Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 9 August 2018 (→Extended confirmed cheating...: x). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

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

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

    • Is there evidence of long-term approval of problematic hooks like mentioned in point 6? If so, the easiest way to deal with it would be using DS (and if there isn't, a logged DS warning might suffice to not do it again.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lionelt consistently exhibits a very strong POV. As do many of us, of course, but he seems less self-aware than some. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was just this one, Tony, I'd have left it where it was (I removed his approvals of the hooks). It is the issues in point 8 that lead me to think this may become an ongoing issue that needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an serious problem. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, point 8 is certainly problematic.A logged warning might suffice and any further disruption will result in a topic ban from APOL32 per ACDS.∯WBGconverse 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There does rather seem to be a promotialism thing going on here. He seems to ber both saying, and encouraging, the Use of DYK to promote causes and products (all but ones of a political nature). It might be best to to issue a warning for now, and see if that does any good.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the essay is certinly more problematic than the hook (which garners enough attention to ensure it will never go anywhere in that form); but the essay has the appearance of an official page. Specifically, it would (probably) be fine in userspace but I'm not sure it should be giving the impression that it's endorsed by a Wikiproject. (Is it, btw?) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the essay would likely be fine in userspace. I think there are reasonable arguments for why you might want to promote figures on the right to DYK (en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing). The larger concern that both the essay and the hook in point 6 raise is that this is a systemic problem of trying to promote problematic hooks. If that is going on, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed very quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What does autopatrolled have to do with POV DYKs? Now that you've suggested a DS topic ban and revoking autopatrol, it looks like you're just trying to punish him. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles which they created and which has now been AfDed would be best looked at by a new page patroller, though I am not sure any patroller would decide to go for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natureium:What? You need to read the entirety of the proposal.And if I've seen the articles, I would have sent all 3 to AFD, on grounds of failing to adhere to the notability guidelines. These are all stuff that shall be screened at NPP, (if reviewers are diligent enough).These coupled with his questionable motives make a fine case for revoking the flag, IMO. Also, kindly point out the exact phrase which led to you to think you've suggested a DS topic ban.∯WBGconverse 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - but when you consider where it is, and then add "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion.", and then create a number of not-exactly-neutral political stubs "ready for expansion", it all looks very suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly understand that. I'm just pointing out that the page is not problematic per se, except for the reliably (and in context, understandable) right-wing slant to the examples. And while suspicious is something I'd agree with, "slam dunk case for POV pushing" is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI: the user Jerry the Bellybutton Elf is editing from the US State Department, as seen in this sequence – [1][2][3] – in which a spelling error is corrected in the draft version of the article by State Department IP 169.253.194.1, before the draft was moved to mainspace by Lionelt. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very suspect, because a backwater DYK nomination page is the last place you'd expect a random IP to turn up, but I don't really want the identity of JerryTBE to derail this particular discussion, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to make sure we are considering Jerry the Bellybutton Elf as a separate person from Lionelt, who, aside from his large number of right-wing POV changes to articles about politics, religion and abortion, has edited a fair number of articles local to Southern California. If Lionelt is in SoCal, then he's not Jerry the Bellybutton Elf in Washington DC. And Awilley, the State Dept IP is obviously used by a number of people, which is probably why you concluded it to be an independent editor. The linked sequence, though, proves my point, as the time between edits is so small, and the draft version of the article would have been virtually impossible for someone to find on their own. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple things here. First, I would never live in DC. Too hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. No thanks. I've been to visit, but didn't make it to Foggy Bottom. This Binkster person should remove his conspiracy theory that I am illegally logging out to fix spelling errors from an anonymous IP, since that's an aspersion and I wouldn't to see him get blocked, per policy. You cant just go around making accusations of people using multiple accounts to edit without any evidence. Binkster should have the chance to convince the mods that he understands this before a block is placed on his account. Calton should also have the chance to show he understands that ANI is not a forum to be used to make complaints of unrelated editing, like Lionel helping users write DYK submissions. Calton should be made aware of the proper forum to file formal complaints, and this is not the place to air miscellaneous grievances about people not sharing his extreme left-wing worldview. I propose a warning for Black Kite to take content disputes to the editor in question, not try to get that editor punished by the mods for being a conservative by shopping for a mod to do the deed. After the above is complete, this posting should be deleted and everyone should go back to building the encyclopedia and working together in a friendly environment, rather than turning this into some liberal vs conservative battleground. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually (1) this posting isn't about you, really (as I said above) (2) I am an administrator, and I brought the issue here for further discussion, and (3) threatening other editors will not end well for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calton should be made aware... And you should be made aware that I've filed no complaints, just provided information, that your mind-reading skills and/or political orientation detection skills need work, and that Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge. Also, please note that making stuff up about other editors to attack them can get you blocked. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessarily wrong for a Wikiproject to focus on producing DYKs for topics within their area of interest, but this does have the appearance of a self-dealing attempt to shepherd new articles and DYKs through the process with little outside input. The part of "DYK for Newbies" that concerns me is the "When your reviewer is a meanie" section which directs users to the Wikiproject Conservatism talk page if the DYK is rejected. (on a similar note Lionelt also created a Discretionary sanctions FAQ to be used alongside DS alerts, which also directs any DS questions to the WP Conservatism page.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    By suggesting Clinton's quip I was not showing any political preference. Granted, once BLP concerns about the Trump quote were raised I pushed too hard on the quote. I realized that the Trump quote was outrageous, but to be honest there isn't much "hooky" material to work with at the IG report. Additionally, I reasoned in the Trump-era we are all sensitized to outrageous. I guess we're all not sensitized... When consensus formed against the Trump hook I moved on.– Lionel(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the three stubs, they are all 1 sentence long, they have multiple reliable sources present, and they are written neutrally. For example, "The Hope and the Change is a 2012 documentary film produced by Citizens United which is critical of the Obama administration." One of the sources is Politico. I was always under the impression that these stubs would be expanded neutrally. And if they went to DYK that some future reviewer would ensure that the hook was neutral.– Lionel(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between (1) using Wikipedia for political purposes (WP:PROMOTION) and (2) showcasing (advertising) political articles at DYK (WP:DYKAIM #1). If political articles or any articles are written in a biased way, then a case can be made for POV pushing. However our policies fully endorse neutrally-written political articles. The stubs I wrote need 1500 chars to qualify for DYK. I contributed one sentence to that. It is a stretch to suggest that I am POV pushing articles onto the Main page which for all intents and purposes haven't been written yet.– Lionel(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wondered why you couldn't be bothered to pad those non-notable IMDB listings yourself, and given the events outlined in points 1 through 6 above, I can see why: I'd say it's now the OPPOSITE of a stretch. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful, is this devolving into a delete WP:RIGHT discussion again?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding to the historical context, Facto created the WP:Conservative notice board in June 2006, at the same time sending out a bunch of invitations like this, drawing in editors with a demonstrated conservative slant. Facto's notice board was soon recognized as a method for vote-stacking to promote American right-wing viewpoints, and it was deleted. At the MfD discussion, Nandesuka said, "It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view."
    Facto stopped editing soon after the notice board was deleted, and was indeffed three years later when a sock account, Favortie, was discovered. Five months before that, Lionelt registered his username, in January 2009. In February 2011, he created the WP:WikiProject Conservatism, which had been suggested, coincidentally enough, as a redlink at the MfD for Facto's noticeboard. Lionelt used the new platform to attack another editor who had opposed his conservative slant and his one-sided invitations to membership. Other editors at the talk page raised concerns about the project scope and its "mission creep", calling out the Amero-centric bias there and at "This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism". I raised the concern about invitations sent out in a skewed manner, sent only to fellow travelers, at "Establishing a guideline for inviting members". Nothing significant was done by Lionelt to correct these foundational problems, so I nominated his WikiProject for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Among the most convincing arguments voiced there was MastCell's "this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda," in the same manner as the previous Conservative notice board. Despite this, the MfD resulted was "keep". I was disappointed, and I blame myself for not spending the proper amount of time to gather diffs and make a stronger case.
    Now we are again faced with the question of Lionelt's bias skewing the encyclopedia. It's a lot larger than one DYK, and larger than the WikiProject instructions regarding conservative DYKs. I think it's a problem of bias and activism inherent in Lionelt, a bias he built into the fabric of the WikiProject. I would still like to see the WikiProject shut down, and it would help protect the encyclopedia if Lionelt was topic banned with regard to politics. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The mission of WPConservatism is to improve conservatism-related articles. Period. WPConservatism has a diverse membership of editors including several editors who could be described as left-leaning. The thing I am most proud of at WPConservatism is the new A-Class Review Program. This ambitious initiative helps with the backlog at Good Article (GAN) and gets promising articles right to the doorstep of Featured Article (FAC). WPConservatism is in good company, there is only one other Wikiproject with A-Class Review, MILHIST. The first article promoted to A-Class is Margaret Thatcher. The next candidate for A-Class Review is likely List of American conservatives. A-Class Review proves that the purpose of WPConservatism--which is also my purpose--that purpose being article improvement. – Lionel(talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The observations by Black Kite, Binksternet, and others above are consistent with my own. Lionelt has picked up where he left off five years ago, by using Wikiproject conservatism as a platform for advocacy and recruiting. Five years ago when LGBT rights were at the forefront of current events, Lionelt made a a habit of placing Chick-fil-A "sammies" on the talk pages of users he perceived as friendly to his cause:[4][5][6] and more recently:[7][8]. It appears this is intended to induce Pavlovian responses from the recipients. For example, this rather pointed one immediately followed the recipient being blocked for edit warring on the Chick-fil-A article and calling someone a pedophile! Here's an example of him inviting an edit warring editor (who is now topic banned) to join Wikiproject conservatism [9] and then awarding a "sammie" to editor who helped with recruitment[10]. And again, rewarding the defense against liberal POV. Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations with this gem. My favorite though is his declaration that Donald Trump is good for "the Blacks". And don't worry, that awkward anachronism is OK because he is black!- MrX 🖋 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good to cherry-pick fragments of quotes. The last quote that you cite was something that Trump said---not me. And I repeated it in reference to the record low Black unemployment numbers since Trump took office. We don't sanction editors for being politically incorrect. – Lionel(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations" is related to Trump topic area quantitative data analysis. If in fact irregularities are discovered at Arbitration Enforcement don't you think that would have far-reaching consequences? A research study was recently completed--ironically about AN/I--which found numerous issues. Is it that far fetched to try to determine if there are issues at AE?– Lionel(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's far fetched is calling that a quantitative data analysis. The only thing that you have discovered is the correlation between editors who blatantly violate our policies and the sanctions they receive.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I'm seeing here, the problem isn't so much Lionel as it is Wikiproject Conservatism. And that makes sense to me: I can't imagine how we could have a Wikiproject Conservatism, or Wikiproject Liberalism, or Wikiproject Libertarianism without it predominantly being used to push a POV, even by well-meaning editors. How does one post a notification to one without canvassing? How does one request help editing an article with POV problems without canvassing and POV pushing themself? It just can't be done. So... See below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The DYK section has far less contributors and reviewers than during its heyday. Every once in a while I look at the main page and think there are some awful DYK hooks. But this case is just silly: a neutral hook was already presented there, the real issue seems to be whether the topic is wanted on the main page or not at all for political reasons. It's like downvoting or upvoting in Reddit, and there aren't enough DYK regulars to actually process the nom fairly. A broken process, but not something that can be fixed with complaining about one POV comment at ANI. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you might think this case is silly if you didn't read more than just the headline and formed an opinion without looking at the evidence provided. This is not about how DYK works. It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy. Here's another example: [11] related to [12]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to explicitly permit wikiprojects that promote a well-defined political POV (as per the below subsection), then I fail to see how efforts to grow and maintain that project can be demonized here.
    Don't get me wrong: I do see the diffs you posted here (and above) as evincing a certain level of political POV pushing. But I just don't see how we can say "it's okay to have these sorts of wikiprojects, it's just not okay to use them, maintain them or grow them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy."...where is my emoji for spitting my coffee out?!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Late to the party) Point #8, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies is exactly the kind of activity that got me involved last time, and in a quandary about what to do. Of course, he disappeared for 5 years, so I didn't have to think about it again until now. Having a Wikiproject that focuses on Conservative topics isn't the problem. If anything, there is a lot of balance to be had by doing so, as I would argue that the editor pool here is skewed in the other direction. The problem is when you go from offering sources and information to balance articles to simply advocating a position as if the other side doesn't exist. This is combative in nature, even if done politely. Lionelt has a long history of doing just this, which again, is why I got involved. I don't think the failed ban of the project (below) was the right approach, as the problem is Lionelt and his lack of self-awareness regarding his own bias. As someone pointed out above, all of us have some kind of bias and that isn't a problem. The problem is when we think we don't and act as if we are the torchbearer for the Truth®, which is what Lionelt was doing before he left. The essay indicates a severe lack of clue, in spite of the fact that he is not dumb. I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. This type of subtle (yet not subtle) bias is best left to the community as a whole rather than a handful of admin to decide. Again, the problem is Lionelt, not the project. Let him edit other things and earn back the right to edit politics, no different than we would do anyone in any other topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see formal proposal below the archive box below.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal: Community topic ban on post-1932 politics

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

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

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

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

    Getting back to the original question

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

    As far as that question goes, I agree that Lionelt was in the wrong. They should have stepped back and let someone else approve the hook, instead of wasting editors' time arguing about it only for it to end up here, wasting even more editors' time. But since sanctions aren't punitive, the only thing we can really ask for is for Lionelt to apologize and admit wrongdoing. We can't compel that, but we can certainly remember it the next time, whether Lionelt chooses to acknowledge wrongdoing or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This goes to consensus building. If one editor believes a hook is OK, but another does not, then there is not consensus. Why was LionelT's approval seen as any more of a concern than any other random editors approval? What is this DYK discussion? Did the DYK nominations violate any of the DYK Rules?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I have read the DYK discussion, linked above. Does this mean that anything controversial should not be a DYK, even if there is a consensus that the article that the DYK is written neutrally (one of the things that an article must accomplish to pass DYK), and that the hook(s) are neutral as well?
    It is OK for one editor to approve a hook, and another editor disapprove it. That has happened, even for non-controversial DYKNs. So what makes LionelT's editing so bad? If the editor wants to improve content in an area which they have an interest in, great. As long as that improvement in the main space is well referenced, written neutrally, and complies with our other policies and guidelines.
    Is it civil to cast dispersions against the actions of LionelT, and then consider it against our guidelines about editor behavior when the accused attempts to defend their actions (even if it means pointing towards the policies and guidelines that they claim to not have broken). Should the editor only remain silent, and allow other editors disparage them and their actions? To what end?
    LionelT may be the tall grass when it comes to wanting to improve content to subjects of interest with those who political persuasion is not left of the center in the United States, but that doesn't mean that cause the individual has interest in that part of the political spectrum that they can't contribute content to this project of WMF. If as a more active member of that editor community, they are silenced, what chilling effect will that have to others who may want to contribute well referenced neutrally written content improvement with that same, or similar, political persuasion? Does it reinforce the view by those who have gone to those alternative wikis, that our editing community is not actually inclusive, not actually diverse, and ultimately supportive of harassment of those who are not of a political persuasion that is in middle, or left of center in the United States?
    Count me concerned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CASTINGDISPERSIONS. EEng 04:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From the discussions at both the DYK nomination and here, from what I can tell, the issue has less to do with his political beliefs but more with his actions in recent times. As it can be seen above, the proposals to shut down WP:CONSERVATISM and/or give him a topic ban were shot down precisely because implementing either on the basis of his beliefs was a slippery slope and would do more harm than good (and of course, discriminating against users simply because they're conservative, even if users personally don't agree with their beliefs, is just silly). On the other hand, it did appear that his repeated attempts to approve the hook, despite several users giving advice to the contrary, ended up being at the very least unconstructive. I think I have to agree here with MjolnirPants in that what is probably needed here is at least an acknowledgement of how the DYK nomination transpired and that Lionelt has to take it in mind lest he be brought to ANI again. At the very least, it is hoped that Lionelt can learn from this experience and can become more productive because of it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the proposal was to shut down ideologically-driven political wikiprojects (conservatism, libertarianism, anti-war, capitalism & communism, plus blocking liberalism before it gets started) though no-one who commented except K.e.coffman seemed to get that. Everyone else seemed to think I was proposing either banning only conservatism, or all political wikiprojects, and neither was the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't able to participate in that proposal, but I would be opposed to it. There's nothing wrong with starting WikiProjects about Conservatism, Communism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Anarchism, etc., but promoting them of course would be another story. In which case the solution would not be shutting down the projects (that would only be at most a last resort) but to deal with unconstructive editors. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no Wikiproject:Liberalism (it redirects to Wikiproject Politics). So how would an editor -for example- use Wikiproject:Conservatism to notify other editors of a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump without being guilty of WP:CANVASSING conservative editors? It would probably be best to answer at my talk if you want to, to avoid sidetracking this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See the appropriate canvassing section, one can notify individuals in related wikiprojects as long as it is follows the appropriate canvassing portion of the guideline. Also if promoting is against policy or guidelines for user activity, than we also need to shut down WP:GEONOTICE as that is a form of promotion.
    We should want editors to promote their positive contributions on Wikipedia, that is part of what DYK is all about. An article there has to be written neutrally, and follow all the other policies and guidelines which apply to things in main space. It is part of the rules of DYK that hooks need to also be written neutrally as well. Controversial topics can be given a hook, see Template:Did you know nominations/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign. Otherwise if WP:NOTPROMOTE applys to actions of users, than it can be argued that DYK needs to be shut down as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't answer my question. By definition, any such notification posted to WP Conservatism is targeting conservative editors, who will predictably all take one side of the issue, an obvious outcome which your response completely ignores. Your comment about WP:GEONOTICE completely misses the point, not only of my question but of the geonotice itself. It's not used for notifying editors of discussions, but of real world events relating to WP that editors in a specific location may have interest in. Hell, even if it were being used to notify editors of discussions, there's no inescapable correlation between living in a certain locale and having a certain opinion. Finally, DYK promotes articles. Not viewpoints, nor discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). Therefore, to say that it is targeting conservatives is an incorrect statement. That would be like saying only people who live in X join Wikiproject Y (which focuses on content improvement about region X). It's not like Wikiprojects are limited to only editors of B political persuasion or C regional affiliation. All of them are free to join.
    Again see the appropriate canvass section, placing a neutrally worded notice, such as using Template:Please see, on a Wikiproject talk page is well within what is allowed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). There might be one or two, but it doesn't matter whether it's 100% conservative editors or 50% conservative editors: the editors called to action from such a notification will absolutely tend to !vote along conservative lines. Your implicit assumption that even one exception invalidates my point is pretty ignorant. Hell, you're a member, and right there next to your name is your own statement that you're using the project to counter a "liberal bias". Which means you're using the project for right-wing POV pushing. So... Yeah, I call bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Which, as far as I can tell, is interested in doing what WikiProjects are supposed to do, which is to help improve articles in their subject area. I see no indication that the members of WP:WikiProject Socialism are attempting to use their project to advocate for socialism. The claim -- which certainly has some truth to it -- is that WP:WikiProject Conservatism is not properly focused on improving articles about conservatism, but has staked out a political position, i.e. that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" and that their project needs to take steps to counter that bias; in other words, they are using the project as a base of operations for political advocacy within Wikipedia. That's not proper, and any indications that they are indeed doing that should result in sanctions for the editors involved. I have seen signs of that happening with certain editors, but not to the extent that I agreed that shutting down the project was justified. Still, to compare the Socialism Project to the Conservatism Project is not apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Socialism (and capitalism and communism) are more complex subjects than just politics. I may have erred by including them in my "ban" list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small point of information: my recollection is that there used to be a WikiProject Liberalism, but it was shut down due to lack of participation. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I remember it had a yellow flag for the logo and am thus pretty sure I'm right. I'm a member of both the Conservatism and Socialism work groups. The latter is pretty much a shell with no focused effort of which I am aware. The conservatism group does a pretty good job keeping track of their subject but does have a fairly apparent "political" flavor, an "us against them" vibe. It needs to be closely watched so that it doesn't devolve into a political organizing tool. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is pretty much the point Imade in one of the sections above: there needs to be a mechanism whereby WikiProject Conservatism is kept on track to improve articles, and not be used for political action. The same goes for any other WikiProject, since biases are not limited to political subjects. As of now, there is absolutely no such mechanism, as the Wiki Project Council appears to be basically non-existent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's mostly agreement that WikiProject Conservatism itself isn't the problem, and that leaves the behavior of Lionelt (and the interaction of the two), and his behavior at DYK. As Dennis Brown says above of Lionelt, I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. Right or wrong, It doesn't look like the community has the will to do so, breaking generally along "party lines". Lionelt has been given the DS warning, so is aware of WP:ARBAPDS (and if there were any question, see his WikiProject Conservatism Discretionary sanctions FAQ). So, in the absence of anything else happening here, the only outcome, perhaps, is ongoing additional scrutiny of WikiProject Conservatism and Lionelt, and the possibility that a random enforcing administrator will unilaterally impose a topic ban for everything 1932+ American Politics (or an editor file a WP:AE action) at some point – for Lionelt or any other editor contravening WP:ARBAPDS at WikiProject Conservatism or elsewhere. Is there anything left to do here, and can anything else be accomplished (such as a mechanism to police Wikiprojects), or are we done here? Mojoworker (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as ABRAPDS is enforced without regard of whether someone edits from the left right or center, that not only those who are active at WikiProject Conservatism are targeted with discretionary bans. People can have their own political affiliations, and own political opinions, and still edit towards reliably sourced neutral content in the article spaces.
    I have not seen anyone above claim that Lionelt has violated policy; and those who have made the claim have I believe been sufficiently shown that policy was not violated. Sure, there were some disagreements in the attempt to reach consensus, but that is expected. Lionelt did not appear to be uncivil in the discussions at DYKN. But sure lets keep the guillotine blade over WP:RIGHT and have egg shells on the floors in front of all editors who have made the choice to be members of it; that is so how Wikipedia should continue /sarcasm.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Two points to add; I'll post separately.) As to the advice in the DYK essay suggesting Project Conservatism nominators invite a project member to review your nomination (for clarity: as this appear in the instructions after the nominator has submitted, it seems clear "review" refers to seeking DYK approval, not seeking help formulating a nom in the first place.) This caught my eye as recently I dealt with a college course in which students were approving one another others' DYKs ​. Then as now, seeking review from a select group seems like straight-forward canvassing; in the case of the college students, it would have promoted material with serious issues (on MEDREF, no less). I think a big step in the right direction would be formal caution against seeking specific reviewers for a DYK or advising anyone else to do so (i.e. that needs to be deleted from the essay). Innisfree987 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the point raised, about the canvassing concern of the DYK essay, a please see or appropriate canvass should be written neutrally, such as using template please see. Therefore, to ask for a specific other editor to review with a pass would be inappropriate. At the same time a please see template so that others may look at the review, and come to their own conclusions as to whether the DYKN passes DYKRULES would pass appropriate canvassing. As WP:RIGHT has gained a specific portion of membership which are watchdogs and are not there to advance content improvement of articles that fall under its scope, posting an appropriate canvass to WT:RIGHT may have the opposite effect and may increase critical eyes upon a tpoc.
    The question then is whether non-involved editors who share affiliation in wikiprojects should be allowed to review a DYKN, regardless of whether they are a member of WP:RIGHT or some other wikiproject. Therefore, in the future editors who are both in WP:MILHIST wouldn't be able to review one anothers DYKNs or who are both part of WP:CAL, etc. etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think automatically barring anyone from reviewing a certain kind of DYK because of project affiliation would just incentivize folks to do the same activities without formally affiliating themselves. And yes, that means members of a given project (any project) may deliberately go looking for entries where they can put a thumb on the scale for their preferred type of content, and that will have to be dealt with the (informal) clerks and admins who work there if/when they notice issues--as is being discussed here. But I still find it inappropriate to solicit reviews--it's not only a matter of getting a favorable review, it's also means getting your DYK advanced in the queue faster and promoting content that way. It's a thumb on the scale and I think refraining from it would go a ways to dealing with DYK POV pushing. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor continually editing against consensus

