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

 * Since my warning from the AN, I have curbed all out-of consensus editing and have referred to appropriate means of resolution dispute, such as the use of talk pages and have long ago ended uncivil behavior, so these allegations are false and void. Furthermore, I was trying to confirm by Wikipedia’s guidelines by cracking down on POV content. Lo meiin (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Phrases like "lies spread by traitorous Chinese in Taiwan" and "the same humiliating classification as Taiwan" are clear indications of the sort of battleground-like conduct that warned  Lo meiin about a few days ago. In addition,  Lo meiin attempted to blank this report here at ANI. That is very troubling. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  21:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Once again, pro Israeli POV bias editors are trying to discredit me by filing baseless allegations against me. I have not used personal attacks, have not edited articles out of consensus, and have even tried to achieve consensus by appropriate dispute resolution requests and noticeboards. When I referred to Taiwan in that manner, I am referring to POV Taiwanese Chinese and Israeli editors trying to impose their views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo meiin (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single human being who can read English could look at these edits and say the accusations and say they are "baseless".★Trekker (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Trekker. The comment also makes no sense since it is likely most people who feel that way do not view themselves owing any loyalty to the PRC so cannot be 'traitorous' unless you subscribe to the view of the PRC. (The Taiwanese government's official stance is also a one China policy but clearly they don't feel their citizens owe loyalty to the PRC government.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 * Hold on a minute, I understand your frustration, but I am not attempting to engage in battleground behavior, I am simply trying to prevent the consensus-making process from being disrupted by non NPOV. Evidence of this is how I opened a dispute resolution noticeboard in the hopes of coming together and finding a solution, in which I respect all points of view. I am only concerned that some Palestinian and other readers of Wikipedia may find some content offensive, which I feel some editors are deliberately trying to do. I greatly implore you not to impose a block, indefinite or otherwise, as I vow to abide by wiki guidelines and not attack any user ever again if this decision is reconsidered. I have come to Wikipedia to improve the objective ness and credibility of political content and I promise my intentions are nothing but for the best of all editors. I respect all editors and all viewpoints and remain committed to following wiki protocol and guidelines, so I think that such a ban would not be a smart option as I will solve this dispute in nothing but a peaceful manner. Sock puppet editors tend to engage in personal attacks and have an aggressive approach to other editors, and I denounce such behavior and vow not to stoop to their level Lo meiin (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Multilple users had alreadly warned you on your talk page just in the last few weeks. Just like above, you always promised to change, but continued in the same way. Jeppiz (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * , you are obviously and glaringly pushing a pro-Peoples Republic of China POV. So, please answer these two questions: What gives you the credibility or the moral high ground to accuse other editors of POV pushing? And, why did you blank this ANI report? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Cullen here. Please explain why you deleted the ANI thread. You've been here long enough and also brought to ANI and for that matter simple common sense will tell you it is inappropriate for someone brought to ANI to delete the thread except in egregious cases like LTAs. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef block per and per 's highly problematic responses to issues raised in this thread. WMSR (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

 * I am beginning to feel threatened by AuH2Orepublicans constant reverts of my edits and tailgating of my every move on wikipedia. You also are accusing me of issuing empty apologies and coming to wikipedia for a bad purpose. That cannot be farther than the truth. And in addition, you are a high level wiki editor that has been editing for long, but that does not mean you yourself have not published POV edits in the past as well, and the ones on the A-I conflict, unsurprisingly, seem to mimic a US government's pro Israel POV on the conflict. And I would be remiss if i did not point out that some of my accusers, such as WarKosign and Bellezzasolo are of Israeli heritage or are POV pro israel editors who are trying to discredit Palestinian and Arab world viewpoints on wikipedia Lo meiin (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said previously,, you are obviously and glaringly pushing a pro-Peoples Republic of China POV. I then asked a question that you have not yet answered: What gives you the credibility or the moral high ground to accuse other editors of POV pushing? Please answer that question now. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be remiss if i dii not point out that some of my accusers, such as WarKosign and Bellezzasolo are of Israeli heritage This is blatant racism. WMSR (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

lastly, WMSR, please do not bring the issue of race into this which will cause more tension and is irrelevant, as I welcome israeli editors and those of all nationalities equally, but I am pointing out that some (not all) users of israeli heritage (as described in their user pages) are trying to discredit editors they perceive as pro arab/palestinian while remaining mostly and usually (but not always) mum on pro israeli editors, so please to not try to accuse me of racist, as that is far from the truth. In addition, Yes, my first move was an Admin noticeboard against AuH2Orepublican, as I was peacefully trying to solve the dispute he was having with other editors which was one of the first things i noticed while researching the conflict on wikipedia Lo meiin (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who brought issue of race (or "heritage") into this discussion. Nobody mentioned it before you. Only yesterday you wrote in this very discussion "I know that I have treated many of my fellow editors with blatant and unapologetic disrespect and for that, I am truly sorry. I also promise to take a hiatus on all A-I related articles until a fair consensus is reached and, in the meantime, will cease all behavior that has been perceived to be battleground like.", yet just now you claimed that other editors "push POV stances" or "spew their propagandas" while you are "suggesting and proposing" ... "plainly and objectively". If this isn't continuing battleground behavior and disrespecting other editors, I don't know what is.
 * "I am simply trying to prevent the consensus-making process from being disrupted by non NPOV" would be more believable if your actions through your short tenure as an editor weren't the exact opposite. “WarKosign” 20:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have admitted the times that I have been pushing a POV, such as when I tried to erase mention of Taiwan from lists of states (and I even recanted, multiple times), and, just as I am admitting to my own flaws, I am just as equally condemning all and any POV editors, regardless of their political views and background, Palestinian/Arab. Israeli/American, Sri Lankan, German, etc. Now instead of using this noticeboard to attack me and convince the wiki community why I should be banned, I suggest we all put the past (and other arbitrary POV actions from all sides) behind us and use this noticeboard cooperate constructively together in order to find a fair solution and consensus (which is why I invited AuH2O and WarKosign to a dispute resolution noticeboard, which is the whole purpose of wikipedia editing. Lo meiin (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 's user page indicates that he is Jewish and British. He does not claim Israeli heritage. Conflating the two and arguing that a Jewish editor cannot be objective is racist. WMSR (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC), edited 21:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is what you meant, but your comment can be understood to imply that while it's racist to say that a British Jewish editor cannot be objective, it's not racist to claim the same for an Israeli editor. I must point out that assuming any kind of bias based on any attribute of an editor other than what they did or said is discrimination - be it by race, age, gender, etc. “WarKosign” 04:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I meant to point out that the user's page did not make any claims to Israeli heritage, but apparently assumed he is Israeli because he is Jewish. Conflating those two identities is problematic, as is using any aspect of a user's identity to diminish their ability as an editor. WMSR (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold on, I NEVER said that "a Jewish editor cannot be objective", that is wholly anti-Semitic in every definition of the word, and I pride myself for being a strong opponent of racism (knowing friends who have been victims of racism themselves)-, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that Just as I welcome all editors of all nationalities, I denounce any and all attempts by all and any nationalities to edit disruptively and in a POV manner.

 * Oh, and I believe my suggestion was not heeded to or understood correctly, I would like to use this noticeboard as a platform to discuss a consensus on the Palestine categorization dispute. Given that both AuH2O's and my views are well known by now, what do you guys think (and please do not dodge the question and throw more false accusations at me)? Lo meiin (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that statement stems from your opening statement, where you say I am referring to POV Taiwanese Chinese and Israeli editors trying to impose their views., he opened that statement with pro Israeli POV bias editors, so I'm going to AGF and assume he meant that I'm a Israeli POV editor, rather than Israeli... Problematic, nonetheless. I do participate in ARBPIA issues occasionally, but I do try to avoid it! ∰ Bellezzasolo ✡   Discuss  10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Blocking now I was torn between suggesting a topic ban from politics and geography (broadly construed) or just blocking them myself. They've only been around a couple of months but the attempted blankings, racism, Tu quoque-laced admission/accusations of POV-pushing, sheer amount of double-talk coming from Lo meiin in just this thread alone seems reason enough to block them, IMO.  Their first action was to notify a user that they were starting an ANI thread about them, which is a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS.  When that failed, they proceeded to forum shop.  That (in this thread), they claim to feel "threatened by AuH2Orepublicans constant reverts of my edits and tailgating of my every move on wikipedia" is nothing short of the sort of paranoid hypocrisy indicative that one lacks the grasp on reality necessary to contribute.  I don't know whether it's WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR that applies but the former's got a block template.
 * Note that my actions are not the conclusion of this thread nor meant to suggest that any consensus has been reached. If consensus is to block, then the block notice and log should be updated to reflect that.  If no consensus is reached, then the block is just my action and not a community block.  If the consensus is not to block them, then they should be unblocked.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I maintain strong support for a block, in addition to reopening the sockpuppet investigation. WMSR (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I endorse this block. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disruptive editing on Northern Ireland school articles
Hello, it looks like has been engaging is disruptive editing on Northern Ireland school articles the past few days.

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

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

 * They got duplicate level 3 warnings at 17:13 and 17:36. They have not edited since the latter of those warnings; however, in the interval, they made an edit that was a gross BLP violation. I've given a level 4 warning. I'm at the point where one more bad edit would be enough to justify a block, but I'm not quite ready to block on their edits so far. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfectly appropriate response and action by C.Fred. Let's keep an eye on this user, and if disruption continues - we'll take the appropriate next step in order to prevent further disruption. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you C.Fred and Oshwah. I'll keep an eye out and will update this thread if necessary. --   LuK3      (Talk)   23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits are just pure vandalism, not even OR and disruptive but vandalism. Edits that change Northern Ireland to be Ireland, North of Ireland or Eire is a pure vandalism account. I think if they make any more of these edits it should just be an indef, they're not here to contribute only entertain themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I went with vandalism-only instead of nothere, but the account just earned themselves a block for another such edit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversial behaviour at squatting position
Squatting position is a very unusual article for which I suggest WP:IGNORE largely applies. There is a lot of trivia and obscure material on Wikipedia and I guess that around 30% of Wikipedia text is uncited. If uncited material should be automatically deleted, why is there not a bot to do that automatically? For anybody who has any understanding of squatting it is a million miles from obscure trivia that can be found on Wikipedia. It is a fundamental subject. We all do elements of squatting every day. Young children drop into full squats instinctively. There are bad tempered and nit picking comments by User:Drmies at User_talk:Penbat He seems to have a viceral dislike for the subject for example adding the section heading: "Squatting while peeing or pooping" which not only is slang, pooping is US specific slang. User:Drmies has seized on nitpicky points of detail without any affinity for the bigger picture.

