a person can edit encyclopedia articles in a neutral or reliable way. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Nick-D: I believe he wasn't saying murdering Jews was justifiable, he said that antisemitism was endemic in the Romanian people as a whole, not just Antonescu (to defend Antonescu). He did glorify Antonescu regardless of the fact that he was complicit in the murder of Jews, though. I also have some issues with how you described the case here. The user isn't a SPA (he has created plenty of what seem like unproblematic naval articles[182] - are you a SPA for Australian military history then?). Yes, many of the edit summaries are inappropriate, but just asserting that Romania was a "major Axis power" isn't problematic or puffery. Also did you really think talking about the Romanian navy sinking Soviets military vessels is "dismissing the murder of Jews" just because many Jews were Soviet citizens (and thus seamen, I presume?)[183]. That's a rather extreme interpretation. Anyway, the example of "Muh Holocaust" as pointed by K.e.coffman is 4chan /pol/'s language for sure. Using such language here is just stupid, as is using Wikipedia as a forum for such controversial topics. If you really think that his extremist views pervaded even articles about Romanian ships, then the 46 articles created by him should be nuked.--Pudeo (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

If you are not even able to keep your word about not posting here again I cannot think you will keep your word with what you agree not to do. You really are demonstrating exactly what people are saying is the problem very well. Especially as you seem to admit this was (and is) deliberate and experimental. We are not a lab for you to test your theories on.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support six-month TBAN What this series of tirades (and those on the Milhist talk page) show is that Torpilorul has faulty judgement. Based on their expressed views and the POV-pushing edits (in the ARBMAC area, I might add) highlighted above, I just don't trust them to edit neutrally in the topic area, but am not keen on a indef block in the first instance. I support a six month TBAN, for "Romania during WWII (broadly construed)". Perhaps they can edit articles on Romania in other time periods or in other topic areas for a while and show they can edit neutrally? Then I'd be willing to give them a bit of rope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• I am not sure if topic ban is a viable option at the moment unless if the user would cease to engage in further tendentious editing, something that appears to be unlikely. I have blocked Torpilorul indefinitely; my rationale can be found here. Alex Shih (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  I think your rationale was incredibly gentle for someone who just ranted about how the killing of Jews with hammers was perfectly justifiable. I think any evaluation of the quality of their editing is immediately superseded by ugly hatemongering (or the justification of such). Grandpallama (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  This is probably immaterial at this point, but changing to support indef block, K.e.coffman's allegation about possible socking from the blocked Romanian-and-proud account seems to be backed up by a quick look at intersect, where they both edited quite a few pages, including the Hetzer and Mareșal tank destroyer pages, which Torpilorul has mentioned on the Milhist talk page, this is a very specific point of interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I support Alex's actions here - at some point we have to say that purposefully rubbing other editors' noses in crap is something we shouldn't tolerate. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose such a severe sanction. To be clear - I find the political views here abhorrent. However the user has been creating fair Romanian / Black sea naval content and hasn't been warned previously. They clearly shouldn't have posted some of his more FORUMish posts and they have made some questionable edits in terms of puffery for Romania in WWII. I will however note that the lesser Axis players are often overlooked (part of this being whitewashing/denying their part) - and that in some Wikipedia articles the Romanian role is underplayed - Torpilorul, for perhaps the wrong reasons, has been rectifying some of this. They certainly dug themselves a hole in ANI. They should be severely warned, possibly blocked/banned for a short period, and then hauled back here if this persists.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Support This action causes me considerable difficulty. I finally came to support as I doubt that Torpilorul would be able to comply with the terms of any lesser sanction. However it does feel like one strike and you're out and more importantly he is right that Romania's role in WWII is under reported or unacknowledged both here on wikipedia and in western sources generally. Without allowing someone to challenge that we will continue to give a NPOV solely based on the Anglo-American sources we are most familiar with. The victors write history (at least initially) so permitting someone to challenge this accepted history (using RS) allows other editors the opportunity to consider if the existing text (again sourced using RS) actually conveys the full and complete picture Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from Romanian World War II history and also all Jewish topics. Throw in Roma and Hungarian topics for good measure. Oppose site-wide ban. It seems widely agreed this user isn't contributing in a constructive way in this area at this point. A user with such views about Jews ("Muh Holocaust"...) from Romania also really can't be trusted to edit neutrally and constructively with regard to Hungarian or Roma topics either, imo. On the other hand, if he has interest in other, hopefully less controversial, topics and wishes to contribute there (say, to Romanian ecology, or Romanian folk culture) he could still be of use, so a site-wide ban may be premature.--Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – this editor has never been blocked previously, as Icewhiz says, that's pretty severe to go directly to indef. I'd vote for a shorter block per WP:ROPE. In the diffs provided in this proposal, #2 is taken out of context, and for #3, I participated in that discussion and Torpilorul was correct (I provided refs there showing Antonescu was not a fascist, and in fact purged the fascist elements from his regime). But the big one was #5. I understand the reaction (and the block by Alex Shih) – Torpilorul's remarks came across as very offensive. But remember he is a non-native speaker of English. Torpilorul has clarified his meaning on his talk page: "I am not saying Antonescu did the right thing, I am not saying the Romanian population did the right thing, I am not saying the local Jews deserved it. My point is very simple: the majority of the nation wanted it, and Antonescu made it happen. This is the reason for my stance. Such leaders are rare in Romanian history, most were up there for themselves." An improvement to the context, but still perhaps somewhat extreme – however, I am not very familiar with Antonescu, other than his anti-Semitic reputation. He doesn't seem overly respect-worthy to me, but I observed that Torpilorul's view of Antonescu, while extreme, seems similar to the admiration many Americans have for Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson (despite their roles in slavery and genocide) – severely flawed men, but they were men of their times and they do command some begrudging respect among many, despite their great misdeeds... Regardless, Torpilorul has proven he can contribute constructively, even in the topic area of Romania in WWII. I could also support a topic ban with exclusion of Romanian Naval articles. As Pudeo rhetorically points out, if you think Torpilorul's "extremist views pervaded even articles about Romanian ships, then the 46 articles created by him should be nuked". I don't think anyone here honestly holds that view. Mojoworker (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The phrase "I am not saying the local Jews deserved it" really jumps out at me. Antonescu's regime was responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the USSR. This particular wording suggests that Torpilorul doesn't have a problem with those murders, especially given their ranting about how wicked the USSR was and how proud he is of Romania's role in invading it at multiple points. We really don't need people who want to excuse away and minimise the Holocaust on Wikipedia, especially when they're a SPA for editing in this area. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Comment: I don't believe that this is this user's first account. I'm reminded of an account of Special:Contributions/Romanian-and-proud that was blocked in 2016. That particular account was also hyper-focused on Romanian Navy of WWII and advanced the view that Romania was not getting its fair shake as a participant in the Axis war effort, although I don't recall outright antisemitism. If this is the same user, I wonder if this account's attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART can be viewed as legitimate.

