Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984

Large backlong on AIV

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

---

There is a backlog of 28 entries on wp:AIV. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive edits of wikilinks by Bear-rings

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

---

User Bear-rings has started a massive campaign for "fixing" wkilinks: 113 edits since the beginning of May, most of them concerning wikilinks. Many of them consist of removing from the "See also" section, the items that are linked to in the body. This is generally fine, although it may be useful to repeat a link in the See also section when it is difficult to find in the body of the article. Many of their edits amounts to unlinking repeated links. This is also generally fine, except when this consists in changing "see Zariski's lemma" into "see Zariski's lemma", which has a completely different meaning [1].

Many of these edits consists in replacing redirects by pipes. This is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, and has been notified to him several times in edit summaries and in atleast eight sections of their talk page (two other sections are about disruptive edits without indication of the nature of these edits). Worst, several of these redirect "fixing" change the meaning of the sentence, such as in [2] (as "function of a real variable" is the title of the article, the emphasize on "real-valued" was intentional), [3] (here also, emphasizing on domain was intentional]] [4] (link to a different concept).

When Bear-rings's edits are reverted, they start immediately in an edit war without discussing in edit summaries nor in talk pages. See [5] and [6] (I apologize for having breaking WP:3RR here, but I thought that I could convince them by clearer explanations in edit summaries).

Even after a clear notification on their talk page, they try starting new edit wars: [7], [8] (in this case, they did three different edits, and only two needed to be reverted).

I believe remembering that there was a past discussion here, for the same behavior of this editor. However, I do not know how searching this discussion in the archives. Nevertheless, this disruptive behavior must stop. I think that the best solution is a topic ban from editing wikilinks. D.Lazard (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

New edit wars by the same editor:[9], [10]

I've applied full protection to Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and Open set so that you two can sort the content dispute out properly on the articles' talk pages :-). You both are equally in the wrong here over the back-and-fourth reverting that I'm seeing - especially on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, Function of several real variables, and Parametrization (I didn't apply full protection to the last two I listed since the edits have stopped since May 11th). You both need to stop this and follow proper dispute resolution protocol over these content-related matters. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Calling this a content dispute is a bit of a stretch. What we have is one editor making questionable pipings or removals of wikilinks and then edit-warring whenever they got reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala - I'm open to lowering the protection level if there are users who agree that full protection isn't necessary here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I saw similar problems from this editor some months ago: User talk:Bear-rings#Redirects are preferred. I'm thus disappointed to see very similar problems still continuing.

This is not good. It's a specific 2RR over clear disagreement within a run of 5RR. Worst though, it's so obviously wrong. Even a competent editor ignorant of the topic should realise this, because the lead of the newly-linked article literally says, "This is a different concept than the domain of a function", which is the linked term.

These are not good edits, and pushing them in over other editors is not acceptable behaviour. Nor (as before) is there any discussion of thos. Bear-rings needs to back off from these changes, and if they can't do it themselves, we should do it for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don’t have much to add to D. Lazard. But it’s very puzzling to me what this editor is trying to do. Do they think they are fixing a linking error (which actually needs no fixing)? If the intent is to disrupt Wikipedia by making unnecessary unproductive edits, then of course something has to be done, I suppose. —- Taku (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Incidentally, [11] is a good edit (the old link was incorrect). I just can’t tell whether a good edit like this is by accident or by intention... —- Taku (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Today we have a 3RR at Absolute value. I'd support this change, as I too think that it's better with a single wl. But undiscussed edit-warring, even whilst you're at ANI, isn't the way to go about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• At Absolute value, one can read that

for any finite collection of n complex numbers ${\textstyle (z_{k})_{k=1}^{n}}$ we have $|\textstyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}z_{k}|\leq \textstyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}|z_{k}|.\quad \quad$

and the following proof is proposed:

Choose $c$ such that $|c|=1$ and ${\textstyle |\sum _{k}z_{k}|=c(\sum _{k}z_{k}),}$ summed for $1\leq k\leq n\;.$ Then...

Why do I have the impression that linking in one piece versus linking in two pieces is not the biggest problem here ?

Pldx1 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: What is your preferred way to prove the triangle inequality for arbitrary finite sums of complex numbers? --JBL (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

See also the edit-warring at linear equation and graph (discrete mathematics) -- this editor is seriously problematic and needs a (short) block to prevent disruption and so they can learn how to use a talk page. --JBL (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Many of their edits age good, but many are not. But the real problem is their edit warring, and their refusal to discuss their edits. As I've reverted some of their edits I won't block them myself, but some other admin should consider doing so. Paul August ☎ 14:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Block. User talk:Bear-rings#What is the matter with you? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Now they're even reverting legitimate complaints on their talk page. Please, someone, block them. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 15:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

They're at about 6 poor-quality reverts on linear equation. --JBL (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the lack of administrator action in response to this unambiguously problematic behavior. However, I will note that Bear-rings's edits today did not include anything obviously objectionable, and also no edit-warring. --JBL (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a typical playbook for WP. Let the ANI thread die out for lack of interest, have it closed automatically, then claim that as a precedent in the future that "I was doing nothing wrong". It's a cynical, but successsful, strategy for handling an ANI complaint about you. Bear-rings thoroughly ignores the aspects they disagree with, but they stay within the letter of 3RR and they know not to respond at ANI. I wonder how naive or failing in CIR they really are? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• And now another 3RR against WP:NOTBROKEN at Pregnancy discrimination [12] [13] [14]. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I waded into some of the stuff at Absolute value without realizing that this thread was here. Bear-rings' original edit was good, and probably shouldn't have been reverted, but they just re-reverted without even giving an edit summary, let alone any further discussion. I know blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but maybe a short one would be helpful to reinforce that communication is required when someone objects to what you're doing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Now at WP:ANEW Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Bear-rings has continued edit-warring over redirects while this thread exists (with many undos just from today), and has not responded to this thread. Surely we should at least force them to come here and participate in the discussion of their actions? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:Bear-rings is now blocked 31 hours by User:SarekOfVulcan per the AN3 complaint. The present ANI thread is sufficient justification for further action if problems continue in the future. Can this one be closed? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass moves of genocide related articles by user:Underwritten

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

---

user:Underwritten has been moving dozens of articles from their stable WPMOS names to contrived naming in the past 24 hours. The names user:Underwritten uses go against WPMOS and appear to be some sort of crusade. Can someone have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. This just won't do at all. Even more, the editor appears to be totally uncommunicative in response to queries (see their talk page). A block until this person explains themselves would be a textbook example of "preventing damage or disruption to Wikipedia." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor a 72 hour block and told them that they must communicate when others disagree with their edits. Please let me know if this behavior resumes. The next block will be longer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there anyway to restore the original article names en masse?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit outside my skill set. Can any other administrator assist with this? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help but there are a lot of moves and I'd like to know which ones have to be moved back (with or without a redirect). I don't know what the consensus/MOS compliance issues are in this area. —SpacemanSpiff 04:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff and Cullen: a sockpuppet, as is Morrister (talk · contribs). And a few IP addresses. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: re: the above "Is there anyway to restore the original article names en masse?"--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo I'm sorry, but I'm not the one to ask--that's way too complicated for me. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's possible Twinkle has this functionality, but I don't see it anywhere. It seems likely someone would have written a script like this by now. If anyone would know whether such as script exists, it'd probably be Writ Keeper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Xezbeth has already done this. I went through the move log and tried to revert three moves and made a mess of things as I was overwriting Xezbeth's reverts. I think I have fixed them but I'll probably stay away from things like this like the good doctor above. —SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved the Red and White Terror articles back without noticing this discussion. I've just moved the others back to their original titles, so that problem's solved unless there are other sockpuppets in play. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Rapid IP block evasion and severe BLP violations

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

---

Please note the recent history of Ella Anderson and articles related to her various roles. There has been an IP vandal rapidly switching between IP addresses. I have semi-protected each of the articles the vandal has hit. For those with a greater technical understanding of IP addresses: Would a range block be helpful here? IronGargoyle (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've put a limited range block in for the time being, but it is possible given their IP that they could switch outside that. Hopefully that will sort out the immediate problem. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added this BLP to my watchlist and suggest that other editors do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

TFA talk page

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

---

A vandal has move the talk page of Talk:Elizabeth David‎ to a different location and then redirected it to the Elizabeth David‎ article. As this is TFA, it will be relatively high traffic. Could someone sort please? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Done by TonyBallioni, to whom, many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Original research, refusal to communicate, ridiculously excessive detail, etc.