User:Doug Weller piled in and there was a bad tempered exchange at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56. I wrote a paragraph explaining that I had started a discussion at Talk:Squatting_position. User:Doug Weller then makes this comment at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56 instead of Talk:Squatting_position: "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it". This comment triggered me to respond to ask for clarification to this statement and request a link to the Wikipedia guidelines supporting this. User:Doug Weller then tells me off for not using the talk page but then compounds the confusion by making a further statement at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56 which includes "And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference.". This is factually incorrect. The material is old. So I felt triggered to again reply at User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_56 but no response from User:Doug Weller. I also copied my reply to Talk:Squatting_position. --Penbat (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue is edits such as this. The problem is that justifying that text with WP:IAR is unsatisfactory because the same justification would allow people to write long essays with their original research, and that would lead to chaos. Sorry, but WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:V and WP:DUE all need to be applied, and they mean Squatting position will have to remain trimmed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But there are other points to consider. Everything in the article is heavily supported by images and the images do not lie. Also it is not your typical original research as there is nothing out there to refute it. It seems to be a scientific blindspot which is ironic as it relates to every day activities unlike some highly specialist obscure areas of scientific research. The images provide the WP:V and I cannot see the relevance of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:DUE. I have also not had an explanation of why uncited material is allowed in some articles but not others. Also WP:IGNORE does exist.--Penbat (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed at Talk:Squatting_position that User:Drmies has tried to ridicule me accusing me of adding the talk page tags. He only needed to check the talk page history to find out that it was not me. It is a blatant attempt to smear me and User:Drmies should apologise. User:Drmies and User:Doug Weller have both been distinctly uncivil.--Penbat (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously feel that this crap (32 K of utterly unencyclopaedic trivia), which has been deleted by two Wikipedia admins (Drmies and Doug Weller) after being repeatedly restored by you, belongs in an encyclopaedia? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just calling something "crap" is no sort of analysis. You need to address the points I make here and on the talk page one by one. I can see that there are fundamental inconsistencies with summarily deleting text here but real "crap" in other articles remaining. "Crap" is an emotive word which has nothing to do with objective analysis.--Penbat (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree that the removed content is complete crap and should not be put back in. Reyk YO! 12:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand that "crap" is no sort of objective analysis. The discussion needs to reference WP guidelines not be based on emotive words like "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Crap" (slang, mildly vulgar: Something of poor quality; something that is rubbish; nonsense) isn't an "emotive word", it's a very accurate description of the material you have repeatedly added to the article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pile on but I concur with Thomas and Reyk - The removed content was utter crap that shouldn't of been in the article in the first place. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To, and  apart from the ridiculousness of using the one word analysis "crap", it could just not possibly be true anyway. All the text was heavily supported by images. Are you saying that images lie and they are "crap" as well ?--Penbat (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Images, from simple line drawings to photos, often lie, which is why images aren't allowed as sources here. And yes, the material you repeatedly added can best be described as "crap", in spite of the heavy use of images... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I just used a cross section of photos from the Media supplied by numerous different contributers. It is unlikely that there is any point or viability in any of them being faked. Anyway the reader could verify them for themselves by assuming that position.--Penbat (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The images may not be crap but the content certainly is, I would suggest someone closes this with a firm warning to Penbat not to add the material back or to add overbloated crap to other articles. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was also going on to add that it relates to everyday activites which people can verify for themselves. It is still a complete cop out calling it "crap". Please give a few key examples of what you mean by "crap" and explanation of why it is fundamentally untrue or "crap" as you say it in each case. Please as an alternative explain what is true as you understand it. Much of the material is self evident and you can try it out for yourself.--Penbat (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have got that wrong because the images self evidently support the text. Are you suggesting recovering the images in any case. I am still waiting for a specific key example of your "crap".--Penbat (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * uncited content exists in some articles simply because nobody has removed it yet. Feel free to remove it yourself whenever you see it. WP:V and WP:NOR are quite clear. If, for some ridiculous reason, no reliable sources ever wrote about the Sun, then we wouldn't, either. It's really that simple. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe about 30% of Wikipedia is uncited material. Why is there no bot to automatically delete it ? Just to give one example, for many films or TV programs you often see long uncited descriptions of the plot. There are hundreds of articles like that. Maybe I should just wade in and delete all that material. Anyway an article on a single film is less significant than squatting which is an everyday activity.--Penbat (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Penbat - please don't delete unsourced plots - per WP:FILMPLOT "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. ..." - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not that simple, I think there is a guideline somewhere that self-evident material has a lower bar. Also there is WP:IGNORE and the text in the article is suported by images.--Penbat (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Being an everyday activity that everyone knows about without having to read an article in an encyclopaedia actually makes squatting position less relevant here than an article about a random movie. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Thomas.W Of course it doesnt. People largely do it every day unconsciously without thinking. But it is of value to point out to people what they do do. And people can easily verify that the text makes sense by checking it by doing it themselves.--Penbat (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think anyone would do that? And even if they do it doesn't make the 32 K of rubbish you repeatedly added one iota more fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't all this an almost a perfect definition of Original Research? Curdle (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is an infallable example of WP:V. The reader can verify for themselves by assuming the positions also the photo images in the article provide verification.--Penbat (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be able to see the full picture, requesting that we discuss every single piece of those 32K separately, wanting to discuss images, and things like readers being able to test the different positions for themselves to see if it's true or not. This discussion isn't about individual details of those 32K, it's about those 32K as a whole being utterly unencyclopaedic trivia, and not fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. As half a dozen editors, those who reverted you included, have tried to make you understand. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop using emotive words like "crap" and "rubbish". It does you no favours. The whole point of the article is that it is an every day activity. If the reader wanted to check on the veracity of something, they could try it themselves if they wanted to. The photo images were in there as well. It is much easier than checking many of the citations in Wikipedia articles which could be a page in a book or journalistic article not freely available online. --Penbat (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're not "emotive", they're "descriptive", and since a considerable number of editors feel the material shouldn't be in the article, and you being the only one who wants it there, the material will stay out. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Kneeling has the same issues, as well as a rather questionable selection of gallery pics. Curdle (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a clear case of WP:Disruptive editing, specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Penbat seems to have tried to create an article that seems to be a combination of a huge variety of names for various positions of the body and an illustrated guide on how to perform those positions and why someone might want to. He also seems to be justifying his version by both saying IAR applies and that his edits have policy justification so should be accepted. If this continues I'd suggest a topic ban. Doug Weller  talk 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still not bothering to address the points I raised above about the comments on your talk page. You made the bold statement "Restoring unsourced material is strictly forbidden by policy thus it is absolutely correct to remove it". I asked you for clarification then you ignored me. You then said "And it wasn't old unsourced material that was deleted, it was new, and that makes a difference." That is factually incorrect. Please have the decency to respond to my requests for clarification. You also do not understand that the article is 9 years old. There is nothing recent going on at all.--Penbat (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:CHALLENGE. Unsourced material can be challenged at any time. Don't put it back without sources. Reyk YO! 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And please note what WP:BURDEN says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So it doesn't matter who added it first, if you re-add material that has been challenged and removed, it's up to you to provide sources for it, even if it didn't have any sources before being removed! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at, the same problems because the same editor. I see User:OhNoitsJamie has questioned the images. Doug Weller  talk 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

 * (Not relevant) (Apologies for my comment), but I just burst out laughing on seeing the section name "Controversial behaviour at squatting position". That's an euphemism I can imagine my relatives using to refer to something. Add to that the talk about "crap" and "piling on". I had a pretty shitty day myself, but reading this made me lighten up.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Penbat - it seems to me that the central tension here is that you believe the descriptions you added to this article are so common place as to be obvious, and thus not requiring a citation. Unfortunately, as others have attempted to explain above, the volume and detail of content added to these articles stretches that argument so far as to be entirely unrecognisable. Saying "a reader can simply go and verify this for themselves" isn't a good argument. It could be made for a large proportion of material in this encyclopedia. Take Edinburgh for example. Should we assume that, because someone could theoretically travel there themselves and count everyone in the city that we don't need a citation for the population count? Please consider that the large number of experienced editors who argue that the material shouldn't be in the article without appropriate citations might be correct. Sam Walton (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 16 August 2019
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 18 August 2019
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 27 August 2019
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 22 September 2019
 * <IP_ADDRESS> on 25 September 2019

This Anonymous user seems to be using multiple IPs from ISPs. Might be from the NE Ohio, Western PA area as their contributions are from that area. I really don't know what to do, but taking this to Admins is a starting point to go from here. FunksBrother (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for one month. (I know it's been going on for a while, but I'm hesitant to do longer than that as a first protection.) If the vandalism continues after the protection expires, you'd want to report it to WP:RFPP (and mention that it has been previously protected, and the issue is sockpuppet vandalism). ST47 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will make note of this. If the vandalism continues following the protection ends, I'll take the matter to WP:RFPP. Thank you. FunksBrother (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Hapuzat

In a span of around 30 hours, persistent unexplained removal by User:Hapuzat of text, references and images  , plus changing dabs page to redirects , changing an article to a redirect, and copying from an article to replace a dab. All changes were reverted User has been repeatedly warned, but does not communicate and reverts warnings from his/her talk page. A notice has been placed on user's talk page. – Archer1234 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User blocked, thanks for the comprehensive report. Sam Walton (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that this is a sock of another user User:Pellingjohn blocked by, the SPI I opened was closed but I think JBW may be aware of some more extensive sockpuppetry? Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:DonnieJack1

Just a brief question to start this report: isn't claiming admin without going through the WP:RFA process (1, 2) already bad faith as it is? After all, there's more to this user than just the claims. The user has mostly focused on electronic dance music artist articles, adding, removing, and changing from infoboxes without sources:
 * Instruments used by artists (example 1, example 2)
 * Associated acts in violation of the requirements of Template:Infobox musical artist (example)
 * Causes of death (example)
 * And other similar edits; no examples provided

I have already discussed this over on WP:DISCORD with WP:NOTHERE being brought up as a possibility by administrator. I doubt all the edits by the user qualify them as NOTHERE, but the claims of admin are an obvious sign of disruptive behavior. Jalen Folf  (talk)  17:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is unimpressive and the claims of being an admin don't help. It's not as serious as a NOTHERE, but certainly this doesn't carry on the same way any further.
 * I have no idea why I was pinged for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I pinged a few other users that have reverted this user in the past hoping to get additional input from them. I apologize for any intrusion I may have caused. Jalen Folf   (talk)  20:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Duylop
I have received a message from Duylop who asked me to edit and help fix Akane Yamaguchi. After looking at their contributions, it looks like he’s done it to other people, too. The account was created a few minutes ago, so it seems a little sketchy to me. Jayab314 03:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Duylop is an obvious WP:DUCK of User:Vtukol. | abequinnfourteen 03:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and...Duylop has been blocked, but Vtukol hasn't. I guess the latter seems stale? | abequinnfourteen 03:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vtukol is blocked too, now. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   16:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Albert Wolsky et al
May need some guidance from someone they don’t view as having an LGBTQ conflict of interest as both I and apparently have.