The RnP account was known for nationalistic and combattive editing, just like this one. See for example: ANI#Disruptive IP editor. I believe that behavioural evidence is pretty strong that this is the same user. Compare prior unblock requests:

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

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

• Support indef based on their last comment here, as well as the polemic on their userpage, this user is merely here to promote their POV, not to build an encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block. I would have leant more towards a topic ban but for K.e.coffman's pointing out that this looks like a duck and a ban evasion.--Jorm (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef The old User:Romanian-and-proud account was increasingly bugging me, the similarities were so apparent. Disclosure. I emailed Nick-D 72 hours ago, with my suspicions that this was a previously blocked account and advised an SPI check. However it has panned out, I am glad this has come to light for the community. The user appears if anything, appears to have become more extreme. The antisemitic element of this person's world view appears to have become more prominent and stinky. Good riddance. Here is a conversation from 2016 which already raised my suspicions. It is from the Talkpage of the article Sloped armour

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

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

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

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

• • From reviewing the two accounts in response to Irondome's email, I also judged that they appeared to be the same person (who, I note, was blocked under another account in 2011). The ideology both accounts were pushing and the editing pattern are remarkably similar. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef Block. Come on, the guy hasn't even ever been blocked, and now a proposal is made to eliminate him? Look, I see where a temp ban on Romanian topics may or may not be suitable, but are we to start nuking people just because we don't like how they think? That's the path to lack of diversity on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia, the place where all kinds of diversity are welcome, except those we don't like for good reason! XavierItzm (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