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

    This is still going on? I made a similar thread in DECEMBER 2016! He got one last warning in that thread, then got a block and editing restrictions by community consensus four months later[18]. Outta WP:ROPE. Enough's enough, we can't keep coming back here for the same issues. Episodes like this are why pro wrestling articles are under sanctions right now.LM2000 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow I never thought to look at their block log until now [19]. They have been blocked numerous times over the past 10 years, and multiple times for edit warring on the exact same page this is about. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Galatz said right thing about this issue, I'm also facing same thing regarding Keeping/Separating Raw and 205Live Cruiserweights, Even at the time I appealed protection for 3 days but didn't work, Before protection I added the tag of Confusing and Unclear, several times Vjmlhds reverted, this turned to an argument at my talk page, I just called sock edit to see how I got reaction by Vj, Me? I got 2 warnings for removing talk page messages and closing discussions that again results in initiation of arguments again and again. Second, Vjmlhds is not only the user, another user I'm gonna report is IP user 32.213.92.177 who also continuously doing same edit-warring as Vjmlhds did.CK (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll make life real easy for everyone...if the 205 Live issue is causing this much consternation, I'll back down. Not worth the hassle and the fuss. If this were 2 years ago, I'd probably be on Def-Con 1 about now firing hellfire and brimstone...these days, not so much. Win some, lose some. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (non admin comment) I think this should be close now that Vjmlhds has agreed to back down. If he/she does anything like this in the future, a voluntary Topic ban at the very least should be considered. JC7V-constructive zone 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After 10 previous blocks for the same thing? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor appears willing to cool it down. And I said 'at the very least' if he/she does it again which does not mean a slap on the wrist should he/she mess up again. 'At the very least' is like saying 'sentenced 10 to 20 years' meaning it's the lowest action that should be taken. I think with 10 blocks, a block if he/she breaks their word is more in line with what I was thinking. JC7V-constructive zone 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard that way too many times from this editor. We have no reason to believe him, he made these same proclamations in 2016 and 2017. He has already been given his last chances has continued the same behavior in the exact same disputes. For the record, the List of WWE personnel article should have more restrictions on it as well.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Whoa. Did you just accuse me of being a sock? Let's take a look at your history, and see what we have. Wow. Numerous blocks, some of them for sockpuppetry. Now, let's look at mine. Nothing. Autoconfirmed user. Longtime WP editor. In fact, the only edits that I have in common with VJ are the wrestling ones. He mainly edits Cleveland area stuff. I love in NY and edit stuff concerning NY. Keep stretching though, I needed a good laugh to begin my Friday. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another $.02 (concerning challenged material): I keep seeing things that causes wonder. ""Random Youtube videos" is discrediting something that shouldn't be discredited. When the person RUNNING THE COMPANY calls it a brand, that's kind of key, no? On TV, in press meetings, etc. Additionally, when listing what brands people are on in the Journey section of the Performance Center website, they list RAW, Smackdown, and 205 Live.", and a website that contains "www.wwe", and if I read this right it gives an answer. To me there are too many arguments that this person or that said or stated something referring to "members" or leader, owners, etc... of WWE. An argument that seems to support that because a primary source states something there is grounds for inclusion. To me the inquiry should be where in reliable published sources" does it state the claims being offered. If these articles are so heavily sourced with Primary sources, or assertions of verbal proof (youtube, live TV, or other) then this seems to be a problem when challenged:
    • "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution".
      • It goes farther to specifically include "published source".
    • Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this.".
      • Restoration of material
    • "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.".
    There would also be concerns when regarding a BLP, as well as original research concerning the verifiability policy:
    1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
    2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
    3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.
    The reason we don't count votes rather using consensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", understanding that article or local consensus, even "ignoring all the rules", "...cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.".
    I am going to posit that we cannot use "claims" made on live TV or youtube as reliable sources (if challenged), certainly when not published, because it is in violation of a host of policies, guidelines, or even broad community supported essays if not in contradiction with any policies and guidelines. ---- Otr500 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and you can see here [20], I summarized that the WWE's official published position is not a brand. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can an admin please take a look at this? The IP user is still making these changes with the discussion happening here? [22] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.185.76.170

    User:24.185.76.170 is a new IP [[23]] that has not only jumped straight into editing controversial topics, but also their second edit was this [[24]] a post that implied a long standing ed who is aware of my interactions with 72bikers. It was however this [[25]], the PAs and soapboxing that has led me to report them. The fact I also suspect bolck evasion or (at least) a second account being used for civility breaching is besides the point [[26]]. We also have a nice dose of whataboutism [[27]], [[28]]. I think it is clear this user is not here for any other reason then to POV push.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Their comments appear to include, besides obvious soapboxing: personal attacks; scattered and off-topic subjects that can be included under the umbrella of OTHERTHINGS; no clear suggestions to improve article content; comments which indicate a familiarity with Slatersteven and are targeted harassment of him. They are NOTHERE and should be blocked. A CU would also be nice to block the real account behind these attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not thought about a CU, as I said I think they already are blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make the case for a CU even stronger, IOW they deserve a lengthening of their block for block evasion. The blocked human being behind any username or IP must not touch edit buttons at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What "controversial topic" did I edit, "Steven?" Besides simply pointing out non-neutral and inappropriate standards of evidence on several talk pages? In fact, I don't think I've even made a change to an actual article in a very long time (yes, I post on whatever IP is associated with my internet connection, no point in having an account). Also, what "block" did I evade? Never happened. And if you think I'm lying, why don't you demonstrate it. The only account I did use has no blocking/suspension or any type of disciplinary action associated with it, ever. And you can look at every edit I ever made. I just don't like the lax and extremely non-neutral standard of evidence that you and others introduce on certain political topics, which I demonstrated with exact examples. You just seem to struggle with those and try to reply with empty threats and claims of personalizing which go nowhere. I don't care about you personally except for a bad standard of editing, and I don't care if you don't like me pointing it out. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic can just as much be the topic we are talking about (I.E the Trump stuff). I think the above shows the user is here to right great wrongs, and I think this is in fact being used to sock now. Keep the main account clean whilst using IP's to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A clear indication they have nothing but contempt for both out polices and other users [29], they practically admit that is why they do not use a named account. Because they "not subject to the opinions of people like yourself.", a clear statement that they are not interested in cooperation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "edit a controversial topic," "Steven." I added a comment to the talk page, about patterns of non-neutral behavior with specific examples. You tried to argue but couldn't address those examples and instead went here to try to silence my account. Just like you do with your editing, you dishonestly try to use phrases that suggest that I was vandalizing the page itself, just like you dishonestly try to suggest that I criticize wikipedia as a whole. That's not going to work, "Steven." Trying to silence people who disagree with you by attacking random IP numbers is not going to work either. You attempt to clothe improper behavior as "protecting wikipedia," which is a subconscious method of projecting one's own biases while pretending to be objective. Just like emphasizing negative information about politicians that a "labour voter" would dislike and concealing negative information about political topics and people who you do like is how non-neutral POV creeps into articles about Trump, Fox, CNN, the Russia investigation, and other things, many of which I've commented on and pointed out specifically, with the only responses being things like "it's not disproven," or "you think Trump is honest??" Attack numbers all you want, that's not going to fix the situation. The non-objective editing is there, I can and will continue to point it out with clear examples on the talk pages, as is appropriate on this site. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not what you are doing it is how you are doing it. It is clear you are not here to do anything more then push a POV, and aggressively do so.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I went out of my way to demonstrate exactly the issue and what I've done, including pointing out your own inaccurate claims about me "editing controversial topics" and apparently attacking wikipedia as a whole instead of taking issue with the non-neutral behavior in very specific circumstances. It's good to see that you refer to what I'm doing, pointing out things like the presence of a Criticism section on Fox and no criticism section on CNN, where the separate page can simply be migrated over, so there's equal representation of the criticism of both (which I demonstrated was by noteworthy sources) where readers can make their own judgement, as "pov," when it's the opposite. A specific suggestion that would create neutral POV. Which, by the way, is reflected already on the Fox News main page with a warning box. As is obvious, you have absolutely no defense for any of it and no substantive reply. Which is exactly the problem. Refusal to change non-neutral POV when it's demonstrated to be non-neutral. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said as mush.

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

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

    And we now have this [[30]], whose tone and nature match the above.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Not a single substantive reply to substantive points. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Davidbena

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

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

    I'll be more than happy to respond one-by-one to any allegations that editors might have against me. My suggestion is to make bullets, with each separate allegation (complaint), and there I'll post my reply and give explanations for my conduct. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly when editors have a dispute I like to think we can keep the bullets out of it. EEng 08:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban

    • I propose that Davidbena be indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed. It is not reasonable to require people working in an area where every stone is argued over to engage in such pointless discussions. Anyone can have a bad day so it was not a big deal when Davidbena started at ANI, but the inability to hear the responses was alarming. Then it was raised again at RSN where Davidbena asks for an opinion from a "Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel". Davidbena's claims of reliability of the source in question seem to rely on personal knowledge and the fact that the book is catalogued in a university library. After all that we see concern about "User:Huldra's POV-based editing" (diff) (Huldra removed the source as unreliable, as confirmed at RSN). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, but I do not understand why, if the ANI has been closed, it is now being brought-up again. After realizing that I made a mistake to bring my complaint before them, I immediately complied to their suggestions to raise the issue with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first words above are After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior [emphasis added]. What alarmed me from the get-go...
    In other words, the very first words EXPLICITLY say it's not the ANI "being brought up again": your behavior there triggered a further inquiry about your pattern of behavior overall. Your claim of not understanding is therefore a sign of not listening, not being competent, or of being disingenuous. Would you like to revise your statement? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It may possibly be seen as relevant that Davidbena was blocked [36] back in 2015 for accusing Huldra of "pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel". [37] There seems to be a pattern here. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he was not blocked for what he called me, he was blocked for violating 1RR (and yes, I was the one who reported him) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban - While David's behavior hasn't been optimal (but whose is?) - the proposed remedy is out of proportion to the editing. Not everything needs to be at AN/I - especially when this was discussed here a couple of days ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) clarified !vote seeing this turned into a proposal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    OK, background: Davidbena and I first met at Talk:Bayt Nattif in early 2015, at which time he admitted that he knew "absolutely nothing " about the Arab history. Since then I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...).
    Lately he has, however, used some rather partisan Hebrew sources.
    I wasn't going to support a topic ban...until I saw this edit by him, made after this thread was opened(!) Here Davidbena inserts a Joseph Tabenkin source again....after just being told by a virtual unanimous crowd on WP:RS/N that it wasn't acceptable(!). He seems to suffer from an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Therefor;
    I support a 6 month topic ban, and if it is implemented, then I strongly urge Davidbena to use that time to read some books from "the opposite side"...and not only hear the viewpoints of Haganah commanders, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. This is incorrect. The view of some editors there was that Joseph Tabenkin could indeed be used as a source if it were first premised with the words, "According to Joseph Tabenkin, etc.," and supported by a Secondary source. I did just that. This was in accordance with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread seen here.Davidbena (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, people can see here, what the RSN said about this. Benny Morris, 2004, never mentions Joseph Tabenkin, except on p. 464, where he mention that Tabenkin was "a major proponent of transfer in the Israeli political arena". Or Ethnic cleansing, as that would be called today. Tabenkin might be mentioned in Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jérusalem; alas, they were not academics; if you want O Jérusalem accepted as a RS on 1948 war related topics, then I'm afraid you will have to go WP:RSN again, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no disagreement here. We can discuss these issues on the relevant Talk-Page. My initial response to your allegations that I restored an unwanted edit after posting on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was that the discussion permitted our use of a Primary source if we used it with caution and if we added the premise, "According to Joseph Tabenkin, such-and-such a thing took place." I have always been open to discussion about the edit, and if all else fails, we can always open a RfC on the specific edit. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Davidbena's problem is the total lack of clue as shown, for example, in the RSN discussion about whether a self-published source should be used for a non-trivial fact in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Combined with that were the attacks on the integrity of the editor who did the right thing by removing the inappropriate source. It's impossible to provide a couple of diffs which show the problem because each diff would be dismissed as just showing bad judgment with a "minor" issue of casting aspersions. AE requires much clearer issues such as diffs of edit warring or strong personal attacks. At ANI, the big picture can be considered—is Davidbena's overall behavior such that a topic ban is warranted, regardless of the rules of AE? The answer is yes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just finished our Sabbath-day of rest and coming back to my computer to see this barrage of attacks, well, you can imagine my surprise. Frankly speaking, I think that you are being a little too harsh with me. Anyone looking at my edits and my communications with our fellow co-editors will see, without any doubt in my mind, how that I have persistently pursued a course of balance and neutral editing in all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I cannot understand why anyone here would think that this is wrong, after all, Wikipedia policies support WP:NPOV. As for my worries about our co-editor, Huldra, and what I thought may be somehow related to a POV-based edit (based on many previous conversations I've had with her and her clear pro-Palestinian Arab stand, versus my own pro-Israeli stand) - although in all my edits having emphasized our need to remain unbiased and to paint a broader neutral picture, I can see nothing wrong with a person turning to those in a position of authority for addressing such suspicions (whether they be founded or unfounded) and without that person having to fear reprisals because he had turned to them for their impartial judgment. In the final analysis, my conscience is clear. I wish for us to work together in perfect harmony and without misrepresenting facts.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban based off WP:CIR issues as shown at RSN, plus inappropriate musings about editors' ethnic backgrounds, requests for admins of specific national origins, etc. Link: [38]. Too much disruption from this editor, in a sensitive topic area where editors are expected to have a clue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban Just another attempt to remove editor with certain WP:YESPOV that some other editors don't like and goes against their own WP:POV. --Shrike (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - based on the evidence presented by Johnuniq and K.e. coffman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban after reading the discussions linked above. Everybody has a POV in some area or other, it's part of being human, but the issue here seems to be a persistent refusal to listen to any arguments that contradict his own POV, combined with disruptive/chilling comments about other editors and their backgrounds. It is not just a temporary loss of cool, which again is a common and human thing, but a long-term pattern from what I can tell. --bonadea contributions talk
    • Support - Unless this stops: [39][40][41][42] Xavexgoem (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. An indefinite topic ban is way too hard. David has great difficulties in grasping the fact that different views can legitimately exist, and that the best guide is not independent or personal research, but looking at the consensus of professional academic sources. He does however read a lot, and that commends the idea that we should encourage him to take time off, reflect on policy and practice, and hopefully return to work here. I think 3 months is fair. If thereafter, there is no improvement, the indefinite ban would kick in. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of you may not know it, but despite my differences with User:Huldra, we have often worked together to improve many articles here, working together in a collaborative spirit. I think that she can attest to this (e.g. Allar, Jerusalem, Surif, Az-Zakariyya, Khirbet al-Deir, etc.). Our cooperation has been far greater than our disputes over content. Still, should two editors working on the same article be afraid to express their views about each other on Talk-Pages? I don't think so. We have often spoken about our private views and dislikes in these Talk-Pages (e.g. Talk:Husan, Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis/Archive 1, Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names, Talk:List of military occupations). Sometimes callow editors hoping to make their first impression can be quick to judge others without looking at the full picture. Sad is the day if, on Wikipedia, we cannot discuss freely with our fellow co-editors our concerns and raise with them our suspicions without being punished. At least I can remember being taught that "open rebuke is better than secret love." Until now, my opinion of Wikipedia has been a good one. I sincerely hope that it remains that way. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Having considered all that was said and done by me, and since there is no man who sees his own disabilities - and I being no exception - I wish to apologize if I wrongly insulted a person here, among my fellow co-editors. I deeply apologize for coming across as rude, and believe me when I say that I respect every man's contribution here. Every man/woman has his/her special talents and abilities, whose mission here cannot easily be filled by others. I'm fully convinced of that. Perhaps, too, my upbringing as a Yeshiva student may have something to do with how others perceive me here, since we are taught to revel in debate and to challenge certain views in order to get to the truth. This should not be seen as a detriment (in my humble opinion), but something peculiar to a group of people who sincerely want to know the truth. Again, please accept my sincere apologies.Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So now sincerely wanting to know the truth is peculiar to Yeshiva students? Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone is in search of the truth, perhaps though on different levels, and no one should be punished for that.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But David, our job here is not to establish The Truth™, rather, we report what the reliable sources say. This is not a minor point. - Nick Thorne talk 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but I was referring to my own inquisitive nature which may have sparked some feelings of resentment towards me. We can be, both, inquisitive and still support our findings with reliable and verifiable academic sources having a universal acceptance. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, unless of course we're talking about censorship.Davidbena (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from ARBPIA topics. This is an extremely sensitive area of the project, and editors who volunteer there should not have to wrangle with someone who, despite 5 years and over 21,000 edits to Wikipedia, seems to lack basic comprehension of what it means to be a reliable source. Efforts to educate Davidbena otherwise appear to be unproductive. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, no one has ever accused me of tendentious editing. And while we do discuss heated topics on the articles' Talk-Pages, I have ALWAYS conceded to consensus. Here, in fact, the reason I am being brought before this board for an alleged "breach of etiquette" is because I filed an ANI complaint against User:Huldra for deleting material of historical importance without first referring the matter to the article's Talk-Page. My mistake. From there, everything blew out of proportion. Whatever the case might be, I humbly submit myself to any verdict that the jurors of this board may decide fitting for me, in hopes that I will not offend anymore.Davidbena (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would Huldra have to "refer the matter to the article's Talk-Page" before making an edit? Unless the matter had been discussed before, and there was a standing consensus against the removal, Huldra is perfectly free to make a WP:BOLD edit without consulting with other editors. If his edit is disputed, then -- in the best of all possible worlds -- WP:BRD kicks in an Huldra should discuss it with other editors on the talk page to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, but there does not have to be a consensus beforehand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, again, that was my mistake. I'm sorry about that. I'll know better next time.Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. It's not that any single conversation is incredibly egregious (though that stuff about someone being married to an Arab was really out there). It's that the user keeps having these repeated run-ins, especially over reliable sources, and does not seem to change their behavior at all. Their problems with repeated long-winded discussion about reliable sources go beyond just what would pop up searching "Davidbena" over at WP:RSN. It also shows up all over talk pages: [43] (where they first argue for the Bible as an "authenticated historical source" and then suggest a first-century (!) writer's retelling of biblical stories as a "secondary source"), [44] (where they try to argue that the Bible plus personal Yemini friends add up to an authority on the etymology of an ancient place-name), [45] (where he argues that only a Yeminite source (!) can falsify a particular claim about someone's birthdate -- other sources don't count). The stuff just goes on and on. All you have to do is type "Davidbena" and "reliable" into a Wikipedia talk page search and it just rolls out. Repeated enough times, this kind of stuff has a corrosive effect on collaboration here. A whole bunch of different editors, over and over, haven't been able to get through on this. Competence isn't optional. Alephb (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support while I disagree that ANI is suited for this I do agree that this action is called for. DavidBena is quite long winded and stray off topic for something that should be an somewhat resembling an academic discussion many of the diffs here show. Biblical sources are not authoritative and the personal opinion of the position of a deity is not either[46] [47]. I'd go further but I don't feel from his responses that he's really hearing whats being said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very sorry to read this invective; I can see that I've amassed a few enemies here (which I never intended to do). Anyone looking at the above diffs with an open-mind, and who will analyze the sum and bearing of the conversation as it applies to each topic, will see that everything was done in Good Faith. Each topic is far too extensive to be entered upon here.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, there is not even a hint of introspection in that. Rather than acknowledging any problems, comments supporting a topic ban are dismissed as "invective". Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Davidbena: I do not consider you my "enemy", and I do not doubt that your edits were done 100% in Good Faith. As Johnuniq says: that really isn't the issue...Huldra (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't find my comments to be particularly invective. I am your enemy? Are you batman? Am I the joker? I never suggested you made those comments in bad faith. I suggested they line up with the other diffs shared by others. All of the diffs provided here show you have a deep bias and you do not attempt to manage it. "Open-minded" who analyse sum and bearing of the conversation will apparently see it your way.... You keep saying you get it and you apologize and etc then you comeback and make comments like this that show otherwise. You need this break from this topic area as much as wikipedia needs it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see here.Davidbena (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict. User seems to approach articles with a preconception of how they should read rather than wanting to look at what the majority of reliable sources say. Seems to think that inserting minority POVs like spam wherever they apply is "balance". Equivocates or moves the goal posts [49][50] (see portion in tq) without blinking an eye. Also tangentially but speaking to CIR or understanding Wikipedia, this user seems to promote intelligent design and young earth creationism as patent facts or as not being pseudoscience [51] and especially [52], claim that Noah's alleged account of the flood is a reliable primary source[53], etc. Even though it's been a year, user appears to have repeatedly violated 1RR [54][55][56][57][58], having had persistent trouble understanding things like "24 hours". Overall CIR and POV problems. It's unfortunate because the Arab-Israeli articles probably do lack a good balance of editors' POVs but we are not here on account of personal POVs, just to report reliable sources, and understanding this is where Davidbena seems to fall short. A change of topics couldn't hurt, there is a lot of Wikipedia out there to edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that I'm entitled to explain my motives here. First, it is a specious argument to think that the above suggested edits (as shown in the first two diffs) are not supported by reliable sources. They are. I call your attention to the following articles published by JSTOR, see: Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?, and The Need for Fundamental Change in the Law of Belligerent Occupation. Besides, my understanding of WP:UNDUE is that we are to represent all views, as much as they can be substantiated by reliable sources: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
    For your information: My personal views on "creationism" and the Great Deluge at the time of Noah have NEVER been incorporated in any Wikipedia articles. Are you saying that editors here are not entitled to express any personal views on Talk-Pages and to show through available sources how they reached such conclusions?Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but they have been incorporated into Wikipedia articles. See especially the last line of the second paragraph of the "Archaeological evidence" section. The early Europeans had genetic DNA that resembled more closely Near Eastern and Anatolian people, insofar that ALL were from one family - the progeny of Adam > Seth and/or Cain. That's not balance, that's rubbish. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These were not my own personal views. Rather, two archaeologists and professors made those claims about genetic DNA changes in Europe (at a time corresponding with the alleged Great Deluge), but the edit was never allowed to stand. Therefore, none of my personal views on this subject (whether they can be supported by scientific evidence or not) are, to this day, incorporated in Wikipedia articles, where the majority of editors here have chosen to take a "mythical view" of the flood.Davidbena (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This concerns an old edit, but since you seem to be arguing that it was relevant I guess the problem still exists. The edit added two paragraphs. The first one consisted mainly of two long quotes taken from the source (as well as an incorrect claim about the location of the excavations, but that's a very minor detail). The second paragraph consisted of interpretations of those quotes, without any source for the interpretations other than a vague "Those who accept the tradition of a colossal flood". It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the interpretations and opinions presented, including the very problematic last sentence quoted by DIYeditor above, were your own. Note that the source used in the first paragraph makes no mention of the flood myth - that's not any part of the subject of that article, so there is no reason to add it to the article at all! (In fact, some other theories for the DNA changes are presented.) Your phrasing the majority of editors here have chosen to take a "mythical view" of the flood is also a little problematic, since it is not a question of "[choosing] to take a mythical view" but of accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is a myth. Accepting scientific evidence and writing articles based on that world view, using reliable mainstream sources without adding our own interpretation, is pretty much what Wikipedia is about. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At first, we did not know that Heally Gross' books (refer to RSN here) were self-published. When we sent an inquiry about them, we then learnt about their nature, although the author herself seems to be quite adept in her field of expertise. Since she did not meet the standard set on Wikipedia for "reliable sources," although her works are verifiable and she does have a University degree in her field, we were left with no choice but to avoid her as a source. I am not arguing against this decision. I accept it. I sure wish my interlocutors here could be more heedful in reading these appeals for arbitration on the respective Noticeboards before passing judgment.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I read and understood what you promoted perfectly well. When we sent an inquiry about them, we then learnt about their nature, although the author herself seems to be quite adept in her field of expertise shows that you still don't get it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary Davidbena - as the RSN discussion that you referenced shows, it was observed very quickly that the sources were self-published. You then engaged in a lot of special pleading as to why they didn't really count as self-published, and later whether we could overlook the fact that they were indeed self-published, but the overwhelming consensus after much back-and-forth discussion was that they were unreliable, self-published sources from a non-expert. To be honest, it looks like you still haven't genuinely accepted that: you are again mentioning her university degree, again saying that the books are verifiable, again telling us how adept she is in her field. I think this is why Grandpallama described your argument as clueless - not very friendly perhaps, but I think people are getting frustrated because you're just not hearing what everyone is telling you. Girth Summit (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, at first none of us knew that the work was self-published and I, after learning that, tried to find some succour and "saving grace" that might keep the source from going under. I think this is a natural response to a source that brings down vital information that might be permanently lost. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And this perfectly exemplifies why the TBAN is needed. You read my comments, and then Girth Summit's comments, and still are talking nonsense about "vital information" and the idea that a source needs to be "saved" instead of simply evaluated for its suitability. Grandpallama (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, I have already accepted the decision that Heally Gross' books cannot be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. What more can I say?Davidbena (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments above do not look like genuine acceptance Davidbena. It looks like you've acknowledged that you're not going to get your way, but you still seem to think that the decision should have gone the other way - I believe that's the problem. If you are unable to genuinely agree that those books are totally unsuitable sources, and agree that material found only in them is totally unsuitable for inclusion, then you shouldn't be working on this area. Girth Summit (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa whoa whoa. We are not the Thought Police. It doesn't matter what David thinks about the decision, as long as he doesn't cause disruption and/or disregard it. Fish+Karate 08:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Girth Summit said that Davidbena's comments show he accepted the decision about this particular source, but they also reveal no overall change to his understanding of policy, which is the underlying problem. That's a perfectly valid observation, particularly in deciding whether or not to support a TBAN. That doesn't have anything to do with "Thought Police". Grandpallama (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's probably fair comment by Fish and karate - I should have expressed myself better. What I meant was that while David acknowledges the decision about this particular source, his comments at RSN, and again here, make it clear that he continues to believe that some stuff is so important that we should be flexible in how we apply our referencing policies to allow its inclusion. That is not a good approach to use in such a contentious area, where one should be taking extra care to make sure that any assertions are rigorously sourced. Girth Summit (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Jeong disruption