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

---

EmmanuelTzannes (talk · contribs) is an SPA whose only interest seems to be to describe the Greek island Zakynthos in excruciating detail. If you're looking at the big version you'll see what I mean--the experienced editor will quickly see that the excess is caused by unverified content and unwarranted detail about anyone, notable or not, who may have had something to do with the island. Last year, warnings and comments were offered by Adam9007, Diannaa, Cullen328, Doug Weller, and even the enigmatic Bishonen, but the user is unwilling to communicate and, worse, unwilling to abide by our policies. Their disruption led to a short block, but they have returned to restore the article to its glorious 300+k, even adding to it. This really has to stop. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All those admins and not a single one knows how to block as NOTHERE? It's really fairly easy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, I tried the nice way last year by making extensive article edits, so that takes me out of the picture. Bishonen may have gotten stuck in one of those famous no-go zones, and you know that Doug Weller is useless the day after a Triple Crown event. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

With an individual that determined? be on the look out for future socks, at that article. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted that enormous addition again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Boing. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: did something important happen yesterday? I vaguely recall something about a lemon and elderflower cake, but that's all. I'd have blocked but like you I was too involved. Thanks to User:Bbb23, a good block. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's a shame he won't listen. If he's the genuine original author of all those words, then he seems to be a talented writer and I'm sure there's material there for a number of spin-off articles about notable people etc, but we'd need far less flowery editorializing prose. I say "If", because I've searched using a few chosen phrases from the bloated version and found lots of hits - though so far only mirrors and, curiously, a number of essay-writing services. If anyone is bored and has nothing better to do this fine Sunday afternoon, try "Ominously, Gedik Ahmed Pasha then proceeded" to see what I mean. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I tried to convince this editor in 2017 to tighten up the main article about this island and to create spinoff articles about the history, cuisine, music, art and so on. I tried to convince them that including dozens of unreferenced or poorly referenced "mini-biographies" of various people in an article about an island of 41,000 people was inappropriate. Others offered similar advice, which was all rebuffed. I support Bbb23's block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I was just reading through the history of your attempts (and those of others) to explain and to help, which were rebuffed without listening and with accusations of prejudice. The outcome is unfortunate, but I support the block too as I really don't see any alternative when an editor refuses to budge from an entrenched position. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• A block for NOTHERE seems bizarre. I have moved the long history to History of Zakynthos, so no reader will have to wade through history before getting to the temperature charts - God forbid! The level of detail would not be considered "excruciating" if this was in the Anglosphere, say in Kentucky, and of course Zakynthos has had a lot more history than Kentucky. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, I commend you for creating the spinoff article about the history of Zakynthos. Well done. But your comparison to Kentucky is not convincing. Kentucky has more than 100 times as many people as Zakynthos, and a rich though admittedly shorter history. And yet our article Kentucky is about one quarter the length of Zakynthos at its height, and the Kentucky article contains links to over 30 Kentucky-related spinoff articles and lists. This is precisely the kind of standard structure that we routinely utilize in decent articles about geographic features throughout the encyclopedia, but this editor doggedly rejected all such advice, flinging misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith toward any editor who disagreed with their methodology. All that being said, I am sure that the article about Kentucky could be trimmed and tightened as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• There's detail, and then there's documenting every last belch, grunt, and fart anyone ever emitted in or on a given landmass. The recalcitrance here is an issue, even if this editor is trying to be constructive the repeated refusal to get the point is a bad sign for competence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, well: History of Kentucky 138k, History of slavery in Kentucky 14K, Kentucky in the American Civil War 78k, Hatfield-McCoy feud 49k. Then there's all the governors. Plenty of belch, grunt, and fart there I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The largest of those is only half the size of the aforementioned version of the Zakynthos page, as I'm sure you've seen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's full of dreadful peacockery, editorializing, and obvious one-sided opinions/judgments expressed in Wikipedia's voice. I admit I haven't read all of it, but what I have read is full of stuff about heroic Zakynthos folk versus dastardly foreigners. A reasonable article could be salvaged if someone has the sources, the time and the patience to do it. But as it stands, this horribly bloated puff piece is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Johnbod - Seriously?

• History of the Universe - 38kB
• History of the solar system -43kB
• History of the world - 62kB
• History of Europe - 109kB
• History of Greece - 45kB
• History of the Roman Empire - 73kB
• History of the Byzantine Empire - 86kB
• History of Athens - 33kB
• History of Crete - 21kB
• History of the United States - 111kB
• History of England - 84kB
• History of Kentucky - 74kB
• History of Zakynthos - 172kB - over 10,000 more words than United States, the next-longest article on the list
• WP:SIZERULE upper limit - 50-100kB

• Maybe you could spare the accusations of this being related to ethnocentrism, and work on whittling down the article you've just taken responsibility for into a policy-compliant size? Thanks! Swarm ♠ 22:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• A policy-compliant writing style would be nice too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The sizes of the above listed article have increased.

History of the Universe redirects to Chronology of the universe 87.9kB

History of the solar system redirects to Formation and evolution of the Solar System 102.8kB

The sizes for the other pages have also increased. History of the United States has increased to 221.7kB--Auric talk 16:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why are we fixated on which topic is largest in size? Many of the examples above have articles devoted to parts of their histories that when aggregated make the sizes not really comparable. For example: Crete has Ancient Crete, Creta et Cyrenaica, Byzantine Crete, and Emirate of Crete. All that may be needed is proper organization; and that's hardly a topic that needs admin attention. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• It was never really about size, though that's one thing; the level of detail adding up to size, that was something. A whole series of articles based on some of the content, that's a great idea--but still spin-off articles need to have relevant content. One of the the problems with the article as I saw it the first time and this last time was that it basically was a history of Greece, or of a significant chunk of the Mediterranean, inside the article of a small locality, and that's how I tried to narrow it down the first time, but to no avail. NOTHERE is one way of saying "disruptive and can't work within our guidelines and policies", but that doesn't mean they can't help write an encyclopedia if they promise to work within the parameters. I'm not sure that they can, though I am sure that significant parts of their writing can find a place somewhere in our project. But that is a few steps from where we are now, and that's setting aside the sourcing problems, which I didn't seek to address here. I didn't come here to make fun of the editor; I really came here so they could hear it from others as well, hoping they'd have something helpful to say. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually agree with this ("it basically was a history of Greece, or of a significant chunk of the Mediterranean, inside the article of a small locality") at all. The ancient history, and 900 years of Byzantine rule, are actually covered pretty briskly. But from the later Middle Ages to the Early Modern period, Zakynthos and the Ionian Islands in general became a front line in the major strategic conflict between the Ottomans and Venice and the rest of Western Europe, so naturally this is covered in detail, and rightly so. Most of the article covers these several centuries of struggle, with a succession of Ottoman attempts to take the island. Then, between 1797 and 1809, the island managed to be ruled by the French, the Russians, the Septinsular Republic, the French again, and the British. Naturally this takes some time to cover. The island was not a scene of fighting in the Greek War of Independence, but was involved. All the period after it joined independent Greece in 1864 is again dealt with very briskly. The level of detail doesn't seem excessive to me; for most of the 2nd millenium the island had different rulers from the Greek mainland, and developed differently in many ways. Various people have now swooped on the article and changed the references, which makes it harder to divide the article up, which of course could be done. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed a reference or two but I trust that I explained/that it was clear what I was doing. Thank you Johnbod. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying nothing there should be touched - of course. I have asked a WP specialist in later Greek history to take a look. I'm copying this to the talk of History of Z to preserve for posterity. Further discussion should probably be there. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Rcomm1's unsubstantiated edits and personal attacks

