Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019

"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Please look at Psalm 100, known as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.", present version this, demanding that you (you!) revdel a copyright violation. Nothing happened in several hours.

The psalm is known in the King James Version, Wikisource, as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Beginning in January 2018, Yoninah and I have improved coverage of the Psalms. She, knowing Hebrew, their original language, added the Hebrew text with its English translation, "A song for a thanksgiving offering. Shout to the Lord, all the earth.", per [1] - Yesterday, Elizium23 removed that as a copytight violation, with a fat tag for the article and a tag for Yoninah. When I removed the tag for the article, Elizium23 had another tag for me, and the request to revdel that I still see!!

We have now four threads, Yoninah, two on Elizium23 (sorry for the one I started, I had not noticed the other one, and the one Yoninah started has the numbers of all Psalms that have Hebrew text and translation, showing me how many are still missing). and my own.

We need to sort out:

1. Is this translation of a biblical text a copyright violation?
2. Even if yes, does it need a revdel?
3. For the announced investigation: are 5 psalms five cases? (I'd say no.)
4. How can we help our readers to the original language of the psalms and a translation? Leaving them alone with the King James Version - in old-fashioned English - doesn't help help them to understand the original meaning.
   1. Can we make a tranlation in Wikisource?
   2. Can we request permission from the publisher?
   3. Other ideas?
5. How can we spare our readers the lengthy tags in article space? In general, not just here. The discredit the information. One line in article space, the rest on the article talk page should be enough, no?

Not an incident? May be, I am not familiar with ANI. I am most concerned about the tags in articles that are highly visible, and called by many other articles, see Der 100. Psalm. (So far: palms 1, 23, 42, 51 are also tagged) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, am very confused. If we start with the premises that the bible's original text is not copyrighted, and likewise, the King James Version is in the public domain, then it would seem to me just fine. Similarly, if one follows the link in the copyright template, the chabad translation is quite different, if more literal. My hunch is that the tag is simply a bit of a mix-up, but I would be happy to hear others' thoughts. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you mean by "just fine". The King James Version (KJV) is public domain, yes, but it often represents the original Hebrew badly, and it's also in an old-fashioned English. Just compare the two translations above. Should we inform our readers about that? I'd say yes. How, that is the question. Another example: Psalm 42: KJV has "As the hart panteth after the water brooks." The other translation - now removed - has: "For the conductor, a maskil of the sons of Korah. / As a hart cries longingly for rivulets of water". Note in both cases, that the author credit is missing in the KJV, on top of the language. Also: using KJV only supports a Christian bias. The original is Hebrew and Jewish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biblical texts are in the public domain. Translations, whether they are Jewish or Christian, which were published before 1924 are in the public domain, and there are plenty of them. More recent translations are presumed not to be in the public domain, unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Any distinctive quotation of a specific translation should be attributed to the translator, and should be brief if the translation is copyrighted. Original content published since 1924 and republished on Chabad.org is subject to the crystal clear copyright notice at the bottom of that web page. These are the basic principles that seem pretty clear to me, unless I am missing something. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For example, the Jewish Publication Society of America Version of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) was published in 1917, is in the public domain, and is freely available online. It may not reflect the full range of modern scholarship but I would submit that no single translation meets that standard. It is always best to use fully free translations, unless there is a convincing need to quote non-free content instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of modern religious texts is often quite generous (see [2], [3]). However, Chabad is pretty clearly copyrighted. But they seem amenable to letting their work be used in periodicals if you first contact them for permission ([4]). Emailing them could clarify the copyright status, the date of the particular translation, and to gain their explicit permission. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless their permission is in the form of a release under a free license, the choices remain fair use or deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how we've handled it here, but the situation with the KJV is unusual: it functionally has perpetual copyright in the UK. See King James Version#Copyright status for details. Of course, this doesn't affect its standing in other jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Cullen: the Jewish Publication Society source, while public domain, is completely unacceptable for a modern-day readership. The language is archaic and anachronistic. The Chabad translation is adequate, although it does not always reflect the classical Jewish commentaries, some of which are cited on the newly revised psalm pages under "Background and themes". It's important to note that the KJV often skips the incipit and starts the psalm with verse 2 of the Hebrew; using the KJV as the English translation would thus omit the translation of many verses. Yoninah (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So, first of all, a general apology for skimming too quickly before bed and misunderstanding the issue! I don't think we should be offering our own translations. Translation, especially from a language like biblical Hebrew, is not a mechanistic and one-to-one affair (hapax legomena, anyone?). As such, that strikes me as very much WP:OR. Strictly speaking, no, I don't believe the translation offered was a copyright violation. At the same time, I think this problem will reoccur and be a headache, and we don't have much choice but to acquiesce. So we do need, I think, to cite to a usable translation. And while I will always champion the KJV as part of the history of English, it certainly does not follow the Hebrew particularly closely. The JPS version, while not ideal as Yoninah notes, might be the best we can do given the current copyright regime. Its wording can indeed be awkward, but it is (for my money) far less anachronistic than the KJV and much more faithful to the Hebrew text. Note the translation of verse 1 of Psalm 100: "A Psalm of thanksgiving. Shout unto the Lord, all the earth." That's pretty close to the deleted version. So, for now, I think my position would be "the JPS text until something better comes up." Just my opinion, of course. If we DO start translating, I have lots of opinions, beginning with Genesis 1:1! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Previously responded here, but to answer your questions:

1. If it is a translation that is still in copyright (as Cullen said, published before 1924), is not published with a compatible license, and is not used as fair use (again, we're not lawyers here, but I'd say copying an multiple Psalms isn't fair use), then yes, copyvio.

2. iff 1.

3. *shrug* not my department.

4. WP:COPYLINK, perhaps? I'm seeing plenty of opportunity for holy wars (pun entirely intended) over choice of translation, but if there's a source like Biblegateway which legally hosts copies of the translations you're interested in, you could put that in the external links. I doubt the publisher will give permission given that anything they let us use gets an open license (i.e. anyone can take it off of Wikipedia and use it freely), but I guess you could ask.

5. The revdel tag will go away as soon as an administrator handles it.

^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So I don't exactly know where to point to policy here, but I have always taken it as a given that, on Wikipedia, we always refrain from including the full text of any work of significant length. Now, many Psalms are short (this began at Psalm 23, a classic masterpiece weighing in at 6 verses.) But if we consider that there are over 150 Psalms, each with its own separate article, it adds up! My NABRE edition runs 97 pages in normal-sized print. There is no "fair use" involved in scraping every word of every Psalm from Chabad and the JPS without permission. Furthermore, I do not envision JPS granting CC-BY-SA permission to us for the aforementioned every word of every Psalm. Even if they did, I believe it would be beyond Wikipedia's remit to reproduce them here. That is what Wikisource is for! Wikisource is where we publish full-length renditions of freely-licensed works, and we point to Wikisource whenever we need to cite such a work at length. Now, the good editors Yoninah and Gerda Arendt are diligent, WP:GA and WP:FA powerhouses, and they are rightly concerned with top-quality content. How do we have articles on the Psalms without top-quality renditions of them in the original and in Modern English? Well, the same way we have articles on the Simpsons episodes without full-length videos; the same way we have articles on Shakespeare's plays without editors re-enacting them, and so forth. I think Wikipedia's job is to provide plenty of out-of-universe exegesis, context, commentary, history, and reception, and none of that requires the full-text. And if they really want full-text, we have already given them ample public-domain options, and we can just live with the "archaic" (IMHO, poetic and beautiful) language therein. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see sources like Chabad.org being included in the external links. But we really need to tweak the public-domain JPS translation. We cannot write "Yahweh", for instance, which is not accepted by classical Jewish sources or Orthodox Judaism in general ("God" will do just fine). I'd also like to note that the Hebrew text being copied from the Chabad site includes cantillation notes, which are really unnecessary for a straight Hebrew reading. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand what is happening in this thread, but I'll try and clear the air on the topic of copyright: If a website with an "all rights reserved" notice contains text that is unambiguously in public domain, then that text is in public domain. They can't change the copyright unless they own it. If it's a translation being copy and pasted into the article, and that translation is not in public domain, then it is a copyvio. Whether or not it's editorial appropriate to mass copy the verses into the article, if they are public domain, is up for you article's editors to decide. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Judaica Press English translation is most assuredly not public-domain. That's the whole reason I raised the complaint. English editions are still for sale at JPS' website. I can't rightly object to whatever Hebrew text you wanna include, I wouldn't even know how to determine if it were some kind of copyright-encumbered transcription anyway. Our issue is with the modern English Judaica Press translation, which is clearly marked on the linked Chabad website with a current copyright claim, "all rights reserved". And I am confused about why you say we cannot write "Yahweh" — Wikipedia has a neutral POV, not a Jewish one — out of fairness, the Psalms articles must represent both Jewish and Christian patrimony and not exclude or favor one or the other. So by all means, complement the KJV with a rabbinic translation. But you can't come in and say "Yahweh out!" to the Psalms. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23--with all due respect, I believe you have what in my business we call "versionitis," that is, a mistake regarding two different versions of the same text. The modern JPS bible (or "NJPS") is most assuredly copyrighted, and no one is arguing it is not. The 1917 version, sometimes called "Old JPS" or "OJPS" is in the public domain. If you don't believe me, believe the JPS themselves when they say "The 1917 edition, now in the public domain, is not available from JPS in print form." They then go on to offer a free download, since it is a public domain document. As such, there is no problem with using the 1917 version or sourcing to it for Wikipedia purposes, and I think it is a good counterpoint to more floral translations--though, as is often noted, it owes a lot to the RV. We'll all muddle through this together! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: if you can satisfactorily prove that Chabad.org has reproduced the PD 1917 English translation, and that's the text that Yoninah has included on these articles, then I will gratefully retract alllll of my complaints. But I am not sure you can. Why would Chabad use a 1917 translation, when they have obtained express permission to use a "new and improved" 1980s version as advertising to sell JPS books? Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Right -- I am suggesting we replace it with the 1917 version! It's not ideal from anyone's point of view, but I think fills a void that currently exists. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It already appears to be identical to what's in the King James Version, which is public domain. I can't see the text which was removed, but this, as far as I can tell, is clearly not a copyright violation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) This was incorrect, my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel or not?

What I can't believe is that the revdel tag still sits on Psalm 100. Can an admin please decide NOW if the copyright violation - if accepted - is severe enough to need a revdel, and if yes, do it NOW for all psalms listed by Yoninah, and if no remove that tag (which as far as I know is only on that one psalm? The same translation will still be listed in the external links, among other translations, including the mentioned biblegateway. The tag doen't create trust in our content, imho.

For the next step: If we decide against the Hebrew text in that version, I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text which is anyway always on top of the external links in those palm articles already expanded. Poor readers then can open some windows to study the differences, instead of seeing them at a glance. I can't judge if the older translation of the Hebrew would be of value instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• KJV is public domain. The issue is copyright, and nothing else. Please don't try to cloud the issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I don't understand. KJV is not the question. The question is if the translation of the Hebrew text is such a severe copyright violation - if any - that a revdel is needed. More time passed with the tag saying "Blatant copyright violations" on Psalm 100. If revdel is needed, the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful. If it's not needed and the article wrongly tagged, even more so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, Infrogmation was responding to your statement that I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text. The problem that needs to be dealt with here at AN/I is the copyright dispute, nothing more. The question of including the KJV is a content dispute and can be dealt with on the article talk page, or failing that, any of the resources at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

  Also, please stop calling things "shameful." Your repeated use of it is getting close to being a personal attack. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If "shameful" is not the correct word for "I feel ashamed for it", please forgive me. English is not my native language. I will have to look up what Infrogmation may mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If I say something is "shameful", it means not that I feel ashamed, but that you should feel ashamed. Hence, "the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful" is saying that admin (all of them) should feel ashamed that none of them has gotten to this request yet. I'm glad you explained that's not what you meant–until now, I thought that's what you meant. :-) – Levivich 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any question that there's a copyright violation. For example, text in this diff is clearly the same as copyrighted text from this website. In my experience, it can take two or three days for a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to be cleared by an admin. As we all know, there aren't enough admin to handle all the admin tasks (nudge, nudge, Gerda, ye with 10yrs and 200k edits). If there are no good, public domain, modern translations of the Psalms from Hebrew into English, someone who is capable should write and publish some... then we can use them in our articles. – Levivich 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Everything you said has been said above, while I said above that my experience with ANI is almost zero. Until this gets resolved one way or the other, I will remove links to Psalm 100 from articles for which I feel responsible. I feel awful sending people to "Blatant copyright violations". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, please don't do that. That's outright disruptive behavior. creffett (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  No one should feel responsible for any articles, because none of us are responsible for any articles. – Levivich 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict:)

  Note to self: Chandos Anthems, Chichester Psalms, Der 100. Psalm, Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt (Mendelssohn), Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt, Service in B-flat major, Op. 10 (Stanford), Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  After edit conflict: you can't tell me how to feel. If I write a featured article such as Der 100. Psalm, and it sends to an article with a "Blatant copyright violations"-tag I feel like cheating every reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, ah, don't shoot the messenger here; if you feel that copyvio tags are "shameful" then, as one of the active editors of Psalms articles along with Yoninah, y'all should've considered copyright issues before copying the disputed text into the articles in the first place. The reason the tags are there is because we have to clean up after someone who misappropriated content that never should've been here in the first place. When I added the tags and reported the articles, the wheels were set in motion. Now you're quite impatient and attempting to jump the queue: as has been explained, admins have quite a backlog in all areas, including copyvio reports. Sometimes it takes a week or two for an admin to clean up, revdel, and remove the tags. In the meantime, nobody's gonna die; I am sure our dedicated readers will forgive Psalm 100 for having an ugly tag on it for a week. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by removing links from "your" featured articles. This will all be handled. There are plenty of good options to us going forward. This, too, shall pass. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was forced to revert @Graeme Bartlett: who seemed to believe that the Hebrew text was why I filed the complaints. No, folks, I have no problem with the allegedly PD status of the Hebrew text. It's the JPS English translation we're concerned about here. (And I have no reason to suspect that Chabad.org is hosting the 1917 PD JPS translation rather than the 1980s copyrighted one.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely to me that an ultra-Orthodox organization like Chabad would host anything from a relatively liberal interdominational group like JPS, no matter the copyright status of the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must apologize; I am not communicating well. As I said above, I don't mean to suggest that chabad is hosting the 1917 text--rather, I am suggesting we replace the chabad quotations with the 1917 text, which, while perhaps not optimal, is decidedly in the public domain. As for revdel'ing the old versions, I guess I would say better safe than sorry, but that's above my pay grade. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we can rely on supposition here. Certain chapters of Chabad have been used as fronts for global political corruption. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the site uses NJPS rather than OJPS, unless they specifically state which one they use. (That said, I've never been a particular fan of using mass revdel simply because some old versions of a wiki article inadvertently had some lyrics/translations that were still under copyright.) Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the use of revdel when someone has blatantly copypasted a large swath of original work from a book, article, or website. I do not understand the use of revdel for instances where a translation of an ancient text or an old song, which translation is now found to still be under copyright, was inadvertently used in a wiki article but is now removed. These are good-faith errors that do no real harm to the copyright-holder, being visible only in old versions of text invisible to the public. Heck, revdel was not even available until around mid-2009, and was not in wide use until 2015 or so. I don't think there is any reason to plaster copyvio demands for revdel on things like important Wikipedia articles that had, in good faith, provided English translations of important old material. In my mind it's a waste of administrative time, and serves no real purpose while disrupting and damaging the appearance of valuable and important articles. I propose that we drop this and remove the tag, when a clearly fair-use translation has been established and provided on the article (or at least when the questionable translation has been removed from the article). Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• I do not think that revdel is required for text that has been used legally. Perhaps the copyright is not compatible, but it is still legal to have a small piece on Wikipedia. However it is in appropriate because our mission is to have free content, and other commercial uses may not be legal. So that means it just needs to be removed from the current version(s), but that revdel is not actually needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel; support immediate removal of tag; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments just above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE: MLauba has now completed the revdel, zapping 37 good-faith versions/edits to the article, and making all of those edits invisible to editors. Was this really necessary and useful? Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• The primary purpose of Revdel in these cases is to avoid the text in question being reverted back into the article, compounding the problem. As with all copyright matters, we apply a precautionary principle, meaning we'll err towards removal of the material, which is why I decided to action the tag. That being said, the text in question, as some editors note just above, is minor, and I pondered outright declining the request for quite a bit. The exposure here weighed in favour of redaction, however, in addition to the fact that in practice, the content in question is 100% of the psalm itself, which by the letter of the rules is not acceptable. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

An unrelated issue has come to my attention as a result of this discussion. It looks to me that Jewish Publication Society has been spammed with "references" to various Chabad related websites that have nothing at all to do with JPS. It is now past my bedtime in California. Can other editors remove the spam references/links from that article? Is this a problem on other low visibility Judaism articles? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's great to see that one article has been cleaned up. That only leaves 32 more articles with infringing text: Psalms 1, 2, 8, 13, 22, 23, 24, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70, 75, 91, 93, 96, 97, 110, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139, 147, 149, 150. (I did not tag all of them manually with copyvio because that is a manual and arduous process. I thought it would be enough to tag 5, leaving the door open for a WP:CCI, and report them as-is to WP:Copyright problems. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose revdel on any other articles; support immediate removal of tags on any other articles; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). There is no consensus that revdel is needed for this extremely minor issue, and if no live version contains copyvios, there is no reason to disappear hundreds of edits. I think Elizium23 has lost perspective. Pinging Diannaa for perspective. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Antandrus (talk · contribs) is accusing me of 'defacement' by following procedure, removing blatant copyvios, and adding tags to articles. I deserve an apology, because following Wikipedia policy and procedure to protect you from legal action is the opposite of 'defacement'. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm only sorry I did not remove the defacing tag sooner.

This is copyright paranoia, to suppose we will be subject to "legal action" because of the presence of some copied and pasted verses from a Hebrew psalm, in old revisions of an article which a casual reader cannot even see. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you actively and willfully lying now? It is false that the copyrighted text was invisible. It was live, visible, and active before I followed Wikipedia procedure to remove, tag, and report it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Back off. You're just wrong and sometimes you have to have the humility to admit it. Your previous addition of this tag was also on a version without the material. No, I'm not asking for your "apology", just that you tone it down. Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The articles are already listed at WP:CP: that was done on September 16. If there's copyright content, it needs to be removed, and revision deletion is appropriate as well in my opinion. I would revdel such edits; I have done so in the past, lots of times: national anthems, copyright translations of PD songs, stuff like that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

[Subheader changed by Softlavender - point seems moot now]

There is no proof yet whether the Chabad site or the books they quote from use OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright) translations. So these claims of "blatant copyright violation" are as-yet unfounded/unproven. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed: A quick search from [5] and [6] (both clearly marked as public domain) shows the phrase is equivalent to the KJV and is in the public domain. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As in all copyvio matters, the point is moot. Unless there is conclusive proof that the material is free for use, the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted, a practice that isn't limited to Wikipedia BTW. The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so. That's explicit in WP:C but also our terms of use. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why do you dispute the conclusiveness of this? See [7] and then match it up with the link above, the text is clearly public domain. It's also on wikisource. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• MLauba, please indicate where in WP:C it is explicit that "the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted ... The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so". Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Softlavender and SportingFlyer: How are we not on the same page here? This edit contains text that is a word-for-word copy of this page. And that text is different from the PD KJV links posted. So what am I missing? How is it not an obvious copyright violation? – Levivich 00:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I forgot it's already been revdelled ... nevermind. – Levivich 00:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no indication on the Chabad site whether that Hebrew-to-English translation is OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright). The translation itself is not original to Chabad. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same page? No indication? There's a disclaimer at the bottom that says English translation, (c) copyright The Judaica Press, all rights reserved. And another one below that: "© 1993-2019 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center". – Levivich 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then I was misled by what was said far above this subthread, that stated what I stated. I'm going to strike some of my previous comments. Thanks for pointing that out. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• My apologies - this is generally a confusing thread. Even though I looked at the original website I think I conflated the issue with the KJV text. Having looked into it, chabad.org is clearly copyrighted and anything we have copied directly from chabad.org should be deleted and revdel'd. We should keep the KJV text or similar translations on the article, and no reason why we can't use chabad.org as a reference if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel done

Revdel was done for Psalm 100 by MLauba, and the tag removed accordingly. Two questions: Is that a good solution? All edits since June 2018 are now a secret for whoever is interested, and the revdel suggests that something criminal took place. Can we solve the concern that nobody should accidently bring that content back in a different manner. How about an edit notice appearing when one of those old versions and describing that unfortunately copyrighted material i part of these version, so they should not be stored? Or would it even be technically possibly to protect those versions from being edited? - I still believe that replacing one translation of a well-known psalm by a slightly different version, which is older but copyrighted, should not involve so much secrecy as revdel over more than a year, in the name of transparency.

The other psalms

Palm

Other palms

EEng

What should we do about the other psalms which host such a translation? The easiest way would be to remove all text, as it was before the expansion. To have only KJV raises the concern of Christian bias for originally Jewish literature. If ANI is no place to discuss that, where else? My talk is open. We could also - perhaps better - use Talk:Psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having trouble following the technical discussion about revdel above, but I'm prepared to remove all the English translation copied from Chabad. Would that be all right?

BTW this is going to open up the Psalm pages to all sorts of additions from people's favorite English translations. See what Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has been busy doing on Psalm 100. (Gerda Arendt and I have a long-term goal of streamlining all the Psalm pages, so much of what's going on on Psalm 100 is going to be reverted.) Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted texts were removed and revisions hidden. We now have naked text in Hebrew, which needs to be complemented by a decent English translation FROM HEBREW which is not under copyright, with added comments/footnotes if necessary, based on more recent translations. Example: not everybody will know what a "hart" is (Psalm 42). (Same problem in the KJV, btw.) Short phrases can be quoted from recent translations. No time for more, everybody welcome to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm publically labeled as racist! I demand urgent intervention.

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'm publically labeled as racist in this essay by François Robere "Dealing with racism on Wikipedia"[8], posted to Signpost Submissions [9]

One particular editor repeatedly expressed their beliefs that Jews and Poles had certain historical roles in Eastern Europe - roles that implicate Jews in certain historical crimes, while absolving Poles of the same; beliefs that, according to literature on the subject, are not rooted in reality, but in centuries-old stereotypes and decades of institutional indoctrination; beliefs that, in other words - are racist

Even though it's clear who the author refers to as being a racist editor, I confronted the author for clarification. [10]

They responded that if Signpost tells him that it's too obvious they refer to me, they'll adjust it later. [11]

The article could potentially reach thousands of readers. I'll not tolerate such malicious libel and demand immediate intervention.

François Robere has been already sanctioned for the comparable slander upon me before:

They were warned by Sandstein [12]

Then they were blocked for the above by TonyBallioni: [13] for this: [14]

I'm upset with this groundless libel beyond belief!! GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ladies, gentlemen, and average Wikipedians, here we see the Streisand effect in action. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, I'm not sure where else a complaint like this should go. No comment on the merits. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As for location, I agree; it's the merits that prompted my previous comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Even though it's clear who the author refers to" – How is it clear? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear, but the OP is determined to make it so. What better place than ANI, the board everyone loves to read to get the latest juicy gossip. Hence, Ian's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read through this and didn't see your name mentioned. Maybe you are taking this all too seriously. There is no public acknowledgement that you are the editor type the author is talking about. You'll need more direct evidence of slander to prove you have been maligned. "Reading through the lines" is not considered evidence of an infraction in personal attacks. To be blunt, most of us have been called so many terrible things in our time on Wikipedia, it's best to get a thick skin about these things if you want to work here. Once I was called, "the embodiment of the worst that was happening to Wikipedia" and I just said, "Okay, moving on...."

Unless it is a very blatant, specific personal attack, it's best to just to not take things personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear editors, it's about me. Here is the link to topic ban they are referring to. [15] There is no other user they were interacting with who received a topic ban in this falsely reported by them circumstances. They also didn't dismiss they are referring to me in their response. [16] They said that if it becomes too apparent, they will remove it later and that the particulars of the case don't matter. Well it matters to me. One more familiar with the topic area will recognize that they referred to me. I’m very concerned with being portrayed as a racist. Please ask them to remove anything that might be connected to me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would've guessed it was about you if you didn't post this... A few things in this thread raise concern, but they're not things François Robere has said. - Frood (talk!) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (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.

Harassment from User:RichardWeiss

This guy's started showing up on my talk page, screeching like a howler monkey about a single edit I made to a random IP page. Nine years ago. I don't know who this is, nor do I remotely care. I do, however, have an issue with him throwing his feces all over my nice clean talk page. Could someone do me a solid and put a cork in him? HalfShadow 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's unpick this.

• Here's RichardWeiss' original message
• Here is HalfShadow's response, and RW's response to that
• Finally, Here's another post by HS on RW's talk page, and, uhh, Notification, of this ANI filing

This is silly, and should not have made it to AN/I. All parties involved need to chill, and go back to whatever they normally do here. Yes, RichardWeiss (talk · contribs) should pay better attention to time/dates of edits, and perhaps refamiliarise themselves with WP:SOCKPUPPET and the related policy. However, HalfShadow (talk · contribs) should probably stop referring to other people's talk page edits as "feces", and is encouraged to consider the responses they leave on people's talk pages a little more.

I have not dug into either editor's history any futher - they've both been around the block for long enough to consider themselves "old hands", and should really, really know better.

Seriously, folks - calm down. It's just an encyclopaedia.

Trouts all round, methinks. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Both of you go have a cuppa tea and try to be nice. Not impressed with either editor's behavior here. KillerChihuahua 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

He comes on to my page shrieking about something that happened quite literally a decade ago, like I'm supposed to scratch my chin, say "Oh yes, I remember that!", the camera does the swirly effect thing and then I narrate the event. What dimension is this guy from? HalfShadow 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this again. "He came on my page, referencing something I didn't recall. I told him 'I'm not sure what you're referring to, would you please give me a link or a dif?'" and he did, and I said "Oh, that was 10 years ago, did you realize that? Old news. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me now?" and he said "my error, I'm sorry!" and we were done.

Also, "shrieking... what dimension is this guy from?" both very snarky. May I suggest you take the time to read WP:CIVIL? KillerChihuahua 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he was logged out, saw the notice for the first time without the date, and then came to you. That's the most benefiting of the doubt excuse I can make for it. Other edits seem sane. spryde | talk 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that is how it looks to me, also. He also seems to be a bit confused about what the suspected sock tag is, and is not. He seems to have taken it very personally. I'm not sure what else HS did or didn't do at the time, but the tag alone is merely suspicion. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps both move on and get busy building an encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read HalfShadow"s user Page ... the guys has Benn blocked before for not being civil .. Boomerang Jena (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jena Fi, what are you talking about? His userpage says nothing about blocking or civility or anyone named Benn or Ben. It hasn't been edited in 2½ years, so it's not a matter of the page being changed after your comment was made. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe "benn" is a typo, "been" would make more sense. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant the User talk page . and yes it's Blank .. he deletes everything! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&action=history and look at his Block log. Jena (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I took it as a pot-calling-kettle-black statement ("he got someone else blocked for incivility, and now he's doing it"), and since the userpage didn't say anything of the sort, I was confused. HalfShadow has seven "justified" blocks (thirteen total, minus some that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and some that changed block settings), of which four were related to personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you talking about HalfShadow's block log? He has a fairly extensive log, from 2009 and 2010, with ONE block last month (and FWIW, it was for harassment, but it's completely unrelated to this instance.) Many editors have difficulty learning the behavioral rules here; they come from other areas of the Internet where incivility and outright personal attacks are the usual way of handling even minor disputes. That HS had trouble in 09 and 10 is clear. That he's mended his ways is also clear. He overreacted to this situation, brought it here, was told to calm down and have a cuppa, and so far as I can tell hasn't escalated or pursued it. He's dropped it, and presumably is having the recommended cuppa somewhere calm and peaceful. Not seeing why you'd bring this up. This was over several hours ago. KillerChihuahua 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While you were writing this, I was recounting the blocks and changing my comment. "Thirteen minus bad equals seven" is wrong. I was planning to change it to eight "justified" blocks (sixteen blocks total, minus three that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and four that changed block settings). Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And so far as blanking is concerned - I find it annoying myself. Its still perfectly acceptable, and is specifically allowed per user talk page guidelines. We had huge Rfc's about it and everything. You can blank your talk page whenever you like. KillerChihuahua 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua's said it a good deal better than I could have. I don't like it one bit when people blank their talk pages (it's confusing and makes it hard to follow the history), but unless the page is up for deletion for some crazy reason, there's absolutely no reason that a non-blocked user may not blank his own talk page, so there's no reason to make an actual objection to the practice. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This argument has no effect on the issue at hand. Make a separate report if you want to continue this argumentHeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in and I believe that this is not harassment. The person in question was very respectful, however he may be wrong. Him being wrong is not the point, harassment is not an issue present.HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" this falls into, but a close of this is probably for the best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the right to reply to this thread, which I just discovered. On New Year's Eve 2010 an ip made 2 comments (the only edits they have made) to a thread about me on this page, here and here. [@HalfShadow: then slapped this tag on the ip's user page. All fine so far. However, they made the comment "...unless you can give me compelling evidence as to how this IP's only edits can be to AN/I in a topic concerning SqueakBox" (see [17]. Note that instead of doing what they were required to do at this point, which was to file a sockpuppet check, they put the onus on me and on the ip to prove our innocence. They did not inform me of what they had done so I had no right to reply. I discovered this a few weeks ago while doing routine maintenance. I was User:SqueakBox in 2010, this name was changed by an admin, they aren't separate accounts but the same account and I checked what linked to SqueakBox and discovered this ip page. My discovery had NOTHING to do with me logging out, that would assume this ip address was genuinely linked to me, which it was not. I was in India on that last day in 2010, and have never edited from a German ip in my 16 years here, nor have I been to that country since 1984. So HalfShadow made a wrong assumption and didn't get a sockpuppet check, this was an attack on both myself and on whoever was using the IP at the time, falsely linking us together because HalfShadow could not be bothered to do a sockpuppet check. There is no statute of limitations on past Wikipedia actions and I considered this serious enough to take to HalfShadow. I didn't do so in an aggressive fashion so to my mind HalfShadow has compounded their 2010 attack with a 2019 attack by bring me here for alleged harrassment. The only harrassment which ahs occurred is when HalfShadow slapped his suspicions on page that had nothing to do with me and didn't then bother checking. I have re-opened the thread in order to give myself the right of reply. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't like it if someone incorrectly accused me of socking, so I can understand why you were upset. But I also wouldn't like it if someone rebuked me for something that happened 9 years ago, so I can understand why HalfShadow was upset (although their response was over the top). Your post on their page was a bad idea and their decision to open this thread was unwise. It's time for everyone involved to move on to something else. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A decade-old tag? There is absolutely no reason to be so upset over this. Let it go. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Category moves by Yasminsabri

If anyone has time/inclination (I'm nearly done for the weekend) please can you fix the C&P category moves of Yasminsabri (talk · contribs)? I've just merged a couple of histories; in both of them the 'new' name was actually correct, it's just their method of C&P was off. User is now blocked. GiantSnowman 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

What can be done about the disruptive editing carried out by User:Wallyfromdilbert? Rather than read the references provided, this person seems to simply revert hundreds of edits a day without actually reading what they're doing. A more reasonable person would add a 'citation needed' or 'verify' type tag, but it appears this person isn't able to actually take the time needed to make WP better. Apeholder (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Apeholder: I only removed two content additions by you for being unsourced: [18] [19]. Both of those additions are not supported by the sources on the pages. They are also not accurate, and so I did not put a citation needed tag. Also, you were supposed to have notified me on my talk page about this ANI report. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly expect both parties to stop issuing each other inappropriate template warnings and start discussing the reason for their edit wars, which seem to be taking place across quite a few articles: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I'm not sure who has a vendetta with whom, or why, there seems to be some concern with "See Also" sections and a remarkable usage of WP:BRD to justify edit warring at [26], but no edits to the talk pages of any of these articles, and very little discussion or explanation beyond edit summaries and templated warnings. You clearly both believe that your edits are correct, so please go to the talk page and explain why rather than labeling the other side "disruptive". ST47 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ST47, I didn't realize that removing content once from an article was considered edit warring. The only times I reverted a second time were when the wikilinks added to the page were already linked in the main body, which goes against the MOS, which I left a template warning about. All three times I reverted the user's edits a second time, I left a message on their talk page explaining why. What should I have done instead? Also, do you think my template warning about adding a semiprotected template to a nonprotected page was inappropriate? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Was inspired to read the ”Wally from Dilbert” article: “Wally is a fictional character from the Dilbert comic strip. He is characterized as an employee so deeply jaded that instead of doing any real work, he spends all his time and effort successfully gaming the system.” A counterexample to that lifestyle would be building content instead of destroying it, seeking sources for unsourced propositions instead of deleting them without tagging or warning. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unattributed copying despite previous warnings

User:Ssolbergj has apparently moved material from Astrium and Airbus Military to Airbus Defence and Space without providing any attribution. This user has been warned previously about the copyright requirements when copying within Wikipedia, and frequently advised about providing edit summaries, but appears to have ignored the warnings. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

These were both articles of poor quality/rarely edited, and i reckoned the content fits better in the common article regarding the current, merged company. Therefor i made a bold redirect. I agree with the point with regard to edit summaries, I apologise. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide the attribution, as required by WP:CWW. This is a copyright requirement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the creation of Operational headquarters of the European Union on 10:39, 19 September 2019 also has a WP:CWW copy issue ... is something like a user ban on undiscussed merges possible or appropriate? Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote basically 100% of the content of Operational headquarters of the European Union, and the fact that this text had been moved around is not a problem for me, at least - attribution-wise. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Behaviour noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#Undiscussed moves-copying-merges of set of Brexit related articles which was cleaned up but probllematic behavior seems to have continued ... in particular about multiple bold merges/moves in a short period of time. i may have dragged him a little soon to ANI then but continuation of behaviour perhaps not. I might try to AGF but difficult to judge if the issue is WP:COMPETENCY or disruptive .... either may might be more helpful if Ssolbergj started to retro-attribute either one work. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, an apology is nice but could you read over these suggestions and comment on whether you might start providing attribution? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. See also comment above, in relation to the OHQ article in question. - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

IP behavior

User:59.95.22.80 has been trying to restore info to Ordnance Factory Board (three times already) first removed by an experienced editor (Muhandes) as excessive, unencyclopedic detail, with edit summaries of "stop using socks". The IP has also starting leaving garbage messages on my talk page. MB 15:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

While I was composing this, ST47 imposed a 72 hour block. MB 16:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc

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.

---

Benjaminkirsc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user frequently says "FUCK YOU!" On his edit summaries to IP editors whenever they add-in false information. He has also been known to attack other users who disagree with him and his replies on talk pages barely make sense due to the poor grammar he uses, which is odd as his grammar on most of his edit summaries is better. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at his use of fuck in edit summaries, there have been 8 in the last 500 edits. 1 was reverting himself and 1 did not stick as it seems that Benjaminkirsc was wrong to undo. The other 6 appear to be fixing vandalism. I would prefer that we find other ways of expressing anger than by telling IP editors to fuck off. However, I think the community consensus is that telling vandals to fuck off is OK so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. That said, Benjaminkirsc has a lot of edits with no edit summary at all, which does go against community consensus, and which makes his fuck offs all the more noticeable Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Telling vandals to fuck off is OK" is not my view of the outcome of that RfC at all (I closed that RfC). If there was any consensus at all at that RfC, it is that there are no hard-and-fast rules—there are cases where we should sanction an editor for telling vandals to fuck off, and there are cases where we should let it go with a word of discouragement. If you believe that Benjaminkirsc should be sanctioned for inappropriate edit summaries, then you should not interpret anything in that RfC as prohibiting us from doing so. Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your chiming in here Mz7. I will stand by the fact that I am troubled that among his very few edit summaries are so many fuck off statements. I would love to hear from Benjaminkirsc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all the times the word fuck appears in his edit summaries, this one in particular, though from May, stood out to me as pretty bad. While it turns out the date change was vandalism from thirteen days earlier (the previous edit to that page before Benjaminkirsc's was eleven days before his, and most of the vandalism had been cleaned up already), it's not at all clear from "got the date wrong" that he even knew it was vandalism and not just a mistake - and besides, that's burying the lede anyway, since that one was insulting to more people than just the vandal. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If I’m reading that right, it sounds he is accusing the vandal of being a homosexual, which is problematic because it implies that homosexuality is bad / shameful or something that is linked to vandalism. (I’m not saying that necessarily meant it in a bigoted way. But I believe that it’s best to avoid using homophobic, racist, or other prejudiced terms even when criticizing vandals. Perhaps the policy doesn’t back me up on that this. Michepman (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Benjaminkirsc of this report. – bradv🍁 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Benjaminkirsc's responses on his talk page show him to be very cooperative and amenable to suggestions.[27][28] Let's not push the block button before encouraging him once again to change his ways. Swearing, repeatedly, is not acceptable, period. But I'm sure Ben would agree. Let's wait for his response. Thanks, Lourdes 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

*Support block - I get the impression they're trolling judging by their editsums[29] as well as their talkpage posts, I'll also add it's one thing telling someone to f off in a huff but it's another to scream "FUCK YOU PERSON WHO GOT THE DATE WRONG! YOU FUCKING FUCKING GAY!"[30] and repeatedly scream "F YOU" to every IP vandal, The quoted editsum IMHO should be a blockable offence. –Davey2010^Talk 09:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Struck as blocking at this point would be punitive, Providing they knock it off I see no reason to block or warm them at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 11:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Why would it be punitive "at this point"? A block may be necessary to stop the incivility. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

They've not continued the incivility .... if they'd continued after this thread then blocking would be preventative but as they've not continued it would only be punitive. –Davey2010^Talk 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, so sorry =((((((, vandals are evil, what do you want me to do, leave or stop this cursing? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, it's good that you want to keep vandalism off Wikipedia, but you're going about it in the wrong way. You should probably take a look at WP:VANDALISM and at WP:DENY - swearing at vandals and trolls is counterproductive, it often encourages them to do more vandalism because you are giving them exactly what they want - attention.

If you would be interested in learning more about best practice in countering vandalism, and if admins commenting on this thread would be happy with this approach, I'd be prepared to take you through the WP:CVUA course - that would explain how and when to revert, how to warn vandals appropriately, and how to deal with various types of tricky situation. However, I find some of your edit summaries noted above deeply troubling, and so I have a couple of caveats to this offer: (a) you commit never to swear at or insult anyone in an edit summary ever again, regardless of what they have done; and (b) you apologise unreservedly for using the word 'gay' in the manner you did above. It's possible that you don't realise this, but using words like that as insults, and therefore implying that there is something wrong with being gay, is outrageously offensive - I have no interest in working with you if you actually hold views like that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. One edit [[31]] changed it to 2001, and it's vandal. Another edit [[32]] changed it to 1996, that is even worse vandal, since 1996 those platforms wasn't released then, expect for Windows. Another edit [[33]] that had to do with the caption and also minus one ] to 2010 video games. Caption was like ".miguogh;obou6rf975fovljvkyf4waw4yulihlvsdr0u[98h5438tu6w754689-97r54er7guytf85" and was rude. Also, another edit [[34]], was rude with the dates. Another edit [[35]] was basically wrong with the European date, it said 1994, but it need to say Febuary 23, 1994. But all would be forfeited as needed to change. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, I don't see why you are listing these - this discussion is not about whether the reverts were legitimate, it's about your abusive edit summaries. If you are interested in my offer, please indicate that here, and take the necessary steps with regard to me caveats, and we will see whether administrators here would be satisfied with that approach. If you're not interested, feel free to say so and I'll step back and leave you to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, I highly recommend you take GirthSummit up on their offer. We can always use more people watching for vandalism, but your behavior as-is will get you a block, and that's a loss for all of us. (also: please take a moment to review WP:THREAD to learn how to properly indent your talk page messages) creffett (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Fuck" is a matter of taste, I wouldn't use it on a project space that's open to all, and if it's too frequent and makes other people uncomfortable, they ought to be considerate enough to tone it down. Using "gay" as an insult is a definite no,no, and should be blockable, unless they make a serious attempt to allay the community's concern starting right now. The reply to GS's offer above reads like an attempt at justification which is not a good sign at all. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh Sorry Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a lesson in the use of the word will help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not OK My take is this should be a clear warning that such edit tags are not OK. Yes, it can be frustrating to deal with IP vandals but it's best to revert and say nothing else. While Wikipedia isn't censored, I would like to think most topics/pages are safe for work. Sure if you visit a page about a sexual act it may have not safe for work pictures and/or words. I don't expect edit pages of video games to be filled with profanity. Springee (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Benjaminkirsc will you commit to no longer telling vandals to fuck off and to more consistently use edit summaries? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm back: notice that I'm basically not cursing many times but the vandals are so evil, I would need to toured them. @All of you talking in this table. I hope vandals don't come anymore, so I hope to not curse anymore. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, it's not within your contol whether "vandals don't come anymore". It is entirely within your control to not curse or make homophobic posts. Your commitment this far is not convincing. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"I would need to toured them." What is that supposed to mean? We'd all like to see vandalism stop but it won't and you need to stop cursing either way. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Robby.is.on, this means they commit crime to Wikipedia. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc No. In "I would need to toured them." "I" is the subject so obviously there is something you think you need to do. What do you mean by "tour"? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Robby.is.on I mean tortured. That was just a spelling mistake.

Benjaminkirsc That's what's wrong with your approach right there. We do not torture vandals, we do not punish vandals, we ignore vandals. We block their accounts or IP addresses, but only to stop the disruption, not to punish. Shouting and swearing is exactly what they want, so don't do it. Your best bet here is to commit not to swear at anyone in an edit summary again, even if they are vandalising - if you do that, I think most people would be willing to draw a line under this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Then here is the plan: if anyone who I revert is a random vandal I would send one admin to warn or block them.

• One chance at reform: based on the user's comments above, I genuinely don't think they have the emotional maturity to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they understand what is wrong with their actions. I am willing to give them one more chance, on the condition that they accept GirthSummit's offer for CVU training and proceed to shape up. If they do not show improvement after that, or if they do not accept the offer, then block on WP:CIVILITY and perhaps WP:CIR. We always need new people helping against vandalism, but if they can't do that productively, then they're not worth the trouble. creffett (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Same. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this drama or what is this? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, this is me proposing that you be blocked unless you show that you understand what is wrong with your actions so far and take specific actions to improve. I would like for you to become a productive member of the community, but you're going to need to put in some effort and listen to others to get there. creffett (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh god I hope I do learn my lesson. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting strategy to play Benjaminkirsc. On the one hand refusing to cede an inch could get you off with no sanction. On the other hand it could make what would have been a nothing incident into something bigger. Personally I really would hope you would take something away from this thread so you can go back to being what appears to be a mostly productive editor. To that end I'll repeat my ask that you agree to stop telling vandals and others to fuck off in edit summaries (but please do feel free to express the thought in your head) and that you make more consistent use of edit summaries in general. If that's something you can agree to we can all go back to being the productive editors we are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like a few issues here have gotten confused:

1) Saying "fuck." The community consensus generally seems to be it's not inherently wrong but it does have plenty of potential for fucking up a conversation.

2) Saying "fuck off." For some reason there's a continual debate about that but that's not actually the issue here.

3) Saying "fuck you." Benjaminkirsc didn't tell a vandal to "fuck off," he said "FUCK U GUYS", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU BOY!" and so on. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and anyone who wants to debate that can go fuck themselves (and good luck calling me out on that without proving my point).

The problem is rooted in the thinking that vandals are evil. While they are certainly not operating in good faith, I'd still argue that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL would require us to not put common vandals on the same level as, say, neo-nazi pedophiles.

@Benjaminkirsc: The lesson to learn here is that if something doesn't have "Bot" at the end of its name, there is a human being on the other side. Even if they are a nazi, pedophiles, or even slaves "employees" of the Church of Scientology and to be banned on sight, we don't need to go yelling "FUCK YOU" at them because that just makes us look bad. Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it. I second Barkeep49's thinking that if you promise to stop telling users of any sort to fuck off then we can all go back to business as usual. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Haven't look in detail at the behaviour but I find the use of gay as an insult particularly concerning whether or not fuck was said. Also I agree with others that while vandals can be quite annoying, if you seriously think they should be tortured there's something very wrong with your thinking. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

2 date changes were wrong and for reason it's not what websites would say and that is vandalism. SNK Playmore was never right for Bandai Namco's games. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Escalating blocks

Should Benjaminkirsc use fuck in his edit summaries to another editor (e.g. Fuck You, Fuck Off, Go the fuck away, or similar) he shall be subject to a series of escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. Since Benjaminkirsc seems to not want to voluntarily agree to the ask that Ian.thomson and I made of them, and I am sensitive to Davey2010's point that blocks should be used to stop disruption, this feels like a just outcome. Hopefully no block is ever made because they just stop telling others Fuck You (or similar language) but since they seem determined to not agree voluntarily let's make clear that future violations of Civility will be met with a block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Reading Benjaminkirsc's responses, which occasionally say sorry but never engage in accepting that his choice of language is his responsibility, and which veer off into blaming the vandals; and reading his talk page which has 4 level 4 warnings. I'm struck by how childish he's acting (not WP:YOUNG or childlike, but full-on WP:IDHT childish), which brings to mind a hazy recollection of Barkeep49's edit summary on deleting Benjaminkirsc's user page. The time for warnings is past. I'd advocate a 2 week block to show how seriously the community takes WP:CIVIL, and then escalating blocks if the problematic behaviour continues. Cabayi (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per Barkeep49, To quote User:Ian.thomson "Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it" - Given they've been using it the wrong way I see no reason why they continue to use it at all,

In some ways I feel somewhat hypercritical supporting this considering I myself tell people to F off occasionally but there's a big difference between saying it occasionally and saying it everyday to various vandals. Anyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Good eye: To quote that I should stop the curse. Maybe tell me to give up cursing would be a good lesson. Tell me to stop cursing and than that can be good for the future Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been told to stop attacking other editors, on your talk page: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], as well as in this discussion. That is not a proposed future solution - it is something that has already happened. --bonadea contributions talk 19:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea Hope so. So sorry. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, block 2 weeks now. Benjaminkirsc's replies in this ection show he's not taking this seriously. Warnings are wasted on him. Cabayi (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi I don't understand by "block 2 weeks now" Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (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.

2A02:ED0:4295:5700:C074:381F:88D:CD30

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 a stale account; it has made only 2 edits, on 2 September 2019. However, its edits and foul-mouthed edit summaries suggest that it might be worth looking in the range around that IP for similar activity. Narky Blert (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this on Sept. 5 as well as calling other editors "Racsists zionists". This editor is fighting a nationalistic battle and has CIR issues as well. Range hardblocked one month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (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.

Proposal to topic ban User:Poveglia from the Teahouse and the Help Desk

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.

---

Poveglia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context see this discussion and this discussion. Poveglia has proven to be entirely less than helpful in their contributions to these forums. But they have been patently venomous to anyone who attempts to correct them. In our latest installment, they have decided to edit war ([42], [43], [44]) after they took it upon themselves to replace an unsourced birth date with a poorly sourced one, complete with templating the regulars and accusing them of abuse, while restoring poorly sourced content about living people.

This is well short of the conduct we expect from those contributing to our helping regime, it is not the type of behavior that we ought to be exposing newcomers to, specifically on the pages we invite them to in order to seek assistance. GMG^talk 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm willing to comment if requested, but otherwise I am recusing myself from this discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• I should do the same as 331dot. But because not everyone is willing to spend a lot of time researching what actually happened here is a summary: GreenMeansGo and myself had a discussion. GreenMeansGo wasn't happy with the result. Not too long later I'm having an unrelated discussion with different people; and GreenMeansGo shows up and tries and fails to escalate things and then files a silly ANI report. How surprising, what a coincidence! See Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior contains a line about "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." Anyone who takes a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Inaccurate birthdate for actress CRYSTAL R. FOX 2601:C1:4102:BF19:C03D:697D:F388:369A (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC) will see that I was being helpful while 331dot was not. The weird thing is that anyone can click this link to see what I actually do at those desks; helping people with questions. Poveglia (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The weird thing is that anyone can ... see what I actually do

No, the weird thing is, is that you think you were actually being helpful in giving bad advice that contradicts basic Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing, and the worrying thing is your complete confidence in your abilities. --Calton | Talk 23:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Trouts for everyone involved That bickering reflected poorly on everyone. As for actual opinions on what happened, I do think Poveglia acted rather poorly. They were was overly combative in the helpdesk thread, rather condescending on GreenMeansGo's talk page (repeated insinuations that GMG "doesn't know what's going on" rather than actually attempting to discuss), and their hatting of the discussion in the helpdesk thread was unhelpful and aggressive. 331dot was pretty brusque in the helpdesk thread, and both 331dot and GreenMeansGo should have stepped back rather than continuing to argue. I recommend trout-slapping for everyone, but I don't see a single instance like this necessitating a TBAN. Warn and move on. creffett (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thought this looked familiar. It's a A conceptual entity (talk · contribs), aka The Quixotic Potato (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: interaction ban for GreenMeansGo

It is probably time to give GreenMeansGo an interaction ban with me so that he stops trying to do stuff like this. Making it both ways is the same thing, I have no reason to talk to GreenMeansGo, so that is OK with me too. Poveglia (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (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:116.123.84.174 and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)

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.

---

Hi all. From battlefield Sea of Japan naming dispute: I request administrator intervention to block 116.123.84.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption. This follows two previous blocks. The editor has shown a persistent and intractable disregard of the longstanding compromise guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Virtually all of the editor's contributions are to change the existing geographic names or order of geographic names in favor of reflecting a Korean POV and contrary to the guideline. Following expiration of the last block, this editor has received multiple, progressive user warnings to follow the guideline, with no answer or evidence of interest in complying. --Bsherr (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Previous blocks, multiple warnings since the last block, and exactly zero responses on any talk page. Blocked for 3 months to match the duration of the last block. ST47 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2019 (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.

Only real men edit Wikipedia

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 seems to be going a bit over the top.

You're really not good at discussing these things, are you? Nor even at reading what I have actually written. Nor being a real man.

Yes, discussions on political subjects can sometimes go off the rails, but this may have teetered a little over the edge. Gender or gender preference is not something relevant to being a Wikipedia editor, surely? This particular editor does not see his comment as a personal attack so perhaps an admin could do some gentle counselling on how to get along with others? --Pete (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion that began on MY Talk page when a user who hates my guts (a bit like the person posting above) chose to come to MY Talk page and threaten me with Wikipedia sanctions. It has all happened on MY Talk page after he chose to post there. If he doesn't like what I think and say about him on MY Talk page, he could just go away and stop posting on MY Talk page. Knowing this page is an appalling kangaroo court, I won't be posting here again on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Three things happened here, and they are all wrong:

HiLo48, saying that what was linked is simply a personal attack:You comment on the contributor in a hostile way and clearly associate "not being a real man" with something negative, in direct relation to an editor. That's simply not allowed, and if continued will lead to lengthy or infinite blocks very fast. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they don't disrupt it.

Your talk page is not something you own. You can not do anything you want there. You are not allowed to break policy there. You are not allowed to make personal attacks on your talk page.

Skyring, the ANI notification suggests bad behaviour I don't want to mention here. That's not civil. It pours oil into the fire.