    I would really appreciate if an administrator could step in and review what's going on in this talk page: Talk:Sarah Jeong. I would also request that the edits which have been hastily pushed through in the past two days (without community consensus on a locked, contentious page) be reverted so they can be voted on as they are supposed to be and so that consensus can be reached. It would seem appropriate to revert the page back to this version [59] at this time so that those edits pushed through can be reconsidered; I would have personally argued against many of them as being non-notable bits of information designed to fluff up an article about a controversial figure (See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight).

    See my first request for administrator attention here: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Request_for_administrator_attention_Re:_article_protected_status

    Thank you kindly, Ikjbagl (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content issue, which ANI doesn't deal with. You can seek dispute resolution, but if you open a case there you will need to point out what it is in the current version that is controversial, in comparison to the old version you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion at the article talkpage is a mess with editors apparently retreating to their ideological corners and talking past each other (contrast the proposed additions and the sources being discussed in these two sections), unfortunately reflecting the real-world response to this controversy. And, while additional admin attention is welcome, User:Drmies and I are already are keeping an eye at the page and what is really needed is involvement of neutral editors experienced with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I'll re-post a request at WP:BLPN.
    As for the edits made after the page was protected, those are routine non-controversial improvements (implemented by me in response to open {{edit-protected}} requests on the page) that I believe shouldn't be held hostage to the unrelated dispute over the tweet-controversy. If any other admin disagrees, please let me know here or on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abecedare, I saw the good work you were doing there and I thank you for it--and I saw you got shit for thanks in response to your quick response to edit requests. I have taken a less active approach than you, since my first foray into the article. For one, it's all so hot off the press, and there's so many new editors coming from a very specific angle, and so many of them simply aren't aware of our policies, that frequently diving into that talk page is just a waste of time. I wanted to leave a single note the other day and spent ten minutes first wading through the history just to figure out who wrote what among all those unsigned, undated, unindented messages. In the meantime someone opened up a thread at DRN (because NOT-NOTNEWS...), and I just dropped a note on the ArbCom noticeboard since this has GAMERGATE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a hydra sprouting tentacles a la Gamergate! Since I logged on an hour back, I've responded to related posts at the article talkpage, my talkpage, here at ANI, and at BLPN. And that's leaving aside discussions at Talk:Kevin D. Williamson, DRN, the arbcom talkpage, and who knows where else. <smh> Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, Ikjbagl. If you think that the difference between this and this is fluffing, you don't know much about article writing. For starters, compare the leads: the one is just a collection of loose factoids followed by the acme of weakness, "and has also written articles ..." with links to, guess, what, those articles, not secondary sources; the other is short, elegant, and summarizes the article. I see what you're doing, though, and wish you good luck with it. Let me just note that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and blackballing the admin who made the uncontroversial edits that improved the article and were suggested on the talk page is not a good way to start this off. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies and Abecedare, I'm seeing a serious problem here. There's a quite substantial amount of coverage about racism here, and not just from partisan references. ([60], [61] (CNN isn't exactly known as a right-wing mouthpiece), [62] (the BBC is hardly noted as being partisan either). When the material is that well-covered, it is not a BLP issue, it is a content dispute. Full protection and suppression of the issue is absolutely inappropriate here. That's use of protection in a quite legitimate case of a content dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The protection has been applied not to suppress mention of the issue, but to allow editors to arrive at a consensus on how to mention it. See the note I left on the article talkpage when I raised the protection level from semi to full. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Seraphimblade: Judging from the amount of edit warring that was going on I fail to see how full protection can be called "absolutely inappropriate". --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an edit warring and BLP issue. If you think (as you seem to suggest below) that the BLP is satisfied as long as content is verified, then you are wrong. Moreover, kindly look at this edit, for instance, and note that there is no secondary sourcing. And afterward, when some secondary sourcing is in, all while this matter is piping hot and nothing is settled in the press, there is a serious question of UNDUE.Seraphimblade, surely you know, as an admin, that the BLP is much more complicated than just "it's verified". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Drmies, the question is always "Verified by whom?" If an editor puts into an article "John Doe molested 50 children", with no source, that's most certainly a BLP issue and should be handled as such. If they put in the same edit "referenced" to a crappy, unreliable source, same applies. On the other hand, if they put in "Doe was accused of molesting children", and reference that to highly reliable sources indicating Doe does indeed face such an accusation, that is not a BLP issue. In this case, highly reliable sources cover the accusation of racism regarding this individual. How and whether to present those accusations are a content question, not a BLP question, and are properly resolved by discussion on the talk page, not use of protection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Seraphimblade, but for the duration of that edit war they were "verified" by the tweets themselves, with editorial commentary thrown in for good measure. You know that's not acceptable. Secondary sourcing came later--with the "UNDUE" accusation in response, which also needs to be taken seriously. And "highly reliable source" is also a misnomer in this case, as first of all coverage is still developing and second corrections and modifications are made--didn't that happen to the NYT article? It sounds as if you're speaking in general, not about this article in specific. But in general, if that's what you prefer, in BLPs we should err on the side of caution, as editors and as admins. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tossed a suggestion based on NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM to wait it out two weeks to see if the coverage is still there.
    As a broader point, we need this type of hold-off-and-wait approach on a LOT more of these ideologically driven controversies, regardless which way the wind is blowing in them. While externally the controversy seems manufactured, internally, I think the increased interest in the article from new/IP editors, based on comments there, is due what would appear to be hypocritical nature in how WP covers these types of controversies (we rush and have no problem including criticism of the right, but take a lot of care to consider criticism of the left), which I think needs to be taken into account in how this overall editing behavior and content problem should be handled. Hence the wait-and-see delay. --Masem (t) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)The "amount of edit warring" was mainly by one editor who repeatedly reverted (way over 3RR), falsely claiming "BLP" when in fact the issue is well sourced. There are administrative actions which are appropriately suited to handling that, but full protection of the article on that editor's preferred version aren't it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again. Edit warring just continued right on happening after the one editor was blocked. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this related thread on BLPN (not about the same subject, but others in the same recent campaign, it seems). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view, the protection should be allowed to expire tomorrow. Anyone who cares to get blocked under discretionary sanctions is welcome to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven’t dug to deep into this but this sounds like the kind of “cut the crap” approach I am generally in favor of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is how I intended it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least worth a try. I'll alert the current participant of the applicable BLP ruling later today (anyone is welcome to beat me to it). Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you place it in the passive voice when you closed it? Asking for a friend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did I state in the passive voice that it was closed rather than in the active voice that I closed it? Because two other editors had said that they thought it was not an appropriate dispute for DRN, so that I was not merely acting on my own but with (I think) their concurrence. In any case, it isn't a good dispute for DRN, whether or not it is a good dispute for ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the information. Were these from neutral editors or people who had participated in the edit war?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the other two editors was User:Drmies, a respected administrator who was trying to resolve the edit war. The other editor was another DRN volunteer, entirely neutral, who thought that it was not a good fit for DRN. DRN isn't designed to handle cases with 28 named editors. The one dispute resolution procedure that is appropriate with 28 or more identified editors is a Request for Comments, in which all of the editors can !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone and checked out the article history and the participation of the people you name. Thank you for your candor.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, thanks for the kind adjective--that's the second time today, so it must be true! Srsly, your note made me realize that indeed there was supposed to be (sorry for the passive, Wehwalt) dispute resolution with 28 PARTIES. Holy moly! So I guess you closed it? That makes sense. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it for multiple reasons, including the 28 parties. The only method of dispute resolution that works with 28 parties is an RFC. Normally a dispute resolution request with more than about 8 parties is a device by an editor who wishes to fight a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Drmies, in case you didn't notice, my previous edit brought peace to AN/I for nothing less than 51 minutes. Given that, who can say what is possible? Ta,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semi-protected Andrew Sullivan. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would like an admin to comment how an AfD on a fully-protected article is allowed to be hastily closed by a small group of non-neutral, involved editors that are not admins themselves. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nergaal - When an article is fully protected, that doesn't mean that you get to go to the article's talk page and throw the AFD template there. The point of full protection is that you discuss the issues and disputes on the article's talk page and work things out. Why couldn't you just wait until the full protection expired before tagging the article? And why did you result to uncivil personal attacks (such as with your edit here) in the AFD discussion? Your recent edits have absolutely been over-tenacious, disruptive, unneeded, and uncivil. The 24 hour block I imposed upon you will probably be seen as much too short, but I'm hoping that it's all that's necessary to get this to stop. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Only noting that the fact that the lack of any coverage of the controversy is now hitting (conservative) news sources [63] which means that we're going to start seeing even more IP/new editors there. --Masem (t) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang time

    It is either time to close this thread as failing to present a conduct issue, or time to bring the boomerang on the filer, User: Ikjbagl, who appears to be not here to contribute constructively. At about the same time as they filed this thread, they also filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As noted below, they listed 28 parties (an extraordinarily high number). They said: “Someone is making edits to a locked, controversial/contentious page without waiting for community consensus on any issue other than that for which this person is notable”. Because they claimed that they could not determine who was making the changes, they listed everyone who had updated the page. This would have made the DRN thread unmanageable. Of course, it was not difficult to tell who was making the edit requests, or that administrator User:Abecedare was making the non-contentious edits through protection. I find the argument of the filing party that they could not determine who was making the changes hard to believe (and I advised them to ask for help in reading the history at the Teahouse or the Help Desk).

    It appears that Ikjbaql either has a competency problem that led them to try to drag 28 parties to DRN (never mind that DRN is voluntary and you can’t be dragged to it without your consent) or that Ikjbaql is trying to filibuster about Sarah Jeong. In any case, it is time either to close this thread as having failed to identify an actionable conduct issue, or time to take action against the filing party, whose conduct is the issue. However, I think that we have identified the issue, which is the filing party. Trying to drag 28 editors to DRN either is incompetence or is being a jerk. I recommend, at a minimum, a topic-ban from Sarah Jeong, and, better, from all BLPs, and, even better, an indefinite block, either for incompetence or being a troll.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question's account is 2 months old. So it is possible that they are neither incompetent or a jerk, but simply inexperienced in the many layers of rules and bureaucracy of DR. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that User:Abecedare has been doing good work on a thankless task. This said, I do not believe user:Ikjbaql was malicious; merely new. (New with admitted competence issues, but new nonetheless.) I would absolutely recommend that they take time to review policies, and could support a ban from this article, but I think an indef is a bit hasty. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, I too take Ikjbagl (talk · contribs) to be a inexperienced user entering a whirlwind of a talkpage and then getting frustrated when their position, which they take to be obviously right, is not shared by everyone (see conversation on my talkpage). While some of their conduct has been disruptive and their failure to assume good faith has led to needless escalation (DRN, 2 ANI reports etc), I don't think any of this warrants a temporary/indef block yet. The account has't edited in ~7 hours, and if on their return the disruption continues/escalates, page or topic bans can easily been issued under WP:BLPDS (there are several admins monitoring the article and related AFDs by now). Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Abecedare, you are very kind, considering the mud they slung at you. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: does the "they" in "the mud they slung at you" refer to Ikjbagl, or multiple editors (possibly including me)? wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly Ikjbagl, because of that "fluff" nonsense, but yeah, if the shoe fits--weren't you the one you brought Abecedare up on BLP violation charges on this very noticeboard? Accusing an admin of a BLP violation, that's pretty severe. You may have noticed that your "incident" failed to gain any traction at all. Of course, you can always retract those accusations. Remember, #civility. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't even know if I'm allowed to comment here, but here goes: I was TOLD to post the thing on the Dispute resolution board on this very page! It's the first reply to this post!! Now I'm in trouble for using the Dispute resolution someone told me to use? I asked where to post this (above) comment about the page and I was told to post it on the admin noticeboard- so I did! And now I'm in trouble for this, too!

    I said "someone" because I was trying to be polite and did not want to single anyone out; I guess that was the wrong thing to do. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm not so incompetent that I don't know what a history page is. If it is not yet clear, I was talking about User:Abecedare, with whom I still disagree about implementing some of the edits, but I did not want to seek to have him blocked or anything like that. I thought this was the place to discuss disagreements about actions like that. And I repeat: I was TOLD on this same page we are on right now to initiate the dispute resolution.