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

---

Moved from Special:PermaLink/842177110. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This user has been making unsubstantiated edits to Beethoven's 2nd (film) (claiming that the name of one of the puppies was Mo, not Moe, based solely on DVD/Blu-ray/etc. subtitles, which are not reliable sources, even if they are official), and while trying to redo the edits I was undoing, it refers to me as a "fermented kangaroo", and tells me to "suck on a green banana". Whether or not its motives are justified, it is no reason to attack/belittle others. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Rcomm1 has 3 edits, the most recent of which was two weeks ago. They've been warned (by you) not to use personal attacks. That's about all that's warranted at this point, but please do report if they return with more hostile commentary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on this edit and the summary, the user calling me a fermented kangaroo and a fermented cow and telling me I am high and to suck on a pinky, I would say this user's commentary is more hostile than ever. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been married to a deaf woman for almost 37 years and have seen thousands of subtitled and captioned movies and TV shows. I agree that subtitles and captions are not reliable sources. Errors are commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the OP as well as Cullen; but honestly, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• DawgDeputy + puppy-name argument + fermented cow/kangaroo + suck on green banana = this week's ANI prize winner! Johnny, tell them what they've won! EEng 06:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• I went ahead and added a NPA warning (level 3) to Rcomm1's talk page. "Fermented kangaroo" is a creative insult to be sure, but "I’ll call you whatever I want because my edits are absolutely correct & justified" just isn't on. --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(database replication conflict) Okay, they've been warned twice now about the same edit, and to discuss on the talk page which they are, though still with a less-than-ideal attitude. Still, there have been no additional attacks since Bonadea's most recent warning. I can't help but feel that this report and doubly warning them over an incident from two weeks ago has done nothing but stir the pot: the user's talk page has more warnings on it than the user's entire contribution history. Now, if there are any more comments regarding partially preserved marsupials or advice on unconventional consumption of unripe fruits then they will be met with blocks, but sometimes it's better to just let users have their tantrums instead of calling so much attention to it. All this over whether or not "Mo[e]" has an e in it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement sanction (that didn't go through WP:AE)

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

---

I'm not sure where to place this (since it wasn't posted at WP:AE), so I've gone to WP:ANI as the usual site.

• User:Malik Shabazz (MS) has been topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months for this comment at an AfD discussion eight days previously.
• In my opinion this is incredibly heavy-handed - a number of other admins saw this, and did not react. The banning admin, User:Sandstein, posted this message at MS's talkpage, which MS reverted with an edit-summary of "taking out the trash". Sandstein then imposed the 6 month topic ban partly based on MS's reversion of his comment (here). I don't want to invoke WP:INVOLVED here, but ... comments? (and from uninvolved parties, not from the usual suspects, please). Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Black Kite, might be better to move this to AN, because from a procedural standpoint, MS could either appeal to AE or AN (and he would need to appeal or confirm that he wants this to be treated as his appeal.) As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to see what Sandstein's response is, but I wouldn't have TBAN'd for 6 months based on the comment you linked. That being said, I don't see it as INVOLVED. Sandstein was acting in an administrative capacity when he left the talk page message. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have been filed by Malik? --Tarage (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an appeal, but an admin looking at it and thinking it's wrong. I'll move it. As I said, I'm not necessarily invoking INVOLVED. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

New user making not so veiled legal threats

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

---

Legal threat made here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ColdHardTruth&type=revision&diff=842647437&oldid=842605084&diffmode=source

I have notified the user. Strikerforce^Talk 19:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Besides the username violation, their only edit is a (weak) attempt at doxxing, and I'm not having it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is obviously a block-evading sock of Dr-accuracy-honesty (see [15]) who is now also indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Kandi Barbour "biography"

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

---

This article text is a horror in terms of BLP and RS compliance. The article title is a name used by at least one porn performer, quite possibly more; it's also reported that the ostensible article subject used many different names/stage names. It's not really clear whether the subject is alive or dead: the cited report of her death includes phrases like "reportedly died", "reportedly homeless", and "the San Francisco coroner’s office stated that nobody by the name [redacted] (Barbour's real name) had been found dead within the last week; however, he also indicated that attempts were being made by investigators to reach next of kin for an unnamed individual whom AVN believes could be Barbour" (bolding added). This is obviously no more than unconfirmed speculation, and the "real name" given in the source is described as incorrect by the article. The only other "source" cited for her death is the obviously-unreliable IMDB bio. (IMDB also helpfully credits her with appearing in a softcore porn film at the age of 10.)

Aside from a list of porn credits and industry tinfoil trophies, there is no reliably sourced substantive content in the article. All of the "biographical" content is sourced to various self-published blogs and similar sources, if it is sourced at all. (The sparsely cited AVN profile turns out to be a Wikipedia mirror.) Worst of all, there is an entirely unsourced discussion of the subject's supposed involvement in child pornography, implying that several people named in the article have falsified records to cover this up.

There is absolutely no reason to allow content like this to stand. Earlier today, I redirected the page to an appropriate list, while trying to research whether the old text should have been RevDel'd/suppressed or merely deleted. I don't think any prior versions of the article have enough RS content to be salvageable. However, User:John B123 has repeatedly undone the redirect and added obviously unreliable sources and unreliably sourced content to the article. He has made no substantive attempt to address the BLP and RS problems, but instead asserts that the moribund essay WP:AFDMERGE overrides RS, BLP, and other substantive content policies. This makes no sense, but the user will not stop resatoring the very problematic content. He has also disruptively initiated an AFD on the article (quickly closed), in the unfounded belief that doing so prevents any removal of content from the bio page.

Enough is enough. I propose that the Barbour page content be suppressed, that the redirect be protected for one week, and that User:John B123 be topic banned from the Barbour bio and related pages, and strongly warned about the consequences of edit warring to protect obviously problematic content without reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not not sure how potential BLP infringements apply to biographies of dead people? User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed the content of the article and added a redirect with the edit summary: "redirect to list, hopeless lack of reliable sourcing, serious potential for thrid-party BLP violations and general inaccuracy redirect to list, hopeless lack of reliable sourcing, serious potential for thrid-party BLP violations and general inaccuracy". This gives no indication this was a temporary removal whilst he improved the content. Even if this had been the case, it would have been more appropriate to add the "under construction" template to the article whilst he improved it. Certainly other editors had no idea this was a temporary redirect from the comments on the articles talk page.