Merphee, when you tell someone something is a personal attack, and they disagree, then you should not repeat that aggressively or use it as an ad personam to gain the upper hand in a content debate. You should, however, if you want to insist that it is a personal attack, tell them why it is a personal attack which you have not done instead:[45]Lurking shadow ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes total sense that HiLo48 would be getting irritated after that exchange. You said your bit, he said his, and you find yourself unable to let it go. As the man said dude, srsly, it's his own talk page. If you're not getting the reaction you want from him, stop poking. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the outcome here should be that Pete is asked to go away and do something to improve the encyclopaedia. Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee Stop gaming the system, or the boomerang is going to come back around at you. Lupin VII (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I know this has been closed, but I feel it's important to point out that Merphee has again posted in the thread on MY Talk page, about 30 minutes AFTER the closure of this discussion, and the recommendation above that he not do so. I make no further comment on it, and I won't respond there. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I originally closed this discussion recommending both editors leave Hilo alone[46] however Merphee doesn't appear to have got the message[47] so reopening for the community to further review if they need or want too, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow. Just saw this here. Sorry my last comment to HiLo48 was in response to him calling me a "gutless wonder". For the record I have not had a chance to respond here now I see this thread. More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him. I'm actually not fond of being called a "gutless wonder" and accused of not being a real man!! I don't think anyone is here are they?? So yeah. That's all I have to say. Pretty bizarre that Hilo48 can get away with these blatant personal attacks. Merphee (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee "More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him." That's why you went back to their talk page to pester them some more after being told to leave HiLo alone? Stop gaming the system. Lupin VII (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not see this thread here! I have not commented before this. I definitely would have commented here earlier and defended myself if I had seen it. I have not attacked HiLo48 once at his page today despite relentless personal abuse from him. I did not bring this here to ANI. Full stop. However I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to react to being told by HiLo48 they are a gutless wonder and being accused of not being a real man! Merphee (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Having said that I can absolutely and utterly assure you the community that I will NEVER comment on HiLo48's talk page again. Without any doubt. I'm not fond of being personally abused and attacked to be honest. I hope he will stay away from mine too and keep diuscussions about content to the appropriate article talk page. Merphee (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee Sure you didn't.[48] Lupin VII (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see an acklnowledgement that they wrote what they shouldn't have written, and that a person's gender is not relevant for them editing Wikipedia, from HiLo48 and

No Lupin VII I did not see it earlier. Otherwise I would have commented here and defended myself. Believe me! No. Doubt. About it. Regardless, I never abused HiLo48. What did I actually do today??? Apart from not taking the bait. HiLo48 kept making more and more abusive comments and goading me to come back, when I said I was done! Look at HiLo48's comments within his edits goading me on. Far from HiLo48 saying don't come to my talk page, he kept goadiung me to come back and even discuss other unrelated topics which I refused to do. And yes. I was considering to report him for personal abuse calling me a gutless wonder and accusing me of not being a real man. Read the conversation. It was on his invitation, demanding we continue the discussion on his talk page by abusing and demeaning me and then ridiculing me when I told him I would not, and wanted to keep it content focused on the article talk page instead. The edit history [49] today at User talk:HiLo48 proves I tried to detach from talking with him on his talk page. It also proves I did not take his bait and did not abuse him back when most editors would have!! So exactly what have I done here?? I decided posting it at ANI was not worth it and went out today. I've also assured the community I have absolutely no intention of EVER commenting on his talk page again. what exactly is it that you want from me here? Merphee (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee I don't believe you. My pinging you sure brought you here quickly to respond. Yet, you expect me to believe you completely missed a notification and talk page ANI notice? Lmao. Lupin VII (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a dispute between Merphee & HiLo48? Why was the report made by Skyring? GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• This complaint is worded so problematically I have a hard time believing that it's not intentional. The second diff saying he "doesn't see his comment as a personal attack" was made before he even made the personal attack being reported here. "There was no personal attack" referred to the original message, which itself referred to HiLo referring to Merphee's edit as "POV content". Looking at the edits, this is precisely a POV dispute, so calling content biased or slanted is not a personal attack, that's the dispute. You take it to the talk page and hammer out a consensus or a compromise. HiLo's comment is a bit petty, but it's impossible to overlook that it was provoked by what can only be described as protracted trolling on his own talk page. Focusing on incivility is meaningless if it's being provoked by harassment. Merphee needs to leave HiLo the hell alone. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Yes. My mistake. Not sure how that happened. I've struck it through above. Nevertheless, if HiLo is inviting Merphee to continue a content discussion on his talk page in order that he can make personal attacks in the belief that incivility is permissible there, than that is contributing to the problem. It is akin to suggesting that a discussion "be taken outside". This isn't how we make an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

POV accusations

They(HiLo48 and Merphee) accuse each other to push a POV: [50]. Please provide evidence via WP:DIFFLINKs, HiLo48 and Merphee.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unhelpful. We do not need these users to expand on their accusations of POV-pushing. This is politics. Of course everyone has a POV. What's not helpful is making accusations to begin with. They need to focus on content, and keep the content neutral relative to the sources, as decided upon by dispute resolution and consensus. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I echo Swarm's comments. Differences of opinion are fine. If one editor sees the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a hot-bed of leftist propaganda, and the other sees it as drifting dangerously close to fascism, that's fine. We have a NPOV policy and Wikipedia is a success story in balancing different points of view to produce a useful resource.

What is not okay is the use of personal abuse. I don't care if it is on a user talk page or not. We give each other latitutde on talk pages to pursue matters and conversations that would be inappropriate on an article talk page. Humour, or observations about hobbies and interests. Or - as we see here - tangential discussions to article content. But a user talk page is not an invitation to "take it outside" and hurl abuse at each other. Civility remains an important plank of Wikipedia. I don't care if one editor doesn't see it as a personal attack. If the other party feels attacked, then it is, and raising it for admin attention is appropriate.

I reverted one of Merphee's edits on the ABC article. The article described Andrew Bolt as a conservative commentator, and that is exactly what Bolt's BLP article says he is. Trying to present Bolt as middle of the road by removing the "conservative" label, as Merphee did, is misleading. I then looked at the article talk page to find that the POV difference had gone over the edge, and that HiLo was going well beyond civil intercourse. Does it matter one little bit if an editor is a "real man"? Or has any other sort of physical characteristic? It is monstrous to suggest that physical appearance or capacity determines fitness to edit here. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Skyring Judging by their block log, continued false accusations, and gaming of the system it's quite clear. Merphee is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a constructive manner. Lupin VII (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaming of the system?? False accusations?? Are you kidding. What are you talking abou tupin VII. Are you talking about HiLo48 or me? As for block history I have been blocked once! For 48 hours. That's it and it was for much less than HiLo48 calling me a "gutless wonder" and not being a real man for NOT wanting to discuss anything but content. In fact, it was because of this type of goading and abuse from HiLo48 in the past that I got caught up in the back forth incivility. HiLo48 was very nearly banned for that style of editing. I follow policy and have improved many articles. Only ytesterday during this dramna I also edited the Liberal Party of Australia article and made thiis edit [51]. How is this edit POV or not constructive to the project?? I think that so many editors get caught up with political labels it is ridiculous and have suggested we have consistency between articles. My suggestion on that article well before it was brought over to ANI shows NPOV. I'm here for the right reason and another editor agreed wholeheartedly. Merphee (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Merphee. Nor is it about HiLo. I'm starting to feel like you two maybe enjoy calling each other names. But please, not on Wikipedia. Is it so much to ask that we work politely together, even if we have massive ideological differences? We have all sorts of procedures to keep things rolling along. Calling out someone based on their behaviour here is one thing. But doing it on their gender or other physical attributes is low and brings the whole project into disrepute. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

How about everyone log off from Wikipedia for 24-48 hours and just chill? So many disputes are in the heat of the moment. Best to move on and let this complaint just go into the ANI archive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we just IBAN these two and be done with the playground level bickering? Blackmane (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the underlying problem, Blackmane. That's a bandaid. HiLo can't help what he is. He does what he thinks is right and when people take a different approach, he gets frustrated and lashes out in whatever way he can. Like a lot of our best editors. They plug away at their own interests, often for extraordinary amounts of time and effort, for zero pay. Merphee I don't know about.

The real problem is that good productive editors get upset and leave the program. Some turn against it. You've been here a long time. You've seen it time and again.

Look at WP:CIVILITY. One of our Five Pillars. Now you tell me how that squares with one editor abusing another on gender grounds, and a senior editor condoning this. Civility isn't optional. It applies everywhere and everytime:

Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

This isn't about HiLo or Merphee or low-level shit and slapping a bandaid on it. It's about the community attitude that it's fine to ignore one of the fundamental planks of our community and to condone abuse based on physical appearance and behaviour. This particular incident - and I don't think any action is required here because I get the feeling these two like throwing rocks at each other - isn't important, but the discussion needs to continue, and I'd like guidance as to where to go next.

I've been watching Wikipedia for nearly fifteen years, and I must admit I've had my moments. We've found ways around just about every problem, but we can't seem to fix being rude to each other. If it's something that can't be fixed, we should stop lying to ourselves and dump it as a pillar. The unofficial attitude seems to be that some editors can be arseholes to other editors, and get away with it. People make excuses for them. Can we either codify this, or should we just accept that Wikipedia is a jungle, and if you stick around, you're going to get abused?

Yes, I know that we IAR, but I don't think that's what was intended when that was set up. --Pete (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems these two editors have been battling for months about subjective descriptions of how some newspaper fits precisely into a subjective and unimportant left-right political continuum. How lame! I have to agree with Pete/Skyring here. I have not studied Merphee's conduct in detail and that editor really ought to be cautious. But I want to give a very specific warning to HiLo48: If it ever comes to my attention that you have called another editor a "gutless wonder" or any comparable personal attack, or impugn or malign another editor as not a real man or allude to "manhood" in the context of qualifications to edit or debate with you, I will block you myself for a very long time. That is deeply sexist, reprehensible, beyond the pale, and utterly unacceptable here. Am I clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this edit and this edit are concerning(refusal to communicate on ANI, no mention that their behaviour was wrong). I'll message them that there are still things that they should answer here - like the question if they now understand why insisting on others to be "real men" was bad.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen - I had long stopped battling Merphee. I reverted what I saw as inappropriate, unexplained edits on an article, as I would do no matter who it was from. He came to my Talk page with threats. I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting), but I also tried to deflect the conversation onto a different path entirely. (My personal and unusual views of left and right in the media - I'm happy to put my biases on the line in public.) But he wouldn't play. He persisted in attacking and hectoring me (still all on my Talk page). I got sick of it. I got angry. OK, I'm not supposed to be rude to another editor, even when provoked on my own Talk page, but really, am I not allowed to show some emotion in response to persistent, uninvited badgering like that? Note that in response to my reverting of his edits, he simply reverted (Edit warring?). He did use better Edit summaries. (Several of his earlier edits had NO Edit summaries.) Some time later he added something to that article's talk page, as I had suggested. My efforts led to better editing. So yeah, I know I shouldn't be rude, and I'll try not to in future, but seriously... HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no but acceptable when talking about that personal attacks are not acceptable. HiLo48 refuses to explicitely acknowledge that everyone, not just those percieved to be "a real man", can edit Wikipedia, and they are not seeing why this is so bad. They make at most weak apologies immediately followed by ".... but the other editor". They don't seem to have grasped the seriousness of the situation.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I know what I did was wrong, but has anyone ever come uninvited to your Talk page and repeatedly attacked you? And it's actually not true to say that everyone can edit Wikipedia. We stop people doing so for a number of reasons. And yes, I know extreme masculinity isn't one of the criteria. What, precisely, do you want from me here? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am so sick of HiLo48's personal abuse, constant demeaning and belittling of me and many other editors. HiLo48 just said in his comment directly above "I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting). How is this not belittling? What is an editor to do with this abuse? Seriously admins, what is any editor supposed to do with that? I didn't take his bait and then the abuse kept going and getting more intense. Culminating in toxic comments about my gender, accusing me of not being a real man and calling me a gutless wonder? HiLo48 has a very long history of constant demeaning abuse toward all other editors who disagree with him. I feel Wikipedia in 2019 should not tolerate disgusting comments about what a real man shou;ld be! This is pure filth and I want it to stop. I am a real man! Thanks very much HiLo48! The edit history [52] from yesterday at User talk:HiLo48 shows me being dragged into a discussion about anything but content. I kept trying to leave it. I did not go there to threaten him. I went there to tell him not to falsely accuse me of POV as I considered it abusive. HiLo48's inline comments goading me and accusing me of not being a real man simply because I refused to discuss anything but content and not take the bait. I kept asking him to instead comment on the article talk page but he didn't. In the end I completely ignored him. To which he then called me a gutless wonder! I mean what is a real man supposed to be in 2019 HiLo48? Fight you? And if I back away I’m accused of not being a real man! He has said it to me on a number of occasions before, so it's nothing new for him and he has said it to others too I'm sure and his deeply ingrained beliefs about men and women. What does this abuse imply more broadly? Why is it tolerated here on Wikipedia? HiLo48 continues to make a joke of it and implies it won't stop. I don't think he even understands how truly f'ed up saying that actually is in modern times. Merphee (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This time, I'm not biting. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, what I want from you is primarily to drop the "extreme" in your last post to me. And never post like this again. If that's the way you think, keep it aside it when editing Wikipedia or it will probably be determined that you are one of the people you talk about in your last post - those who cannot edit Wikipedia anymore.

Merphee(same user)And do NOT mock people. Do NOT give in into that temptation. It's against our policies. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you continue to do that you'll end up with a siteban, eventually.

This is for both of you: When you feel attacked, raise it on the talk page of the editor, politely. If the behaviour you don't like continues or the editor dismisses the concern without a valid reason, post a report here, politely. This will cause the minimum of inconvenience to you and having only one editor behaving badly makes the road to a solution much clearer, and the solution will at least not be bad for you.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not mocking anyone. However I will completely abide by all of that advice and genuinely apologise to the community for my part in this mess and wasting everyone's time. I will also never post anything on Hilo48's talk page again and will keep away from him wherever possible. Merphee (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I completely misread something. I am very sorry about that. You were indeed not mocking anyone.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that Lurking shadow. I appreciate it. Regardless, my apology to the community for my part in this remains. Merphee (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 many of us let our emotions show sometimes and even something that in other circumstances would cross the line may be ignored because of what lead up to it. But I agree with Cullen328, talking about someone not being a "real man" is way too over the line to just ignore so if it's repeated a long block is quite reasonable. BTW, if someone is bothering you on your talk page and your getting sick of it, your best solution is probably to ask them to leave at least for a few days. It's generally accepted that if someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, they should respect that barring reasonable exceptions like essential notices and of course that this isn't misused to avoid scrutiny. I don't care to know the details of the dispute, but I see no reason why it couldn't be resolved in the relevant article talk pages so I don't see that there was any harm in making the request in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (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.

Abusive user

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.

---

UCaetano (talk) has initiated in Edit-Warring and threatening various users, including myself and others. He/She/They has attempted to censor an article by removing previous information and engaging in antagonistic behavior towards users who properly cited various information. I have requested that the page. I requested the following on the Teahouse page:

Greetings, while I have exercised good faith to the best of my abilities, it appears that the Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page is under attack. User User talk:UCaetano engaged in Edit-Warring by removing a revision that brought back a controversial and well-documented (across several mediums) fact that DC_Comics 's well known Batman: A Death in the Family story arc involved a plot point where the Joker_(character) gasses the UN Assembly on behalf of Iran, as its ambassador. Various sources have stated that this was done during peak strain between the US and Iran. It led to the creation of the fictional nation-state Qurac as a replacement for Iran in future prints. This fact (undeniable as comic prints of it have been scanned, DC staff interviewed, etc) was in earlier versions of "Anti-Iranian Sentiment". User AntiRacistZwei (who brought this to my attention) had brought back the information and clarified various tid-bits in the article. Soon after, UCaetano began an edit war and accused AntiRacistZwei of "Weasel talk" (eventhough the given sources were already a part of the article), and after several edits (including my own to fix grammar), accused myself of "Edit-Warring". I initially had chosen to engage peacefully and to de-escalate, explaining my relation to Anti-Racist-Zwei and our aim to clean up/verify the article. The user ignored the message and soon after, undid the entire edit. I once again looked at UCaetano's page to contact them, however, I noticed something alarming on their Talk page and it appears that this individual has vandalized other pages then threatened to report users for "Edit-Warring". User talk:Tim.thelion brought this up with UCaetano on May 2018 on their talk page, which resulted in UCaetano claiming that UCaetano had reported Tim and that Tim the Lion should avoid "edit warring", eventhough UCaetano was being questioned by Tim on possibly-hostile Re-visionary behavior (IE, Vandalism)."

I have documented the user's page as well, as I investigated. It appears that the user has been doing this for a while. Please helpRodianreader (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodianreader, please explain how Antiracistzwei has brought this to [your] attention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, they mentioned it during class. We are currently attending "Studies on Human Genocide" at a University in California. I do not regularly speak with Antiracistzwei, though I can confirm that they are either a History major or in the History department. They seem to be of Middle Eastern descent and have spoken in a language I cannot discern. I myself and another classmate have been monitoring this situation and it appears that UCaetano has been rude towards new users (and dishonest about engagement). They undid an entire edit, claimed "weasel talk", then claimed that I myself was "Edit-Warring" while I had fixed grammar. Lastly, the edits made were clarifications and one addition (the inclusion of a Comic book that was well documented and previously on the page, as it was hateful towards Iranians during high-tensions between Iran and the US). UCaetano appears to be abusing the report system as well as disregarding "good faith". I hope the answer sufficed, as I am a graduate student with a minor in writing. I specialize in grammatical corrections and have made several edits on other articles before, cleaning up sentences and the sort. Rodianreader (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a run-of-the-mill content dispute that should be discussed at Talk:Anti-Iranian sentiment, where no discussion has taken place since May. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Rodianreader: A couple of things since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia.

1. A content dispute like the one you seem to be having is supposed to be resolved on the article's talk page per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Nobody, not even you yourself, has attempted to do this. ANI is not really intended to resolve these kinds of disputes. Moreover, it doesn't really matter how long ago content was added to an article as explained in WP:CONTENTAGE; when someone removes it (unless it's clearly a case of WP:VANDAL), then it's considered to be contentious. At that point, the burden generally rests upon those wanting to re-add the content to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to do on the relevant article's talk page. Any attempt to "force" the content into the article without doing this is likely going to be seen as edit warring no matter how right the person trying to re-add the content believes they are.
2. When you discuss the behavior of another editor at ANI, you're required to notify them of that you have done so as explained at the very top of this page. You don't seem to have notified UCaetano of this discussion yet; so, please do so asap. Please don't just post a general message like "you've been reported"; use Template:ANI notice instead.
3. If you're going to accuse another editor of doing something improper that warrants administrator intervention, you're going to need to provide WP:DIFFs to the edits or behavior which you feel needs to be reviewed. Unsupported accusations against another editor might be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS, and you shouldn't expect administrators to go digging through page histories to find "evidence" of unacceptable behavior.
4. You should read WP:BOOMERANG and Wikipedia:ANI advice because there's no immunity for reporters at ANI; in other words. administrators are likely going to take a close look at your edits and behavior as well which is why you shouldn't really appear to be inserting yourself into discussions (some which are over a year old and for all intents and purposes finished) between UCaetano and other editors on his talk page by adding comments like this, this, and this or really be making comments like this on the user talk pages of other editors. There may be problems with the behavior of this editor, but that's for the Community, not you, to decide and your constant posting on UCaetano's talk page (including posting links to screenshots of his contribution history that you or someone else uploaded to imgur.com) has a good chance of being seen as harassment per WP:HARRASS.

My suggestion to you, now that you've started this ANI, is to simply stay away from UCaetano, stay off his user talk page and stop posting about him on the user talk pages of others because none of those things are going to convince administrators that UCaetano's behavior is a problem, but it might make them think that your behavior is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Antiracistzwei and Rodianreader have been checkuser-blocked. This section can be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2019 (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.

Wassily Kandinsky

This page is under attack by a team(?) of vandals: User:Rodriguehsdiu User:甘锦上 User:Boscohuang IP:218.253.132.5 ...apparently all SPA/vandal only. Perhaps the page needs temporary protection, and user blocks? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, NinjaRobotPirate. Back in 1969 when I had just turned 17, I took the money I had earned as a restaurant dishwasher and flew from Detroit to New York where I saw Broadway plays starring James Earl Jones and Woody Allen, and then went to the Guggenheim Museum where I saw an exhibit of Wassily Kandinsky's work which is seared into my mind 50 years later. I simply cannot understand why somebody would take the time and effort to vandalize an article about a Russian abstract painter who died in 1944. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Kandinsky gets a passing reference in a Monty Python episode - the one where Picasso paints whilst riding a bicycle - I've no clue myself.--WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting Sourced information under a false edit summary

@My very best wishes: recommended the book Icebreaker then all of a sudden they deleted the Sourced information on the page for Icebreaker.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union&diff=916481834&oldid=916481666
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013

This is the comment by @Paul Siebert: that made my file this case the Statement is under the TheTimesAreAChanging case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging

MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit.

Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.

By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651

And this is another comment by @Icewhiz: that made it seem like POV pushing to me,

MVBW actions here on content (Icebreaker by Suvorov) described in academic literature as "overarching conspiracy theories" (source: Slavic Review) merits very close scrutiny from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective Adding - Icebreaker transfers responsibility for World War II from Hitler to Stalin

Statement is under the TheTimesAreAChanging case https:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

This is again mostly incoherent. I recommend removing it, but I won't do it again. There is a huge whiff of incompetence here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I made it shorter to Fix that Jack90s15 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Shorter incoherent is better than longer incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am trying you can make it out this one moreJack90s15 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Jack90s15 has been previously discussed on the ANI. The debated issue was WP:CIR. I agree that the issue is most probably WP:CIR, although I can not exclude that Jack90s15 does in on purpose to create disruption, or that he simply does not care. I have no objections to speedy closing this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

From the other ANI discussion that was brought up one comment said I improved the other said I do a good job at fighting vandalism, and one said I needed some extra help and that I was trying my best.

• I have been continuously fighting vandalism and removing edits that consists of people blanking entire pages and sock puppets.
• I helped an article make good article status and worked with a group of editors on it.
• I know I'm not a perfect editor with a golden record but I have made up for my mistakes.
• It's concerning a editor that is on the platform all of a sudden Starts removing academic sourced information under a false pretense that was a put by a reliable user.

Jack90s15 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Jack for a combination of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:DE. The last straw was this report he filed at SPI, which I have closed as retaliatory.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to read this. Looking over the previous discussion of User:Jack90s15 at ANI, I see that various people have conceded that he was a "net positive" at some articles they were working on, and I likewise thought that his conduct was OK at Soviet Union and Talk:Soviet Union. But, what do I know about how the rules are enforced around here. If there is further discussion, I will pay attention to it. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, that user did intentional spamming, on a borderline of vandalism. For example he copy-pasted the same unreadable and poorly formatted text article here, then repeated it on the same page again, again, and finally posted very same text here, on the ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see why this guy could be vexing to have a talk page discussion with. Going back to Talk:Soviet Union, I see he didn't copy over that exact passage, but he copied over some lengthy passage by Paul Siebert from some other talk page, etc.

I don't mean to defend this behavior, but it is paradoxical to see WP:NOTHERE describing a guy with barnstars and whatnot on his user page. Well, life hits us with paradoxes sometimes.

Would a topic ban or some such be appropriate? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

After interacting with that user, I think this block was completely appropriate. In addition to being completely unable to conduct civil discussions (he was unable or unwilling to understand any arguments by others), the user was engaged in ridiculous WP:BATTLE, such as this ANI thread and SPI report. He had a unique combination of WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced defamatory claims about South African security services

A number of similar IP addresses have been making some unsourced and controversial claims in various articles about companies and individuals, apparently accusing them of being part of some kind of corrupt conspiracy involving South African security services. See for example:

• 41.133.68.149 this, this, this and others
• 41.113.33.59 this, this and this
• 41.113.224.164 this this and this.

This came to my attention after I reverted one of the additions above, and the IP reached out on my talk page saying that this was ruining their life. My initial response was to advise them to find some sources to support their assertion, but then I dug a bit deeper and found the extent of what they'd been doing. I've reverted what I've found, but I am not an expert at searching contributions of IP ranges, and there may be more stuff like the above from other IPs that I haven't found, so bringing it here for wider attention. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you tell them about WP:RGW?Lurking shadow (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I've had no further discussion with them since I saw the extent of what they'd been doing. Sorry if I haven't been clear - I'm not here to complain about their behaviour, I'm here because I don't know enough about IP ranges to be certain whether I've caught all of their additions, or indeed whether they're still adding content like this. Any assistance from an IP range wizard would be welcome. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the range Special:Contributions/41.113.0.0/16 for 48 hours due to the surprisingly large amount of vandalism. Though it is unclear how a single individual could hop so rapidly. I didn't notice any smaller range that would do the job. After the block expires, if the person continues to add strange claims about the South African security services, maybe semiprotection could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston - I'll take a look through the contributions within that range and see whether there's anything else about this that needs to go. I'll obviously page protection in mind if they continue to target the same articles. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

CodeInconnu

User:CodeInconnu has shown a chronic pattern of edit-warring and intractable behavioral issues, frequently personalizing content disputes and casting those with whom they disagree as lacking in intelligence.

Immediately after registering on en.wiki, CodeInconnu began edit warring on the 2017 Barcelona attacks. You can read through the massive wall of text here, but CodeInconnu's first few posts already showed an unnecessary level of antagonism:

• "opinion pieces carry the authority of the writer, not the paper": wrong [53] (after being told that an opinion piece published in The Guardian is not the same as a Guardian editorial)
• The only intelligent thing you've said among all of your hogwash is [54]
• By the way, shits and fucks are usually given, not cared [about]. Merriam Webster. You're welcome. [55]

Their editing in this area pulled the first of their EW warnings [56] and ended with an ANI case where CodeInconnu lobbed PAs at a number of users [57] [58] [59]. CodeInconnu moved on to Citizens (Spanish political party) (you can read the massive walls of text starting here). There was significant incivility from a variety of editors, but CodeInconnu continues to stand out. Excerpts:

• My "rant" may be incomprehensible to you (how surprising) but it won't be to the people reading it when they decide whether or not to block you, which you seem to be begging for with your puerile ad-hominem gibberish. . . We've all had tantrums on Wiki over the months and even years, nobody is perfect, but intelligent people learn from them. Maybe you'd feel more at home in the Spanish wiki. [60])
• This might not fit in your black-and-white narrative, but nothing does really, which is why you sound so clueless. [61]
• I really don't know why this is so hard to understand. Are you sure you think things over before writing them down? [62]
• Like I told you in the change log, if you have references to other things you should add it to. Otherwise just stop being a nuisance. You're not in the Spanish wikipedia now. [63]

When CodeInconnu filed a request at DRN [64], it was closed as incomprehensible and with a civility warning, which earned these ugly responses [65] [66] [67]

At Talk:Tabarnia, behavior became so bad (and off-topic) it was hatted by another editor [68]. CodeInconnu has since moved to primarily editing film plots and has racked up a number of warnings and reminders to observe both BRD and MOSFILM [69] [70] [71] [72] (largely ignored, other than the FILMPLOT length guideline) while still picking up civility warnings [73]. CodeInconnu's most recent edit warring was at Jair Bolsonaro in June 2019, where their insistence on adding the category "Racism in Brazil" to Bolsonaro's page had them ignoring BRD when they were reverted, instead playing chicken with 3RR and insulting users on their own pages; CodeInconnu never once posted on the Jair Bolsonaro talkpage.

My first encounter with CodeInconnu was after a fairly routine reversion [74] [75], where CodeInconnu responded on the talkpage by opening a discussion in which they exhibited resistance to BRD and took an unprovoked swipe at my intelligence [76]. The discussion basically devolved from that point; they also tried to re-insert the disputed content while the discussion was ongoing. Once they began boasting about intellect (Not sure who you think you're talking to (or who you're used to deal with) but I have a 3-digit IQ and I've watched this film several times, thank you very much), I disengaged. I later thanked another user on their talkpage for an earlier effort to intervene, where CodeInconnu showed up and attempted to continue [77].

There's a clear overall pattern of incivility when challenged and an unwillingness to engage collaboratively. I think they're entirely capable of being constructive (this apparent effort at shit-stirring notwithstanding [78]), but at the very least, they need a formal warning from an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is why Grandpallama didn't reply to anything else for days: he was busy compiling all the negative bits of my entire Wiki history. Fortunately for me, I don't have that much free time available so I can't pay attention to Grandpallama or to the very dishonest way in which he tried to curry favour in User:Nardog's page (copying carefully chosen incomplete interchanges to try to paint me as problematic, etc). An individual who threatens he'll take things to ANI at the next (perceived) slight, then takes it to ANI anyway just because the other user he was trying to woo did not see him as any less toxic than myself and erased all comments to their talk page, is a person who cannot make a constructive contribution to this encyclopedia. The mere fsct he turned me into his own private project during these days is indicative of a very unsound behaviour and I'll be sure to trigger a Wikipedia:HOUNDING here if this behaviour persists. Grandpallama, I may have a temper but I'm essentially a reasonable guy. You, on the other hand, need help. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Coming in hot with additional personal attacks and an accusation of hounding is not going to convince anyone at ANI that you don't have a civility problem. I warned you future personal attacks would result in ANI, and you chose to double down and continue. My (admittedly unsolicited) advice to you is that you consider addressing the diffs that have been provided; this is not about a conflict between you and me, but about an ongoing pattern of behavior, of which our encounter was only a small, and recent, part. By the way--making claims about what I did or didn't do, such as accusing me of selective quoting at someone's page to curry favor, without diffs is also a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused about a number of things, but especially the boundaries of what constitutes a personal attack. The selective quoting, the snowflake behaviour and the unctuous flattery of a third party is there to see by anyone who understands how to browse diffs in page histories. And I repeat what I told you earlier: you don't get to tell me what to do. I don't even think you're an admin and you're very right; your advice is completely unsolicited. Get over your obsession about me because it's not doing you any good, and the worst thing that could happen to me is being blocked from a place that is neither a central part of my time nor my source of monthly salary. Big deal. CodeInconnu (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

ps/ In fact, many of the things I've written that you label as personal attacks or insults barely qualify as oblique criticism. Like I said, you can't even distinguish between the two. Not only is your ANI section ill-intentioned, it is basically mendacious. ANI should be used as a resolution centre, not as a passive-aggressive weapon. This is the classical behaviour of pulling the headmistress' skirt in a school playground while pointing at someone else saying "missus, missus, he's been bad to me". CodeInconnu (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Try pullin’ at this skirt and see what happens.

EEng

With your 3-digit IQ you should know that the right word is classic. (Classical would be — I don’t know — doing it in Wagnerian garb maybe.) EEng 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

English is my third language and occasionally I make mistakes. You haven't exactly made a valid point here. CodeInconnu (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Or your 3-digit IQ doesn't enable you to see it. EEng 14:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you're trying to assist Grandpallama in making their point that I'm a confrontational user, but what looks like a good idea in your head might be not so out in the open (it's a process called epistemological oxidation). It rather looks as though you're trying to earn an ANI section yourself instead. Quoting what you said to another user days ago, I mean this in all sincerity.,, You do good work for the project, and I hope that will continue. But you have to accept that there are things you don’t understand, and let them go. Please. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I’ve been unable to find anything on “epistemological oxidation” (though I did find something on oxidation epistemology). My point, since you apparently haven’t got it yet, is that if you really must brag about your intelligence you should take extra care to review before saving for a while. EEng 18:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh-huh. I'm sure Grandpallama loves the service you're doing to his cause by acting like this so do keep it coming. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact: two-thirds of humanity have a three-digit IQ which, you know, means you're perfectly average. Grandpallama (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's pretty understandable that anyone brought to ANI is going to be angry and upset, but as of yet, not a single diff has been provided for the accusations CodeInconnu has thrown around. Not a single explanation or accounting has been provided for the diffs I presented in the initial filing. And there still doesn't seem to be a recognition that this is about a broader pattern of behavior, or even that anything is wrong with that behavior. I came recommending a formal warning, but this seems like we have edged into block territory. Grandpallama (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@CodeInconnu: It would be good to see some kind of recognition from you that your behavior, per the examples given above, could be more polite, and less condescending. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully admit so and I regret those past episodes. As I said earlier, I do have a temper. Having said that, I don't believe giving a compact list of all my past sins the way it's been done here by a single user (who was uninvolved in the earlier episodes he has listed, and has tacitly erected himself as an ad-hoc arbiter on whether or not I deserve to be blocked) is a behaviour that should be condoned or encouraged. Also, the user who started this section only tackled the topics I was addressing once throughout the discussion, and it was to say "thank you for your inputs". A user who avoids the discussion at hand and only focuses on the other part's etiquette is only bound to make the argument worse. This section should have never been started, and Grandpallama is not using ANI properly. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything you have said thus far is disingenuous garbage or unsubstantiated allegation. Moreover, I'm pinging NinjaRobotPirate as the only admin who has interacted with this account and who also happens to be a checkuser. It's been brought to my attention (and some digging into diffs substantiates the duck-like behavior) that you are almost certainly Walter Sobchak0, indeffed for chronic incivility and WP:NOTHERE behavior. Behavior, editing interests, and diction are exactly the same. One doesn't have to look much farther than the ANI report that resulted in your previous block. First, your edits completely overlap in terms of editing interests, including the films that both accounts have touched. In that ANI report, Walter Sobchak0 tells other users to "grow up" or "leave WP editing to those who know what they're doing", just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complains that an ANI report is pulling on a skirt, just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complained about "lumpen", just as you have in the hatted talkpage comment I cited, and complained about how they lower the level of discourse, just as you have; Walter Sobchak0 complained about one of his removed edits that Jordi Borràs may be a photo-journalist but he's still an expert in far-right politics which is almost exactly the same defense you offered about inserting similar language on the very same talkpage a year later [79]; Walter Sobchak0 ends complaints about how other editors don't grasp his positions with statements like I don't know why this is so hard to understand., verbatim as you have; Walter Sobchak0 misrepresents the gathering of diffs of their history, just as you have here there has to be some form of admonishment policy against what Asqueladd just did, rescuing past conversations out of oblivion and lumping them all together to attack a user's character in order to make a (political) point.; Walter Sobchak0 uses the skirt metaphor a second time, almost verbatim to you, followed by (again almost verbatim) your "big deal, I don't edit here much anyway" comment at the opening of this thread So in a nutshell, you felt protective of "your" wiki article and came here pulling the headmaster's skirt: "señorita, me ha insultado!". Big deal. The worst that can happen to me is being banned from a place that I only visit sporadically--and rather whimsically, I must say. NinjaRobotPirate, please let me know if you feel I need to open a formal SPI or if the quacking here is loud enough to dispense with that. Also pinging CactusWriter as the blocking admin of Walter Sobchak0 for any insight they might have. Grandpallama (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Overlooked this additional obvious quack from the same ANI report: I'm not earning a salary from wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked CodeInconnu for 48 hours for his personal attack that I removed on this noticeboard.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, definitely looks like a sock to me. In fact, it looks like CactusWriter already indefinitely blocked him as a sock while I was comparing the two accounts' edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. I've blocked User:CodeInconnu indefinitely as a sock of User:Walter_Sobchak0 per the WP:DUCK evidence. There were a couple of other clear similarities in their film plot edits. I'll file an SPI for the record. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops--and Berean Hunter, too! Grandpallama (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I take it, that when CodeInconnu says here: "If you're proven right [that I'm a sock], this is just another station along the way" he means that if he is blocked he will just start a new account. So we should be on the lookout for such. Paul August ☎ 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. As well that he may IP edit in between now and the next potential sock. Grandpallama (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:HD Slayer 38484

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 continuing to add inappropriate content without references.

Here they remove the warning[80] confirming that they do not plan to add sources.

The text they are adding is very poor.[81][82]

We should probably block them IMO. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff as WP:NOTHERE considering their outright refusal to use sources, and for this eugenics pushing [83] edit. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed per the atrocious eugenics diff. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2019 (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.

24.248.221.30

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.

---

Over at Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us an IP has maded some well dodgy posts.

[[84]]

[[85]]

That have nothing to do with the topic and are OR soapboxing (and violations of BLP).

I went to their talk page to find there are already multiple warnings going back a while. So I think warnings are not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's probably a school. I blocked the IP for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2019 (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 Nicoljaus

User Nicoljaus returned his version ([86], [87], [88]) in article John of Kronstadt, did not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko ([89]), ([90]), but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club ([91]). I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, where should I write or can I correct his phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The best way to solve this is talking it out, which I see you folks have been doing on the talk page. I will chime in my 2 cents there to try to move this content dispute along. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What Aleksei m does is ordinary trolling. All his comments, all his nit-picking is nonsense. He himself will not contribute anything constructive to the article. He has one goal – to remove from the article all the negative facts about John (anti-Semitism, the patronage of the sect, the excuse of Kishinev pogrom, the shameful escape from Kronstadt) and make the Life of the saint from this article. To do this, he will seek a ban for his opponents. So he acts everywhere.Wlbw68 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is boomerang territory. I tried to engage at the talk page, and got a combination of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. This dispute? Over the use of the word "moreover". Aleksei seems impervious to logic, and is incensed that someone would use the "moreover" instead of "however" or "also". Perhaps a language barrier? Or just a competence barrier. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained why it is no need to use the word "moreover" and did not receive substantive objections on the Talk Page of the article. Aleksei m (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a language barrier here, as "moreover" does not connotate what Aleksei seems to think it does. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the barrier? I have provided a link according to which the word "moreover" means "also and more importantly" ([92]). Why is the second phrase "After the 1990 the rehabilitation of the sectarian Ioannites started" more important for the article than first phrase: "John was subsequently canonized by the Moscow Patriarchate"? Aleksei m (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Per dictionary.com, moreover means "in addition to what has been said; further; besides"(ref1), no mention of importance. Per Merriam Webster, "in addition to what has been said : BESIDES"(ref2), no mention of importance. Per the Macmillan dictionary, "used for introducing an additional and important fact that supports or emphasizes what you have just said"(ref3), does not say more important. I do not think it means what you think it means.--Darth Mike^(talk) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Macmillan Publishers writes "used for introducing an additional and important fact". Why it is necessary to point out this fact as important, while it is not directly related to John of Kronstadt? Aleksei m (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aleksei m:While you still clearly do not understand the meaning of the word, perhaps lets examine why you don't like the perceived meaning. The Ionnites were a sect based around John of Kronstadt, thus their rehabilitation at the same time of John of Kronstadt are facts that seem associated. Do you not like this association? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not like that the information about the rehabilitation of the sectarians is presented as more important than the canonization of Father John. For example: When the added information is of approximately equal "strength," use in addition or also...When the added information is stronger than the information preceding it, use moreover or furthermore ([93]). Aleksei m (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No opinion on the underlying issues, but Aleksei is correct that moreover carries a distinct connotation (if not denotation) of "Even more significantly", "And not only that", or "And here's the clincher...". EEng 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages

This is the second time asking help for this matter due to continued vandalism. Last time it was archived without even a reply. Last post:

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see.

New IPs: 1, 2. This guy has now created user accounts, Ayisha1209 [94], you can see other edits are all exaggerating the box office numbers of Mammootty films and the same "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7", now blocked and created M0hamedr0shan007 the next day [95], same activity and articles and the "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7" and there is Xskullxxrider, Bharathkm54321. Please use a check user or anything and find out who this is. 2405:204:D285:C47F:955F:3C32:2586:C082 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• A film about breast cancer screening is a worthy project and I hope those involved can resolve their differences. EEng 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  What does that mean? 2405:204:D30A:9DB9:854D:97BC:7D37:892A (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Mamangam. At least I'm keeping your thread from being archived. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  The idea is to resolve this issue. It's not about thread archiving. 2409:4073:8F:CF10:6C80:6F50:F05A:966E (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• There's an ongoing war between fans of Mammootty and Mohanlal. This is yet another permutation of that. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harirajmohanhrm/Archive, and note that is from 2014. It doesn't stop, no matter how many blocks and page protections are placed. We have to remain vigilant and whack them as they come up. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The same vandalist

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

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

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

• 213.162.80.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

• 212.241.98.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Actually this person keep changing his IP for editing pages. So, it's difficult to stop his vandalism.--115.23.23.13 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

213.162.64.0/19 and 212.241.98.39 are both blocked now. It is a sock and may be reverted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wild Cats

I can see that you took my edits of categories on many different pages to be a sort of vandalism (stalking my user history in retaliation). But I see that you took the time to add and improve sources and content where indicated, and this is the constructive outcome which is desirable from all Wikipedia edits. I thank you for taking the time to make the corrections and build the accuracy of these articles. If the category tags are saying something which the article does not support, they do not belong. It is Wikipedia policy to avoid overcategorization WP:OVERCAT. Not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. When a non-neutral category such as LGBT is pasted onto an article which makes no mention, passing mention, or slight mention of a subjects sexual identification and association with LBGT culture this is not appropriate for Wikipedia - UNLESS high quality sources associate the subject with this as well. There are many number of magazines, blogs, and small media outlets which make very clear that they exist to promote a LGBT bias. These are poor sources for Wikipedia in general (You will not find a single LGBT news source listed as reliable at WP:RSP). If these are the only published references to a subjects association with LGBT culture, then it does not meet the WP standard of "Defining Characteristic". And the CATS should be removed until the article and/or sources are improved.

"The content of each biography contained in this category (LGBT) or its subcategories should clarify how being LGBT is a significant part of the public life or notability of its subject, according to reliable published sources." Category:LGBT people. "LGBT is or was a significant part of their public life or notability"

"Famous persons who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not included" List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

In the instance of Chavela Vargas the CATS were saying more than the article could support. The only mention in the article of her sexual identification was from a book which the article did not cite as a source. You then cited the book from an unreliable source Pride Publishing Inc. If you are confident that the subject meet WP policy then you should not have trouble finding more reliable sources to support the statements and the CATS.

In the instance of Calvin Klein The article says simply that Klein dated a man (appearing as a rumor) and the source cited is tabloid journalism with suspect reliability WP:RSP. This, on it's own, fails all of the points noted from WP policy above and the use of the CATS: LGBT Men / LGBT Fashion designers is clearly making a statement which is not contained or cited in the article itself. Klein is a well known subject. If LGBT is a significant part of Klein's public life or notability then there should be abundant reliable sources which could be used to support improving the article to contain this information. Without this - the CATS are unsupported as well and may be deleted.

This problem has been identified among many thousands of articles and I intend to help edit and improve as many as I can. I would ask you to join me on this journey, but unfortunately you have publicly indicated a personal bias in LGBT topics WP:COI WP:NPOV. Caution must be exercised when working on articles where a conflict of interest may be readily identified. Thanks again for helping where you can.--Luke Kindred (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, Could I ask for your guidance here? You have more experience in these matters. Specifically the category removals on Alan Bates, and Calvin Klein. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia most certainly does not have any rule that LGBT-themed sources are verboten. WP:RSP is not a complete list of all the sources we're ever allowed to use — it is is a reference list for the status of a certain specific tier of sources that tend to come up for a lot of debate about their status, but it is not a comprehensive list of every single source that we accept at all. A source being listed there is not necessarily a green light to use it (note that it lists many sources as bad ones), and a source not being listed there is not a strike against using it. It is most certainly not the case that if a source is not listed there, it is automatically unreliable and unusable — there are, in fact, many LGBT-oriented sources, including The Advocate and Daily Xtra and the Washington Blade and Bay Windows and the Bay Area Reporter and the Windy City Times and others, that are perfectly acceptable for use as sources for Wikipedia content where appropriate. We have criteria for what defines a reliable source, and there are plenty of LGBT-focused publications that fully meet them — there are also many that don't, but that's true of the non-LGBT webmedia landscape too.

And you know what else isn't listed in RSP? Any Canadian news sources at all; ABC News; CBS News; NBC News; any American newspapers besides the NYT, the WaPo and the LA Times. If RSP meant what Luke Kindred seems to think it means, in other words, then nearly the entire North American news media landscape would be unusable. But again, the fact that they're not listed there doesn't mean they're unacceptable sources — it just means their reliability doesn't come up as a subject of debate at the reliable source discussion boards very often, because it isn't actually in question at all.

Now, all of that said, I'm not particularly willing to fight to the death over the sexualities of either Alan Bates or Calvin Klein; I don't know a lot about either of their personal lives, and I will admit that the content that's in the articles is kind of ambiguous about how they did or didn't identify themselves. But Luke Kindred is definitely misusing RSP — if he thinks that removing content about an LGBT person's sexual orientation from their article, just because it's referenced to sources that haven't been listed in RSP, then he's very wrong about what RSP is even for. And WP:ANI may come into play if he doesn't stop doing that. And that's all I'm going to say about that. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight on this, you said it much better than I think I would have. Luke Kindred seems to have been systematically removing LGBTQ categories and content. Each article I came across led me to dig further. Let’s hope this resolved the issue. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I have reverted your addition of LGBT categories to Calvin Klein. In order for categories regarding sexuality to be included in a BLP they must be supported by reliably sourced content, there must be self-identification from the subject of the article, and it needs to be a defining characteristic of the individual. WP:BLPCAT and it's subset WP:EGRS is clear on the policy in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT doesn’t seem to have any information? It’s a redirect to an extensive page but I didn’t see category info with the rules you outlined? I’ll look into EGRS. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT should take you directly the correct section of the policy. If you're not able to find it, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates should work.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT didn’t seem to work but WP:EGRS was perfect! Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please also read through Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates as it documents the overriding policy regarding categories in biographies of living persons. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTHERE behaviour by Cassandrathesceptic

This recent ANI discussion resulted in the indefinite block of User:92.14.216.40, by User:Cullen328, as WP:NOTHERE.

Towards the end of the discussion, subsequent to the indef decision, I noted that "A number of participants in this discussion and on my talk page have raised suspicions regarding close similarities to the POVs, editing, misattribution of views by, and IP range of, User:Cassandrathesceptic and their plethora of associated IP socks. It has also been noted that whether the individuals responsible are the same or different, their behaviour is equally unhelpful. Should we also act to close off this 7-year+ similarly hugely time-wasting, NOTHERE campaign?"

This open incitement, today, by Cassandrathesceptic to 92.14.216.40 to "register with a Wiki-user name then start again" puts their WP:NOTHERE attitude in no doubt. Can sanctions be imposed please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Add trolling the Scots and very limited activity, this user is not here to help. I have blocked. Guy (help!) 21:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion

Had legal threats placed on my talk page.[96] Also had them emailed to me.

2400:4150:880:aa00:7944:c24:d1c3:fd06 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 49.251.64.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) likely the same and related to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the first IP for making legal threats, but leaving this open in case a different kind of block is appropriate and also for a WP:DOLT analysis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Vague legal threats, unclear what their relation to the topic is, and the "defamatory" content (presumably the negative information in the article, like the issues with a study, the fact that a doctor was practicing medicine without a license, or the general consensus that the practice is snake oil) was all well-sourced from reputable sources. This is a POV-pusher resorting to legal threats, plain and simple. Good block, no DOLT here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's try not to break NPA, even in edit summaries, eh Creffett? I know POV pushers can be frustrating, but rudeness merely escalates and inflames the situation. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 13:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, okay, I thought it was un-directed enough that it wasn't a PA (and I genuinely didn't mean it with regards to the IPs here, it was more of a general sentiment), but if you think it was over the line, then bad on me. Comment retracted, I'd strike it if you could actually strike edit summaries. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I could see you were making a pun. Just, it was calling people dolts, which is an attack. There are more polite ways of telling people that a certain belief is pseudoscience. You just have to resist the straight lines and puns calling out to you!  :-D KillerChihuahua 13:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good! My plan is working puhrrrfectly!

EEng

I blame EEng's corrupting influence. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I honestly don't get the reference. Can you fill me in? A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's Creffett/Creffpublic's reference; I'm just the corrupting influence. EEng 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI aspect becomes clear in the email they sent me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat 218.185.239.138

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 my talk page: "Please stop your disruptive behaviour(s), or legal action(s) may be taken. Thank you." This came after repeated removal of sourced content and a warning about that on their talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

lwarned. El_C 16:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: And Continuing: not here to improve the encyclopedia. Enough is enough. PamD 09:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for doubling-down on legal threat. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:46, 25 September 2019 (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.

Tracy Von Doom: Master socker or innocent victim?

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'm here about a user called Tracy Von Doom that I stumbled across. According to User talk:Tracy Von Doom#Previous accounts? they have had multiple accounts blocked previously as socks of (at least two?) blocked users. But they deny they were guilty, and seem to be doing great work. I've no clue what's going on here, or what to do, or even if anything even should be done. Seems though these blocks might be wrong. Anybody have any thoughts on this? 89.240.129.199 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses for multiple accounts. The user there seems to have had many accounts, and sometimes they've had those accounts blocked as evident socks, but they are saying the uses of the accounts were legitimate. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2019 (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.