    User:Abecedare thank you for your work monitoring the page. I still disagree with you about the content thing, but whatever, I don't really care. I'll stop contributing to the damn talk page now, since I'm apparently too incompetent to handle having a discussion. This whole thing is ridiculous. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to User: Ikjbagl

    I will reply to you primarily, since I need to clarify what I think you did wrong. First, you were given well-meaning but sub-optimal advice. You were told to take your dispute to . the dispute resolution noticeboard. You should have been told to take your dispute to dispute resolution, and there are multiple dispute resolution mechanisms, including the BLP noticeboard and Request for Comments. DRN was not the right dispute resolution venue. Second, you say that you do know how to read a history log, but you said at DRN that you did not know who was making the edits through protection, and so you identified 28 parties. You could have named only Abecedare. That was either a clueless move or a troll move or a mistaken move, and I am willing to take your word that it was merely mistaken, but, if you do know how to read the history log, you knew that User:Abecedare was making the edits. In any case, if you know anything, you were just off the mark in thinking that identifying 28 parties would be useful. So: You were given well-meaning but sub-optimal advice to go to DRN, and your decision to identify 28 parties was just silly, especially if you knew that User:Abecedare was the approving admin, and it does look as though there is a train wreck off-wiki to pile onto Sarah Jeong. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Robert McClenon: I mistakenly thought I was supposed to invite everyone I thought was "involved". It looks like request for comments is what I really should have done. I also did not fully understand what THIS page is for, I thought it was simply to discuss administrative matters such as disagreements over an administrator's actions. But most importantly, I want to FIRMLY dispute any notion that I was involved in an off-site effort. I saw the controversy in the news almost as soon as it happened and went to the Wiki page to see if anyone had begun sourcing it. At that time, I began aggregating news sources (I reposted my list several times, and it only had reputable sources such as BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, The Hill, The Guardian, etc.) and discussing on the talk page how to update the article to reflect the controversy. Please look at the time stamp of the first time I edited the talk page, which was on August 2, and then look at the articles from conservative groups calling for people to come edit the page. The ones that I see are dated August 5, though I certainly may be missing some. I believe that the time stamp shows that I was discussing this DAYS before off-site groups began calling for their users to influence the page. I also encourage anyone to review my edits to the page and tell me if they think I have been partisan or pushing a point of view. I cited only reputable news sources, and I honestly think I did a good job of portraying the controversy in a neutral light, using neutral language. See for example my proposal for describing the controversy here: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Option_3:_Ikjbagl. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ikjbagl - Either you did know that it was User:Abecedare who was making the non-contentious edits on a protected page, or you didn't. Your statement at DRN was that you did not know who to list. I agree that you were given standard bad advice, because it is standard bad advice to take content disputes to the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than to take them to a dispute resolution procedure. I also think that the DRN instructions should be revised to impose a limit on the number of parties that can be listed, because mediated discussion with tens of editors does not work. I still think that you should have known better, but evidently you didn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated edits against consensus by GTVM92

    The user has a history of edit warring in 2017–18 Iranian protests. I had reported him at ANI:3RR for his problematic editing pattern (Case 1, Case 2) Consequently, He was warned by the admins against continuing his edit wars. For instance, see the latest warning. However, I think he's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT since he still edits against the consensus persistently:

    Admins please take care of it. --Mhhossein talk 14:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) :Article is fully now protected. Everyone involved will need to discuss the disputes at-hand and come to a consensus before editing can continue. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ...and the current version is against the former consensus on the article talk. Do you always neglect edit warrings by a user whom you've already warned? --Mhhossein talk 12:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein - Forgive me. I think I got my wires mixed up here. I've removed the protection I applied. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah: Many thanks for unlocking the article. Although I know you're always kind with editors, I should say that the reported user has acted against your last warning at least two times. That would make him put no value for the consensus made by others. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein - Yeah, sorry about the protection. My brain got itself into a stupid mix-up earlier... *sigh*. Checking... Taking another look at this user's talk page and other factors - stand by... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome Oshwah: Never mind. In my eyes, you were trying to do the right thing and there's always a chance of having mistakes. Thanks for taking care of it. --Mhhossein talk 12:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhhossein - Since it's been many hours since the user's last edit, applying a block to this user right now wouldn't be a justifiable action. Let's keep this discussion open. I've asked GTVM92 to explain himself below, and I'll leave a comment on his user talk page. If the user modifies the article against the established consensus again, my options outside of enforcing a block will be limited - especially if they don't participate in this discussion and respond to my question below... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning and notice has been left. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah: I saw that, thank you. Although I think his persistent acts against the talk page is clearly observable, your final decision on this is certainly respected. You're really kind just as your photo shows. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GTVM92 - What's the deal with the repeated edits and despite being told about a consensus that you're editing against? It's been pointed out to you that there's an existing discussion on the article's talk page here where consensus has been reached regarding what protests belong on this article and which don't... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you warned me?! I only add the REAL news to the article and Mhhossein are removing them. All we know that in Iran are a series of the protests since last December but Mhhossein are tries to deny it! Why he do this?! Because he tries to cover the truth. I REALLY did not understand what different is between the protests! In one persons wants regime change and in other praised the regime?! What is different between economic and political issues protests?! If you see other protests, they have different causes. GTVM92 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, on Wikipedia, we do not right WP:great wrongs, or get to the WP:truth. We edit based on well-sourced facts, with consensus. The latter part is important; even if we feel we are right, we must abide by what the community has decided. Regardless of what one feels is right, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and must be treated as such. Now, note that consensus can change, but the correct way to work on establishing consensus is to use the talk page. Edit warring is unacceptable. You could be correct; these could be a continuation of the previous protests. But using the talk page is the way to go about it, not edit warring. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about an almost unanimous consensus, not a personal viewpoint. Oshwah: Can you see the user's personal attack against me? --Mhhossein talk 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GTVM92 should discuss - however they are now particpating in the discussion. The previous discussion had one editor that is now known to be a banned sock. It was also closed improperly by a particpant in the discussion itself. The current discussion (per the present RSes which seem to be changing and linking more) at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#Why separate pages?! is ongoing.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion close - [73] by Mhhossein less than an hour after reverting GTVM92 [74], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[75] Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had problems with this too! I said it here. It was just one of Mhhossein's unfair edits. GTVM92 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz:Are you going to say that there was no consensus? You have made numerous reverts based in the discussion I closed and it's now bizarre you're questioning my closure. That was certainly in accordance with what the users, including YOU, said. --Mhhossein talk 06:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeed reverted GTVM92 per the consensus at the time, and indeed I supported the position these should be separate (though my present opinion - given coverage of the August events which does, in part, treat the current events jointly with Dec/Jan - is on the fence). Closing discussions - per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure is to be performed by "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions" - which was most certainly not the case here - the close was highly improper - closure should not be done by an involved party when another party shows up and challenges the situation - that's the sort of situation where discussion should continue, and such a closure hampers discussion. I also think that taking this to AN/I was premature - both in terms of GTVM92's edits and in terms of the strength of consensus (which has decreased since the improper close). I do not endorse GTVM92's editing practices - he should be discussing more - however he has been engaging in talk.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)fs[reply]
    My English is not good as must be for discussing professional :( GTVM92 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: Your comment is highly misleading; That I have closed the discussion does not touch the already built consensus on the talk page. You're position is not definite here and seems you're merely opposing me, since, if you admit there was a consensus (based on which you yourself made some reverts), then GTVM92 had been edit warring given his lack of participation in TP, specially in the period after my closure and the recent August developments, and given the previous warnings he was given, it was correct to report him here. FOH, if you don't admit there was a consensus, why did you revert the users referring to he consensus. So, don't try to deflect this discussion. However, I'm not saying new consensus can't be built, since there might be new sources with different contents than we saw in the past. So, yes GTVM92 was edit warring, since he was acting against a consensus. --Mhhossein talk 08:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This report was filed after GTVM92 attempted, following developments in August (and there have been developments - new protests which seem to be linked by RS to the Dec/Jan ones), to extend the protests to present 3 times on the page. This was in contravention of an inappropriately closed talk-page section (not a RFC) in which one of 4 participants was a banned sock, dated back to 2 July 2018. This is a low threshold for filing an AN/I report. As for the actions by Mhhossein - inappropriately closing a discussion [76] (closely after reverting [77], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[78]) - would seem to be actions that strongly inhibit discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another misleading comment by Icewhiz. No, at least one of his reverts were done before attempting to build consensus. Btw, stop repeating "inappropriate", "inappropriate",... that does not make your comments sound appropriate. You're supporting an edit warrer. Drop the stick. --Mhhossein talk 09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Misuse of TFD, ignorance of consensus, and mass reverts by Sportsfan 1234

    Sportsfan 1234 opposes the implementation of the {{Olympic events sidebar}} sidebar series on articles pertaining to Olympic events, which replaces outdated sidebar templates made years prior. To my knowledge, they have not once stated why they disagree with them, other than that there was no consensus for these templates to be updated. Two years ago, he made a comment that "I do not agree with the change. However, there needs to be a discussion on this." See Figure 1. Two years later, Sportsfan 1234 had indeed started a discussion on TFD on 17 July 2018, but instead of having a good faith discussion on the purpose of the templates, they instead attempted to mislead TFD by removing all uses of the templates and then simply claiming that the templates were "unused", not mentioning that they were the one that put them out of use. See Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 from 17 July, hours and minutes before the discussion began. The discussion resulted in a keep on 25 July, with a consensus that the templates would be useful, especially with some accessibility fixes. Primefac, who closed the discussion, stated that "Bad faith removals in order to claim it is "unused" will result in administrative sanctions", and that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held at a centralized location". However, Sportsfan 1234 has ignored both the consensus of this discussion and Primefac's advice, opting instead to once again make mass reverts without raising a second discussion at WikiProject Olympics. Not only this, but they have seemed to have blindly made reverts to all my recent contributions to Olympic event articles, and not just contributions that added the new sidebars. In Figure 5, we see that they have reverted by fixes to the syntax of {{Infobox Olympic event}}, including new images, and updates to the formatting of dates, venue names, event names, ect. according to today's standards by WikiProject Olympics, and additions of {{Use dmy dates}}. Similar things can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

    In addition, these actions have caused collateral damage to other users' updates to articles that don't necessarily have anything to do with me or {{Olympic events sidebar}}. In Figure 8 we see that Sportsfan 1234 has reverted a completely reasonable update to a wikitable in Archery at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team by Jonel as part of his revert spree. Some of these edits have been reconciled, as we can see in Figure 9, but none of my contributions have been reconciled, leading me to believe that this was not a user simply trying to remove uses of {{Infobox Olympic event}} and cleaning up after to save face, but a directed attack at my contributions regardless of whether or not they involved {{Olympic events sidebar}}, removing all updated {{Infobox Olympic event}} templates and additions of {{Use dmy dates}} without explanation or reason. This behaviour is malicious and is a massive, unnecessary roadblock in my ability to update articles to modern standards. I'd want to see some disciplinary action be made against Sportsfan 1234, if anything, so that the consensus from a discussion that they started can be upheld and that otherwise uncontroversial updates that I and other users make to aging articles can also be upheld. Jonel has started a discussion on WikiProject Olympics in lieu of Sportsfan 1234 not doing so, but given he's already ignored one consensus, who's to say he won't ignore the consensus of this one too if it also ends up reaffirming support for the new templates? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Its completely disruptive to edit against consensus as per [79]. Such a huge change requires a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Bringing them to TFD was an obvious mistake, I admit. It wasn't done with mallicouness, but rather ignorance. I genuinely thought the discussion from two years ago was against the use of these templates. I left you a message (twice, once at TFD, and at your talk page) to start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion. All I know is that they were not "approved" per consensus at WP:OLYMPICS. "But given he's already ignored one consensus", can you please point out where I ignored consensus?? I am not sure and would like to know, because a) had I known there was a consensus would not have violated it at all. That's why talk page discussions are helpful!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As for figures 5/6/7, pictograms of the respective sport is used in infoboxes, as per standard. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As detailed above, the TFD discussion you started resulted in a keep. Primefac stated that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held". You ignored both Primefac and the consensus reached at TFD and started reverting edits once more, without raising a second discussion to properly challenge the consensus reached at TFD. The burden is on you to challenge the consensus. You can't logically expect somebody to start a discussion to challenge against a consensus in favour of a change they support. Jonel had to bring up a discussion because you wouldn't. You keep bringing up your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics from two years ago, but that was a four-line dialogue that essentially agreed on holding a discussion. In your words, "However, there needs to be a discussion on this." There was no discussion, however. Not until you raised one at TFD two years later which resulted in a keep. Your excuse that "I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion" is bizarre, especially considering the fact that you eventually did start a discussion which, need I remind you once more, resulted in a keep. Also, edit summaries like this one don't help your case. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be quite honest, I did not follow the tfd discussion till the end. In any case, per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and its up to you to discuss, "the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page". You created the template, and have reasons for implementing it. I do not have any inclination of why it was created nor its benefits/drawbacks, which is why I never started the discussion. There is no way I would be able to summarize a template I have no knowledge of why it was created. I find it odd you can start a discussion here but could not start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a case of WP:BRD because a consensus to keep the template and replace the old ones was reached. Just because you didn't pay attention to the outcome of the discussion you started doesn't mean you can ignore it completely. If you really wanted to know what a template does, you could've either inquired about it or read the documentation, and definitely not making disruptive edits against consensus and administrator advice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would absolutely not call that TFD a consensus to replace the old templates. Precisely three people supported that explicitly, on a template that will be transcluded on what, thousands of pages? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying Sportsfan's actions were justified simply because a consensus was reached, but by only an average amount of people? Also for the record, it was five people, not three. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sportsfan 1234: "Editing without consensus" is encouraged as a matter of policy. The lack of a formal consensus is not itself a reason to revert edits. Unless there are specific objections (the lack of which is considered a consensus), reverting edits without a reason is disruptive. I'm still not seeing any specific reason you're reverting this editor beyond the very shaky argument that preliminary approval is needed from WP:OLYMPICS. If there's a specific dispute, WP:OLYMPICS would be an ideal location for an RfC, but perhaps you'd like to explain what your problem with the edits exactly is, for starters? Swarm ♠ 05:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is a template is being mass replaced across thousands of articles without any sense of consensus from the Wikiproject. Besides the concerns raised at the TFD about the template, I don't have any concerns at all. In fact, I think consensus for such a big change should be required. Is that too much to ask for ? I don't think a discussion at rfc is required, but a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS, which has already been started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It baffles me why you’re so insistent on having the discussion be held at WikiProject Olympics as when you brought up a discussion, it was at TFD and not WikiProject Olympics. You constantly repeat time and time again your wish to have a discussion at WikiProject Olympics... but you never did that, and went instead to another place to hold the discussion. Why is that, exactly? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm partly with Swarm here. I think there is a difference between being bold and being reckless. If someone is going to mass replace a template across thousands of pages, they should have some discussion first otherwise their editing tends to be disruptive. And I don't think the TFD nor the 2 years old discussions is really sufficient.

    However at the same time, reversion should often not be used just because an editor didn't seek consensus. Especially if it involves a lot of pages. If someone has specific concerns and the change wasn't really discussed, it may be acceptable to carry out mass reversion. But not simply because the other editor didn't engage in sufficient discussion. Instead they can ask the other editor to stop and discuss the proposed change. If the editor does then the immediate problem is solved. (If they don't then this is when it's probably okay to bring the discussion to ANI.)

    Since no one is aware of any specific problems with the edit, there is no urgent problem needing to be fixed so no reversion. The discussion should be held in good faith with the hope that consensus will be reached. (If consensus really can't be reached, it may be then reasonable to say that the template should be reverted to the former stable one but this is not something to worry about before hand, at most it can be noted at the beginning you think this should happen.) If significant problems are mentioned during the discussion, it may be acceptable to suggest and carry out a mass reversion while the discussion is ongoing but again this needs to be in response to an actual problem, not simply 'it wasn't discussed'. (Remembering also that in the actual discussion, if the editor proposing the change gives reason and the other side simply says 'it wasn't discussed' consensus is in favour of the change.)

    Note that this also gets to the heart of another issue. I often say BRD disputes where each side is waiting for the other to initiate discussion are dumb and reflect poorly on both sides. I stick by this here. It's true that Sportsfan 1234 can't explain the advantages etc of the template but they should be able explain the problems and therefore they should be able to initiate discussion. The fact they can't is indication they should not have reverted.

    Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: May I get an idea of what a 'sufficient' discussion looks like? The way it's going, the current discussion on WikiProject Olympics will likely end with even less participation than the TFD discussion, so who's to say that'll someone won't dismiss that discussion as 'insufficent' either? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sportsfan 1234: So, you're admitting that you have no policy-based or practical objections to the implementation of the new template (I read the TfD, there are none). You simply feel that "Such a large change requires consensus from the Wikiproject that governs the articles." Sportsfan, Wikiprojects don't govern articles. Wikiprojects do not have any sort of authority over any articles. A non-RfC discussion at a Wikiproject carries no more weight to approve mass changes than any other local consensus formed on an article talk page. I'm stunned that an editor with your experience doesn't understand this already. Demanding community approval for a large-scale edit because you have concerns is perfectly reasonable. Demanding community approval for a large-scale edit, in spite of the fact that you have no concerns, is getting into the grey area of what is reasonable. But demanding a Wikiproject approves a large-scale edit, in spite of the fact that you have no concerns, for no other reason than you think Wikiprojects "govern" articles, while simultaneously rejecting the idea of community-wide input, is getting into disruptive territory. Now, I'm assuming you're not being malicious here, but this is the sort of thing that would be considered harassment if done with ill intent. You really should know better, because it's resulted in a pointless time sink. I hope the Wikiproject discussion provides insight, but at the end of the day, it does not have the authority to approve mass changes across thousands of articles and thus you will still be relying on the community's silent consensus to keep the change. A local Wikiproject consensus might help ensure this, but if someone who wasn't aware of the Wikiproject discussion objects, we're literally back at square one anyways and an RfC will still be needed. This debacle is forgivable, but you seriously need to learn from this and do not ever revert or obstruct good faith editors without having a reason, because it will not be forgivable a second time. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Henrypenn1 (low key, long-running) vandalism

    Henrypenn1 has been removing templates on Trans woman without explanation. Looking at their edit history, this account has existed since 2010, but appears to be more or less exclusively dedicated to low-key sporadic vandalism. They've never left an edit summary, cited a source, or participated in a talk page discussion, they just do stuff like remove templates or write unsourced nonsense. They've received several warnings, but I guess they've edited sporadically enough that they've flown under the radar, except for a one week block for sockpuppetry that expired in 2015. Regardless of socking, it seems like WP:NOTHERE behavior.