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

Other articles targeted for such treatment:
 * Alan Bates
 * James Mitchell (actor)
 * Alan Smith
 * Ali Smith
 * Antony Hamilton
 * Alexander Bard
 * Chavela Vargas

I think others need to step in. Thank you for looking at this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Originally I removed the over-categorization citing WP:NONDEF. After a bit of an edit war I have attempted to clarify and reiterate the problem as: " A tiny, isolated mention of their partner does not "commonly and consistently define" the subject as a *Gay Artist* WP:NONDEF - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining" WP Policy is clear and simple. characterizes their misinterpretation of the article perfectly with their above statement "Albert Wolsky, a gay man" which is a blatant manipulation of the actual article which reads closer to "Albert Wolsky, costume designer ...(about 400 words of bio content)...His longtime partner was actor James Mitchell...references, the end. If the category is as important as you claim to the article, other sources should be cited so that Albert Wolsky, gay artist can be stated outside of the categories. In addition Gleeanon409 seems to be attempting an emotional plea "lost his life partner" as if I'm just being mean or the subject deserves us to "take-it-easy" or soften the rules. I am simply trying to correct, what appears to me as a misuse of categories (a rather non-neutral and in many places a controversial category).

The fact that most of the articles mentioned relied upon unreliable sources to support the LGBT categories is an additional issue. Gleeanon409 In the Alan Bates article chose to utilize from Queerty: Free from an agenda (except that gay one) to source this important information when several reliable sources were at hand. This seems to indicate a bias on this editor's part. Thanks for any help. --Luke Kindred (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If a person uses an unreliable source to support information, but you know and freely admit that more reliable sources exist for the same information, then the appropriate response is not to strip the information from the article entirely — it's to leave the information alone but replace the bad source with one of the better ones that you already know about. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for any help
 * Based on your editing and Wikilawyering attempts to erase Wolsky's sexual identity, I seriously doubt you're going to get much help here. It would take a serious effort to find any ambiguity in things like this from the New York Times:
 * “The Turning Point” was the only time that Mr. Wolsky was able to work with his companion of 39 years, the actor James Mitchell. They had moved to Hollywood in 1976 after Mr. Mitchell, who had also been a dancing mainstay for Agnes De Mille, had his Broadway career end when “Mack and Mabel” tanked. After a thudding two-year dry spell, there was a call to audition for the soap opera “All My Children” and his subsequent 32-year run as the bad guy and fan favorite Palmer Cortlandt. With Mr. Mitchell living at their place in New York for the filming, the couple spent long stretches apart, which Mr. Wolsky said actually strengthened their relationship.
 * All that, and your attempt to delete well-known Canadian playwright Brad Fraser on spurious GNG grounds makes me wonder whether you're here to help the encyclopedia or further a personal agenda. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On a hunch I checked, and indeed Brad Fraser, which Luke has been trying to delete, is also openly gay.
 * Also it should be made plain again to Luke that LGBTQ media can be, and can even be preferred, as reliable sources. Especially on LGBTQ content, they are more likely to treat gender and sexuality issues accurately, and usually in keeping with a subject’s own preferences like terminology. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Please reference any official WP Policies which defend the statement directly above.--Luke Kindred (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Reliable sources should suffice. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you falsely claimed on Gleeanon's user talk page, we do not have any rule that LGBTQ-oriented media is automatically invalid for use as Wikipedia sourcing. Yes, there are some LGBTQ-themed blogs that fall short of our reliable sourcing standards — but there are also many non-LGBTQ-oriented blogs that fall short of our reliable sourcing standards too, and there are many LGBTQ-oriented media outlets that are perfectly acceptable. Their use is most certainly not precluded, especially for content that relates specifically to LGBTQ identity and culture. We do not have any blanket rules either way around the use of LGBT-themed media: an LGBT publication that meets our reliable sourcing standards, such as The Advocate and Daily Xtra, is acceptable, and an LGBT publication that does not, such as Towleroad, is not. But we judge that by measuring the specific publication against our reliable sourcing standards in exactly the same way we measure any other publication, and we most certainly do not blanket-ban all LGBT-oriented publications from use just because they're LGBT-oriented. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not and have never claimed such an automatic or blanket ban on such sources - and you know this. You are continuing to avoid a direct response to my very clear and quoted statements and by doing so are indicating that you have no policy defense here at all. Certainly other editors whom have not publicly indicated a possible bias on LGBT topics plainly on their userpages (as you have)) would be correcting this with specific guidance, if such existed. What Gleeanon409 (Whose user history clearly indicates an specific focus on LGBT topics) just described is clearly the definition of biased and non-neutral sources. Any source which is found discussing a living person "in keeping with a subject’s own preferences like terminology" is printing propaganda and should not be utilized as the primary and sole source for reporting potentially controversial and non-neutral statements such as LGBT sexual orientation. You are somehow blind to the non-neutrality of such labels. Perhaps living in the wonderfully accepting Canada has colored your viewpoint. Until very recently such claims about a person (even famous ones) were treated as libel in U.S. courts when not well sourced as public knowledge . Identifying or being identified as LGBT can and has harmed reputations, caused a variety of problems such as travel visa denials, the loss of work contracts, and a variety of harmful harassment. This is exactly the reason why reliable news sources often use very careful words like "companion" and "partner" when describing such issues. The use of such terminology in reliable sources should be a clear red-flag that the subject may not identify of wish to be identified publicly with LGBT community. . I would also point out that one of the most prominent and cited sources for LBGT subjects on Wikipedia, The Advocate - a product of Pride Media Inc., describes themselves in this manner: "The Advocate defines what it is to be gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender today" . In other words, this source is upfront about being non-neutral propaganda. Which is fine. Few sources are strictly objective and I can see that they are a great source for a lot of under-reported material. But they have a vested interest in identifying subjects and individuals with their cause and point-of-view. Because of this they probably are not a reliable source specifically on the issue sexual identification in WP:BLP. Please glance at these references, I think they are very important to this discussion and your work on Wikipedia. Thank you Luke Kindred (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Based on your own statements here and elsewhere, I would be leery of having you anywhere near any LGBTQ article, anywhere, ever. With this logic we should erase all LGBTQ content from all articles to save those poor people from themselves. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have checked a systematic sample of 20 out of 's last 100 article edits. (Since he has only ever made 311 article edits, that is a substantial proportion of his total contributions.) 17 of those twenty, i.e. 85%, were concerned with removing information about people being gay, or removing all information about people who are gay. Mostly that was done by removing categories from articles, but there are other methods too, including out of process attempts such as putting a PROD BLP template on an article which visibly and unmistakably contains a source. His attempts to wikilawyer about the precise wording of policies and the nature of sources notwithstanding, it is abundantly clear that he is on a mission to remove information about people being gay. He has been warned by two administrators ( and ) about discretionary sanctions relating to BLP editing and about edit-warring. Some of his attempts to dismiss gay sources as unreliable and gay editors as inherently biased are absurd. Both on this page and elsewhere statements from other editors make it clear that consensus is against his actions. He should now drop the matter, and find other editing to do. He should take this as a warning that if he continues in the same way he can expect to be blocked from editing, probably sooner rather than later. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 09:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have all gone insane. I fail to see how attempts to defend my editing with concise and specific use of directly cited Wikipedia policy is "wikilawyering". I also fail to see how any of these vague, indirect, and emotional pleas to cease and desist have demonstrated anything meaningful. Instead of joining the discussion and participating in our community you are choosing to threaten me with retaliation, personal attacks, and sensationalism. If I were to treat you the same way you would lose your minds. This system is failing. This is clearly an important topic of discussion and you are demanding that I stop participating on the grounds that you will harm me if I don't. If it weren't so pointless I would now have clear grounds to report you on this noticeboard. A sad day in Wikipedia world. --Luke Kindred (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really going to claim to understand Wikipedia's policies and practices better than four administrators who've been around here for over a decade, and who have all seen every possible version of that argument a million times before? One thing you're going to have to keep in mind is that "objective" does not mean "agrees with my own biases", and "biased" does not mean "disagrees with my own biases" — it's not our job to wipe out LGBTQ content just because you dislike it, because it would be just as inappropriate for Wikipedia to be biased against LGBTQ content as it would be for us to be an LGBTQ advocacy site. It is entirely possible to write about LGBTQ people and issues in a neutral and objective and unbiased way — so LGBTQ content is not automatically biased content, LGBTQ-oriented sources are not automatically biased sources, and LGBTQ editors are not automatically biased editors.
 * Yeah, we have rules, but they don't all mean what you want them to mean — when an administrator tells you that you're wrong about what the rules are, you'd be wise to listen if you want to be a Wikipedia contributor much longer, and when four or five administrators have told you the same thing, you'd be wise to realize that we're probably correct. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Until you respond to my arguments by citing sources and policies I am left to believe that you are expressing your strongly held feelings. I was clearly defended by an seasoned admin Ponyoat talk. So it appears that a valid and genuine disagreement exists. I am going to continue working on topics that interest me, and I promise that anyone who feels the need to stalk or scrutinize my work will find it thoughtful, unusually well summarized, supported by clearly referenced WP policies, reliably sourced, constructive, and done in good faith. Unfortunately I can see that we will be spending a lot of our time in the future chatting on this board. P.S. perhaps everyone could tone down the retribution talk and threats. Ending every note with bullying "or else we will ban you" is not civil, not constructive, not nice. I'm sure there are appropriate places for such threats but in a discussion where the accused is responding at great length, speaking respectfully, and raising honest questions - nope. --Luke Kindred (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, I wasn't very clearly defending you about anything. I took the opportunity to advise Gleeanon409 on WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS with reference to a single article (i.e. Calvin Klein), which they appear to have reviewed and taken on board. That is the extent of my involvement in any of this.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And that was exactly and precisely the issue which is primary here. Other users have tried to make this conversation about a host of others things. All I care about here is WP:BLPCAT.--Luke Kindred (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So your stated interest on Wikipedia is to de-populate LGBTQ categories? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not have any formal written statement about the acceptability or unacceptability of LGBTQ-oriented sources as a class. Nobody can link you to a thing that doesn't exist — but you obviously can't link us to a thing that doesn't exist, in order to provide any support for your interpretation, either. LGBTQ-oriented sources are neither all good nor all bad, so we have no blanket policy either way — rather, just like any other potential sources, we test each LGBTQ-oriented source for whether that individual source meets our reliable source requirements or not on its own merits. Some LGBTQ-oriented sources clear the bar, and are perfectly acceptable for use; some do not, and are not. But that's exactly the same way any other class of potential sources works, and we simply do not need to have any special statement that LGBT-oriented sources are treated the same way as any other kind of sources when that's simple common sense. We don't have any special statement about the acceptability of specialist automotive magazines in articles about cars, or about specialist photography magazines in articles about cameras, so why would on earth we need a special LGBTQ-specific statement to uphold that LGBTQ-oriented sources are okay in articles about LGBT topics?
 * And have you noticed, perhaps, that no Wikipedia administrator has ever told you any differently? I'm a long-established and well-respected site administrator, so trust me, if I were ever actually wrong about a matter of policy, people here would be piling on like lemmings to correct me. But they're not, and that's a big fat clue that I'm not wrong. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 wants to delete this from their talk page so I am reposting the start of the discussion here for the archive:

Problematic IP <IP_ADDRESS>
This IP with a history of block evasion has 3 final warnings for the month of September alone (I didn't think there was any point to adding one of my own for their continued disruptive editing which I've just reverted). Despite requests to stop changing the MOS for certain articles (examples of their changes can be seen here, here, here, here & here) in edit summaries and on their talk page, this IP seemingly refuses to engage in any form of communication and it's hard to argue that they are here to build an encyclopedia. An administrative perusal would be most appreciated.  Rob van  vee  09:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This person, using IPs from Folkestone in Kent, has been blocked many, many times, and should be blocked here immediately. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked for 3 years--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...And they immediately switched to Special:Contributions/<IP_ADDRESS>. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked this one as well, for a month, but probably someone will need to see if there is any collateral damage, and if not, to block the range.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Genre warring
Genre warring. Previously warned. Blueberry72 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like they have stopped after your last warning (it might be coincidental, but I think blocking before they make the next edit is not reasonable, and we can not do anything else in this case).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Editor has not edited since the most recent warning, but otherwise I agree this is ripe for a block. Blueberry72, please use a more descriptive edit summary than "rollback" when reverting edits, and consider making this sort of report to WP:AIV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue with Sb008 editing
Ok I am feeling annoyed that Sb008 has been reverting my edits which on most of the football seasonal articles is fine but by his standards that doesn't seem to be the case as he/she reverts those edits on the 2019–20 Eredivisie saying that I am vandalising the page when I'm only following the format of most of the other articles. So who is actually right in this scenario. HawkAussie (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment), please note that you are required to notify Sb008 that you have started a thread here - a ping isn't sufficient, you need to leave a message on their talk page explicitly informing them - you should do that immediately. With regard to the dispute, I agree that accusations of vandalism are inaccurate and unhelpful; both of you appear to have been reverting each other, but this basically appears to be a content dispute that should be resolved on the article's talk page without accusations of bad faith. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have seen this thread and will respond soon, so no reason to notify me. --Sb008 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give an answer today (CET based). --Sb008 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all my apologies for the late response. Occasionally I've a hectic weekend and this was one of them.

Now the actual issue, I would say it goes beyond being annoying.

On September 10 AussieHawk/HawkAussie removed the “results by round” table (I will refer to this table as "rbr" table from now on) on the 2019–20 Eredivisie page without any comment. For that reason I reverted the edit.

On September 12, the table was removed again, this time with a reason, WP:Fancruft which is basically described as “to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question”. A very objective crtterea.

Probably not many people will disagree if I claim that the standings table is the most important/relevant table of a league season page.

As I pointed out, here are at least 3 sites: which use “rbr” info as an integrated part of the standings table. Although the info is limited to the last 5 rounds in the standings table, it shows that these sites apparently consider this kind as info anything but fandruft.
 * NOS By far the most reliable site for Dutch football
 * Soccerway probably in general the most referenced site for football on Wikpedia.
 * Hollandse velden the most comprehensive site for Dutch football, all the way down to the lowest league.

Furthermore, the Infobox football league season has parameters like “Longest Wins”, “Longest Unbeaten“, “Longest winless” and “Longest losses”. If we consider a rbr table fancruft, how show we judge these parameters? In my opinion a summary of fandruft, is fandruft as well.

So should we start deleting those parameters on all league season pages from the infobox?

And that isn't all yet, if “rbr” tables are considered fandruft, why do we have the module ? A module to implement “rbr” and “posdition by round” (pbr) tables. A module which is used on over on over 5000 pages for either “rbr” and/or “pbr” tables.

So deleting a”rbr” table simply by shouting it's fandruft, when there're are plenty of arguments to consider otherwise, is way too simple. If the table is questionable, then so becomes the infobox and module. Therefore another reason to revert.

A new delete on September 12, this time the argument WP:NOTSTATS, Basically the same counter arguments as before apply. Why do other websites have the info, why is it part of the infobox and why we have a module to create “rbr” tables?

But we can go on, if “rbr” tables are nostats why are “pbr” tables not as well? Why we put “monthly awards” info on league season pages? Until a few years ago they didn't even exist. These monthly awards are more about generating revenues and creating attention for the award sponsors than about the game. I doubt in 2037 there will be many people who are very interested in knowing which player got the player of the month award for April 2018 in the Premier League. Most likely we don't even have to wait till 2037 and already right now, besides some fanarics, no one cares one bit about we won it.

All in all, WP:Fancruft and WP:NOTSTATS are very objective creteria. Defining “rbr” tables as either one or both of them has enormous consequences for the “infobox” for the moduke and other information currently on league season pages.

Later that day a discussion started on my talk page. A lot of what was discussed is already mentioned above. Also there was a second discussion.

Additional arguments used
 * 1) there's supposed to be a consensus not to use “rbr” tables, which is based on this thread. I don't consider that a consensus for the fo;;owing reasons.
 * 2) * A consensus was established regarding the module, as can be seen here and here. So both “pbr” and “rbr” tables are allowed.
 * 3) * The people who participated in the claimed consensus about not using “rbr” tables made all together exactly 1 edit on all tier 1 league season pages for this season as mentioned on the template page 2019–20 in European football (UEFA). This single edit was a revert. So not a single edit, updating the page with new or changed info. on these pages was performed by any of these people. I don't mention this cause I want to claim that people who don't contribute to pages shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion, but because a process in which none of the people who maintain the pages participates, can hardly be described as a community descision. To establish a consensus you make sure that the editors of the pages are notified about a descision making process.
 * 4) * Besides me at least 3 otherr people have reverting the deletion of the “rbr” tables.
 * 5) * Consensus wasn't a requirement anyway. The thread about the so called consensus was initiated on August 23, 18:10 with a question. Before anyone answered, HawkAussie already started to delete “rbr” tables as can can be seen here. Apparently his personal opinion was enough consensus.
 * 6) There's supposed to be an official template for league pages.
 * 7) * The first line on the page clearly mentions proposal.
 * 8) * Regarding statistics the page mentions “The inclusion of this section is not decided yet“
 * 9) * If the page indeed was an official template, not a single league season page would qualify.
 * 10) * If the page indeed was an official template, it would result in a mass deletion of an awfull lot of information which is not mentioned on the template page.

Up till here all can be considered as a difference of opinion. However on September 13, things took a turn. HawkAussie started to delete “pbr” tables, which never have been a discussion, on several league season pages. However, the Eredivisie pages seemed to be a specific target, such as 2011–12 Eredivisie, 2012–13 Eredivisie and 2013–14 Eredivisie. Deleting undisputed content just like that? I call it vandalism. Apparently that wasn't enough. Additional changes were made on the 2019–20 Eredivisie page. Info about the promoted and relegated teams was added to the teams section. By itself valid information, howver in essence the same information was already provided in the introduction section. I don't care where the info is given, but there's no sense in giving it twice in on;ly two sentences apart. The layout of the “Top scorers” and “Assists” table was changed. The argument for that change was, “in line with the Premier League (PL)”. Why do tables have to be adapted to a lower standard? The PL tables contain less info and are implemented using deprecated tags.

If the community decides not to use “rbr” pages on league season pages, fine with me. But consensus should be established by makin sure all get a chance to participate in that discussion. So active editors of league season pages should be notified of the discussion. It would be wise to consider the impact the outcome might have on the infobox and the module {ml|Sports rbr table}}.

I would also be wise to create a real template for league seasons, which not only says what to use, but also what not to use and the considerations which resulted in a specific descision.. Basically not only the what and whay not, but also the why.

It's way to easy to shout only fandruft or nostats. Just as easy as shouting ugly, bad, poor or whatever subjective opinion without arguments.

Also, it would be wise to realise that defining a specific piece of info or statistic as something, also has an impact on other info or statistics. E.g. If we would define, based on arguments, “top scorers” as fandruft, it also has an impact on how to define “assists”.

What certainly shouldn't happen is deleting info from pages (initially) without any reason, or by using false claims about existing standards or a consensus.

Worst if all is, when someone doesn't give in during a debate, to start deleting or altering other kind of information. I don't start deleting tables from pages cause they contain deprecated tags. You improve or discuss or both, but you don't just delete.