Blocking question

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 concerned about several recent blocks at AIV, for example a recent IP was warned, and self reverted. I commented that they'd self reverted and I'd watch to see if they made any further edits. They didn't, but another admin chose to block for 6 months. This is not the first time I've seen this admin block editors with no warning, very stale warnings, etc., and block editors when another admin has declined blocking, using the AIV decline templates to give their rationale for not blocking. AIV is not insert nickel, get a block - admins are supposed to use discretion. Blocking policy is still Blocks should not be punitive and AIV is clear that vandalism must be recent and ongoing. I hesitate to call the admin who is doing this out, as I'm certain s/he feels s/he is protecting the encyclopedia, but I am at a loss as to how to address this issue with them. AIV has become an easy way to get someone blocked, I'm sorry to say - if someone is reported, 99/100 they're blocked regardless of whether it's a content dispute, edit war, test edit, etc. This is an incident for which I am seeking guidance in how to handle. Suggestions welcome. KillerChihuahua 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs and name the administrator? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Well yes I can, but I'm trying to avoid a confrontational situation, which is why I didn't. I thought I was fairly clear with "I hesitate to call the admin who is doing this out" but if you cannot comment on this without shaming the admin in question, perhaps you'd best either sit this out or wait until it becomes clear I'm to receive no help unless and until I do so. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)KillerChihuahua, I would ordinarily discuss it with the other admin either via talkpage, or email (I usually prefer email for situations like this). If that isn't fruitful, AN would be the next stop. SQL^{Query me!} 18:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Email isn't possible for me at the moment, unfortunately. User talk is more public than I'd prefer, but it may be my only option. KillerChihuahua 18:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI is to report specific incidents that require immediate action from administrators. The instructions at the top of the page say that this board is not for matters requiring privacy. What action do you expect administrators to take when we do not know any of the details? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, this is two issues in one thread - a trend and a specific admin. While I would prefer not to drag the other admin, as that's often counter-productive, I am seeking input on how to approach the issue. If you object due to your characterization of "this might be better handled discreetly" as the same as "this is a privacy issue" all I can tell you is that this is not that kind of "privacy issue". KillerChihuahua 19:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI is to report specific incidents that require immediate action from administrators. Actually, the top of the page says "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". This seems like the latter. – Levivich 19:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Levivich, thank you. KillerChihuahua 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is moot since we now know which administrator you were talking about, but whether it is an one time incident or a pattern of behavior, I believe that this noticeboard is for specific cases, not generalized concerns. And if you want discreet discussion, ANI is not the place for that. Just my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

And again you demonstrate you have no idea why I'm here or what I"m talking about. Yes, we now know that specific admin, but that was only 1/2 the question at hand - and significantly less than half of the problem as a whole! Please feel free to tell me yet again something inapplicable, or lecture me regarding why I'm here, getting it absolutely wrong again! - frustrated puppy. KillerChihuahua 23:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)KillerChihuahua, The only private way is probably going to be email, unless the admin in question lists some other alternate contact method (e.g. irc/skype/discord/slack/google chat/ham frequency/smoke signals). It may be worth it to get a disposable email address and enable it in mediawiki long enough to have a conversation. SQL^{Query me!} 19:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Disposable email is a good idea, thanks. KillerChihuahua 19:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This all seems just a bit cloak-and-dagger. Why not meet in the third pew on St. Swithin’s Day? EEng 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, the IP you are referring to hadn't completely self-reverted. They left the article in this state, and Serols reverted the remaining vandalism. I would endorse the school block / anon block in that situation, given that IP's contribution history. ST47 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in that specific case you are quite correct, thank you for pointing that out. I chose a poor example for my entry here, it seems. KillerChihuahua 19:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this trend too, and if I recall correctly, another admin complained about it on WP:AN a couple weeks ago. It's disheartening, and I'm seriously considering just removing declined reports whenever I see them to stop trigger-happy admins from just blocking the list of reported people. Additionally, the number of rangeblocks that admins throw out is getting ridiculous. Rangeblocks are generally intended to be used only in response to severe, persistent disruption by IP-hopping abusers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Rangeblocks aren't my thing, so I haven't been examining them, but I have noticed an increase in them. KillerChihuahua 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• thanks for everyone's input. I'm going to spend some time going over history, building a list of incidents, which will both help me get a handle on how much this is happening, and whether I've missed anything (as I did above!) and give me necessary data should I approach anyone directly about this. If I do, I'll probably take SQL's kind suggestion and create a disposable email. Otherwise, I'll be back here - and the difs I collect will at that time be posted here. Again, thank you all for your input. KillerChihuahua 19:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  When it comes to AIV, I hope I know what I don't know, but it's possible I don't know what I don't know. With that Rumsfeldian preface, it seems like we lack agreement among the CV crowd about how to handle such situations. Some admin and vandal fighters take a more aggressive stance towards blocking disruption. Other admin and vandal fighters feel that this stance is exceeding policy in their application. Coming to ANI or, as was also recently done, AN to open a broader discussion has some value. I'm certainly aware of the issue in a way I wasn't 3 weeks ago. I don't think one of these groups starting to warn and template the other is the way to towards consensus. An RfC frequently offers a way towards a bigger discussion but I don't what the RfC would look at. I do think someone being able to put forth a structured discussion, someone who knows more than me, could help to get a sense but within our counter-vandal community and among the community as a whole how we would like to deal with these. Maybe the answer is "well enforcement is going to be uneven" which might be frustrating to both sides but would also tell them to stop going at each other. Or maybe the answer is that the consensus does favor one kind of approach of others, or one kind of approach in certain situations but the other approach in different situations. But more AN/ANI threads or emails or talk page messages or (as I've seen) edit summaries to each other is not going to do anything but make a whole bunch of dedicated and necessary editors upset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  WT:AIV may be an appropriate place to start a broad discussion about how AIV reports are handled. Data–like how many or what percentage of denied reports nevertheless result in blocks (without new, blockable offenses committed in the interim), how many such blocks are IPs vs. registered, or single IP vs. range–might help editors understand the size/scope/nature of the problem. Aggregate data will help impersonalize the discussion as well. The result of the discussion might be an RfC to amend blocking or vandalism policy, or just an adjustment in norms among patrolling admin, or the confirmation that everything is fine the way it is. – Levivich 20:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. It will likely take me several days to compile enough data to be useful; I can decide then whether to open a discussion regarding it there. KillerChihuahua 20:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unless more people want to insult "ridiculous" "trigger happy admins", this can be closed for now, yes? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Admins need to stop and think for a minute before handing out blocks left, right, and center, particularly if another admin already declined to block. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned and the new way is better...I don't claim to know everything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed anyone using either of those terms, or insulting anyone, Floque - perhaps you're reading something into this thread that isn't here? KillerChihuahua 20:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ctrl-F "trigger-happy". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I looked for the term you originally posted, without the hyphen. KillerChihuahua 20:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

And you can't Ctrl-F "ridiculous" because that gets thrown around so often on ANI that you'd have to wade through about 10 other threads to get to this one. It's like searching for "the". But it's here too, in the same post. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Look, right this very second, we have this on AIV:

• 216.200.134.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Castillo San Felipe del Morro (diff): vandalism after final warning. Marghilos (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Stale warning. Last warning was issued 6 days ago. KillerChihuahua 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• 69.71.8.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Almost every single edit by this user has been vandalism. On several occasions edits were reverted and then re-added by the user. User edited Hello Neighbor so much that page edits are now subject to review. James Gordon (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Stale report. User has not edited in 7 months. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Now, those were handled by me and RE. I've been responding here (and involved in a couple of other things) so I haven't started digging through the history, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there are similar reports which resulted in blocks, and sometimes extensive blocks, in the past. These two haven't been blocked after declining, but that also has occurred. Now whether you object to some of the terminology or not, there is an issue here - and it's either that blocking policy has changed, or that some admins aren't being careful to follow blocking policy. We don't block IPs for edits made months ago. We don't usually (or at least we used to not) block anyone after another editor declined, without at least a courtesy note on their talk page. I'm concerned. KillerChihuahua 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would block the first one right now if I didn't know it would cause a ruckus because you already declined it. Very likely the same person ignoring previous warnings, and in any case nothing useful has come from that IP address in 2 years; it's all vandalism. If I see something like that in the future and someone hasn't declined, I'll likely block them. Otherwise we give them a "free" whack every 5 days, ad infinitum. The second one is stale, I agree, but the report was made by a relatively new editor in good faith, no admin has disagreed with the decline, and you're still using it as proof that something is wrong with AIV? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If you'd block the first one, then that's a difference in opinion in how to handle blocking policy, and yes that discussion needs to be held. Regarding "proof" - why no, I said clearly that people have blocked for such stale reports, and that is a problem. I don't know why you're so pissed off at me about this. No one is attacking you, Floque. KillerChihuahua 21:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd probably consider IAR blocking the second IP too. The same person has been vandalizing the same article for 3 years, so it's obviously static, and nothing useful has come from that IP address ever. No one is attacking me? I suppose "trigger-happy admin" wasn't specifically directed at me by name, but it's directed at people who are doing what I sometimes do. There's a difference between disagreeing and "being pissed off at you"; but I'll admit to being annoyed at the general trend in this thread and those like it. It's annoying when people who have a different opinion on how best to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism automatically assume that their approach is right, and everyone else's approach is ridiculous, and even more annoying when I'm not supposed to get annoyed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that the fact that opinions are so divided shows this thread (and possibly a more formal approach, such as an Rfc) was absolutely necessary. What is our consensus? We haven't any, clearly. When do we block? Do we block even if another admin has declined? If we do override another admin's declining, is that appropriate? Should we inform the other admin? Should we discuss with the other admin prior to blocking? This is, as I've said before, a problem - and the mere fact that we're seeing such disagreement in this thread shows that clearly. I won't insult you by telling you how to handle your difference of opinion with anyone, but please don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

Regarding this specific case, just because one IP has not had productive edits yet does not mean it is static, or that it is the same person. IMO IPs require recent vandalism and warnings prior to blocking. Have you read Mindspillage's thoughts on this? I can't say I agree with her completely, but the general approach is what I support - and I think it's more in line with the "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" ideal goal. KillerChihuahua 23:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Just saw this threat. I have been bothered by a similar observation; it was one of the reasons I began spending less time at AIV and more on other admin tasks. I've seen users (IPs or otherwise) make problematic but good faith edits, be slapped with a standard vandalism template, and then reported to AIV when they (obviously) didn't quite understand what was going on; and then, on at least a few occasions, seen them be blocked while I was writing out a warning/explanation on their talk page. Now statistically speaking, it may make sense to just block every such user; statistically speaking it might make sense to block every user reported to AIV without checking what their edits were. But that goes contrary to policy, and contrary to our philosophy about being open to editing. A little more thought going into each AIV response would be very helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  This to my mind is the worst aspect of the trend I'm seeing with some admins' approach. BITE and AGF and so on are thrown right out the window! Block first and ask questions never. Every test edit, every well intentioned but unsourced or innocently POV edit is slapped down and the editor is banished with no attempt to examine the specifics. It's a notch-on-the-vandal-fighter's-belt approach for some, I think, and it's harmful to the encyclopedia. We're bleeding editors and admins, losing far more than we gain - and we're not trying to determine if some newbies can be taught and learn to become valued contributors. I'm not speaking of BVs, of course. But yes, many are apparently good-faith editors who just don't understand the rules. KillerChihuahua 23:25, 25 September 2019 (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 Bigtiff20 and their relentless addition of unsourced content

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 appears to completely disregard warnings and a previous block for the very reason I'm here today. I'd be most grateful if an admin could cast an eye on their edits which consist mostly of unsourced genre changes. Examples of which can be seen here, here, here, here and here. Robvanvee 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have indeed "cast an eye" and was not impressed by what I saw. That's a lot of talk page messages and zero response from the editor. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (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 adding links to non-existent Wiki-quote pages

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.

---

100.1.4.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding links like this to empty Wikiquote search results, like this. I've asked them to stop but they've ignored me. Will notify user. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is disruptive. I'm going to leave a custom message and give the IP user an equivalent of a level 3 ("please stop") warning regarding the addition of the {{wikiquote}} template where the entry does not exist on Wikiquote. If this continues after this warnings is left, I'd support a temporary block to prevent further disruptive edits like this to articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This person has been blocked repeatedly going back years. This is a different ISP than usual, but the geolocation is basically the same as Special:Contributions/2601:81:c401:5307::/64 and Special:Contributions/73.33.121.170. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Ohhh, I see... This information is definitely relevant. Given the links you provided, I'll say that the block you placed was definitely necessary. Thanks for letting me know about this. Should I perhaps amend the addition of {{wikiquote}} to articles by new accounts and IP address users to the edit filter I created and maintain (#51)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, adding this condition might result in a bunch of false positive hits, since user_editcount (what I use as a condition to check the edit count of accounts) only returns an integer for accounts; it's null for IP address users... Yeah, nevermind - disregard my question... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This behavior goes back a long time (edit warring at Thomas articles and adding useless wikiquote templates to cartoons), but it's never been this bad before. So, it's not really a big deal, anyway. To be honest, I think today's disruption might just be an aberration. This is a disruptive editor, no doubt, but probably not to the level where you'd want to cause problems mitigating the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah and NinjaRobotPirate. Re today being an aberration, the IP made a bunch of the same sort of edits on 12 September. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:16, 26 September 2019 (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.

---

AutismMomof2 claims to be Catharine Layton and says if certain information isn't removed from Informed Consent Action Network she will contact her lawyer. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

lwarned. El_C 15:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, crossed paths, but, regardless, the user should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes my talk page efforts pathetic! Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The uw-nlt warning exists for a reason — so the user making the threats could retract. El_C 15:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the warning is more correctly used by non-admins because they don't have the power to block. If not, how do we decide when to warn and when to block? Most legal threats are met with a block in my experience. And the blocked user can retract and be unblocked. If we warn, how long do we wait for the retraction? One hour? One day? For me, I either block because it's a clear threat, which this one was, or I don't block. Obviously, some admins will disagree. I know some admins (not you) who hate blocking anyone for anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I would have waited no more than 24 hours. But perhaps I'm being too lenient. El_C 15:53, 26 September 2019 (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 threats by new editor

Blocked by 331dot per NLT. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Hello all, it looks like Bộ Công An 118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding legal and arrest threats to multiple user talk pages (see [97], [98], and [99]). I did place a warning on their talk page but they have continued. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Just an addendum, I did use Google Translate to get a rough idea of what their edits mean in English. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. Their posts seem to state that they represent the 'Ministry of Public Security' and is monitoring the activities of the users they contact and will arrest them for joining Wikipedia. The language is Vietnamese. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Account has now been indef-blocked also on Commons for the same reason. Global lock should be be considered. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Betty Logan

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.

---

Betty Logan has shown ignorance in the below talk section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6

It clearly shows that Betty Logan has ignoring fact and reverses his words on occasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar47 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 September 2019 (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.

Vanity / self-promotional account.

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.

---

Parasgola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is only here to promote himself with vanity pages: Paras gola, User:Parasgola, Parasgola and User:Parasgola/sandbox. The fact that they change the spelling and/or the namespace of their spam each time suggests they know perfectly well that it is unwanted. WP:NOTHERE and wasting everyone's time. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It must be the future: "Justice is very quick now they've abolished all the lawyers"  :) many thanks Ian.thomson. If you or anyone would care to close this. ——SerialNumber54129 14:31, 27 September 2019 (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.

Apology from User:Drmies please

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.

---

At Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies, User:Drmies said the following "Penbat--did you really add the WikiProject Medicine tag to this?". It is clearly untrue. If User:Drmies had bothered to check the talk page history he would have known this. It seemed to be an attempted smear. So I would like an apology.--Penbat (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2019 (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.

Dinotrux Article has same false/uncited information being repeatedly added by anonymous users

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.

---

As I have stated on the Dinotrux Talk page, multiple random IP addresses continue adding uncited/unreferenced information about an upcoming season. I and several others have attempted to both add 'citation needed' tags, as well as start a discussion, but the citation-needed tags are either outright removed, or just ignored. I was going to submit to the 3-revert rule administration page, but since it is from multiple (possible sock puppet) anonymous addresses, I thought this would be the best first course of action. -- Ishmayl (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR is measured over a 24-hour period. This case seems like not enough activity for a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2602:306:BCAE:4750::/64, as there are other good edits from that range. I will semi-protect for a month, and if the issue continues after the protection, you could report to WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. ST47 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2019 (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.

Accounts and IP addresses evading block of Martimc123

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 stop the ongoing, blatant block evasion of Martimc123 (talk · contribs)? Nxlo03qda (talk · contribs) as been "blocked as a clear sock per WP:DUCK", but now the user has continued editing Portugal national football team without an account (see history page). It all started with the addition of copyrighted photos of João Félix to João Félix on 4 July 2019 by SHINGO154 (talk · contribs) (sock of Martimc123) – first copyright violation by the sock. Then, Garra15 (talk · contribs) appeared (another sock). I have listed all socks at Talk:João Félix#Copyright violations. After more and more disrupting behavior by the sock, I reported it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Martimc123/Archive#11_September_2019, but nothing was done. Please do something about this mess both on Wikipedia and Commons. SLBedit (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Every account you have linked to here is already blocked. What unblocked, still active accounts do you believe are sockpuppets, and provide diffs as evidence. ST47 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

And on second thought, please do that at WP:SPI. Your previous case was archived because of lack of diffs comparing edits made by your suspected socks to similar edits made by previous socks. So if that evidence exists, please report it at SPI. ST47 (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (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.

Merger discussion disrupted by Meatpuppetry

• Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (destination for proposed merger and its TP is place for merger discussion)
• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (problematic page, protected three times in last two months)

It started with editors attempt to organize response against merger, with one editor alerting another editor to "take an eye onto discussion" at User_talk:Peacemaker67#Turkish_Croatia, former quite assertive and demanding in "discussion"; then this later editor alerting third editor, emphatically asking third editor if they can send them (second) an email.
This exchange predictably resulted with involved antagonistic editors resorting to requesting assistance of like-minded people and campaigning outside English Wikipedia, namely by placing couple of inciting request at Croatian Wikipedia - two evident are instances of this behavior HERE and HERE (we can only presume what was going on beyond these pages (WP:STEALTH)) - to which few responded in attempt to give boost to their (systemic) biased POV by means of "voting" on the merger. Another dedicated (and up until that moment uninvolved) editor, myself included, tried to get their attention on this behavior, but we were dismissed with comments of explanations and justifications. And, not only that they voted more then once(!) each, they also, apparently, using WP:Single-purpose accounts as well. Obstructed discussion at: Talk:Bosanska_Krajina#Merger_discussion. As an aside, I would also like to examine the possibility of extending the page protection (current pg. protection expires in couple of hours), at least until the ensuing merger discussion and disruption of it has been resolved.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsi litantro.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually all started with editor who disrupted ([100], [101]) a long-time more or less stable content [102] of the article „Turkish Croatia“, and who began edit warring. Later he alerted admins ([103], [104]) and one of them protected the page, but with problematic content, and opened merger discussion. By the way, the page was protected only once, not „three times in last two months“. Some other editors (among which were also those who previously took part on the talk page of the article) reacted to behaviour of the disruptive editor and opposed the merger, giving reasons for that, including facts, sources, references.

During the merger discussion, there was no one who clearly supported the merger, but only made comments. Perhaps because there are a lot of sources that prove the notability of the article, as standalone one. Most of sources were systematically ignored and removed from the article by disruptive editor. He added his POV sources instead, which have almost nothing to do with the original content. And, as for my „double“ voting, I clearly stated that I confirmed my previous discussion on talk pages „before the merger discussion had been officially opened“.

Instead of contributing constructively to the article dealing with distant past, this editor uses the article as some sort of political pamphlet, and uses words like neologism, hapax, claptrap, pseudo-history, Austrian-Hungarian conspiracy theory etc. to describe the term and original content of the article. Could anybody explain how, for instance, an at least 300 or 400 years old term (Turkish Croatia) can be neologism, or how the term with a lot of various sources in English, German, Italian and Croatian language ([105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]) can be hapax?

The most important things to be stressed here are:

1. The article is a significant integral part of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian history, but the Croatian history as well.
2. The article deals with distant past and not with recent history, e.g. Bosnian War or Croatian War of Independence in the 1990s.
3. The article refers to the territory which does not overlap with the area of Bosanska Krajina, neither geographically nor chronologically.
4. The original content of the article has a lot of references from independent and reliable sources.

--Silverije 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Silverije: Two wrongs don't make a right. The only reason so many people left oppose votes was because you canvassed them to do so, something you neglect to mention while engaging in personal attacks. Perhaps if you had just left your oppose vote and left the discussion to proceed naturally, you would have had a stronger case for your accusations. You allege bias, but Croatian Wikipedia isn't exactly the most unbiased place, far from it in fact... DraconicDark (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: Who are „two wrongs“ – that is the question.
When you accuse somebody, you should translate his words thoroughly and correctly. My words were just a reaction to User:Santassa99's actions, as you can (once more) see here ([111], [112]), because you apparently neglect to mention it. Has this user more rights than me or other users to alert admins and his „like-minded crowd” (these are his words, not mine)? Isn't it canvassing?
And how do you explain this [113]? Three minutes after you reverted the page Turkish Croatia, an admin protected it. How do you call that? Coincidence or …? Think about it, before you „cast the first stone“.
And one more question: Have you read the original text of the article carefully? Are you familiar with history and historiography? You speak German and some sources there are in German. Could you tell whether they are false or „canvassed“? That's the point, and not whether „Franjo Tuđman established the Republic of Croatia“. Or who meant “to denigrate and devalue Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereignty and statehood”. In that article or with that article nobody meant to denigrate and devalue Bosnia and Herzegovina sovereignty and statehood, for sure. The current, protected (but problematic) content is not the point of the article, but it should be put in another place, in another article, probably dealing with modern-day relations between countries of southeastern Europe or so.
Unfortunately, some people don’t see what it is written, but just who wrote it or where he is from. Embarrassing. Fortunately, they are a small minority. Majority sees what it is really written, no matter who wrote it.
And, perhaps Croatian Wikipedia isn't unbiased place, but there are users of the Croatian Wikipedia who apparently feel displeasure with improper behaviour of some users/admins of the English Wikipedia towards them, showing Anti-Croat sentiment.
As for „personal attacks“ you've mentioned, could you please specify them?
--Silverije 22:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Silverije: What I meant by "Two wrongs don't make a right" was that, if you believed Santasa99's actions were wrong, the right course of action was not to respond by breaking one of English Wikipedia's rules. Santasa99 was not canvassing in the examples you showed, but rather, discussing with people who had already been involved. Even if actual canvassing occurred, that would not mean you were allowed to do the same thing. What made your action canvassing was the fact that you brought in people who weren't already involved who you knew would vote the same way as you. "Canvassing" is a term that only refers to votes.
You allege conspiracy, but I was not in communication with the admin who protected the page, and was not the one who requested protection. The only reason I reverted was because the version I reverted subtly promoted Croatian nationalism and irredentism, and it also removed the issue templates before the merger discussion had concluded.
The hrwiki users you refer to call everyone who disagrees with them "anti-Croatian" (an example of a personal attack) but this simply isn't true. Because Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy, nobody here (especially not the admins!) is actively being "anti-Croatian." The existence of the "Turkish Croatia" article and whether it should or should not be merged is not a national issue, but an issue of content overlap (two names for the same region or not?). History does not necessarily exclusively belong to one nation (meaning it can be shared between nations) so if the article does end up being merged, that does not mean the Croatian people lose "ownership" of the history by any means. Thus, the merger discussion is not an attack on the Croatian people! The sources you mention are not necessarily "false" but they aren't really relevant to the question of whether to merge, unless you find one that clearly states, "Turkish Croatia is different from Bosanska Krajina."
Arguing over the content of the disputed article here gets us nowhere, and only causes aggravation for both of us. If you really have issues with the behavior of certain editors, the best way to resolve the issue is to have a civil discussion with said editors, describing, point by point, the issues you have with the existing article, while also listening to what they have to say, instead of being argumentative, which leads to a situation where both sides are constantly stonewalling using the same arguments again and again. We can continue this discussion somewhere else if you wish, but discussing it here won't change anything. DraconicDark (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - @Silverije:, conspiracy remarks and kind of vitriol directed at DraconicDark (and myself) amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS per WP:ARBMAC. You are aware of this ARB existence, but you are unwilling to read it, or you don't understand it, or you are simply disregarding it. You need to moderate your tone.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DraconicDark: Yes, I agree with you. It won't change anything. We can't understand each other. From everything I say, you take only the words that suit you and interpret these according to you point of view. --Silverije 15:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans

See archived link at wp:ANI: [114][115]

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

Unintelligible personal attack & Vandalism by impersonation. Gundam5447 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I've also semi-protected your talk page for a week. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Malaysian ISPs. They're a pain. This block won't accomplish much, so report the IP editor whenever the disruption starts up again. You could probably use WP:AIV for faster service. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Gundam5447: FWIW, here's a message I started to compose to Oshwah (but didn't send) a while ago when I saw this person (or people) pop up again with their "cibai" insults and "IPv6 shouldn't edit" nonsense:

Hi. In July, you were involved with this ongoing problem with a Malay IP making PAs against Singaporean IP editors and being otherwise disruptive. The problem continues. Earlier mentions include this, this, this, and this. Trying to narrow it down from the wide:

• 2001:d08::0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

that was previously blocked, I got the following /40s:

• 2001:d08::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1000::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1200::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1800::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:1a00::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:2000::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 2001:d08:2100::0/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

I've not looked closely at collateral yet, but this is where the "cibai" insults came from. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• 2001:D08:1A83:7898:1:0:B3EA:44E7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

I confirmed the destruction again. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• 2001:D08:1203:6677:1:0:FD5B:A613 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  Impersonation has been resumed. Please block again. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

User: SchroCat

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.

---

SchroCat seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact in the talk section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_best?markasread=172674696&markasreadwiki=enwiki#/talk/6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokkumar47 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what your complaint is. However, you seem upset that some editors don't want to include Rotten Tomatoes scores at Talk:List of films considered the best. If you've tried to discuss the issue with them, and they still don't agree with you, the next step would be a request for comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashokkumar47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is someone who does not seem to either understand how things work (absolutely no problem with that) or in listening to others or in dealing with others (and there is an increasing problem with those). It relates to the thread Talk:List of films considered the best#Rotten Tomatoes Updates. When Ashokkumar47 did not get buy in to include something on the page, he began to be aggressive to ‎Betty Logan "Couldn't even understand simple logic", and opened a thread here titled "Betty Logan Ignorance". (Making this thread the second out-of-process, disruptive use of this noticeboard).

Ashokkumar47 has attempted to WP:CANVASS support from others to take his side here, here, here, here and here. Ashokkumar47 has also asked for "Expert help" here, here, here, here and here.

Any advice given to them, or factual-based arguments against their position are not listened to, and the same point has been repeated several times, despite there being no consensus for change.

In the last of these Ashokkumar47 also made more aspersions abut me ("SchroCat doesn't really seem to care about it there"), despite being told not to comment on contributors when he made the same misplaced accusation against me here ("SchroCat with what you have said earlier in this conversation, it clearly shows that you don't care about this and it's a waste of time"). Their approach on the Film list talk page (and elsewhere) is increasingly disruptive (aspersions, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, canvassing, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a competency issue here, concerning Ashokkumar47. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

As User:SchroCat has said, this is the second time in 24 hours that User:Ashokkumar47 has been here to report what should be a content issues about a list of films. The only conduct issue that I see is the reports here. There are competency issues, including that Ashkokkumar47 didn't know what pronoun to use for User:Betty Logan. A warning, a topic-ban on reports here, a topic-ban on lists of films, or a competency block are among the options. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate that the discussion is closed. But why were those images placed in the discussion? They don't do anything for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Removed. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Restored. Read the history. Added long before the discussion was closed, though one editor repeatedly attempted to edit-war them out. As mentioned in earlier edit summaries, "It's a visual pun on something in the discussion -- look around if need be. Groanworthy humor is a well established way to relieve the dismal ennui of ANI for those who suffer there, even if not all are able to appreciate it. Certainly contributions are not limited by the most restrictive taste found among all observers". In addition, see WP:TPO: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection, and I object. Thanks for not trying to impose your ideas of helpfulness on everyone else. EEng 17:23, 29 September 2019 (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:TROUT fodder
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is getting frustrating now. Again those images have been restored in a discussion I was a part of. PLEASE, may they be removed & NOT restored? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Why is it frustrating to you? Because you are unable to control others' posts, including those you don't understand? Did you read what I said above? EEng 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC) They don't add anything to the discussion. They appear to be calling somebody an asshole. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC) <sigh> Try harder. There's even a link in one of the image captions to help you. Hint: <ctrl>-F the string abut. EEng 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC) <sigh> Oh, so yet again you are mocking me for a misspelling, not long after I told you I have mild dyslexia? FFS... Are you really that low? - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "one editor repeatedly attempted to edit-war them out". Sadly the truth is missing relative to this. One editor removed them, you edit warred tham back in before another user altogether removed them. You weren't part of the thread, made no useful contributions to it, and there is no reason to drop in your infantile images. Perhaps take on board that when several people have either removed the images or asked they not be put back there, it would be best to leave them out and stop acting like a File:Südafr.-21.4-12.5.06-1781.jpg? - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC) (ec)Agreed - they appear to me mocking the user name of the original poster. Just another example of what a kind and welcoming place Wikipedia can be.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC) So EEng is harassing Schrocat rather than the OP - that doesn't make it any better. Here's a hint - if no-one but you gets the joke - it isn't funny.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Jesus, it's really a trial trying to raise the level of discussion on this page. Here's what some self-appointed enforcers of public morality have got their hair on fire about: [116] Cross my hearth This follows on to one of my greatest hits [117] by folding in a typo in the current thread (search abut). Now to be honest, I regret not noticing at first that the typo was SchroCat's – cross my hearth and hope to die. But even had I noticed, in my mixed up inventory of my fellow editors' diagnoses, I misremembered it as Cassianto having the dyslexia [118] so I'm not sure it would have made any difference. Blame it on my slight pre-senile dementia. But as everyone knows, I take 'em where I find 'em, showing no man prejudice nor favor – not even myself, see right – so how about letting a pun be a pun regardless of its origin, whether it tickles your funnybone or not, without all the huffing and puffing and defensiveness? Jesus, lighten up. EEng 18:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Without trying to take a side here, just a note that while the jokes might often make ANI a better place for some of the ANI regulars (and maybe some others -- I've seen it defended on multiple occasions, after all), when people who are actually involved in a thread (rather than just hanging out on a noticeboard) say it's not helpful, and when it doesn't actually add anything other than the joke itself, and when it's removed by multiple people multiple times.... maybe don't violate 3RR to add it a fourth time? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

EEng‎ blocked

I have blocked EEng‎ for 24 hours for having violated 3RR. I, personally, like EEng‎'s images, but edit warring over them was the wrong call. El_C 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure some editors enjoy the humor, but there are some that are getting tired of it as well. I'd also note the borderline PA in the edit summary here. Mocking someone with a disability should not be something we turn a blind eye to. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree (or mocking anyone actually). Paul August ☎ 19:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I see what you did there. ―cobaltcigs 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• A well deserved block. I'm so sick and tired of their images here that I more than once have been tempted to propose an "EEng-filter" for the noticeboards, a filter that when enabled would automagically hide all images added by EEng. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• About time. Cassianto^Talk 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not commenting on the images however I will say the mocking needs to stop, It's one thing taking the piss outta someone for a typo but it's another to A) do it repeatedly and B) do it knowing that person has a disability reading, writing and spelling problem. It needs to stop. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Should have been longer. For some reason EEng has really been after a few editors here and some very uncivil things have been said. I thought we were supposed to be cutting down on that. Additionally no editor should be mocked for a disability. That is shameful. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'd give a couple more hours to that block for the disability comment, if I were an admin. –Ανδρέας  ^{talk | contributions} 20:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Admins chose to ignore it the first time, so what's new now? Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• EEng is one of my best wiki-friends, and I often enjoy having humorous conversations with him. But – I want to say something to EEng, and I'm going to say it here, not at his talk page. Please just stop putting "humorous" stuff on ANI. If you have useful information or advice to provide (in text), by all means, but as for the "humor", please stop, entirely. It's not true that ANI needs to have the mood lightened. ANI needs to resolve stuff and move on, with as little distraction as possible. (Several months ago, I posted what I thought was a humorous image here, and it turned out to be one of the dumbest things that I have done on Wikipedia, and I've regretted it ever since.) You said recently that you would not joke at RfA. Well, the same goes for here. And a little while back I commented that during disputes the first thing an admin should do is to consider whether an action will escalate or deescalate a situation, and you strongly endorsed what I said. That goes for non-admins, too. You may think something is funny, but others will not, and all that happens is the situation gets sidelined and escalates. It's stopped being funny. So please cut it out, for good. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• I've taken EEng with a grain of salt for the past couple of months. So... what's all of this complaining about the images that EEng posted? I don't see a problem with the humorous images, unlike some that seemingly want to remove humor from this encyclopedia. However, I must digress somewhere. The comment that most are unanimously opposing above was one full of ignorant humor, and is seemingly not the first uncivil comment that EEng is posted. Considering all of this, EEng has been blocked for...one day? What? | abequinn^fourteen 20:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• If some editor writes something I think is really stupid—like, say, referring to "mild dyslexia" as a "disability" (please), I don’t get to just delete it because I think it’s stupid. So why are pictures any different? Just scroll past the picture that offends you so. I promise you’ll be ok. – Levivich 21:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  I have not said that my mild dyslexia is a disability (I've never thought of it that way, and I have enough workarounds for most of the time). But Eeng had nothing useful to add to the original thread, just some images with a dig at me for the second time in a week. Yes, is could have ignored it, but there's no reason to ignore it, and even less reason for him to add images on a thread he wasn't involved in or wasn't being constructive in. Next time someone abuses you for some reason, don't bother complaining or coming here with a report: just scroll past the bit that offends you so. I promise you’ll be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich - I agree and I was wrong to label it as such however at the time of writing I was going to put "do it knowing that person has an issue" .... which sounds more insulting than anything .... I've since amended it to "do it knowing that person has a reading, spelling and writing problem"[119], I hope this makes my comment less stupid for you. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (September 2019)

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:STSC is continuing to make POV edits regarding contentious China-related issues. This was raised in 2015 by User:Feminist in the aftermath of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, and has come up sporadically since then.

The latest batch of questionable edits surround the ongoing 2019 Hong Kong protests. Here are some examples:

• Implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters (12 September). This is not reflected by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Innocent bystanders, peaceful protesters, and even press and medics have been injured by police tear gas and rubber bullets.

• Writing that a general strike held by protesters “failed” (12 September), a claim that is also not reflected by any reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources reported that the strike snarled traffic routes, and was both "massive" and "unprecedented". To write that the strike "failed" or was "not so successful" is pure POV; a view that has not been published by any reliable secondary source.

• Referring to the protests as “riots”. In Hong Kong, the term “riot” has hefty legal ramifications. Given the fluid and most often non-violent nature of the movement, reliable sources have not broadly characterised the protests as “rioting”.
  • 15 August
  • 8 September – the cited sources do not use the term riot in relation to the Sheung Wan protests, as the edit summary falsely suggests

• Changing Tiananmen Square “massacre” to “protest”, even though the legislative motion in question specifically applied to the June 4 massacre, not the 1989 protests as a whole (9 September, 10 September)

• Denying that “protesters” are citizens, or falsely suggesting that crowdfunded newspaper ads were not funded by “citizens”, but exclusively by “protesters”, which is a claim not reflected in any of the cited sources (8 September, 12 September). Meanwhile, STSC portrays pro-Beijing protesters as "ordinary Hong Kong residents" (12 September). The difference in how the two groups are characterised is suggestive of bias.

• Using misleading edit summaries to blank content without explanation (9 September, 12 September)

• Removing mention of Hong Kongers’ self-identity as Hong Kongers (i.e. as opposed to Chinese)

• Blanking “potentially libellous” content from the article for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing legislator (2 August, 6 August, 21 August, 10 September, 10 September). In order for something to be libel, it must be false. However, the “potentially libellous” content in the article is all well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Considered altogether, these diffs are additional evidence that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a particular political agenda. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Out of all these diffs, the only one that rises to the level of a behavioural issue as opposed to a content dispute is this. Several of these look, honestly, like improvements from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest, at most, that STSC be cautioned not to use misleading edit summaries. But to claim WP:NOTHERE no. That's overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(For instance, STSC's argument that a small-sample survey from a potentially biased source isn't WP:DUE seems quite solid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the extent to which respondent's sentiment to being considered Chinese changed was documented at less than the margin of error for the survey. As a result, it's questionable the extent to which Wikipedia should be making interpretive statements of the raw data per WP:SYNTH notwithstanding the issue of the small sample size and risk of bias in sample selection, which is a bit of a black box here. We know they conducted phone interviews with a live interviewer but there's no information about the interview script, or number selection. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For additional grounds why this particular edit on STSC's part was actually probably a net good for the project see also WP:PRIMARY as the removed source is, in fact, a primary source. I use this as an example of why it's for the best not to initiate AN/I complaints to settle content disputes. However I should note that STSC did not deny that the protesters were citizens. STSC clarified that the citizens blocking traffic were protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Oops, hit publish too fast) I mention that one in specific because there are some complaints on this list that fail verification in similar ways. I'd suggest that the Citobun's POV may be colouring their perspective on STSC's edits. I do not think a boomerang is at all necessary here, but I would suggest that this complaint be closed promptly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You can find elements of some questionable edits that are constructive in some way. Others are purely blatant POV-pushing. Regarding the Ho example, potentially controversial content on that page is well-sourced. His polemic makes him one of the most notorious politicians in Hong Kong. It isn't "potentially libelous" to write about these incidents as long as it is all well-sourced. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Simonm223 seems to have hit it on the head. I concur in general that, for example, "Tienanmen Square Massacre" is the appropriate verbiage to be used. While the protest indeed spanned a longer timeframe, he appears to be expressing support for those killed in the crackdown/massacre. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC - Just recently user Citobun has been blocked for harassment [120] but he/she still does not want to give up his/her hate campaigns against other editors in content disputes. STSC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment if this is in fact part of a pattern behavior wherein Citobun has targeted STSC it might be appropriate to reconsider whether a boomerang was appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was told by an admin (User:NinjaRobotPirate) that I need to provide more substantiation to claims that STSC is engaging in unconstructive POV-pushing. I have therefore provided ample evidence above. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This clearly does not constitute a personal attack – it's about content. On the other hand, STSC repeatedly accusing me of undertaking a "hate campaign" is indeed a personal attack. So is your baseless claim that my supposed POV is "colouring [my] perspective". I have barely ever edited the protest page. Citobun (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I had raised the concern on the article (or the set of article) for POV pushing and the emerge of a few SPA account. Experienced editor that synthesis source, that made up new thing from source is not that surprising to appear in the article. Just are there any admin dare to lock the article and allow editors to settle stuff on talk page first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Regardless of this specific complaint, and the long term interpersonal conflict it appears to be part of, I concur with Matthew hk that edit protection would be a good idea on these articles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment and question about BLP violations I recently removed this defamatory/libelous statement [121] from Talk:Joshua Wong (originally posted [122],[123], went to look at the editor's talk and came here. I am actually quite surprised to see users allowed to use the talk page for posting rumours about living people and then discussing them like a forum? I thought the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere. What is Wikipedia's mechanism to address such issues?--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seem a serious BLP violation by User:STSC (edit: the ip 94.134.89.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), i misread the talk page. 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)) regarding Joshua Wong. Unless the user genuine believe the fake news / misinformation on state-owned newspaper inside the Great Firewall of China. BTW, his father seem a highly educated professional, which at least South Horizons is an expensive private estate. To add my point, even they are Vietnamese-Chinese (i did know some personally), it is a serious OR and UNDUE accusation on linkage to their political spectrum . Tung Chee Wa was from Shanghai/Zhejiang, Bernard Charnwut Chan is a Thai-Chinese diaspora and so on. Carrie Lam and her family have/had British citizenship too, so do predecessor CY Leung . Matthew hk (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed that rumour as I could not find any reliable source to confirm it. Even if it was true, being a Vietnamese person does not mean he would be a bad guy in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your so called "dismissing of the rumour" was actually not a dismissing, but rather indulging in gossip and using the talk page like a forum to discuss unsubstantiated rumours. This is a serious BLP violation. We are not supposed to further discuss unsubstantiated claims (which is exactly what you did). I also wonder what do you mean in comments such as [124] where you say I agree. The "5 deaths (all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". I don't know if you are doing this intentionally and trying to game the system by casting aspersions, but no English speaker would confuse "suicide" with "suicide bombing". I want to WP:AGF here, but your behaviour is somewhat close to what is described as Sealioning. I trust that you will take the advice and refrain from such behaviour.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) A user wanted to include a piece of information in the article, I replied there're no reliable sources to back it up. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

(2) A user expressed his/her concern about a piece of information maybe misleading in the article, I replied and exchanged my opinion on that issue. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

STSC (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I will describe what happened

(1) A user posted unsubstantiated libelous content on a talk page which was clearly a WP:BLP violation. Instead of removing, you engaged in discussing claiming "you've heard something similar". Then you added you don't don't have sources so cannot say it is true to false. We are supposed to remove unambiguous BLP violations, instead of commenting that "yes, I have heard something similar" and using the talk page like a forum

I would rather give the user a chance to reply and back up his/her claim in the talk page. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your second edit which I pointed out is an example of a borderline edit which (while not breaking any explicit Wikipedia policies), tends to either show a deliberate attempt at Sealioning or a non-understanding of English (though I find it hard to believe the latter). It makes it hard to assume good faith, that's all.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have any issue, why don't you discuss it in the article's talk page? Your problem is you don't even participate in that discussion about the deaths but tried very hard to make a meal out of nothing on here. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I am commenting on your behaviour, not the content. This is the correct venue, not the article talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You disagree to my opinion about "suicide" in the infobox, that's very much about the content. Just say my opinion is not to your liking. STSC (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said again, the issue is with your behaviour, your civil POV pushing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all "POV pushing". I hardly engage in edit wars. I just make edits and corrections per WP:NPOV in a relaxing way. You and your friends do not seem to be able to accept in a real world there're people with different views from yours. STSC (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We also don't give let users post unsubstantiated libelous claims about living people, in the hope they maybe they will back it up someday. That's pretty much against BLP.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed the claim because I myself could not find any sources, not because I know Mr Wong personally. I don't believe it's true but I chose to let the user justify the claim if he/she can. STSC (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Letting someone justify a BLP violation is not OK. It is still a BLP violation. Anyway, I trust that you will understand.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you may say it's a false claim but please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people. STSC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying stuff like "please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people" is precisely the problem with you. This [125] comment is definitely defamatory and libelous but you seem to not accept it. All I see here is a refusal on your part to even understand the basic fact that the comment was a BLP violation.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To say someone is Vietnamese is libelous and defamatory? You don't see that's insulting to Vietnamese people? STSC (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that there is nothing defamatory or libelous in [126], correct?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You avoided my question. STSC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When you answer whether [127] is libelous or defamatory, I will answer your question. Your answer is important because it indicates if you understand WP:BLP, which is actually quite relevant here, since we are discussing your conduct.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked you the question first but you avoided it. I take it you agree it's defamatory and libelous to say someone has Vietnamese descent. STSC (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so not answering means saying yes. Wow.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I consider this comment [128] to be libelous/defamatory statement and a BLP violation, since you are so insistent.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, this seems like over-reach based on the diff presented. STSC acknowledged they'd heard the rumour, said there were not reliable sources and that it shouldn't be included. That's precisely how one should respond to a BLP question like that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but posting random unsubstantiated rumours is very obviously a BLP violation and should have been removed immediately, instead of acknowledging the rumour itself. I would find it extremely unsettling if editors are allowed to post such rumours and let it stay anywhere on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your initial dif was somewhat misleading. This isolates STSC's comment separate from the IP who made the initial statement. It's quite evident when reviewing the correct dif that STSC was, in fact, stating there were no RSes supporting the assertion regarding the subject's background. This is patently ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 issues. First, it is unclear if STSC even acknowledges that [129] is a BLP violation. Second, instead of removing the comment, they decide to say "I have heard something similar...". We don't do that. The BLP policy is very clear that we do not allow BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) to remain on Wikipedia. I am actually quite surprised that you would think it is OK, given that this is the exact kind of behaviour which makes women and minorities stay away from Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This was a few years ago, but it demonstrates that STSC has been pushing for a pro-Chinese government POV to an extreme degree, justifying the "elimination" of a religious group: Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.[130] That is quite shocking IMO, but that said, "detestable" views itself are not blockable. It should be assessed whether these pro-Beijing views were pushed in a disruptive way and how they communicated with others. --Pudeo (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring up here this old FG issue of 2015. Arbitration Committee had dealt with it long time ago. STSC (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ok multiple issue here. For boomerang i don't think Citobun well communicate to other editor either. See his practice on oppose a merge in Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port (i mistook his was an admin or someone high enough to hide the log?) Also, the revert in City University of Hong Kong. Reaching CIR level? May be not , but just like at Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#Requested move 27 July 2019, a bit ad hominem instead on based on the issues and for RM, the evidence.

For STSC on Wong's article. It is nothing really wrong as the misinformation did wide spread in Mainland China. Blanking the talk page thread my be the best practice, but believing the ip from Germany (an international [Chinese?] student at Germany? VPN? Intentionally attack the page due to Wong's visit at Germany recently? We don't know) in AGF and reply them, is reasonable.

For this edit Special:Diff/915348212. The source material was discussed in Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 12 ""Despite the territory's current political association with the mainland, most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese.". Please really start a discussion on it before remove it, or just restore the original wording , also cut the reason due to synthesis. You can't due to the reason you don't like the source then say it is UNDUE and when you like it it is DUE. I would only say HKU POP is respectable source, widely reported by local media. The opinion poll did reflected in 2008 many citizens considered themselves Chinese, but there is a trend in recent year there is more people to choose Hongkongers. But it mean nothing as the opinion poll provided options HK-Chinese, China-Hongkonger, and it is a quantitative survey so that no one know the meaning of HK-Chinese and China-Hongkonger. Also, 1000 is a good number for statical purpose. HKU POP did even reported the standard error or something similar. Matthew hk (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you want to say every Western source is not reliable. Then i have nothing to say because The Economist also use the same HKU POP opinion poll as their source material in a reporting [131] Are there bias in these opinion poll due to some people refuse to response? May be, but it is out of wiki editors to judge. Matthew hk (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Without digging into the wonkiness of methodological questions, which is (honestly) beyond our remit, it's simply put a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to be interpreting the results of this WP:PRIMARY source. If this is a respected survey, then I'm sure WP:SECONDARY sources can be found that will interpret the results. The language that I removed was clear WP:SYNTH and as such inappropriate. However, that's neither here nor there as STSC's edits are easily in the realm of a content dispute there. The edits regarding the survey certainly don't rise to the level of a behavioral issue regardless of how you feel about inclusion. I think you and I agree entirely that this entire AN/I issue is inappropriate for this forum based on the difs provided. DreamLinker's claim that STSC should be guilty for the sins of the IP because they didn't oppose the IP's edit request hard enough are patently absurd. Pudeo's mention of Falun Gong material from 2015 is deeply irrelevant to any current edit discussion except to establish that STSC is a person who holds opinions about things. And that is true of every editor on Wikipedia. And then there's Citobun's initial complaint, which I contend, based on it being part of a pattern of harassment against STSC as established in this dif, should probably pull a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think there'd be any harm in cautioning STSC about avoiding misleading edit summaries, but considering the misleading use of difs and misleading commentary regarding edits that the complainants here have presented, STSC's comportment, as presented seems mild. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC: User Citobun pointed out 8 "questionable edits", has he discussed these edits in the articles' talk page? No. Has he tried other dispute resolutions? No. What he's actually doing here is using the ANI process to harass his opponent in content dispute. We can all see his so called "evidence" is as thin as paper but it doesn't matter for him because he's still got the satisfaction of having me harassed by way of this ANI. I've been stalked by this user Citobun since 2014, and he already has a failed ANI against me in 2016. He has been warned by admin EdJohnston and NinjaRobotPirate not to abuse other users but he continues his stalking and wanted to have another go at harassing me by ANI here. There must be a deterrent to prevent users like him from abusing the ANI process to harass other users. STSC (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not stalking nor harassing you. I have provided ample evidence of chronic POV-pushing despite multiple people raising concerns about this in the past. Yet you carry on as usual. As it pertains to a "chronic, intractable behavioral" issue, this discussion is best suited to take place at ANI. Citobun (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been stalking me and harassing me for about 5 years. My God, I don't even know you. STSC (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Over the past five years I have made several complaints about your editing behaviour. But so have many others. Such complaints go back years before we ever crossed paths, and centre around the same issue at hand today – chronic POV-pushing on contentious China-related subjects such as Chinese territorial disputes, Hong Kong, and the Falun Gong (until you finally received a topic ban). Accusing me of "stalking" is just a bullying attempt at distracting the discussion here. You have been called out by many people over the past decade, and the common point of contention is your long-term POV editing. Citobun (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not personal attack, I just described how you abused other users. You also have this disgraceful habit of scanning through other people's edit history. Of course you and your friends would not like me hanging around when I improve articles according to WP:NPOV. But if you accuse other editors POV editing, they would also say the same to you. It's a two-way traffic. In your case, we can see you have very much anti-police POV. STSC (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of my supposed "anti-police POV"? Yet again you are making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all PA, you accuse other editors having POV, I just point out you too have POV. Your allegation no.1 above clearly shows that. There's just a normal sentence saying the police taking actions against the violent protesters [132] but you also wanted to include other people. You said this is "police violence"! I remember particularly in one occasion where the source clearly says the police searched the flat of the activist but you deliberately changed it to the police broke into the flat of the activist.[133]. There's a very big difference between "searching" and 'breaking into". Your intention clearly wanted to deceive the readers into believing the police broke into the flat. (Note also how you abused me in your edit summary). STSC (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a personal attack if you make these allegations without evidence. I have provided evidence of your chronic, long-term POV-pushing, which you have been sanctioned for in the past after you advocated Falun Gong be "eliminated". You're implying that police were only violent against "groups of violent demonstrators", which is plainly WP:OR. I provided sources refuting that in the original posting above. For the second example, again, I didn't add that content in the first place. I was reverting your POV-motivated blanking which included removal of a lot of other content. By the way, that example you chose is another great example of your use of misleading edit summaries (in this case, "undue detail") to obfuscate your political agenda editing, which I and others have provided ample evidence of. Citobun (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You still lied about this, it was you that added the deceiving content... [134]. You wickedly deceived people by claiming falsely that the police broke in the flat. I've caught you red-handed again. STSC (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your evidence of my supposed "wickedness" is from nearly four years ago, so I didn't remember that I added that content. The police reportedly didn't have a warrant to search Lam's flat. Citobun (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The police went in the flat with Lam, they did not break in the flat. You clearly intended to deceive people by making up false and libellous information in Wikipedia. Actually the WP:NOTHERE applies to you. STSC (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what i read so far, In my belief Citobun's arguments are far more convincing than STSC. 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) DoctorHell (talk)

I would say before went to ANI, it would be a good gesture to open a thread in the talk page, state the problem (e.g. completely no source, synthesis of source, or just 3RR with 24 hours), state the wording on the newspaper or academic paper or reliable source, invite the party involved to participate in the discussion. Use dispute resolution tool etc. Yes there is rare case that the user completely not engaged in any talk page discussion or just running circle to protect his point of view, but then these are the step to show the user is CIR or NOTHERE. Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

In general, I agree with what you say. However, the issues I pointed out here are not content issues.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

There was a behavioural issue you pointed out here. That of the IP. Not STSC. Your proposal to blame STSC for not opposing the IP's actions hard enough remains inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, (1) BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) are supposed to be removed. The policy is very clear about this. We don't acknowledge them (or attempt to refute/prove them). Without this, Wikipedia would become like a forum where anything can be posted (making the platform a haven for the likes of Nazis and supremacists) (2) The second issue is that STSC's comments do not seem to demonstrate if they actually understood that the IP's comment was a BLP violation. In any case, my proposal is simply for a warning.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You should note that I did not actually discuss any detail of the rumour itself in my reply to the IP. Wikipedia is not compulsory, I'm under no obligation to delete any material in Wikipedia. I understand BLP policy very well, and I've removed the libellous contents from Junius Ho article but Citobun strongly objected the removal and DoctorHell repeatedly put libellous content back. They should be warned instead. STSC (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained in the OP that libellous content is false. The content at Junius Ho is well-sourced, and therefore doesn't constitute libel. I don't know why you are choosing to ignore this. The fact that you continue to call the content "libellous", deliberately ignoring the basic definition of the word, further demonstrates that you are removing content on purely POV grounds (and defending such behaviour by misrepresenting unrelated policies). Citobun (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Other editors would also say you want to keep the libellous contents on your POV ground. Why didn't you put back what I have removed if you have the sources? Give us the sources now. STSC (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits because, from past experience, I know you will simply start an edit war over it. I am not interested in edit warring. The content in question was already sourced in the body of the article. Citobun (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't make excuse, it's because I have served a DS notice on you. Give us the sources here now, if you cannot then don't make any false accusation against other editors. STSC (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources are all in the Junius Ho article. Everything there is well-sourced. I don't know what you mean by DS notice. I asked you on my talk page what you meant by that and you failed to explain it. Citobun (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot make up libellous wording just based on the sources per WP:SYNTH. You have deleted the DS notice, it's your problem. STSC (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add that content in the first place, nor have I reverted you. Please stop trying to portray me as exhibiting editing behaviours that I have not. Secondly, I didn't delete your "DS notice". I asked you to explain exactly what you were asking of me – and you didn't. The "DS notice" is now archived but still plainly visible. Citobun (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So, your allegation is wrong. No need to ask me, the DS notice itself has the information. STSC (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Point by point response:

(1) Original sentence "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against demonstrators", I thought it was too general so I edited it to "Riot police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators". It's because the police started to deploy tear gas and rubber bullets against groups of violent demonstrators as they remained in the streets after the lawful protest march has finished. Citobun said it's "implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters". What a nonsense! So, basically, he wants me to add that the police is evil and they hit everyone in the streets. The police was just doing their duty to deal with the violent protesters, but Citobun says it's "police violence"; he considers other editors would be guilty for POV pushing if they don't follow his POV.

(2) I added "not so successful" about the general strike because a general strike is supposed to have everything halted but on that day mostly everything was normal while the biggest union did not join the strike. Source: [135]

(3) Of course they were riots, many protesters have got arrested and charged with rioting already.

(4) I used the same description as the article title which is Tiananmen Square protests.

(5) 'Protesters' is a more precise description than 'citizens'.

(6) One of the edit summaries was short because of my laziness, it's not my intention to mislead; and soon afterward I have rewritten the edit summary in more detail. There's no misleading in the other edit summary because I did shorten the "See also' list because it was unreasonably long. Actually many edits from Citobun do not even have a edit summary at all.

(7) It's a survey of just 1000 telephone respondents, it should not be presented as a fact.

(8) The potentially libellous contents I removed from Junius Ho have no directly connected sources per WP:SYNTH.

2 August: I did not blank, I removed potentially libellous wording "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents" added by DoctorHell. I moved the rest of the content to a new section.

6 August: DoctorHell put back again "He is known for encouraging violence against his opponents", I removed it. I also served a DS notice on DoctorHell.

21 August: I did not blank, I moved the content to another section, I stated very clearly in my edit summery "mv to 'Controversies' section."

10 September: I removed "scandals" because of no source.

10 September: I changed "Advocating for the killing of Hong Kong independence supporters" to "Call for killing of Hong Kong independence supporters", I thought the word "advocating" was too strong and potentially libellous.