    Examples of disruptive edits:

    Nblund talk 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unclear why he is focusing so much on this particular edit, but this is clearly edit warring, over integral Wikipedia article space guidelines, without any signs of engaging with other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the editor made their 4th revert after the ANI notice was posted on their talk page (1, 2, 3). The article has been controversial, but considering that they've never even left an edit summary, it seems more like troll behavior than a content based edit war.Nblund talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nblund - The user has definitely engaged in edit warring with the repeated reverting of the article and same content each time. The user was given an edit warring and 3RR notice after their last edit (at the time of this writing at least). Since the user is not active right now, hasn't edited in over a day, and haven't made any additional disruptive edits since they were given that edit warring notice - blocking the user at this time is not justifiable. If the user makes another disruptive edit to the article, they will be blocked from editing. If this happens and this ANI discussion is still open, add an update here and ping me so I can take a look and handle the issue. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Issues at Sarah Jeong

    To summarize my removal of contentious BLP content here:

    I removed content for which Abecedare themself admits that there is no consensus for including. Read Talk:Sarah Jeong#Proposal/question – "In my tentative read, in the above survey the rough order of support is 2>3>1 at this moment." this comment by Abecedare has to do with the number of support votes, not necessarily consensus; "in interest of time" is no excuse because BLP; With regards to Abecedare's comment "And by discussion, I do mean establishing consensus." it's not okay because Abecedare unilaterally forced editors to remove it with consensus without having consensus to add it themself (and basically admiting it) which violates the WP:NOCON for BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this concerns the discretionary sanctions I implemented under the BLP AE, I believe WP:AN would be the right venue to appeal the restrictions I implemented at Sarah Jeong. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Abecedare, I can't even figure out what "this" is, it's so poorly written. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I posted elsewhere and think I should mention again here that I think controversial and inappropriate edits were allowed to the page without any sort of discussion or consensus after the page had been locked. The only edits that were NOT allowed to the page were edits about the reason the subject was controversial; edits that fluffed up the subject's career were seemingly added without discretion or discussion. I would have opposed many of them as being WP:TOOMUCH or WP:UNDUE, or possibly even WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but time for discussion was not allowed if the edit was a positive one about the subject. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the false claim of the article having been "fluffed" was countered well enough. Ikjbagl, since you seem to be unable to drop that ball, and you're bringing it into this wider forum, are you even aware that you are hereby accusing Abecedare, an admin since 2015 with a clean block log and over 27,000 edits, and author of 32 articles, of having an agenda in editing the article? "Fluff"--meaning non-neutral editing? Do you think they're on the take? Whereas you have spent 1/3 of all your edits on this project, which you joined two months ago, on this one single article? Are you familiar with WP:SPA and WP:NPOV? I think you've been warned about the discretionary sanctions, and I'm hoping that one of our admins will judge whether any apply to you. It may well be that such an admin says that you are too new to be punished very harshly for your disruptive, timesinking, and accusatory battlefield editing--by the same token, you should consider that maybe editors with many times more the edits you've made actually know our policies better. Wikipedia is not a place to unload your partypolitical buzzwords on living people. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your comment here is really unnecessary. I don't know what you mean by my claim being "countered", and there is no reason for you to go digging through my history to disparage my edits to the page. I have worked very hard to find neutral, non-opinionated sources on this issue and have mostly cited BBC, CNN, NBC, etc., reputable news organizations. I have also tried very hard to propose neutral, non-opinionated language to add to the page. I did not accuse Abedecare of having an agenda, all I said is that I don't think his edits were appropriate, and I explained why (because there was no consensus reached). I think it's incredibly rude for you to accuse me of having "disruptive, timesinking, and battlefield editing" when I have tried very hard to propose neutral edits to a contentious page. The fact that I am a new editor should not matter one bit; if I am misunderstanding or misstating the policies, then it is certainly possible for someone to point that out politely without going off like you have done here. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, it's ridiculous for you to judge me based on the fact that many of my edits have been to this page- of course they have! This is a contentious page right now, and this is the first time I have been involved in a page like that. But if you looked at my userpage, you would see very quickly that I have worked much harder on other articles, mostly this one: Utilis Coquinario, but I have also worked on Meristem and Trophic state index. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're totally missing the point. If you don't know how a place works and what the rules are, don't barge in and start pretending you lived there forever. If you worked harder at other articles, keep at it: this is obviously not your forte. As for your BS accusation of fluff, which you've made in various places, I responded here, the last time you wasted everyone's time on this noticeboard. If you don't know what "fluff" means, and what associations it has in a place like this, and if you can't understand what the burden is of administrators who try to protect the BLP while simultaneously accede to reasonable editor request and implement consensus requests, then don't drag them off to noticeboards--and don't use the word "fluff". Yes, a third of your edits are to this article and related matters. Yes, you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm participating in a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to be here and read this and leave rude comments about me; you may leave at any time, or you may ignore my responses and stop responding to me. And if you're really that concerned about wasting people's time, maybe you had better stop doing it. Nobody is forcing you to post these long critiques of me here; if you've got a problem, message me or put it on my talk page, you're doing nothing productive posting this here but talking crap about me. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments at ANI should attempt to correct problematic behavior, and that's what Drmies is doing. Dismissing the advice is a typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. What you should do is work out what point is being made and strive to fix the problem. No one gets points for clever debating tactics here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, then make your own topic about me if you really think my behavior is that problematic. If you think it's appropriate to post things like this about users who have tried very hard to contribute neutral content, then I really don't want to be part of Wikipedia anyway: Ikjbagl (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

    Across all the different proposals, there is a rough consensus for the inclusion of the matter at hand. The incident involving her tweets I mean. It is currently properly sourced by reliable sources, complies with WP:BLP with impeccable sources such as BBC, Associated Press via ABC, and citing the New York Times article itself. What is disagreed upon is the actual wording of the content in the article and perhaps the significance to her biography. Before the article was given full protection, there was a lot of edit warring, name calling, claims of bias, etc. Administrator Abecedare definitely had authority to enact these discretionary sanctions per WP:BLPDS, and I am thankful for them. The actual instituting of this version of events satisfies the immediate concern for editors who wanted to see -any- version of the events in the article. There are no less than 8 different proposals for different wording. That is rather insane given the context and its single event. Tutelary (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the authority to enact the sanctions, but to me the sanctions seem like a breach of WP:ADMINACCT, for not following this part of WP:NOCON policy:
    However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
    So if there is disagreement on the wording (therefore multiple proposals to modify the imposed status quo), the material should be removed. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For those not steeped in the Sarah Jeong talkpage discussion, here are my observations as an uninvolved admin who had protected the article on Aug 2, and have been following the talkpage discussion since then:
    • As Tutelary says, there was clear consensus about including something properly sourced and BLP-compliant in the article about the tweet controversy
    • There was IMO a tentative consensus that among the options for how exactly to include the material, Option 2 was the best one (and, certainly BLP compliant)
    • As I explicitly spelled out on the talkpage, I implemented the tentative consensus, while the discussion continues possibly for a few more days to determine the stable consensus. This was done so that the article could be reopened for editing by non-admins and the other sections improved (see previous discussion on this page as to why that was desirable).
    • At the time the page was to be unprotected, I implemented a BLPDS to prevent editors from warring over the tweet-controversy without discussing the issue on the talkpage.
    • User:Wumbolo disregarded the edit-restriction despite being aware of it, but I let it go with just a warning
    • They filed this complaint against me for purportedly violating BLP!
    Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I forgot to mention: User:Ikjbagl is another editor who violated the editing-restriction, but let off with a warning instead of a block. So of course, they are here too. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did apologize and say that I missed that, did I not? I can apologize a second time: I'm sorry, I missed that- I saw the silver lock and I thought that meant auto-confirmed users could edit. And it looks like you TOLD wumbolo on their talk page to initiate this here if they disagreed; accordingly, wumbolo has done so. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent my words to me. What I told Wumbolo was: You can appeal the editing restriction I implemented at WP:AN, but you cannot simply flout it. This is neither the suggested venue nor the subject of their complaint. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare: Oh geez, I'm sorry, I guess I'll apologize one more time: I didn't realize that this was not WP:AN. I just saw that this was also called "Administrator's Noticeboard" and figured they were the same thing, didn't realize there was a separate "Incidents" page. I just looked them both up to learn what the difference is. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inclusion of the content has already been substantially delayed by the full protection, despite an obvious consensus to include it in some form. Nothing unreasonable about finding a rough starting point to go from while the details are hammered out and the consensus restriction was obviously never meant to delay the inclusion longer. This is a baseless complaint, IMO, and Abecedare is doing the best they possibly can to maintain order in a shitshow of a situation. Swarm ♠ 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to comment on the following sequence of events:
      1. The page was blocked by the subject editor for 3 days, expiring 19:38 5 Aug.
      2. Editors contributed several proposals seeking consensus for inclusion of the twitter controversy, at least as early as 23:18, 2 August.
      3. During this time, the subject editor continued to monitor and edit the article (based on proposals on the TP), and to encourage consensus-building, for example, at 16:40, 3 August .
      4. At 16:47 on the day of the expiration, i.e., less than three hours before the expiry of the block, another editor created a "Survey" of the proposals, effectively starting from zero, as he pinged none of those who had been contributing for three days. One must underscore the starter of the "Survey" proposed "his own tweak" as candidate #2. Before he reset the score, his proposal had 4 favorables/2 negatives; another proposal had 17 favs/7negs
      5. The subject editor, who was participating quite actively in the TP in these final hours, raised no objections to this "Survey" process.
      6. At 19:22, the subject editor tallied the !votes on the "Survey" and since #2 had 5 favs/2 opposed, the subject editor pasted #2 into the article.
      Were the contributions of many editors for several days properly respected? XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The "Survey" implemented by Galobtter (mentioned by XavierItzm above) is less than 24 hours old, and did not even include some of the options discussed (Winkelvi's for example). Perhaps it is premature to choose any of them and insert them into the article (unless as a provisional stop-gap), especially since there is as of yet no clear consensus. Perhaps remember that there is no rush. Maybe let things gel, especially on a BLP. If necessary, create an official WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender A provisional stop-gap is exactly what the current version is intended as. See my note on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the "stop-gap" does not reflect the work of the community at large. And the community was not afforded courtesy pinging, nor a timeline. With just 16 minutes in an artificially-created deadline, all of the sudden, with no forewarning, the subject editor picked up the result of a made-up "survey" that had been in place for exactly 155 minutes, and despite the community toiling for days on end. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2: I think Abecedare is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort and monitoring discussions while still ensuring that Wikipedia policies are complied with. Someone has to be watching over that article and talkpage, because it's full of people up in arms about things that were in the news cycle less than 24 hours, and a lot of those editors appear to be very POV and do not understand the importance of WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and so on. Even if there is a head-count that "approves" a certain wording, something should not go into the article if it violates WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. If all else fails, the article should be reported at WP:BLPN if the talkpage hysteria gets overwhelming. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang Time for Wumbolo ?

    This thread, like the one above filed by User:Ikjbagl, is an inappropriate attack on administrator User:Abecedare with regard to Sarah Jeong, and possibly other articles that are being attacked as an outside-coordinated campaign. As with the above one, it is time to close it, either because there is no conduct issue, and certainly no administrative abuse, or via the WP:BOOMERANG. I think that there are conduct issues, but they involve the filing party, User:Wumbolo. I recommend, at a minimum, a topic ban from Sarah Jeong, or, better, a topic-ban from all BLPs. I also recommend an indefinite block, either for incompetence, or for being a jerk or a troll.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I wish Wikipedia would fight harder against the tide of news, but that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Here are the issues:

    • Abecedare was the admin who protected the page. They should not be getting WP:involved in content issues at all -- which they did by implementing this text themselves -- through full protection, no less. Someone else should have assessed consensus.
    • The inserted text has had no consensus, and even the decision by Abecedare to include the text as a stopgap measure had no consensus.
    • The article is very controversial and very polarized and the discussion is also polarized. We should do everything "by the book", so to speak.

      I am sure Abecedare acted out of the best intentions, but this action is completely against policy. The article was full-protected for almost three days, right at the height of the controversy. Why can't it stay that way until a firm consensus is found? There is no WP:DEADLINE.

      Here is what I propose: The text should be kept out. If there is to be a stopgap measure, there should be a discussion explicitly marked as such and properly attended, not just a random talk page discussion open for less than an hour where people mostly disagree. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor(s)

    ZinedineZidane98 has been indef blocked by community consensus by Courcelles. Softlavender (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    LOL! "anti-racism activists, broadly construed"? So, would that be, people like Sarah Jeong then? Mel Gibson perhaps? :D Sorry to appear flippant, but you've gotta laugh at the absurdity of this. In addition to WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, and WP:IDHT, what Softlavender doesn't know is that I also eat babies. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked. ZinedineZidane98 has been warned enough and disrupted enough and wasted enough of constructive editors' time IMO. I've blocked for a month, and if any admin wants to up it to an indef I'd be fine with that. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'd support an indef, considering that Bishonen has previously blocked for a month without effect. Zinedine only has 800 edits, but all of them are on controversial topics and all it seems in problematic ways (edit warring and personal attacks in Antisemitism in the Labour Party, just previously, and so on). Any topic ban would have to be far broader, would try including all hot button issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 7 blocks in 850 edits... that's about as high a ratio as I've ever seen. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban This user is blocked roughly once every 124 edits. I think this shows that there are, at the least, certain topics they should not be allowed near. I would also support an indef. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Adding bold that I apparently neglected earlier. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block (in addition to TBan). The block should be extended to indefinite. This user has been more disruptive that any in recent memory. With 50+ talkpage warnings in the past year, seven blocks in four years, a topic ban which he is currently repeating the exact same type of behavior on at a very similar BLP, 25 (disruptive) edits to Talk: Sarah Jeong in less than 15 hours [84], and endlessly AfDing/PRODing Sarah Jeong and her book plus removing "Keep" !votes from that AfD, this is not a user who is here to work constructively to build/improve the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC); edited 20:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • After I posted my original !vote, the user was blocked by Bishonen, who invited any other admin to up it to indef, which I then responded to considering the user's behavior in the past 10 hours. (In case it isn't clear, I support both a topic ban and an indef block.) Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Calling shenanigans

    ESparky Indef blocked for "Use of multiple accounts and undeclared paid editing despite requests to conform. (evasive answers)." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is with respect to User:ESparky who has been very active on the talk page.

    I only this morning noticed that ESparky is a paid editor since October 2017, and while they disclose their employer they have not been disclosing their clients. See the notice here where they say "Various clients -- all edits commencing October 4, 2017" (bolding in the original).

    User:Innisfree987 asked ESparky here if they are editing for pay on this page and asked about alt accounts (the latter question due to Esparky describing what happens at AfD and Innisfree not finding any history of contribs at AfD) ; ESparky replied, clearly answering the question about whether they are being paid on this page, but not answering the question about alt accounts.

    They have not directly edited the Sarah Jeung page.

    However they have made 70 edits to talk. Many of them are repeating the same point, BLUDGEON style (e.g diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc.

    I have informed them that they are in violation of PAID and have asked them to stop doing anything else, until they provide full disclosure. Their responses there were to say that they stopped paid editing a while ago and to remove the disclosures from their userpage and talk page altogether (diff, diff). That was very much the wrong answer. They have still not fully disclosed their clients etc for all their paid edits.

    I also followed up with ESparky about alt accounts at User_talk:ESparky#Alt_accounts; and their responses have gone from flimsy evasion to simply strange, now referring to themselves as "we".

    This sort of shenanigans while editing for pay and editing a white hot topic, is unwise at best, and smells very bad at worst. I will not recommend any action but wanted to call folks attention to this.

    I'll post at COIN about their paid edits more broadly. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. They did edit the article on Jeong's book The Internet of Garbage, at one point removing a reference and claiming that it was "a paid interview". XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Their justification for calling that a "paid interview" was the "sponsored content" label at the bottom of the Toast piece, as they wrote here. I pointed out here that the "sponsored content" tag is a header for the links below it, not a label for what is above it. ESparky acknowledged their error here; that was after they made the edit to the book page. I don't know if they really believed what they wrote or this was shenanigans; those "sponsored content" sections are common as dirt on online news articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well--I did ask the question for a reason, namely that while much of the sturm und drang over there doesn't seem unusual (in or out; if in how much), I was perplexed by ESparky's repeated insistence on mentioning one particular outlet (Reason) and a person with only a very tenuous connection to the issue (Norton) by name... But now this exchange really feels above my paygrade, so I'm going to impose to ping Kudpung, who is both uninvolved in the content debate and expert in some of the broader issues this may raise, and defer to his judgment on the matter. Thank you Kudpung for the time to look at this if you can spare it. Please let me know if you need any additional information from me. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Innisfree987, I'll take a look when I get home from work tonight. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much obliged. If you start with Jytdog's exchange at User_talk:ESparky#Alt_accounts, I suspect you'll quickly see why I thought you'd know best whether it needs more attention, will appreciate your advice in whatever direction. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Innisfree987 and Jytdog:, there is a blatant evasive flavour coming from this editor along with the admission of having created multiple accounts. I'm 99.99% inclined to a) indef, and b) get a friendly CU to do a search and block any old accounts that can still be located, any sleepers, and a range block if necessary. If there are no objections, that's what I'll do. Jty can then decide what he would like me to do with any affected articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None from me. I will post at COIN about the other stuff. This thread is already long and should remain focused on the Jeong page. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds right to me. Appreciate your attention to it, thank you Kudpung. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended confirmed cheating...

    Special:Contributions/Annothumaho, fresh off of a 24-hour block for edit warring, appears to be using their sandbox as a means to quickly gain extended-confirmed status per the many useless edits they are making there. Unless they can offer a really good explanation of what they are trying to do, that is. Home Lander (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    :( :) --Annothumaho (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please. Abequinn14 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: Now that would be a good idea. Please implement it immediately. And on a lighter note, it would mean that Annothumaho would have completely wasted their time  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the idea. More specifically, the change proposed would force the 500 to be out in the open where there are plenty of eyeballs. In fact we could take it a step further and require that the 500 touch a minimum of 20 different articles (counting Article X and Talk:X as one). That's the kind of experience we want to trust someone as x-confirmed anyway. A further enhancement would to make it so that edits by editors not x-confirmed would be specially marked in edit histories, thereby bringing even more scrutiny. (I suspect someone could work out for us what % of edits fall in that category, minus IP edits which of course we already can identify immediately anyway.)
    If I get a few positive comments here I'll take it to Village Pump (or maybe someone who spends more time there will do it for me). EEng 13:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad idea - it will force potentials gamers out into main space, where this can actually be harder to detect if "done right". An extended confirmed user with an edit counter like this and contributions like this - sticks out like a sore thumb (especially when they hit a few hundred edits doing it). Might as well discover this once they become extended confirmed (after wasting time doing 500 edits to their sandbox).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that's some weird logic. EEng 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, no matter how much you change or alter the rules regarding what edits will count toward the 500 and which edits won't, these users are going to be able to use this method in order to quickly rack themselves up to 500 edits... there's not very much we can do to stop it; we can only move the location in which they'll just need to do this. On the other hand, this is why we also have the requirement that your tenure exceed 30 days. If you want a solution that will actually add length to how long it takes for an account to to become "extended confirmed", you need increase the tenure requirement to be longer...
    I'm currently Investigating this user's edits... Please stand by. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see many concerns with this user's edits (and hence have applied an indefinite block to the account). Editors can reasonably come to the conclusion that this user is trying to "confirm grind" themselves to rack up 500 edits based on the user's edits within their sandbox. This user is also being disruptive on the Mexico article and repeatedly restoring unreferenced content. The biggest concern I had with this user's edits were the last two that were made before I applied the block: The two edits made to The Hideout Inn that add to the edit war over the content there (see the page's edit history). I suspect sock puppetry and will be pursuing a further investigation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, no matter how much you change or alter the rules regarding what edits will count toward the 500 and which edits won't, these users are going to be able to use this method in order to quickly rack themselves up to 500 edits... there's not very much we can do to stop it – Sure, not very much, beyond someone noticing that they're making meaningless edits, and requiring that they edit in article and Talk space to earn their stripes helps make that happen, even if it's far from a perfect fix. It's certainly hard to see how it's not in all ways better than the current rule allowing 500 edits anywhere – including your own userspace. Look at it this way: suppose we simply excluded User: and User_talk: edits from the 500. Surely you'd agree that's a huge improvement, since anyone who edits only in those two spaces is clearly NOTHERE anyway. My proposal goes further, but clearly is at least as good. Why wouldn't we do that?
    I'm looking for just a little encouragement here before I take this to VP. EEng 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have it; it would be a step in the right direction. All the best, Miniapolis 22:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Same - you have my encouragement as well. Let me make this clear in case it may not have been: My response above was not meant to say or imply that the current rules regarding what edits should count towards the 500 shouldn't be modified or changed; that would be ridiculous ;-). I agree that changing the requirements to only count edits made in certain namespaces toward the 500 would be beneficial. I was simply trying to say that there is no magic bullet that will stop users from "confirm grinding" their edits to reach that amount :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Give some encouragement to this user.
    Does that work? :-)
    I say go for it. I think even Talk pages should not be counted, so one can't rack-up edits with argumentation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say keep talk, portal, and mainspace, let go of user and sandbox and such. Encouraging people to use talk pages is good; we don't want to make people think that they're unnecessary or do not count for whatever reason. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so long as it's clear it's still Admin discretion if it appears the clock needs to be reset. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So I will take this to VP, but Doug Weller, what do you mean about Admin discretion and clock being reset. Are those used with relation to x-confirmed now? EEng 04:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The ECP bit can be stripped by an admin - and has been in cases of gaming. There have been a few ANI or AE cases about this. (for the record - I'm opposed to your suggestion - as gaming in user space is much easier to spot than main space - and there are plenty of totally meaningless ploys one can do in article space without attracting attention... The current "easiest/thoughtless route" of editing one's own edit space is also the easiest to detect).Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also opposed to the restrictions on the EC right, mainly because 'extended confirmed cheating' is not common enough to warrant changes to policy. Also, you have a whole month to discover possible issues before problems begin. There is also the possibility that others will just work around restrictions. funplussmart 17:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I had an idea about a way to counter "autoconfirmed/extended confirmed grinding" by having a new flag (either one for auto- and x-confirmed or one for each) that can be applied by administrators which, when given to a user, would disable being autoconfirmed/x-confirmed until (if ever) the flag was removed. I'm not sure how this could be implemented, or how effective it could be (perhaps having an edit filter detecting confirm grinding and a bot that would add the flag if a user tripped the filter. . . ?). I don't know if this is a good idea, but it might work. SemiHypercube ✎ 21:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Too complicated -- we've got way too many bits and flags already. Anyway, once you realize someone's cheating we should just just block him, period. We don't need people like that. EEng 13:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington DC area IPs inserting biased political analysis

    Someone using IPs from Arlington, Virginia, has been slyly emphasizing Republican Party voting results in articles about American places and people. The additions are either unreferenced,[85][86][87][88] or a purely statistical reference does not support the political analysis provided in prose.[89] Note that the removal of this person's unreferenced prose analysis often leaves a bare chart of voting statistics, which goes against WP:NOTSTATS. Involved IPs listed below. Any suggestions as to what we can do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This has turned into an edit war between 64.132.42.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:644:8501:4ba:adf1:2b7c:4ddc:eb69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - suggest a cooling off period - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The one adding unreferenced analysis is the worse offender. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By which I mean IP 64.132.42.50 which is registered to Hanover Research, a marketing research firm in Arlington. This Wikipedia editing is apparently one of their projects. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that WP:PROVEIT needs to be applied, with appropriate user warning messages for continued addition of non verified content addition. If engaged in edit warning, and violating WP:3RR action should be taken, with appropriate warnings prior, but we should also assume good faith in regards to their editing, and inform them about WP:VER & WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no. This is an IP address of a marketing firm being used to whitewash various articles related to a political party. Frankly, I do not care who they are supporting; It seems a WP:Duck situation likely related to paid editing. Good faith is important, but this is beyond the pale. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This person is deep into 3RR territory tonight, using Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:4810:2ECC:F080:DF41 which is also from Arlington. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on The Gateway Pundit and Fox News