XavierItzm justifying genocide—the elimination of an entire ethno-religious group in Romania—is not “diversity”. Editing with that POV mindset is also not “diversity”. No, reasonable people would say that is the total opposite of “diversity”. I am beginning to wonder whether you opposed the block simply to be the guy who disagreed. Because logic certainly did not factor into your response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am assuming good faith XavierItzm by classifying this foolishness as trolling. Bad faith would have me assuming you genuinely believe the garbage you are spewing and are grossly incompetent. Which do you prefer?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Until intention is demonstrated, then you don't have to assume any more. "don't assume it's a duck if it has four legs and a tail". Assumptions are made i lieu of facts. MPJ-DK 20:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Pedophilia apologists and various forms of Neo-Nazis (Holocaust deniers, apologists, etc.) are not the kind of diversity we, or any other rational group of people, would like. You're right about that. Why do you mention it like it's a bad thing? I am Neutral on this block (even slightly leaning to Weak Oppose because it may just been a misunderstanding), but I'm definitely against your ideas on who should be contributing to Wikipedia. byteflush _Talk 03:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This guy is being witch-hunted in a cacophony of self-righteousness. The invective against him grows by the post, and now the term "paedophilia" has even been brought up on this thread. Classical escalation of inappropriate rhetoric. Look, someone else wrote here «frankly wish he was brutally murdered as an infant» (with regard to Andrew Jackson, a President of the U.S. featured on the $20 bank note a historical subject contributed to by the editor to be burned at the stake), and yet no-one bats an eye. I see a bunch of criticism against the editor's personal beliefs, and not necessarily his actual contributions to content-space Wikipedia. Edit warring for "puffery"? Give him a warning for edit warring, or temporarily ban him for that, if necessary. Adding "puffery" in some other article? Take it to the Talk Page. Changing a photo? Talk Page, etc. Yet the chorus for his damnatio memoriae arises not from his content space work at Wikipedia, but from his politically incorrect personal beliefs. This is not right. XavierItzm (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Relax. I'm not calling anyone a pedophile here. I'm just saying that Wikipedia policies forbid those who self-identify as pedophiles OR neo-nazis to edit (which I'm pretty sure also covers Holocaust deniers/apologists). While I believe Torpilorul is neither of those, I'm just mentioning it because incorrect beliefs can get people blocked from editing. byteflush _Talk 14:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Support - I had wondered for some time if Torpilorul was Romanian-and-Proud - they have quite a bit of overlap in editing interest, and Romanian-and-Proud has a history of abusing sock IPs - it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to see him trying to use a clean start account. And obviously, comments like "Muh Holocaust" are abhorrent. Diversity of ideas is important, but that only goes so far. Parsecboy (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If the subject is engaged in block-avoidance, block him already. If he has questionable edits, revert/rollback those right away. But purging those whose opinions are abhorrent is abhorrent itself. XavierItzm (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Full stop. We are creating a community here, and we have an obligation to ensure the community we create is not a cesspool. There are some ideologies that are so repugnant that they do not deserve a place in the sun, they need to be buried. One that excuses or minimizes the mass murder of millions of people is such an ideology. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It is pretty abhorrent to banish those with whose ideas one, perhaps justifiedly, disagrees, but it is even worse to fail to recognize just how abhorrent such behaviour is. XavierItzm (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Support Indef If the rather obvious WP:NOTHERE was not enough, there is also the apparent socking. While we should allow various points of view to be expressed here, per their due weight, I believe the line of what is an useful point of view to include should come well before the line of "literally advocating for genocide", as I categorically fail to see what value such a point of view could possibly add to our encyclopedic endeavors. Icarosaurvus (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