- STSC (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

# STSC be warned to avoid misleading edit summaries.

1. Citobun be given a short-duration block for WP:HARASSMENT and advised not to bring complaints about STSC up again unless they do something actionable.
2. Edit protection be applied to articles related to the Hong Kong protests until such time as the current situation concludes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, particularly the second action. I don't see any evidence of harassment by Citobun in this complaint, where some valid issues have been pointed out by multiple editors. I don't see this complaint as disrupting Wikipedia either. Blocking people for bringing up legitimate issues at ANI only serves to create a Chilling effect on Wikipedia. More importantly blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, not be used punitively and I also note that for the evidence of harassment presented here [136] is from July and has already been acted upon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Citobun was [137] blocked for harassment in July for PAs against STSC. And their response two months later is this trumped up AN/I filing. I don't think that a clearer picture is needed than that. They clearly have personal issues with STSC and they are clearly allowing those personal issues to cloud their judgment around proper comportment on Wikipedia. I don't think they need to be indeffed, but they do need to be reminded to behave. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• And that's the second time Citobun pulled a block in a situation where they were tangling with STSC over a Hong Kong article [138] - the 2017 edit warring block, if you look at article history, it was Citobun in a 1AM situation, and STSC was one of the M in that equation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• [139] Here's the history in question. The page is essentially inactive now so it's easy to find the appropriate edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I found the 3RR/N case that led to Citobun's first block and while both were blocked for edit warring at that time, Citobun was admonished by the blocking admin to avoid PAs on that occasion too. This is a long-standing grudge that has to be put to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see an edit war (that too dating back to 2017) for which both STSC and Citobun seem to have been blocked. The other complaint is from July for which Citobun was blocked. I don't see anything in this particular ANI filing which would would remotely count as harassment.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Simonm223, what gives? This ANI filing is clearly not harassment nor a personal attack. I've already responded to that claim above, though you chose to ignore it. Citobun (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the second action, the issue here is about STSC, not Citobun. DoctorHell (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #2. It makes no sense. I'm ok with 1 & 3 Proposal #2 is ok. Buffs (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Updated because the original proposal was changed. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #2. Citobun has raised valid issues, and yes it makes perfect sense for you to have issues with a problematic editor especially when that editor has not changed his/her behaviour in any visible way from years ago. feminist (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

STSC should be warned. In particular, they should (1) demonstrate an understanding of our WP:BLP policy (2) avoid misleading edit summaries. Any future violations should be blockable.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as it leaves Citobun without any response to their vexatious and unnecessary AN/I complaint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is vexatious or objectionable about this AN/I complaint? You keep making completely baseless claims that I am attacking people. I have already linked you to the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Read it. I have provided ample evidence to back up my original allegation. I have not made any personal attacks here, nor harassed anyone. Stop making these baseless accusations. Citobun (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see your motive here is trying to harass me after being blocked for personal attack. STSC (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Between Citobun and STSC, I view STSC as the greater problem due to the POV slant of his editing and violations of biographies of living persons policy. This is fully demonstrated by the diffs already presented in this thread. I think that a warning to STSC should be sufficient to get the message across.Krow750 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. STSC should be unequivocally warned to cease making politically slanted edits of dubious veracity that are not backed up by citations to reliable sources. I provided multiple examples of such edits in the original filing above, which neither STSC nor Simonm223 addressed, instead choosing to frustrate the discussion by making baseless personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Citobun has provided amble evidence. The issue here is STSC's behaviour, not Citobun. I believe to penalize Citobun is to shoot the messenger. DoctorHell (talk) 3:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support in addition to the first proposal (either one or both is ok). Updated as proposal #1 has been modified. Support for this proposal remains and is independent of any other support for this issue. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Ample evidence of thinly veiled, politically slanted editing going back several years. feminist (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - (1) I'm under no obligation to demonstrate my understanding of anything. (2) One edit summary maybe short and incomplete (who hasn't done that sometimes?) but they're not intentionally misleading; I have also rewritten the edit summary in more details soon after. STSC (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above. WMSR (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Addendum

Any objection to adding a note about civility? "...and (3) reminded to remain WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and ensure WP:NPA in his responses." Buffs (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Buffs (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal by STSC to end this saga

(1) Citobun withdraws his allegations in this ANI.

(2) Citobun and STSC enter into an agreement that:

Citobun agrees to use the normal channels of dispute resolution to resolve any content dispute with STSC.

STSC agrees to write more detailed edit summaries.

- STSC (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as that is basically proposal #2 without any official warning for you. Bringing this dispute here is a normal channel to deal with disruption, which you seem to be engaged in. And you shouldn't need AN/I to write proper edit summaries—you should be doing it anyway. WMSR (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the proposed agreement is not meant for both parties to comply to do anything now or later. It's just like a declaration for both sides in order to reach a compromise. There was no disruption on my part but I have been wikihounded for a long time. I only offer this proposal so that we may move on. STSC (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

An admin closes this thread and archives it promptly. No further action. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Seriously? At the very least STSC needs to be warned, since they have not been able to show that they understand WP:BLP and for the misleading edit summaries. I think that's the least that can be done. Otherwise, it sends a pretty wrong signal and is one of the exact things which makes this platform unfriendly for certain groups such as women.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Being honest, with this now the oldest open thread on AN/I, and with it having attracted exactly zero admin feedback to date, a quiet close and archive is the most likely outcome. I mean you might get something grumpy about this being a "content dispute" too. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Stop this harassment and persecution on the opponents in content dispute. STSC (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds. Proposal #2 has sufficient backing to declare consensus. Closure without enacting at least that one would be inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Three of the backers have involved content dispute with me in the past. STSC (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. See WP:CIVIL. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant when we establish "consensus". STSC (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC).

Frankly this looks like a content dispute from outside. I got involved in the argument because I saw (and still contend) a pattern of behaviour from Citobun which is close to WP:HARASSMENT and at least a severe failure of WP:AGF. But the ability of Citobun to conjure up four editors, all of whom have a history of anti-Beijing POV comments and edits to make a seriously lacking claim of WP:NOTHERE that included such things as STSC disputing an IP on some iffy comments but not hard enough, and STSC removing an WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY source from an article in which a WP:SYNTH interpretation was being used doesn't equal a strong consensus that action needs to occur. And the unwillingness of admins to address this issue is telling. It's nothing. It's always been nothing. The best they conjured was one misleading edit summary. That is what all this text from the people who want STSC kicked off boils down to. And as it's gone on, until I asked to just close it, it eventually simmered down to STSC and Citobun trading barbs at each other. The best thing to do would be to close this thread, and remind editors that they sometimes have to play in the sandbox with people who disagree with them. The most likely thing to happen is for this thread to close; you know, unless one of the central belligerents manages to bait the other into violating WP:CIV on this page in some egregious way, and I think we can all agree that's a low-likelihood scenario we'd all rather just nix. So let's just be done with this pointless exercise in attempting to vote an editor off the island and pretend it never happened. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, it's not relevant. Every person regardless of their involvement has a chance to have a voice in the matter. An admin can decide whether the opinions are meatpuppetry, but I'm not seeing it. If you piss off 10 people and all 10 call for you to be blocked, "But all of them have a grievance against me!" is not a reason to discount their opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but the exceptionally weak quality of the evidence provided and the clear animosity between the complaining editor, their compatriots, and STSC are relevant, and together form a reason to discount their opinion. This is a petty squabble between these editors and the best suggestion I can propose is that the matter should be dropped. Unilaterally. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, you are now falsely accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing. I don't know these other users that you call my "compatriots" nor did I invite them here. You have also made other unsubstantiated allegations against others here. Again, provide evidence (diffs) and stop making baseless allegations. Honestly you should also be warned for the disruptive behaviour you have displayed in this filing, seemingly intended to mislead administrators by misrepresenting the situation.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing by a user who has been topic banned in the past. He moved on to different topics, but exhibits precisely the same disruptive editing behaviour that got him sanctioned in the first place. Full stop. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Citobun, if I intend to accuse you of canvasing I will say it in a straightforward manner rather than implying, as I did, that there are a group of editors on Hong Kong articles with a shared anti-Beijing POV who all occupy roughly the same set of articles. Please dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality slightly. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote that I "conjured up" a group of editors whom you referred to as my "compatriots", thereby obliquely accusing me of two things: canvassing and being acquainted with the others. I earlier asked you to stop making false allegations such as these, but you continue to do so with zero substantiation. Again, you appear to be intentionally misrepresenting the situation in order to mislead administrators. As I have asked you several times before: if you make allegations against others, please back them up with diffs. Citobun (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Citobun, if you don't know the background of the FG issue then you'd better not to make any false statement about it; you weren't even here at that time. Your accusation of POV pushing against other users is just a smokescreen to cover up your own POV pushing. STSC (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you yourself have been blocked for harassing other editor in a content dispute.[140] I don't think you may have any vote in this matter. STSC (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Poisoning the well.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me?! What the hell? Regardless of whether ANYONE has been blocked before for ANY reason, if they are in good standing with the community, they are allowed to voice an opinion unless canvassed or via meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. None of these apply.

For those interested, I openly announced I would be doing edits to a series of pages, while performing these non-controversial edits to that series of pages a person with whom I had a disagreement edited a page I was coming up on. As soon as I done so, she claimed I was stalking her. It was a setup and an admin fell for it hook, line, and sinker. That same admin later had related multiple actions of his undone via WP:AE (this action expired before said review).

At this point it seems your intention is not to address the issues brought forth here, but to smear, belittle, demean, and cast aspersions on those who object to your behavior. As DreamLinker stated, you're just attempting to poison the well rather than make substantive remarks. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues but you never have. STSC (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I never have what? Buffs (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You have never addressed the issues. STSC (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean you're not allowed to have your say but it would be unwise for you to vote because 'harassment' is also one of the issues here. Just my opinion. STSC (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2019 (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:Lo meiin continuing battleground behaviour

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.

---

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

While looking through recent changes, I noticed this edit to the talk page of a blocked editor. The highlight of that diff is Thank you for inviting me to that noticeboard in order to defuse the lies spread by traitorous Chinese in Taiwan, which is blatant battleground behaviour, and also hints at illegitimate CANVASSING. The user was previously warned at AE by Sandstein for battleground behaviour two days ago. I also note that the aforementioned diff comments on an ARBPIA3 issue, saying I would also like to invite you to the Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#asia countries classification as there are some pro Israeli POV editors that are trying to break consensus and bring Palestine to the same humiliating classification as Taiwan, in contravention of the General Prohibition, and again appearing to be CANVASSING.

Another edit today, which again follows the pattern, is opening a DRN discussion that was closed procedurally.

I think this needs a closer look taken at it. Thanks, ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin routinely refers to Taiwan as "rebellious province Taiwan" (a POV talking point from the government of the People's Republic of China), but, wow, that latest diatribe is something else. Of course, Lo meiin never took a break from his battleground behavior, not only opening that non-proceeding DRN, but starting this discussion on my Talk page to try to "convince me" of making edits on the same matter about which he had been warned and about which his most recent RfC had found a consensus *against* his position, and even made a terrorist-type threat to "ignite a tinderbox" if I didn't agree to his "offer." He then opened a third RfC on the same issue on that same article with the same agenda (grouping Palestine with generally recognized sovereign states instead of with states without general recognition such as Taiwan), and that's the RfC for which he was canvassing a fellow anti-Taiwan editor. I have not noticed any difference in Lo meiin's conduct since his warning. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Since my warning from the AN, I have curbed all out-of consensus editing and have referred to appropriate means of resolution dispute, such as the use of talk pages and have long ago ended uncivil behavior, so these allegations are false and void. Furthermore, I was trying to confirm by Wikipedia’s guidelines by cracking down on POV content. Lo meiin (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Phrases like "lies spread by traitorous Chinese in Taiwan" and "the same humiliating classification as Taiwan" are clear indications of the sort of battleground-like conduct that Sandstein warned Lo meiin about a few days ago. In addition, Lo meiin attempted to blank this report here at ANI. That is very troubling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, after Lo meiin disruptively blanked this discussion (since reverted as inappropriate), he deleted the "traitorous Chinese in Taiwan" from his canvassing message at a Talk page. He seems to think that if he deletes edits that he can pretend that they never occurred. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, pro Israeli POV bias editors are trying to discredit me by filing baseless allegations against me. I have not used personal attacks, have not edited articles out of consensus, and have even tried to achieve consensus by appropriate dispute resolution requests and noticeboards. When I referred to Taiwan in that manner, I am referring to POV Taiwanese Chinese and Israeli editors trying to impose their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo meiin (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a single human being who can read English could look at these edits and say the accusations and say they are "baseless".★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Trekker. The comment also makes no sense since it is likely most people who feel that way do not view themselves owing any loyalty to the PRC so cannot be 'traitorous' unless you subscribe to the view of the PRC. (The Taiwanese government's official stance is also a one China policy but clearly they don't feel their citizens owe loyalty to the PRC government.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Proposed indefinite block Lo meiin, your defence to accusations of repeated battle-ground behaviour, something I already warned you about [141] last week, is first to vandalize ANI [142], and then engage in more battleground behaviour to claim it's about "pro Israeli POV bias editors", and attack "POV Taiwanese Chinese and Israeli editors"? For the record, most of this user's entire history at WP consists of deliberate policy violation. It would take a great deal of AGF not to suspect it's a blocked user disrupting. Whatever the case, it is clearly someone not here with the slightest intention to contribute. Based on the repeated policy violations and attacks the last few weeks, the vandalism of ANI in response to this thread, and the repeated personal attacks in "defence", I move that the user be indefinitely blocked as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, I understand your frustration, but I am not attempting to engage in battleground behavior, I am simply trying to prevent the consensus-making process from being disrupted by non NPOV. Evidence of this is how I opened a dispute resolution noticeboard in the hopes of coming together and finding a solution, in which I respect all points of view. I am only concerned that some Palestinian and other readers of Wikipedia may find some content offensive, which I feel some editors are deliberately trying to do. I greatly implore you not to impose a block, indefinite or otherwise, as I vow to abide by wiki guidelines and not attack any user ever again if this decision is reconsidered. I have come to Wikipedia to improve the objective ness and credibility of political content and I promise my intentions are nothing but for the best of all editors. I respect all editors and all viewpoints and remain committed to following wiki protocol and guidelines, so I think that such a ban would not be a smart option as I will solve this dispute in nothing but a peaceful manner. Sock puppet editors tend to engage in personal attacks and have an aggressive approach to other editors, and I denounce such behavior and vow not to stoop to their level Lo meiin (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Multilple users had alreadly warned you on your talk page just in the last few weeks. Just like above, you always promised to change, but continued in the same way. Jeppiz (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin, you are obviously and glaringly pushing a pro-Peoples Republic of China POV. So, please answer these two questions: What gives you the credibility or the moral high ground to accuse other editors of POV pushing? And, why did you blank this ANI report? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with Cullen here. Please explain why you deleted the ANI thread. You've been here long enough and also brought to ANI and for that matter simple common sense will tell you it is inappropriate for someone brought to ANI to delete the thread except in egregious cases like LTAs. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Jeppiz and per Lo meiin's highly problematic responses to issues raised in this thread. WMSR (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for deleting this thread- it was a stupid and mindless decision made out of the whim of the moment out of panic. I also vow not to launch any more forms of dispute resolution other than the DRN as I will correct my previous attempt. I know that I have treated many of my fellow editors with blatant and unapologetic disrespect and for that, I am truly sorry. I also promise to take a hiatus on all A-I related articles until a fair consensus is reached and, in the meantime, will cease all behavior that has been perceived to be battleground like. If given a last chance, I vow to change all, not just some, these ways for good, for which I am truly sorry. I also apologize all editors that had to put up with this behavior and promise to be a better editor. 02:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo meiin (talk • contribs)

"It was a stupid and mindless decision made out of the whim of the moment out of panic."

Funny, based on the reason that you gave for your (ANI blanking) edit, your action appeared to be deliberate and with a particular reason in mind, not "mindless" or "on a whim": Your edit summary read "POV pro Israeli editor abusing noticeboard to advance POV political agenda."

And your promise to behave would be more believable had you (i) not insisted every time that your disruptive, battleground behavior has been brought up--as recently as in this very discussion--that you have been behaving all along, and that it was your "accusers" who were violating Wikipedia policies and (ii) not promised to behave numerous times in the past few weeks yet immediately return to the same attitude and uncivil behavior.

In addition, when you say that "I also promise to take a hiatus on all A-I related articles until a fair consensus is reached," I am reminded that your countless POV edits trying to prop up the level of international recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty (while simultaneously belittling the level of de facto recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty) have been made in articles that are not directly related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which is why you weren't suspended for your relentless POV editing of those articles despite not being an experienced editor. Besides, you always claim that your edits are NPOV and that it is everyone else's edits (and the consensus reached by the editing community in your multiple RfCs) that are POV. So what exactly are you promising when you vow to "take a hiatus on all A-I related articles until a fair consensus is reached"? A clear consensus was reached on your RfC a couple of days ago, and you responded by claiming that it wasn't fair and immediately seeking a DRN against me and another editor and, when that got tossed, filing a third RfC with the same agenda. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am beginning to feel threatened by AuH2Orepublicans constant reverts of my edits and tailgating of my every move on wikipedia. You also are accusing me of issuing empty apologies and coming to wikipedia for a bad purpose. That cannot be farther than the truth. And in addition, you are a high level wiki editor that has been editing for long, but that does not mean you yourself have not published POV edits in the past as well, and the ones on the A-I conflict, unsurprisingly, seem to mimic a US government's pro Israel POV on the conflict. And I would be remiss if i did not point out that some of my accusers, such as WarKosign and Bellezzasolo are of Israeli heritage or are POV pro israel editors who are trying to discredit Palestinian and Arab world viewpoints on wikipedia Lo meiin (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said previously, Lo meiin, you are obviously and glaringly pushing a pro-Peoples Republic of China POV. I then asked a question that you have not yet answered: What gives you the credibility or the moral high ground to accuse other editors of POV pushing? Please answer that question now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would be remiss if i dii not point out that some of my accusers, such as WarKosign and Bellezzasolo are of Israeli heritage This is blatant racism. WMSR (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned as it seems that Lo meiin's very first action as an editor was bringing AuH2ORepublican to AN/I in July. The editor has also previously been investigated per WP:SOCK. WMSR (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I will gladly answer that question, Cullen328: Just as I, in the past, advocated anti Taiwanese Chinese stances (which as of now, I will cease doing), I would be remiss if I did not point out other editors who push POV stances in favour of Israel or the United States on several articles of wikipedia, and many sock-puppets that have been banned by abusing wikipedias A-I policy by enforcing a POV happened to be both Arab/and or palestinian but also israeli. furthermore, editors pushing pro israeli or pro American POVs on wikipedia only tend to discredit pro arab countries and Palestine POV users but not POV israeli users. Having read through many articles, such as the Foreign Policy of Stephen Harper among others, I have noticed a particularly polemical tone that seems to conform to Israeli biases more than Arab/Palestinian biases. Furthermore, on several pages in which Palestine is already categorized with all other sovereign states, others, such as AuH2Orepublican, are waging a campaign to forcefully change that status quo and condemn Palestine to the status of Taiwan, or Kosovo. Having read extensively about the A-I on wikipedia, It is fair and reasonable to classify both Israel and Palestine as recognized nations of the UN. For the sake of wikipedia's credibility, I believe that both Israeli and Arab/Palestinian editors who advance their biases on wikipedia should be singled out equivocally and not be allowed to spew their propagandas on this objective platform. All I am suggesting and proposing is that both Palestine and israel have the right to be listed as recognized nations on wikipedia, plainly and objectively;

both have some form of membership in the UN, whereas Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia and others do not.

both are recognized by over 70% of all countries across three ( and in Israelis case 4 or 5) continents, whereas Kosovo, Taiwan, and the rest, have 100 (~52%) (Kosovo) or below recognitions (Taiwan has only 15) with hardly a majority on any continent (Kosovo in Europe only and Taiwan (Partially in oceanian only) and Western Sahara in Africa only.

both arab claims on israel and israelis claims on palestine are not internationally recognized, whereas many recognize Serbian and Chinese claims over Kosovo and Taiwan and Abkhazia, etc respectively

lastly, WMSR, please do not bring the issue of race into this which will cause more tension and is irrelevant, as I welcome israeli editors and those of all nationalities equally, but I am pointing out that some (not all) users of israeli heritage (as described in their user pages) are trying to discredit editors they perceive as pro arab/palestinian while remaining mostly and usually (but not always) mum on pro israeli editors, so please to not try to accuse me of racist, as that is far from the truth. In addition, Yes, my first move was an Admin noticeboard against AuH2Orepublican, as I was peacefully trying to solve the dispute he was having with other editors which was one of the first things i noticed while researching the conflict on wikipedia Lo meiin (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin: You are the one who brought issue of race (or "heritage") into this discussion. Nobody mentioned it before you. Only yesterday you wrote in this very discussion "I know that I have treated many of my fellow editors with blatant and unapologetic disrespect and for that, I am truly sorry. I also promise to take a hiatus on all A-I related articles until a fair consensus is reached and, in the meantime, will cease all behavior that has been perceived to be battleground like.", yet just now you claimed that other editors "push POV stances" or "spew their propagandas" while you are "suggesting and proposing" ... "plainly and objectively". If this isn't continuing battleground behavior and disrespecting other editors, I don't know what is.

"I am simply trying to prevent the consensus-making process from being disrupted by non NPOV" would be more believable if your actions through your short tenure as an editor weren't the exact opposite. “WarKosign” 20:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I have admitted the times that I have been pushing a POV, such as when I tried to erase mention of Taiwan from lists of states (and I even recanted, multiple times), and, just as I am admitting to my own flaws, I am just as equally condemning all and any POV editors, regardless of their political views and background, Palestinian/Arab. Israeli/American, Sri Lankan, German, etc. Now instead of using this noticeboard to attack me and convince the wiki community why I should be banned, I suggest we all put the past (and other arbitrary POV actions from all sides) behind us and use this noticeboard cooperate constructively together in order to find a fair solution and consensus (which is why I invited AuH2O and WarKosign to a dispute resolution noticeboard, which is the whole purpose of wikipedia editing. Lo meiin (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo's user page indicates that he is Jewish and British. He does not claim Israeli heritage. Conflating the two and arguing that a Jewish editor cannot be objective is racist. WMSR (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC), edited 21:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@WMSR: I don't believe this is what you meant, but your comment can be understood to imply that while it's racist to say that a British Jewish editor cannot be objective, it's not racist to claim the same for an Israeli editor. I must point out that assuming any kind of bias based on any attribute of an editor other than what they did or said is discrimination - be it by race, age, gender, etc. “WarKosign” 04:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You are absolutely right. I meant to point out that the user's page did not make any claims to Israeli heritage, but Lo meiin apparently assumed he is Israeli because he is Jewish. Conflating those two identities is problematic, as is using any aspect of a user's identity to diminish their ability as an editor. WMSR (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hold on, I NEVER said that "a Jewish editor cannot be objective", that is wholly anti-Semitic in every definition of the word, and I pride myself for being a strong opponent of racism (knowing friends who have been victims of racism themselves)- , so please stop putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that Just as I welcome all editors of all nationalities, I denounce any and all attempts by all and any nationalities to edit disruptively and in a POV manner.

Oh, and I believe my suggestion was not heeded to or understood correctly, I would like to use this noticeboard as a platform to discuss a consensus on the Palestine categorization dispute. Given that both AuH2O's and my views are well known by now, what do you guys think (and please do not dodge the question and throw more false accusations at me)? Lo meiin (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin, that statement stems from your opening statement, where you say I am referring to POV Taiwanese Chinese and Israeli editors trying to impose their views. WMSR, he opened that statement with pro Israeli POV bias editors, so I'm going to AGF and assume he meant that I'm a Israeli POV editor, rather than Israeli... Problematic, nonetheless. I do participate in ARBPIA issues occasionally, but I do try to avoid it! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocking now I was torn between suggesting a topic ban from politics and geography (broadly construed) or just blocking them myself. They've only been around a couple of months but the attempted blankings, racism, Tu quoque-laced admission/accusations of POV-pushing, sheer amount of double-talk coming from Lo meiin in just this thread alone seems reason enough to block them, IMO. Their first action was to notify a user that they were starting an ANI thread about them, which is a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS. When that failed, they proceeded to forum shop. That (in this thread), they claim to feel "threatened by AuH2Orepublicans constant reverts of my edits and tailgating of my every move on wikipedia" is nothing short of the sort of paranoid hypocrisy indicative that one lacks the grasp on reality necessary to contribute. I don't know whether it's WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR that applies but the former's got a block template.

Note that my actions are not the conclusion of this thread nor meant to suggest that any consensus has been reached. If consensus is to block, then the block notice and log should be updated to reflect that. If no consensus is reached, then the block is just my action and not a community block. If the consensus is not to block them, then they should be unblocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I maintain strong support for a block, in addition to reopening the sockpuppet investigation. WMSR (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse this block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support block While I generally feel that Wikipedia has a problematic systemic bias toward China such as treating the (often laughably POV) BBC as a top-tier source while generally opposing the use of state-owned sources from non-capitalist states, this sort of misbehavior does nothing to correct that WP:NPOV failure, and in fact just makes things harder for those of us who legitimately hold that there is room in Wikipedia to correct its anti-China bias. Furthermore, statements that a person's self-reported positions make them incapable of contributing to WP:NPOV article creation are never appropriate. When it involves conflating as diverse a religion as Judaism with an implicit assumption of Israeli national identity, it goes from inappropriate to egregious (and honestly disgusting). Nor does flattening complicated issues of sovereignty such as those involving China's peripheral provinces and claimed territories to "traitorous" what what. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and furthermore not even helping solve the problem that they claim led to their misbehavior. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly support indefinite block The editor in question has been given dozens of warnings regarding his behavior, and has never strayed from his old ways for more than a couple of days at a time. Everything points to him being WP:NOTHERE, and a topic ban (even if broadly interpreted to include any article that discusses Palestine, Israel, Kosovo, Vatican City, Taiwan or the People's Republic of China or that even hints at issues of recognition of sovereignty of any country) would be insufficient because his uncivil comportment, battleground attitude and abusive and harassing behavior would permeate his discussion of any topic, no matter how uncontroversial. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Support of Indef block I don't see anyone in the past 4 days coming to his defense, so also recommend Close per WP:SNOW and initiate a WP:SOCK investigation (everything else here is pointless drama, doubletalk, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (via ignoring the complaints and problematic behavior). This behavior is clearly egregious and should be stopped ASAP. Buffs (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2019 (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 editing on Northern Ireland school 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.

---

Hello, it looks like Factlover92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging is disruptive editing on Northern Ireland school articles the past few days.

The editor has been introducing their own original research and borderline BLP violations (see [143] and [144]). In addition, they have been moving pages without consensus (see [145]).

They have been warning multiple times with no success in preventing their disruptive editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

They got duplicate level 3 warnings at 17:13 and 17:36. They have not edited since the latter of those warnings; however, in the interval, they made an edit that was a gross BLP violation. I've given a level 4 warning. I'm at the point where one more bad edit would be enough to justify a block, but I'm not quite ready to block on their edits so far. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfectly appropriate response and action by C.Fred. Let's keep an eye on this user, and if disruption continues - we'll take the appropriate next step in order to prevent further disruption. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred and Oshwah. I'll keep an eye out and will update this thread if necessary. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The edits are just pure vandalism, not even OR and disruptive but vandalism. Edits that change Northern Ireland to be Ireland, North of Ireland or Eire is a pure vandalism account. I think if they make any more of these edits it should just be an indef, they're not here to contribute only entertain themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I went with vandalism-only instead of nothere, but the account just earned themselves a block for another such edit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2019 (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.

Controversial behaviour at squatting position

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.

---

Squatting position is a very unusual article for which I suggest WP:IGNORE largely applies. There is a lot of trivia and obscure material on Wikipedia and I guess that around 30% of Wikipedia text is uncited. If uncited material should be automatically deleted, why is there not a bot to do that automatically? For anybody who has any understanding of squatting it is a million miles from obscure trivia that can be found on Wikipedia. It is a fundamental subject. We all do elements of squatting every day. Young children drop into full squats instinctively.

There are bad tempered and nit picking comments by User:Drmies at User_talk:Penbat#Thanks... He seems to have a viceral dislike for the subject for example adding the section heading: "Squatting while peeing or pooping" which not only is slang, pooping is US specific slang. User:Drmies has seized on nitpicky points of detail without any affinity for the bigger picture.

User:Doug Weller piled in and there was a bad tempered exchange at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56#Squatting_position. I wrote a paragraph explaining that I had started a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. User:Doug Weller then makes this comment at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56#Squatting_position instead of Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies: "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it". This comment triggered me to respond to ask for clarification to this statement and request a link to the Wikipedia guidelines supporting this. User:Doug Weller then tells me off for not using the talk page but then compounds the confusion by making a further statement at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56#Squatting_position which includes "And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference.". This is factually incorrect. The material is old. So I felt triggered to again reply at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56#Squatting_position but no response from User:Doug Weller. I also copied my reply to Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies. --Penbat (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess the issue is edits such as this. The problem is that justifying that text with WP:IAR is unsatisfactory because the same justification would allow people to write long essays with their original research, and that would lead to chaos. Sorry, but WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:V and WP:DUE all need to be applied, and they mean Squatting position will have to remain trimmed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:But there are other points to consider. Everything in the article is heavily supported by images and the images do not lie. Also it is not your typical original research as there is nothing out there to refute it. It seems to be a scientific blindspot which is ironic as it relates to every day activities unlike some highly specialist obscure areas of scientific research. The images provide the WP:V and I cannot see the relevance of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:DUE. I have also not had an explanation of why uncited material is allowed in some articles but not others. Also WP:IGNORE does exist.--Penbat (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed at Talk:Squatting_position#Deletions_by_Drmies that User:Drmies has tried to ridicule me accusing me of adding the talk page tags. He only needed to check the talk page history to find out that it was not me. It is a blatant attempt to smear me and User:Drmies should apologise. User:Drmies and User:Doug Weller have both been distinctly uncivil.--Penbat (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Penbat: Do you seriously feel that this crap (32 K of utterly unencyclopaedic trivia), which has been deleted by two Wikipedia admins (Drmies and Doug Weller) after being repeatedly restored by you, belongs in an encyclopaedia? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:Just calling something "crap" is no sort of analysis. You need to address the points I make here and on the talk page one by one. I can see that there are fundamental inconsistencies with summarily deleting text here but real "crap" in other articles remaining. "Crap" is an emotive word which has nothing to do with objective analysis.--Penbat (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the removed content is complete crap and should not be put back in. Reyk _YO! 12:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Reyk: Do you not understand that "crap" is no sort of objective analysis. The discussion needs to reference WP guidelines not be based on emotive words like "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

"Crap" (slang, mildly vulgar: Something of poor quality; something that is rubbish; nonsense) isn't an "emotive word", it's a very accurate description of the material you have repeatedly added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on but I concur with Thomas and Reyk - The removed content was utter crap that shouldn't of been in the article in the first place. –Davey2010^Talk 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To @Reyk:, @Davey2010: and @Thomas.W: apart from the ridiculousness of using the one word analysis "crap", it could just not possibly be true anyway. All the text was heavily supported by images. Are you saying that images lie and they are "crap" as well ?--Penbat (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Images, from simple line drawings to photos, often lie, which is why images aren't allowed as sources here. And yes, the material you repeatedly added can best be described as "crap", in spite of the heavy use of images... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:I just used a cross section of photos from the Wikipedia:Media supplied by numerous different contributers. It is unlikely that there is any point or viability in any of them being faked. Anyway the reader could verify them for themselves by assuming that position.--Penbat (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The images may not be crap but the content certainly is, I would suggest someone closes this with a firm warning to Penbat not to add the material back or to add overbloated crap to other articles. –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I was also going on to add that it relates to everyday activites which people can verify for themselves. It is still a complete cop out calling it "crap". Please give a few key examples of what you mean by "crap" and explanation of why it is fundamentally untrue or "crap" as you say it in each case. Please as an alternative explain what is true as you understand it. Much of the material is self evident and you can try it out for yourself.--Penbat (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You have got that wrong because the images self evidently support the text. Are you suggesting recovering the images in any case. I am still waiting for a specific key example of your "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Penbat: uncited content exists in some articles simply because nobody has removed it yet. Feel free to remove it yourself whenever you see it. WP:V and WP:NOR are quite clear. If, for some ridiculous reason, no reliable sources ever wrote about the Sun, then we wouldn't, either. It's really that simple. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Maybe about 30% of Wikipedia is uncited material. Why is there no bot to automatically delete it ? Just to give one example, for many films or TV programs you often see long uncited descriptions of the plot. There are hundreds of articles like that. Maybe I should just wade in and delete all that material. Anyway an article on a single film is less significant than squatting which is an everyday activity.--Penbat (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Penbat - please don't delete unsourced plots - per WP:FILMPLOT "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. ..." - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar:It is not that simple, I think there is a guideline somewhere that self-evident material has a lower bar. Also there is WP:IGNORE and the text in the article is suported by images.--Penbat (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Being an everyday activity that everyone knows about without having to read an article in an encyclopaedia actually makes squatting position less relevant here than an article about a random movie. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W Of course it doesnt. People largely do it every day unconsciously without thinking. But it is of value to point out to people what they do do. And people can easily verify that the text makes sense by checking it by doing it themselves.--Penbat (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you seriously think anyone would do that? And even if they do it doesn't make the 32 K of rubbish you repeatedly added one iota more fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't all this an almost a perfect definition of Original Research? Curdle (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No it is an infallable example of WP:V. The reader can verify for themselves by assuming the positions also the photo images in the article provide verification.--Penbat (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Penbat: You don't seem to be able to see the full picture, requesting that we discuss every single piece of those 32K separately, wanting to discuss images, and things like readers being able to test the different positions for themselves to see if it's true or not. This discussion isn't about individual details of those 32K, it's about those 32K as a whole being utterly unencyclopaedic trivia, and not fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. As half a dozen editors, those who reverted you included, have tried to make you understand. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W:Stop using emotive words like "crap" and "rubbish". It does you no favours. The whole point of the article is that it is an every day activity. If the reader wanted to check on the veracity of something, they could try it themselves if they wanted to. The photo images were in there as well. It is much easier than checking many of the citations in Wikipedia articles which could be a page in a book or journalistic article not freely available online. --Penbat (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

They're not "emotive", they're "descriptive", and since a considerable number of editors feel the material shouldn't be in the article, and you being the only one who wants it there, the material will stay out. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Kneeling has the same issues, as well as a rather questionable selection of gallery pics. Curdle (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a clear case of WP:Disruptive editing, specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Penbat seems to have tried to create an article that seems to be a combination of a huge variety of names for various positions of the body and an illustrated guide on how to perform those positions and why someone might want to. He also seems to be justifying his version by both saying IAR applies and that his edits have policy justification so should be accepted. If this continues I'd suggest a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Are you still not bothering to address the points I raised above about the comments on your talk page. You made the bold statement "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it". I asked you for clarification then you ignored me. You then said "And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference." That is factually incorrect. Please have the decency to respond to my requests for clarification. You also do not understand that the article is 9 years old. There is nothing recent going on at all.--Penbat (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CHALLENGE. Unsourced material can be challenged at any time. Don't put it back without sources. Reyk _YO! 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

And please note what WP:BURDEN says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So it doesn't matter who added it first, if you re-add material that has been challenged and removed, it's up to you to provide sources for it, even if it didn't have any sources before being removed! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at Kneeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the same problems because the same editor. I see User:OhNoitsJamie has questioned the images. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I figured we might end up here. The editor tried to argue somewhere that IAR applies here, for some convoluted reason (somehow squatting is "special"); I believe it does not. "Everything in the article is heavily supported by images and the images do not lie" is...well, one wouldn't expect this from a seasoned Wikipedia editor. And I am happy to see that the concerns I had with the article are shared by other editors. I didn't know about Kneeling; User:JzG, thank you for taking that bull by the horns. Oh, and I am not going to apologize for the word "pooping", though it is clear that some members of the community disagree with its usage: note the difference between the hook on Talk:El_Salt and the approved hook on Template:Did you know nominations/El Salt. Ah well--it's all good. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• BTW the OED does not support the editor's point about "poop" being specific to the US: "Originally: to break wind (now chiefly U.S.). Now usually: to defecate." Drmies (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Not relevant)(Apologies for my comment), but I just burst out laughing on seeing the section name "Controversial behaviour at squatting position". That's an euphemism I can imagine my relatives using to refer to something. Add to that the talk about "crap" and "piling on". I had a pretty shitty day myself, but reading this made me lighten up.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Penbat - it seems to me that the central tension here is that you believe the descriptions you added to this article are so common place as to be obvious, and thus not requiring a citation. Unfortunately, as others have attempted to explain above, the volume and detail of content added to these articles stretches that argument so far as to be entirely unrecognisable. Saying "a reader can simply go and verify this for themselves" isn't a good argument. It could be made for a large proportion of material in this encyclopedia. Take Edinburgh for example. Should we assume that, because someone could theoretically travel there themselves and count everyone in the city that we don't need a citation for the population count? Please consider that the large number of experienced editors who argue that the material shouldn't be in the article without appropriate citations might be correct. Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• ANI isn't for content disputes. Someone should close this. Lepricavark (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2019 (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.

Scanner Vandal

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.

---

Hello. It has come to my attention that the Marc's article is being plagued by a Anonymous vandal from August 2019. The modus operandi of the Anonymous user to add pointless, unreferenced text about the store's scanners.

• 69.135.53.198 on 16 August 2019
• 99.190.136.211 on 18 August 2019
• 24.239.93.121 on 27 August 2019
• 75.90.34.239 on 22 September 2019
• 174.104.220.148 on 25 September 2019

This Anonymous user seems to be using multiple IPs from ISPs. Might be from the NE Ohio, Western PA area as their contributions are from that area. I really don't know what to do, but taking this to Admins is a starting point to go from here. FunksBrother (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for one month. (I know it's been going on for a while, but I'm hesitant to do longer than that as a first protection.) If the vandalism continues after the protection expires, you'd want to report it to WP:RFPP (and mention that it has been previously protected, and the issue is sockpuppet vandalism). ST47 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@ST47: Alright. I will make note of this. If the vandalism continues following the protection ends, I'll take the matter to WP:RFPP. Thank you. FunksBrother (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2019 (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:Hapuzat

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.

---

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

In a span of around 30 hours, persistent unexplained removal by User:Hapuzat of text, references and images [146] [147] [148] [149][150], plus changing dabs page to redirects ([151], [152], [153] ,[154]), changing an article to a redirect, and copying from an article to replace a dab. All changes were reverted User has been repeatedly warned, but does not communicate and reverts warnings from his/her talk page ([155], [156], [157], [158]). A notice has been placed on user's talk page. – Archer1234 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User blocked, thanks for the comprehensive report. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this is a sock of another user User:Pellingjohn blocked by @JBW:, the SPI I opened was closed but I think JBW may be aware of some more extensive sockpuppetry? Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2019 (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:DonnieJack1

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.

---

• DonnieJack1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a brief question to start this report: isn't claiming admin without going through the WP:RFA process (1, 2) already bad faith as it is? After all, there's more to this user than just the claims. The user has mostly focused on electronic dance music artist articles, adding, removing, and changing from infoboxes without sources:

• Instruments used by artists (example 1, example 2)
• Associated acts in violation of the requirements of Template:Infobox musical artist (example)
• Causes of death (example)
• And other similar edits; no examples provided

I have already discussed this over on WP:DISCORD with WP:NOTHERE being brought up as a possibility by administrator K6ka. I doubt all the edits by the user qualify them as NOTHERE, but the claims of admin are an obvious sign of disruptive behavior. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is unimpressive and the claims of being an admin don't help. It's not as serious as a NOTHERE, but certainly this doesn't carry on the same way any further.

I have no idea why I was pinged for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I pinged a few other users that have reverted this user in the past hoping to get additional input from them. I apologize for any intrusion I may have caused. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's just a clueless newbie. Try actually talking to him instead of just templating him and complaining at ANI. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2019 (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:Duylop

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 received a message from Duylop who asked me to edit and help fix Akane Yamaguchi. After looking at their contributions, it looks like he’s done it to other people, too. The account was created a few minutes ago, so it seems a little sketchy to me. Jayab314 03:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Duylop is an obvious WP:DUCK of User:Vtukol. | abequinn^fourteen 03:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

and...Duylop has been blocked, but Vtukol hasn't. I guess the latter seems stale? | abequinn^fourteen 03:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vtukol is blocked too, now. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've undone the non-admin closure as it was premature. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vtukol. I just added Duylop to the list of puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2019 (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.

Albert Wolsky et al

Luke Kindred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May need some guidance from someone they don’t view as having an LGBTQ conflict of interest as both I and apparently @Bearcat: have.

Bearcat was nice enough to explain some of mistaken misinterpretations Luke Kindred was using, but now Luke has returned again to Albert Wolsky, a gay man of a certain age who lost his life partner of three+ decades James Mitchell (actor) in 2010. Luke is yet again removing LGBTQ categories reasoning the article and references don’t implicitly say “gay”, instead using “life partner”.

Other articles targeted for such treatment:

• Alan Bates
• James Mitchell (actor)
• Alan Smith
• Ali Smith
• Antony Hamilton
• Alexander Bard
• Chavela Vargas

I think others need to step in. Thank you for looking at this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Originally I removed the over-categorization citing WP:NONDEF. After a bit of an edit war I have attempted to clarify and reiterate the problem as: " A tiny, isolated mention of their partner does not "commonly and consistently define" the subject as a *Gay Artist* WP:NONDEF - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining" WP Policy is clear and simple. @Gleeanon409: characterizes their misinterpretation of the article perfectly with their above statement "Albert Wolsky, a gay man" which is a blatant manipulation of the actual article which reads closer to "Albert Wolsky, costume designer ...(about 400 words of bio content)...His longtime partner was actor James Mitchell...references, the end. If the category is as important as you claim to the article, other sources should be cited so that Albert Wolsky, gay artist can be stated outside of the categories. In addition Gleeanon409 seems to be attempting an emotional plea "lost his life partner" as if I'm just being mean or the subject deserves us to "take-it-easy" or soften the rules. I am simply trying to correct, what appears to me as a misuse of categories (a rather non-neutral and in many places a controversial category).

The fact that most of the articles mentioned relied upon unreliable sources to support the LGBT categories is an additional issue. Gleeanon409 In the Alan Bates article chose to utilize from Queerty: Free from an agenda (except that gay one) to source this important information when several reliable sources were at hand. This seems to indicate a bias on this editor's part. Thanks for any help. --Luke Kindred (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

If a person uses an unreliable source to support information, but you know and freely admit that more reliable sources exist for the same information, then the appropriate response is not to strip the information from the article entirely — it's to leave the information alone but replace the bad source with one of the better ones that you already know about. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for any help

Based on your editing and Wikilawyering attempts to erase Wolsky's sexual identity, I seriously doubt you're going to get much help here. It would take a serious effort to find any ambiguity in things like this from the New York Times:

“The Turning Point” was the only time that Mr. Wolsky was able to work with his companion of 39 years, the actor James Mitchell. They had moved to Hollywood in 1976 after Mr. Mitchell, who had also been a dancing mainstay for Agnes De Mille, had his Broadway career end when “Mack and Mabel” tanked. After a thudding two-year dry spell, there was a call to audition for the soap opera “All My Children” and his subsequent 32-year run as the bad guy and fan favorite Palmer Cortlandt. With Mr. Mitchell living at their place in New York for the filming, the couple spent long stretches apart, which Mr. Wolsky said actually strengthened their relationship.

All that, and your attempt to delete well-known Canadian playwright Brad Fraser on spurious GNG grounds makes me wonder whether you're here to help the encyclopedia or further a personal agenda. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

On a hunch I checked, and indeed Brad Fraser, which Luke has been trying to delete, is also openly gay.

Also it should be made plain again to Luke that LGBTQ media can be, and can even be preferred, as reliable sources. Especially on LGBTQ content, they are more likely to treat gender and sexuality issues accurately, and usually in keeping with a subject’s own preferences like terminology. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Please reference any official WP Policies which defend the statement directly above.--Luke Kindred (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources should suffice. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what you falsely claimed on Gleeanon's user talk page, we do not have any rule that LGBTQ-oriented media is automatically invalid for use as Wikipedia sourcing. Yes, there are some LGBTQ-themed blogs that fall short of our reliable sourcing standards — but there are also many non-LGBTQ-oriented blogs that fall short of our reliable sourcing standards too, and there are many LGBTQ-oriented media outlets that are perfectly acceptable. Their use is most certainly not precluded, especially for content that relates specifically to LGBTQ identity and culture. We do not have any blanket rules either way around the use of LGBT-themed media: an LGBT publication that meets our reliable sourcing standards, such as The Advocate and Daily Xtra, is acceptable, and an LGBT publication that does not, such as Towleroad, is not. But we judge that by measuring the specific publication against our reliable sourcing standards in exactly the same way we measure any other publication, and we most certainly do not blanket-ban all LGBT-oriented publications from use just because they're LGBT-oriented. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not and have never claimed such an automatic or blanket ban on such sources - and you know this. You are continuing to avoid a direct response to my very clear and quoted statements and by doing so are indicating that you have no policy defense here at all. Certainly other editors whom have not publicly indicated a possible bias on LGBT topics plainly on their userpages (as you have)) would be correcting this with specific guidance, if such existed. What Gleeanon409 (Whose user history clearly indicates an specific focus on LGBT topics) just described is clearly the definition of biased and non-neutral sources. Any source which is found discussing a living person "in keeping with a subject’s own preferences like terminology" is printing propaganda and should not be utilized as the primary and sole source for reporting potentially controversial and non-neutral statements such as LGBT sexual orientation. You are somehow blind to the non-neutrality of such labels. Perhaps living in the wonderfully accepting Canada has colored your viewpoint. Until very recently such claims about a person (even famous ones) were treated as libel in U.S. courts when not well sourced as public knowledge. Identifying or being identified as LGBT can and has harmed reputations, caused a variety of problems such as travel visa denials, the loss of work contracts, and a variety of harmful harassment. This is exactly the reason why reliable news sources often use very careful words like "companion" and "partner" when describing such issues. The use of such terminology in reliable sources should be a clear red-flag that the subject may not identify of wish to be identified publicly with LGBT community.. I would also point out that one of the most prominent and cited sources for LBGT subjects on Wikipedia, The Advocate - a product of Pride Media Inc., describes themselves in this manner: "The Advocate defines what it is to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender today" . In other words, this source is upfront about being non-neutral propaganda. Which is fine. Few sources are strictly objective and I can see that they are a great source for a lot of under-reported material. But they have a vested interest in identifying subjects and individuals with their cause and point-of-view. Because of this they probably are not a reliable source specifically on the issue sexual identification in WP:BLP. Please glance at these references, I think they are very important to this discussion and your work on Wikipedia. Thank you Luke Kindred (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Based on your own statements here and elsewhere, I would be leery of having you anywhere near any LGBTQ article, anywhere, ever. With this logic we should erase all LGBTQ content from all articles to save those poor people from themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have checked a systematic sample of 20 out of Luke Kindred's last 100 article edits. (Since he has only ever made 311 article edits, that is a substantial proportion of his total contributions.) 17 of those twenty, i.e. 85%, were concerned with removing information about people being gay, or removing all information about people who are gay. Mostly that was done by removing categories from articles, but there are other methods too, including out of process attempts such as putting a PROD BLP template on an article which visibly and unmistakably contains a source. His attempts to wikilawyer about the precise wording of policies and the nature of sources notwithstanding, it is abundantly clear that he is on a mission to remove information about people being gay. He has been warned by two administrators (NinjaRobotPirate and Liz) about discretionary sanctions relating to BLP editing and about edit-warring. Some of his attempts to dismiss gay sources as unreliable and gay editors as inherently biased are absurd. Both on this page and elsewhere statements from other editors make it clear that consensus is against his actions. He should now drop the matter, and find other editing to do. He should take this as a warning that if he continues in the same way he can expect to be blocked from editing, probably sooner rather than later. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You have all gone insane. I fail to see how attempts to defend my editing with concise and specific use of directly cited Wikipedia policy is "wikilawyering". I also fail to see how any of these vague, indirect, and emotional pleas to cease and desist have demonstrated anything meaningful. Instead of joining the discussion and participating in our community you are choosing to threaten me with retaliation, personal attacks, and sensationalism. If I were to treat you the same way you would lose your minds. This system is failing. This is clearly an important topic of discussion and you are demanding that I stop participating on the grounds that you will harm me if I don't. If it weren't so pointless I would now have clear grounds to report you on this noticeboard. A sad day in Wikipedia world. --Luke Kindred (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you really going to claim to understand Wikipedia's policies and practices better than four administrators who've been around here for over a decade, and who have all seen every possible version of that argument a million times before? One thing you're going to have to keep in mind is that "objective" does not mean "agrees with my own biases", and "biased" does not mean "disagrees with my own biases" — it's not our job to wipe out LGBTQ content just because you dislike it, because it would be just as inappropriate for Wikipedia to be biased against LGBTQ content as it would be for us to be an LGBTQ advocacy site. It is entirely possible to write about LGBTQ people and issues in a neutral and objective and unbiased way — so LGBTQ content is not automatically biased content, LGBTQ-oriented sources are not automatically biased sources, and LGBTQ editors are not automatically biased editors.

Yeah, we have rules, but they don't all mean what you want them to mean — when an administrator tells you that you're wrong about what the rules are, you'd be wise to listen if you want to be a Wikipedia contributor much longer, and when four or five administrators have told you the same thing, you'd be wise to realize that we're probably correct. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Until you respond to my arguments by citing sources and policies I am left to believe that you are expressing your strongly held feelings. I was clearly defended by an seasoned admin Ponyoat talk. So it appears that a valid and genuine disagreement exists. I am going to continue working on topics that interest me, and I promise that anyone who feels the need to stalk or scrutinize my work will find it thoughtful, unusually well summarized, supported by clearly referenced WP policies, reliably sourced, constructive, and done in good faith. Unfortunately I can see that we will be spending a lot of our time in the future chatting on this board. P.S. perhaps everyone could tone down the retribution talk and threats. Ending every note with bullying "or else we will ban you" is not civil, not constructive, not nice. I'm sure there are appropriate places for such threats but in a discussion where the accused is responding at great length, speaking respectfully, and raising honest questions - nope. --Luke Kindred (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait, I wasn't very clearly defending you about anything. I took the opportunity to advise Gleeanon409 on WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS with reference to a single article (i.e. Calvin Klein), which they appear to have reviewed and taken on board. That is the extent of my involvement in any of this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And that was exactly and precisely the issue which is primary here. Other users have tried to make this conversation about a host of others things. All I care about here is WP:BLPCAT.--Luke Kindred (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So your stated interest on Wikipedia is to de-populate LGBTQ categories? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not have any formal written statement about the acceptability or unacceptability of LGBTQ-oriented sources as a class. Nobody can link you to a thing that doesn't exist — but you obviously can't link us to a thing that doesn't exist, in order to provide any support for your interpretation, either. LGBTQ-oriented sources are neither all good nor all bad, so we have no blanket policy either way — rather, just like any other potential sources, we test each LGBTQ-oriented source for whether that individual source meets our reliable source requirements or not on its own merits. Some LGBTQ-oriented sources clear the bar, and are perfectly acceptable for use; some do not, and are not. But that's exactly the same way any other class of potential sources works, and we simply do not need to have any special statement that LGBT-oriented sources are treated the same way as any other kind of sources when that's simple common sense. We don't have any special statement about the acceptability of specialist automotive magazines in articles about cars, or about specialist photography magazines in articles about cameras, so why would on earth we need a special LGBTQ-specific statement to uphold that LGBTQ-oriented sources are okay in articles about LGBT topics?