    I have reason to believe that Snooganssnoogans is targeting my edits and reverting them out of personal malice. Please see their most recent reversion of the Fox News page to my edit, with the only justification as "yes, and?". Also see their Talk page for numerous conflicts with other Wikipedians. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Targeting your edits? Absolutely not. I'm one of the most active editors on both pages, and frequently revert edits that I consider bad. Your edits on both pages were bad, and thus were reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs, please.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is you that has been edit-warring at Racism to the point the page has just been protected. And, your recent edits have violated WP:BLP by calling a woman a racist while leaving out the fact that her “racist” tweets appear to have been mocking racists. I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock puppetry much? -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See Psychological projection. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be the one that keeps adding mentions of Sarah Jeong to articles. I'm not sure if a news site covers the whole Sarah Jeong thing is so notable that it needs its own section on its article. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some diffs from from fresh new 253-edit user Noto-Ichinose (talk · contribs)

    You might be noticing how a certain name and obsession keep cropping up. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, immediately after someone reverts the user's edit, the user warns the person for edit warring. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I got two! (1, 2--seemed to have some difficulty getting them to populate). Had me wondering if I had wikipediaed in my sleep! But nothing that exciting; I made one deletion; they've added their text three times, each time judged as unwarranted and removed by a different editor, and now the page is protected. I see the latest disruption has drawn a block in the time it's taken me to pull the diffs, but I'll post all the same for the record. I do have WP:NOTHERE concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've come across Noto-Ichinose several times recently in an entirely different set of articles. He/she seems fond of adding/expanding "controversies" to BLPs and then edit warring to reinstate them when removed (and nearly all of them have been removed in the articles I saw). Below are just the ones that I saw — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    At Trevor Noah: 1 2 3 4
    At Michael Ian Black: 1 2
    At Dan Harmon: 1 2 (and related material added, tangentially, to Adult Swim: 1 2

    And while this very thread was ongoing, edit warring at Incel. I haven't looked closely at what's happening in the original articles, but it seems a boomerang is likely in order. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw this thread was open -- this person is edit warring at Incel, gave me an edit warring warning for one revert, and for some reason reverted a null edit I made to correct a mistake in one of my edit summaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm somewhat INVOLVED because of our interactions at Incel, but this editor's behavior there combined with all of the above issues make me think they are NOTHERE. If nothing else, they are clearly unable to edit productively in controversial subject areas like these. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic banned from BLP edits for 3 months. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller - Good call; thanks for imposing that sanction. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller - Don't forget to log the sanction here. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: thanks. Logged it in the wrong year, fixed now. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh... I've done that at least a few times, so I understand. No problem ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Back to the Future". Abequinn14 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone else smell used footware? The odor is not distinct enough to pinpoint, but a month-old account able to cite and use wiki syntax and cause this much disruption? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a WP:ARBAPDS. It takes two to tango, and while it appears that an attempt to discuss edits on the talk page rather than going through edit/reversion cycles, that means that more than the editor was involved, and ARBAPDS should be equally carried out. Having not significantly edited the articles, it concerns me that in Wikipedia voice assertions from left-of-center reliable sources are advanced as factual in regards to right-of-center publishers/journalistic sources. I don't believe that right-of-center reliable sourced claims would be as readily stated in Wikipedia voice as factual to advance claims about left of center publishers/journalistic sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't figure out the grammar of your second sentence, but somehow it seems to end up in "good people on both sides". As the blocking editor, I disagree. If you don't believe the editor was guilty of "POV editing, edit warring, unwarranted warnings, and finally an ANI boomerang", as I put it in the log, then bring the case to AN. As for socks, EvergreenFir, I understand CU was run, but I am not aware it led to anything. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fate was sealed as was that of King Claudius with his petard. But, I fear that with the apparent influx of new, kindred editors in the last few days, better CU tools may be required. Hoping I‘m wrong. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shhhhhhh... don't let them know... Abequinn14 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing disruption by Учхљёная

    Учхљёная (talk · contribs)}

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#User:Учхљёная, that discussion has been archived with no consensus regarding any action, and since that the aforementioned editor has continued to make disruptive edits, such as adding lyrics when there is consensus not to, and adding nonstandard formating to articles, now the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia ended up as inconclusive, but even if this user is not a sockpuppet, they clearly do need to be dealt with. Pinging @Oshwah and Kashmiri: who were actively involved in the previous ANI thread. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Champion - If you could provide diffs to the ongoing disruptive edits you describe here, it will be significantly helpful not only to me, but anyone and everyone else who reads this ANI report :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most recently, there was a discussion at AN3 which ended with the page being fully protected, see here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see [98] when there is consensus against including lyrics per WP:NOTLYRICS and [99] in which nonstandard formatting is reverted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CMPLPR

    (non-admin closure) User blocked . Kpgjhpjm 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Travelxp is a television channel which shows travel programmes, owned by Celebrities Management Private Limited (CMPL) in India. Days ago, User:CMPLPR edited Travelxp article to add pufferies. The username implies either the user works at the company, or the account is run by the company; if it is true, it's against WP:COI. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 05:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reported this to WP:UAA. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been soft-blocked so that they can create a new account or request a username change. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Halwoll

    I have sent 11 messages over the last 2 months about adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, but they continue to do so and not communicate. They have received several similar messages from other editors; all ignored. They have been editing since Sept 2016, but have never responded to a message on their talk page and many concerns have been raised about disruptive editing, copyright issues and lack of sources. Please see User talk:Halwoll for details.

    I have no idea if they are reading their messages, and as they use no edit summaries, communication is zero. Hopefully they will now engage here or on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion neither of the two substantive questions you posted on the user's talk page absolutely needed response. You dealt with the matter 8 hours later by moving the user's decent but unreferenced article to draftspace: [100]. Your other messages to him lack specifics. So unless you can provide diffs demonstrating that the user is being continuously disruptive I think this ANI thread may be a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My first two messages - 'Please add your sources' and 'Can you please respond?' were simple and clear and did need a response, either the addition of sources or a message in response. I would not have been too worried though if that was the end of it. My other messages were specific: asking for a response to previous messages, explaining and linking to the policies on communication and sourcing and giving a diff example of where they have continued to add unsourced content despite messages.
    Ignoring other editors when they raise concerns is disruptive in itself, and communication is mandatory in these circumstances. Adding unsourced content is also disruptive. Ignoring 11 messages is a huge amount but they have also ignored the many other concerns raised on their talk page over the last 2 years, and we need to know if they have read and understand the many serious concerns raised about their editing. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, you handled the lack of sources 8 hours later by draftification; at that point, there was no urgency or real need for communication as the article was out of mainspace, so repeatedly demanding a response was unnecessary in terms of the encyclopedia. Posting a bunch of WP:ABCs on their talkpage is generally not helpful either. We have very very occasionally blocked editors who have ignored dozens and dozens of usertalk messages, but that isn't the case here. Unless there is a serious, longterm, ongoing problem with this editor, and you provide a sufficient number of diffs to substantiate that, it is possible that no action will be taken here. One reason is that (even temporarily) blocking a new (less than 2,000 edits) good-faith editor is likely to drive them off of Wikipedia permanently. Softlavender (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a month later, not just 8 hours; they haven't edited much recently, or at all after the last message a few days ago, unless there are edits to pages that have been deleted. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I misread "July" as being "June". Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal recommendation for dealing with newish editors who may be making blunders is to treat them with kindness. Post The Wikipedia Adventure on their talkpage (excellent and very fun learning device!); post a Welcome template; post a Teahouse invitation; post a wikilove message (cookie, etc). We have already seen that this editor responds to kindness: when someone posted an invitation to WP:Women in Red ([101]), they joined up the following day: [102]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your viewpoint, but as this editor has been around since Sept 2016, I think they should be able to reply to a message or stop adding unsourced content when asked. Are they going to continue to do this? We don't know if they won't communicate. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is your request here? Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my request is that they agree to add sources in future and respond to messages in future. They do appear to be reading their messages, just ignoring them if they are raising a concern, and this has been going on for a long time involving many concerns. If they don't join the discussion, then I'm open to ideas on how to solve the issue. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what is your request to ANI? You brought this report to ANI, which is for situations requiring action by administrators or experienced editors. What action do you want administrators or experienced editors to take? Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, I'm open to ideas on how to address the issue. However, my long experience of editors who keep creating unref articles and won't communicate is that they only respond to indef blocks, which can then be swiftly lifted. They tend to view their talk pge as a place spam mail goes and not register it. After two years' editing and many, many messages about problematic editing, I think it's unlikely anything else will grab their attention. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see "many, many messages about problematic editing"; I see four messages about specific article edits [103], [104], [105], [106], but no diffs so the edits themselves and their value cannot be assessed. The editor is clearly editing in good faith and clearly responds to positive talkpage messages. I'm going to suggest that you change your approach to editors you perceive as non-responsive and instead of posting increasing numbers of increasingly terse critical messages that you instead post positive messages from the get-go -- the kinds of posts I listed up above. With this particular editor, I suggest you also find something they have done well and send them a wikilove message thanking and praising them for it. That's what worked with Ipigott with this editor, and the editor responded by immediately joining the WP:WikiProject Women in Red and immediately creating an article on a notable sportswoman. In the case of this editor, since you've left so many carping messages you may have worn out your welcome and perhaps another editor should post some positive and praising messages. Bottom line: You're getting in the habit of leaving a dozen complaining or warning messages on an editor's talk and then bringing them to ANI (a habit which will become insupportable), but if you start out with lots of positive messages instead (all of the kinds I've mentioned), you'll get interest and cooperation. That's my opinion anyway. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Contaldo80

    Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [107] [108] [109] [110]

    Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120]

    Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]

    Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [139] [140]

    • From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."
    Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

    Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

    Diffs on: General incivility
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]

    Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [172]

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Response:

    Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

    I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([173]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
      Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
      How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [174] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual hat boxes
    That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusual Activity by Coffeeandcrumbs

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

    Originally reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I was told there to come here. User User:Coffeeandcrumbs has removed multiple sourced items from the article Lemur Conservation Foundation without explanation and also created confusing page that violates copyrights User:Coffeeandcrumbs/James Thompson (Kansas politician), also found to be removing sourced contents from other articles and adding POV information. Please check user revision history. Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The LCF edits were not without explanation, and the Thompson sandbox does not violate copyrights. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No action needs to be taken in regards to Coffeeandcrumbs. I can't tell if any other action needs to be taken at this point, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject of article campaigning in social media to save article from deletion

    Not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this and if anything can or should be done. The article for Mike Galsworthy is up for deletion and following a surge in keep votes I checked his facebook profile [175] where he has asked his followers for help to keep his page on wikipedia. At least two of the keep votes have commented that they have done so Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, this is fine, thanks. I assume the closing admin will take these things into account. BTW that entire AfD looks like a shouting match. Thanks for posting the link there as well. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "not a vote" template was added to the top of the AfD, but no one has tagged the newbies, SPAs, and the canvassed people. That should be done (by checking each participant's edit history). Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    164.163.135.156 @ Ajaib Singh

    User warned; report back if problem recurs. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I already posted a request at the Indian topics noticeboard for content/manual-of-style issues. However this is about behavioral ones: this editor trolls at my talk page (insults and baseless threats). I tried to explain that we have a manual of style, to no avail. A few diffs: Special:Diff/853940888, Special:Diff/853941370, Special:Diff/853942224 (after I deleted the first two posts, this was slightly better and I replied), Special:Diff/853943797. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm seems to be a long-standing issue... Special:Diff/677851693, Special:Diff/806012625, (and maybe Special:Diff/429362110). I guess it's best to just ignore per WP:DENY and request article protection when necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more recent posts (after this report): Special:Diff/853958874, Special:Diff/853959701 —PaleoNeonate – 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please look into Semitic neopaganism request

    We absolutely need editorial and ArbCom help in this article. Thank you. RK (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the correct article may be Semitic neopaganism. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    RK, ArbCom does not settle content disputes. And neither for that matter does WP:ANI. They may however get involved if contributors insist on edit-warring, rather than discussing disputes on the article talk page, and on falsely labelling edits as 'vandalism'. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this recent ANI thread. [176] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More stick chewing and forum shopping from Merphee

    Just a couple of days ago a discussion on Merphee fell off the active discussions here. It failed to get properly resolved, largely because discussion was distracted by probably incorrect discussions of sockpuppetry. The earlier discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Problematic editing by Merphee.

    I had let the issue go, until yesterday, when Merphee called me back to Talk:The Australian#Questionable source. Discussion recommenced there. He didn't like the immediate result. (Just a tad impatient methinks.) So he again went forum shopping, this time to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly, and yet again failed to tell anyone else about it.

    Note that, while I have been criticised by some for my comments in this dispute, I had let this go. Merphee re-initiated discussions, explicitly asking me to comment and, surprise, surprise, didn't like my opinion.

    There are many things about this editor's behaviour that bother me. Most are mentioned in the earlier thread. I see no need to mention them all here. The important thing is that he is still making trouble. And forum shopping, with no patience for resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please provide some serious evidence through diffs for your serious allegations?Merphee (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is with the haste shown in taking the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Monthly only hours after re-opening discussions, and in not advising other editors about it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite honestly my decision to take our discussion to the noticeboard (as we are supposed to do) was to also to get away from your unrelenting personal attacks and belittling. Anyone who reads the thread at Talk:The Australian could see that. Let alone all the other occasions you have personally attacked me.Merphee (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no minimum time limit requirement for posting to noticeboards. And, while a notice of the posting would have be courteous, it is also not required. Reviewing the article Talk page, I do, however, find reference to DR generally, and RSN specifically, included in the following diffs, prior to the RSN post.1,2 - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme and unrelenting personal attacks and constant belittling by HiLo48

    I have been the target of ongoing and extreme personal attacks, bullying, bad faith accusations without evidence, constant belittling, hounding and harassment by User:HiLo48 and just want it to stop. I will start to gather diffs and other evidence but a good start would be looking at Talk:The Australian.Merphee (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I had resolved to avoid the Talk page where I have said something that you apparently now don't like. But you explicitly invited me to comment again. If you had not wanted my opinion, you should not have asked for it again. I do not understand your behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what occurred at all at. However I seriously just want the unrelenting and extreme personal attacks and constant belittling to stop.Merphee (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Extreme personal attacks" are a serious concern. Diffs of these attacks and belittlings would help outsiders assess the proper response. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see any personal attacks, except that possibly the insistence of User:Merphee that User:HiLo48 is conducting a campaign of personal attacks may itself be a personal attack. I see none of the alleged personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise but I am at work at the moment. I will provide strong evidence through diffs later tonight if that's ok? This one [177] from today at Talk:The Australian was completely uncalled for if you read the thread under Questionable source. I was certainly not forum shopping and tried to word my post on the noticeboard as neutrally as possible, so the constant accusations about forum shopping HiLo48 makes here and on the talk page seem pretty unfair as it was not multiple noticeboards and I simply wanted to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions to help form a consensus.Merphee (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My use of the word 'extreme' relates to the total period of attacks and belittling. Apologies but I will provide many more diffs to support my post here as I just want it to stop. I note also on the Talk:The Australian that the points I was trying to make have now been supported by uninvolved editors see this comment [178] which was also why I correctly and neutrally placed the discussion on one single norticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, and tried to disengage from HiLo48. HiLo48 then went straight there and posted this comment [179] making further unfounded accusations of forum shopping.Merphee (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the alleged attacks are personal, extreme and unrelenting, then it should be very easy to provide convincing diffs, Merphee. Please do so as soon as your personal schedule permits. So far, I am not seeing the pattern of misconduct that you are accusing HiLo48 of. However, I will keep an open mind at least until you furnish the diffs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The example that you provide isn't a personal attack, and leads me to doubt your judgment as to whether you know what a personal attack is. Not all disagreement is personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    • I've not seen anything either. "Extreme and Unrelenting" seem a little overly dramatic. HiLo48 is being persistent as is Merphee, but what I see is a lot of talking past each other and lines in the sand being drawn. With regards to the content, I can certainly see HiLo48's point concerning The Australian, being Australian myself. I can't bring myself to see anything that is affiliated with Murdoch as anything but right wing. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have resolved to not post again here unless I see something patently wrong (apart from comments from Merphee, where negative comments about me are the norm). It's incorrect to label me as persistent. I had not posted at the Talk page in question for quite some time, and only did so yesterday because Merphee explicitly asked me to. I hope it's clear that is NOT an example of persistence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will provide more diffs later tonight. My understanding is that constantly making big accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and when I carefully selected my wording at the noticeboard is a form of personal attack? I also note that HiLo48's long quote and the 'essay' source I've questioned at The Australian has also not been supported by other uninvolved editors. Please see Talk:The Australian. Please also refer to this edit as evidence of that point. [180]. I have never said it was not centre right. It is even in the info-box. That was another accusation HiLo48 constantly made that i am trying to say The Australian is not centre-right and with no supporting evidence. Please refer to this diff as evidence to support my comments on that accusation.[181]Merphee (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Listen, Merphee, you better provide much better evidence than you have so far. Either that, or consider withdrawing your accusations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I will re-frame my accusation then after looking at the diffs I have provided here. Constant belittling and making accusations like Forum Shopping and POV with no evidence and only evidence to the contrary I thought was a form of personal attack. Calling me a "nasty piece of work" is what I thought was a direct personal attack. Constantly calling me a "liar" in discussions with others and with no evidence was what I thought was an attack. However I will provide more diffs later tonight after work if that's ok? I also have already recognised that the word 'extreme' was a little excessive and apologise to HiLo48 for that.However the "unrelenting" and "belittling" parts of my post here, I do stand by and will show evidence for later.Merphee (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those words, that phrase, seems to be something of a mantra for you, Merphee. The only questionable comment on that talk page that I see (I may not have seen everything) is the [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Australian&diff=prev&oldid=853934530 "ANNOUNCEMENT", but I can see HiLo's point about forum shopping. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, it's worth checking via Edits by User, as Merphee has periodically removed posts: [182]. Or, even easier, start here [183] and click forward to each next edit. HiLo48 has been harassing Merphee on his talkpage despite requests to stay off it. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been near his Talk page in recent days. And I don't believe anything I did there was harassment. I only responded to an unacceptable approach to editing. I also was avoiding the articles where earlier dramas had arisen, UNTIL I was invited back there by Merphee himself. I have already explained all this. Why are you so misrepresenting the situation? Have you not actually read what was written here? Have I upset you at some stage? You accusations demand specific examples, with full context. AND dates. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a little gem, which exemplifies your inability to have a civil conversation with Merphee: [184]. You both exhibit the same behaviors (with different writing styles), but neither of you can see that. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And it will be obvious to anyone who reads it that that diff requires context (reference to "last night", etc), which I requested you provide, yet you didn't. You are confirming all my views of bad Admins. Why do you do this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, I looked through all the diffs on Merphee's talk page. None of them are individually blockable, nor do they add up to anything. I didn't see a request to stay away, but I only looked at HiLo's edits (per your link); I did see Merphee continuously engaging with them. And this may be sharp, but it's not that awful at all. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said nor implied any of those posts on his talkpage were "blockable". In terms of requests to stay off his talk page: I would really prefer if you made comment on the talk page; As I said I would prefer to talk on the article talk page.; This is the third time I have asked you not to be on my talk page; you: HiLo48, you got a point, but so do they re:talk page. Kindly refrain. No response necessary but an eloquent silence. Thanks, Drmies; My requests for you to stop commenting on my talk page were real.; And here you are again posting on my talk page when I've asked you countless times to stop.; I will make it extremely clear now. DO NOT post on my talk page again.. On NeilN's talkpage: I kindly asked you multiple times as you know, to not post on my talk page but still you continued unabated. Even administrator Drmies asked you to stop. You continued. It is my talk page HiLo48. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.; HiLo48 obviously will not stop posting on my talk page so I feel pretty helpless here. I just hope HiLo48 hears your warning and stops doing it, now two administrators have asked him not to.; Straight away after your last warning and mine, they made two more posts on my talk page.; Just stop posting on my talk page.. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a thought