I would explain it by saying that an apparent Romanian nationalist creating pages related to Romania in WWII is about as surprising as a tree growing leaves. While Romanian nationalism is not itself a problem, it coupled with the rather alarming views expressed above and the user's apparent willingness to bring these views into unrelated matters indeed creates a problem. Work in one area does not excuse the user's above comments. They found themselves in a hole, and decided that the Kola Peninsula was a great place to dig. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• A question for you all – Or several questions...but first, if he's a sock, he should remain blocked. And, I agree that holocaust denial (or minimization) should not be excused, but that's not exactly what Torpilorul was saying. If a hypothetical editor says they respect Andrew Jackson's leadership and generalship, and says "Meh Trail of Tears, I still admire him – besides, he was only implementing the will of the people", we should just purge that editor? Or not, since the genocide of Native Americans isn't a big deal, since they have no political power and it happened 180 years ago vs. a mere 75? How are these two situations different and where do we draw the line? Mojoworker (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see why we need to get into those kinds of relativities. Holocaust denial and arguing that the Holocaust was in any way justified are utterly abhorrent in their own right. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Extremist political views—or really any political views—do not need to be expressed on Wikipedia. I do not mind if you have views, but when it blatantly influences one’s editing and is unnecessarily offensive to those you are meant to collaborate with, I think we should all be alarmed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Where did he say the Holocaust was justified? I agree with Pudeo, and see him defending Antonescu (and placing the blame with the Romanian people). I realize I'm Advocatus Diaboli here, but does the following objectively true statement generate the same response – if not, why not? "You know why Antonescu Jackson killed all those Jews Native Americans? Because he was the man of the country, he served the country, and did what the country wanted. And Romanians Americans - in their majority - wanted the Jews Native Americans out. It wasn't just him, it was most of the nation." Yes, Torpilorul didn't need to say what he did, but is it untrue? Mojoworker (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

One, that statement is not objectively true. Secondly, I react rather more strongly to that statement than the statements about a Romanian politician I have never previously heard of, as I am of native descent. This is a reason I avoid editing articles related to the trail of tears, or Andrew Jackson, or even the Indian Wars, just in case it would affect my editing. I believe the man was evil, should never have been president, and frankly wish he was brutally murdered as an infant. One can and indeed must know one's biases, and if one feels one might have difficulty editing in an area because of these biases, one should, in fact, 'not' edit the area. It is as simple as that. If one believes that mass murder makes a politician a man of a people, perhaps one should avoid editing the subject in question, or indeed Wikipedia in general. The user in question seems rather unable to do this; he seems to neither be able to withhold his beliefs, or avoid areas where they could be problematic. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support/Endorse The "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him" statement unquestionably places this editor in bad company with certain hate groups and racists but in conjunction with their other statements this can, barely, be attributed to hyper-nationalism rather than frank racism and that seems to be what he is claiming and on which several 'Opposes' seem to hang. Providing a POV which lends historical context to historic events can be a valuable contribution, provided it is done for context rather than as apologia, even if the views expressed are repugnant to most people now. Torpilorul has evidently made some good contributions to the project and does not seem to be here to advocate for Antisemitism i.e. the comments causing the most consternation here are focused on the Antisemitism of the Romanians at the time rather than 'Yeah! Antonescu was right! Kill the Jews! We need another Antonescu!'. So I think this ban requires more consideration than a simple 'ban racist troll and move on'.
  Diversity of opinion and viewpoint, the linchpin of several 'Opposes', is valuable to the project and I do not think I would be supporting this ban if Torpilorul were simply providing a nationalist context, no matter how repugnant. Nor do I believe we should ban people simply for repugnant, non-criminal, views so long as those views do not leak disruptively into their editing or behavior. In this case though I do not believe we are simply dealing with a nationalist incidentally expressing Antisemitic views. The "Muh Holocaust" comment pretty much puts paid to that - it is evidently a term one picks up in places like Stormfront not while studying WWII. He also made it clear with "This was, besides me venting and getting things out of my mind, an experiment" that he would be disruptive over these issues. I can not recall ever running across an editor who claimed their disruption "was an experiment" who the project would not be better off without. Finally, if this account is a reincarnation of Romanian and proud/Iaaasi then all this discussion is really academic since they are a banned sock anyway. Jbh ^Talk 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose: Let me be clear, I have no sympathy for any anti-Semitism (Romans 9:4-5, ESV), and I think his behavior was inappropriate (also, I have had zero interaction with this editor). However, an indefinite block for this behavior is overkill (to put it very mildly), especially for an editor who has done good work on World War II topics and who has created many articles, and who otherwise has a clean disciplinary record. Instead of blocking him, he should be given a stern warning not to promote his personal views or to violate WP:NOTFORUM, and possibly a short block. Considering this editor's overall profile (article and content creation), banning him would be a net loss for this encyclopedia. We should help him improve in the areas where he is lacking so he can continue to make his strengths (which are considerable) of use to the encyclopedia.
  Also, I strongly oppose any kind of block/ban because of an editor's personal views. If an editor makes good edits, acts in good faith, and follows WP's policies to the best of their knowledge/ability, I really don't care what their personal views are, even if they're unpopular and fringe. If an editor voices viewpoints like the one we're discussing here, we should treat them the same way as an editor making FORUMy comments promoting Emmanuel Macron or Che Guevara, which is not to give them an indefinite ban. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Even though I happen to disagree with this user's perspective, I disagree that they should be blocked simply for holding unpopular opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmay (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Desmay: Please be careful when signing your posts. Apparently, when you include two tildes, the bot doesn't recognize your post as unsigned and doesn't mark it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban at the least. We have plenty of fringe nationalists and historical revisionists here already, we definitely don't need more. Second choice would be indef block. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hate speech by IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