My issue with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's actions was that if the article was as poor/had issues/violated guidelines as he suggested, then it should be discussed as afd not just unilaterally redirected. To this end I even tried to start an afd discussion to get other editor's opinions. WP is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not just one person's views, and as such discussions should be the way forward. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has failed to make any input on the article's talk page.

With regard to sanctions, I would submit that if any actions are required, then they should be against User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for total disregard of the WP core principal of collaboration. John B123 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that states that this porn performer is dead, and therefore this is a BLP issue. Even AVN, a publication consisting overwhelmingly of advertisements and porn infomercials, equivocates, stating: "When contacted by AVN, a representative from the San Francisco coroner’s office stated that nobody by the name [redacted] (Barbour's real name) [allegedly] had been found dead within the last week; however, he also indicated that attempts were being made by investigators to reach next of kin for an unnamed individual whom AVN believes could be Barbour, since at least one golden-age director had received a call from that office seeking information on Barbour's relatives." What an atrocious source in every way! And that crappy unreliable source is the best source in the article. Another lousy unreliable source in the article says her real name was something different. This article should be deleted, the title salted, and the content suppressed. If John B123 continues to push for inclusion of such atrociously referenced content, then I recommend that this editor should be topic banned from any editing pertaining to pornography, broadly construed. As for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I do not much like the editor's idiosyncratic signature, but I am more than willing to overlook that. The truth of the matter is that this editor does outstanding work to keep this encyclopedia free of porncruft and BLP violations. Let me be clear. I am no prude and favor keeping neutral, well referenced, policy compliant articles about notable pornography topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - You totally miss the point. The issue is not if the page should be kept or deleted, but a question of process, as explained in my edit summaries on the page. There is a clearly defined afd process where deletions are discussed, a consensus reached and appropriate actions taken based on that consensus. I note that you have started/contributed to a number of afd discussions, so therefore recognise this process. Whether an editor does outstanding work or not, it does not excuse them ignoring correct procedures. I would suggest the article is restored, tagged to highlight issues and then it can be improved to an acceptable standard, alternatively restored and an afd discussion started John B123 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And YOU totally miss the point about the overwhelming importance of Wikipedia's BLP policies and the underwhelming strength of Wikilawyering based on process alone. I note that you have demonstrated a fairly basic failure of understanding both BLP and of basic sourcing requirements, and suggest that you stay out until people who do understand decide what to do. --Calton | Talk 06:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think that AfD is the 'only way to delete an article, John B123, then you should do some studying. Redirecting obviously non-compliant articles is completely legitimate, as is speedy deletion of BLPs that clearly violate policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I erroneously though WP was supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a site solely for the elite who 'know what they are are doing'. Perhaps you could kindly direct me to where it is stated that editors can legitimately delete pages by making them a redirect so I can do some 'studying'. John B123 (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks. Reading that section, it gives the option to other editors to revert if they disagree, which I have done. It also suggests that if editors disagree then the article should discussed on the talk page or nominated for deletion and the issues discussed on the deletion page. This is what I have suggested above. John B123 (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I had to add in unfortunately as the link above did mentioned Afd, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, there are many ways before taking issue to Afd. See WP:SEEKHELP. A Wikipedia:Request for comment is much better in this occassion. If all else fails, then Afd is the way to go but that will still be long. Afd should not be used as first instance. FYI. --Quek157 (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the salient point in WP:BLAR is that once another editor has shown disagreement by reinstating the article, it should be discussed, be that as an afd or one of the options outlined by Quek157, not simply changing back to the redirect. John B123 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be discussed. However this doesn't mean the redirect has to be reverted. Normally it may be resonable per WP:BRD but considering there are BLP concerns, it may be resonable to keep the redirect until the discussion reaches WP:consensus. In other words, rather than fighting over the redirect, why doesn't someone initiate discussion? I'd note January 2012 is over 6 years ago so probably long enough that BLP concerns are largely gone (WP:BDP) although care would still need to be taken if anyone living is mentioned or implied. But IMDB or a Wordpress site by some random (unnamed?) person are definitely not RSes for someone's death. I mean thess are case so obvious there's no point even taking it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. AVN.com may be a slightly better source in general, but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a point that it's difficult to argue a source which repeatedly uses the term 'reportedly' is reliable for those aspects. So maybe finding quality WP:RSes supporting the alleged death would be a good first step. I mean even ignoring the BLP issue, it should be obvious there's a problem when 6 years after the alleged death in the developed Western world of an individual who's identity should be known to at least a few people, we don't have good sources confirming their death. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And if she really did end up at the coroner's office one imagines officials would have more means of visual identification than are typically available. EEng 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: A discussion was started at Talk:Kandi Barbour#Redirect but the OP chose to ignore that and bring the matter here. I did also try and start an afd discussion but this was closed. John B123 (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more than starting a discussion. You need to use whatever method of WP:dispute resolution that are needed come to a WP:consensus whether or not the article is worth keeping in current form. This would involve convincing people you've dealt with concerns which as I mentioned may be difficult when we don't even know if the subject is alive or not. I don't actually see anything particularly useful in that discussion you linked to since the only comments there seem to be about preferring an AFD (despite the fact it doesn't seem like this person actually wants to delete the article) and some weird comment about reviewers (who don't seem particularly relevant). There is no comment at all about the major problems namely the lack of sources. Previous discussions seem just as bad, talking about court records and findagrave! Since you want to keep the article, I'm not sure why you're starting an AFD. If you want to discuss whether or not the article is worth keeping in current form, as already mentioned above a WP:RFC or something seems a better bet. An AFD is rarely useful when no one thinks the article should actually be deleted but instead everyone agrees it's fine keeping the history but a paucity of sources or other concerns means it should stay as a redirect for now. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I voice an opinion, are we discussing the validity of the article, or the fact that those two guys violated 3rr?73.79.235.158 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

none of the above Quek157 (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Did someone violate 3RR? I didn't count anymore than 3 reverts for anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Will someone please give us a money shot to end this scene? EEng 06:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Self-confessed sockpuppet

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

---

While trying to discuss some edits with User:Monologuebaby, s/he mentioned a previous account that s/he had used for paid editing but they had abandoned that account. When I suggested that it would be wise to disclose the other account to avoid the appearance of socking, they disclosed "The account was blocked, so I was forced to open another one."[16]. The editor than accused me of "bullying" and wiki-hounding. At this point, I decided to let an admin explain that if you are blocked, you can't just start a new account. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification made here [17] Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for block evasion. I'll leave them a note. GiantSnowman 16:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted two of the three articles they created, as well. The third looks notable and has been edited by many others - I removed a bit of copyvio though. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: topic ban for paid editor BC1278

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

---

This proposal has been copied from Talk:Nextdoor#Proposal:_topic_ban_for_user_BC1278.

BC1278 (talk · contribs) has posted walls of text on Talk:Nextdoor in an attempt to whitewash this article (because BC1278 is getting paid to do that). I think it is time to topic-ban BC1278 from that article and its talkpage and let uninvolved, unpaid volunteers sort out the mess. See WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON.