And have you noticed, perhaps, that no Wikipedia administrator has ever told you any differently? I'm a long-established and well-respected site administrator, so trust me, if I were ever actually wrong about a matter of policy, people here would be piling on like lemmings to correct me. But they're not, and that's a big fat clue that I'm not wrong. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 wants to delete this from their talk page so I am reposting the start of the discussion here for the archive:

Problematic IP 94.101.156.18

This IP with a history of block evasion has 3 final warnings for the month of September alone (I didn't think there was any point to adding one of my own for their continued disruptive editing which I've just reverted). Despite requests to stop changing the MOS for certain articles (examples of their changes can be seen here, here, here, here & here) in edit summaries and on their talk page, this IP seemingly refuses to engage in any form of communication and it's hard to argue that they are here to build an encyclopedia. An administrative perusal would be most appreciated. Robvanvee 09:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This person, using IPs from Folkestone in Kent, has been blocked many, many times, and should be blocked here immediately. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 3 years--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

...And they immediately switched to Special:Contributions/86.132.91.152. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked this one as well, for a month, but probably someone will need to see if there is any collateral damage, and if not, to block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Genre warring

41.99.19.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Genre warring. Previously warned. Blueberry72 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they have stopped after your last warning (it might be coincidental, but I think blocking before they make the next edit is not reasonable, and we can not do anything else in this case).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Editor has not edited since the most recent warning, but otherwise I agree this is ripe for a block. Blueberry72, please use a more descriptive edit summary than "rollback" when reverting edits, and consider making this sort of report to WP:AIV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue with Sb008 editing

Ok I am feeling annoyed that Sb008 has been reverting my edits which on most of the football seasonal articles is fine but by his standards that doesn't seem to be the case as he/she reverts those edits on the 2019–20 Eredivisie saying that I am vandalising the page when I'm only following the format of most of the other articles. So who is actually right in this scenario. HawkAussie (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) HawkAussie, please note that you are required to notify Sb008 that you have started a thread here - a ping isn't sufficient, you need to leave a message on their talk page explicitly informing them - you should do that immediately. With regard to the dispute, I agree that accusations of vandalism are inaccurate and unhelpful; both of you appear to have been reverting each other, but this basically appears to be a content dispute that should be resolved on the article's talk page without accusations of bad faith. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have seen this thread and will respond soon, so no reason to notify me. --Sb008 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll give an answer today (CET based). --Sb008 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all my apologies for the late response. Occasionally I've a hectic weekend and this was one of them.

Now the actual issue, I would say it goes beyond being annoying.

On September 10 AussieHawk/HawkAussie removed the “results by round” table (I will refer to this table as "rbr" table from now on) on the 2019–20 Eredivisie page without any comment. For that reason I reverted the edit.

On September 12, the table was removed again, this time with a reason, WP:Fancruft which is basically described as “to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question”. A very objective crtterea.

Probably not many people will disagree if I claim that the standings table is the most important/relevant table of a league season page.

As I pointed out, here are at least 3 sites:

• NOS By far the most reliable site for Dutch football
• Soccerway probably in general the most referenced site for football on Wikpedia.
• Hollandse velden the most comprehensive site for Dutch football, all the way down to the lowest league.

which use “rbr” info as an integrated part of the standings table. Although the info is limited to the last 5 rounds in the standings table, it shows that these sites apparently consider this kind as info anything but fandruft.

Furthermore, the {{Infobox football league season}} has parameters like “Longest Wins”, “Longest Unbeaten“, “Longest winless” and “Longest losses”. If we consider a rbr table fancruft, how show we judge these parameters? In my opinion a summary of fandruft, is fandruft as well.

So should we start deleting those parameters on all league season pages from the infobox?

And that isn't all yet, if “rbr” tables are considered fandruft, why do we have the module {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}}? A module to implement “rbr” and “posdition by round” (pbr) tables. A module which is used on over on over 5000 pages for either “rbr” and/or “pbr” tables.

So deleting a”rbr” table simply by shouting it's fandruft, when there're are plenty of arguments to consider otherwise, is way too simple. If the table is questionable, then so becomes the infobox and module. Therefore another reason to revert.

A new delete on September 12, this time the argument WP:NOTSTATS, Basically the same counter arguments as before apply. Why do other websites have the info, why is it part of the infobox and why we have a module to create “rbr” tables?

But we can go on, if “rbr” tables are nostats why are “pbr” tables not as well? Why we put “monthly awards” info on league season pages? Until a few years ago they didn't even exist. These monthly awards are more about generating revenues and creating attention for the award sponsors than about the game. I doubt in 2037 there will be many people who are very interested in knowing which player got the player of the month award for April 2018 in the Premier League. Most likely we don't even have to wait till 2037 and already right now, besides some fanarics, no one cares one bit about we won it.

All in all, WP:Fancruft and WP:NOTSTATS are very objective creteria. Defining “rbr” tables as either one or both of them has enormous consequences for the “infobox” for the moduke {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}} and other information currently on league season pages.

Later that day a discussion started on my talk page. A lot of what was discussed is already mentioned above. Also there was a second discussion.

Additional arguments used

1. there's supposed to be a consensus not to use “rbr” tables, which is based on this thread. I don't consider that a consensus for the fo;;owing reasons.
   • A consensus was established regarding the {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}} module, as can be seen here and here. So both “pbr” and “rbr” tables are allowed.
   • The people who participated in the claimed consensus about not using “rbr” tables made all together exactly 1 edit on all tier 1 league season pages for this season as mentioned on the template page {{2019–20 in European football (UEFA)}}. This single edit was a revert. So not a single edit, updating the page with new or changed info. on these pages was performed by any of these people. I don't mention this cause I want to claim that people who don't contribute to pages shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion, but because a process in which none of the people who maintain the pages participates, can hardly be described as a community descision. To establish a consensus you make sure that the editors of the pages are notified about a descision making process.
   • Besides me at least 3 otherr people have reverting the deletion of the “rbr” tables.
   • Consensus wasn't a requirement anyway. The thread about the so called consensus was initiated on August 23, 18:10 with a question. Before anyone answered, HawkAussie already started to delete “rbr” tables as can can be seen here. Apparently his personal opinion was enough consensus.
2. There's supposed to be an official template for league pages.
   • The first line on the page clearly mentions proposal.
   • Regarding statistics the page mentions “The inclusion of this section is not decided yet“
   • If the page indeed was an official template, not a single league season page would qualify.
   • If the page indeed was an official template, it would result in a mass deletion of an awfull lot of information which is not mentioned on the template page.

Up till here all can be considered as a difference of opinion. However on September 13, things took a turn. HawkAussie started to delete “pbr” tables, which never have been a discussion, on several league season pages. However, the Eredivisie pages seemed to be a specific target, such as 2011–12 Eredivisie, 2012–13 Eredivisie and 2013–14 Eredivisie. Deleting undisputed content just like that? I call it vandalism. Apparently that wasn't enough. Additional changes were made on the 2019–20 Eredivisie page. Info about the promoted and relegated teams was added to the teams section. By itself valid information, howver in essence the same information was already provided in the introduction section. I don't care where the info is given, but there's no sense in giving it twice in on;ly two sentences apart. The layout of the “Top scorers” and “Assists” table was changed. The argument for that change was, “in line with the Premier League (PL)”. Why do tables have to be adapted to a lower standard? The PL tables contain less info and are implemented using deprecated tags.

If the community decides not to use “rbr” pages on league season pages, fine with me. But consensus should be established by makin sure all get a chance to participate in that discussion. So active editors of league season pages should be notified of the discussion. It would be wise to consider the impact the outcome might have on the infobox and the module {ml|Sports rbr table}}.

I would also be wise to create a real template for league seasons, which not only says what to use, but also what not to use and the considerations which resulted in a specific descision.. Basically not only the what and whay not, but also the why.

It's way to easy to shout only fandruft or nostats. Just as easy as shouting ugly, bad, poor or whatever subjective opinion without arguments.

Also, it would be wise to realise that defining a specific piece of info or statistic as something, also has an impact on other info or statistics. E.g. If we would define, based on arguments, “top scorers” as fandruft, it also has an impact on how to define “assists”.

What certainly shouldn't happen is deleting info from pages (initially) without any reason, or by using false claims about existing standards or a consensus.

Worst if all is, when someone doesn't give in during a debate, to start deleting or altering other kind of information. I don't start deleting tables from pages cause they contain deprecated tags. You improve or discuss or both, but you don't just delete.

And to end with how I started, it went beyond annoying. --Sb008 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be honest, Sb008, I can't really imagine anyone ever reading that lengthy comment. It looks to me like the two of you are engaged in a content dispute (I have no view on which of you is right), but ANI isn't the place to resolve that. This thread was started because you accused HawkAussie of VANDALISM - a serious charge, which you should either support with evidence or retract. Would you be willing to either (a) provide a TLDR explanation of why you think they are vandalising, or (b) retract the accusation, and accept that you're engaged in a content dispute with a good-faith editor who disagrees with you? If you're willing to retract, I'd suggest that this thread could be closed, and you can go and seek consensus on the article talk page (rather than your own user talk page, where other interested parties won't see the discussion and help generate a consensus). If necessary, you could go down one of the dispute resolution routes, like asking for a third opinion or starting an RfC if necessary. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In terms of the consensus for the article, I mainly asked him multiple times if you wanted to bring up a consensus go into WT:FOOTY as it wouldn't be these pages that would be effected but the rest of the seasonal articles. In response, he completely ignored my suggestion and continued to accuse me of vandalism which I will deny as I was attempting to follow the same format as most of the other football articles like here, here and here with doing the stats. In response he mostly did his reverts without any explanation at all which made me give the warnings for good faith editing on his talk page. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond latest on Friday. --Sb008 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Deletes without arguments, like here (1st delete of results by round), here (1st delete of positions by round and adding duplicate info).
2. Arguments WP:Fancruft WP:NOTSTATS, highly debatable since major websites consider it valuable info.

Up till here it can be considered as a content dispute

3. Argument of consensus, based on thread.
   • A consensus includes those who actually update the league season pages and not just "outsiders".
   • The thread about the so called consensus was initiated on August 23, 18:10 with a question. AussieHawk was the first to reply on August 24, 01:27. Hoever before that reply and before the so claimed consensus was established, AussieHawk already started to delete, like here, here and here. Obviously whether a consensus would or wouldn't be estables, was irrelevant for AussieHawk. His mind was made up anyway, results by round unfo had to be deleted.
   • Several people reverted his edits, like here, here, here and here

A consensus which excludes the people doing the actual editingand where the people doing the actual editing are reverting the deletes made by AussieHawk is anything but a comsensus but a major conflict of opinions. The fact that he didn't even wait for the outcome of the thread clearly indicates that his mind was made up. The fact that he keeps deleting "results by round" info when so many people are reverting his deletes clearly indicates he doesn't care about the opinion of these people. He isn't acting in good faith. Make a false claim about a consensus is also anything but acting in good faith.

4. Argument of an existing standard (template) described on this page. The page itself denies it's a standard cause it clearly mentions "proposal".

Making another false claim, is again anything but acting in good faith.

5. Next he started to delete "positions by round" tables. Some examples can be seen here, here, here and here

I can't read AussieHawk's mind, but I don't consider it a coinsidence that shortly after I mentioned 'If "results by round" is WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:NOTSTATS, an opinion which I don't share, the same applies for the more widely used "positions by round"', he starts to delete "position by round" tables. He deletes them kinda randomly on a few league pages, however mostlyon Dutch Eredivisie league season pages. He does so without a motivation, there's not even he discussion anywhere by a select few who reached a pseudo consensusto delete these tables. Like I said, I can't read his mind, but it seems like he's trying to "teach me a lesson" and to express his frustration. Whatever he was thinking, he's deleting widely accepted information without any discussion or consensus. I call it vandalism.

I can go on. Adding duplicate information I can consider as a well meant mistake. Changing the "top scorer" and "assists" table, I don't consider well meant but just another step to make a point.

All in all, tables get deleted on a pseudo consensus which excluded all people doing the daily updates. Multiple people revert his edits, and still he thinks there's a consensus and simply ignores these people. Not once but multiple times. A disrespect for all those editors. He uses false arguments, like a standard which is only proposal (in my opinion even a poor proposal). And on top of that he starts to delete widely accepted tables without a discussion and/or consensus. I call it vandalism any day. There's no good faith in ignoring others and trying to force your opinion, and starting to delete widely accepted data. --Sb008 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In response to the most recent post of AussieHawk

• The history shows who mostly acted without an explanation.
• The same history shows that I was the first to mention the impact of removing the "result by round" tables and he should make sure to get an RFC to get the module {{#invoke:Sports rbr table|function}} changed.
• Furthermore, I don't want to make a change. AussieHawk wants to delete data from pages. He wants to change something. So it's up him to create a proper consensus. Not a pseudo consensus which excludes those doing the daily updates. Which I also mentioned in the thread User talk:Sb008#2019–20_Eredivisie: 'Seems to me the proper discussion is whether to remove this module or not, and to make sure the right people are involved in the discussion. If the outcome is removal of the module, I'll be more than happy to remove "results by round" and "positions by round" myself from the eredivisie page.'
• Regarding "following the same format": If it had been his only change, "the good faith" argument would have been credible. In light of all events it isn't credible to me. Furthermore, when trying to have to same format everywhere, you don't downgrade tables without deprecated tags and more info to tables with deprecated tags and less info.
• Gotta love these false claims once again. Nice display of done in good faith. --Sb008 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sb008, I don't think your definition of vandalism corresponds well with WP:VANDALISM. You might be able to make a case for disruptive editing, but vandalism seems wide of the mark. (No offense intended AussieHawk - I don't mean to imply that I think you are guilty of that, I just mean that it seems a better fit for what Sb008 is describing.)

I don't want to stray too far into discussing the content dispute itself here, but I'll note that the thread that you mention includes comments from some very experienced editors, including GiantSnowman, one of the most prolific editors on football articles (and an admin, FWIW), who appears to agree that this table should be removed. You can certainly make an argument that the thread does not establish a valid consensus - but to say that another editor acting upon the its outcome is guilty of vandalism seems way over the top. My advice, if you want it, would be to retract the accusation, and start an RfC where a consensus on the matter could be established. I think that you're both here to improve the encyclopedia - which, by definition, vandals are not - it's just that you have very different opinions on what represents an improvement at these articles. My 2p worth, anyway. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism

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.

---

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On at least three occasions in the last two months, Sir Joseph has either directly accused other editors of being holocaust deniers or revisionists, or claimed that administrators, either personally or individually, are blocking editors for combatting antisemitism.

Examples:

1. Accusing Objective3000 of being a holocaust denier [159] by distorting a quote. See also discussion on talk page about it. This quote was eventually removed by El C
2. Accusing me of blocking someone for fighting antisemitism: [160], [161]
3. Comment on Sandstein's talk page on't bother. It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned. Look at AE and ARBCOM. And then Sandstein comes in like a hammer without waiting for any other admins to comment and then just blocks. followed by edit summary reverting not worth getting blocked by Sandstein over the direction of New-Wikipedia
4. This archived ANI thread, where he didn't directly name an editor, but as was noted at the time, didn't exactly behave in the best way regarding implication of antisemitism on this project.

I'm sure if anyone wanted to search for more, they could find them. Antisemitism is a cancer that has no place on Wikipedia, but fighting in contentious areas and using direct or indirect charge of antisemitism against both other editors in the topic areas and administrators is a chilling tactic that has no place here as well. I'm not exactly sure the best way to handle this, but it needs to stop, and I am of the belief that Sir Joseph has had more than enough warnings. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't distort O300's quote, that was his quote verbatim [162]. Secondly, why did you block Yaniv? He reverted someone who claimed that the Jews were able to come back after the Holocaust and reclaim their property.

As for AE, yeah, Sandstein could have blocked for an American TBAN violation, but the other edits were indeed reverting Holocaust revisionist edits, as @Paul Siebert: pointed out. As for that archived ANI thread, there is nothing wrong with my comment on my talk page.

Further, I point you to Warsaw_concentration_camp which stood for many years until @Icewhiz: and others removed the hoax that there was a concentration camp there that killed over 200,000 Poles. And yes, looking at the ARBCOM decision, I stand by my statement.

Talk about chilling, this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia, and they get called out for their editing, they deserve the scorn. This is the terrible chilling effect, you are planning on punishing me for pointing out hypocrisy and antisemitism? Shame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Further, you are now casting aspersions on me regarding that ANI thread. Nishidani brought NMMNG to ANI, not me and you are implicating me that I called Nishidani an antisemite, or made implications similar to that, when I have done no such thing. All I did was post his comment on my talk page. Please clear up that confusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been notified about this discussion, but I'd prefer to let other admins handle the matter raised by TonyBallioni. Sandstein 23:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have long been concerned about Sir Joseph bringing a battleground attitude to editing. They've been a frequent-flyer at AE for some time; just to make sure I wasn't misremembering, I checked their block log, and their history at AE and the AE logs. There's a degree of aggression and of a "if you're not with me you're against me" attitude that isn't compatible with collaborative editing. So far as I can tell, what Tony highlights is just another example of this. I'm as yet unsure of what to do about it, because if it's a problem restricted to alleging holocaust denial the solution is obvious; if it's an attitude problem, it's not. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind. We should absolutely take a zero-tolerance approach to genuine holocaust denial. For that very reason, crying wolf about holocaust denial isn't okay. I cannot agree strongly enough with Bradv below. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Can you clarify which quote you are talking about? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  It's this quote. I also read this entire discussion on your talk page. I repeat, there is no holocaust denial here. O3000 isn't saying that the generally accepted estimate of holocaust deaths is exaggerated; they're saying that some people have exaggerated it. Likewise, they're not saying that the casualties are actually 75% of what they were; they are saying that even if they had been, it wouldn't have made the holocaust less horrific. In that discussion on your talk page, you continually draw unjustified conclusions from what O3000 says. You also repeatedly insist that because you quoted verbatim, you cannot have taken something out of context, which is a nonsensical argument; the "context" is the stuff not in the quote. And you've repeated that mistake here, multiple times. Even if no sanction comes of this discussion, you need to step back and think hard about why you are jumping to the conclusions that you are. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• In light of the fact that there are holocaust deniers/revisionists and similar that have edited this website, we are better off with a iron curtain approach from a few editors that draw a line in the sand and confront this hideous POV. I have read the back and forth between 03000 and SirJoseph and it appears to me that 03000 made a comment that he should have immediately retracted and apologized...had this happened the issue would have ceased then, for I see it as one that has an insinuation of at the very least, revisionism. That 03000 has subsequently made it clear he was highly offended by the denialism label and explained themselves adequately so this issue should be dropped by all immediately. As far as Sandstein issuing draconian and unilateral blocks and bans, that's nothing new. Sandstein should voluntarily remove himself from that venue until he can demonstrate some empathy and fairness.--MONGO (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned by Sir Joseph, let me voice my opinion.

• Don't you agree that blocking a user who says that anyone who raises the antisemitism issue will be blocked would mean to confirm what he is saying?
• We have two problems: 1. Baseless accusations in antisemitism is a serious violation of our policy. 2. Antisemitism is a real phenomenon on Wikipedia pages and it is a serious violation too. That means, accusation of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, or Nazism whitewashing, cannot be considered a violation per se. However, as any outstanding claim, it requires outstanding evidences. Therefore, the questions are:

1. Had Sir Joseph sustained his burden of evidence?
2. Do admins treat evidences of antisemitism seriously?

I have no answer to the first question (I hadn't examined evidences), but I have some thoughts on the second one. My resent conversation with Sandstein suggests their approach to that problem is not as serious as it should be. Indeed, I presented the evidences that the accusation in defending Hitler, which were a subject of the recent AE, had some ground, however, these evidences were rejected or ignored by him for purely procedural reasons. That means any person who will face similar situation will prefer to think twice before throwing accusations of antisemitism, even in a situation when there are serious reasons for that. Although I agree that Sir Joseph is redundantly emotional, a non-zero possibility exists that there is some reason for that. Indeed, there is a big difference between showing one diff and saying: "Look, he accused me of antisemitism!" and presenting long and detailed explanations demonstrating that that was a real example of antisemitism. I have a feeling the first type evidences is what admins like (because they are simple to deal with). In contrast, second type evidences require thoughtful examination, and I have a feeling admins prefer avoid that.

To summarise, in a current situation, the one who has been accused of antisemitism has, by default, an advantage over the one who has thrown this accusation. I doubt that state of things is normal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service. – Levivich 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  If someone is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, presumably the evidence is obvious. If not, they usually wouldn't be permitted to remain in the theatre. – bradv🍁 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  This. We block antisemites and holocaust deniers on sight (or at least, I advocate for that.) The issue comes when someone begins accusing established editors in content disputes of it or when one accuses administrators of it for not getting involved in content disputes on your side. That's when it ceases being a public service and starts being a tactic used to win battles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: You can RBI nazis per this fundamental principle that is above any policy, guideline, or essay. Poveglia (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• My ancestors include Jews who escaped persecution. I can tell you stories that are hard to digest. My friends and coworkers have been mostly Jewish for decades. Sir J repeatedly accused me of holocaust denial despite my numerous statements that I know that the holocaust occurred and that it is one of the most egregious events in history. He would not stop no matter how many times I stated this. He demanded that I make a statement declaring that his exact definition was correct. I was so disgusted that my editing has dropped by over 90% as I have such a sour taste in my mouth every time I look at this site. Personally, I don’t give a damn what religion a person is and I think all religious texts are apocryphal. I guess I am just not Jewish enough for him. He should not be anywhere near anything related to religion. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sir Joseph's treatment of O3000 was repugnant. He's lucky that he wasn't blocked then, but it seems he didn't learn anything. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni needs to stop casting aspersions about me. I never called O300 a Holocaust denier and I never said anything about Nishidani. He is poisoning the well. Further, pointing out my blocks from 2016 is wrong since those were during the reign of Coffee and regardless, they are from 2016. I stand by most of those edits. I'll be offline for the next day but I hope you read what Mongo and Levivitch wrote as well as Paul Siebert. I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. I even asked him why he didn't do anything about VM who also violated a TBAN and he opted out of blocking or doing anything about it. Do what you want, but don't pretend that there is no problem on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You know what you did to O3000. I'm increasingly tempted to propose a site ban. Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  he didn't do anything about VM who also violated a TBAN - I did not violate any TBAN. I do not nor did I even have a TBAN. I didn't violate anything else either. Volunteer Marek 05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph: I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. How is this relevant? What are you suggesting? – bradv🍁 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Bradv, we are talking about blocks and bans about Poland and Holocaust and I asked you to do the same for Volunteer Marek and you refused. Seems self explanatory. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Pretend I and the other readers of this page are dumb. Explain. Because the hanging insinuations are about to get you booted from this site. spryde | talk 01:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Your reprehensible behavior in this section alone is enough for me to support a block. From casting aspersions to denying your history of incivility, it's simply unacceptable. It's quite evident you take Wikipedia to be a battleground in which you label other contributors holocaust deniers/revisionists without any substantial basis, and in an incredibly insulting manner. Further, this comment above seems to be a veiled attack on Bradv; if it is not, please explain it. Your conduct has instigated conflict where it was unnecessary, and inflame incivility where it was avoidable. I support any action that prevents this behavior from continuing. Vermont (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, since you brought it up, let's talk about it. On May 9, you said If only the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they could have had it many years ago. Sadly they don't. They'd rather continue killing people. ([163]) I had never interacted with you before this point, but I found this comment so egregious that I reported it to AE, and you were subsequently topic-banned for 3 months. (discussion). Now you are still claiming that I did something wrong by reporting you, implying that you haven't learned anything from that topic ban.

  Regarding Icewhiz, I don't see how any of that is relevant, but anyone interested can read our interactions on that here and here. – bradv🍁 01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note: after this thread started, in a reply to Vanamonde93, Sir Joseph repeated his borderline libelous comment that Objective3000 thinks less Jews died in the Holocaust than the historical consensus. Sir Joseph would obviously know this was false, as O3000 said this on SJ's own talk page and clarified the comment was that people who claimed more Jews died in the Holocaust than there were Jews existing in Europe were wrong. Sir Joseph has removed that here, instead asking for clarification of what quote Vanamonde was talking about, but this shows he is still willing to blatantly lie and accuse others of things that he knows to be false. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quoting someone in full, can't be libel. Again, I did not take anything out of context, not sure why you keep missing that. That is O300's quote. That's why I undid my edit because I'm not sure what Vanamode is referring to. But not sure what you are referring to, since the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism, and O300 has clarified that he wasn't talking about his views but other views. So not sure what you're trying to get at. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to propose a ban from all religion related articles. But, now that he has yet again falsely accused me of an egregious act, I believe a six month block is warranted. Going to bed now. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything, as I explicitly stated, that's your quote but not your view. For some reason TonyBallioni and others here would like me banned and they are using this and other edits and reopening things to do so, but this was already clarified and closed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"...the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism..." - this is clearly an statement of accusation that O3000 is a Holocaust revisionist, yet the quote does not seem to meet that threshold. You may wish to stop now, before you dig yourself a bigger hole. Waggie (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to sign off, but this was already clarified, but I do wish to point out that the quote is a form of revisionism [164] Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. However, since you seem to have missed the part where as MONGO pointed out much earlier that O3000 clarified that this isn't his views, or just right above where I explicitly said the same thing, and he was just quoting, but apparently TonyBallioni would like to reopen this old thread for some reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, in this diff, only "revisionism" is the term that may be considered questionable. Meanwhile, "revisionism" is not the same as "denial". "Historical revisionism" does not always refer to something negative, sometimes that may refer to some views that have not became mainstream yet. Any new historical concept was seen initially as revisionist. "Holocaust revisionism" is a form of historical revisionism, and that is not necessarily Holocaust denial.

@Sir Joseph, I think not every attempt to adjust the number of killed Jews downwards is something terrible, provided that solid evidences are presented. In connection to that, I think SJ's crusade may distract a community from real cases of Holocaust denial or antisemitism. In my opinion, an attempt to see antisemitism, or Holocaust denial, or Hitler whitewashing (that is not the same) in virtually everything has an opposite effect. IMO, if your declared goal coincides with your real goal, everybody will benefit if you become less emotional.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Meanwhile, "revisionism" is not the same as "denial". "Historical revisionism" does not always refer to something negative Paul, come on. We both know that while in general "historical revisionism" may not necessarily be negative (like "revising" the legacy of Emperor Tiberius or something) in the context of the Holocaust "revisionism" ALWAYS means the same as "denial". Basically, the term "Holocaust revisionism" was invented (co-opted?) by Holocaust deniers so that they could present a more appealing face to the general public (sort of like how white supremacists run around claiming they're only "proud of their race" and come up with various euphemisms for their racism). Everyone who is even vaguely interested in or has some familiarity with the topic knows this. It's more or less common knowledge. So yes, an accusation of "Holocaust revisionism" is the same as an accusation of "Holocaust denial" and just as serious. And a really messed up thing to accuse someone of, when it's false. Volunteer Marek 04:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but the original quote was not used that way. Regardless, this was already clarified and closed months ago. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you can't claim this was clarified and closed months ago, while continuing to repeat the accusation. – bradv🍁 02:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I was only using the term Sir Joseph used to describe O3000's quote a month ago: I never said you didn't say the Holocaust never happened, you just are denying six million Jews were murdered, and you are OK with saying that it can be 75% of that number. As per the Wiki article, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, that is indeed Holocaust Denial. (diff). Like Waggie stated, he was accusing someone else of downplaying the numbers today after knowing that was not their view, and after stating that he considers it to be denial and also linking to the article on denial on his talk page when he placed the quote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, you said above, "this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia". If so, that would be a WP:COI problem. Which editors are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Typically, the editor who makes a racist or antisemitic statement is the one who gets the ban hammer, not the editor who was offended by it, and/or became overzealous trying to prevent it from happening again. Antisemitism does rear its ugly head in some of our AP2 articles, and I find it highly offensive even though I'm not that easy to offend. My interactions with O3000 have taught me that he can be easily offended and becomes battlegroundy over the least little thing - like when I added *sigh* to the end of my comment. He let me know right away that it was belittling to editors, so out of respect, I leave with an unwritten *sigh*. But seriously, isn't it plausible to think that an editor who is offended by a written exhale would be the one who exercised the most caution when crafting their own comments? How could O3000 have been so negligent? Anyway, there is no use crying over spilled milk. I think Sir Joseph should simply agree to not bring up O3000's antisemitic "A few random thingies:" quote again, and if he is exposed to any further perceived antisemitic or racist comments by another editor, to simply leave a diff on Tony's TP and let him take care of it. Problem solved, let's move on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC) ^{clarified using "perceived" 05:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)}      

  The general consensus is that O3000's comment was not antisemitic. Unless you can present a good argument to the contrary, please refrain from repeating discredited allegations. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme, I am not surprised that you would misrepresent the truth here. O3000 made no antisemitic comment. Someone should have blocked you for this. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Drmies, and I am not surprised that you would completely misinterpret what I said, but if it was that easy for you, then it may be that easy for others who arrived late to this discussion, so I struck it and used a different identifier regarding what some perceived to be the offensive diff which begins with I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some.... I have no dog in this fight, and I am perfectly fine with whatever consensus decides. Oh, and you might want to read what I said in this diff about semantics. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Your interpretation shows a lack of competence—if you can't read O3000's comment in the context where it was given and see that it has nothing to do with denying the Holocaust, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• We should be deeply concerned at Holocuast distortion on this site - not users calling this out.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Seriously, Icewhiz? Users falsely calling out holocaust denialism do serious damage to any effort to deal with real holocaust denialism. When I described Sir Joseph as "crying wolf" above I wasn't just making a reference; that parable is very applicable here. If O3000 were to say something genuinely problematic about the holocaust a couple of weeks down the road, and if Sir Joseph happened to be the one who called attention to it, he wouldn't be taken seriously. Holocaust denialism is serious stuff; therefore by definition accusing someone of it is a serious accusation. With evidence, it's grounds for a indefinite block. So, either you think that making a false accusation this serious is fine, or you actually think that that quote constitutes holocaust denialism; both of which are extremely troublesome positions to take. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Saying the Holocaust death toll is exaggerated - and should be set at 75% is blatant and deep within Holocaust distortion turf. See USHMM - "Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.". Instead of acting swiftly to counter denial on Wikipedia - we are acting against those who complain - making Wikipedia a safe harbor for Holocaust distortion (and not surprsingly - as a result - articles in mainspace have had conspiracy theories on the Holocast persist for over a decade).Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  O3000 did not say that the death toll was exaggerated. He said that it might be exaggerated (there is a difference), but that it was still in the millions and still not okay. How many time does this need to be spelled out? Lepricavark (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Suggesting the death toll is exaggerated is distortion - a common one. See USHMM. There was a weak "may" in there, not might, - "I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some. ... But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”." This a statement that merits scrutiny.Icewhiz (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  So a museum is the final word? I'm sorry, no. And if you want to split hairs between 'may' and 'might', I give up. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  A musuem + every single serious historian of note. To this we can add scholars of antisemitism / Holocaust denial who see exaggeration claims as a common trope.Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, you are taking O3000's words out of context, as can easily be seen by the diff posted above. And as Sir Joseph has already said this was clarified and closed months ago, I must question your judgement in bringing it up again. – bradv🍁 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Tony brought it up - in point 1 of his post above. diff - context. I agree that if this was clarified and put to bed - then O3000 isn't the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, yes, Tony brought it up as part of a pattern of misbehaviour by Sir Joseph. But you are arguing that O3000 is guilty of Holocaust revisionism. That's the exact kind of personal attack that the community is expressing a problem with right now. – bradv🍁 05:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  The quote - linked by Tony, and made originally in diff - is something that was a valid cause for concern by Sir Joseph.If this was already resolved at a relevant adminstrative discussion and furthermore clarified - it shouldn't be reopened.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You are still missing the point, and it's really concerning; O3000 did not say that holocaust casualties were fewer than they are estimated to be by most reliable sources. He has not questioned that estimate. At all. It is only revisionism, bordering on denial, to question the figure that most reliable sources agree upon. The statement in question refers to the broader body of estimates, many of which are considerably higher than the generally accepted figure. Nobody's going to sanction you here, but if you want to be taken seriously about anti-semitism, you need to get this sort of thing right. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• As a broader comment, I feel a lot of the comments above are edging on the realm of penalizing "wrongthink" - presenting ideas that run against generally accepted wisdom or popular opinion. As long as these ideas are presented in the context of potential improvement of articles, with sources that are backing it up, we should not be chastising editors for the simple act of suggesting them. WP is not a safe space of that type, we are an open marketplace of ideas based on reliable sourcing for how to improve articles, and that's not always going to be a comfortable discussion for non-popular ideas, but that's why we work on consensus. Obviously, if the editor actually edit wars on their POV or refuses to drop the stick when their POV is not accepted, that becomes an issue, but in this case, O3000 is nowhere close to that line, and that's where Smokey Joe's comments towards O3000 are wholly inappropriate, since this leaves no room for discussion of the counter-idea and instead immediately makes it a personal attack. --Masem (t) 05:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  The argument that all ideas are potentially constructive is intrinsically true but it can be weaponized, just like every other argument. Holocaust denial is a canonical example of this disingenuous use of a valid argument, because it meshes apparently well with historical revisionism (a wider phenomenon which, if scholarly sound, is perfectly legitimate, even when it's applied to the Holocaust itself). Historical revisionism or the phenomenon underlying it, namely skepticism, is as old as the study of History itself, and arguably a substantial thereof. The original intention of Holocaust deniers was precisely to give their position a patina of respectability by presenting themselves as scholarly skeptics, and they should be called out for it whenever they do. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that any serious encyclopedia must bear the burden of separating scholarly backed arguments from a pretense to invoke them with racist intent. This not only implies taking strong action on holocaust denial itself, but also on false accusations of holocaust denial if they are proven to be such. Nobody should get away scot-free from either denying the Holocaust or unfairly accusing someone else of doing so. Same applies to every form of racism and every unfair accusation of engaging in it. Same applies, indeed, to every criminal activity, and every false accusation thereof. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  All points very true particularly in weaponizing the open marketplace of ideas; my issue is how this discussion seemed to started to trend towards "if you speak of any type of doubt about the Holocaust you should be punished"; Key is that WP editors should not be closing town valid discussion of challenging or difficult ideas around touchy topics if presented with good faith and appropriate sourcing and the like, and certainly should not be shutting down those discussions by issuing personal attacks against the editors that make it. --Masem (t) 14:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed and although I don't know O3000's motivations, I haven't seen anything written by them that would remotely qualify as Holocaust denial. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Some points:

1. Wikipedia does have a problem of Holocaust revisionism, as documented throughout this ARBCOM case (eg. comments on sourcing here) and in any of the dozen preceding ANI cases, as well as in this upcoming article.
2. Wikipedia also has a problem of selective enforcement. While I disagree with some of Sir Joseph's comments (in particular that directed at O3000), worse comments made by others have repeatedly gone unpunished; as several editors note here, even ArbCom ignores them.
3. Some admins have no idea what they're doing as far as racism is concerned (eg. this simplistic proposal suggested by TonyBallioni at the complex ArbCom case, as well as my own encounter with him).
4. No Policy rationale has been presented for the proposed ban. Points 2-4, in particular, don't seem like gross violations of policy as currently understood by admins.

François Robere (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

EVEN IF you were right about the ArbCom case (you're not - when you say "documented" that just means "someone made the accusation". The FoFs and PDs most certainly do NOT support your assertion), Sir Joseph's comments to O3000 had NOTHING to do with that case so you can't use that as an excuse. The problem is that some editors on Wikipedia are more than willing to cynically make extreme false accusations against others just to win petty content disputes. That is a problem in itself, and sanctionable (usually by indef block), regardless of what other problems Wikipedia might have. Volunteer Marek 20:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't excuse anything, I'm merely pointing out the fact that admins are aware of similar violations by other editors that they've not seen fit to sanction. As for ArbCom, it's plenty evident to anyone seeing the discrepancy between the breadth of the evidence and the narrowness of the conclusions, that they "dropped the ball" on this one. Put differently: it's not that the FoFs and PDs do no support my assertion - they don't reject it either - it's that they don't address it at all.

I do like how you're advocating for a sanction that would affect you as easily as it would affect SJ (and that is supported by FoFs!). François Robere (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Since the 'Warsaw concentration camp hoax' was mentioned here, I want to take this opportunity to invite interested editors to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Is_Warsaw_number_a_hoax?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Minor observation from the peanut gallery. With so many battling motions and such strong feelings on all sides, none of these are going to pass or fail strongly. I pity whoever tries to judge on this one. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Secondary thought, if none of these pass, I think that's a sign that this needs to go to ARBCOM because the community seems incapable of handling this. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - boomerang - desysop

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.

---

TonyBallioni has blocked a user that described content (false content, misrepresenting sources) on Jews as antisemitic - [165]. When Yaniv asked to appeal the block to AN, as his right as a blocked user, Tony (who was WP:INVOLVED, removed talk page access - see User talk:יניב הורון#Block Review - an abuse of admin tools to avoid scrutiny.

However, when an editor was brought to WP:AE, for several infractions - including directly calling multiple editors "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" - which is much worse than Yaniv's comment on false content - Tony wrote "I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here". AE.

Tony is using his tools in a discriminatory manner and prevented an AN appeal by revoking TPA from the user attempting to appeal against him. He clearly is quite touchy about antisemitism - which is another big red flag here.

Now Tony is attempting to act against a user who is complaining of his action. The community should decide that Tony should be desysoped for unfair misuse of admin tools, and refer this to ARBCOM.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• You're building this case on two incidents from months ago (and an insinuation that you disguise as a 'red flag'). And you're doing this in the context of a thread in which numerous editors have agreed with Tony's objections regarding the behavior of Sir Joseph. You don't actually expect this to work, do you? Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Tony filed this after being called out on talk page, on this incident, on 20 September - [166]. Tony's focus on attempting to sanction users who call out antisemitism (the various examples Tony set out above) - while seeing anti-somethingElse as non-actionable - is the definition of discrimination. If the community doesn't act - Wikimedia should - as hosting a site with Holocaust distortion content (which sanctions users who complain about it) - is something that could threaten Wikipedia's ability to host and distribute content.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• This accusation of antisemitism and tool abuse is unfounded and borderline libelous. None of the content you have argued proves such seems to me to be in no way problematic. Vermont (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is nonsense. In addition to making other unsubstantiated accusations, Sir Joseph is guilty of WP:Aspersions [167]: "this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia". There is nothing wrong with suggestions and actions by TonyBallioni. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyk IPN/Archive - where one sockmaster admitted working for a Polish government agency.Icewhiz (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  What did Tony have to do with that? – bradv🍁 04:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nothing - but Sir Joseph isn't guilty of WP:Aspersions as MVBW suggests - as this is an instance of this occuring.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the context of the comment by Sir Joseph and his refusal to answer my question, he did not mean this account. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? - Frood (talk!) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ludicrously unwarranted and potentially calls for a WP:BOOMERANG against the proposing user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as ridiculous. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC). (non admin)
• Oppose just in case it needs to be clearly spelled out. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Don't be daft. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support boomerang, oppose desysop – Support boomerang trout per my oppose !vote in the next proposal. I did get a laugh out of the desysop part though ... and send to Arbcom?! Anyone proposing to send anything to Arbcom right now must be drunk. – Levivich 05:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Community desysops aren't a thing (I think it should be), and this is not at all... remotely... close... to warranting a desysop. Have some mojitos and take the day off, Icewhiz. To spell it out for the count, this is very definitely an oppose. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:27, 21 September 2019 (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.

Proposals: ARBIPA and accusation topic ban

I've read through this thread a few times. I've looked through Sir Joseph's block log, AE logs, and the links in this thread. Frankly much of it is repulsive. Clearly he didn't learn much from the previous three-month TBAN. I actually stopped myself from posting this twice, thinking it might seem like overkill. But I changed my mind... My proposal is:

• Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from editing all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

AND one of the following:

• (1) Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from accusing or insinuating that other users are Holocaust deniers, antisemites, or similar.
• (2) Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from accusing or insinuating that other users are Holocaust deniers, antisemites, or similar. If this section is violated, this topic ban shall be converted to a site ban.

My reason for proposing option 2 is that SJ has been given more than enough rope. There have been too many times when someone is given "one last chance" half a dozen times or more and they still don't change their ways. WP:YANI sums it up nicely: no individual contributor is so essential that consistent poor behavior will be tolerated. - Frood (talk!) 16:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I support option 2 as my first choice, and 1 as the second. - Frood (talk!) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Arab-Israeli t-ban and option 2. Enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia should investigate allgedly antisemitic content and commments seriously - not sanction those who complain. Sanctioning those who complain is a chillling effect and turns Wikipedia into a safe harbor for such content.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and Option 2. In retrospect, this tban should have been indefinite as Sir Joseph hasn't shown the necessary improvement since it was enacted. The tendentious editing and aspersion-casting have to stop. – bradv🍁 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Second choice to the Holocaust tban proposed below, although I still support this as I don't think the ARBPIA tban should have expired without evidence of improvement. – bradv🍁 01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN and 2, clearly Sir Joseph isn't understanding what they need to do to collaborate cooperatively in this topic area. Waggie (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support (1) or (2) and I guess the TB, but since some of the aggressive behavior occurred in topics other than I-P, and since this isn't an isolated case but one in a long pattern of behavior, I would just go with "Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned". Period. That's it (and indef is not "for ever", he can request a lifting of the ban down the road if he can acknowledge the problems here). Volunteer Marek 04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 2 as first choice - Unsubstantiated accusations of Holocaust denial are personal attacks, plain and simple. Actual Holocaust denial should be suppressed with extreme prejudice, but aggressively and repeatedly misrepresenting another user's statements in order to portray them as such is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban option 2 is too hard to enforce: who gets to decide if it's an insinuations, etc? You'd end up here again anyway on appeal arguing that he didn't actually violate it. The behaviour is bad enough to warrant an immediate block and site ban, and if he hadn't have accused me of it, he'd be blocked right now for his insinuation that Sandstein is enabling Holocaust denial. Complex sanctions don't work, and this is a much simpler method for someone who has shown they are unable to learn from warnings or sanctions. Failing this, support option 2 as second choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support with Option 1 as first choice Not Option 2 because I don't think there should be a automatic transition to a site ban without a dedicated site ban discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I do not see merit in this ANI report. Four points are raised:

  1. The O3000 thing is old news; it was handled a month ago by two other admin. For the record, I do not think O3000's quote was revisionism or had any bad intent–see WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE–and I don't agree with Sir Joseph's view of it, but I also don't see evidence of SJ carrying on with it after it was handled... until it was brought up in this report.
  2. Six months ago, an editor used the edit summary "rv antisemitic vandalism", and Tony blocked that editor, on the grounds that this was the latest in a history of tendencious editing. When the editor complained on their talk page, Tony revoked TPA. SJ's comment on Tony's talk page that "someone was blocked for calling out antisemitism" is a valid interpretation of events. Others might disagree with that interpretation, but it is not suggesting that Tony is antisemitic. Per WP:ADMINACCT, editors are allowed to criticize admin actions, and it's perfectly acceptable to say you don't think someone would be a good Arbcom candidate because of a bad block.
  3. First, the statement was retracted almost immediately. Secondly, "home of Holocaust revisionism" is hyperbole, but understandable venting in the context of what's been going on recently at the Poland Jews Arbcom case and related AE filings, which is too long a story to detail here. I share SJ's frustration that Holocaust revisionism in mainspace (a constant problem that's been around a very long time) is being perpetuated by some and ignored by others. I don't read SJ's comments as any suggestion that Sandstein is engaging in revisionism or antisemitism. Sandstein did close the recent AE thread that SJ was referring to, and the one before it against Icewhiz, and it's acceptable for editors to criticize closes as premature.
  4. This is a reference to a thread brought by another editor about another editor, which was archived without action, and has nothing to do with SJ other than that he commented in it. I frown upon hand-waivy passive-aggressive statements like "as was noted at the time" and "didn't exactly behave in the best way regarding implication of antisemitism on this project". Be specific. Include a diff or a quote.

  In my view, all of this boils down to SJ criticizing an old block Tony made, and Tony filing an ANI report about it and tacking on an old dispute, a retracted venting, and a hand-wave towards I'm-not-sure-what in another unrelated ANI thread. So, how the hell did we get from there, to TBAN from Arab-Israel? The Holocaust is not an Arab-Israel thing? Hello? This is just another example of "something something off with his head" at ANI. As for a TBAN from calling things revisionism and antisemitic, well, it's probably a good idea for SJ to remember AGF and not use that terminology unless it's backed up with a whole lot of very clear diffs from mainspace editing (as opposed to, say, one talk page quote), but this report doesn't justify a TBAN, or anything beyond some fish dinners. – Levivich 06:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • how the hell did we get from there, to TBAN from Arab-Israel? You're right, the problems span multiple topic areas. That's why it should be a site ban. Not sure what the logic of "the problems he caused were in several different areas so we can't topic ban him from one of them or at all" is. Volunteer Marek 20:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Be careful with what you wish for. SJ isn't the only editor in this thread who's been blocked in several topic areas for the same behavior. François Robere (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Francois Robere, if you wish to make thinly veiled threats, then have the decency to do so at the appropriate venue, such as WP:AE. Volunteer Marek 07:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying the same sanctions are applicable to other editors as well. You're essentially advocating for your own ban; I find it curious. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban or the TBAN + option 2 although as TonyBallioni said, that is too hard to enforce. The claim that the "O3000 thing is old news" immediately above is obviously wrong—just browse the IDIDNTHEARTHAT from SJ in this section. Claiming anti-semitism or holocaust denial in the circumstances described above shows a complete lack of judgment meaning that SJ's editing in the topic is not compatible with Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  We shouldn't siteban people because they have poor responses to poor ANI reports. This was old news, until Tony brought it up here. – Levivich 15:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'll withhold my reservations about Wikipedians' ability to address anti-Semtism on this site – Archive 976 speaks volumes – and just say that Levivich speaks sensibly enough in my opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As first choice I largely agree with Levivich. I don't see any merit in this report.But assuming there are some problems with SJ behavior then we should try option 1 firstShrike (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich, word for word. A warning and a firm apology for SJ's comment to O3000 would've been enough. Also see my comments in the root section. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Could someone explain to me what his comments has to do with I/P conflict? And why the TBAN is needed?--Shrike (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and #2 Although I understand Levivich's argument, Sir Joseph has made it known that he sees nothing wrong with his actions, present and past, on top of casting aspersions in this thread. As such, it's evident to me that their editing in regard to pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict causes more harm than good, and a TBAN would be beneficial in preventing future conflicts over this. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vermont, what Arab-Israeli pages? I don't see a single Arab-Israeli page that has been brought up in this thread. The O3000 quote was about the Holocaust. The two Tony blocks related to edits on History of the Jews in Poland. The Sandstein comment related to an WP:AE thread about Icebreaker (Suvorov), an article about a book about who started World War II. What does anything here have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? You realize that suggesting that because someone has said stuff about the Holocaust, Holocaust denial/revisionism, and/or anti-semitism, they should therefore be TBANed from editing the Arab-Israeli conflict, is conflating The Holocaust with the Arab-Israeli conflict–something that I and a lot of other people would call "antisemitic"? This is what I meant above about shouting fire in a crowded theater. There's a half-dozen editors conflating The Holocaust with Israel and they don't even realize what they're saying. The report is all about the Holocaust, and the solution is a TBAN from Israel? Unreal. Wake up people! – Levivich 17:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I had been under the impression that the broadly construed bit included the incidents mentioned here, however after checking the Arbitration Committee pages on it, that doesn't appear to be the case. Therefore I agree with you that such a TBAN would be inappropriate, and I would support a TBAN from Holocaust-related topics. Vermont (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Good point. Which is why I suggested a ban from anything related to religion, as his logs suggest ongoing problems in that arena. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • • And what his comments has to do with religion.If anything Vermont is correct if his edits are problematic the tban should be from Holocaust-related topics --Shrike (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What do Palestinians have to do with the Holocaust? O3000 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Levivich. This proposal is ridiculously disproportionate at minimum. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on both counts. Sir Joseph's accusations, while questionable, are unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also tend to agree that Wikipedia is not addressing a rather serious antisemitism problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Johnuniq and others (first choice) or a topic ban (second choice). A very long "rope" was given to this contributor already. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Sir Joseph has a long history of lashing out with poorly-reasoned attacks on good faith editors who are rationally discussing issues he feels are fraught with anti-Semitic overtones. He behavior inflames the editing environment on a wide range of articles and it needs to be purged. It's his behavior, not his opinion as to what might or might not be anti-Semitic. Both O3000 and MVBW are among the most civil and conflict-averse editors I have encountered on contentious Wikipedia articles. Sir Joseph, as has been documented, routinely escalates, confuses, and personalizes content disputes. BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics. Don't we all know that's wrong? SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, "BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics." that's ironic, considering your first sentence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is a lame report. Sir Joseph has a long and rich history of editing on Wikipedia, including in a very loaded area (IP-conflict), and his edits are at least as good as other editors' who edit in this area, if not better. I find the attitude of the reporting administrator disturbing, to say the least. I propose to close this thread with a trout to the reporting editor, and think that they should be under increased scrutiny for biased edits for the next year. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  That would be an outrageous abuse of process, with an orderly poll in process. Your unsupported disparagement of one of our best and most level-headed Admins is gratuitous and I suggest you will strike it.