On Talk:Ukraine, Talk:Ukrainians, and Talk:Blond, this user has added hate speech links referring to Ukrainians as "shit skins" and saying they belong in gas chambers multiple times (see [184] [185] [186]) as well as other trolling and bigoted comments ([187] [188] [189] [190]).

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editings and sockpuppeting by Ayu Nabila in Jakarta article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

I NEED A JUSTICE.

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LumaNatic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's justifying his "confrontational language" by arguing on his talk page that WP:BOLD applies to insulting people. It doesn't seem like he's interested in editing collaboratively. [191] Natureium (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Djedamrazuk - abusive post

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I placed in reputable and scholarly sources in Ibn Arabi's article to indicate that factually speaking, Ibn Arabi, was a Sunni Muslim [192] [193] [194]. user:HafizHanif, without justification removes these sources and rather than dialogue he resorts to ad-hominem attacks by calling me a "sockpuppet" as seen here [195] [196]. At first he seemed like he was willing to dialogue, however, when I academically disproved what I consider to be biased assertions, these insults followed. I believe that user:HafizHanif exaggerates the role of Jesus in Ibn Arabi's doctrine. He references a book which's topic is Jesus and not Ibn Arabi's doctrines. I made my arguments clear in the talk page [197]. However, he has made no attempt to discuss this issue. The references in reality relate that the dominant figure in Ibn Arabi's ideology of Al-Insan Al-Kamil (The Perfect Man) is Muhammad (references are here [198]) and that all other people who attain such a rank (i.e. he called Moses, Noah, Abraham and even himself as Al-Insan Al-Kamil) can only attain this through Muhammad. He places a rather, out of place, statement solely about Jesus, which is considered to be one of many Al-Insan Al-Kamil and not the central figure of the belief [199]. I want to know why he singles out Jesus and not Moses or Abraham or the many other Prophets? This seems like bias to me. I believe that the sources that indicate he is Sunni should remain and that Jesus's role in Ibn Arabi's beliefs should not be exaggerated. But he is not involving in dialogue and resorts to insults and I do not want to engage any more in an edit war. Nuralakbar (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you have posted a message here after you were warned about edit warring and needing to discuss changes on the talk page. See this posting to your talk page by EdJohnston. I am seeing that HafizHanif has tried to engage with you on Talk:Ibn Arabi and your talk page (currently blanked, see history) and explain the issues with the edits, including using sources not deemed reliable sources and perhaps are not understanding how to identify reliable sources. It seems like you have made assumptions about his intentions that I am not seeing.