    How about you both stay off each other's talkpages, stop referring to each other, stop labeling each other, stop mind-reading, and go back to editing and focusing on content, not editor(s)? Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How about YOU pay attention to who has been doing what here? I have not been near Merphee's talk page for many days. Over that same period I had not commented anywhere about the issues now being discussed. This issue ONLY arose again because Merphee explicitly asked me to comment, so I did. Since then I have tried very hard to simply describe his problematic approach to editing. Posts suggesting we are equally at fault here are false, and quite unhelpful. I had resolved to not post again unless more false accusations were made about me. That comment was just such a post. The thoughts I have written about Administrator competence and objectivity on my User page are reinforced every time I come to a page such as this. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly HiLo48, if that is your attitude and you cannot see your own WP:PAs and repeated long-term pot-stirring, I agree with Tarage that an IBAN is in order. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And there YOU go again. It's as if you didn't read a word I wrote in my previous post above. I was looking for peace. Please try again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have preferred someone else be the one to re-open the case against Merphee, since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48. My advice would be simply to ping the people who were involved in the now-archived incident discussion and make it clear that a conclusion has not been reached. It was absolutely derailed by sockpuppet allegations. @HiLo48: can you tell us the nature of the latest dispute regarding The Australian and anything that has happened since the last incident discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It's all effectively in the second paragraph of this thread. Within hours of inviting me back to a conversation I had been avoiding, and getting responses he didn't like from me and another editor, he went forum shopping again. I regard that as disruptive editing. And a lack of patience. But I'm running out of energy on this, and I'm getting abused and having my behaviour misrepresented by an Admin, so feel free to do your best. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not sure what the forum shopping stuff is about. Up until that part everything seems fine. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip you say "since they have constantly attempted to start fights with myself and HiLo48." Are you kidding? Could you provide evidence for that through diffs? You and I have had no contact whatsoever since Emma Husar! And HiLo48, you know that's not true and the diffs on Talk:The Australian tell a completely different story. I tried to discuss your edit with you and I made numerous attempts to clarify my two questions on the talk page and focus our discussion entirely on the content dispute and away from you continuing to comment on me. It should also be noted that I did not choose to revert your edit and get into an edit war but rather I decided to post a neutrally worded case on the noticeboard to get the opinions of uninvolved editors. I also gave you due notice I would be doing that. There is also a new section that onetwothreeip opened on the Talk:The Australian and I just commented as I genuinely want to resolve this through consensus.Merphee (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)  [reply]
    The problem is, neither you nor HiLo48 can carry on a discussion without engaging in personal attacks. So the way I see it, is there are several options available to resolve this: (A) You both follow the bolded advice at the top of this subthread. DO NOT MENTION OTHER EDITORS, by name, reference, or using the word "you". It's hard at first and takes practice but it can be done; you can pretend you are a robot if need be. (B) We topic ban both of you from Australian media and whatever else you conflict about. (C) We institute an WP:IBAN between the two of you. (D) We topic ban you (Merphee) from Australian media or whatever the problem area is. (E) We block both of you. (F) We block you (Merphee), as the most disruptive (as agreed by several editors at this point) and least experienced editor. Something has to be done, because the endless bickering which you both engage in is disruptive and dysfunctional. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the discussion on the Emma Husar article. @Softlavender: is it really true that HiLo48 has made personal attacks? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to say this, but after seeing Murphee's last post on the RSN board, something needs to be done. They do not seem to be able to control their political bias; it leads them into all sorts of hyperbolic and exaggerated claims, doubling down, then when called out, inability to provide diffs, deflection and diversion to another forum, or attempting to drop the subject. You can see it in effect in this thread, and at their posts on the https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#footer RSN ( see the post "The monthly)..it makes them extremely difficult to come to a consensus with. I would 'support' a topic ban on Political bias in Australian media and Australian politics for Murphee. I would have suggested this last time, but everything got derailed by the socking allegations, and I resolved to AGF. I no longer think this Curdle (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Merphee has a tendency to hyperbole, but it usually comes after bickering from Hilo48. I do not think there was anything amiss about posting on RSN; editors are allowed to do that at any time, for any reason, and do not have to give anyone notice that they have done so, and it is not "forum shopping" unless there are already other WP:DR in process -- all of which Ryk72 explained at the top of this thread. The problem with that RSN thread was HiLo48 jumping in immediately with personal attacks: [185]. So we can't judge the situation neutrally because, as so often before, HiLo48 has made it non-neutral by bickering. So the first step, in my opinion, is to stop the bickering from both of them. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the last post they made on the RSN- I had no objections to Murphee going to the RSN, although I did think it was a bit premature; I do object to him making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine, then when being asked to provide evidence of their claims, promptly changing the goalposts and saying its about undue weight and returning to the original talk page! Its a constant pattern of deflection, and makes reasoned discussion almost impossible..We now seem to have settled on wording similar to what I proposed at the beginning of this whole farrago. I have a bad feeling this is going to be a constantly repeating pattern, but as noone else has chimed in, I guess I will once again try to AGF and hope to be proven wrong. Curdle (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff? (On review, I could not see anything which would support the statements above.) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the thread was obvious enough but ok- do you not see what I see? being asked for evidence, Now says issue is about weight rather than source Curdle (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    I do not see what you say is there. I do not see Merphee making quite frankly ridiculous statements about a fairly average magazine. I do see what appears to be a clear misrepresentation of their question at WP:RSN; and have called this out in my recent edit. I do see a fairly anodyne response to that. If there are other diffs which do show such ridiculous statements, then they need to be provided. I do not see any changing the goalposts. Our content does not have one set of goals through which it must pass, but many; it is not inappropriate to raise, about the same content, questions of reliability, of attribution, and of WP:WEIGHT; either concurrently or consecutively. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Curdle, in each instance, both on the RSN thread and the talkpage thread(s), it is the element of HiLo48 and his bickering that sets Merphee off; until HiLo48 interjects the bickering, Merphee is neutral. So it's fairly clear to me that HiLo48 is the causative factor. That does not excuse Merphee's losing it because of HiLo48's bickering or snide attitude, but it does mean they both need to stop reacting to, or even referring to, each other and/or deliberately making a conversation toxic because the other is in it. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Curdle your second version was quite different. I think we were able to reach a consensus because no one was attacking me and railroading my attempts to establish consensus at the noticeboard. HiLo48's version in the article was not acceptable in my opinion at least. By the way, I never "changed the goalposts" and included my concerns about undue weight pretty much from the beginning. The only constantly repeating pattern is me reacting to HiLo48's focus on me personally and not the content issues I raised. That's it. Regardless please assume some good faith in your interactions with me as I clearly compromised so we could reach consensus and am genuinely here to help the project, not harm it.Merphee (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Murphee, It really wasnt that different, you were just too busy bickering to read it properly. Mevermind its late, I'm tired, the thing is hopefully sorted and I keep getting hit by edit conflicts. I am done for today, happy editing. BTW Sorry about the formating Reyk72. I didnt see the little comments wedged in there.Curdle (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I made this neutrally worded edit [186] a while ago on the Talk:The Australian in a genuine attempt to reach a consensus and compromise but everyone seems to have ignored it. I have never engaged in an edit war and I do not attack other editors personally. But I do want the attacks on me to stop as they just lead the discussion away from a focus on reaching consensus.Merphee (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's a case in point. Discussion was proceeding fine and then HiLo48 jumped in with bickering and personal attacks. Discussion then proceeded fine without HiLo48 and a solution was reached. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you EVER pay attention to the truth here? I DID NOT jump in. Merphee asked me to comment. There is considerable difference. And the issue is now resolved. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he didn't; read the thread: Talk:The Australian#Editorial disputes. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender - Nobody else here is attacking me here the way you are. I really did stay out of discussions in this area for several days before Merphee invited me back. You don't seem even capable of acknowledging that sequence of events. You attacks on me stand out. What have I done to upset you? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Softlavender is not attacking you. Describing your (and Murphee's) contributions as bickering is not an attack, it's an accurate representation of many of your contributions. I suggest you take the advice proffered and stop interacting with one another informally, or it will be done for you by the community, because we all - and I include both of you - have better things to do. Fish+Karate 14:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as The Australian article page it seems Curdle and I have reached a consensus [187] and unless anyone objects Curdle will put in their suggested edit which seems quite reasonable to me and satisfies my concerns with the previous version.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender and Ryk72: what are these personal attacks HiLo48 has made? I must say that Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so, even people who they praise. It's absolutely not triggered by HiLo48, as was shown in the previous incident discussion about Merphee, which certainly was not started by HiLo48. Obviously Merphee dislikes HiLo48 the most, and for that reason I wished someone else were to restart this process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples and threads and diffs have already been provided in this overall thread, and there are plenty more to go around. But first, how about you provide diffs for your claim that "Merphee has been this belligerent to virtually everyone they have come across in the last month or so"? Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for the proof, I trust people are being honest here. What attacks has HiLo48 made? I'm only aware of them making what could be considered to be attacks against Merphee, only because Merphee doesn't stop talking about it. I point to the rampant incivility towards several contributors at Talk:Emma Husar and Talk:David Leyonhjelm at least. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose I-Ban between Merphee and HiLo48

    • Oppose as the target. Merphee has now changed his position on the main area of contention to a much more reasonable one. He is becoming a better editor. I do promise to ignore invitations from him to comment in future. It seems my mistake here was responding to a request from him to comment. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You were literally here last week with the same issue with the same user. Bullshit that you think this is over. You'll be back here in a week. --Tarage (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo48 was not the person that started the last incident discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - if they don't interact then there are no problems and everyone lives happily ever after. But this way if someone instigates something in the future it's a short trip down the block-aisle.  MPJ-DK  23:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this if they cannot both agree to voluntarily behave as laid out in the bolded proposal I posted above, yesterday [188], which by the way is standard editing practice, otherwise known as WP:Edits not editors. --- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Nip this in the bud. Blackmane (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This report has gone in an unexpected direction, given that it was ostensibly a continuation of the earlier conversation about Merphee's behavior. In that earlier conversation, I see some goading by HiLo, but ridiculously over-the-top behavior by Merphee. That behavior was also all over his own talkpage during his recent, mistaken block for sockpuppetry. HiLo's no innocent party here, and I agree with Onetwothreeip that it would've been better if someone else had started this thread, but Merphee is clearly the problem editor. Grandpallama (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportI'm ok with an interaction ban. I just want the extreme incivility to stop. It's not much to ask is it? Yesterday as soon as HiLo48 was out of the picture, we established consensus on The Australian article. And easily through compromise. Interestingly no diffs of my supposed disruptive behaviour since the last time we were here have been provided. This post here was opened by HiLo48 because I supposedly forum shopped, for neutrally posting a concise issue on the noticeboard, like we are supposed to do, and not edit war but that has been proven wrong. And secondly I didn't put a formal notice on the talk page but its been shown I did give notice. What else have I done since the mess at the Emma Husar article? Seriously? As far as my talk page I had to fight hard to prove and get unblocked within 24 hours from a false accusation of using multiple accounts. NeilN asked me to drop the stick after that mess, and I did. So again apart from being treated with extreme incivility by HiLo48 how have I been disruptive Grandpallama? Have you read all of the diffs that SoftLavender took the time and effort to post about HiLo48 commenting on my talk page just for starters?Merphee (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've read everything, which is why I voted the way I did. Your rambling rantiness here about dropping the stick while again claiming extreme incivility just helps confirm my perception. Grandpallama (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Merphee has indulged in some serios bear poking and although HiLo48 could have been more temperate in his responses, I simply cannot see the level of "incivility" that is claimed here. I am very dissapointed to see an admin taking such a partisan approach towards the party that has actually borne the brunt of the civility issues. In my opinion Merphee is the guilty party here and is the one we should be considering sanctions against. HiLo48 should be warned to ignore to the provocations of edittors like Merphee who just seem to want to get a rise out of him. - Nick Thorne talk 12:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've interacted on and off with HiLo48 since 2009, and we disagree on almost everything. They are refreshingly blunt (sometimes too blunt for Wikipedia rules) but don't harbor ill will or conduct personal warfare against editors....not even in the "refreshingly blunt" way much less the more common "clever Wikipedia warfare" way. It's always a discussion about the topic. I think that any personal fight is one-way and any restriction against HiLo48 is unnecessary to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, so with absolutely no diffs, go ahead and indefinitely block me I guess. Terrific stuff.Merphee (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose 24-48 hour block of [User:HiLo48|HiLo48]

    No traction. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    -Support as proposer. HiLo48, you have attacked nearly every editor who has even slightly spoken out against you. This sort of behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. To prevent further disruption of this process, I propose a 24-48 hour block so the rest of us can hash this out in absence of your constant assault. --Tarage (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I suggest someone delete HiLo48's inappropriate user page, which is currently supporting a slew of personal attacks against wikipedia editors as a whole. I have to question why someone who feels this strongly about wikipedia is still here three years after posting that nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have hopes things will improve. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment If an IBAN was established (as per your previous proposal) and both parties stick to it, a block wouldn't be necessary - the only ongoing issue causing disruption the current interaction between them. Girth Summit (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My issue is the disruption caused to the process of discussing this issue. Considering that HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone I feel like a preventative block until the discussion has had time to materialize would be best. --Tarage (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I don't see any attacks against other people in this thread - he's being a bit defensive/snarky, but I don't see anything abusive. If an IBAN was in place, perhaps with a TBAN for both editors for the specific page/s that caused the hoohaa (allowing others to work to a consensus on it), I expect all the disruption would dissipate naturally. Girth Summit (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue at the article in question is now resolved. Merphee has changed his position considerably. There is now nothing there to disagree about. Bringing the problem here has actually led to resolution. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "HiLo48 cannot seem to stop attacking everyone and anyone." Are administrators really allowed to make such ridiculous statements? I have defended myself against inaccurate statements, and received no response except more of the same. Administrators that won't actually communicate rationally are obviously not doing their job properly. I make no apology if anyone sees this comment as an attack. I guess it is, but it's not against "everyone and anyone". It's against someone who wrote something about me that was stupid, ridiculous, and just plain wrong. The sentence I have quoted at the beginning is surely far worse than anything I have said, and I think I have the right to point that out. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarage is not an administrator. Unless I am much mistaken, no one who has yet commented on this thread is. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: 203.122.193.21 - vandalism only account

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

    Requesting immediate permanent block of User: IP 203.122.193.21. Account is used for repeated vandalism, see here: [189], [190], [191], [192] and [193]. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mztourist, the place to report vandals is WP:AIV. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't do indefinite blocks on IP addresses. Most of those edits are pretty old. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender Noted thanks will raise it there. NinjaRobotPirate Indefinite block is only suitable remedy, has been warned 9 times since July 2017. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mztourist: We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Full stop. Generally, the longest we will block an IP address is 1 year at a time, but we simply don't do indef an IP for vandalism; truly static IPs that are known to belong to a single person for all of eternity are not a thing, so there's no utility for blocking an IP indefinitely. We can't stop someone by doing that, but what we will do is stop good-faith edits from the next person who happens to get that IP address, which we don't want to do. One-year blocks are sufficient, if it starts again in 1 year, we'll block again for 1 year. We can keep up with that pace. --Jayron32 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think someone who'd been here this long would know these things. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jingiby

    This user makes numerous POV contributions particularly in regards to controversial matters in the Republic of Macedonia and its neighbouring country, Bulgaria. For instance, he created the article historiography in the Republic of Macedonia which seems to be biased and is an infringement of the 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' policy. Furthermore, most of his edits seem to be motivated by trying to force identity politics into threads rather than to establish a fair and encyclopaedic article. He had been blocked numerous times for edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing on such topics; and had an indefinite block lifted[194] on the condition that he would not continue in such edits. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits are based every way on reliable sources. I do not see the serious problem with this article. If you have objections to a particular article, they can be discussed on the talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've observed, Jingiby is a useful editor in the Balkan area. It is a fact of reality that we have to deal with that Macedonian issues are contentious, and the fact is that Bulgarian and Macedonian editors are never going to agree. Since he has returned, Jingiby has been nothing but constructive, and has been a occasional helpful voice of reason in helping resolve Albanian-Greek disputes. A much better alternative to trying to get a guy you disagree with banned for one article is to initiate a discussion about whatever POV issues you have on a page like historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (I have some guesses about possible issues that page may have but let me say-- it is well organized and quite well cited too). Persuasion is mightier than the sword.--Calthinus (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My contention is not just with this one article, that was merely an example. Also, when you perceive the sole criterion for reliability to be whom it was published by, then of course you would think that; despite the bias of the (Bulgarian) authors and the slant added to the information in the article itself. He is also responsible for Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding as is evidenced by his insertion into a discussion I initiated on on another Wikipedian's talk page and his follow up edits to articles I had gotten involved in, e.g. [195]. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 05:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, I do not understand you. I only have added "Skopje, Republic of Macedonia" as a birthplace of this person above. You have maybe some prejudice against me. Jingiby (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic. "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress ... hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". ['kɔbɹa]☠ 05:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jingiby is Bulgarian -- he naturally has more access to Bulgarian sources. You could open a dialogue with him about how to best observe wiki policies. Have you tried that? Have you tried bringing up specific issues, besides accusations of hounding? --Calthinus (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. My only edit above is not a hounding. Such claim is ridiculouse. Jingiby (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be content dispute, not sth for ANI/I. Such situations are normal on Balkan articles. I have been accused for being "pro-Albanian" and "anti-Albanian". I suggest all Balkan editors to take things easy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I have been accused to be Bulgarian traitor, Turk, Pomak, etc., but also Bulgarian nationalist, POV-pusher, anti-Macedonian etc. Jingiby (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok man, I'm alleged simultaneously an "Albanian", a "Greek motherfucker", a "Turk", a "mountain warrior", a "Zionist conspirator", a "Turk in disguise as a 'Russian'", an "Islamist", and more :). They're kinda like bottlecaps, the more you collect, the better it gets :). --Calthinus (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calthinus: Do you remember when someone suggested me to "enrich" ISIL articles? These things make Wikipedia a funny place. Content disputes are not to be brought to ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am surprised to see user Jiginby being reported as being POV because this was not the case at all, at least for me. His contributions to numerous articles across Wikipedia on Balkan topic area, have been welcome. It is very easy to accuse others of WP:Hounding, but fact is: observing the contributions of other editors allow us to understand better where can we participate and how can we assist with our own contributions, as the contributions log gives us a more complete picture of where discussion takes place, on which articles and for which scope. I really do believe Jiginby didn't had ill intentions here and that the Admins take in consideration how much this user has offered with his input. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, just as a note, if "had been blocked numerous times for edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing on such topics" was a valid reason for blocking Jingiby, then the user filing this report, should be blocked, too. I remember you from the days of your previous accounts, plus the way you started out with this one. The fact that you've waited a couple of years before filing this, does not change those facts. I really fail to see any good faith in this case. Also, I do not think content disputes should lead to a block. --Laveol T 07:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't "wait" for anything. If you look at my last 200 contributions you will see edits I made almost ten years ago with more frequent edits in the last week or so which explains the timing. Furthermore, this report has to do with recent trends so your attempt at tu quoque here is unwarranted (and for the record, I was blocked at once for harrasment on an old account, not on multiple occasions). It should also be noted that every responder thus far has a stake in this (being seemingly either Bulgarian, Albanian or Greek) and are by no means giving an impartial opinion. And this is not a content dispute, it is an infringement of various Wikipedia policies and I reported it here at the suggestion of an administrator (who I asked confidentially because Jingiby monitors all my contributions). ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how someone who hasn't contributed in a while suddenly comes out of the woodwork to give their two cents. Well connected, I see. Touché. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I usually get a bit agitated when a long-time-no-see user starts pushing for other users to be blocked without any proper reason. Especially given said user's history. --Laveol T 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this some kind of spy movie: (who I asked confidentially because Jingiby monitors all my contributions)? You are free to check all my contributions and to change my edits and also to discuss them, man. This is a free encyclopedia. Jingiby (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is this a request to block the user based on his supposed POV-pushing? I don't really see any evidence for that. The sole example is an article which arguably needs some work, but is well-sourced and presents a subject that exists (Macedonian historiography). Is this a content dispute? If it is, then this isn't the place to address it. There's no issue at hand that would merit an incident report here, to be honest. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise I had to scrutinise all his contributions like he does mine to make a case. I'll try to be more conniving next time. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day. This spilled over onto my talk page for some unfathomable reason. I know of Jingiby from a bit of interaction on Yugoslavia-related articles, but am not familiar with the quality of their work. I am not seeing anything actionable here. I suggest the talk pages of the various articles are used to deal with any issues that may have arisen, and dispute resolution such as RfCs are used if the editors can't agree. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The post on your talk page was a catalyst for this report as it is a good indication (as with other instances) that the user in question is following me. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, mate. As I said, use normal dispute resolution avenues in the first instance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk-page of Peacemaker67 is on my watchlist since years from the time we have discussed with him about some Yugoslavia-related articles. The suggestion of ['kɔbɹa] yesterday on that talk-page "to merge the article World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia to its parent subject"(?) looked very unclear to me and because I have some edits there, I decided to participate in this conversation. The result was very strange: this discussion. Jingiby (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words I should not listen to the suggestions of administrators. Got it. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would be better at first to ask the other editor about his intention and motivation and if there is a problem, to discuss the issue with an admin. In this case your suggestions are wrong. Jingiby (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sophistry would be commendable if it wasn't so transparent. [196] -- That's the same date you create the historiography article, isn't it? ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will repeat myself: You are free to check all my contributions and to change my edits here and also to discuss them. This is a free encyclopedia. Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You call yourself "AntiFYROMizator" and called the Republic of Macedonia "Northernmacedonia" yet claim that my suggestion that you're pushing an agenda is false. I'd try to dismiss it too if I were you. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted an edit in which someone replaced "Republic of Macedonia" with "Northern Macedonia", so doesn't that also make you a hypocrite? ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am against the use of the abbreviation FYROM and I never used it. That means I am "AntiFYROMizator". More, I oppose to every person here to use FYROM. I think also that the proposed new name Northern Macedonia is more accurate and I admit the Prespa agreement. However, I don't use it here for now, because I am waiting on the results of the referendum in R. of Macedonia. Regards.Jingiby (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I assume both of you know about the ARBMAC sanctions. I know Jingiby does. I see no evidence that Jingiby has breached the rules regarding Macedonia and the naming issue. I suggest you drop this and walk away from the carcass. I'm going to hat this shortly as it has gone as far as it needs to. Discussion should be on talk pages re: content issues, this is not a forum for discussion of Macedonia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A ton of RfCs at Talk:Israel

    It's raining RfCs on the Talk:Israel page. Sockpuppets are involved, and it's becoming impossible to have a meaningful discussion. Can some uninvolved admin take a look? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed and archived the last one as obviously doomed and equally obviously not a good faith effort. The others have significant participation and are not really easy cases IMO, but someone else may disagree. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it's at least something. Another one was started by a sock, and I think it's fairly pointless anyway, but you're right that it has significant participation -- though I don't envy the poor guy who tries to assess consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, that is pretty much a constant in anything related to Israel... Guy (Help!) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blythe (doll) and Allison Katzman

    On 21 June 2018, an unregistered IPv4 user (50.232.227.106) edited Blythe (doll) article (diff), and left a message: "Added content and omitted incorrct content. Edit was made by the inventor, Allison Katzman."