Incognito editor, I happen to disagree with your assessment that this is one of our best admins. I have noticed on more than one occasion, that this admin makes less than optimal decisions for unclear reasons, and I suspect they may have certain biases. Therefore not only do I not strike my comment, but repeat my proposal, that this admin should be kept under community scrutiny specifically in these fields (IP-conflict and anything related to Jews). Debresser (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - any form of t-ban. I also oppose any action against Tony, who is an excellent admin. Sometimes we just see events differently. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 only: Quite frankly, this is a rather serious problem that requires some solution, and casting aspersions is the easiest one to rein in, even if parsing possible attacks is a bit harder; all others seem disproportionate at this time, but the matter of vile insinuations must be dealt with posthaste. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support the TBAN, which implicitly also includes the second option (as does WP:NPA) so that doesn't need to be called out. Guy (help!) 22:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think Sir Joseph is out of line, and a warning is merited. We're not in site-ban territory. Any topic ban should be about the holocaust; the Arab-Israeli conflict is only slightly related. And this is too complicated to enforce. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 1 per Javert. I noticed the intervention by SJ at Tony's talk page yesterday, because I was tagged there for unrelated reasons but it struck me as a completely out of line attack on good-faith actions by one of our most respected admins. I don't generally edit or follow the Israel-Palestine debates on Wikipedia in huge detail, and I don't have an opinion on whether we have an antisemitism problem, but that isn't the issue here. It's the aspersion-casting and attacks on editors who are just trying to do the right thing in a tricky situation, in multiple venues, and refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing. We can monitor the situation and come back here to discuss further remedies if the need arises - and hopefully it won't, because it would be a shame to lose a good content editor over an issue like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support option 1 and topic ban, either on IP as proposed or specifically on the Holocaust. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich word for word. I just want to add that it's very ironic that Frood makes a statement about antisemtism and then proposes a TBAN from the IP conflict when as pointed out, this has nothing to do with it, as Specifico mentions as well. I am also still waiting for TonyBallioni to respond to the insinuation in Point #4. He talks about insinuations, but he makes one there and implies that I called someone antisemitic when I did no such thing, or that I'm guilty merely for participating in an ANI thread, just like all of you are doing now. Bottom line is that he brought this because I posted on his talk page that I didn't think he would be a good ARBCOM candidate. Everything else is old news. He continues to say that I am calling O3000 a Holocaust denier when I am doing no such thing. It is clear that he has an axe to grind. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I just looked over the record. You called me a holocaust denier five times. Five times. Asking me to provide diffs would seal the argument against you. You are now accusing me of having some ax to grind. What ax? You called me one of the most disgusting terms that exist. Basically, you called me a Nazi. For, who but a Nazi would deny the Holocaust? You think anyone that doesn't agree with some exact number of dead matters, as if it wasn't monstrous for any number of millions. Indeed, at the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was developed, they even argued about the definition of a Jew -- and the Nuremberg definitions before that were ridiculously complex and arbitrary. There is no exact number to this historic monstrosity. You do not belong editing anything related to religion. You clearly have a hatred for Palestinians or anyone that isn't Jewish enough for your taste. You will be barred eventually. That's why I didn't bring this to AN/I myself. I'm patient. Unfortunately, this will all waste editor time. What you should do is voluntarily remove yourself from religion articles for six months and rethink your approach. Otherwise, your extensive block logs will ultimately catch up with your behavior. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not TonyBallioni. Please do not respond or talk to me. You are also insinuating things about me that I never said, which violates policy, but I guess it's allowed when you do it because this is not the first time you have done so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to tell someone not to respond at ANI when they are responding to a message where you brought them up. Nil Einne (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't bring them up. I was talking to TB, not O3000. Apparently for TB and O3000, they wish to prolong a closed action that was already clarified a while back just to ban me, for TB, this was because I posted on his talk page that I don't think he'd make a good ARBCOM candidate. This incident with O3000 was clarified already back in August and put to rest and no further edits about it were made or necessary until TB brought it up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't give a damn who you were talking to. "He continues to say that I am calling O3000 a Holocaust denier when I am doing no such thing" (emphasis added). If you are going to talk about someone on ANI even if in an oblique way it is disgusting to suggest they cannot respond. People should be entitled to respond to any discussions on them except when they are banned point blank in which case discusions on them should be minimised to the essentials. (Entitled doesn't of course mean it is wise, plenty of people have gotten themselves into trouble by responding when they shouldn't have. But the person bringing them up doesn't get to tell them they aren't allowed to respond. ) Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Debresser: Isn't your comment here a violation of your topic ban from the I-P topic? Volunteer Marek 07:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek You are mistaken. I am under no such ban. Debresser (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that's a topic ban from making comments at AE, not the IP area. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. See this solution as very draconian. Let's be reasonable here...this arena is a difficult topic area and has had an endless supply of holocaust deniers and revisionists frequent it. Truly believe we are better off with a hardcore stance by those few editors willing to wade into this fracas than doing a TB against them for a small pittance of diffs amongst many thousands that are made. I would urge caution about making accusations against established editors as far as them being holocaust deniers or even revisionists...my advise is to completely refrain from making any character assessments and if they find comments or edits to be highly questionable, refer them to AE for enforcement. This on the record now, so I think all can learn from it so let's move on.--MONGO (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal is too broad/vague. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Broad proposal and per the wisdom of Levich. Wm335td (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is Wm335td's 2nd edit to AN/I ever [168]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Their first edit to ANI was to another thread a week ago [169]. Assuming you're suggesting canvassing, unless they're clairvoyant, I don't think that theory holds water. Strike one... – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed to the TBAN that is both draconian, as well as arbitrary for an issue that is not really directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. We should adopt either option #1 or a strong warning, but the TBAN proposal makes very little sense here. I should note also that the structure of this thread is somewhat confusing, because some users are voting "support" without specifying which specific proposals they do support and which they oppose.Krow750 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is only the 2nd edit Krow750 has ever made to AN/I. [170] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Their first edit to ANI was in another thread a week ago [171] and they edited AN a week before that [172] and last month [173]. Strike two... – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support for 2 I honestly think the other proposed t-ban would cover this pretty effectively, after all if Sir J is calling people holocaust deniers or claiming they're defending Hitler on a page about fish or something that's probably going to go poorly for them regardless. And I do think the other t-ban is a more comprehensive remedy. But I'm not opposed to this proposal; I just think it's slightly weaker than the one I supported first. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Levivich's well-reasoned arguments.Homemade Pencils (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is just the 6th edit Homemade Pencils has made to AN/I in the four years since the account was opened. [174]; the last was on 10 July 2016, over 3 years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Quite insulting to suggest a Japanese-Canadian, longtime, regular mainspace editor !voted to oppose an Arab-Israel TBAN against SJ because they were canvassed. Unlikely to be part of some off-wiki cabal, methinks. Strike three, next batter. – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't care if they're the Queen of the May, and I've made no comments whatsoever about their worth as Wikipedia editors, nor did I blame them for !voting -- not everyone knows about WP:CANVASS, and the blame goes to the canvasser, not the canvasees -- but people who almost never post here, with 249, 242, and 632 edits respectively, all of whom show up not just to !vote, but to vote the same way, those are definite signs of the possibility of canvassing. You don't agree, fine, but if you personalize this to be about me again, we're going to have trouble again, so I suggest that you don't. It's not about me, it's about the evidence of canvassing. I could be wrong, but I don't deserve to be ridiculed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are these editors with little history of AN/I participation showing up to oppose sanctions to Sir Joseph? Where is the WP:CANVASSing happening and who is doing it? What steps need to be taken to prevent this discussion from being influenced by canvassed editors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid those were three strikes, and I've once again had to call you out :-) – Levivich 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am not laughing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support second part. No opinion about A-I topics, I don't edit them often enough, but a 'last warning about personal attacks' seems appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support no further editing on Israel-Palestine topics, and option #1 as strong discouragement against calling other editors antisemites, etc. I believe however that option #2 is too harsh. -Darouet (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Arab-Israeli topic ban. Sir Joseph pushes a strong agenda, just recently he deleted a reliable source including the real name of an animal just because it has the name Palestine in it: [175][176]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This diff has to be seen to be believed - Sir Joseph is apparently so desperate to expunge the word "Palestine" from anything that he ignored the fact that the freaking Times of Israel also refers to the animal as the "Palestine mountain gazelle". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#"Not_officially_recognized_as_Israel" for the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support except (2): Antisemitism and holocaust denial are serious, that makes accusations of them serious, serious enough to destroy lives and careers. So, strong evidence is required to merit such accusations. There's a lot of IDHT and rightGreatWrong vibe in their comments, but I don't think #2 does anyone any good. It will just paint a target on SJ's back and "insinuation" and "similar" are not the swords under which someone can become a productive editor. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Usedtobecool: So what does that have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: reminder/warning (closed)

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.

---

Proposal: "Sir Joseph is reminded that accusing an editor of holocaust denial requires specific evidence of that editor challenging the narrative of the holocaust agreed upon by mainstream sources. Sir Joseph is warned that such accusations without such evidence constitute personal attacks, which may be met by blocks under WP:NPA in the usual manner. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. I think Levivich is quite wrong about TonyBallioni's point 1; Sir Joseph has obviously not gotten the point. Bishonen and El C said something to him, yes, but he's repeating the accusations up above, and what the admins said to him needs, I think, the weight of a formal warning from the community. That said, I'm not willing to go further than a warning, after reading through all of this multiple times. Sir Joseph is free to believe whatever he pleases. He isn't free to make accusations sans evidence, just based on his beliefs. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Striking my support. Sir Joseph's continued inability to understand makes this insufficient. My oppose above stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, where have I continued the accusations? I have not done so at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oh what nonsense. You've continued to insist, above, that what O3000 said was holocaust denialism. Saying that, instead of saying he was a holocaust denialist, doesn't release you from having to provide evidence for that assertion. That particular quote did not constitute such evidence. This has been explained to you on your talk page. You ignored that explanation, and said the same thing above. I explained why. You ignored me, and then said the same thing to Tony. That is a typical inability to get the point. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  You keep missing the point. The quote itself is a form of Holocaust denialism, or revisionism. He has already clarified back in August that he was just quoting others, so this was put to bed back then. From the USHMM, Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. That is from his quote. That is a common assertion that scholars use. I am not sure why you and others keep saying that it's not denialism when Holocaust scholars say it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I know exactly what holocaust denialism is, thank you. Read O3000's quote again. Explain how it challenges the figure of six million Jewish deaths. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”. What part of that isn't clear? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I understand the quote; do you? That quote is saying a) that the holocaust would not have been okay even if the number of victims was 75% of what it really was, and that therefore b) it is preferable to write "substantially fewer deaths", when discussing various estimates thereof, than to give a percentage. Neither of these things are challenging the accepted estimates of the number of victims. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I do understand that quote but that still is one of the forms of denial, Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery that is what I was pointing out. That is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. That is why he clarified and said it's not his quote but he was quoting others. So all this is old news, but TB is bringing this back for the drama and retribution for questioning him as per ADMINACCT. Otherwise I have no idea why he'd bring it up since it was already clarified. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Don't change the subject. I asked you to show me where O3000 challenged the six million figure. You haven't done so. And you can't, because he hasn't done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not changing the subject. You're the one who claimed I said he's a Holocause denier and I never said it. I said his qoute is. Because that quote on my page is, saying, "75%...." is, as the statement from the USHMM says. 75% less, is a challenge to the six million figure. And again, this must be the second dozen time I've said it, I never said O3000 is a Holocause denier, he was quoting others, so this quote was saying that others use the 75% quote. I am perplexed that you are not getting this. I never said anywhere in this thread that O3000 challenged the six million figure. To say I did is a disgusting aspersion on me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  You continue to act as though the mere mention of '75%' counts as an endorsement. That's not reasonable. Lepricavark (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Firstly, I don't know what you mean by endorsement. Secondly, as someone who thinks that the USHMM is "just" a museum, I don't think your opinion on this matter should carry much weight. But I guess for the third dozen time, I guess I have to say, this was a quote from O3000, and not once in this thread did I say that this was his opinion. So I really don't know why any of you are ascribing that to me.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I did not say it was "just" a museum, so your use of quotes is a bald-faced lie. I said it was a museum, which it is. I believe that my statement was sufficiently clear and I am not going to explain it for you. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is far more in line with the actual "offense". As has been pointed out, accusing someone of antisemitism is quite serious and should not be undertaken lightly.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose someone with a block log this long, who is a frequent flyer at AE, and who has been warned about this before knows what he’s doing and simply doesn’t care. A warning will only give him cover to keep finding new ways to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with him and then claim he wasn’t violating the warning. An indef block given his history of disruption is warranted, but at the very least some sanction that makes sure a long block will occur at the next occurrence. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Since it's unusual for us to disagree; I'm not willing to jump to a site ban based on the four points you raise above. They concern me, but the only one individually sanction-worthy is the first; and we're too far past that incident for me to be willing to block over that. Therefore, I default to "do it again and you will be blocked", because we don't have evidence that he has actually ignored what Bish and El_C told him. He does have a history of disruption, and I noted his frequent appearance on the drama boards myself, up above. If we're considering a site ban on those grounds, though, we need to examine his whole history of disruption. Maybe we need to make such an examination, and I for one don't know what I'd recommend after doing that. Based solely on the diffs presented here, I think this is where we're at. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get your point of view. I’d have been fine with a warning if he hadn’t repeated the libellous lie that O3000 was a Holocaust revisionist in this very thread and then tried to play word games to deny doing that. That’s someone intentionally editing in bad faith, and I’m generally opposed to giving warnings to people who are intentionally editing in bad faith. Warnings exist to get people who mean well but are being unintentionally disruptive to understand the views of of the community as a whole on their behaviour. This isn’t that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, You need to stop lying. I never said O3000 was a Holocaust revisionist and in this thread up above I most certainly didn't do so. The only one casting aspersions here is you. Your point #4, regarding the ANI thread where you claim I participated in a thread about calling someone antisemitic implies I did so. That is not true. Either put up the diffs or stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  O300's quote is the literal definition of Holocaust revisionism (diff)TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, that's correct, the quote is revisionism. But as he already pointed out, he was quoting what other people were saying. The quote itself is revisionism. From here, [177] Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. So there is no discrepancy. He was quoting what others say. That was clarified and put to bed. That you are trying to open it up and make trouble speaks about you, not me. We discussed this on my talk page already and this was resolved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Except you did not say that. You said "Objective3000's quote" not "the people Objective3000 was quoting/and or criticizing". The implication is not lost on anyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  What implication? That's his quote. That's what I mean. He clarified that he is quoting people, but the statement is his quote. You are making this into a bigger issue than it is, I think just because I posted on your talk page. That is also not lost on anyone.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, you should know better than to propose admin intervention based on perceived implications. I think it is you who is seeing implications a bit too much. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This thread is warning enough, if any were needed. Which I doubt very much. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  How is the thread a warning, if closed with no action, which is what you seem to be advocating for? Anyone can be dragged to ANI. Being discussed here isn't in and of itself a sign of misbehavior, let alone of community disapproval of misbehavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per TonyBallioni and Debresser, and reiterate my support for proposal above based on SJ's WP:TENDENTIOUS Wiki-lawyering behavior in the comments just above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• What is tendentious about pointing out that I didn't do what I'm accused of? TonyBallioni has repeatedly claimed that I am still calling O3000 a Holocaust revisionist which is a vile thing to claim. It is not Wiki-lawyering to defend yourself against an admin who clearly has an axe to grind and wants you banned. Using wikiterms to get people banned is part of a problem. Questioning an admin for his past actions should not result in an admin digging through old, and closed, actions to get one banned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I did not !vote in the above discussion; but must do so here. He has just denied that he called me a Holocaust denier even though he has done so five times. He has been warned and sanctioned many times. Warnings have no meaning to him. He refuses to acknowledge the problem. An admission of the problem and steps talking to improvement are required. Otherwise, we'll just be here again and again. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  And he has now demanded that I not respond to him here[178]. Does that sound like he has learned any lesson? O3000 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I never called you a Holocaust denier. I said your quote is Holocaust denial, which it is. And you then clarified that it's not your opinion but you were quoting others, which then put the matter to rest until TonyBallioni reopened this. I told you not to respond to me because you said I hate Palestinians and Jews who aren't religious, which is an NPA. It's clear you are unwilling to drop the stick, same as TonyBallioni, for some reason you wish to continue harping on closed matters, which I thought was already clarified. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Objective3000, have you had any problems with SJ after the El C/Bish warnings a month ago but before this filing? And if so, can you point to diffs or pages? Thanks. – Levivich 01:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  If you mean the warnings against SJ, absolutely. He continues to make false statements here and has ordered me, one of his victims, to not respond to his false statements at AN/I. That's a new one on me. I am sickened by this beyond your apparent understanding. I'm beginning to hate looking at this site. Signing off for the night, so he can add what he wishes. O3000 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Can you clarify which of my statements are false? I've repeatedly said you're not a Holocaust denier and was just quoting others. I must have said that half a dozen times now. I'm assuming you think that's a true statement. So what statement of mine do you think is false about you? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  @O3000: I'm asking if there were any problems in the month between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive. – Levivich 01:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - It's never wise to peeve too many editors off. We've no rights here, only privileges. The community is capable of removing such privileges. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would like to note the wisdom behind GoodDay's comment immediately above; it is indubitably true. And, having said that, I do not believe that the above proposal is strong enough, and, as such, I must oppose it. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – this is clearly insufficient, given that Sir Joseph continues to engage in these accusations during this very discussion. Another warning will accomplish nothing. – bradv🍁 01:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Where am I continuing to engage in any form of accusations? You need to stop with your own shameful accusations. That you can't understand English is not my problem. If you want to ban me, then just say so, but to claim that I am calling someone a Holocaust denier is shameful when the evidence is not there is disgusting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because I don't see justification for issuing another warning. The last warning, a month ago, appears to have worked. I don't believe in doing this: Somebody does something bad. You warn them to stop. They stop. A month later, you file an ANI report about that bad thing they did. They start up again. You then warn or sanction them for starting up again. That is actual baiting. – Levivich 02:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol, if it "have worked" we wouldn't be here and Sir Joseph wouldn't be repeating the behavior that got him in trouble through out this entire discussion. This is more like: Somebody does something bad. You warn them to stop. A month later, they do it again. And again. And again. Tony's diffs are from Sept 20, Sept 20 and... Sept 20. Not "month ago". Volunteer Marek 02:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Except those diffs don't show anything sanctionable. – Levivich 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point, nothing short of a full-fledged site ban is sufficient. The behavior has been appalling, but I fear that SJ will be allowed to get off scot-free simply because he was able to misrepresent his actions as some kind of campaign against legitimate antisemitism. The enabling by some editors in this thread is truly disappointing. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2019 (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.

Proposal: Holocaust and anti-Semitism topic ban

Proposal: "Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the holocaust, and from antisemitism, both broadly construed. This includes discussing the holocaust in relation to the behavior of other editors, and specifically, accusing other editors of holocaust denialism. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Amended per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Perhaps it was naive of me to believe that a warning would achieve anything. Be that as it may, in his replies to me and TonyBallioni above, Sir Joseph has continued to avoid the basic point, which is that he did not have the evidence to make the accusations that he did. However, I stand by my comments above. A topic-ban from ARBIPA for this offence is off the mark, because this problem is related to the holocaust. A complex behavioral restriction is impossible to enforce. A site-ban is going too far. This, to me, is the logical step if a warning is insufficient, as I now believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but I'd suggest we append the words "holocaust denialism, holocaust revisionism, or antisemitism" to the proposal to avoid the tendentious argumentation still going on above. – bradv🍁 01:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – based on lack of evidence of any problem regarding the Holocaust since the warning a month ago, before this spurious ANI report was filed (i.e., between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. – Levivich 02:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: That's bordering on Wiki-lawyering, though I know it wasn't your intention. He made a comment yesterday that highlighted a longer-term behavioral problem. He is exemplifying that problem here today. The fact that his comment yesterday wasn't sanctionable in isolation is besides the point; being dragged to ANI is an excuse for hyperbole, for anger, or for swearing at somebody; it's not an excuse for politely repeating the same stuff you were warned for a month ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, assuming you're referring to statements he made in this thread and not elsewhere, I think it is an excuse, if the ANI report is about the stuff you were warned a month ago. Look at this this way: He made an unwarranted accusation by implication a month ago. He believed it was warranted. He was told not to do it again. He didn't do it again. He may still have believed it was warranted, but he is free to believe that, as long as he doesn't express it on wiki. He didn't express it again. Until, he's brought to ANI, not for something new (that's valid), but questioned about the same accusation he made a month ago. In response, he says that he still thinks that accusation was warranted. Ah ha!, we say, You repeat your blasphemy! Well, no, not really, he kept it to himself until he was basically asked about it. He hasn't made any new accusations of denial or revisionism; he's only said that he believed his original accusation was warranted, and he only said that because it was brought up here. So, in a month from now, will we file another ANI and ask, "Do you still think that quote was revisionist?" And if he answers yes, we siteban him? We don't sanction people for their beliefs. In my view, to support any sanction, there must be a new incident, post-warning, and nothing in this thread counts, it has to be something to justify bringing this thread in the first place. If there was no problem between Aug 18 (the warning was Aug 17) and Sep 19 (this was filed on Sep 20), then there is no justification for any sanction whatsoever. – Levivich 02:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  That's not what the logic is. We're not a criminal court dealing out punishment, and entrapment isn't an excuse. The question is whether Sir Joseph will repeat the behavior he was warned about. The warning wasn't just "You cannot say X". The warning was "you do not have the evidence for the accusation you are making, and therefore you need to recalibrate." The comments on TonyBallioni's talk page aren't a repetition of the behavior, but they are an indication that it will be repeated. The comments here are another such indication; no recalibration has occurred. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Entrapment isn't just some legal loophole, it's a fundamental principle of fairness. It's about environment. In a normal editing environment, SJ has shown, for example, he can go 30 days without accusing anyone of being antisemitic or a Holocaust denier. (According to diffs I've seen so far, maybe there's something out there I don't know about.) But in the environment of, for example, an ANI thread that brings up an accusation he made a month ago, he continues to insist the quote was revisionism (although he has disclaimed multiple times that O3000 is a revisionist or denier). He was willing to drop the O3000 thing for a month before someone else brought it up; that shows that he won't be picking up that stick so long as no one else picks up that stick. That's acceptable; that's the warning working.

  As for the TonyB comments, I don't really understand, if it's not a repetition, why it's an indication that repetition is forthcoming. In any event, his statement on TonyB's talk page is accurate, or at least as accurate as we can get without reading the mind of the editor who was blocked. That editor (Yaniv) reverted what they perceived as antisemitic vandalism. TonyB blocked them for, in part, making an accusation of antisemitism where TonyB didn't think such an accusation was merited (as part of a history of doing such things, I guess, I don't really know the history of that editor's editing). So SJ says that TonyB blocked someone for "calling out antisemitism". Where Yaniv's edit summary was "rvv antisemitic vandalism", I don't see the problem with saying, "blocked for calling out antisemitism". TonyB did, in fact, block an editor for calling something antisemitic. Whether that block was right or wrong, I don't see how you get from there to TonyB's interpretation that this was SJ calling TonyB antisemitic. Suggesting that Yaniv was right and that the edit they reverted was antisemitic vandalism, is not the same thing as saying TonyB is antisemitic for making that block.

  Ditto with the Sandstein post: he's saying Wikipedia has a revisionism problem (true) and Sandstein closed the thread too early (also true), that's not the same thing as saying Sandstein is antisemitic or perpetuating an antisemitic culture or anything like that. At worst, it's saying he's not sensitive enough to it. I don't see these statements as sanctionable or problematic. They're criticisms of admin actions, which we shouldn't sanction people for. What I see is 30 days of "good behavior", including appropriate criticism of admin actions, followed by bad behavior when needlessly provoked by this ANI report. – Levivich 04:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support only if anti-semitism is included per bradv. He'll just accuse admins who take the other side of him in content disputes of furthering a culture of anti-semitism if he doesn't. That is what led to this thread being started in the first place: his attacks on Sandstein and myself. Not my caring that'd he doesn't think I'd be good on ArbCom (he is hardly alone in that opinion and I have no desire for that position, so that doesn't bother me.) Maybe I'm sensitive about this because people have created false accounts on Stormfront to praise me as a friend of neo-nazis on Wikipedia after I blocked Yaniv for long-term tendentious editing in anything related to Israel and/or the History of the Jewish people, but these accusations have only one purpose: to try to prevent administrators from acting impartially when someone who is an "ally" is behaving disruptively. It's negative for the project and created a climate of fear. Who wants to be compared to literal nazis for blocking someone for POV pushing? Still a second choice to a site ban, but that's unlikely to pass at this point.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  There you go with your insinuations again, with your claim about attacks on Sandstein. People have been making comments about his actions at AE for a while. There is no need to make it personal or about antisemitism. I don't know why you are now implying that anytime I will have a problem with an admin it'll be about antisemitism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: I think a topic-ban from "accusing other editors of anti-semitism" is unworkable. If we want that, we need to tban him from Judaism, which necessarily covers anti-semitism. I wouldn't be opposed to such a proposal; I think I've wasted my share of people's time here, though. Also, just a note to say the site ban isn't a formal proposal. We can assume that those opposed to lesser sanction are opposed to a site-ban, but I don't think anyone but you and me have specifically expressed opinions on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with making it a tban from antisemitism as a whole. The outcome of this proposal is that he's going to stop saying Holocaust revisionism and replace it with Antisemitism, and we'd be back here again in 6 months. Yeah, I know that's not very AGF of me, but not a suicide pact and all. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all this is due to a misunderstanding and due to TonyBallioni reopening an already taken care of closed thread that was already clarified. All this drama is due to TB upset that I posted on his talk page and that is the bottom line, everything else could be clarified real easily without drama. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, I was content to ignore your accusations against me, then you decided to accuse Sandstein of helping to create a project where Holocaust revisionism is safe. The problem here is that you want to be able to make unfounded attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, and then claim that you are being persecuted when people have the nerve to subject themselves to even more attacks from you by requesting action. That must stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you saying that Wikipedia does not have a problem with Holocaust revisionism? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem with many kinds of extremist ideology including Holocaust revisionism. That is different from evaluating whether the specific people you've suggested are promoting that are. I've been surprised that time and time again that you've dug in and refused to accept ideas presented by multiple editors - such as wikilawyering here. I think it's this sort of actions that finds us here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're here because TB opened the ANI because I posted on his talk page, so it's about the Holocaust. And Tony, I never said Sandstein furthers a culture of Holocaust revisionism, I said he swoops in and blocks without waiting for other admins to comment, something that many other editors have complained about in the past. That you continue to make insinuations about me is disgusting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein does have that tendency, and it makes things bad at WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Bradv and TonyBallioni: Since I amended the proposal. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Qualified Support per Bradv and Tony. The TBan should include the Holocaust and antisemitism broadly construed. The seems the most appropriate response to what does look like a long term pattern of problematic behavior where these subjects are concerned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support with bradv's change. A TBAN, or other form of sanction, is ultimately necessary to prevent further issues. This seems to me to be the most reasonable approach to doing so. Vermont (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not warranted and chilling effect. We should be more concerned with alleged antisemitism in Wikipedia than users who complain about it. Lest we forget - the actual trigger for the complaint here was Sir Joseph questioning the soundness of an admin's actions on the admin's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not warranted as per Levivich also there was no problem with his mainspace edits so what the tban want to solve? -- Shrike (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support although frankly it should just be a total topic ban on anything related to Jews - they have long had issues with the differences between ethnic and religious Jews - feel free to browse the BLPN archives. First choice is total site ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only one diff has been presented that's really problematic (#1), and SJ has recanted its content. It leaves us with this thread, which Levivich addressed beautifully above. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this and any action against Sir Joseph. What he has been through on this noticeboard is warning enough to be cautious about how he presents what others have said/have not said. I went back and read this entire thread again and again in an effort to keep things in context. I do so respect the admins participating in this discussion and trust their judgment but we are only human. I wanted to be sure of my own position so I would not be persuaded by my peers on either side, so I read the comment on SJ's TP in context and the light came on as to why so many good editors were disturbed over SJ's comment. It begins: The below quote is from Objective3000 who gave me advice on how to edit Wikipedia without insulting people: As SJ has repeatedly said to the point of bludgeoning, he actually did not say O3000 was the author of the quote itself, but that he used a quote from someone else. This is an issue of semantics. SJ did not say it was a quote by O3000. Was the quote O3000 chose to repeat the best quote to use as an example? I think not, but we should not condemn SJ for his reaction to it, or for expressing his POV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that he included a link to a Holocaust denial page, suggested the editor be blocked, and he added my username to the quote in retribution immediately after we had an unrelated disagreement elsewhere, and that he also had another quote, related to anti-Semitism and Palestinians, removed from the same location. O3000 (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

and all that was clarified a month ago. As for the other quote, it's still on my talk page. You are basically wanting me to get banned for sapping saying that you're not a holocaust denier, which is all I've been saying in this thread which apparently people don't read. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Are we going to open many more new sections with proposals...? Quote myself from above: "This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency." Debresser (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Sir Joseph clearly isn't getting it. I agree that an indefinite TBAN from Judaism is appropriate here. Unfortunate, but it's the least solution that will resolve the matter that I can see here. Waggie (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but I don't think it will be sufficient, so I've supported the site ban below, which, unfortunately, but after consideration, I feel is the necessary sanction. -- Begoon 03:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support the central dispute with O3000 that seems to have kicked off this mess indicates Sir J isn't capable of maintaining appropriate distance in this topic area. While I (as I've mentioned on other AN/I threads today) do espouse a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism is necessary, using accusations of such where they're pretty clearly not warranted in order to settle a content dispute is also something which we should not tolerate. That said, AN/I sanctions are supposed to be remedial, not punitive. And the most effective remedy to this issue is for Sir J to find other parts of Wikipedia on which to focus. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • are you aware that the dispute was a month ago and settled? I haven't had any interaction with him since then? So please explain your reasoning. It's really unfair to bring up a closed case and then use that to make a new tban.can you please show me new edits outside of this thread that show adisruption worthy of a tban? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's pretty evident that the conflict between you and others is ongoing and that the O3000 conflict is a significant current factor. My recommendation for a t-ban rather than a block or site ban was because I felt it a more appropriate remediation; but that doesn't mean I don't find throwing around false accusations of antisemitism reprehensible behaviour for which you remain unrepentant. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • That is why I'm upset. Where am I throwing around false accusations of antisemitism? Please show me. I suggest you read Levivitch's comments carefully and then re-read everything, and not just TonyBallioni's statement. Keep in mind he only opened this because I posted on his talk page. As an admin, that is not the correct thing to do and that is more chilling than anything else. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
        • The difs presented quite capably speak for themselves. And I've said my piece; I'm not interested in a protracted argument with you over this. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm not asking for a protracted argument. I'm asking for a diff. You're asking to TBAN me for a NEW edit of mine. You said the diffs presented speak for themselves. So I'm asking to please show me which diff that is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's clear from the diffs and the conversation here that this user can't, at this time, edit in this topic space constructively with other editors; the immediate resort to unfounded accusations of Holocaust denial against those who hold slightly differing opinions is simply not acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll ask the same thing. Please show me a new diff, that shows I resort to unfounded accusations of Holocaust denial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to SJ because these !votes makes no sense to me, either. Even if one believes that the TonyB and Sandstein diffs are accusations of antisemitism (I don't read them that way), those are not in the context of content disputes in mainspace. You're saying he can't edit "in this topic space", but this has nothing to do with editing in any topic space. Both the TonyB and Sandstein comments were posted on admin's talk pages, criticizing admin actions. So TBAN him from criticizing admin actions, I guess would be at least somewhat related to the offense in question. But saying the diffs show an inability to edit in a certain topic area is as wide of the mark as the proposal above saying he should be TBANed from Arab-Israel issues. I would be very frustrated if people were asserting all this stuff about me that just wasn't true, or at least hasn't been evidenced by diffs. Same with "problems in this thread" – OK, TBAN him from ANI, then? The reason I give SJ a pass for "arguing too much" in this thread is because I, too, would be going nuts if people showed up basically throwing supporting any sanction in any area for any justification, repeatedly asserting "yup, ongoing problem, everywhere", when the only evidence to date is one user space issue from a month ago, and two criticism posts on admin talk pages. – Levivich 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support both. His comments, such as casting aspersions on this noticeboard, deserved even more. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Current rationale is lacking a foundation of evidence. This is guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich, and I don't believe it has been demonstrated that this is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Tony had declined the invitation to run for Arbcom more than 20 minutes before SJ decided to interject into a thread with "criticism" where the issue was already resolved. He brought heat and no light because he cannot drop the stick. Logically, if Tony isn't going to run then there is no reason to butt in after the fact to explain why SJ thinks he wouldn't make a good candidate. ADMINACCT is for queries of admin actions but that wasn't what this was. There was no constructive criticism and the timing is badly off. What he did was tried to hijack a thread by butting in off topic as it had since become a discussion of other potential candidates. It was impulsive and part of a larger pattern of problems as exemplified by his lengthy block log to treat WP as a battleground. He has continued here by bludgeoning others showing an acute lack of self-awareness.
  • "You're going to end up with a Wikipedia that distorts the Holocaust. And it's the same thing with antisemitism on Wikipedia" (diff) illustrates that he is trying to right a great wrong. Other admins/editors will continue to mitigate antisemitism while the topic ban is enforced. What those supporting are saying is that SJ is not someone the community wants doing this because of the way he goes about it. He can appeal his topic ban at AN after six months and hopefully his behavior in the interim will complement his appeal.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support I see a lot of posturing and non-denial denial going on here; Sir Joseph clearly insinuated that O3000 is a Holocaust denier, which is utterly unacceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - First choice is site ban, second is ARBIPA and accusation topic ban, third is this. I'd have no objections to any combination of these three passing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Enough of the warriorism. This should precede a site ban, since these things are supposed to be escalating. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer site ban due to everything we've seen on this thread. WMSR (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support in the spirit of recently closed ArbCom, keeping someone who seems to encourage battleground-language behavior/etc. from such areas is likely a good idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree that holocaust revisionism is big problem on Wikipedia and as long as Sir Joseph is admonished not to falsely accuse others of antisemitism, they should be permitted to continue editing on topics related to the holocaust and antisemitism within Europe. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It's reasonably clear that Joseph sees himself as participating in a WP:BATTLEGROUND against holocaust denial on Wikipedia and intends their editing on the topic as a way to right a great wrong. Now, it's a fine line, since working to prevent fringe theories and conspiracies from overwhelming our articles is admirable, but someone who thinks Wikipedia is dominated by such a conspiracy theory (as per the It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned quote above) needs to slow down or bow out of the topic area. Editing in such a heated topic area requires the ability to keep a cool head and keep disagreements in context, rather than this knee-jerk assumption that huge swaths of Wikipedia are here to push fringe theories. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The question is the signal to noice rate: to me it seems SJ generates an awful lot of "noice" compared to the "signal" he adds to Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban w/ Bradv's amendment, neutral on site ban. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Call for close this has been open for almost a week, and we have roughly 2:1 support for this TBAN. I realize there is a lot of text to read through here and that no one probably wants to touch this because they'll get accused of being an antisemite off-wiki, but the outcome here is pretty clear and this thread has gone on long enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Holocaust denialism and anti-semitism are strongly condemned at Wikipedia and anyone pushing those lines is easily indeffed. SJ's accusations are wide of the mark and not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for a diff of my accusations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Levivitch. No evidence of ongoing issue. Here come the Suns (talk)
• Support, at minimum. PLENTY of evidence, long term, of an ongoing issue, so a topic ban is an obvious first step. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Do you mind sharing some of the PLENTY of evidence? Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• You know, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't the winning strategy you seem to think it is, especially since it's not you that needs convincing here, it's everyone else. Whether you're "convinced" is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• So that's a no to the providing evidence? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a yes to you proving my point for me. And, once more, whether you're "convinced" by anything whatsoever is irrelevant --Calton | Talk 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the minimum necessary remedy at this point. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support with the added words "...topic banned from the holocaust, holocaust denial, holocaust revisionism, or antisemitism, broadly construed" per bradv. Let's face facts. SJ is going to be back at ANI and AE again and again facing complaints, both legitimate and bogus, until we take some sort of action. Yes, there is a legitimate problem here, but SJ's ham-handed way of dealing with the problem just turns it into a battleground, and we have no shortage of other editors who are working on the same problem without causing disruption. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone doubt's SJ's unsuitability for editing in this area, see [179]: "It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned". Our articles at The Holocaust and Holocaust denial disprove the claim, and it shows a mentality of an editor who should not be allowed to edit in that area. And before SJ accuses me of holocaust revisionism, let me state for the record that between 1941 and 1945 the Nazis murdered six million Jews. This is one of the most well-established facts in history, and no legitimate historian disputes it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor: "It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now X and if you question it, you get blocked or banned". Community: "That’s not true! Ban him for saying that!" 🙄 – Levivich 04:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps your opinion would matter a bit more if you were involved more in the recent ARBCOM case. Why not check out AE and see who just got TBANNED? Why not check out Gas Van and see what's going on there? Just because you pop in two articles, doesn't mean there are other articles that are not distorted. As I said before, we had articles, such as Warsaw Concentration Camp that was distorted for years. The person who fixed it, is now TBANNED. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've never been to AE regarding any accusations about antisemitism, as far as I can tell. I'm also still waiting for diffs of evidence of any accusations of allegations of antisemitism I made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No, you just weaselword/wikilawyer your accusations with wording like

"It is also a bit antisemitic..."[180]

or

"I never said you are an antisemite. I said your comment was antisemetic."[181]

As Coffee told you in 2106,

"As far as the antisemite remark goes... I will note that you while you avoided directly stating that others were antisemitic, you have definitively - without question - alluded to that being the case (especially with comments like "see what some editors will go to just to make sure he's not Jewish" and "Guy Macon and his followers owning the page and not allowing Bernie's Jewishness to be included", which basically claim that there is some form of discrimination happening here due to Macon and others discriminating against Jews - selective discrimination is of course one of the definitions of antisemitism)."[182]

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's almost October 2019. That diff is from 2016. You said we're going to be here or at AE again and again for my behavior. Certainly you can find something. And I don't think you really want to re-litigate the 2016 incident considering you were not innocent. So again, where are the diffs to justify a TBAN? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have never accused anyone of antisemitism, why are you arguing so forcefully to avoid being topic banned from accusing people of antisemitism? A bunch of editors just !voted to topic ban you "from the holocaust, and from antisemitism, both broadly construed" (antisemitism is in the original proposal, not just bradv's suggested change). You need to convince us that if we leave antisemitism out of the topic ban you won't use that to wikilawyer your way into continuing your disruptive behavior. The point of a topic ban is to get you completely away from the area where you have demonstrated that you are unable to edit without disruption, and to guide you into completely unrelated areas that you don't feel so strongly about where you can edit productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• You know, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't the winning strategy you seem to think it is, especially since it's not you that needs convincing here, it's everyone else. Whether you're convinced is irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 04:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just asking for a evidence. Throwing out Wikilinks is fine, but you should be able to throw out evidence of me throwing out accusations as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• You've been given evidence, multiple times. You're Sealioning, and it's tiresome. --Calton | Talk 16:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Calton, I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?[183] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• They got it all wrong.[184] François Robere (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

P:::::* Indeed they did![185] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Sir Joseph is site banned

We seem to be raising alternatives in separate sections, so those who have favored a site ban, please copy your comments here. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Sir Joseph has a long history of lashing out with poorly-reasoned attacks on good faith editors who are rationally discussing issues he feels are fraught with anti-Semitic overtones. He behavior inflames the editing environment on a wide range of articles and it needs to be purged. It's his behavior, not his opinion as to what might or might not be anti-Semitic. Both O3000 and MVBW are among the most civil and conflict-averse editors I have encountered on contentious Wikipedia articles. Sir Joseph, as has been documented, routinely escalates, confuses, and personalizes content disputes. BTW I'm surprised and disappointed that a sanction on Israel-related topics is being conflated here with behavior on Jewish-related topics. Don't we all know that's wrong? (copied from earlier comment above) SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – based on lack of evidence of any problem since the warning a month ago (Aug 17), before this spurious ANI report was filed (Sep 20). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. – Levivich 02:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The evidence is numbers 2-3 in TonyB's initial comment opening this discussion (from September 20th, not August 17), as well as Sir Joseph's comments throughout this discussion. How can you just so blithely ignore all that? Volunteer Marek 02:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've answered that in my comments above. – Levivich 02:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really. You didn't answer it, you dismissed it. You really think that, for example, this is not sanctionable? This is *exactly* the same false accusation as the one made on August 17, except here Sir Joseph is making it, again, on September 21. Describing this as something that is "a month ago" is disingenuous. Volunteer Marek 03:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times in this thread I need to say the same thing over and over again. The quote is indeed a form of revisionism, but O3000 was quoting others, it's not his quote. I do not know how many times I have to say that in this thread. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As others have repeatedly pointed out this seems to be just WP:WIKILAWYERing on your part, since it's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that when you were criticizing the quote you were implying (and still do) that O3000 endorsed this view and attributing these views to them. Volunteer Marek 03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why it was clarified. I do not know how many times I have to say that in this thread. How many times do I have to say that O3000 is not a Holocaust denier? This must be the 100th time in this thread? Yet I'm going to be sanctioned for saying that O3000 is a Holocaust denier, does that make sense? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No, VM, I don't think that diff is sanctionable because it was retracted one minute later. (And you're calling me disingenuous?) I answered your points about numbers 2 and 3 here, and about SJ's comments in this discussion here. – Levivich 03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol, no, that's not a retraction (that would involve admitting that he was wrong about it), that's a "oh crap I said too much better remove it before people notice". Volunteer Marek 03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. He's specifically said otherwise and I read it that way too. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support yes, this is the obvious solution. Lepricavark (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as I've already called for it. His behaviour here is not the behaviour of a good faith user. It is the behaviour of a user who is intentionally misrepresenting his own and other people's actions in an attempt to further his own causes. Despite the claims above, there were problems: he accused one administrator (Sandstein) of furthering a culture that supports Holocaust revisionism and attacked me by saying that I was blocking people for fighting anti-semitism. To pretend that this is not an intentional attempt to make life difficult for people whom he disagrees with by using vile personal attacks doesn't take into account the whole context of him as an editor, as has already been pointed out by SPECIFICO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, where did I say Sandstein furthers a culture that supports Holocaust revisionism? I said Sandstein swoops in and blocks without waiting for other admins to comment. The vile insinuations that you continue to post about me need to stop. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned. Look at AE and ARBCOM. And then Sandstein comes in like a hammer without waiting for any other admins to comment and then just blocks. The meaning there is perfectly clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it is clear, but what does that have to do with Sandstein? You said I said Sandstein is furthering a Holocaust revisionism agenda and I said no such thing. The proposed ARBCOM decision I think will do that. But Sandstein just swoops in like a hammer and blocks without any other admin comment. That is his general MO. At this point in time it is quite apparent that you have a strong bias against me and will do anything in your power to have be banned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - a site-ban being applied in relation to such an emotional topic, isn't good. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  There is a great deal of discussion and reasoning in this megathread, both for and against a block. To brush that all aside and simply say that we shouldn't apply a siteban because this is an emotional topic is quite reckless. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - if this was an isolated incident it'd be one thing, but it's a pattern of behavior. On top of that Sir Joseph has shown throughout this discussion that he's not getting it, and continues repeating the false accusations, which strongly suggests that a site ban is needed. Volunteer Marek 02:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I must have said at least a dozen times throughout this thread that O3000 is NOT a Holocaust denier and for some reason people here keep saying that "Sir Joseph keeps saying that O3000 is a Holocause denier and we must block him" or something similar. TB reopened this closed and clarified issue for some reason, and the Sandstein issue was because Sandstein closes AE actions by just swooping in, as many people in AE note. TB has a problem with me and makes a few notes up top, some of which are reverted entries, in other words, I made an edit and then reverted. He then used this closed and clarified case and then a vague ANI case that had nothing to do with me but labels it with some insinuation about anitsemitism. It's clear he's trying to muddy the water. But there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on my part of any issue with regards to antisemitism or the IP conflict since the prior case or my past TBAN. To bring up past issues just to get me banned is improper, especially if it comes right after I post on an admin's talk page about his candidacy to ARBCOM. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You literally called O3000 a Holocaust revisionist yesterday. Vermont (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't. I said his quote was a form of revisionism, and he was quoting others. I really don't know how many times I have to say this. This is why ANI is such a toxic place where closed and clarified items can be dug up by people who don't know the past and used. This must be the 20th time I've said it now that O3000 is not a Holocaust denier. How many more times do I need to say it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If I were to say something like: "[editor]'s quote is the literal definition of holocaust revisionism",[186] that is calling them a holocaust revisionist. It is not remotely appropriate to insult someone with that, and then later claim you're just saying their comment is holocaust revisionism, not them. Your actions here are completely unacceptable and reprehensible, and I'm now fully in favor of a site ban. Vermont (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
        • O3000 didn't make a comment, he quoted someone, that quote is indeed a bad quote. Not sure why that is hard to understand. Not once in this thread did I say anything negative about O3000. That you are ascribing motive to my comment about his quote is incredulous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support because if Sir Joseph still has not admitted to any wrongdoing, there is no reason to believe he will not continue this unacceptable behavior moving forward. WMSR (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• What wrongdoing would you like me to admit to? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Sanctions should generally not exceed that which is required to resolve the problem. The TBan proposed above should serve that purpose. A Site Ban is overkill. Whatever issues Sir J may have, this is not a case of NOTHERE. That said, if the TBan is adopted and there is any serious violation, I would support an indefinite block as the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - [S]o those who have favored a site ban, please copy your comments here - How very slimy. I've already opposed a site ban, moving it down into a "those in favour say aye" (and only aye, apparently) section is just low. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur! Buffs (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not warranted and chilling effect. We should be more concerned with alleged antisemitism in Wikipedia than users who complain about it. Lest we forget - the actual trigger for the complaint here was Sir Joseph questioning the soundness of an admin's actions on the admin's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't about SJ complaining about genuine antisemitism. I'm sure you realize that by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not warranted there was no incidents since his last comment a month ago Shrike (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• So, you've decided to ignore all the evidence included in this thread, very much including SJ's obnoxious behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I'm sick and tired of SJ's deliberate self-serving misinterpretations of perfectly clear English sentences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - plenty of past warnings, plenty of recent evidence suggesting that they are not heeding those warnings. Icewhiz's notion that a siteban would have a "chilling effect" obscures the fact that false accusations etc can have a similar effect. We have to allow discussion of unpleasant things. - Sitush (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This "remedy" is so far off the charts of proportionality that it baffles the mind.--MONGO (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. A TBAN is sufficient at this point. Guy (help!) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support given the majority of their time is spent arguing about Jews, unless the topic ban encompasses this completely, they will just move on to being disruptive in another jewish-related topic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Totally exaggerated. We've had editors do much worse for much longer and not get as much as a slap on the wrist. Also, as Icewhiz notes, the trigger to this was the critique of an admin, not the actual offensive comments being cited; this isn't the first time this happened,[187] and that's not the sort of behavior with should reward and amplify. François Robere (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - as I stated above, this entire discussion revolves around semantics and the reaction of an editor who was duly offended. A quote from (as in, I got this quote from a book) is not the same as a quote by (I found this quote by Abe Lincoln), it's just that simple. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Enough's enough, They have tons of AE blocks, tons of warnings.... and yet here we are again, Tbanning won't solve jack as they'll be another thread in October with them either skirting the tban or them further making repulsive comments such as those above, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I opposed above. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support having to have these circular discussions so often is disruptive and a time sink. If SJ can't be civil and avoid these types of conflicts, its seems this is the only option. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Alls well that ends well Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What conflicts?Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC) What conflicts? This is the problem. SJ's conduct on this page has been reprehensible. WMSR (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC) do I not have the right to respond to people claiming I said things I didn't say who are trying to get me banned? Other than this ani, what conflicts have I gotten into that warrant a site ban? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Ah, so you think that you should have the right to respond, even though in the discussion above, you tried to deny that right to O3000. You reserve for yourself rights that you do not wish others to have, which totally fits in with your winner-take-all, no-holds-barred battlefield style of editing and commenting. You are clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and don't give a damn how your actions harm Wikipedia. You make it nearly impossible to have a sober, intelligent discussion with you, you're so hell-bent on denigrating and destroying your perceived enemies. It makes it entirely impossible for anyone who might be inclined to do so to agree in part with what you have to say, because you will brook nothing but complete and utter acceptance of every iota of your ideological stance. You, and every other ultra-partisan editor, no matter what their position may be, are (Redacted) on Wikipedia, eating away at us from inside. Whatever good you may do is nothing compared to the effects of the (Redacted). The only solution to the problem of editors such as yourself, is to get rid of them. Wikipedia must protect itself to survive, and site banning you, and every other editor like you, of whatever ideological opinion, is the only way to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC) I didn't demand anything from him. I asked him not to respond to me because I don't want anything to do with him and I wasn't talking to him. And how would you like it if people repeatedly claimed you call someone a nasty and vile name when you did no such thing? That's what you are doing to me. So of course I'm upset. Not once in this thread did I say anything negative about O3000. So why should I be banned for defending myself from wild accusations? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC) Gotta love BMK. Writes "you're so hell-bent on denigrating and destroying your perceived enemies", then calls SJ a "cancer" and "disease". This is from the editor who last week was here alleging a vast conspiracy to keep a Bannon quote out of Wikipedia. Self-awareness level: 0. – Levivich 00:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: One more thing, for next time. Next time you're in a thread about the Holocaust and antisemitism... maybe you avoid language like "you're a cancer", "the disease you represent", "eating away at us from the inside", the "only solution" is to "get rid of them", the community "must protect itself to survive", and so on. Avoid comparing editors to diseases. Avoid invoking imagery of cleansing the body politic by eliminating undesirable elements. Avoid sounding like a Nazi. – Levivich 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC) As long as we're sharing advice, perhaps you should avoid even hinting that I might be antisemitic in a thread about an editor inaccurately being called a Holocaust denier, since you know damned well that I'm not antisemitic, and anyone else who examines my editing history, especially in the last year and a half, would find more than enough evidence that I have fought assiduously to keep neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, antisemites and so forth from adversely influencing the encyclopedia. And now, since you seem to prize your powers of self-awareness, I suggest you strike out the suggestion above that I "sound like a Nazi" before I open a report asking for you to be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Or better yet, strike out both comments as WP:Casting aspersions without a scintilla of evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Nope. Your rant above was inappropriate; my calling you out for it is not inappropriate. When you say some members of the community are like a disease or a cancer, and the community must protect itself by expelling them (the "only solution", really, dude?), you are, in fact, sounding like a Nazi. You're doing it unintentionally–I know you're not antisemitic, I know the good work you do in fighting off Nazi vandals–but what you are doing is using inappropriate language and imagery, and you should never write anything like that again. – Levivich 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, and sometimes a solution is a solution. I strongly suggest that you strike your suggestions of Nazism here. They show the same sort of prejudice shown by SJ’s long list of sanctions and accusations of anti-Semitism. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Objective3000, and sometimes incivility is incivility. So you're OK with BMK calling an editor a cancer and a disease and the only solution is to get rid of them so that Wikipedia can survive, but me saying that sounds like a Nazi is the part that should be stricken? Not my view. – Levivich 01:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Stop, you two. You three. BMK's choice of words is uncomfortably close to things that Nazis say, though with quite different import, so he should probably have chosen his words more carefully given the context. But no one here thinks, or means to imply, that he's a Nazi or anything like a Nazi. Let's leave it at that. EEng 01:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC) EEng: OK. I will not push the NPA/ASPERSIONS thing, but I would prefer to hear from Levivich themself that he does not believe I am in any respect a Nazi or an antisemite, and that he, too, could have chosen his words more carefully to avoid any such implication. With that, I will drop the matter, and apologize for using language which was -- yes -- "uncomfortably close" to that the Nazis used about Jewish people, although that was not in my mind at all when I used it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC) I don't believe you are a Nazi or antisemite, and I'm happy to drop the matter as well and apologize for saying you sounded like a Nazi. – Levivich 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Thank you, I appreciate it. If it wasn't clear from the above, I apologize as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• People...who are trying to get me banned. -- Sir, Joseoh, that is the problem. Nobody is here to try to get you banned. But 20+ editors here agree we need to do something to make sure there's a safe editing environment. We can disagree about this or that sanction, but I think we all recognize that your behavior, as documented, stalls article improvement and drives editors away or (if they're tougher than that) at least disturbs them deeply, as stated above. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Nobody is here to try to get you banned," writes the editor who started the thread #Proposal: Sir Joseph is site banned. – Levivich 00:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• @SPECIFICO: c'mon man, that's not even CLOSE to an accurate statement. That's exactly what you/others are trying to do. Regardless of whether you support or oppose, that is a demonstrably false statement. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Are we going to open many more new sections with proposals...? Quote myself from above: "This editor makes good edits in a difficult area. That alone should give them some credit. In addition, we have seen too many attempts to shut long-term editors up because Wikipedia does not like to be criticized, and I strongly oppose that tendency." A site ban is a draconic measure, and should be reserved for serious cases. By no means is that the case here. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per this is what should happen to editors who make such ridiculously unfounded accusations. Lupin VII (talk)