In addition, a lot of this seems to be content disputes. Did you see HafizHanif's post at this section?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eagles hard rock vandal again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just like last time, reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Eagles_hard_rock_genre_warrior, there's an active range of IPs disrupting music articles about Eagles band members and the hard rock and glam rock genres. Can we stop Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA02:2E00:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the last rangeblock we had on this guy was for three months on 2600:8805:AA03:0:0:0:0:0/48, the block performed by NinjaRobotPirate. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyeballs on apparent vandalism IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

212.233.170.62 (talk · contribs · 212.233.170.62 WHOIS) appears to be adding unsourced and sometimes clearly invented data tables to diverse articles. Qwirkle (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this IP editor just got off a one-month block for adding unsourced statistics, so I've blocked for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ropedremit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ropedremit is very obviously a sockpuppet of Mayerroute5 !--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) How? I'm no admin, but casting a sock accusation without proof like this isn't going to get you far, unless you're prepared to elaborate.. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at his edits in IPL season articles right on his first day here and use WP:Duck  :-)) --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

After his last edits, there is no doubt!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anaxagoras13: You have two boxes on your userpage. One is an attack against another editor, and the other is a false claim that you are currently blocked. Please remove both boxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

By which rule?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Such material is inappropriate on a userpage. I'm giving you an opportunity to remove it yourself. If not, I will delete the userpage, and if you recreate it with similar material, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the relevant policy or guideline but there would probably be consensus that the first box is inappropriate. The second says "has been blocked" which is true, not "is blocked" which would be a false claim. Peter James (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done blocked by Bbb23. -- Luk ^talk 12:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meaningless edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Very similar to user:Pillzyx a while ago, user:Vaderisle has recently started adding completely meaningless nonsense to some articles (possible SP). I've tried nicely, I've tried more insistingly, he/she keeps adding the junk. I think an admin should take a look. --Zac67 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page junk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone revoke access for this blocked user talk page; they're flooding the edit filter log. Not notifying. TIA. Home Lander (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Swarm ♠ 23:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Gaming of the System and Abuse of Process

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

• After failing to convince his fellow editors in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the lead of Trans woman (which has been supported by consensus) should be changed, he began edit warring, making three[200][201][202] edits against consensus within 24 hours and a fourth[203] less than a day later.
• Note that the fourth war edit came after being warned[204] that edit warring violates policy, that Wikipedia encourages collaboration, and that he should not edit war even if he believes he is right.
• Rather than taking a collaborative approach, TaylanUB said that he intended to break the "'hold'" other editors had had over the article and said that he had already done so in other articles (I do not know which ones).[205]
• He also seems to have threatened to respond to attempts to hold him to Wikipedia's rules by turning records of other editors' "biased behavior" into a "'formal complaint'".[206]
• Less than five days after his most recent attempt to change the lead through edit warring TaylanUB submitted a report to NPOV/N without linking to a discussion on Talk:Trans woman as prescribed on the page.[207]
• After more than a few editors objected to his RfC on procedural grounds, citing WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:SPA among others, TaylanUB offered a defense[208] that to my eyes looks like an explanation of civil POV pushing from the perspective of someone who is "civil"ly pushing a POV, and he says that his strategy has allowed him to revise other articles (I do not know which ones, but apparently they are related to trans people or gender) in accordance with his "'trans-critical'" perspective. (There also seems to be an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in this diff as it had already been pointed out to him that public opinion polls cannot be used as reliable sources in this context.[209])

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

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

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

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

My only interaction with TaylanUB to date is via the WP:NPOVN where he recently began a discussion regarding the neutrality of the article Trans woman. The discussion has become quite lengthy [210] and it appears his suggested wording change has received significant support from previously uninvolved editors as well as significant opposition from previous article contributors. I recommended a formal RfC as a means to avoid any future edit warring over this issue [211] While I have no comment on Taylan’s past editing, as I didn’t follow it, his current editing appears to involve utilizing dispute resolution, and I think that may actually be the problem here, because the outside input appears to sometimes be at odds with the status quo, which Marie Paradox appears to support. If Taylan agrees to open a formal WP:RfC instead of simply inserting his suggested changes into the article, I think this report should be closed and admins should keep an eye on Taylan to make sure he continues to use dispute resolution instead of edit warring and also keep an eye on the filer of this report, Marie Paradox. DynaGirl (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