Note that Jytdog has closed no less than eight different sections on that talkpage. You can see here what the talkpage looked like before Jytdog started closing sections. Edward Mordake (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

BC1278 has changed his userpage, which used to contain his full curriculum vitea. You can find the original version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BC1278&oldid=840601047 Edward Mordake (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

He is currently working on posting the COI edit templates he should've added a long long time ago. Edward Mordake (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have had very prominent COI edit disclosures on all edits I've proposed on Talk as a paid editor. There's an additional template that you can place on top of articles as an added best practice, but it's not required by WP: PAID. Jytdog just suggested it over on COIN as a best practice, so I added it in a couple of places.BC1278 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

!Votes

*Support as proposer Edward Mordake (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• oppose this is way, way over the top. See below. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• support as the actual state of affairs stands. Despite being paid by the subject the editor saw fit to remove potentially negative information directly from the article and then maintained that he had never directly edited the page. But here is the edit that dates from 2 weeks ago claiming it was unsourced. This is not strictly true as there was a source albeit a poor one and it only took me a couple of minutes to find a RS that repeated the same information. A short cooling off period away from this topic to allow other editors to serenely edit without constantly having to deal with walls of text pushing the company's POV would be useful I believe. There are enough impartial editors involved here to ensure that the page is up to WP standards. It would also be appreciated if his articles went through AFC rather than asking individual editors to review and move his articles into mainspace. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Those walls of text need to stop. Edward Mordake (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am notifying the voters that the previous topic ban discussion was closed and a new one started here. @Domdeparis: @Dennis Bratland:. Edward Mordake (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I had supported this TBAN, but now I'm waiting to see if BC1278 has heard anything multiple editors, including more than one administrator, has advised him. In fairness, it's not a bad idea to have someone working for Nextdoor expressing their point of view on this type of topic. But there's a limit to how much anyone can demand of volunteer editors, and whatever happens is going to be on a far slower timetable than would suit Nextdoor's agenda.

  If including content X without also saying Y would egregiously violate NPOV, and not enough volunteers wish to review the extensive contents of Y, then it's reasonable to propose deleting X until we can fully review both X and Y. But it can't be rammed through because Nextdoor's management is impatient. COI editing is a thankless task and there's usually no winners. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::The winners are those who get paid, and the victims are volunteers. Edward Mordake (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related, I'm willing to take on a full rewrite of this article. It may take me a few days, though. Strikerforce^Talk 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a bad mistake here. After submitting a redraft on Talk, there was some opposition and difficulty getting enough editors involved. I asked an admin what to do and they said: "My suggestion would be for you to put forward alternative versions for each section on the talk page (one at a time) and if folks raise objections, to open an RFC, because that could legitimately be construed as a dispute." dif. I started by just opening a discussion on one topic, which became an RfC, a process that went smoothly to a resolution. Talk:Nextdoor#RfC_on_Founder_section I thought the only remaining, extended, difficult discussion would be around Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section, which I posted. But I made a mistake by posting all the other suggested updates at the same time. I did not anticipate there would be extended discussion and opposition in sections other than Racial Profiling. The other proposed updates seemed like routine updates to me. I've never handled a redraft proposal in this manner (presenting all sections broken down at once on Talk) and I never will again. I should have handled it sequentially. Jytdog asked me if I would be OK if he closed out all sections but one, so they can be addressed sequentially, and I agreed immediately. I understand completely why editors on the page feel barraged by too many discussions at once. I don't think any single discussion is disruptive, but all of them at once are too much. This blew up on me. Nextdoor didn't press me to move fast - I just made a blunder. Having just spent a few days reading and drafting, it was all fresh in my mind. But I should have considered all these change at once would seem overwhelming to someone coming to the page fresh.BC1278 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

:::::::No, you made many bad mistakes in a row. We are sick and tired of your walls of text, and here you are posting yet another wall of text. Edward Mordake (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• So the article is about an app that people use to talk about what is going on in their neighborhoods with their neighbors, and it has been used by some people in ways that amount to racial profiling. That is a pretty emotional thing. And there is the paid editing thing; also emotional.

Edward Mordake is a new user per their edit count, and they have gravitated to some of the hot-button issues in WP, and gets hot, pretty fast. See for example Talk:Kanye_West#Genre which is the something-we-see-too-often WP:Genre warrior kind of discussion, and ends with Edward writing in all caps about personal attacks, which I cannot see. A similar thing has gone on here.

They actually first proposed this TBAN on the article talk page in the section here. I closed that, as we don't do TBANs at article talk pages. Bringing this here was better, but this was still unnecessary, in my view.

As BC1278 said, he proposed a whole rewrite in his sandbox at the talk page, and at the suggestion of others, he broke it down and offered it in sections at the talk page.

The multiple discussions were too much at once. I had a brief discussion with BC1278 at his talk page here and said that, and BD1278 acknowledged that, and when I suggested closing all but one of the sections, he was very fine with that. And in this series of diffs I closed them all but one.

This overwhelming of the talk page with suggestions was just a misfire. Edward's vehemence in rejecting the changes is part of what turned it into a mess. Part.

Edward, I advised you on your talk page to try to cool off on this, and i thought you heard that (discussion) Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::I thought you were part of the solution but it seems you would rather be part of the problem. OK, you win, I give up. Edward Mordake (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

PA including racist undertones, RS, NPOV, FRINGE, DOSPAGWYA, 3RR

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

---

Ideally, I would not have to do this and frankly this is a poor use of time, but despite my continued patience, it has become evident that this is mandatory by this point.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made repeated violations of WP:PA, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DOSPAGWYA. With respect to the user's arguments on the Halabja chemical attack page and the user's talk page, they rest heavily on strawmanning, changing the subject, dodging basic questions, and WP:DOSPAGWYA.

What the user is defending are refuted claims made on March 7, 2001 by a man named Jean Pascal Zanders. Specifically, the user is defending the claim that blue discoloration is not a symptom of cyanide poisoning. This contradicts elementary medical knowledge, and I provided medical sources, including reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to refute this. The user also defends Zanders' conjecture that Iraq developed and employed cyanide-based agents, despite evidence from the United Nations specifically stating they possessed mustard gas and nerve agents.

The user's response to this was not a counter-argument or admitting that Zanders had stated things that were wrong and which Zanders admittedly does not provide evidence for as his assertions were effectively one-liner statements, but instead resorted to repeated violations of the above rules coupled with strawmanning, subject-changing, and other trivial tactics, including claiming that the CDC and UN were my "personal opinions."

When addressing a false claim by an unknown writer named Leo Casey in a little-known culture magazine called Dissent Magazine that no doctors examined the bodies of the victims, despite this contradicting information in the article itself that Iranian and Medecins sans Frontieres doctors did examine the bodies, he called me [18] "our Iraqi genocide-denier friend". Not only it is this a personal attack, I am not Iraqi, nor am I denying genocide by addressing an unreliable source making an incorrect claim. On top of this personal attack, it also contains racist undertones against Iraqis by the user assuming anyone who disagrees with them is Iraqi, demonstrating the possibility that the user has a bigotry-driven agenda with regards to their activity on the page.

When warning the user for these violations, he censored my response to further strawmanning and personal attacks with then calling me a lunatic.

The user had made various other insults and personal attacks, but the two noted above are a sampling of how the user violates WP:PA as a response to an attempt at discussion and conflict resolution.