• that's the problem I am having. I haven't made any accusations. TonyBallion is bringing a closed and clarified case from a month ago. During this thread, I have repeatedly clarified that. I do not get why people do not understand that. So what new edits of mine are sanctionable? Because throughout this thread I've been exasperated saying that I've made no accusations but apparently that is called arguing. So what is it that you want? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• You can deny it until you are blue in the face You can blow smoke, and do everything conceivable to obfuscate the facts, but the evidence that you did make such accusations is here, in this discussion and it it clear, and obvious, and compelling. No matter how many times you say that it didn't happen, we can all see that it did happen. No matter how often you try to hide behind the ridiculous assertion that Wikipedia is now the "home of Holocaust denial", we can see for ourselves that -- while there is always a Holocaust denial problem, and a neo-Fascist problem, and a white nationalist problem, and an anti-semitism problem, and a homophobia problem, and a racism problem -- they are problems that we consistently fight against with a reasonably amount of success. To say that we are the locus of Holocaust denial is a bizarre and completely unfounded charge, that appears to be your attempt to distract our attention from your own egregious behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• and what are you banning me for? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• WP:DISRUPTION, WP:BATTLEFIELD, WP:NPOV, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• These three diffs [188] [189] [190] are all those things? – Levivich 01:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, you said there is evidence, so can you share it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• The evidence is entirely in this thread, both in your reported incidents elsewhere, and in your behavior in the thread itslef. Whenever it's shown to you, you simply deny that it's evidence of anything. Despite your stonewalling, y ou know what you did, and the people reading this discussion and following the diffs presented know what you did, so, no, I am not going to waste my time playing your game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm asking you to show me a current diff, not from August that shows a policy violation, not from somewhere else. Why can't you show it to me? You keep saying I called someone a Holocaust denier and I did no such thing. That is a gross and horrible thing. You're trying to get me banned and I'm asking for a diff and you can't do that? Either put up the diff or cease your libel. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Whether you like it or not, the behavior in this thread is also relevant. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: His conduct here just shows more battlefield mentality to me. - Frood (talk!) 02:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is defending myself against people who want me site-banned now called a disruption? And I note that for irony, you were the one who started the proposal to TBAN me from the IP conflict, thus conflating the IP conflict and the Holocaust, and as several people pointed out, that was "interesting" to say the least. So again, which policy did I violate, PRIOR to this thread, that causes a site ban? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Praxidicae. -- Begoon 02:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: But only if a TBAN isn't imposed. I would rather a TBAN, as I feel that Sir Joseph can contribute constructively in other areas, this just seems to be a sensitive topic for them. I feel that a site ban is a far less preferably alternative. I don't think that Sir Joseph is a "bad person", or that they are trying to be offensive, but the net result is that they are causing disruption in a topic area that further disruption is the last thing we need. Waggie (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This whole thread stands in start contrast to the collapsed subthread above, in which nasty comments were made, including what sounded like an accusation of antisemitism, and then it was resolved by apologies on both sides and a handshake. I was holding off on supporting a site ban, but this reminder of the way things are supposed to work causes me to lose any hope of Sir Joseph seeking to repair or improve his behaviour. – bradv🍁 04:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, show me what comment I should apologize for. Because all throughout this thread, I have said, O3000 is not a Holocaust denier. Which I imagine is what I should be saying. So tell me which recent comment of mine that you wish me to apologize for. I've been asking for diffs of recent behavior that violates policy but I've been getting nothing. Please show me something that I can work with. TB brought me here for a reason. So please show me a diff that is worthy of a site ban, because right now, all I have is me saying a million times that O3000 is not a Holocuast denier, and all the support votes keep saying that I should be banned for disruptive behavior. Well, you're trying to ban me for something I haven't done and saying nasty things about me. So tell me what to say. Help me out here, what do you want me to say? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Brad, you earlier !voted to support a TBAN against I/P, even though nothing in this entire dispute has anything to do with I/P, but no explanation or apology from you for conflating the Holocaust and Israel. Now, you're !voting in support of a siteban against SJ because of something that occurred between me and BMK. Your !votes have no logic to them. You haven't even identified (with a diff or a quote, for example), the behavior that needs to be improved. You're also ignoring that the behavior was improved–for 30 days following the warning last month. You want a sanction against SJ–any sanction, you don't even care what it is–and not for anything he's done recently, but because of your pre-existing feelings about him. You're !voting based on a grudge and it's not right. – Levivich 13:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I explained my vote for the ARBPIA topic ban above – I don't think it ever should have expired without evidence of improvement. And this thread is not just about his interactions with O3000. It's also about his accusations against TonyBallioni and Sandstein, which are very recent. So yes, I am in favour of any sanction which seeks to curtail this behaviour, but I'm supporting this one too because anything less than a site ban will likely result in us being back here in a month. – bradv🍁 13:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Still undecided, although Sir Joseph has continued to dig himself deeper into a hole by insisting that he did nothing wrong, instead of reading the above comments where it was explained to him how his analysis of O3000's comment was misguided. That said, consensus isn't clear at this time. Those people commenting on this sanction should likely pay attention to the other sanctions, and it would be helpful if those commenting on both would express a preference, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to be missing the point that the issue was resolved and clarified LAST MONTH. Everything was resolved and closed. How am I digging a hole when I am saying that O3000 is NOT a Holocaust denier or Holocaust revisionist? TB should not have brought a closed case to ANI. An admin should know better than that. Should we relitigate my blocks from 2016 as well? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As you have ordered me to not respond or talk to you on this page [191], I would ask you to refrain from mentioning my username over, and over and over. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A t-ban is sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure I've ever interacted with SJ. Looking at the long discussion here it does appear SJ has a combative history but an indef siteban seems to be a nuclear option vs the next reasonable step. If the problem is over a month old then no action should be taken now other than a clear warning that the next, even minor, transgression should be seen as proof of a long term problem. In such a case I would argue the next step (based on block history) is a block up to 1 month. Absent some sort of obvious NOTHERE I'm not sure how people can feel that the next step after (more than one) multi-day ban is an indef site ban. If we are going the block route then 1 month, then 6 months, then indef with the standard offer. If a protective measure is needed then I think the Tban makes more sense. With an indef Tban SJ can show good behavior at other articles and get the ban lifted in 6 months or not. If they violate the Tban then blocks can happen next. Springee (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. I've supported the lesser remedies above and part of me thinks, based on the lack of getting the message here, that a siteban will become inevitable. But like Vanamonde above, I think it would be OK to put SJ on something like a final warning. Make no mistake, though, SJ needs to step away from these baseless accusations of antisemitism and casting aspersions, and this isn't something that was dealt with and handled a month ago - SJ was posting uncalled-for and off-topic comments on Tony's talk page just three days ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  "SJ was posting uncalled-for and off-topic comments on Tony's talk page" sounds chilling to me. This is the reason why TB opened this whole ANI case. He didn't like that I brought up his past actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph why is it ok for you to bring up someone else's past actions? Shouldn't it be fair game then to bring up yours? StonyBrook (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin who is possibly running for ARBCOM where past administrative actions are fair game to see how you would act. Being punished for past actions that were already taken care of is not the same thing. I would have assumed that is clear to all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

For someone who is not an admin, the quote from you from below This place is toxic and I've done mostly admin work, be it vandal revert or pagemove seems out of place. And more than just 'possibly running for ARBCOM', you actually have, so your declaration of probity in this regard is unconvincing. Antagonizing people only leads to threads like this. StonyBrook (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral: Like Amakuru above me, I also believe that a site-ban will become inevitable, in time. Nevertheless, I do not believe this would be a wholly prudent step at this time, but I cannot oppose it, given Sir Joseph's statements and attitude within this very thread. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  The problem is that this behavior has been going on for a long time. It's nothing recent. He's been warned over and over. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  How many times have you been warned about stuff? If I start a thread to get you site banned will your fan club pop up as well? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with others saying that this seems like a pretty nuclear option when other options have not yet been tried. Agent00x (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I've been on the receiving end of his accusations before. He needs to stop acting as if anyone who disagrees with him is an agenda driven editor or an anti-Semite, and this thread makes it abundantly clear that he has no intention of stopping.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  What accusations? Please provide diffs and content disputes don't count as accusations. Otherwise you are guilty of posting aspersions about me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  This, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_culture&diff=911482903&oldid=878318699 And that's just the most recent. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Correct, that is a content dispute. You say Judaism is only a Middle Eastern culture and me and quite a few others say it's not so, Judaism is a culture of wherever that person may be, Middle East, the US, Europe, Africa, etc. I don't see any accusations in that diff. (It's funny though that you talk about agenda driven editing, all one has to do is look at your contribution history to see which one of us has an agenda when they edit, and it's not me.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm changing my stance to support. Because instead of admitting what you did, you denied it and then immediately started throwing accusations at me and misrepresenting my views. You've just proved every single accusation against you in here right. And all this shows is that you have no intention of stopping.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  The Human Trumpet Solo who has in the past been on a vendetta of keeping anything Western out of Jewish related articles. His thinking is that Judaism is only a Middle Eastern culture/ethnicity, and that if you are Jewish, you are only Middle Eastern. <--- That is quite clearly an accusation of bad faith.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, I actually think this is a great example. On content grounds I think you're 100% correct and Human 100% wrong. Looking at your participation in that thread if you'd started with "Jews are part of western culture and your are erasing that. Nobody said that there are other Jews that are not part of western culture just that there are Jews that are part of western culture." (your second comment) that would still be more aggressive than I like to be but that's a personal preference and nothing sanctionable. From there you actually continue to comment less about Human and more about the content, just as policy expects. However you started with generalized inflammatory statements that are upsetting to the editor you leveled them against and, as seen here, troubling to the community as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: And that's worthy of a siteban? FTR, this was after many other content disputes and meatpuppetry and SPA attacks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's your constant antagonism, accusations, insults, and borderline bullying/harassment (and if the other complaints in here are accurate, I'd remove the "borderline") that are worthy of a siteban. The fact that you just lied about our interactions (again) doesn't help either.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Still didn't lie, the interaction is right above us for all to see. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph Indeed, it is.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, I've not weighed in on any sanction so I would suggest that support for a siteban not be read into my comment. And I will be equally explicit that what I am taking from your response is "You're correct, I should have done what you suggested" :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:Sure, one can always improve how we interact with each other, especially when it's in areas that are faced with SPA and MEATPUPPETRY, as this was at that time. But in this thread, I'm being told that I said "X" when I explicitly said "not X" and I when I ask for evidence I'm told that the evidence is there and they don't have to provide the diffs and that if I keep asking it's called battleground, harassment, bludgeoning and all the other wikilinks, but I have a right to defend myself against 1, being site banned 2 being tbanned and 3, being told that I am calling people nasty names when I did not do such things and especially when certain people with grudges (and let's be real, that is what is happening here for some) suddenly have their opportunity to get rid of me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And therein lies the point - you're not improving. At all. And you're still denying any wrongdoing, even though the diffs are right there.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

diffs? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph I've already posted one. Others have posted several.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I 100% support your right to defend yourself against unfair charges. Responding to nearly every person who notices a problem with your actions, especially given that this reply to me is the first time in this ANI thread where I've noticed you acknowledging that there could have been better ways for you to proceed in dealing with other editors without losing the plot on the content that is at the heart of what you're trying to accomplish, is going to get labeled the things you noted. So finding ways of making your point heard in general, rather than making demands of many individuals, would avoid that. Especially because you have people here who agree with you that your actions don't merit sanction. A discussion is being had and, to be honest from my doing more reading than participating, I would hypothesize that your style of defense has meant some people who might have been inclined to support you or at least defend you against a site ban into neutrals or those supporting sanction against you. The one person we know this to be true for is Vanamonde ([192] but I would guess that there are others - or at least others who might not have chosen to participate in a contentious debate at all who decided to. But I admit that's speculation from me - and thus might be wrong. However, I still throw it out there for you to consider. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Except they are talking about a month old case that has been closed, especially Vanamonde. And he is wrong in his assertion. As Icewhiz and Levivich pointed out, I am quoting the opinion of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Regardless, that was a month ago and the case as I said was clarified that it was a quote not an opinion of any editor so I have no idea why it's relevant to anything today since until TonyBallioni brought it up it hasn't been mentioned by me at all. That is the issue. I have been asking for NEW diffs where people keep saying I've been saying nasty things and nobody is providing any of that. It is unfair and worse, libelous because they keep repeating that I have been continuously stating nasty things about editors when I have not done so at all. TonyBallioni for example has said I implied nasty things about Sandstein when I have done no such thing other than say that Sandstein comes in to AE and closes AE actions without waiting for other admins, something that other people have said in the past.(Which even if not true, is not a "nasty" thing to say, and certainly not site ban worthy.) How would you react when you are facing a site ban and being told that you have said nasty and vile stuff about people and then that if you defend yourself it's just showing a battleground mentality? Not once in this thread have I said anything negative about O3000, or did I imply anything negative about anyone else to such an extent to warrant a site ban. SPECIFICO has it in for me, and all it takes is looking at past disputes to see that. Go to AE, or Donald Trump article pages where we both interacted. This is one reason where in the past couple of months I pulled back from editing anyway. This place is toxic and I've done mostly admin work, be it vandal revert or pagemove, I've taken so many pages off my watchlist because people hold grudges for years. The irony of SPECIFICO telling me that I'm disruptive is funny, if not sad. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support there are ways of discussing such topics in a civil manner, Sir Joseph doesn't engage with others he disagrees with in a civil manner, and the fact that a number of people have felt completely harassed by Sir Joseph is sufficient here. Enough is enough, we should not continue to enable this harassment, regardless of the subject matter. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Really? TRM is coming to talk about civility and harassment? OK, so I ask yet again, please provide diffs showing support worthy of a site ban. I am allowed to defend myself against false accusations and piling on by editors I've been engaged in in my many years here in content disputes. I have asked many times for someone to show me new DIFFS showing content that is worthy of a ban and nobody has shown it. All this is because an admin did not like that I posted on his talk page. And that's the shame of it all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of my past misdemeanours, I'm afraid nothing comes close to the harassment you have levelled at people and I find your attitude here disgusting. Diffs are already covered above, it's a matter of interpretation and your accusations should not be enabled here any longer. Feel free to harass me again, but I won't be responding. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's all I'm getting in this thread, "the diffs are above, I'm not providing it." I have the right to respond to people who want me banned, that's not harassment. Every time I ask for a diff, I'm told, "I'm not providing it." Everyone is pointing to a month old case that has already been settled for a month that TonyBallioni has been trying to re-litigate. Nobody has shown any diffs where I have interacted with O3000 since then or posted anything since then about the subject. So I have the right to ask where the diffs are. That's not harassment. You want me site-banned, you need to provide the evidence. It's disgusting of you to just say "I'm not providing evidence, and I'm not responding." Talk about harassment and piling on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that your behaviour here in this thread alone demonstrates sufficiently part of the issue at hand, let alone your accusations against others which amount time and again to harassment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose People are voting to ban/block SJ based on accusations of impropriety. I don't particularly agree with SJ's opinions on matters, but defining responses to "BAN HIM!" or "BLOCK HIM!" as harassment are absurd. Likewise, most of the support rationale here appears to be "well, he's been accused of harassment by a lot of people" or "a lot of people feel harassed, so that's enough for me". If we're going to indef block someone or ban them, the standard of evidence needs to be much higher than what I'm seeing here. Buffs (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Additional Comment There appears to be a bit of off-site canvassing going on. (Redacted) I have a screenshot, if anyone needs it.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  That may be off-wiki canvassing but there's no evidence that I'm aware of linking that vile account to Sir Joseph. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any canvassing (Redacted), just reporting. Canvassing to an ANI thread would never work, anyway. – Levivich 19:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Then you simply don't understand the concept of canvassing. The false allegations against myself and others are yet another repetition of the cognitive dissonance, intentional or otherwise, exemplified by those who think that they can use opposition to alleged antisemitism as a cover for doing whatever they please to anyone they decided to target. It's abusive and underhanded, but the considerable opposition to sanctions for Sir Joseph indicates that it works. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  You're alleging that the editors opposing sanctions are doing so because they were canvassed off-wiki? – Levivich 22:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, I'm stating no such thing. Sir Joseph has somewhat successfully employed the defense that he is being persecuted for calling out antisemitism, which accounts for some of the opposition to the various sanction proposals. The unnamed individual behind (Redacted) is repeating that argument, while also attempting to publicly shame Sir Joseph's critics. I doubt if the (Redacted) canvassing has had much meaningful impact. Lepricavark (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who's running it, but the account is calling editors in to this thread to help Sir Joseph.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

One of its early followers seems to be Omer Benjakob, a Hareetz journalist who regularly reports on Judaism and Wikipedia. It is also followed by Canary Mission and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, who is currently serving a two-month block. An association to any of these cannot be entirely discounted. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not User:Sir Joseph is behind the account, there's a chance that most of the opposition in here can be attributed to (Redacted).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the opposes I see here are from established Wikipedia editors, not from canvassed users; please withdraw your suggestion to the contrary. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• If anything is canvassing by an established Wiki user, this is it. [193] I am not behind (Redacted). Just because you follow that account and found your way here, doesn't mean others did the same. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Just because you follow that account and found your way here, doesn't mean others did the same." There you go again, proving my point. I don't even use (Redacted), by the way.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich and Icewhiz. Iffy★Chat -- 12:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: After stumbling upon a note about this case on an admin's talk page, I wanted to at least share here this quote from Sir Joseph, which they left on my talk page [194].

Listen, we all know deep down in our hears that people only call them concentration camps because AOC tweeted about it and because Trump is President. When Clinton was President or Obama was saying the same stuff about illegal immigration, nobody complained. So I don't really care about the sources because they are politicizing something that is clear that it's not a concentration camp. People don't cross a border to walk into a concentration camp that Congress can appropriate funds if they want to increase funding if they want to. That's not a concentration camp. Anyone who says it is has lost their moral values.

For context, this came from them at the end of a longer-term dispute, where they objected to the the "Migrants at the Mexico-United States border" entry in "List of concentration and internment camps," and then their follow-up objection to the proposed changes to language for that entry after an RfC found consensus for its inclusion, with changes.

I'm not voting on any of the proposals because I don't feel involved enough on Wikipedia to justify it, but I do think it's important to bring attention to this editor specifically stating how they "don't really care" about reliable sources. I don't know the correct lingo for labeling this, but to me this doesn't sound like someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia so much as someone interested in making sure Wikipedia has only the content and perspective that they approve of, experts (they disagree with) be damned.

(Any mistakes in protocol or anything are entirely unintentional and I want to preemptively apologise for them now. Also, if this comment should be located elsewhere, feel free to relocate it there, or direct me to.)

--Pinchme123 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinchme123, I'm not reading those comments the same way you are. I think the statement is more that he doesn't care to DISCUSS the sources and instead deal with the facts as he sees them. Regardless, he was offering a reasonable opinion on the subject (one I don't particularly agree with, but reasonable people can disagree). I see nothing sanctionable in such a discussion. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, if they had said they didn't care to DISCUSS the sources, that would be one thing, but that isn't what they wrote; dealing with facts on Wikipedia means dealing with how experts present facts. And the comment came as the culmination of their months-long repeated objections and stonewalling about hundreds of content experts by the end, which kept those of us who wanted to make the entry better from doing so, until they disengaged. That quote is not about discussion, but about not believing expertise, because it was expertise that convinced those in the RfC to support inclusion. If that isn't antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia, I don't know what is. --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You're intentionally distorting his words. Lepricavark and I apparently disagree about SJ, but when we both agree that you're twisting what was said to malign another editor, perhaps you should rethink your assessment. Buffs (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like it when SJ misrepresents the words of other editors. I don't like that you are doing it to him, either. That issue is not relevant to this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as excessively harsh. There is already a proposal above that would stop Sir Joseph from accusing others of antisemitism, and that is adequate to deal with this issue. Regarding the notion that Sir Joseph is being overly combative by defending themselves from a site ban, such an argument is ludicrous, if not Orwellian. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Also agree that this is unnecessarily harsh. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Harassment shall not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I know people with great knowledge who left Wikipedia since they were harassed by others.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich - calling someone to AN/I then trouncing them solely for their behaviour at AN/I seems anti-productive. Any admin can block SJ at any time for cause, the fact that he is not blocked suggest this is not a wise step at this stage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC).
  
• Oppose - I agree with everything Levivich wrote - a well reasoned argument against this proposal, I couldn't have written it better. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. His latest bout of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has convinced me that he does not -- and may never -- get it, or he's using it as a way to dodge responsibility. Neither way is helpful to the encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting you provide evidence to support a ban is not WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. That someone would support a siteban for that, is the most draconian thing on Wikipedia and shows the toxicity of ANI and why TonyBallioni should be admonished and the trout section should not have been closed early. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Bullshit. Constantly demanding "evidence" and ignoring it when provided -- your current tactic -- is most definitely WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Also, completely irrelevant: whether YOU are "convinced" about anything whatsoever is meaningless, since the ONLY bearing it has on what it shows OTHER editors in deciding whether you are reformable with a topic ban. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you're not.
• That someone would support a siteban for that, is the most draconian thing on Wikipedia...
• You've earned it. Congratulations. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Also encountered his editing behavior. Continued self interpretation of other's behavior is not accepted. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Way overblown. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is overkill. Everyone here, including Sir Joseph, just needs to take a step back and calm down.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Take a break and develop a global solution

Since one of the cases that triggered this discussion was SJ's comment on my post, I feel some moral responsibility for that story, so I propose my solution. It is naive and less bloodthirsty than others, but I believe it deserves consideration.

IMO, an almost correct description of a general problem was done by @Vanamonde93:

"We should absolutely take a zero-tolerance approach to genuine holocaust denial. For that very reason, crying wolf about holocaust denial isn't okay." (01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC), this page)

I say "almost", because, whereas punishment for "crying wolf" is necessary, that is not a method to achieve zero-tolerance to Holocaust denial. In contrast, only after a zero-tolerance has been achieved, we can start punishing those who cry "Wolves!".

IMO, a solution to that complex problem may be:

1. Accusations of Holocaust denial and antisemitism are totally prohibited everywhere, except at ANI or AE pages.
2. It should be clearly explained, on some Supplementary Guidelines page, what antisemitism is and what is not.
3. All real or perceived cases of Holocaust denial must be reported.
4. Admins must be prepared for a long analysis of facts and evidences that will be presented at ANI.

If these rules will be adopted (as a guidelines or a part of policy), then SJ, whose cry "Wolf!" is not always justified, may be punished after the first violation. However, in a current situation, it would be incorrect to do that.

Below are my explanations of 1-4:

1. According to this rule, every single accusation similar to those discussed in this ANI thread will result in an ANI report, and if confirmed, result in a warning, then escalating blocks, and eventually a ban.
2. The rules will allow us to discriminate real accusations of antisemitism/Holocaust denial and just a discussion of some subject related to Jews, Jewish history, or policy of Israel. For example, a modern Arabo-Israel conflict should probably be excluded. A question if all ethnic Jews are those who are living in Middle East (one example of an alleged accusation of antisemitism from the above thread) is definitely not included, etc.
3. If you see antisemitism - report it. Don't call a Holocaust denier as such: report them to ANI.
4. This rule is probably the most important. To prove antisemitism/Holocaust denial, or lack thereof, very long discussions may be necessary, and they may require analysis of many evidences (an example can be found here). Usually, admins tend to approach to such discussions as to "just a content dispute", which literally means: "You guys should decide that among yourself". Unfortunately, that flawed approach created a situation when the users like SJ do not believe in a possibility to do anything with Holocaust denial/antisemitism on WP pages, and they are crying "wolf" everywhere out of desperation.

If we ban SJ now, we will just reinforce a (significant minority) opinion that WP is dominated by antisemites. If we adopt these rules, that also may lead to future ban of SJ, however, in that situation BOTH every real antisemite AND every user who cries "Wolf!" will think twice and trice before posting something on Wikipedia pages.

I think the ideas expressed during that discussion may give a good start to this work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I think you have this posted in the wrong section. SJ is not a party to this thread... Buffs (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC) It's been fixed now Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Fixed. (@Everybody else: I accidentally posted this in a wrong section and moved here along with the @Buffs:'s post that informed me about my mistake)--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries! :-) Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose...only because this is the wrong forum. In a matter of days, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 will open. This is an appropriate topic to bring up there. I believe the solution proposed here has merit for behavioral guidelines/policy. Like it or not, as a primary source of information, Wikipedia IS a battleground for cultural dominance/ideas. Buffs (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll probably move it there when it opens. Meanwhile, I would be good to get as much feedback as possible. Regarding a battleground, anyway, even if it is, it needs its own "Hague convention".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't come to that and we can just have cooler heads prevail. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Paul tells: "Accusations of Holocaust denial and antisemitism are totally prohibited everywhere, except at ANI or AE pages". No, this is wrong interpretation of WP:NPA. Making such claims without providing strong supporting evidence is prohibited everywhere in the project, including administrative noticeboards. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know that there's an actionable proposal here, so my support or opposition is moot; but here's a comment. Wikipedia is plagued by fringe historical revisionism from editors who dislike the consensus developed by mainstream historians. Holocaust revisionism by neonazis and their ilk are an example of this, but they are far from the only example. We do not have the time and resources to define each of these forms of revisionism, and we shouldn't try, because it's far harder to provide a complete definition of a complex behavioral problem than it is to detect it by a smell test. A considerable number of administrators have engaged with contentious socio-political material on Wikipedia for a long time. We can recognize ahistorical revisionism when we see it, and sanction it when we do. By the same token, users who make false accusations thereof (and when I say "false" I mean that as shorthand for "unsupported by the evidence they have presented") will also be warned and sanctioned. The changes we need to make are a) to encourage more administrators to look at the substance, rather than the form, of rhetoric in contentious areas and b) to encourage more editors to bring these issues to administrator attention instead of engaging in slanging matches on article talk pages. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think views by people like Anatoly Fomenko are already covered by WP:FRINGE. More difficult would be dealing with views by people like J. Arch Getty who have been described as "revisionist historians" in multiple RS. One problem is that everyone criticizes everyone in this field. Hence, using views by an author who has been criticized in multiple RS could be fine, and not only on the page about him. Darwin was criticized a lot. Or let's consider someone like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. If some of his critics described one of his books as antisemitic, does it invalidate all his books about NKVD and Gulag? No. Or do the racial views by James Watson invalidate his books on Molecular Biology? No. But it is even more complex. Some views expressed by an author (for example Suvorov) can be accepted by nearly everyone, others are "majority views", others are "minority views", etc. One must also distinguish a scientific hypothesis (an unproven, but totally legitimate thing) and pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: All of that is correct, except one thing: there are no "false accusations" at ANI. Any accusations presented at ANI may be either supported by evidences or not, but they cannot be false. That means that a user making such accusations at ANI is safe (cannot be sanctioned). Of course, if a user posts too many non-justified accusations at ANI, they may be topic banned from ANI, and that is one of possible ways to prevent a wave of false accusations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Paul Siebert: Either you have misunderstood me, or you're not conveying what you mean very well. I'm talking about accusations such as "Editor X is an anti-semite", not accusations like "Editor X made this statement (diff)". The latter sort, obviously, can be true or false, and if false, are easily dealt with. With respect to the former sort of statement we have no way of finding the capital-T Truth; we must judge the evidence presented. Similarly, with respect to whether an editor is pushing a fringe view, we need to investigate whether the view is actually fringe; and again, we can only assess evidence presented, not the Truth or Falsehood. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I do understand you well, however, I am aware of cases when users were reported to AE for making a statement "A user X made the edit that YYYYY", which was presented as a personal attack. To avoid this scenario in respect to the cases of Holocaust denial, we need clear rules that stipulate that an adequate description of that type misconduct (when the posts that deny Holocaust or attack Jews are described as such, using a normal human language, not euphemisms) are not considered as PA if that has been done at ANI, AE, or admin's talk pages. If that rule is adopted, then the method to fight with first type accusations is simple: a warning followed by a ban.

Regarding the rest, I do agree, admins should pay less attention to the form, and more attention to the content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. In general there's a lack of knowledge and guidelines on the subject. I've tried making a related argument here, but it wasn't received well so I withdrew it.[195] François Robere (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, while extending appreciation for the well-intentioned effort. For one thing, crafting a policy to "clearly define what is and what is not anti-Semitism" would be a nightmare in and of itself; it's not always black and white, but like Potter Stewart's pornography, I know it when I see it. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  There's a mental image I didn't need. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a universal definition that can be used, such as Defining Anti-Semitism. Perhaps an RfC at VP that simply asks the community to accept or reject that definition as the basis for claims of anti-semitism. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Irrelevant to this discussion and wrong venue - Start a proposal somewhere on the Village Pump, AN/I is not the appropriate venue for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• In point of fact, we already have a de facto zero tolerance approach to holocaust denial. What we don't have is a mechanism whereby people can use an accusation of holocaust denial to get someone banned when the actual content only looks like holocaust denial when you squint at it from a weird angle. Guy (help!) 18:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Cultural sensitivity training

Closed with a topic-ban from the holocaust and anti-Semitism... on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year, one of two High Holy Days). Oy vey! This is like TBANing someone from Christian persecution on Christmas Day or Easter. I'm sure Primefac wasn't aware of the holiday (if they were, they obviously would have waited), but that's kind of the point. This website really does a poor job of handling antisemitism and Holocaust denial (and racism and misogyny and transphobia and many other things). Good intentions and following wiki policy will not make up for ignorance and insensitivity, especially among decision makers (admin). It could have been worse, I guess: it could have been closed on Yom Kippur (the "Day of Atonement"). – Levivich 04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The debate is closed, this comment is out of order. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone should start a thread to TBAN me from complaining about such things? That’ll eliminate all this unpleasantness! – Levivich 13:12, 30 September 2019 (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.

Apparent harrassment of AFD participants

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.

---

@Googinber1234: has been posting apparently-hostile messages on TPs of the nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Borderlands franchise characters and everyone who voted "delete" there (obvious abuse of bold-italics): [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201]. Perhaps it would be worth investigating. Pinging @Sandstein, Seraphimblade, TTN, Zxcvbnm, and Gamingforfun365:. ミラP 16:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a bit of a WP:NOTHERE case to me, but I'm obviously involved as the AfD nominator... Sandstein 16:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does seem to be rather reaching the point of tendentiousness, especially given that this editor was previously involved with an AfD closed as "merge" at List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters, which an AfD decided should be merged, and this editor was warned [202] for attempting to interfere with the "merge" result of the AfD: [203] [204] [205]. Given that the article was ultimately merged, this editor should be clearly aware that, in fact, character lists are not special and can be merged, redirected, or deleted just like any other article via an AfD outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Roger Rabbit case was ultimately acceptable because the primary characters, whom there are only a few of, retained their own articles, which was not my expectation. Borderlands has a huge cast whose other characters don't need individual articles. Also, the fact that two of them actually do have articles while being only two among many other prominent ones is obvious indication that the list article has substantial enough information relevant to the series to be more than warranted.

I was being very assertive with my point because, from my experience and observation, people like this on this site, who delete information, have been ignorant to more passive assertions that what they are doing is wrong. Googinber1234 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Googinber1234: Let me refer a similar case of huger scope to you. We have Soap MacTavish and Captain Price, and we have a delete outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Call of Duty characters (2nd nomination) that was based on WP:VGSCOPE 6. ミラP 16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently now, I have received an "ultimatum". [206] I must admit that I find this substantially more amusing than threatening, but I suppose it may be reaching a point where something needs to be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"STOP VOTING DELETE OR ELSE!!!1!"

"Or what?"

"OR ELSE!1!!!eleven!!!"

Reyk _YO! 17:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for 31 hours for harassment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is quite simply WP:NOTHERE behavior. There is no attempt at any sort of WP:AGF shown here, whatsoever, in the slightest. It is assuming bad faith of all other editors to whom he does not agree._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:24, 30 September 2019 (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 harassment from Charles01

I might as well speak about what been happening before I blow a fuse with this user. As some know, there was a super lengthy and tiresome discussion over between me and Charles01. That discussion came to a conclusion with me getting a topic ban suggested by another user where I am unable to insert pictures taken by me or revert edits that includes them and if I want one of them to be added then I start a discussion on it. This obviously hasn't work because I'm just getting grief from this person, making condescending remarks about me and telling me and everyone else how insignificant and troublesome I am and that editors should just pay no attention to what I say.

This topic ban makes me feel like I'm at a gridlock when it comes to editing, if someone replaced a image I disagree with and it turns out it was my own image I can't intervene like everyone else, and if I do intervene via talkpage discussion as I was told to after receiving the sanction, I get harassed by Charles01.

[207] - Him expressing that my request isn't worth my time or anyone else.

[208] - Admits of snooping around articles or editor's talk pages that I posted on and accussing me of "trying to steer Davey like some sort of a "special friend"."

This is the main reason why I refrain from making talkpage discussion if all I'm gonna get is this? I got sanctioned, I learnt my lesson for self-inserting my photos onto articles without consulting other editors on here, why am I still getting this sorta hassle? --Vauxford (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Those diffs are hardly harassment. Charles is expressing continued frustration with you over images, as well as over your topic ban. I think Charles was explaining a reasonable consternation over your continued issues with car photos. While Charles should focus on content not contributors like we all should, I'm not particularly seeing the issue here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - I understand the frustration and anger you're feeling over this entire thing. Without going into "whose right" or "whose wrong", or if "said user is harassing said user" or not - images are important to you, and you feel excluded from being able to contribute to that area. On top of this, you feel as if the editor you've been in dispute with has been "poking and prodding" at you while all you feel that you can do is stand there and take it. Yeah... that would be kinda frustrating... I'd be a bit upset if I felt that way... :-)

In normal and usual circumstances, we'd accept and absolutely value your image contributions to Wikipedia very much. However, as observed, discussed, and enacted by the community - your repeated issues, disputes, edit warring, and disruption became so problematic that your involvement in this area on Wikipedia became a net-negative for this project, meaning that the issues you were determined to be causing made more of a negative impact on Wikipedia than your image contributions, updates, and changes made positive ones. This is why the community had to impose the ban that they did... you were determined to be causing more problems with disputes and other matters than you were solving with your image contributions. That's not good, man...

If Charles01 is making uncivil remarks and engaging in personal attacks at you in his conversations and comments to other editors, I will talk the user and put an end to it. From what CaptainEek said above, it sounds like the comments that Charles01 made might not be harassment, but just the continued expression of frustration and anger on his part. If this is true, that's not harassment nor is it considered the use of personal attacks. There's a difference between expressing anger and frustration toward a situation, and engaging in harassment and unacceptable behavior (such as grave dancing, uncivil comments about you or toward you, or the use of personal attacks). I'll look at the diffs here shortly and make a determination as to what behavior they constitute... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I hope you are aware that there is a lot of (noticeboard and otherwise) history to this dispute. El_C 04:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

El C - Oh yeah, definitely. This goes back quite a bit... I even tried my best to step in and help, unfortunately to no avail... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford - Unfortunately, I have to be the one to tell you that the comments made by Charles01 that you linked to in this discussion here and here are not uncivil, and are not personal attacks made against you. In fact, Charles01 was being very reasonable by politely requesting that Davey2010 review the entire situation and not carry out any more of your requests before doing so, so that he could become aware of everything that's going on first. The fact that he told you here that you "don't appear to have figured out why your topic ban was imposed" only speaks a bit louder given the fact that you filed an ANI report against him for his feedback. Instead of being receptive and understanding, you interpreted his comments as "giving you grief" and "making condescending remarks at you", and you filed an ANI report here in response. He was simply telling you what his thoughts were, and I find no issue with him doing so. I perhaps wouldn't have said "his chum Davey" in the response he made on the article's talk page, but that's something that is resolved with coaching and with experience. You need accept the ban that's been placed upon you, understand that it was necessary and needed in order to prevent further issues and disruption to the project, and you need to implement changes and improvements to how you receive and respond to feedback, as well as handle disagreements appropriately. If you don't do this, your ban will never be rescinded, and you'll be stuck at the level and place you're currently at until you do so.... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah "Continued issue", I haven't even done any replacement or edits related to my photos! If I did continue doing that now I would've been blocked already. I don't want to be pestered with comments like what Charles01 put every time I create a discussion. I did what I been told to, create discussion and wait for other feedback but what Charles01 is giving out ISN'T feedback. --Vauxford (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford I'd say that Charles is giving out feedback. I have seen your recent "discussion" at Talk:Hyundai i10. What you're doing there is not giving understandable reasons why you would rather want to see a different picture in the article. All you have said was "Some user just remove the images of the facelift Hyundai i10". Please excuse my choice of words, but your post on that talk page is plain whining about your topic ban, as well as complaining about the fact that it prevents you from reverting someone else's edit. Well, what do you expect? If you had said that the blue car's roof is hardly visible, any reasonable editor would have most likely reverted that for you. Because that is a reason. Whenever you're giving a reason why your image is better, it needs to be understood by other editors. But the problem is that you don't even bother giving a reason. You are not even making a subjective claim such as "my image is better" or something. All you (used to) do is put your image in as many articles in as many projects as possible. And you would have an eye on (at least some) articles, and immediately revert anyone who would replace your image. That is, presumably, because you have failed to understand that a) other photographers are also allowed to put their images into articles, and b) that replacing your images is perfectly fine and acceptable if there is a good reason for doing so. I have used present perfect on purpse since your recent post on the Hyundai i10 talk page does not convice me that you have yet managed to understand the problem with your edits (and thus why you were topic-banned). And that is exactly what Charles is saying! "You still don't appear to have figured out why your topic ban was imposed. The fact that a picture was taken and then linked by you is not a reason why it can never be replaced by someone who is not you!" If Charles would not have been so quick with his reply to your post, I would have written something very similar, most likely. I do not see any harassment from Charles. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Johannes Maximilian I already know and understand the reason why I was topic banned and do want to prove that I won't be disruptive, it just frustrating with this limit thats all. The reason why that talkpage was more of me "whining" about my ban rather then the image itself, I got a bit exasperated with the quick respond, I admit I shouldn't of express that onto the talkpage and I'm sorry. I'm willing to start talk page discussions on things that I'm concern of, but can't it be less personal and more about the image itself, that is the problem that I'm having with Charles01, it that insert too many personal remarks about the user (me) rather then the actual image.

I'm determined to prove that I have changed and not did the same problematic editing like I did previously, I have no other clue of how to proven that to people, I refrain from reverting stuff that contain my image, I refrain from inserting images taken by me on articles and I start talkpage discussions! But my only form of editing related to my photos make it far difficult if I'm gonna get bickered more about me rather then the subject by people like Charles01. --Vauxford (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: but that's the problem you still don't seem to be getting. In this request [209] instead of concentrating on explaining why your image was better, you wasted everyone's time whining about your topic ban. It may be reasonable to mention you have a topic ban without whining e.g. 'just FYI, I cannot revert this change myself due to a topic ban on reverting my own images' just so others understand if it's likely your request will be mostly read by people unfamiliar with it, given WP:SOFIXIT etc. But whining is not helpful to anyone. You seem to acknowledge that but then you are complaining about Charles01 expressing some frustration with your behaviour [210]. I'm not saying Charles01's response was perfect or even necessary but given the circumstances, it would have to be very very bad for us to consider action over it and it's clearly not that. So really your case starts to collapse.

And just to be clear, whining about your topic ban is not your only form of editing. As we've said and even you seemed to acknowledge calmly explaining why your images are better without whining is an alternative and far better. Sometimes you will get reasonable disagreement over whether your images are better. Provided these focus on the content issues and not personal stuff, these are part and parcel of editing wikipedia a collaborative encyclopaedia where discussion is a key part of what we do. This is something you have to accept whether or not you have a topic ban. If you continue to make reasonable requests without whining and people instead always personalise the dispute whining about your historic behaviour then maybe there is some problem for us to consider.

Two additional points. One is that even if your requests concentrate on claimed advantages of your images without whining, they can still be problem if you continually make them but they are mostly rejected, especially overwhelmingly. While no one is expected to be right all the time, if the community disagrees with your assessment you have to take that on board and try to adjust how you approach things. It's a waste of everyone's to continually deal with requests that are going no where.

Two given historic problems with your editing, I think some following of your edits may be reasonable. If any single editor responds to nearly every request of yours because they are following your edits (and not because a similarity of interests) this may start to be a problem per WP:HOUNDING etc. IMO it's a problem even if they are nearly always right although not everyone may agree. But I think most would agree it's a problem if they are often wrong. But we seem to be a long way off that.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Okay, I admit that talkpage with the Hyundai wasn't the best of me, it was half-finished and got frustrated over Charles's comment and left it as it is. That doesn't prove that I "still don't seem to be getting". Maybe I should not let it overcome me too much. --Vauxford (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: "was half-finished and got frustrated over Charles01's comment and left it as it is" - either I don't understand what you're saying or you don't understand my point. The main issue with what happened with the Hyundai example has absolutely nothing to do with Charles01 or your frustration over what they said (at least not directly). Your comment on the talk page came before Charles01 did anything, this is clear from the time stamps. But just to make sure I'm not missing anything I checked the contrib history and I'm right [211].

You first posted a comment which primarily consisted of whining over your topic ban without any real explanation of why your image was better before Charles01 had said anything. I don't know if Charles01 said something somewhere else that frustrated you, but whatever the case, from my POV, all I see is that you started off by whining over your topic ban. Maybe Charles01 didn't have to respond the way they did, but I can understand their frustration with your behaviour there.

This may not prove that you're not getting it, but going by that post you made it does seem awfully like you're not getting it. Please understand even if you had later explained why you felt your image was better while this would be better than what happened but it still wouldn't change the fact that you started off by mostly just whining about your topic ban and Charles01 appeared to respond to that.

I had a briefly look at some of your other discussions and it does seem that Charles01 responds to your comments a fair amount but ultimately even it may be better if Charles01 reduces their involvement with you, I don't think you're going to interest anyone in taking action when the example you highlight shows us you dug your own hole by whining about your topic ban and little else before Charles01 got involved.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

and like I said, I shouldn't of started the discussion like that, I already admit my mistake for doing that and I'm sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Personally like User:Oshwah I'm just seeing frustration here, I'm certainly not seeing any sort of harassment here,

Inregards to [212] Vauxford had posted a "request to close" on my talkpage hence that post - Admittedly in the past I did used to "close and replace" but that was long in the past.

I have no idea on a way forward tho ... don't really wanna support blocks tbh. –Davey2010^Talk 10:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues with User:99.90.196.227

Regarding User:99.90.196.227, this IP address seems to be persisting in making unhelpful, non-sensical, unsupported, and at times disruptive edits and proposals to several pages and Talk pages, including the Denisovan and Neanderthal pages and often seems persistently unwilling to listen (either to me or to the other users who have attempted to engage in discussion with them) regarding the problems with their edits no matter how often they are explained (WP:Listen), often defending their edits and proposed edits with bizarre and incoherent responses in the edit notes and talk pages of the relevant articles. Again, more recently, the IP/user (after making two unexplained and seemingly unjustified/unsupported edits to another page (Homo sapiens idaltu, which I reverted with explanations, is making incomprehensible and incoherent posts to the Talk page of that article. I have tried to respond, but their responses to me are similarly incomprehensible and seem not to take into account or address what I have said (I simply do not understand most of what they say, and clarifications and explanations on my part do not seem to help). Resolution appears very difficult with this user and I fear a conflict with them that could continue indefinitely (I, of course, wish to avoid edit wars). Here are links to the Talk pages in which they have engaged in the above described behavior: especially see: Talk:Neanderthal, Talk:Denisovan, and Talk:Homo sapiens idaltu for reference. Also linked are the History pages for the Neanderthal and Denisovan articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neanderthal&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denisovan&action=history Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw it :) 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've left them a message asking if they want to try editing their native language's edition of Wikipedia. If they insist that they're a native English speaker despite posts like this, this, and this, a WP:CIR block is necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:: Thank you, except I would worry that they might make disruptive edits even in their native language's edition of Wikipedia as well, as it seems to me likely that difficulties with English may not be the only problem. Skllagyook (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well that'll be the other WP's problem. Right now the issue we have to act on is their ability to contribute in this Wikipedia's language. I can't begin to comment on content because, well, I can't really make out what they're trying to say. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys do you know where to get virtual mashine with wikipeida? best if it will be based KVM libvitd with Arch or Gento? I did installation but not every future work on my servers? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to find an edition of Wikipedia in your home language. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't specified language. I would like to get the virtual machine for all languages which already are (or were) used on wikipedia.org. maybe you can forward my request up? Please. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not about virtual machines, this thread is about the fact that your English is not good enough to contribute here. You need to find an edition of Wikipedia in your home language. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK but since this page may be viewed by knowledgeable audience and if You can help me with that VM project please post my talk page. or text/call me ^{[number redacted]}. I will provide infrastructure and being busy on this VM project would have (probably) less time to interfere with dumbing down knowledge base as i see is done for while on this website. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• FFS... Blocked.

Although it's listed as being for a year, it should be considered indefinite. It would be indefinite were it not for the technical issues of indefinitely blocking an IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, you may want to disable their talk, as they have posted their phone number again. Heiro 09:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Regarding the 1-year duration, the IP address appears to be dynamic and from a possibly shared range, so I think you'd need to be confident that it is allocated long-term to this user to justify a 1-year block. If it's likely to be reassigned to someone else within a shorter period than that, then a year is excessive and possible damaging (There's a good reason we don't indef block IPs - not just "policy"). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've shortened to 6 months, although the block log would suggest that this user has been on this IP since 2014. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the talk page comment, and block warnings, the same individual has had that IP for a minimum of 2 years and looks like probably more like 5. Heiro 09:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If there's good evidence of just one user here, then 1 year would be fine - I just wanted to be sure we were being careful about it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding to users as sockpuppet 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.

---

• Moved from WP:AN (I accidently put it in the wrong place. Apologies) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! User:Shoolvandcomp is adding the {{sockpuppet}} template to a few user pages (mine included). It could be test edits, assuming good faith, but more likely trolling/bad faith. Is this something I can just remove from my user page? I'm a little resigned to do it myself, as it's clearly about me, but I can't imagine it being a real request. Could someone have a look at the user in question for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit - looks like someone already cleaned up my page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

{{sockpuppet}} Shoolvandcomp (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (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.

This user is a sock puppet of a vandal. Please don't unblock him without consulting me. I already blocked Shoolvandcomp before JzG, but JzG overrode my block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I imagine the override was an accident/conflict, it happened in the next minute. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:Locke Cole

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.

---

Two days ago, I noticed this file has been imported to Wikimedia Commons. I was going to tag it as a Commons duplicate but I noticed that it has a {{tl|Keep local)) tag. I've seen only sensitive files have this tag (files that are widely used locally / or used in sensitive templates etc.) So I thought that it is not necessary to keep the local copy and removed the tag. They reverted my edits. I know that keep local tag doesn't require the reason parameter. So I reached out to the uploader talk page. And I asked them the reason for keeping a local copy. Apologies if my wording was too strong, I didn't really mean any harm or harassment. So they replied on their talk page and told me the discussion "is over". Now I'd like to point out that they didn't provide any "reason" for keeping the local copy. So I assumed it as "invalid" and I apologized for that. They answered that they are under no obligation to to tell me the reason and told me to move along. Note that the keep local tag states that it is allowed to nominate a file with this tag for a deletion discussion, provided I notify the uploader. I nominated the file for FFD and notified the tagger. Then they removed all of my previous messages on their talk page with a clear hostile and incivil manner. I didn't react, because it's their own talk page. They replied on the FFD discussion page and labelled my messages as "blatant harassment". So I tried discussing with them. But after some time, they closed the discussion with the following edit summary "WP:BOLD". I am pretty sure that WP:BOLD doesn't apply in discussions especially in a deletion discussion. I'd also like to point out that they were not uninvolved. I reverted their edits because their closing didn't meet WP:NAC. Then they started to blank the whole discussion section. They tried it a couple of times and I reverted their section blanking. I've no idea why they are fixated on closing that discussion. After minimum seven days, it is going to be closed by an admin anyway. I don't really care if the file is deleted or kept. But their behaviour is becoming disruptive. See the permalink of the discussion. Not sure for how long the current version will stay on that page though. I want to resolve this matter as soon as possible. I've nothing against Cole, in fact I never interacted with/heard of this editor before. Some editor on #wikipedia-en IRC channel told me that I should report it to ANI. So here I am. Thanks in advance for your help. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|Masumrezarock100}} to your message, and signing it. Masum Reza^📞 22:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• To pick the low hanging fruit here, Locke Cole should not have removed the FfD notice nor closed the discussion. The discussion appears open. I have restored the deletion notice on the file and left Locke a reminder about all this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, This interaction was non-ideal as well, but I don't see anything rising to the level where action is required at this time. SQL^{Query me!} 23:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree SQL that I am not seeing anything beyond the reminder I've given that is requiring action here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, especially given the history. This is a chronic problem user who has been repeatedly blocked for incivility, edit warring and harassment, which culminated in a site ban in 2009. They have only been very minimally active since then, but in spite of that, they were blocked again in 2013 and earlier this year. This is a user who should know better by now, and who certainly shouldn't be subjecting editors to this kind of abuse over what is an exceedingly minor exchange. I think it's evident that this user's long-running behavioral problems have not improved, and the fact that they've been flying under the radar does not mean that we should not treat this as a continuation of a long-term pattern of abusive behavior. I've articulated this to the user already, and warned them that if this level of conduct continues, they will likely be blocked indef. If the behavior hasn't improved since 2005, it starts to become a CIR issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? I disengage myself and try to find productive ways to contribute and your very first reaction is to cast aspersions about my behavior? For things I did over ten years ago? For fucks sake, at what point is it good enough for you that I've managed to keep myself out of trouble? And then you threaten me with an indef block? I should be glad that those decisions aren't yours alone to make, and that you're just one admin amongst many, hopefully the others aren't as jaded and quick to judge as you are. I do so enjoy getting harassed by the reporting editor over my decision to keep the file I uploaded locally, which deprives nobody else of reusing the content or also uploading it to Commons, and merely keeps the rug from being pulled out from under me for files that are used in articles and that you appear to be helping their efforts along by pointing out my distant past as some sort of current problem... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much Barkeep49. And Swarm as well for pointing the stuffs out that I didn't know. I just hope he stops falsely accusing others. I don't want anyone else to suffer because of this. Masum Reza^📞 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I also would like to know why they are adding all those keep local tags. But they won't converse with me about it. Maybe you guys can suggest something? Masum Reza^📞 01:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Many people, including a lot of prolific content creators, use {{keep local}} because they have been bitten before, as follows:

1. They upload file locally, it is automatically added to their watchlist
2. Someone moves it to Commons
3. It is deleted here as redundant
4. Someone nominates the file for deletion, or overwrites the file, or changes the description, or messes with it in some other way on Commons, and the uploader never knows about it; they aren't notified on Commons, and their en.wiki watchlist shows nothing.

I think it's reasonable in about 99% of cases to just let them use the {{keep local}} tag, as it does no harm, eases their mind, and keeps them from getting so fed up that they stop providing images. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration of someone who's not active on Commons not paying attention to that watchlist when something is changed, and the rationale you're giving is a rational one. I'd be curious to know just how often it happens, though, that a file is edited inappropriately and isn't noticed by anyone. I've uploaded an awful lot of images used in a lot of articles, including some that get a lot of traffic, and the only time anyone's ever inappropriately edited them, that I can think of, has been to overwrite it with a crop or an "improvement" that's actually just cranking contrast up or adding an instagram-style filter (i.e. pretty minor things)... and even in those rare cases I think they were caught by other people who patrol for that kind of thing. Maybe it happens more than I realize?

On the other hand, it seems like most times I've seen templates like this used in ways that aren't actually necessary (i.e. not used because of a fair use claim or other form of incompatibility with Commons), it looks to have been in connection to some personal "just don't like it" perspective about Commons. It seems like a fairly regular occurrence that an experienced Wikipedian uploads something in good faith, doesn't know the finer details of freedom of panorama/de minimis/country-specific rules/derivative works/license types/whatever, sees the file get deleted, gets frustrated, and decides Commons users are a bunch of jerks. I sort of get the frustration. Most of us probably remember what it's like to be a new Wikipedian and get your edits reverted for reasons you have to work to understand, and those rules for images are a pain to learn. But personal dislike for Commons isn't a good reason to circumvent how we use Commons.