    If the user is really the creator of Blythe doll, Allison Katzman, should it be considered a case of WP:COI? (The user did not submit a source that supports the claim, anyway.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) If it is the inventor, it's a COI. However, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. More importantly, the edit was unsourced. Reverted for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I resemble that remark! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pussy! Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    DanielPenfield and archiving

    Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § DanielPenfield and archiving

    For a while now, DanielPenfield (talk · contribs) has been going around talk pages performing general cleanup while also setting up talk-page archiving in a remarkably eccentric manner with misleading edit summaries. He sets up archiving based on date, rather than sequentially, also adds an archive box advert, and sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages. I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist, per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However he's decided to start a revert war with me at Talk:Keyboard instrument. At the very least I would like him to stop reverting people when they undo/modify his archiving setup(I do archive cleanup too, but if someone reverted my efforts in this department due to strong personal preference/other compelling reasons, I wouldn't mind). More to the point, I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup and tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it; if these discussions still failed, I think a block would be in order, but obviously not from me. He is well aware that I strongly dislike his archiving methods]], and I'm not the only one. Graham87 04:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your claim My response
    going around talk pages performing general cleanup No, I don't "perform general cleanup". I assess articles for various WikiProjects since many WikiProject languish after an initial burst of activity. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising#Article assessment surpasses 5000, for example. If there are stale discussions, I set up auto-archiving. Note that unlike User:Graham87, I respect the archiving method already in use regardless of whether it's manual or automatic.
    remarkably eccentric manner If date-based archiving is "remarkably eccentric", then why haven't you suppressed the use of {{MonthlyArchive}} (created in 2008), {{Yearly archive list}} (created in 2012), and {{Yearly archive box}} (created in 2018) and used your adminship to permanently block their creators, User:Alanbly, User:Ytrottier, and User:BrandonXLF, from editing so that they can never violate your decrees?
    adds an archive box advert Despite your insinuation, I didn't name the parameter "box-advert". See User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis#Cosmetic parameters.
    sets up archiving on very small talk pages (far under 50K), all of which are highly unconventional for low-traffic talk pages As Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive pages states As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. If no one has responded to a discussion in three years, a reasonable person would consider that discussion stale.
    I despise his archive setup and revert it whenever it appears on my watchlist "Despise"? Should User:Graham87 remain an admin? And he wants people to believe that I'm the "revert warrior" despite his outright admission that he reverts on sight?
    I'd like him to adopt a more conventional archiving setup If, as you claim, there is a "single standard method for archiving", why haven't you deleted Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives? Why aren't you reverting, rebuking, and blocking editors who manually archive based on date (see Talk:Dick Cheney, for example)?
    tone down his aggression regarding enforcement of it I see--a double standard where you can write whatever you want in edit summaries, even to the point of issuing veiled threats, but I can't. Also, "enforcement"? If you want to criminalize the use of date-based archiving, shouldn't you first delete Help:Archiving a talk page#Automatic archive boxes for year/month archives, expunge all references to date-based archiving from Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival, and sanitize Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to archive_pages to state "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."? Shouldn't you force User:Cobi to outlaw the use of any date-related formatting in the "format" parameter of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}?
    -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll mostly let this response speak for itself. However, I must note DanielPenfield's change to the header of this discussion, which I strongly disagree with (and will revert accordingly) because it misrepresents what I wrote (and I think it unseemly for someone involved in a dispute to make such a change). Also, I think date-based archiving has its uses, but mostly on very busy pages. Graham87 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "tone down his aggression". DanielPenfield had apparently misused/misunderstood an archiving bot, creating an unholy mess on multiple talk pages. Another editor had brought it up some ten weeks previously yet he was still misusing the bot so I gave him a nudge.
    Despite my assertion that I was not competent to bot wrangle, his response bizarrely and sarcastically conflated me and the bot designer as responsible for the mess he had made, by not explicitly disallowing it. For remedy, he did not indicate that he would go back and fix what he had done, instead he had requested the bot designer to create a new task to do that for him. His conclusion further sought to transfer the responsibility to me by stating that I could have made such a request myself "way back when". Of course, I had had no idea as to how he had created his mess, and the "way back when" in question was some 3 hours prior.
    No doubt DanielPenfield is a valuable contributor to the project but his manner does it a disservice. Captainllama (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Messing around with talk pages is irritating, but fighting to keep eccentric preferences on talk pages they have no interest in is disruptive, particularly when coupled with an inflammatory edit summary such as "defy His Majesty's decree". The correct response here should have been to back off—posting the above table indicates an entirely inappropriate approach. I support a topic ban although it would be more conventional to do that at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I thought ANI was more for urgent matters ... I've now read the headers of both AN and ANI and I realise the difference now. I've moved this discussion here accordingly. Graham87 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who questioned this. I just brought this up on his talk page about two weeks ago about this method of creating a yearly archive on a talk page, which then added 10 years of discussions onto a single year of 2015. I assumed that this was done in error as this makes no sense. So, I fixed the archive and I was reverted by him with an edit summary of "undo unwarranted and gratuitous change of archiving method". I was a little shocked by that response, since all I did was fix his poor archive method, but then he reverts me with that odd edit summary. So, I reverted him and then left a note on his talk page questioning his reasoning. I then left some further examples on why his method makes no sense. His response was to revert me again with an edit summary of "restore date-based archiving over method completely inappropriate for low-volume talk pages". At that point, I left him him one final note and walked away. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also had issues with DanielPenfield needlessly reverting my talk page edits in the past. Here are two examples [197] [198]. While he may not have felt that my edits were necessary, I had previously explained to him that I was making those edits as part of a project focused on clearing out a backlog. After another editor opened a thread on the talk page, DP never participated. To be fair, I believe he also stopped reverting my edits, but it was annoying to be repeatedly and needlessly reverted while doing largely thankless maintenance work. Lepricavark (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hidden mergers

    Merging is a perfectly valid alternative to deletion. It is also a content decision, and any discussion of it belongs on a talk page. Also, quite stale. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    This is about subversive merger of some articles. And possibly according to your appreciation a recovering of those (merged) articles, and maybe a calling for discussion on future merger, if so.

    Again we have an editor merging and exerting ownership on articles, now with the username Katolophyromai, (and thus deleting large extensions of them), without any discussion or even a tag inviting to talk. Taking in particular the article “Kur,” Katolophyromai while enforcing his unilateral merge, Katolophyromai first created a “umbrella” article called “Ancient Mesopotamian Underworld”. Afterwards he gathered all articles that had some in common with his definition and merged them with his umbrella article. In doing that he also first carefully deleted any other reference (citations), definition, contents from the original articles that could not fit his preferred definition used for his umbrella, which by the way is a shallow article (even that it is okay in citations; yet, that is it), so lacking scholar meaningful information as usually happens in these cases. However I measure that some of the merged articles also could be largely improved (with or without any merge).

    But moving on. For that above described process, Katolophyromai “fooled” the Wikipedia rules creating his “Umbrella” article and then simply redirecting other articles to his umbrella. In so doing that, the revision history of the merged articles became no longer listable. That is, the old versions and their history were lost to any search be it via the Wikipedia engine or even by Google. Thus only his brand new umbrella shows a revision history. It’s like the other articles never had existed before. For example notice that the umbrella was created on June/19/2018 and before that no history is found of the merged articles. However the "true" (previous) Kur was created on June/16/2003. Interesting no?

    However we of course can still check these lost articles, old versions, and history if we somehow search hard. For example in particular we can take the merged/deleted articles “Kur (e.g. old version)” and “Irkalla(e.g. old version)”. The obliterated “Kur” brings particulars that not fits the umbrella. That is, specifically “Kur” is not only defined as “underworld,” but instead “kur” word has other meanings. In regards to “Irkalla,” it kind of fits his umbrella, yet it sounds more informative in its own/previous article than in the umbrella. Smilingalien (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't edited since December 2011 when you made two edits, one substantive. You also failed to notify the user. I've done that for you, but I must say your resurfacing after so many years is concerning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what exactly is the problem here? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smilingalien: Your accusation that I am trying to "fool" Wikipedia is untrue and ridiculous. First of all, why would I even want to hide the history of the two articles I merged? I cannot think of any reason. Second of all, I am intelligent enough to know that you simply cannot "fool" Wikipedia; this website is a transparent as air when it comes to its own history. If there is anything you want to know about the history of any given Wikipedia article, you can find it easily. Both of those articles I merged still exist as redirects; to get to them, you just search for the name of the article and then, when it takes you to the ancient Mesopotamian Underworld page, click the "redirected from" link that pops up at the top and it will take you there, allowing you to check the history if you want. It is easy. I had no deceitful intentions and I frankly have no idea what on earth gave you the impression that I did.
    My merge of the articles Kur and Irkalla was entirely justified; they are two different names for the same location in Mesopotamian mythology, which makes this a pretty cut-and-dried case of not needing two articles about the same thing. I was also following the lead of the French Wikipedia, which has a "Featured Article" entitled "Enfers mésopotamiens". I do not see how you can advocate for the academic superiority of the two original articles over the one I merged them to create. While I have only just started writing the article ancient Mesopotamian underworld and it is by no means complete, it already contains far more information and is far better cited than both of the original articles combined, especially seeing how neither of the articles I merged were in any sense substantial. I actually copied all the relevant information from the Kur article into the ancient Mesopotamian underworld article from the beginning. The Irkalla article did not even have a single in-text citation and, since everything we write must be cited to scholarly sources, that meant I could not use any of it.
    As for the other meanings of the word Kur, its definitions as a general word for "earth" or "mountain" might warrant an entry on Wiktionary, but are not notable enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. They are mentioned in the first section of the ancient Mesopotamian underworld article anyway, so no information was lost there. Kur's supposed use as a name for the first dragon is only discussed (as far as I am currently aware) in Samuel Noah Kramer's book Sumerian Mythology, originally published 1944 and later revised in 1961. Kramer's book is a classic by all accounts, but parts of it are outdated in many respects. More recent sources do not seem to acknowledge or even mention Kramer's interpretation of stories of gods fighting kur as dragonslaying myths. Instead, recent sources interpret those as stories about gods fighting mountains, as strange as that may sound to us today. As far as I can tell then, that interpretation is just a bizarre quirk of outdated early scholarship on the subject, certainly not noteworthy enough to require its own article.
    My goal is to bring the article ancient Mesopotamian underworld up to Good Article status, as I have already done with many of our other article about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I don't particularly see a problem, the target article does mention dragon and mountain for instance. Bold editing is common but there are processes when they are contested. If you contest it for this particular case, I suggest reverting the redirect and opening a more formal discussion about it (a merge discussion). If we ultimately find that various redirects need to be restored (difficult to evaluate immediately), a warning to rely more on formal processes may be in order. —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing on climate topics

    Indeffed. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It seems like this user has adopted a WP:RADAR strategy. The continue to make similar edits to climate descriptions, notably at Fairbanks, Alaska, while not engaging in discussion of those very edits on the talk page. Their only noticeable reaction to the most recent message not heir talk page was to blank the message and redo their reverted edit. They were already blocked once for edit warring. This seems pretty clear to me but as I did particpate int he talk page discussion I am probably involved so asking other admins to have a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They also responded by deleting this very ANI thread. Not the sign of an editor we want here. I see all they are doing is deleting references and adding their same material over and over again. Same pattern each time. I think an extremely stern warning this time not to add unsourced material, not to delete referenced material and not to edit war. If they do it again even once, block per WP:NOTHERE. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to think the fact that they were already blocked once and just carried on, coupled with the recent behavior you mention[199], suggests that an indef block is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Odd behavior on RfC

    There is currently an RfC going on at Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018. Over the last couple of hours, a couple of accounts that are brand new showed up and !voted. These accounts are User:Endurrance and User:AprilDurr. Endurrance's only edit before that was this, a continuation of the edit war, while AprilDurr had never edited and was created literally just moments before posting on the page. I am concerned that this could be a case of WP:MOREVOTE. I don't want to fill out an SPI because I have no actual proof or evidence of who the sockmaster would be, if this was a case of sockpuppetry (and I really don't want to accuse anyone of something like that when I don't have proof). I have commented on this RfC and made my opinion known, and while I am totally fine with consensus forming that disagrees with that, I would not like to see consensus swung by one person using multiple accounts. I am not 100% sure that this is the case, but it very well could be, especially given the massive edit war that led to the RfC. I understand that anyone can comment on RfC but I am a little suspicious of someone making an account just to comment. I am not sure what if anything I should do. I apologize if I am mistaken or if this is somewhat unreasonable. Tillerh11 (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tillerh11: you must inform subjects of discussion that they are being discussed here. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Please do so now so that may particpate in the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) You are right to be suspicious if an account is created just to comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: Done. I knew that, I just forgot. Sorry. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: The user Endurrance has left a message on my talk page here. The user has admitted to both a COI and off-wiki canvassing but denied being a sock. I'm not sure what to make of it. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tillerh11: I assure you I am no sock. My intentions are that of my own and only want users such as myself to see information so participated in the vote and made corrections to what I saw previously. user:Endurrance

    Disruptive editing by User:Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry

    This user first tried to censor or tone down the information which he considered negative against Pakistani military, intelligence agency and judiciary from Pakistani general election, 2018 and tried to also mask the words such as "violence" with umbrella terms such as "law and order" and now they are doing the same thing on Imran Khan, they are removing the information which they think negatively reflects on the subject. As long as I know we do not censor on Wikipedia and we are not here to show the hunky-dory picture of Pakistan or anything else. This user's editing pattern shows that they are not here to build encyclopedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    @SheriffIsInTown: The user is trying to incorporate gossip and unauthentic information in most viewed page of Pakistan, Imran Khan.
    • The user added tyrian white under the Imran Khan children main heading, she is alleged child and is not accepted by Imran Khan himself. In the article Imran Khan she is already mentioned in Personal life heading.
    • He has removed authentic bibliography written on Imran Khan and introduced a book by Reham Khan, which is disowned by Imran Khan, his spoke person, media activists and independent media in Pakistan.
    • He included Sitta White , an alleged affair of Imran Khan in main heading of relationship, while she was already mentioned in Personal life heading.

    The side bar of any personality is meant for authentic and known information, while the rest can be discussed in sub headings below it. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SheriffIsInTown: I hope the Wikipedia is forum of mutual respect and considered opinion. I am not showing hunky-dory picture of any one, i am here to keep the information neutral and authentic. Is it wrong to generate an opposing opinion and contest on facts? Wikipedia , doesn't allow monopoly and editing can be done by multiple people with respect and coordination. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This content has been there for years as far as I know, this user comes in yesterday and removed it under the pretext of vandalism then he comes again today and removes the book written by Reham Khan, Imran Khan's former wife, the book is mostly about Imran Khan and he removes it under the pretext of vandalism and then he has an audacity to change the facts here by saying that I was adding Sita White and Tyrian in the infobox based on gossip which is not true, I just restored what he removed, Sita White was in the infobox for years. This information is not inauthentic and gossip, this is documented in numerous reliable sources and there has been a court order establishing that Khan is biological father of Tyrian. His accusation that I removed authentic bibliography on Khan is wrong as well, I just shifted the existing section and added two more books on him. The user's claim that subject does not own his daughter and his spokesman rejected Reham Khan has no value in view of Wikipedia policies. We do not go by what the subject prefers but what the reliable sources claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He removed same text again with the source which was based on a book written by Chris Hutchins and Dominic Midgley. This is clear vandalism and disruption by this user. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've yet to go through Talk:Pakistani general election, 2018 because it is tl;dr, but having seen the problematic behavior of Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry on some occasions in the past, I can feel the grievance of SheriffIsInTown. Chaudhry is a civil guy but his contributions are mostly POV pushing, and he often indulge himself in inserting unsourced material to our BLPs. I would suggest slapping a warning to him and advice him to refrain himself from editing articles that xe cannot cover neutrally. --Saqib (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SheriffIsInTown: have restored the page to last stable version on 20:09, 7 August 2018‎, it has reverted all changes after that point , lets agree to this version of page, what ever was before, is there now.
    • In the page the number of children 3 was mentioned on side bar, My Shareiff added Name of children and some how , legal children Suleman and

    Kasim made last place and child Tyrian which is not even accepted by IK makes the first place. Sitta white and Tyrain are already mensioned under personal life section.

    • Reham Khan's book is added to the Imran Khan page , the section is meant to suggest a book to read further about person. Reham's Book is controversial and it contain unproven allegations like druge use, being gay, and all bad things about the person. The book is already contested in court of law, besides criticised on electronic media, if you want to add it , i should be in controversy section not in further reading about person.
    • Mr. Sharrif has added His documented out of marriage relationships included Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Jerry Hall, Emma Sergeant, and Sita White.[1]
    As reference book mentioned Goldsmith, money , women and power is a book about Mr. Gold Smith, it quotes a conversation between Mr. Goldsmith and his daughter Jamima Gold smith , when she is trying to persuade his father , you used this text as fact and ground bases to write such a strong sentence His documented. How come a showbiz magazine and a book quoting individual conversation becomes documented? How come, it is presented as fact?

    If you think i made some wrong change which were already there, i reverted the page to last stable version on 20:09, 7 August 2018‎. Please agree to this version? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hutchins & Midgley 2015.

    User:Panji Keramat

    I was considering reporting User:Panji Keramat to WP:AIV for the persistent disruptive editing, but thought it better for that user to explain the edits firsthand. Firstly, the user engaged in repeated partial removal of table header content at List of Malaysian State Assembly Representatives (2018–), eventhough it was specified that the column follows the format of Coalition (Party). Then, there were the addition of non-existent Wikilinks at List of Chief Ministers of Penang and the Penang State Legislative Assembly, potentially violating WP:WTAF.

    Most of the user's edits did not come with any edit summary, so the edits were unexplainable. bonjourPinang (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    49.145.243.80

    User:49.145.243.80's Talk page, from their second edit here, read "I Love Hitler, Hitler did nothing wrong, fuck Jews" As well as being unimpressed with their sentence structure and grammar I didn't think this could be left so I have removed it and warned the user, vaguely citing WP:TALK at them. Is there something else I could/should do or ask admins to do or is that sufficient? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can gloss over their racism (and I don't, for one), then they seem to understand how to prod an article wit their third-ever edit, suggesting at best a sock, or worst, simply WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Lugnuts. I am not sure what you mean about my glossing over racism, would you like to clarify? On your suggestions, thanks - I didn't think I had enough evidence for SPI and the trouble with WP:NOTHERE is that their other edits, while hardly scintillating, did appear to be of reasonable intent - a slightly ill-advised comment which they removed themselves, and the prod which you mention. Without their Talk page comment I would have ignored them as a reasonably unsurprising start ... which is why I am here. DBaK (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that you have glossed over it (far from it), just that if the general public was to read it, and think "meh". At least there's a few more eyes on their contributions if it all goes south! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, duh! Hypersensitive of me, reading it wrong. Thanks and apologies DBaK (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rev-deleted that comment, which is grossly offensive. This could be someone nasty or it could be someone immature, so I don't intend to do anything more myself until we see more evidence. I suggest keeping an eye on them and reporting here if there's any more nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much - sounds highly reasonable. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=854178656"