And to end with how I started, it went beyond annoying. --Sb008 (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, Sb008, I can't really imagine anyone ever reading that lengthy comment. It looks to me like the two of you are engaged in a content dispute (I have no view on which of you is right), but ANI isn't the place to resolve that. This thread was started because you accused HawkAussie of VANDALISM - a serious charge, which you should either support with evidence or retract. Would you be willing to either (a) provide a TLDR explanation of why you think they are vandalising, or (b) retract the accusation, and accept that you're engaged in a content dispute with a good-faith editor who disagrees with you? If you're willing to retract, I'd suggest that this thread could be closed, and you can go and seek consensus on the article talk page (rather than your own user talk page, where other interested parties won't see the discussion and help generate a consensus). If necessary, you could go down one of the dispute resolution routes, like asking for a third opinion or starting an RfC if necessary. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * In terms of the consensus for the article, I mainly asked him multiple times if you wanted to bring up a consensus go into WT:FOOTY as it wouldn't be these pages that would be effected but the rest of the seasonal articles. In response, he completely ignored my suggestion and continued to accuse me of vandalism which I will deny as I was attempting to follow the same format as most of the other football articles like here, here and here with doing the stats. In response he mostly did his reverts without any explanation at all which made me give the warnings for good faith editing on his talk page. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll respond latest on Friday. --Sb008 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) Deletes without arguments, like here (1st delete of results by round), here (1st delete of positions by round and adding duplicate info).
 * 2) Arguments WP:Fancruft WP:NOTSTATS, highly debatable since major websites consider it valuable info.

Up till here it can be considered as a content dispute

 * 1) Argument of consensus, based on thread.
 * 2) * A consensus includes those who actually update the league season pages and not just "outsiders".
 * 3) * The thread about the so called consensus was initiated on August 23, 18:10 with a question. AussieHawk was the first to reply on August 24, 01:27. Hoever before that reply and before the so claimed consensus was established, AussieHawk already started to delete, like here, here and here. Obviously whether a consensus would or wouldn't be estables, was irrelevant for AussieHawk. His mind was made up anyway, results by round unfo had to be deleted.
 * 4) * Several people reverted his edits, like here, here, here and here

A consensus which excludes the people doing the actual editingand where the people doing the actual editing are reverting the deletes made by AussieHawk is anything but a comsensus but a major conflict of opinions. The fact that he didn't even wait for the outcome of the thread clearly indicates that his mind was made up. The fact that he keeps deleting "results by round" info when so many people are reverting his deletes clearly indicates he doesn't care about the opinion of these people. He isn't acting in good faith. Make a false claim about a consensus is also anything but acting in good faith.

 * 1) Argument of an existing standard (template) described on this page. The page itself denies it's a standard cause it clearly mentions "proposal".

Making another false claim, is again anything but acting in good faith.

 * 1) Next he started to delete "positions by round" tables. Some examples can be seen here, here, here and here

I can't read AussieHawk's mind, but I don't consider it a coinsidence that shortly after I mentioned 'If "results by round" is WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:NOTSTATS, an opinion which I don't share, the same applies for the more widely used "positions by round"', he starts to delete "position by round" tables. He deletes them kinda randomly on a few league pages, however mostlyon Dutch Eredivisie league season pages. He does so without a motivation, there's not even he discussion anywhere by a select few who reached a pseudo consensusto delete these tables. Like I said, I can't read his mind, but it seems like he's trying to "teach me a lesson" and to express his frustration. Whatever he was thinking, he's deleting widely accepted information without any discussion or consensus. I call it vandalism.

I can go on. Adding duplicate information I can consider as a well meant mistake. Changing the "top scorer" and "assists" table, I don't consider well meant but just another step to make a point.

All in all, tables get deleted on a pseudo consensus which excluded all people doing the daily updates. Multiple people revert his edits, and still he thinks there's a consensus and simply ignores these people. Not once but multiple times. A disrespect for all those editors. He uses false arguments, like a standard which is only proposal (in my opinion even a poor proposal). And on top of that he starts to delete widely accepted tables without a discussion and/or consensus. I call it vandalism any day. There's no good faith in ignoring others and trying to force your opinion, and starting to delete widely accepted data. --Sb008 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 * In response to the most recent post of AussieHawk
 * The history shows who mostly acted without an explanation.
 * The same history shows that I was the first to mention the impact of removing the "result by round" tables and he should make sure to get an RFC to get the module changed.
 * Furthermore, I don't want to make a change. AussieHawk wants to delete data from pages. He wants to change something. So it's up him to create a proper consensus. Not a pseudo consensus which excludes those doing the daily updates. Which I also mentioned in the thread User talk:Sb008: 'Seems to me the proper discussion is whether to remove this module or not, and to make sure the right people are involved in the discussion. If the outcome is removal of the module, I'll be more than happy to remove "results by round" and "positions by round" myself from the eredivisie page.'
 * Regarding "following the same format": If it had been his only change, "the good faith" argument would have been credible. In light of all events it isn't credible to me. Furthermore, when trying to have to same format everywhere, you don't downgrade tables without deprecated tags and more info to tables with deprecated tags and less info.
 * Gotta love these false claims once again. Nice display of done in good faith. --Sb008 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think your definition of vandalism corresponds well with WP:VANDALISM. You might be able to make a case for disruptive editing, but vandalism seems wide of the mark. (No offense intended AussieHawk - I don't mean to imply that I think you are guilty of that, I just mean that it seems a better fit for what Sb008 is describing.)
 * I don't want to stray too far into discussing the content dispute itself here, but I'll note that the thread that you mention includes comments from some very experienced editors, including GiantSnowman, one of the most prolific editors on football articles (and an admin, FWIW), who appears to agree that this table should be removed. You can certainly make an argument that the thread does not establish a valid consensus - but to say that another editor acting upon the its outcome is guilty of vandalism seems way over the top. My advice, if you want it, would be to retract the accusation, and start an RfC where a consensus on the matter could be established. I think that you're both here to improve the encyclopedia - which, by definition, vandals are not - it's just that you have very different opinions on what represents an improvement at these articles. My 2p worth, anyway. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism
On at least three occasions in the last two months, has either directly accused other editors of being holocaust deniers or revisionists, or claimed that administrators, either personally or individually, are blocking editors for combatting antisemitism.

Examples:
 * 1) Accusing Objective3000 of being a holocaust denier by distorting a quote. See also discussion on talk page about it. This quote was eventually removed by
 * 2) Accusing me of blocking someone for fighting antisemitism: ,
 * 3) Comment on Sandstein's talk page on't bother. It's quite clear that Wikipedia is now the home of Holocaust revisionism and if you question it, you get blocked or banned. Look at AE and ARBCOM. And then Sandstein comes in like a hammer without waiting for any other admins to comment and then just blocks. followed by edit summary reverting not worth getting blocked by Sandstein over the direction of New-Wikipedia
 * 4) This archived ANI thread, where he didn't directly name an editor, but as was noted at the time, didn't exactly behave in the best way regarding implication of antisemitism on this project.