As noted above, the user's claims are in defense of refuted statements by Zanders that 1) blue discoloration is not a symptom of cyanide poisoning and 2) Iraq developed, possessed, and used cyanide-based agents, namely hydrogen cyanide. The first claim is fringe theory that defies basic and medically established fact. You could ask your primary care physician and they will tell you. However, I made the effort to link to the Centers of Disease Control, which by any measure is a highly reliable and reputable source. [19] [20] Even regular health-related sites say the same. [21]. For the user to continually assert the blue discoloration is impossible as a result of cyanide poisoning is to violate WP:FRINGE. Additionally, Zanders' other claim the user defends is conjecture (and Zanders does not say otherwise) that suggests Iraq possessed and used cyanide-based agents. The evidence provided by the UN is that Iraq did not possess such agents, but did possess mustard gas and nerve agents. [22] [23] [24] are a small sampling.

When we speak about reliable sources, we have to assess what we have. There's Jean Pascal Zanders who is a relatively unknown figure making a couple claims in 2001 that are evidently false. This would make Zanders unreliable. In addition, the page has been long removed from the cns.miis.edu website and is only accessible via the web archive. In opposition to this are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United Nations providing factual information as the result of regular medical knowledge and extensive weapons inspections in Iraq conducted by the UN. According to the user, these sources are "relying on one Wikipedia editor's personal opinions", which demonstrates the user is in violation of WP:RS by censoring sources that are objectively of very high reliability and the basis of empirical information rather than conjecture or a lack of medical understanding as in Zanders' case. As is stated on WP:RS, "age matters". It's worth noting that Zanders made his statements in 2001. While the UN was clear about what exact chemical agents Iraq possessed and asserted the dismantlement of Iraq's program, this was before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At that time, some figures such as former President George Bush asserted that Iraq possessed an active chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. However, after the invasion and subsequent search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it was proven that Iraq had no active programs and the few corroded munitions found were created in the 1980s and contained mustard gas and sarin/nerve agent, further proving the result of the UN inspections. By continuing to censor such sources is also violating WP:NPOV, which states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Vehemently defending incorrect statements made, while simultaneously censoring factual evidence with no conjecture, no editorial bias, and no agenda, is a violation.

In the user's latest argument, the user insists on strawmanning by referencing Joost Hiltermann who has nothing to do with Zanders or Zanders' refuted statements. The user distorts matters further that the sources I presented comprise "original research" because they do not specifically reference Zanders. However, this contradicts the user's own actions by adding assertions by Hiltermann to the article, despite Hiltermann not making specific references to Pelletiere. It's also worth noting that Zanders is a little-known figure and Zanders' claims were on the website of cns.miis.edu on a web page that has not existed for years, having to be retrieved the web archive. To expect others to point out specific claims that had no reach outside of a small institution's website (that being the Middlebury Institute of International Studies) by someone who frankly is relatively unknown is absurd.

Two points are to be made with respect to the prior paragraph: 1) This violates WP:DOSPAGWYA as the user is making a contorted appeal to WP:OR to "win an argument." It's worth noting again that the user has done nothing to counter the evidence against Zanders' two claims except tangental discussions, speaking on other authors/figures, personal attacks, and claiming that reliable sources such as the CDC and UN are my "personal opinions." 2) The context of Zanders' claims are important, which the user ignores. For example, Zanders is making a claim in the context of general medicine that cyanide poisoning does not cause blue discoloration. This is not specific to Halabja or any other event, but is relevant to medical knowledge regarding cyanide poisoning. As previously noted, this claim is simply wrong, disproven by conventional medical knowledge including reputable sources such as the CDC. For the user to claim this is "original research" is simply bending the context and making an appeal to guidelines to "win an argument", when it is Zanders obviously made a false claim about medical symptoms that can be properly countered by medical sources.

In another instance of WP:DOSPAGWYA, the user attacks me in the previously mentioned censoring incident with an appeal to WP:COMPETENCE, stating: "It's clear that you lack the WP:COMPETENCE required to neutrally summarize RS as required of Wikipedia editors (indeed, you seem to lack even a sophisticated ability to comprehend the English language)", which is somewhat contradictory considering I'm posting information from objective reliable sources that refute factually incorrect one-liner statements made by a questionable source at best. Evidently, the user's regimen is a mix of personal attacks and bending a couple guidelines in order to censor sources and defend what has proven to be wrong claims, in a visible effort to deteriorate the reliability and NPOV of the article.

The user has also violated WP:3RR starting with undoing my revision here, which I made to add sources in order to promote the article's reliability and NPOV. SeriousSam11 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Good lord wall of text. Also I find it hilarious that you use WP:DOSPAGWYA while doing exactly what WP:DOSPAGWYA says not to do. You complain about him blanking his talk page which he has a right to do and call it 'censorship'. I didn't even bother looking at anything else in your fortress of text except the last bit and no, he is not edit warring, YOU are. You've been reverted three times by two different editors. For someone who knows so many policy pages, you don't understand the basics of WP:CYCLE. Make a change, and then if it gets reverted, DO NOT RE-ADD IT, go to the talk page instead. I suggest that you condense your arguments into a readable format and stop throwing stones from your house of glass, lest an Australian weapon be returned to you. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Would it be DOSPAGWYA to call on WP:TLDR? How about succinctly stating what POLICIES (not obscure essays) the editor has violated and provide one or two diffs to show each violation? John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also you were JUST BLOCKED THIRTEEN DAYS AGO for edit warring. Are you sure you are competent enough to edit Wikipedia? I have half a mind to go report you on the edit-warring board. --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the length of the text, but the number of offenses were substantial (and this isn't the half of it). I also did state which policies the editor violated, John from Idegon. I guess I should apologize for being patient enough until the editor proved to be absolutely intractable to finally report. Also, the 3RR was in relation to sources I added, and then he was undoing it with no basis at all, so Tarage is incorrect in that respect.

Also, what happened 2 weeks ago is not only irrelevant to this specific matter, but it was also initiated by the editor in question. Then on top of that the editor took the initiative to report me while I remained patient. It seems apparent that Tarage is attempting to derail this thread by focusing on details that are irrelevant to the matter at hand and a laser focus on just one of multiple violations.

It also looks like Tarage is a very prominent violator of WP:PA and other rules. In fact, you were blocked just LAST MONTH for repeatedly attacking other users. Is your goal to do the same here? SeriousSam11 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That extended blathering is not needed. Period. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize what reliable sources have said about a given subject. If you cannot summarize your own thoughts, how can you adequately edit the encyclopedia? Again, please BRIEFLY summarize your complaint if you expect anyone to act on it. Been doing this for 6 years, and I can pretty much promise you no one will deal with your wall of text. Probably ought to also figure out the difference between policy, guideline and essay prior to re-writing your complaint. Hint: You cannot possibly be guilty of DOSPAGWYA. That is simply an essay, and a very obscure one at that. John from Idegon (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this: Rule-breaking user has made repeated personal attacks and insults with racist undertones. User defends false information and pushes fringe theory made by a questionable/unreliable source defying basic medical knowledge, while censoring/removing reputable and reliable sources from organizations such as the CDC and UN, which the user claims is my "personal opinions". User has been engaging in edit warring as a response to the aforementioned sources I added. Better? SeriousSam11 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

1. This isn't about me, it's about you. 2. My block was overturned if you bothered to read it. 3. You ARE edit warring again. Don't push your luck. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