Sorry, I know this is kind of a tangent and perhaps better for an RfC on use of that template, but looking at Locke Cole's comments surrounding this discussion just seem very much along the lines of the JDLI-driven template use rather than the simple concern that someone will vandalize it or something. To be clear, however, I think the evidence above, especially given Swarm's context, is highly problematic regardless of reasoning behind it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the main reasons I tag files I upload, even files that are presently marked non-free, as someone may decide to come along later, change the license to PD or non-copyrightable, upload it to commons, get the local file deleted, and then I'm stuck trying to figure out WTF happened. Not worth the headache. Commons is more than welcome to reuse all my content, as it's all been made available under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL, but I will not be chasing forest fires down at that project. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I regret commenting here. The inappropriate hatting of the section below and canvassing on Commons are deeply concerning, and I've since learned a bit more about the keeplocal template. None of this is to say there's no merit to this thread or that I'm sold this kind of use of keeplocal is a good thing, but just that I'd like to do (and should've done) more research before jumping in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Masumrezarock100 is performing edits at the behest of indef blocked user Calvinkulit

See also: WP:EVADE

• Calvinkulit (talk · contribs)

See here. Acting as a proxy for a blocked user is usually frowned upon here, and is in fact the act that set this whole thing in motion. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm:, @Barkeep49:, @Floquenbeam: I would like an interaction ban between myself and Masumrezarock100, and myself and Calvinkulit. I would like this to include nominating files I've uploaded to WP:FFD. I do not think this is unreasonable given the edit (and the very next edit) at Commons... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

:It seems on the next edit, they said that they won't and gave a good reason why they don't want too. Also your IBAN request is way to broad for my liking, and honestly not needed at this point. CodeLyoko^buzz 05:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Holy crap, after reading whats been going on I retract my statement. CodeLyoko^buzz 05:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

They also said I currently do not plan to nominate their files on FFD. But that may change in future. And then there's all of these. And then Calvinkulit (talk · contribs) solicited another Commons editor (DannyS712 (talk · contribs)) to remove {{Keep local}} from the content I've uploaded. Finally, Calvinkulit is trying to get a Steward to globally lock me at m:Steward requests/Global... I don't think an IBAN is at all out of line here. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

He also repeatedly asked Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs), via commons, to delete your files locally. @Locke Cole: have you ever had interactions with Calvinkulit anywhere? I can't see that the two of you ever crossed paths on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, as far as I know I've never interacted with this user. They appear to be very hostile towards me though... —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

He has now asked another editor (Alexis Jazz (talk · contribs)) to help him evade his block and remove {{Keep local}} from my uploaded files. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to ask Calvinkulit for a reason and links as I found the request odd, but I was busy. I had also already noted he asked DannyS712 the same thing, which was also odd. I don't recall ever crossing paths with you, Locke. I'm not even going to bother looking at your files. You guys figure it out. - Alexis Jazz 08:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not performing edits on someone else's behalf. I know that he is a banned editor. I saw very problematic keep local tags so I thought I'd remove them myself. Non-free files should not be moved to Commons. He just happen to post on my talk page. He has nothing to do with my edits. Masum Reza^📞 07:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, he requests on your talk page, and you're on here making edits he wants. But what do I know. Also, there's nothing problematic about "keep local" tags. And you don't get to remove those yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And about adding that non-free reduce tag, I did it per our non-free fair use guidelines. I've no idea, why you are desperately trying to prove that I am harassing you. Oh, and that use of rollback is clearly a missuse. I've given summaries why they should not be tagged. But you didn't provide a reason for reverting good-faith edits. Masum Reza^📞 07:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're already WP:HARASSing me, now you're upgrading to WP:STALKing me. I told you to stop the first day you came to my talk page, but you keep digging. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look at other users edits is not called stalking. Many users track others contributions. I see no disruptive behaviour in that. Masum Reza^📞 09:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Without weighing in on the substance here, I undid a completely inappropriate hatting of this thread by User:Wekeepwhatwekill. (see also inappropriate edit summary, and a 124-edit account mostly active on noticeboards...) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• This is canvassing other editors to harass a user on multiple projects, which could be construed as crosswiki harassment. I urge any editor asked by Calvinkulit to do something to entirely ignore them, as obliging their request is assisting, by proxy, a blocked user harassing the contributions of an actively-editing contributor. I've left a note on the request to lock Locke Cole, as it's disruptive, and if this continues I will request the lock of Calvinkulit for crosswiki harassment. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, this all looks really bad, especially the meta request for a global lock. Masumrezarock100, I'm trust that your goal isn't to harass Locke Cole, but effect matters as much as intent sometimes. And what you're doing is adding to the pressure felt by someone who is, by the look of things, being targeted. I'd like to ask you to do the kind thing and walk away from this dispute with Locke Cole. Plenty of attention has been drawn to the issue, and if it's a pressing issue, there are lots of people here who can help sort it out. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Odd things: c:User talk:Masumrezarock100#Surprise!, c:Commons:Requests for rights#Masumrezarock100. - Alexis Jazz 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Guettarda: I've no such intention to harass Cole. But I agree asking for a global lock was too much, Cole isn't even blocked on multiple Wikimedia projects. I usually just wish to stay away from disputes and complicated stuffs. But in my opinion, this is something that needs to be handled quickly. I fear that other editors may get into trouble with Cole in future. I don't want anyone else to suffer the same thing. But I won't oppose if someone just closes this discussion. Masum Reza^📞 11:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  This is fascinating to me... what is it you believe you suffered? If you hadn't acted to edit on behalf of an indef blocked user, literally none of these things would have happened. Your behavior caused this situation, and only your behavior can stop it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  You falsely accused me of harassment. And you were the one who continued to blank that discussion on FFD. Now you are accusing me that I am the one who performed edits on Calvin's behalf. I was very interested in what kind of contributions you have made. And most of your taggings are wrong, non free images do not require keeplocal tags and nor those files that don't exist on Commons. Free files with PD or other issues can be tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} tag instead. I checked your edits before Clavin even messaged me. I was going to remove those tags even if he hadn't messaged me. Like I said, this all is just a coincidence. I didn't even know that Calvin is requesting others to perform edits on their behalf until he posted on my talk page. And yeah literally none of these would have ever happened if you didn't acted that way on your talk page and on the FFD page. Masum Reza^📞 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Check my talk page history on Commons. Calvin requested me to perform edits on his behalf after I reported you to ANI. Masum Reza^📞 18:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see where you could have came across my files except through Calvinkulit. And the nexus appears to be on c:User talk:Magog the Ogre:

  • 2019-09-08T20:14:18 – You previously edit c:User talk:Magog the Ogre which likely also puts it on your Watchlist (this point not completely relevant as I'll make clear further in).
  • 2019-09-22T02:31:21 – Calvinkulit imports File:Nikon.Z-series.logo.svg.
  • 2019-09-22T04:02:28 – Calvinkulit requests that Magog the Ogre delete all my local files, including ignoring {{Keep local}}.
  • 2019-09-22T07:17:53 – You remove {{keep local}} from the local copy of the file.
  • 2019-09-22T07:56:31 – After removing the template, you leave a message on my talk page containing Why you are adding keep local tag to files when it is clearly not a valid reason? where you assume my reason is invalid.
  • 2019-09-22T09:38:19‎ – The very next edit to c:User talk:Magog the Ogre is an edit by you.

  I believe you saw his request to Magog the Ogre at c:User talk:Magog the Ogre and took it upon yourself to pursue the matter. As Calvinkulit was the user who imported the file, you had no other way of knowing about the issue except through him. And no, you have been harassing me. Saying you haven't doesn't change the facts whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • 1. Yes, it did put on my watchlist. My conversation with Magog was about entirely different matter and has nothing to do with this mess. I don't usually check my watchlist and I edit 90% of the time by mobile (check my contributions with "Mobile edit" tag if you don't believe me). It is worth noting that the current mobile watchlist is very bad and doesn't necessarily show all of the changes. You won't be able to "see" some previous changes if there is high volume of editing going on your watchlisted pages. Also Magog's talk page is very long and I am not supposed to read the full page. I just scrolled downed automatically using the TOC. That said I can not really prove that here.

  • I sometimes patrol new files on Commons (including the import log). You can see my edits on Commons. That's where I could have found it.
  • I also sometimes export files to Wikimedia Commons and patrol the NFUR rationale unchecked category backlog. And I could have found it from there.
  • Your evidences are not strong enough to accuse me. You appear to be very fixated on proving me guilty and I've no idea why you are so obsessed with it. Instead start contributing already, and try to learn how to collaborate and interact with other editors. You could have just tell me the reason on your talk page and if you did this whole mess never would have happened. I also suggest you to learn how to identify harrasment. Your behaviour is still the same from when you joined. And it is clear that there is no improvement. I wish that you pay heed to my suggestions above, though I am not so sure if you'll do so. Masum Reza^📞 12:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • From the "contributor" who pre-judged my reason for using {{keep local}} and elected to remove it before asking me why, I'll take your suggestion that I "learn how to collaborate and interact with other editors" with a gigantic grain of salt. Every other editor contacted by Calvinkulit has dropped this matter but you. That really ought to tell you something. And FWIW, IBAN or not, I want nothing to do with you now or in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Calvinkulit has been blocked for a week on Commons. - Alexis Jazz 14:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• The inappropriate meatpuppetry targeted at Locke being requested off-wiki is well inappropriate. I don't think, however, that these requests are any kind of mark against the editors who Calvin contacted. I have asked Masum to leave Locke's files alone, outside of future deletion requests, which he has done since requested. Without any comment on whether there should be an IBAN or not, I would like to think that the Calvin part of this ANI thread is hopefully at a close. That said I am recusing myself from further participation as an admin in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't hold the editors he contacted accountable for their actions (if anything, they are likely victims as well). The only editor I am still having problems with is Masumrezarock100, who as of this writing is still pursuing the deletion of one of my uploads with no valid reason beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is still trying to deny being here because of Calvinkulit. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Close this subsection with no action taken: It's pretty clear to me that Masumrezarock100 and Calvinkulit were interacting with Locke Cole out of different motivations. pbp 13:41, 28 September 2019 (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.

Ongoing disruption by Wildlover22

Wildlover22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned since early August not to add wikilinks in section headers, yet, in late September, he is not stopping, neither is he learning. His edits are focused almost exclusively on adding wikilinks to nudity-related articles. Several of his edits are disruptive and he has been warned about them. He has vandalised several cruise-related articles such as Carnival Cruise Line, Cunard Line, Celebrity Cruises, Holland America Line, Paul Gauguin (ship), Windstar Cruises, and Royal Clipper calling members of such cruises as belonging to the "bare necessities club". I think we need a block for this user. Dr. K. 02:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Another usless editor. Get rid of him. Move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.130.227 (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I just blocked Wildlover22 for 36 hours for disruptive editing before seeing this discussion. If any admin wishes to extend that block, that is fine with me. - Donald Albury 13:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank marine

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([213], [214] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done a little while ago. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

User:MIHAIL

MIHAIL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MIHAIL, after being caught red-handed with original research at People's Salvation Cathedral, now deletes WP:Verifiable chunks of the article. Instead of acting calmly and rationally, he took WP:NOTESSAY as a personal offense and now destroys the article. He seems to have the alternate account MIRAIL.MIHAI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Note MIRAIL.MIHAI's last edit was on 2017-06-18 and MIHAIL account was created (and first edit was made) on 2017-06-21. I'm guessing they lost access to the former account somehow (lost written-down password, normally stayed logged in but got logged out and didn't have record of password, zapped browser autofill database, etc.). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: He seems to have edited logged out: Special:Contributions/86.120.28.154. That would be a 3RR violation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Judging by the emphatic nature of the edit summary, the IP and the named editor seem as though they're possibly the same person. There seems to be some WP:OWNERSHIP issues, too, based on this [215] edit summary ("I created 90% of the article"). Chetsford (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

User attitude

• Cinadon36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buenaventura Durruti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Cinadon36 is hunting me and keeps reverting everything that i am writing. I can't contribute in EN:WP. I am getting reverted in few minutes cause he constantly finds excuses to revert me at once. This is something that he keeps doing it for many months.

Simple and last facts: First time he reverted me cause he was thinking it was due and then a third user reverted him cause he was just saying just nonsense simply to find an excuse and revert me. Yesterday he found that a book from famous historians like professor of University of Grenoble Pierre Broué was not a RS and in the same time(!) when i did the same and i deleted a fringe and conspiracy theory from a militant amateur anarchist Abel Paz "historian", today he is saying that this section was for too long in English WP and i am doing for revenge so he reverted me again!

I fear that this attitude is something that we can find it in Greek Wikipedia, where many users think that he is constantly chasing users. I am banned from English Wikipedia from this user for many months to contribute. Please do something, cause if you don't then you accept my permanent ban from this user. I just want to show that i can contribute and i am not for a permanent ban from English Wikipedia: this ismy last contribution in Greek Wikipedia, an article with the most uptodate historians and not fringe theories and propaganda claims. I want and i can contribute, please help me

I have informed already the administrator User:Bishonen and the other user. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The multiple discussions on the talk page, starting with this one shows yourself and User:Cinadon36 in a discussions about this. Cinandon36 looks like he's saying that although the source is reliable, the items mentioned are being cherry picked. Typically, that's not a good thing. I notice you never responded to that.

Frankly your discussion on the talk page doesn't look promising either. I had an issue similar to yours over at this page and I actually read what was being said to me completely, that lead to me changing my mind as to what was right for the article, even though I came into it with the argument that what I wanted to add in was common sense. I would suggest you actually read, carefully and fully, what's being said to you rather than accuse someone of wrong doing. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Necromonger... thank you for your answer. This user is just making excuses to delete my contribution, the same time that he claimed that [[[Pierre Broué]] wasn't a RS, the same time he claimed that Abel Paz was a R.S. He was just making fun of me. I didn't answer in his Due accusations cause it was obvious -at least for me and for a 3rd user who reverted his contribution- that he is constantly making excuses to delete my contribution. What i can write about such simple facts? The same time that anything exists about Durruti is written in the article from rock bands(!) to a single terrorist, i can't even write simple facts after his death. Ok my talk page isn't promising, cause when he was deleting everything i didn't handle with presence of mind.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I am not hunting no-one, Αντικαθεστωτικός disrespects WP:BRD and on top of that (or because of that) he accuses others for hunting. Let me set the record straight, even though it is not an easy task.

In the last episode, at article Buenaventura_Durruti, Αντικαθεστωτικός added a very strong claim, using a weak ref.[216] After having a look at the publisher's article (Haymarket Books and a review saying that it is a radical publishing house (not mainstream), [217] I reverted him asking him, explaining my reasoning. [218] (Haymarket Books---> not RS, for such claim you 'd need more than that

Αντικαθεστωτικος didn't use the Talk Page, but he reverted, showing no respect to the well established policy of WP. [219] (edit summary:Stop hunting me. If you revert me once again i will go to ANI). Because of a revert, he is accusing me of hunting! Note that I am watchlisting the page and anarchism is within my range of interest. So I reverted once more and I was ready to go to ANI if that would continue. (edit summary:"Not hunting, go to ANI. As I ve said, not RS, plus it is too old source. Strong claims need strong refs. Discuss it at Talk Page.")

Next day, Αντικαθεστωτικος decided not to re-add his material, but remove material that was in the article for too long. He cited a reason (weak RS) which is correct, but the a) claim was not too strong, b)the text has been in the WP since at least 2012 (as far as I could find out [220] and c)it was obvious that he was removing staff as "revenge". I did reverted, asking him politely to go to Talk. He decided to re-reverted. I stopped the reverts (didn't want to break 3RR rule and to avoid creating a messy edit war) so I posted at article's Talk Page. [221]

Bottom line: Αντικαθεστωτικός is refusing to use the Talk Page, not initiating a conversation at Talk even if he has the burden to gain consensus. More to that, when I opened the discussion at Talk, he didn't contribute at all. I find myself accused of hunting because of this specific incidence. I am not hunting anyone, Anarchism and figures of anarchism are within my range of interest. I have also noted that Αντικαθεστωτικός has not the firmest of the grasps of WP policies and so I check his edits whenever he pops up on my watchlist. Cinadon36 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So you just admitted that removing Abel Piaz's conspiracy theory (Wikipedia Voice was for years was conspiracy theory!) was a correct action for me to do, and you just admit that you reverted my contribution cause you was thinking it was revenge. Ok i will wait administrators to say the last word. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest it is hasty to assume a source is WP:FRINGE just because it's published by Haymarket books. They are a pretty significant publisher of leftist non-fiction, especially anarchist non-fiction. As such, the works should be treated individually - some may in fact be fringe, some may not and may be valuable resources for articles about Anarchism and closely affiliated ideologies. As for this source? I am unfamilliar. But I'd suggest that WP:RS/N might be a better place to start than WP:AN/I.Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: I admitted what? Don't put words (or admissions) in my mouth, pls. Cinadon36 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Haymarket is not such a strong source to support such a definite claim. That was my opinion and still is. Sources reliability come in many shades. For a strong statement, we need a strong source. Haymarket, esp in 2008, was not a strong source. But we getting oftopic. We should have discussed this at Talk Page, but Αντικαθεστωτικος is reluctant, to say the least. Cinadon36 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. (taken from WP:RS

@Cinadon36: Your mistake is in treating Haymarket Books as the source rather than the book in question. Haymarket is a publisher; any given book they publish is a source which may or may not be reliable. Again, would admonish Αντικαθεστωτικός and yourself that this is a matter best settled at WP:RS/N. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Haymarket is a publishing house and as such it affects the credibility of the book. That said, I agree with you that the subject should be at RS/N, not AN/I. Actually, the flowchart should (is) B-->R-->STABLE VERSION-->DISCUSS AT TALK PAGE --> Go to RS/N or 3rd Op or RfC. Coming to RS to talk about "hunting" is not the way forward. Certainly it poisons the discussion attempts and it is quite disruptive.Cinadon36 17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός: Would you object to a NAC and opening up a discussion of source reliability at WP:RS/N to resolve this dispute? That way we don't have to waste any admin time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear friend Simonm223 , this book was first published from M.I.T in 1970. What to discuss? This article of Buenaventura Durruti contains 1)Abel Paz an anarchist militant who wrote history *2 times 2) The Toronto Daily Star of 1936(!!) 3)Hugh Thomas of 1966 4)2 heavy metal webpages. I wrote for the first time of Wikipedia what 2 historians wrote (Beevor and Ruiz)as i have done for a long time in Greek Wikipedia. Have a look please just translate from google the bibliography section. Is it possible to discuss if a publication of MIT from University professors is a RS when in the same time this article contains newspapers of 1936 and heavy metal webpages? Is it possible Wikipedia voice is the voice of Abel Piaz a militant anarchist who promotes a conspiracy theory? This is just excuses to delete my contribution. But if you wish i won't reject in NAC. It is obvious that noone except this user will say that this source isn't a R.S, but this is exhausting. I am writing a single sentence, and then he keeps reverting me, and i must write again and again in ANI, in NAC in Talk pages just to have obstacles in my road in Wikipedia. I can't contribute like this. I am de facto banned. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that the book was "first published from M.I.T in 1970"? Because as I see it, it was first published in 1961, not by MIT. Also, I do see some whataboutism in your respond, (ie heavy metal bands) but wont comment any further on that. It is worth mentioning that you disregard Thomas book of 1966, while you consider a book of 1961 is unquestionably RS. And an advice: jumping into controversial topics and in the same time disrespecting BRD, your road wont be too long in en.WP. Respect BRD and everything will sort out. Cinadon36 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is more than enough that it was published from MIT (first time in Engish as i wrote here).Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Had you engaged in Discussion, all this would be avoided. You just mentioned "Haymarket publications 2008" as ref and that 's why I reverted. Cinadon36 21:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Look folks I'm just trying to help. But again, I'd suggest this is a content dispute and would be best resolved by consulting some third parties regarding the reliability of the source. Cinadon36 thinks it's too old and is suspicious of anything published by Haymarket. Αντικαθεστωτικός thinks the book is a reliable history that helps dispel what they characterize as a conspiracy theory. This is a straightforward content dispute. Stop sniping at each other and go sort out what the consensus is on the source. (For my part I think it looks well reviewed and the fact it keeps getting reprinted speaks in its favor.) Simonm223 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 many thanks. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: Heymarket books are RS beyond any doubt; cf. my comment recently posted @ Talk:Buenaventura Durruti. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing IP vandalism at Skid Row (Irish band)

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:82.141.199.81 and User:188.141.87.103, who are either the same person or close friends, continue to add a patently false fact at Skid Row (Irish band), i.e. that this little-known band that broke up in the mid-1970s has re-formed with a different line-up in 2019:

• 188.141.87.103 on 10 May 2019
• 82.141.199.81 on 10 May
• 82.141.199.81 again on 10 May
• 188.141.87.103 on 25 May
• 188.141.87.103 on 4 August
• 188.141.87.103 on 10 August
• again on 13 August
• 82.141.199.81 on 12 September
• 188.141.87.103 on 26 September.

The page was protected for one month on 25 May. Pending changes were configured for one month on 15 August. User:188.141.87.103 was blocked three times, on 11 May, 11 August and 18 August, after being specifically warned about the Skid Row article on 4 August. User:82.141.199.81 also has three blocks, the most recent on 10 June 2019.
Both IPs edited Draft:Skid Row 2019 Tour, which had this long-forgotten band playing all the most prestigious venues in Ireland and Britain, supported by Van Morrison, from May 2019, none of which, amazingly, was reported in the media. After I linked to this page at RFPP on 15 August, it was deleted at the request of the creator!
I have no idea why they are doing this. I have not asked them on their talk pages because it is clear that neither of them ever responds to anything on their talk page (I am, of course, notifying them both of this discussion).
I am asking that both editors be blocked indefinitely, since is clear that they are going to continue their disruptive editing no matter what else is done. Scolaire (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked both IPs and semi-protected the article, both for a period of 6 months. The IPs have a number of recent edits that have not yet been reverted, but which are also unsourced and possible hoaxes in this same style, please help revert where needed. ST47 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have G7'ed a few of their drafts. I, too, had suspicions that they were the same person based on the Geolocate data, and based my speedy deletion tagging on that. Why they're blanking their own drafts I have no idea. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: They deleted their Skid Row 2019 Tour draft because it was a daft draft. They thought nobody could see it, but once I linked to it at RFPP, admins could see how daft it was, so they took it down. @ST47: Thank you for your prompt action. Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2019 (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:Kemalava seems to be 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.

---

Kemalava (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been creating the same articles for several months, and they're deleted under A7 every time. Seems like they're only here for promotion. For example:

• Marco Fortuny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marco Fortuny (Ramp Model) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Marco Fortuny (Ramp Model) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kim Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Diff/918472564
• Special:Diff/892766574
• Special:Diff/886836466
• Special:Diff/883357253

Basically all of their edits are to promote one of those two people. - Frood (talk!) 21:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is more like WP:CIR, but in any case they need to be blocked, and I am tempted, looking at their talk page, to make the block indefinite.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

They've also been editing while logged out as well, as Draft:Marco Fortuny also exists. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Also adding WP:SOCK to this thread because Annabannana111 edited exclusively to the draft. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2019 (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:Ngoc Cens seem to be 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.

---

Special:Contributions/Ngoc_Cens. Their contributions seem to be entirely trying to use article space to argue about the subject; they've been contacted repeatedly on talk, and their responses seem to make it pretty clear they're not going to change. See eg here for an example. Their most recent edits might require some explanation - they're essentially editing an article about a conspiracy theory to say that it's true (and run by the UN, I think? It's hard to say because they also have WP:COMPETENCE issues.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely in article space: occasionally they've posted ranty messages on talk pages, too [222] [223]. --JBL (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

These might be too stale for a checkuser, but I suspect that this user has been doing the same thing under one or more IP addresses:

• An Illinois-based IP address got reverted at 11:35 on 5-14, Ngoc Cens was created 10 minutes later, and then made this edit at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials
• Another (now blocked) Illinois IP address also made very similar edits at Angry White Male: compare (IP vs. Ngoc Cens)

Regardless of whether this is an IP hopping vandal, I don't see any indication that this editor has tried to learn the rules of Wikipedia or engage in a constructive dialogue, and edits like this don't point toward someone who wants to build an encyclopedia. Nblund ^talk 16:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• That replacement conspiracy seals the deal. The rest of the edits fall in line with them. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2019 (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.

Recurrent deletions and problematic edits of VFS Global

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.

---

• VFS Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I am still a novice when it comes to submitting this type of Incident report, so my apologies in advance if I make a mistake or if my post lacks proper formatting. Although I understand both the importance and necessity to assume that all edits are conducted in WP:GF, there does seem to be a prolonged and concerted effort from multiple IP addresses to erase all criticism from the VFS Global article and to transform the article into a favorable advertisement for the company. There are recurrent deletions of sourced content. These deletions have been occurring for at least a year and date back to 2016 and earlier. Even negative comments from the article's Talk Page have been targeted for deletion.

A sample of the contribution histories of various anonymous editors:

• Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:65B:B2D2:5F16:9259:E41C:58DD
• Special:Contributions/115.112.201.140
• Special:Contributions/183.87.117.250
• Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:601:E027:2C60:4B57:E23C:918D
• Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:66D:AC5B:9E3D:1496:478B:7F0D
• Special:Contributions/203.45.97.70

In addition to these anonymous edits, there appears to be a constellation of editors who registered Wikipedia accounts in order to blunt criticism of the company and to blank sections with flimsy rationales or even no rationales whatsoever. For example, please glance at the user histories of Gckarot83, Georcher, Icelander07, Pjiterwal and others who created accounts solely to edit the VFS Global page and to expunge or to mute criticism. (I should also mention the VFS Global article was previously tagged with a WP:COI template due to the connection of certain editors with VFS Global.) Please Note: I am not requesting these users be blocked, I am merely drawing administrative attention to the pattern of their edits.

Given that this concerted effort to expunge criticism has been sustained for over several years, it seems likely that these issues will persist in the very near future. In fact, the last mass deletion was September 28th. -- Flask (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of these problems might be handled by semiprotecting the article for a long time. As you have noticed, there is also some bad editing from registered accounts. User:Flask has already notified the four named editors that they're being discussed here: Gckarot83 (talk · contribs), Georcher (talk · contribs), Icelander07 (talk · contribs), and Pjiterwal (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Regarding semiprotecting the article, I assume one submits a request via the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection board to do so? (I had considered doing this previously, but I was uncertain if I should do so without first soliciting administrative attention and guidance about the overall problem.) -- Flask (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for one year. This leaves the four named accounts free to edit, but you can let us know if problems continue from those accounts. As to how to request admin help, you can always go to WP:RFPP if you can clearly describe the pattern of edits that you believe are violating policy. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Flask (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2019 (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.

Addition of potentially false information by a user

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.

---

Hi. Recently I have been receiving reports by users on Turkish and Persian Wikipedia that User:Physo172 has created articles on English Wiki with false attribution to a number of history books, the PDF of which are available on the Internet. I want this issue to be investigated by the administrators because we don’t want to end up having fictional articles about historical figures that did not exist. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I spot-checked Binnaz Kadın, Mihrişah Kadin, and Tiryal Hanım, and while they have inline citation issues, non-Wikipedia / non-mirror site WP:RS verify they were real people with the backgrounds indicated in the leads of the articles. I did not check further into the biographical details beyond proof of mere existence and I make no conclusion as to their suitability under WP:N. If there are specific articles you can point to as examples of articles on non-existent people created in mainspace by the editor it might help. Also, please notify the user on their Talk page that there is an ANI discussion about them. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC); edited 16:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Take a look at Sehzade Osman. I'm not an expert in sfn citations, but they appear to be garbage as there is no publication for any of them. In addition, I couldn't tell in a Google search whether Osman was an Ottoman prince because so many of the "sources" seemed unusual. Even assuming there was an an Ottoman prince named Osman, the article, as crafted, is a misery to read. The English is awful, both poor and blatantly unencyclopedic, and the claims of what he did are promotional and lack credibility. Yet, I know of no easy way to disprove them. Some of the other articles created by this user suffer from the same defects, e.g., Atike Sultan (daughter of Mahmud II). Even assuming the article are not hoaxes, I don't see the user as a net benefit to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the articles I've seen are in very rough English, the one you cited particularly so. The book that's used to reference the entire article seems to actually be called The Ottoman Lady, not The Ottoman Man [224]. That said, I can't see any evidence these are WP:HOAXes or the result of much more than an overly enthusiastic, young editor (though I stand ready to be corrected). Perhaps this would warrant a discussion leading to a community restriction to submitting articles via AfC for the time being? Chetsford (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't easily read The Ottoman Lady, but the blurb indicates it's about Ottoman women, and, according to the user, this was an Ottoman prince. I find the claims in that article, particularly the section on sexuality, to be incredible, and I believe the user is obsessed with homosexuality to the point of clear vandalism. In any event, I've blocked the user as a sockmaster. If you want to get more insight into his behavior, look at his two socks and the two deleted articles they created that were deleted as hoaxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Chetsford (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking over some of these, the problem is not that there is something weird about sfns, it's that an sfn is supposed to be associated with a fuller citation. In the cases I spot checked, either the authors don't seem to be people who exist, or the citations are so vague it's impossible to know what's being referred to. For instance, WorldCat lists 3400 publications, including over 500 books, written by a "Pierce" in 2009. However, zero of those are about the Ottoman Empire or any sultans. Further, the digital previews of The Ottoman Lady on google books and Amazon list no mention of Sehzade Osman. I suppose it's possible that just as the text is some botched translation, that perhaps the citations themselves are horridly translated. But even in the most generous of outlooks, the content contributed by Physo is utterly unverifiable and the citations useless. I think it would be appropriate to simply delete it all. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"I think it would be appropriate to simply delete it all." I would endorse this. Chetsford (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If we are in doubt about the credibility of these articles, why should we keep them? They all need to be deleted in my opinion, especially since they provide wrong information about historical figures. Cases like this can badly damage Wikipedia's reputation. Keivan.f^Talk 16:36, 1 October 2019 (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.

Another rangeblock for Latin trap fan in Florida

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.

---

Two weeks ago, Drmies rangeblocked 2601:582:C100:5EF:0:0:0:0/64 because of "extensive edit warring, disruption, unverified edits, socking and hopping." This person has made a few good edits on Latin song articles, for instance creating the "Adicto" song article from a redirect, but far too many of the other edits are unreferenced and unverifiable stuff about the Latin trap genre. This person has their own ideas about the genre, and inserts their own analysis.

Recent disruption has occurred in the range 2601:582:C100:3DC0:0:0:0:0/64, especially with copyright violations at Rosalía (singer). Today's disruption is from the range 2601:582:C180:39A0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get at least one more rangeblock on the person? Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes ma'am. It really doesn't stop. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (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 and aggressive behavior from Zefr (talk · contribs) and Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

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.

---

• Intermittent fasting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This issue is about the interaction with 2 users, Zefr (talk · contribs) and Alexbrn (talk · contribs), over the span of 2 days (29th to 30th September 2019). They both regularly contribute to similar entries[225]. I am currently facing a disagreement and 2 nearly simultaneous edit war warnings from these 2 editors. This started yesterday (29th September) when, after stopping contributing for 1 year, I came back to update intermittent fasting according to the latest high quality scientific evidence. At first, I tried to add a RCT study, but as it was considered a primary source by Zefr (which is not per se unacceptable per WP:MEDRS), I subsequently only worked with systematic reviews. I try to always assume good faith and simple misunderstanding to explain conflicts, and I strive to find a common ground[226][227][228].

Here is my experience with these two editors:

Extended content

Adding content failing verification or with weak sources according to WP:MEDRS[229][230][231]. When I tried to fix these issues, they were reverted (thus reinstated) altogether[232]. Zefr admitted he chose to retain such a weak source but agreed if we removed it[233]. Alexbrn not only admitted the same but also tried to push it despite disagreement and reverts by multiple editors (see below). Opinionated incoherent reverts: - Alexbrn reverts sentences backed by systematic review sources (the highest grade in WP:MEDRS, but push forward to qualify the entry in fad diet, using either no source or outdated opinion papers and non-scientific sources such as the Medical Daily. He did so twice[234][235] on an edit that was already disputed and forcefully pushed by another editor[236] and in a similar sense to which Alexbrn tried to push since 2017 despite the multiple revert by different authors[237][238][239]. He is also reverting other contributors[240] who made perfectly valable contributions according to WP:MEDRS and who later complained about the apparent impossibility to contribute to the article[241]. Alexbrn already got called up on using non-scientific sources on other entries[242]. In our instance, this is being currently clarified by a question on the project (on an idea by Alexbrn)[243], but the fact remains that this should not have been pushed until clarified: I had to ask the question on the WikiProject after the fact, when he should have since the first revert by another user, as he was the one trying to insert disputed content. Alexbrn's reasoning is that it's not a medical information, so that it does not need to follow WP:MEDRS. However, he removed aliases, sourced by the NHS[244] and the systematic reviews, which is incoherent with the reasoning he argued. Furthermore, Alexbrn removed altogether a section about religious fasting, despite some strong sources (including systematic reviews) linking religious fasting with intermittent fasting, which was the result of several months of collective work by various editors, for a dubious reason[245]. - Zefr never reverted Alexbrn's dubious sources (nor his own), and also pushed a general public article about a RCT study (whereas he refuses RCT studies as valid sources). Zefr reverts without even reading the source, providing a nonsensical comment of «speculation and synthesis, WP:SYNTH; unencyclopedic»[246] when literally everything written in the sentence can be found in the linked source, which is BTW a systematic review on about a thousand human subjects, almost the highest grade per WP:MEDRS. Another example where Zefr removed a valid source (narrative review, it's written "REVIEW" in the first paragraph)[247]. After trying to discuss with Zefr about what I thought was an honest mistake[248], he did not reply and instead a few hours later reverted again[249] and issued me an edit war warning (see below). Accusations and not assuming good-faith: To justify his reverts, Alexbrn accused me of POV-pushing[250] and later of cherry-picking[251]. Wikihounding (harassment): I also updated another article for which I contributed a lot one year ago and got an award for it[252] (in the sense that I am familliar with this entry): NAFLD. The day just after my contributions on intermittent fasting, Zefr followed me on NAFLD to revert me. He did not contribute there since a year. I asked him to stop (and gave more details)[253], and he "noted my rant", then proceeded to delete the section promptly from his talk page[254]. Abuse of edit war warnings (harassment): Both of them are now ganging up and issued me 2 nearly simultaneous edit war warnings[255][256] for edits where they are involved. These feels hardly justified: - 1st warning (Zefr): it is true I reverted ONCE Zefr removal of a perfectly acceptable source after inviting him for several hours to discuss (which he did not do[257] but continued to work elsewhere instead and issued an edit war warning once I finally reverted what I thought was an honest mistake from him[258]). He thus did not follow Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle which he invokes in his warning. Note also that although Zefr issued me an edit war warning, he did not to Alexbrn who reinstated his dubious source backed content (as described in a previous point) pushed at around the same time. - 2nd warning (Alexbrn): No explanation yet, and the timing seems quite strange (only a few minutes after Zefr's, during which time I did not contribute to this entry). Of note, Alexbrn has been issued a recent edit war warning elsewhere[259]. Refusal of discussion: Zefr pretty much avoided most of the discussion, whereas Alexbrn replied but never directly to the questions pertaining to the justification of his editorial decisions[260]. I proposed multiple solutions, including adhering strictly to WP:MEDRS by keeping only the scientific works of highest grade (reviews and foremost systematic reviews), to which they never replied (and even reverted edits backed by systematic reviews while providing nonsensical reasons[261][262][263]).

=> TL;DR: after only 2 days of collaboration with them, I get insults (Alexbrn) and avoidances from discussion, reverts of perfectly legitimate and valid edits with sources of the highest scientific grade according to WP:MEDRS, edit pushing of weakly sourced arguments, wikihounded on other articles (Zefr) and 2 nearly simultaneous and unjustified edit war warnings from each to attempt to block my account. Zefr is not even reading the sources before reverting. Alexbrn reverts perfectly legitimate and sourced bodies of work.

Can Zefr delete properly sourced content without proper justification according to the editorial rules, and then, without discussion, issue me a warning if I disagree (strangely after I ask him to stop wikihounding me)? Can Alexbrn delete properly sourced content with dubious reasons, insult me and issue me a warning for no explicit reason[264] when he was the one trying to push weakly sourced content?

I find their behavior to be utterly anti-collaborative and disruptive to the construction of the article (I added most of the sources and content since its creation! It shouldn't be like that! I should not be the only one to construct, with these users trying to block me at every step I take, it's not a collaborative mindset).

I won't ask for a particular sanction other than reminder of the rules and cancelling of their 2 abusive warnings on me, but I would like to remind that they went as far as trying to make a user blocked for simply contributing according to the rules and highest quality standards.

Thank you for reading. I will refrain from replying as most infos on this issue should be contained above unless administrators ask me for clarifications. --Signimu (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Last update: --Signimu (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: another editor (that I do not know, histories can be checked) has been reinstating most of the removed content that I disputed aboved[265], with agreement from Zefr[266]. BTW, Zefr still did not read the source and misrepresented its content (the study shows systematic energetic errors, what Zefr has written is nonsense!)[267]. @Zefr and Alexbrn: I am still open to a peaceful resolution (as I always was), if you agree to apologize, remove the 2 abusive warnings and agree to work together (and I am NOT asking that you agree with me, simply that you reply to my requests for discussion!). --Signimu (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:MWOT here and on Talk:Intermittent fasting. Ignoring a talk page request to first post, discuss, and obtain consensus from other editors, Signimu added substantial, disputable text - including primary and otherwise questionable sources that were edited out - then engaged in repeated edit warring with no consensus reached on talk. The Intermittent fasting article is actively and appropriately edited and discussed. How does one respond to a verbose warring editor? Enough said here. --Zefr (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Signimu This is largely a content dispute but arriving at an article, proclaiming "There seems to be an anti-fasting editor out there"[268], and then deleting criticism of that diet while adding unreliably-sourced bold health claims[269] is not a good look if you're going to complain about behaviour. I am concerned however to see I am accused of "Adding content failing verification" - where did I do that? You have brought some good sources to the article and it is improving, slowly - but we need to avoid painting an unduly rosy picture of a diet that mainstream sources take a wary view of. (Note that this is being discussed at WT:MED#Sourcing for categorization - trying to "win" a content dispute here that isn't going to plan in another forum, is not an appropriate use of this noticeboard.) I am sorry for my redundant edit-war warning, I didn't realise you'd already had one! Alexbrn (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to both since I am accused:

* @Zefr:: That's simply not true. Following first revert by Alexbrn[270], I stopped and initiated the talk page discussion[271][272]. You later asked to first post on talk page (which I already done) before any edit[273], the latter being obviously abusive contradicting WP:BOLD, and in any case my subsequent edits were totally different and using much stronger sources[274]. Coincidentally, you are now using WP:MWOT (an essay), same as Alexbrn[275] used to avoid replying to editorial questions. My answers are extensive not for fun but to give the sources and citations, to discuss on precise points rather than "you say this, I say this". Please link to the "primary and otherwise questionable sources", apart from 1st edit which I never reinstated following the first revert, I never subsequently added any primary source, whereas it did not bother you to use news article founded on primary sources[276], contradicting your own statement just 30 min before[277] and that you repeat here. Note that you consistently accept weak sourced content when it's negatively biased[278], when you don't simply misrepresent what a source says (the source says nothing about the efficiency of diets, it's only about whether any intervention, be it diet or overeating, can produce weight change, so called "energetic errors" --> you change it into "the diet cannot work")[279][280]. These changes you did today are intriguing: if the info you write is not in the sources, where is it coming from? May also I remind you that a consensus of 2 vs 1 is not sufficient to be qualified as a consensus, and furthermore not to justify the rejection of systematic reviews (almost highest quality WP:MEDRS source), else it would mean that consensus can choose lower quality sources over higher quality sources. Consensus is about discussing, which you did not.

* @Alexbrn: I agree this should only be a content dispute (although you systematically refused justifying your editorial decisions so I had no way to dispute nor agree with them![281]), but this request is due to your behaviors: insults (and not assuming good faith), wikihounding, issuing abusive warnings. I am NOT trying to win content (remember I only asked for stronger sources[282], which you guys seemingly require only when it's in the "positive" direction, whereas I added content in both directions), but your actions is preventing me from participating on the page, risking a block, and you guys are even following me on other entries now (so that I get a third warning?)[283][284]. If you are sorry for your edit war warning, please remove it to prove your good faith.

May I remind you both that up to the very end, I tried to find a common ground by discussion[285], which you did not respond but instead issued me 2 warnings[286]. That's simply not how collaborative editing works. My peaceful resolution proposition above still stands (although none of you acknowledged it). --Signimu (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I explicitly wrote that good faith was not at issue[287] though now I am beginning to have a few doubts about that. I note you have not answered my request for evidence to justify your claim that I was adding material to the article that failed verification. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is how Alexbrn responds to my peaceful resolution propositions: by WP:Wikilawyering[288]. @Alexbrn: Everything is described above and on the talk page (hint: the harvard source not claiming what was written, and the 2013 opinion paper not being great either - but I now found better source for your claim FYI, what you should have done). Great method to not read what I write, then ask me to repeat, to then accuse me of WP:MWOT. --Signimu (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think at this point I'll bow out of this filing. Others with the requisite wiki-endurance can try and piece together what is going on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC)@Signimu: I haven't looked into it in depth, but I'm confused why this is at ANI. It seems to mostly be a content dispute. I'm not saying behaviour from either side was ideal, but it doesn't seem like it's enough to justify administrative attention. I see plenty of discussion on the article talk page including from people not named here. As always, if you cannot resolve a content dispute, please use some form of WP:Dispute resolution (which is never one of the ANs). In fact, I see one editor already suggested you take something to WT:MED. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A few comments on specific issues: We do not cancel warnings. If a warning is unjustified, then you can just ignore it. And justified or not, you could just remove the warning yourself per WP:OWNTALK although I wouldn't recommend it. (Among other things, if you remove it then someone else may give you a warning in the future.) Two warnings in quick succession seems a little unusual but from your own description it sounds like this could be an edit conflict.

Remember the important thing from any warning is that you understand our policies and guidelines including our willingness to block you if you persistently or egregiously violate them. For minor errors, we're willing to tolerate some mistakes especially when you weren't aware of our policies and guidelines. Ultimately it's your responsibility to understand our policies and guidelines and to take on board any help and advice offered and if you persist in causing problems you will be blocked for it.

If you edit war, and end up in WP:AN/EW, I don't think many admins are going to let you go because you had been warned but that warning was unjustified, no matter how true that statement. (To be clear, I'm not commenting on whether any of your behaviour is blockable or even wrong. Simply pointing out you should concentrate on the information of the warning and not your, justified or not, annoyance at receiving one.)

We are all volunteers here, editors have their own lives and can choose how they want to contribute provided they don't violate our policies or guidelines. Unless it's something extremely urgent, "inviting him for several hours to discuss" is a bit meaningless even if the editor is editing related things. WP:Silence is a thing, but a few hours is generally way too short to assume no one is going to respond.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2019 (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.

Targetted Edit Reversion and pushing of POV by Aman.kumar.goel

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.

---

• 89.242.133.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Punjab Province (British India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Regional power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Afro-Asians in South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of highest mountains on earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have recently become aware of a user specifically targeting me to revert my edits as they do not conform to said user's POV. The user in question is Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you take a look at their contributions page, you will see how all of their recent edits have been reverting my own. This user seems to also has a history of pushing POV in articles centric to their personal interests and background. Unfortunately, it is almost as if they have been allowed to do so as they have been at large since December last year according to their registration date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aman.kumar.goel

Here are some diffs for evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punjab_Province_(British_India)&diff=prev&oldid=918861811

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afro-Asians_in_South_Asia&diff=prev&oldid=918860755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest_mountains_on_Earth&diff=prev&oldid=918860032

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_power&diff=prev&oldid=918858792

Comparison of both our contributions pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aman.kumar.goel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.242.133.245

Responded

== hi there ==

Nice to meet you.

It has become apparent you are targetting me by reverting or challenging my edits specifically, oft without proper standing. It would be helpful if you could avoid doing so.

Thanks

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 89.242.133.245 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.133.245 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually once reverted one of your edits (Regional power where talk had concluded Pakistan as rather a sub-regional power) and coincidently opened your contributions where I witnessed a series of disruptive edits with no reasons or actual summaries rather complete PoV pushing. As those articles pertain to the topics I'm interested in, I exercised my rights to revert the ones I don't agree with a summary. I hereby, reject all your accusations of targeting "you" specifically and maintain my nature of surveillance of article. I rather propose WP:DR to reach consensus for those edits and not the accusing me of attacking you to keep those edits alive. Mine & those talk pages are open. I had proper standing in what I reverted instead those edits didn't have any ground. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• The filing IP, 89.242.133.245 (talk · contribs) has never posted to an article talk page so is possibly not familiar with how disputes get resolved on Wikipedia. See WP:Dispute resolution and try to follow the steps outlined there. Since there is no attempt so far to negotiate, this complaint should be closed without admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (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.

Cross-wiki harassment

[289]

A WP:LTA multi-IP handler in :es:wiki in es:wiki just like yesterday is moving here to en:wiki to reengage into the same harassment pattern. WP:NOTTHERE. Some gross verbal abuse too ("son of a whore" yadda-yadda). See analogous incident above these lines reported yesterday at 14:25, 2 October 2019.--Asqueladd (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wisest Expert and their obsession with age 19

The Wisest Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be an account whose sole purpose is disruption/trolling via subtle vandalism. (Even their username is trollish.) Namely, they have a bizarre singular focus on naming "19" as the legal age for various things, with no valid basis.

At Voting age, they changed three countries' ages from 18 to 19, with no source given. [290]

At Age of consent, they changed "most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18" to "14 to 19". [291] I reverted them, and they reverted back appealing to the color coded map on that page. [292] I pointed out that only Indonesia sets it at 19, and they latched on to that in their next edit, leaving "14 to 18" and adding "(19 in Indonesia)". [293] They then reverted two more times to that phrasing. [294][295] They thus violated WP:3RR in their attempts to get "19" specifically mentioned in the article. (And they had already been warned about edit warring [296] and invited to discuss on the talk page, which they ignored. [297])

At List of countries by minimum driving age, they changed Canada from "16 in most provinces" and "14, with parental supervision, in Alberta" to "14, with parental supervision, in Alberta", "16 in most provinces (with parental consent)", and "19 (without parental consent)", again with no source given. [298]

That's all of their editing in the 1 day or so the account has existed. I am reporting here because it seems to require too much explanation for AIV, and the problem goes beyond edit warring, so AN3 isn't enough. When looking at their behavior as a whole, it seems to me like trolling and a case of WP:NOTHERE. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I've indef'd the user for the repeated addition and modification of content without references. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! -Crossroads- (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Block evading Joseph kargbo 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.

---

Block evading IP is making the usual edits seen from this long term abuser here and here. Robvanvee 14:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked. Thank you for finding this. In the future, the best place to report socks of Joseph kargbo is WP:AIV. Other noticeboards tend to be backlogged and take too long to act on obvious cases like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do, thanks NRP! Robvanvee 15:11, 2 October 2019 (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.

Cross-wiki harassment

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.

---

85.85.59.70 [299]

A WP:LTA multi-IP handler in :es:wiki who just received the daily sweet block in es:wiki is just keeping a harassment pattern here in :en:wiki WP:NOTTHERE.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2019 (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.

Harassment by Ca2james

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 new to this so I apologize in advance as to this process, but a friend recommended I come here because I am confused about a recent number of edits on pages I have started, but really it is about a repeated pattern of behavior of a fellow editor. So here goes. I started two different pages recently and because the subjects are not very well known, I was confused by the fact that one editor, Ca2james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), somewhat aggressively deleted content on both pages here and here. Beyond the deletions, which I can wrap my head around, it was the fact that it seemed strange that this editor seemed to be following the contributions I had made on two very disparate subjects. On the page where there were the most deletions, the Talk page discussion has displayed concerning behavior where there seems to be a lack of regard and a definite lack of willingness to be constructive and help me. Instead this editor has seemed to spend a lot of time listing policy but not focusing on helping me construct or improve the page. I am coming here because the amount of what seems to be the start of a lot of filibustering and the repeated focus on editing pages I started felt like harassment and bullying, which surprised and to be honest upset me a bit because it seemed targeted. I wanted to bring this here in case I could get some assistance. Because as a relatively new editor I am now afraid to contribute further because I am worried this editor will follow more of the pages I might work on and I am uncomfortable now. I am grateful to any editors who help improve anything I have added, but this behavior seemed unusual. I don't know if this is a pattern of behavior and don't know enough about this process to have the skills to figure that out, so thought I would come here where hopefully you experts might have an ability to evaluate this. Again, I would really like to continue editing but have stopped for now. Thank you for your kind assistance with this matter. 1940CStreet 14:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

BrillLyle is that you? In one article I made changes to remove an UNDUE unsourced list of unsourced very minor roles, the statement that they were guest starting roles (they were not), the statement that was unsupported by the source that she graduated cum laude, along with . I did revert once and immediately opened a Talk page discussion justifying my changes; in my second message I suggested 3O, only to be taken here, which seems a little over the top.

In the other article I removed paranthetical COATRACK remarks naming other people unrelated to the article. This is a content dispute that shouldn't be here.

But comparing 1940CStreet and BrillLyle (who is globally banned) I do see some similarities.. edit summaries like "nits" and "smoothing" are common to both, as are many many many small changes to an article, as is the addition of lists of unsourced minor items, as are the reference naming formula, as is removing "accessdate" parameters from references (and not using that parameter ever), as is the overreaction when faced with changes. It looks like 1940CStreet started editing about 3 months after BrillLyle was globally banned, which would be enough time to evade checkuser data. Ca2james (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this response illustrates and illuminates my concerns here. I feel personally targeted and unsafe even moreso. I am not talking about the deletions, as I understand that this is not the place for that. This editor seems to not be able to focus on the issue I describe here. Or answer the question as to why they followed me from one page to another. 1940CStreet (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

For Ca2james to check out your contributions is not harassment, nor are you being "personally targeted", 1940CStreet. It's common, both for admins and other experienced users such as Ca2james, to look at a user's total contributions if they are concerned about the quality of some edits by the user that they have come across. Wikipedia provides a link to a user's contributions for a reason. I don't know whether you're a sock or a genuinely new user, but I don't see anything wrong with the actions Ca2james has taken in relation to your edits. Ca2james, please take your socking concerns to SPI if you feel you have sufficient behavioral evidence. (If you haven't, you shouldn't be making sock accusations at all.) It can be evaluated even if it can't be CU'd. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 2 October 2019 (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.

Suspected use of 117.54.250.2 by banned user

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.

---

Disclaimer in advance, some of my methods may be unorthodox as I am not familiar with all policies in this area, but I wanted to be confident before making a serious accusation. I have not placed this on the sock puppet investigations forum instead, because my understanding was that there is a general policy of not linking IPs through such investigations for privacy reasons. Note however, that this IP appears to be an open proxy see spam alert so that might not be a concern in this case.

It's rare that there is a need to thoroughly investigate large content removal by random new users, but something like this does require a bit of extra scrutiny to see if the change was bad. Among other things, a closer look revealed a passing similarity to this and a few others. Not by itself a red flag as IPs and new users routinely mimic edit summaries that they have seen earlier. But a review of editing history between the two Special:Contributions/80.111.44.144 and Special:Contributions/117.54.250.2 revealed a broad overlap in interests relating to Hong Kong Way or just Hong Kong topics in general as well as Celtic topics. This was still hardly clear and convincing evidence, so I cautioned about misleading edit summaries, and moved on to other problematic edits elsewhere.

Somewhat later while following a recent changes patroller's history to see what right looks like, I saw a rollback [300], which had been sneakily reverted sometime later. First appeared to be just a novice editor making the common mistake of inserting redundant material which gentle guidance often fixes, but when that was itself reverted without explanation a closer review was necessary.

I quickly recognized the edit history. Yet despite some bad new edits there were some constructive ones as well. Could be the work of a banned user, but far from vandalism only, and possibly a net positive to the encyclopedia.

Since the user did not seem the type who liked to engage civilly on the user talk page. I opted for the indirect method by pushing back a little on edits were there was room for discussion, that is to say not obviously unconstructive nor a clear improvement, to see what kind of engagement occurred. After this was initially unsuccessful at yielding anything but unexplained reverts, I applied a little pressure by employing the users own words against the user in an edit summary. The idea being that good-faith editors usually at least try to follow their own rules whereas bad faith editors tend to game the system.

When the response was these [301], [302], not only was I convinced of general bad faith, but the similarities to the banned edits [303], [304], [305], more or less provided sufficient evidence for the link to be all but certain.

I'm under no illusion that any kind of ban will slow down this user for more than a moment, given the facility with which the user has employed numerous open proxies in the past, and let's face it, a script kid could hijack as many IOT devices as they wanted to disrupt Wikipedia from IPs around the world if that's their lark.

Nevertheless, the correct procedure for this situation seemed to be to report suspected socking to a noticeboard.

Possibly this was not entirely correct so I take full responsibility for any/all of my actions and I'm ready to accept the consequences of such.

117.54.250.2 has been notified but given current inactivity the user may or may not show up.

Also, I may disappear at any moment as this is a dynamic IP so cross your fingers on any pingbacks, best. 2601:5CC:8301:FD00:501E:F2B5:AF3A:C27F (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as an open proxy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2019 (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.