I'm sure if anyone wanted to search for more, they could find them. Antisemitism is a cancer that has no place on Wikipedia, but fighting in contentious areas and using direct or indirect charge of antisemitism against both other editors in the topic areas and administrators is a chilling tactic that has no place here as well. I'm not exactly sure the best way to handle this, but it needs to stop, and I am of the belief that Sir Joseph has had more than enough warnings. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I didn't distort O300's quote, that was his quote verbatim . Secondly, why did you block Yaniv? He reverted someone who claimed that the Jews were able to come back after the Holocaust and reclaim their property.
 * As for AE, yeah, Sandstein could have blocked for an American TBAN violation, but the other edits were indeed reverting Holocaust revisionist edits, as pointed out. As for that archived ANI thread, there is nothing wrong with my comment on my talk page.
 * Further, I point you to Warsaw_concentration_camp which stood for many years until and others removed the hoax that there was a concentration camp there that killed over 200,000 Poles.  And yes, looking at the ARBCOM decision, I stand by my statement.
 * Talk about chilling, this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia, and they get called out for their editing, they deserve the scorn. This is the terrible chilling effect, you are planning on punishing me for pointing out hypocrisy and antisemitism? Shame. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, you are now casting aspersions on me regarding that ANI thread. Nishidani brought NMMNG to ANI, not me and you are implicating me that I called Nishidani an antisemite, or made implications similar to that, when I have done no such thing. All I did was post his comment on my talk page. Please clear up that confusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been notified about this discussion, but I'd prefer to let other admins handle the matter raised by TonyBallioni.  Sandstein   23:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I have long been concerned about Sir Joseph bringing a battleground attitude to editing. They've been a frequent-flyer at AE for some time; just to make sure I wasn't misremembering, I checked their block log, and their history at AE and the AE logs. There's a degree of aggression and of a "if you're not with me you're against me" attitude that isn't compatible with collaborative editing. So far as I can tell, what Tony highlights is just another example of this. I'm as yet unsure of what to do about it, because if it's a problem restricted to alleging holocaust denial the solution is obvious; if it's an attitude problem, it's not. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind. We should absolutely take a zero-tolerance approach to genuine holocaust denial. For that very reason, crying wolf about holocaust denial isn't okay. I cannot agree strongly enough with Bradv below. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which quote you are talking about? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's this quote. I also read this entire discussion on your talk page. I repeat, there is no holocaust denial here. O3000 isn't saying that the generally accepted estimate of holocaust deaths is exaggerated; they're saying that some people have exaggerated it. Likewise, they're not saying that the casualties are actually 75% of what they were; they are saying that even if they had been, it wouldn't have made the holocaust less horrific. In that discussion on your talk page, you continually draw unjustified conclusions from what O3000 says. You also repeatedly insist that because you quoted verbatim, you cannot have taken something out of context, which is a nonsensical argument; the "context" is the stuff not in the quote. And you've repeated that mistake here, multiple times. Even if no sanction comes of this discussion, you need to step back and think hard about why you are jumping to the conclusions that you are. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of the fact that there are holocaust deniers/revisionists and similar that have edited this website, we are better off with a iron curtain approach from a few editors that draw a line in the sand and confront this hideous POV. I have read the back and forth between 03000 and SirJoseph and it appears to me that 03000 made a comment that he should have immediately retracted and apologized...had this happened the issue would have ceased then, for I see it as one that has an insinuation of at the very least, revisionism. That 03000 has subsequently made it clear he was highly offended by the denialism label and explained themselves adequately so this issue should be dropped by all immediately. As far as Sandstein issuing draconian and unilateral blocks and bans, that's nothing new. Sandstein should voluntarily remove himself from that venue until he can demonstrate some empathy and fairness.--MONGO (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I was mentioned by Sir Joseph, let me voice my opinion.
 * Don't you agree that blocking a user who says that anyone who raises the antisemitism issue will be blocked would mean to confirm what he is saying?
 * We have two problems: 1. Baseless accusations in antisemitism is a serious violation of our policy. 2. Antisemitism is a real phenomenon on Wikipedia pages and it is a serious violation too. That means, accusation of antisemitism or Holocaust denial, or Nazism whitewashing, cannot be considered a violation per se. However, as any outstanding claim, it requires outstanding evidences. Therefore, the questions are:
 * Had Sir Joseph sustained his burden of evidence?
 * Do admins treat evidences of antisemitism seriously?
 * I have no answer to the first question (I hadn't examined evidences), but I have some thoughts on the second one. My resent conversation with Sandstein suggests their approach to that problem is not as serious as it should be. Indeed, I presented the evidences that the accusation in defending Hitler, which were a subject of the recent AE, had some ground, however, these evidences were rejected or ignored by him for purely procedural reasons. That means any person who will face similar situation will prefer to think twice before throwing accusations of antisemitism, even in a situation when there are serious reasons for that. Although I agree that Sir Joseph is redundantly emotional, a non-zero possibility exists that there is some reason for that. Indeed, there is a big difference between showing one diff and saying: "Look, he accused me of antisemitism!" and presenting long and detailed explanations demonstrating that that was a real example of antisemitism. I have a feeling the first type evidences is what admins like (because they are simple to deal with). In contrast, second type evidences require thoughtful examination, and I have a feeling admins prefer avoid that.
 * To summarise, in a current situation, the one who has been accused of antisemitism has, by default, an advantage over the one who has thrown this accusation. I doubt that state of things is normal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is wrong, unless the theater is actually on fire, in which case it's a public service. – Levivich 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, presumably the evidence is obvious. If not, they usually wouldn't be permitted to remain in the theatre. – bradv  🍁  00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This. We block antisemites and holocaust deniers on sight (or at least, I advocate for that.) The issue comes when someone begins accusing established editors in content disputes of it or when one accuses administrators of it for not getting involved in content disputes on your side. That's when it ceases being a public service and starts being a tactic used to win battles. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can RBI nazis per this fundamental principle that is above any policy, guideline, or essay. Poveglia (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My ancestors include Jews who escaped persecution. I can tell you stories that are hard to digest. My friends and coworkers have been mostly Jewish for decades. Sir J repeatedly accused me of holocaust denial despite my numerous statements that I know that the holocaust occurred and that it is one of the most egregious events in history. He would not stop no matter how many times I stated this. He demanded that I make a statement declaring that his exact definition was correct. I was so disgusted that my editing has dropped by over 90% as I have such a sour taste in my mouth every time I look at this site. Personally, I don’t give a damn what religion a person is and I think all religious texts are apocryphal. I guess I am just not Jewish enough for him. He should not be anywhere near anything related to religion. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph's treatment of O3000 was repugnant. He's lucky that he wasn't blocked then, but it seems he didn't learn anything. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni needs to stop casting aspersions about me. I never called O300 a Holocaust denier and I never said anything about Nishidani. He is poisoning the well. Further, pointing out my blocks from 2016 is wrong since those were during the reign of Coffee and regardless, they are from 2016. I stand by most of those edits. I'll be offline for the next day but I hope you read what Mongo and Levivitch wrote as well as Paul Siebert. I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. I even asked him why he didn't do anything about VM who also violated a TBAN and he opted out of blocking or doing anything about it. Do what you want, but don't pretend that there is no problem on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what you did to O3000. I'm increasingly tempted to propose a site ban. Lepricavark (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * he didn't do anything about VM who also violated a TBAN - I did not violate any TBAN. I do not nor did I even have a TBAN. I didn't violate anything else either.  Volunteer Marek   05:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also ask why BradV's only action at AE was to bring me and Icewhiz and nobody else. How is this relevant? What are you suggesting? – bradv  🍁  01:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , we are talking about blocks and bans about Poland and Holocaust and I asked you to do the same for Volunteer Marek and you refused. Seems self explanatory. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretend I and the other readers of this page are dumb. Explain. Because the hanging insinuations are about to get you booted from this site.  spryde |  talk  01:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reprehensible behavior in this section alone is enough for me to support a block. From casting aspersions to denying your history of incivility, it's simply unacceptable. It's quite evident you take Wikipedia to be a battleground in which you label other contributors holocaust deniers/revisionists without any substantial basis, and in an incredibly insulting manner. Further, this comment above seems to be a veiled attack on Bradv; if it is not, please explain it. Your conduct has instigated conflict where it was unnecessary, and inflame incivility where it was avoidable. I support any action that prevents this behavior from continuing. Vermont (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you brought it up, let's talk about it. On May 9, you said If only the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they could have had it many years ago. Sadly they don't. They'd rather continue killing people. I had never interacted with you before this point, but I found this comment so egregious that I reported it to AE, and you were subsequently topic-banned for 3 months. (discussion). Now you are still claiming that I did something wrong by reporting you, implying that you haven't learned anything from that topic ban. Regarding Icewhiz, I don't see how any of that is relevant, but anyone interested can read our interactions on that here and here. –  bradv  🍁  01:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: after this thread started, in a reply to, Sir Joseph repeated his borderline libelous comment that thinks less Jews died in the Holocaust than the historical consensus. Sir Joseph would obviously know this was false, as O3000 said this on SJ's own talk page and clarified the comment was that people who claimed more Jews died in the Holocaust than there were Jews existing in Europe were wrong. Sir Joseph has removed that here, instead asking for clarification of what quote Vanamonde was talking about, but this shows he is still willing to blatantly lie and accuse others of things that he knows to be false. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting someone in full, can't be libel. Again, I did not take anything out of context, not sure why you keep missing that. That is O300's quote. That's why I undid my edit because I'm not sure what Vanamode is referring to. But not sure what you are referring to, since the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism, and O300 has clarified that he wasn't talking about his views but other views. So not sure what you're trying to get at. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to propose a ban from all religion related articles. But, now that he has yet again falsely accused me of an egregious act, I believe a six month block is warranted. Going to bed now. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse you of anything, as I explicitly stated, that's your quote but not your view. For some reason TonyBallioni and others here would like me banned and they are using this and other edits and reopening things to do so, but this was already clarified and closed. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "...the quote of O300 is indeed Holocaust revisionism..." - this is clearly an statement of accusation that O3000 is a Holocaust revisionist, yet the quote does not seem to meet that threshold. You may wish to stop now, before you dig yourself a bigger hole. Waggie (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm about to sign off, but this was already clarified, but I do wish to point out that the quote is a form of revisionism Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. However, since you seem to have missed the part where as MONGO pointed out much earlier that O3000 clarified that this isn't his views, or just right above where I explicitly said the same thing, and he was just quoting, but apparently TonyBallioni would like to reopen this old thread for some reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni, in this diff, only "revisionism" is the term that may be considered questionable. Meanwhile, "revisionism" is not the same as "denial". "Historical revisionism" does not always refer to something negative, sometimes that may refer to some views that have not became mainstream yet. Any new historical concept was seen initially as revisionist. "Holocaust revisionism" is a form of historical revisionism, and that is not necessarily Holocaust denial.