1) Then kindly focus on the matter at hand instead of attacking people and bringing up things irrelevant to this. You're starting to do the same here as well. 2) It was overturned after it was denied and a massive argument in which you pleaded with multiple admins to unblock you. It was not your first violation either. 3) I added sources, making me a contributor. Then the rule-breaking editor reverted them for no reason except claiming that reliable and reputable sources such as the CDC and UN are my "personal opinions", which STARTED the edit warring. The user did this a couple more times, violating the 3RR rule, in addition to breaking several other rules. It is very straight-forward. SeriousSam11 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not how edit warring works. Edit warring is replacing content over and over again. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or you have sources. If it gets reverted, you go to the talk page and get consensus. You do NOT have consensus, so you are edit warring. TWO people have reverted you. And if you attack me again about my block which is IRRELEVANT to this conversation, I WILL put forward a motion to have you blocked for personal attacks. You are doing yourself no favors by being this hostile. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@SeriousSam11: stop lashing out at editors at WP:ANI, stop edit warring, and stop making unsubstantiated complaints of sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Are you implying that repeatedly making personal attacks against users, pushing fringe theory, removing reliable sources which refute said fringe theory, and edit warring are acceptable? SeriousSam11 (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging was already warned for those uncivil comments. You were warned for edit warring against consensus: "SeriousSam11 is also warned that making the same or similar edits on the article without gaining consensus will result another block". Everyone thinks they're blameless and only upholding the the encyclopedia's policies when they edit war. That's why we have a rule against edit warring. We're all guilty of doing this, so I tend to go a little easier on people than some other admins. I'm telling you, though, you're not guaranteed the inalienable right to make a certain number of reverts per day. You can be blocked for continuing to revert people even if you don't violate the three revert rule. Fringe theories should be reported to WP:FTN. Sock puppetry should be reported to WP:SPI. Content disputes should be resolved at WP:DRN. If there are personal attacks made after NeilN's warning, you can report those here, but I'm not going to read through that gigantic essay above to see if there's anything actionable hidden inside it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• SeriousSam11 the best advice I can give is for you to request this be closed before you dig yourself into a hole. Your sarcasm and attacks on editors here has very rapidly made the focus of this thread your behavior. If, after having this quickly closed, the other editor does something you think they should be sanctioned for open another thread.
  If you do file another ANI complaint; briefly describe the issue, show three or four diffs supporting your allegations and then wait for editors here to respond. If more details are needed someone will point that out to you and you can briefly give more information. No one is going to read through a wall of text like you wrote above so even if you have a valid complaint likely no one will know.
  Never attack the editors who respond here or you will almost surely not get the result you want and will likely be blocked for personal attacks as well. Jbh ^Talk 23:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'll make it very brief just with regards to a couple personal attacks. If you want information regarding breaking WP:RS, WP:3RR, and WP:NPOV in a more summarized form, let me know. When addressing a claim by a little-known writer named Leo Casey (not to be confused with the rugby player) in a little-known culture magazine called Dissent Magazine that no doctors examined the bodies of the victims, despite this contradicting information in the article itself that Iranian and Medecins sans Frontieres doctors did examine the bodies, he called me [25] "our Iraqi genocide-denier friend". I am neither Iraqi nor did I ever deny genocide or any kind. Not only is this a personal attack, but it has racist undertones against Iraqi people. Then there's calling me a "lunatic" here [26] when warning the user for repeated rule violations, and responding to further attacks and strawmanning. He also removed my response because he didn't like it refuted his points. Another in the same revision: "indeed, you seem to lack even a sophisticated ability to comprehend the English language". I don't know if putting words in people's mouths and strawmanning also counts as a personal attack violation but it's what most of that revision is. As stated in the long text above, his response to asking for him to prove his fringe claims in order to justify removing the sources I provided are met by personal attacks and strawmanning.

You made the claims, you HAVE to back them up. And I see you aren't addressing your own personal attacks or edit warring. While I am encouraged you actually went to the talk page after being told to do so, considering you didn't learn your lesson the last time, and your hostile attitude towards other editors, I'm starting to think a topic ban may be needed. How about you go edit something unrelated to the middle east for a while? --Tarage (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no need to respond to the aggressive PAs and tl;dr rambling above, other than to say that SeriousSam11's unfounded accusation that I am a racist is beyond the pale; obviously, if I were to criticize a "Rwandan genocide denier" I would not be making a racist slur against Rwandans, and the same principle applies here. SeriousSam11 is determined to smear and attack me, but he seems only to have shot himself in the foot with this thread.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Objective3000's BLP violation (refusal to remove)

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

---

Hello, we have a BLP violation at the talk page of Political views of American academics.

Objective3000 (notified here) confused a conservative speaker named Robert Spencer (who has been critical of the teachings of Islam) with a white nationalist named Richard Spencer. Once I pointed out this confusion, that's when Objective3000 decided to smear Robert Spencer as "Islamophobic" without a source[27] that supports this very harsh critique of a living person. I asked him to remove the BLP-violating material[28], but Objective3000 shot back with this instead.

I'm disappointed that this had to end up at this board, as I have repeatedly tried to impress on Objective3000 the importance of being civil and respecting BLP policies (such as calling my content arguments "bullshit"[29]), and I believe editors should self-police when possible, but it seems this behavior is unlikely to change without some sort of corrective action or administrator intervention. One of our earliest interactions began with Objective3000 dragging Atsme's name through the mud on my talk page[30] and threw in a few false accusations my way for good measure. He was warned by NeilN to remain civil and stop casting aspersions[31], but Objective3000 decided to forego not only NeilN's warning, but also opted not to apologize to Atsme or myself. I am requesting in assistance in taking care of the BLP violation on the page, as well as some form of action to ensure Objective3000 pays more attention to Wikipedia policies and respects BLP guidelines in particular. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is on the talk page, not on the page itself, as part of a heated (that's putting it mildly) discussion between both editors. It's not like one side has clean hands and the other doesn't. Also, it's within the Discretionary Sanctions topic area for American Politics 2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you complaining about Objective3000 referring to Robert Spencer as Islamophobic on a talk page? BBC News says he founded an "anti-Muslim" group,[32] InsideHigherEd describes him as "anti-Muslim"[33]. ADL and SPLC also describe him as anti-Muslim as well. There's no BLP violation. This could all have been found with a simple Google Search or by checking his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's the link to his page: Robert Spencer (author). Clearly noted as a critic of Islam. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy applies on the talk pages as well, Tryptofish. Should I have filed this at the WP:AE page because it's under discretionary sanctions? Apologies if this is the wrong spot for this complaint. I haven't filed a report until now. Please let me know if I should re-file at that board. Snoogans: just because you have found a source that you think will help Objective3000 does not change the fact that he smeared a living person without a source (and your sources don't refer to Spencer as "Islamophobic" either). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, Tryptofish. That's all well and good, but Objective3000 didn't refer to Spencer as a "critic of Islam," did he? No, he attacked the man as being "Islamophobic" which is entirely different. I appreciate everyone coming to Objective3000's aid, but he needs to come here and address his behavior and explain how he will work to change it. And we need an administrator to remove the BLP violation since Objective has made it clear that he has no intention to take care of it himself. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You're now arguing that Islamophobe isn't a synonym for anti-Muslim? Why is it that every discussion with you is like this? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in my report to indicate that is what I am "arguing". Please read more carefully. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I'm aware that it applies on talk pages, but I was pointing out exactly where it is. But WP:BLP does not apply when there is no violation of BLP: this person clearly self-identifies as anti-Islam, and parsing the difference between anti-Islam and Islamophobic isn't enough for administrative action. The issue here isn't BLP; that's just an excuse. The issue is WP:Battleground, and it goes both ways. No matter where you report it, your conduct will be looked at along with that of the editor you report. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268634/case-islamophobia-robert-spencer - I am what I would call the “good” kind of Islamophobe --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The person in question is Robert Spencer (author) whose anti-Islam views are so extreme that the Conservative government of the United Kingdom prevented him from visiting to make a speech. He is notable only for his fervent criticism of Islam and nothing else. The notion that it is a BLP violation to call him an "Islamophobe" in a talk page discussion evaluating his reliability is in error, Mr. Daniel Plainview. I suggest that you drop that argument forthwith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328. Spencer was barred from entering the UK because of his Islamophobic rhetoric. He self-identifies as an Islamophobe (see his book, unsubtly titled Confessions of an Islamophobe, or his essay "The Case for Islamophobia", helpfully subtitled "I am an Islamophobe, and you should be one, too"). In that context, it is not a BLP violation to describe him as an Islamophobe. In fact, it's relevant to a talkpage discussion on how to weight his views, which are clearly extremist.