It should be noted edit history at Trans woman shows TaylanUB has not edited the article at all since initiating dispute resolution at NPOVN over a mounth ago [212]. With no edits to the article in over a month, as well as active participation in dispute resolution, it seems odd that Marie Paradox would file an ANI report for Taylan at this time. It should also be noted that Marie’s statement above of "After more than a few editors objected to his RfC on procedural grounds" is erroneous, or at the very least misleading. There is no current RfC, rather an RfC was suggested to Taylan as an option at NPOVN following lengthy discussion and input from multiple editors. The discussion involved possible wording for a future RfC and Marie Paradox objected to editors discussing possible wording for a future RfC [[213]],[[214]], [[215]]. DynaGirl (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

What good comes out of failing to mention that the first time[216] you suggested that I was trying to shut down discussion came shortly after I had started a WP:BRD cycle on Trans woman aimed at replacing an inappropriate POV tag with a more appropriate POV tag that links to an appropriate section of the talk page and that I explained[217] that while I felt I should not be the one to do so, I would welcome the insertion of an appropriate tag with an appropriate link? What good comes out of failing to mention that before you posted the accusation above I requested[218] that you replace the tag with an appropriate one, that Mathglot inserted a POV tag with a link to a section of the talk page with a prominent link to the discussion at NPOVN[219], and that when I replaced[220] the tag with one I felt was more appropriate I left the link intact? (For anyone who does not know, TaylanUB had not left a link to the discussion at NPOVN at the talk page. Though other editors had made commendable efforts to compensate, it would have been easy for new readers to miss links to NPOVN before Mathglot's edit.) I think most people who looked at the whole story would see this series of events as prima facie evidence that I believe people should have easy access to the conversation at NPOVN.

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

So why have you been so persistent in building a false narrative of me? One possibility I have considered is that you have gotten a bit OWNy about NPOVN -- more specifically you think that you can intimidate me into not expressing "oppose on procedural grounds" and perhaps any other sort of opposition in future discussions of this sort. If that is your thinking, it is all the more important that people be able to freely express that they "oppose on procedural grounds". But I try to assume good faith, especially when it comes to an accusation as serious as this one, which is why I have repeatedly[221][222] asked you about your behavior. I would give the diffs of the responses in which you have not evaded my questions about your apparently OWNy behavior, but you have given no such responses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m going to try to ignore the personal attacks and focus on issues & content. I think what’s being referenced here is during Marie Paradox’s 'oppose on procedural grounds' to editors at WP:NPOVN discussing the wording for possible RfC, Marie cited Taylan’s past edit warring as the reason for her opposition [223],[224], [225], [226]. Newimpartial supported Marie here [227] calling Taylan a "Sealion”. I responded that if Taylan continues to edit war or if he continues to edit disruptively, that should be brought to AN3 or ANI, but stated that discussing wording for possible RfC at NPOVN seems appropriate [228],[229]. As of yet, Taylan has not continued to edit war. Edit history shows he has not edited the article at all in over a month, and that he actually hasn’t made any edits at all to the article since he brought the issue to NPOVN as part of dispute resolution. In light of no editing at all at Trans woman by TaylanUB in over a month, I do think this ANI report should probably be closed, but I do hope this ANI report prompts more editors to add the article to their watchlist. DynaGirl (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Merphee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is my normal response to The Drover's Wife, who I found very reasonable and neutral in their editing and interactions with other editors. [230] I apologise for any disruption to the article because of my conflict with HiLo48 who first told me to fuck off and has belittled and demeaned me constantly until I finally cracked and hit back. I'm only human.Merphee (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Onetwothreeip worked as a team with HiLo48 and was just as abusive and childish as I admittedly was. As I said in my interactions with The Drover's Wife for example I was very civil. They are an excellent and unbiased editor in my opinion.  [231] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