 * @Sir Joseph, I think not every attempt to adjust the number of killed Jews downwards is something terrible, provided that solid evidences are presented. In connection to that, I think SJ's crusade may distract a community from real cases of Holocaust denial or antisemitism. In my opinion, an attempt to see antisemitism, or Holocaust denial, or Hitler whitewashing (that is not the same) in virtually everything has an opposite effect. IMO, if your declared goal coincides with your real goal, everybody will benefit if you become less emotional.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, "revisionism" is not the same as "denial". "Historical revisionism" does not always refer to something negative Paul, come on. We both know that while in general "historical revisionism" may not necessarily be negative (like "revising" the legacy of Emperor Tiberius or something) in the context of the Holocaust "revisionism" ALWAYS means the same as "denial". Basically, the term "Holocaust revisionism" was invented (co-opted?) by Holocaust deniers so that they could present a more appealing face to the general public (sort of like how white supremacists run around claiming they're only "proud of their race" and come up with various euphemisms for their racism). Everyone who is even vaguely interested in or has some familiarity with the topic knows this. It's more or less common knowledge. So yes, an accusation of "Holocaust revisionism" is the same as an accusation of "Holocaust denial" and just as serious. And a really messed up thing to accuse someone of, when it's false.  Volunteer Marek   04:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I understand, but the original quote was not used that way. Regardless, this was already clarified and closed months ago. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you can't claim this was clarified and closed months ago, while continuing to repeat the accusation. – bradv  🍁  02:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was only using the term Sir Joseph used to describe O3000's quote a month ago: I never said you didn't say the Holocaust never happened, you just are denying six million Jews were murdered, and you are OK with saying that it can be 75% of that number. As per the Wiki article, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, that is indeed Holocaust Denial. (diff). Like stated, he was accusing someone else of downplaying the numbers today after knowing that was not their view, and after stating that he considers it to be denial and also linking to the article on denial on his talk page when he placed the quote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was replying to this comment, "For the record, I have read the comment that contained the so-called "holocaust denial". It in fact contains nothing of the kind." that is why I sought clarification. And as I said up top, the quote itself is revisionism, as O3000 acknowledges, he clarified that he was just quoting what others say, it's not his opinion. But the quote itself is revisionism. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Sir Joseph, you said above, "this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia". If so, that would be a WP:COI problem. Which editors are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Typically, the editor who makes a racist or antisemitic statement is the one who gets the ban hammer, not the editor who was offended by it, and/or became overzealous trying to prevent it from happening again. Antisemitism does rear its ugly head in some of our AP2 articles, and I find it highly offensive even though I'm not that easy to offend. My interactions with O3000 have taught me that he can be easily offended and becomes battlegroundy over the least little thing - like when I added *sigh* to the end of my comment. He let me know right away that it was belittling to editors, so out of respect, I leave with an unwritten *sigh*. But seriously, isn't it plausible to think that an editor who is offended by a written exhale would be the one who exercised the most caution when crafting their own comments? How could O3000 have been so negligent? Anyway, there is no use crying over spilled milk. I think Sir Joseph should simply agree to not bring up O3000's antisemitic "A few random thingies:" quote again, and if he is exposed to any further perceived antisemitic or racist comments by another editor, to simply leave a diff on Tony's TP and let him take care of it. Problem solved, let's move on. Atsme  Talk 📧 03:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC) clarified using "perceived" 05:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that O3000's comment was not antisemitic. Unless you can present a good argument to the contrary, please refrain from repeating discredited allegations. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not surprised that you would misrepresent the truth here. O3000 made no antisemitic comment. Someone should have blocked you for this. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , and I am not surprised that you would completely misinterpret what I said, but if it was that easy for you, then it may be that easy for others who arrived late to this discussion, so I struck it and used a different identifier regarding what some perceived to be the offensive diff which begins with I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some.... I have no dog in this fight, and I am perfectly fine with whatever consensus decides. Oh, and you might want to read what I said in this diff about semantics. Atsme Talk 📧 02:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation shows a lack of competence—if you can't read O3000's comment in the context where it was given and see that it has nothing to do with denying the Holocaust, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be deeply concerned at Holocuast distortion on this site - not users calling this out.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Icewhiz? Users falsely calling out holocaust denialism do serious damage to any effort to deal with real holocaust denialism. When I described Sir Joseph as "crying wolf" above I wasn't just making a reference; that parable is very applicable here. If O3000 were to say something genuinely problematic about the holocaust a couple of weeks down the road, and if Sir Joseph happened to be the one who called attention to it, he wouldn't be taken seriously. Holocaust denialism is serious stuff; therefore by definition accusing someone of it is a serious accusation. With evidence, it's grounds for a indefinite block. So, either you think that making a false accusation this serious is fine, or you actually think that that quote constitutes holocaust denialism; both of which are extremely troublesome positions to take. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying the Holocaust death toll is exaggerated - and should be set at 75% is blatant and deep within Holocaust distortion turf. See USHMM - "Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.". Instead of acting swiftly to counter denial on Wikipedia - we are acting against those who complain - making Wikipedia a safe harbor for Holocaust distortion (and not surprsingly - as a result - articles in mainspace have had conspiracy theories on the Holocast persist for over a decade).Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * O3000 did not say that the death toll was exaggerated. He said that it might be exaggerated (there is a difference), but that it was still in the millions and still not okay. How many time does this need to be spelled out? Lepricavark (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggesting the death toll is exaggerated is distortion - a common one. See USHMM. There was a weak "may" in there, not might, - "I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some. ... But, it’s still in the millions. Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”." This a statement that merits scrutiny.Icewhiz (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So a museum is the final word? I'm sorry, no. And if you want to split hairs between 'may' and 'might', I give up. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A musuem + every single serious historian of note. To this we can add scholars of antisemitism / Holocaust denial who see exaggeration claims as a common trope.Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are taking O3000's words out of context, as can easily be seen by the diff posted above. And as Sir Joseph has already said this was clarified and closed months ago, I must question your judgement in bringing it up again. – bradv  🍁  04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony brought it up - in point 1 of his post above. diff - context. I agree that if this was clarified and put to bed - then O3000 isn't the issue.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, Tony brought it up as part of a pattern of misbehaviour by Sir Joseph. But you are arguing that O3000 is guilty of Holocaust revisionism. That's the exact kind of personal attack that the community is expressing a problem with right now. – bradv  🍁  05:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote - linked by Tony, and made originally in diff - is something that was a valid cause for concern by Sir Joseph.If this was already resolved at a relevant adminstrative discussion and furthermore clarified - it shouldn't be reopened.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point, and it's really concerning; O3000 did not say that holocaust casualties were fewer than they are estimated to be by most reliable sources. He has not questioned that estimate. At all. It is only revisionism, bordering on denial, to question the figure that most reliable sources agree upon. The statement in question refers to the broader body of estimates, many of which are considerably higher than the generally accepted figure. Nobody's going to sanction you here, but if you want to be taken seriously about anti-semitism, you need to get this sort of thing right. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * As a broader comment, I feel a lot of the comments above are edging on the realm of penalizing "wrongthink" - presenting ideas that run against generally accepted wisdom or popular opinion. As long as these ideas are presented in the context of potential improvement of articles, with sources that are backing it up, we should not be chastising editors for the simple act of suggesting them. WP is not a safe space of that type, we are an open marketplace of ideas based on reliable sourcing for how to improve articles, and that's not always going to be a comfortable discussion for non-popular ideas, but that's why we work on consensus. Obviously, if the editor actually edit wars on their POV or refuses to drop the stick when their POV is not accepted, that becomes an issue, but in this case, O3000 is nowhere close to that line, and that's where Smokey Joe's comments towards O3000 are wholly inappropriate, since this leaves no room for discussion of the counter-idea and instead immediately makes it a personal attack. --M asem (t) 05:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument that all ideas are potentially constructive is intrinsically true but it can be weaponized, just like every other argument. Holocaust denial is a canonical example of this disingenuous use of a valid argument, because it meshes apparently well with historical revisionism (a wider phenomenon which, if scholarly sound, is perfectly legitimate, even when it's applied to the Holocaust itself). Historical revisionism or the phenomenon underlying it, namely skepticism, is as old as the study of History itself, and arguably a substantial thereof. The original intention of Holocaust deniers was precisely to give their position a patina of respectability by presenting themselves as scholarly skeptics, and they should be called out for it whenever they do. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that any serious encyclopedia must bear the burden of separating scholarly backed arguments from a pretense to invoke them with racist intent. This not only implies taking strong action on holocaust denial itself, but also on false accusations of holocaust denial if they are proven to be such. Nobody should get away scot-free from either denying the Holocaust or unfairly accusing someone else of doing so. Same applies to every form of racism and every unfair accusation of engaging in it. Same applies, indeed, to every criminal activity, and every false accusation thereof. CodeInconnu (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All points very true particularly in weaponizing the open marketplace of ideas; my issue is how this discussion seemed to started to trend towards "if you speak of any type of doubt about the Holocaust you should be punished"; Key is that WP editors should not be closing town valid discussion of challenging or difficult ideas around touchy topics if presented with good faith and appropriate sourcing and the like, and certainly should not be shutting down those discussions by issuing personal attacks against the editors that make it. --M asem (t) 14:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed and although I don't know O3000's motivations, I haven't seen anything written by them that would remotely qualify as Holocaust denial. CodeInconnu (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Some points:
 * 1) Wikipedia does have a problem of Holocaust revisionism, as documented throughout this ARBCOM case (eg. comments on sourcing here) and in any of the dozen preceding ANI cases, as well as in this upcoming article.
 * 2) Wikipedia also has a problem of selective enforcement. While I disagree with some of Sir Joseph's comments (in particular that directed at O3000), worse comments made by others have repeatedly gone unpunished; as several editors note here, even ArbCom ignores them.
 * 3) Some admins have no idea what they're doing as far as racism is concerned (eg. this simplistic proposal suggested by TonyBallioni at the complex ArbCom case, as well as my own encounter with him).
 * 4) No Policy rationale has been presented for the proposed ban. Points 2-4, in particular, don't seem like gross violations of policy as currently understood by admins.
 * François Robere (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EVEN IF you were right about the ArbCom case (you're not - when you say "documented" that just means "someone made the accusation". The FoFs and PDs most certainly do NOT support your assertion), Sir Joseph's comments to O3000 had NOTHING to do with that case so you can't use that as an excuse. The problem is that some editors on Wikipedia are more than willing to cynically make extreme false accusations against others just to win petty content disputes. That is a problem in itself, and sanctionable (usually by indef block), regardless of what other problems Wikipedia might have.  Volunteer Marek   20:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't excuse anything, I'm merely pointing out the fact that admins are aware of similar violations by other editors that they've not seen fit to sanction. As for ArbCom, it's plenty evident to anyone seeing the discrepancy between the breadth of the evidence and the narrowness of the conclusions, that they "dropped the ball" on this one. Put differently: it's not that the FoFs and PDs do no support my assertion - they don't reject it either - it's that they don't address it at all.
 * I do like how you're advocating for a sanction that would affect you as easily as it would affect SJ (and that is supported by FoFs!). François Robere (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Since the 'Warsaw concentration camp hoax' was mentioned here, I want to take this opportunity to invite interested editors to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Minor observation from the peanut gallery. With so many battling motions and such strong feelings on all sides, none of these are going to pass or fail strongly. I pity whoever tries to judge on this one. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Secondary thought, if none of these pass, I think that's a sign that this needs to go to ARBCOM because the community seems incapable of handling this. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - boomerang - desysop
TonyBallioni has blocked a user that described content (false content, misrepresenting sources) on Jews as antisemitic -. When Yaniv asked to appeal the block to AN, as his right as a blocked user, Tony (who was WP:INVOLVED, removed talk page access - see User talk:יניב הורון - an abuse of admin tools to avoid scrutiny.

However, when an editor was brought to WP:AE, for several infractions - including directly calling multiple editors "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" - which is much worse than Yaniv's comment on false content - Tony wrote "I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here". AE.

Tony is using his tools in a discriminatory manner and prevented an AN appeal by revoking TPA from the user attempting to appeal against him. He clearly is quite touchy about antisemitism - which is another big red flag here.

Now Tony is attempting to act against a user who is complaining of his action. The community should decide that Tony should be desysoped for unfair misuse of admin tools, and refer this to ARBCOM.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're building this case on two incidents from months ago (and an insinuation that you disguise as a 'red flag'). And you're doing this in the context of a thread in which numerous editors have agreed with Tony's objections regarding the behavior of Sir Joseph. You don't actually expect this to work, do you? Lepricavark (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony filed this after being called out on talk page, on this incident, on 20 September - . Tony's focus on attempting to sanction users who call out antisemitism (the various examples Tony set out above) - while seeing anti-somethingElse as non-actionable - is the definition of discrimination. If the community doesn't act - Wikimedia should - as hosting a site with Holocaust distortion content (which sanctions users who complain about it) - is something that could threaten Wikipedia's ability to host and distribute content.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This accusation of antisemitism and tool abuse is unfounded and borderline libelous. None of the content you have argued proves such seems to me to be in no way problematic. Vermont (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is nonsense. In addition to making other unsubstantiated accusations, Sir Joseph is guilty of WP:Aspersions : "this is the chilling effect, when the Polish government and other Eastern European countries, most notably Lithuania pushes a new history of World War 2 and they send out a band of editors to edit Wikipedia". There is nothing wrong with suggestions and actions by TonyBallioni. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Historyk IPN/Archive - where one sockmaster admitted working for a Polish government agency.Icewhiz (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What did Tony have to do with that? – bradv  🍁  04:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing - but Sir Joseph isn't guilty of WP:Aspersions as MVBW suggests - as this is an instance of this occuring.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at the context of the comment by Sir Joseph and his refusal to answer my question, he did not mean this account. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Are you kidding me? - Frood (talk!) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Ludicrously unwarranted and potentially calls for a WP:BOOMERANG against the proposing user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ridiculous. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC). (non admin)
 * Oppose just in case it needs to be clearly spelled out. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Don't be daft. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support boomerang, oppose desysop – Support boomerang trout per my oppose !vote in the next proposal. I did get a laugh out of the desysop part though ... and send to Arbcom?! Anyone proposing to send anything to Arbcom right now must be drunk. – Levivich 05:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Community desysops aren't a thing (I think it should be), and this is not at all... remotely... close... to warranting a desysop. Have some mojitos and take the day off, Icewhiz. To spell it out for the count, this is very definitely an oppose. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposals: ARBIPA and accusation topic ban
I've read through this thread a few times. I've looked through Sir Joseph's block log, AE logs, and the links in this thread. Frankly much of it is repulsive. Clearly he didn't learn much from the previous three-month TBAN. I actually stopped myself from posting this twice, thinking it might seem like overkill. But I changed my mind... My proposal is:

 * Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from editing all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

AND one of the following:

 * (1) Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from accusing or insinuating that other users are Holocaust deniers, antisemites, or similar.
 * (2) Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned from accusing or insinuating that other users are Holocaust deniers, antisemites, or similar. If this section is violated, this topic ban shall be converted to a site ban.

My reason for proposing option 2 is that SJ has been given more than enough rope. There have been too many times when someone is given "one last chance" half a dozen times or more and they still don't change their ways. WP:YANI sums it up nicely: no individual contributor is so essential that consistent poor behavior will be tolerated. - Frood (talk!) 16:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I support option 2 as my first choice, and 1 as the second. - Frood (talk!) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Arab-Israeli t-ban and option 2. Enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia should investigate allgedly antisemitic content and commments seriously - not sanction those who complain. Sanctioning those who complain is a chillling effect and turns Wikipedia into a safe harbor for such content.Icewhiz (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN and Option 2. In retrospect, this tban should have been indefinite as Sir Joseph hasn't shown the necessary improvement since it was enacted. The tendentious editing and aspersion-casting have to stop. – bradv  🍁  04:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Second choice to the Holocaust tban proposed below, although I still support this as I don't think the ARBPIA tban should have expired without evidence of improvement. – bradv  🍁  01:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN and 2, clearly Sir Joseph isn't understanding what they need to do to collaborate cooperatively in this topic area. Waggie (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (1) or (2) and I guess the TB, but since some of the aggressive behavior occurred in topics other than I-P, and since this isn't an isolated case but one in a long pattern of behavior, I would just go with "Sir Joseph is indefinitely banned". Period. That's it (and indef is not "for ever", he can request a lifting of the ban down the road if he can acknowledge the problems here).  Volunteer Marek   04:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support option 2 as first choice - Unsubstantiated accusations of Holocaust denial are personal attacks, plain and simple. Actual Holocaust denial should be suppressed with extreme prejudice, but aggressively and repeatedly misrepresenting another user's statements in order to portray them as such is unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support site ban option 2 is too hard to enforce: who gets to decide if it's an insinuations, etc? You'd end up here again anyway on appeal arguing that he didn't actually violate it. The behaviour is bad enough to warrant an immediate block and site ban, and if he hadn't have accused me of it, he'd be blocked right now for his insinuation that Sandstein is enabling Holocaust denial. Complex sanctions don't work, and this is a much simpler method for someone who has shown they are unable to learn from warnings or sanctions. Failing this, support option 2 as second choice. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support with Option 1 as first choice Not Option 2 because I don't think there should be a automatic transition to a site ban without a dedicated site ban discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I do not see merit in this ANI report. Four points are raised:
 * The O3000 thing is old news; it was handled a month ago by two other admin. For the record, I do not think O3000's quote was revisionism or had any bad intent–see WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE–and I don't agree with Sir Joseph's view of it, but I also don't see evidence of SJ carrying on with it after it was handled... until it was brought up in this report.
 * Six months ago, an editor used the edit summary "rv antisemitic vandalism", and Tony blocked that editor, on the grounds that this was the latest in a history of tendencious editing. When the editor complained on their talk page, Tony revoked TPA. SJ's comment on Tony's talk page that "someone was blocked for calling out antisemitism" is a valid interpretation of events. Others might disagree with that interpretation, but it is not suggesting that Tony is antisemitic. Per WP:ADMINACCT, editors are allowed to criticize admin actions, and it's perfectly acceptable to say you don't think someone would be a good Arbcom candidate because of a bad block.
 * First, the statement was retracted almost immediately. Secondly, "home of Holocaust revisionism" is hyperbole, but understandable venting in the context of what's been going on recently at the Poland Jews Arbcom case and related AE filings, which is too long a story to detail here. I share SJ's frustration that Holocaust revisionism in mainspace (a constant problem that's been around a very long time) is being perpetuated by some and ignored by others. I don't read SJ's comments as any suggestion that Sandstein is engaging in revisionism or antisemitism. Sandstein did close the recent AE thread that SJ was referring to, and the one before it against Icewhiz, and it's acceptable for editors to criticize closes as premature.
 * This is a reference to a thread brought by another editor about another editor, which was archived without action, and has nothing to do with SJ other than that he commented in it. I frown upon hand-waivy passive-aggressive statements like "as was noted at the time" and "didn't exactly behave in the best way regarding implication of antisemitism on this project". Be specific. Include a diff or a quote.
 * In my view, all of this boils down to SJ criticizing an old block Tony made, and Tony filing an ANI report about it and tacking on an old dispute, a retracted venting, and a hand-wave towards I'm-not-sure-what in another unrelated ANI thread. So, how the hell did we get from there, to TBAN from Arab-Israel? The Holocaust is not an Arab-Israel thing? Hello? This is just another example of "something something off with his head" at ANI. As for a TBAN from calling things revisionism and antisemitic, well, it's probably a good idea for SJ to remember AGF and not use that terminology unless it's backed up with a whole lot of very clear diffs from mainspace editing (as opposed to, say, one talk page quote), but this report doesn't justify a TBAN, or anything beyond some fish dinners. – Levivich 06:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * how the hell did we get from there, to TBAN from Arab-Israel? You're right, the problems span multiple topic areas. That's why it should be a site ban. Not sure what the logic of "the problems he caused were in several different areas so we can't topic ban him from one of them or at all" is.  Volunteer Marek   20:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Be careful with what you wish for. SJ isn't the only editor in this thread who's been blocked in several topic areas for the same behavior. François Robere (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Francois Robere, if you wish to make thinly veiled threats, then have the decency to do so at the appropriate venue, such as WP:AE.  Volunteer Marek   07:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just saying the same sanctions are applicable to other editors as well. You're essentially advocating for your own ban; I find it curious. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Support site ban or the TBAN + option 2 although as TonyBallioni said, that is too hard to enforce. The claim that the "O3000 thing is old news" immediately above is obviously wrong—just browse the IDIDNTHEARTHAT from SJ in this section. Claiming anti-semitism or holocaust denial in the circumstances described above shows a complete lack of judgment meaning that SJ's editing in the topic is not compatible with Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't siteban people because they have poor responses to poor ANI reports. This was old news, until Tony brought it up here. – Levivich 15:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'll withhold my reservations about Wikipedians' ability to address anti-Semtism on this site – Archive 976 speaks volumes – and just say that Levivich speaks sensibly enough in my opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As first choice I largely agree with Levivich. I don't see any merit in this report.But assuming there are some problems with SJ behavior then we should try option 1 firstShrike (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Levivich, word for word. A warning and a firm apology for SJ's comment to O3000 would've been enough. Also see my comments in the root section. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Could someone explain to me what his comments has to do with I/P conflict? And why the TBAN is needed?--Shrike (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support TBAN and #2 Although I understand Levivich's argument, Sir Joseph has made it known that he sees nothing wrong with his actions, present and past, on top of casting aspersions in this thread. As such, it's evident to me that their editing in regard to pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict causes more harm than good, and a TBAN would be beneficial in preventing future conflicts over this. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , what Arab-Israeli pages? I don't see a single Arab-Israeli page that has been brought up in this thread. The O3000 quote was about the Holocaust. The two Tony blocks related to edits on History of the Jews in Poland. The Sandstein comment related to an WP:AE thread about Icebreaker (Suvorov), an article about a book about who started World War II. What does anything here have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict? You realize that suggesting that because someone has said stuff about the Holocaust, Holocaust denial/revisionism, and/or anti-semitism, they should therefore be TBANed from editing the Arab-Israeli conflict, is conflating The Holocaust with the Arab-Israeli conflict–something that I and a lot of other people would call "antisemitic"? This is what I meant above about shouting fire in a crowded theater. There's a half-dozen editors conflating The Holocaust with Israel and they don't even realize what they're saying. The report is all about the Holocaust, and the solution is a TBAN from Israel? Unreal. Wake up people! – Levivich 17:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had been under the impression that the broadly construed bit included the incidents mentioned here, however after checking the Arbitration Committee pages on it, that doesn't appear to be the case. Therefore I agree with you that such a TBAN would be inappropriate, and I would support a TBAN from Holocaust-related topics. Vermont (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Which is why I suggested a ban from anything related to religion, as his logs suggest ongoing problems in that arena. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And what his comments has to do with religion.If anything Vermont is correct if his edits are problematic the tban should be from Holocaust-related topics --Shrike (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do Palestinians have to do with the Holocaust? O3000 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Per Levivich. This proposal is ridiculously disproportionate at minimum. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both counts. Sir Joseph's accusations, while questionable, are unrelated to the Israeli-P