On this talk page, in this thread about me Curdle they lied about saying an administrator has warned me in the past. [232]. No they haven't ever on any article. I don't lie. Also onetwethreeip falsely accused me of "they are always outnumbered by more normal editors". As I just said apart from the Emma Husar where other editors like The Drover's Wife also agreed with some of my points there has only been one editor I've had conflict with and that is HiLo48 the person who originally told me to fuck off and has continually belittled me and attacked me. You just posted these articles onetwothreeip but as I just said it's conflict with one editor HiLo48. Talk:The Australian, Talk:George Christensen (politician), Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not true at all HiLo48 and you know it. Could you please provide diffs where I supposedly attacked other editors. And I will go about collecting about 100 recent diffs where you attacked, demeaned, belittled, abused me and also told me to fuck off. This has been put here because an uninvolved editor just saw the last end of our horror discussion and constant bickering on the Emma Husar talk page. I just don't think you should go around abusing other editors in the way you do. Anyway that was a week ago and The Drover's Wife politely asked you I and onetwothreeip to stop bickering but you refused. You also revert my edits on other articles and then when I take it to the talk page you refuse to discuss it. Just as you did today at The Australian. I've learnt not to get involved in a ridiculous bickering match as we did on the Emma Husar article, but you appear unrepentant User:HiLo48. I also noted you have a habit of abusing many other Wikipedia editors too and hate administrators who you believe act in gangs and are corrupt and were banned for a month for personal attacks. All I've ever asked is we just discuss content, rather than you making personal and demeaning comments about me while i try to do so. You also were warned about posting comments on my talk page and an administrator Drmies told you to stop. [233] You didn't you kept following me around provoking me thinking it's all very funny. I don't think attacking and abusing other editors is funny HiLo48.Merphee (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A credibility problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that has happened today is NeilN and Awilley and myself asking you to please stop posting on my talk page and stop the personal attacks. [234] on me and you refused. That was it. Drmies and others have also asked you to stop as well in the past but you refused. I am genuinely trying to learn here and ask for a chance to move on especially given I was accused of something I wasn't guilty of and have let that go. Why can't you just drop it HiLo48. You are far from innocent here HiLo48 but I did say I don't want to point fingers. NeilN made the decision to unblock me and I respected that. I just want to move on but you've got me by the throat here HiLo48 and won't let me go. [235]Merphee (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Does this fall under Discretionary sanctions?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do edits about Donald Trump on List of cults of personality fall under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions regime? If so, then I believe that users RRawpower and BrandonXLF need to be notified about those sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. DS affect edits. Donald Trump is certainly a closely related person to post-1932 American politics, so all edits about him fall under DS. The BLP DS also apply. I’ll alert. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued disruptive editing by Stefka Bulgaria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [236] [237] [238]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. [239]

and

• I don't think Icewhiz (Redacted) can view Iran as accurately and without bias that I do. [240]

Namecalling:

• I have told you this +10 times over the recent month I believe but you keep pretending deaf and blind! [241]

Namecalling part 2:

• "Pretending deaf and blind" is description of your relentless disruptive behavior [242]

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! [243]

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 [244]. --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" [245]. 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 [246], [247], [248], [249] 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 [[250]] -- 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 -- [[251]] ...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: [252][253][254][255] ). 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 [256] (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:
• [257]
• [258]
• [259]
• [260]
• [261]
• Despite the attempt at talk page resolution, Stefka's reverts continue before and despite consensus
• [262]
• Here he continues his reverts while accusing Mhhossein of "deliberately making false statements." [263] 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: [264] and [265] 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 [266].
• Having relentlessly ignored consensus and Pahlevun's warning, my first warning to him is issued: [267]. This is the same warning he cites above for victim playing.
• The consensus against Stefka's disruptive editing is now clearly established [268] in the last two comments by me and Mhhossein.
• However Stefka doesn't back down. [269]
• He receives more warnings [270]
• But continues again: [271]
• More warning: [272]
• Continues! The page is now protected: [273] after my complain in ANI [274]
• 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. [275]
• 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 [[276]]. 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[277][278][279] 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" [[280]] 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" [281] 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.[282]. 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.[283] 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 [284] [285] 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 [286]. 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 [287]. 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.[288] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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: [289]. 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 [290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304], hasty renominations, incivility [305][306], 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 [[307]], 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[308] 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. [309] [310] [311] [312] 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[313] and Eastmain[314]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.