It's fair to say that O3000 should have presented a source when asked, but even more fair to acknowledge that a sensible editor would have quickly recognized that Spencer is, in fact, widely considered an Islamophobe and dropped the issue rather than attempting to weaponize it. Daniel Plainview somehow comes off looking far worse than O3000 here, by attempting to leverage this (non-)incident, and in the evident battleground mentality suffusing his commentary here. I see I'm not the only person to think that this thread raises more questions about Daniel Plainview's editing than about O3000's. MastCell ^Talk 23:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with MastCell here that the label is appropriate. What is an issue - nothing we can take action on but a common problem that leads to the politicizing of far too many talk pages nowadays - is editors freeing using that label speaking their own voice/opinion on talk pages, rather than discussing the use of the label as applied to any edits to a mainspace article. In otherwords, I don't see O3000's use really as how BLPTALK is intended, but we're talking about the spirit of BLPTALK, a very grey area. But when editors do use those types of labels in their personal voice, it does throw a question of their own personal bias on the matters at hand, and can be seen as inciting others to react negatively to it. We do expect editors to disregard their personal biases when it comes to questions of BLP edits. --Masem (t) 00:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I wish Objective3000 would have just edited his comment and provided the sources that the two administrators just provided above, but he chose to battle it out instead and stubbornly refused. It seems this all could have been avoided if he had simply done that rather than have us go down this road. While the problem of Objective3000's pattern of incivility and aspersions remains, I am willing to withdraw the BLP violation complaint. I interpreted BLP policy as saying that you must provide a source when stating something very negative about a living person. If that's not the case, then I stand corrected. I do reject the accusation that I "weaponized" what I perceive to be a cut-and-dry policy violation, or that I am not a sensible editor. I asked Objective3000 quite politely to remove the violation before filing the report, and I also asked him to be more civil and mind the aspersions with no change in his behavior. I made this request several times, and requested apologies, but was rebuffed. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to respond. But, I will make a general comment on the WP situation as a whole at articles politica. There has been a recent rash of folks running to sundry noticeboards making various guideline complaints that are actually more about content disputes, by folks of differing factions. Some of these are clearly valid. Some are (pregnant pause) less than helpful to the project and a time-drain. I guess the general problem is up to arb, thankfully above my pay grade. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview, before you drag another editor here to ANI for the "BLP policy violation" of calling a person an Islamophobe, complete your due diligence, and if the person is a proudly self-admitted Islamophobe, then drop the matter before wasting a lot of other editor's time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke talk page access for Daniil Ivanov1

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

---

• Daniil Ivanov1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues abuse on it's own talk page after being blocked as a vandalism-only account. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access now revoked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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

---

Legal threats:

• "Using Wikipedia's mechanics to force this editor into an official "investigation" [The SPI referenced below] is a type of libel."[34]
• "By the way, I will look into filing counterclaims against you for harassing innocent users and abuse of Wikipedia jurisdiction and administration."[35])

Related:

• Talk:FreeFileSync
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Max4142

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Likely sockpuppetry plus legal threats equals indef block. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think these are explicitly legal threats, as I don't think there's a single court in the world that has the standing to rule over Wikipedia jurisdiction and administration. But he is using overly legalistic language, making reference to libel, investigations, judges, prosecutors, etc., and the impact of that is a definitive chilling effect.--WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Single-purpose editor refuses to address policy concerns with editing

• Micahwigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Church of God in Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 10 May, I edited the Church of God in Christ article to remove non-notable (by Wiki standards) clergy from a list of notable clergy. Two days later, Micahwigs reverted my edit, citing his personal qualifications as a Church member versus my supposed lack of qualification to edit that page. I explained the basic policy issues at play on his talk page—of which there are several—and asked for some kind of justification based on something other than "qualifications." I waited three days, and after hearing nothing from the user informed them that I would re-install my edit, and I did so. Within several hours, he reverted me again, and changed the word "notable" to "significant" in an apparent attempt to avoid abiding by Wiki standards on notability. He finally explained on my talk page why he was insisting on this unverified, subjective list of "significant" mninisters:

[M]any of these ministers do not have published works or articles and may not be known outside of the church, nonetheless does not denote their significance or impact on the church. ... Wikipedia provides an opportunity for these individuals to be mentioned and recognized for the work they did to advance to work and ministry of the church. Maybe your Eurocentric, narrow, and limited definition and understanding of "notable" may cause you to be biased. Individuals of other ethnic heritage such as myself, find if offensive that someone who is not a member of the church nor of my ethnic group feels they are qualified to make some a blanket statement and then use their limited knowledge to justify such an act.

I responded that this way of editing, even while done in good faith, ran the risk of subverting the basic collaborative nature of the editing process—and was also creating content that was completely unverified, as he has made no attempt to source his research. I waited another three days before installing my edits one last time. Once again, within hours, I was reverted without further discussion.

Most of this user's editing relates to the Church of God in Christ, which by itself is not a problem. However, I see significant ownership issues stemming from the rejection of edits from someone who (he assumes) is not a Church member—a belief he has expressed on the heading of his talk page. He has not made any substantive attempt to square his content with Wikipedia policy regarding notability or verifiability. I believe this user must at the very least observe a topic ban on COGIC-related articles until he relinquishes this ownership mentality. I believe the user is correct that there are gaps in Wikipedia's content stemming from the racial makeup of its editors, and I hope he can find a collaborative way to address that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Some copyvio here[36] from this. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not quite sure if this is the proper way to respond to this, however, I will attempt to do so here. My contention and argument with user JPRG1966 is that he made the deletion because he did not contact me first to discuss his concerns or justification for doing so. Had he wrote to me first and stated that there were some concerns and discussed how to collaborate to improve the article instead of simply deleting, then maybe we would be having a different and positive conversation. I researched all these individuals and with a simple deletion, their work and recognition is gone. It is not fair and neither is a appropriate given his lack of sensitivity to the issue. I am a proud member of the church and have provided significant information regarding why these individuals have been mentioned. I have perused several articles that do not provide the documentation that he is requesting and if he is going to remove my information he should do so to every article. Again, I find it striking that my article about a predominately African-American organization has raised this level of scrutiny from the contributor. He is more than welcomed to look up each individual and include the documentation as well. I will seek to do so, because this is not just a mere article to me. It is the history of the leaders and significant ministers of my church and their contributions will be made known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahwigs (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Micahwigs: To address your points: Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and a tertiary source. This means that its content is derived from previously published reliable sources, not from an editor's original research. It also means that nobody has to discuss edits with you before they make them. You don't own the article. I suggest you start adding the sources you've used to the article as citations. Any editor can remove any unsourced text, and the burden is on the editor wishing to add content to ensure that it is properly sourced. All of the previous content is visible in the article history, so nothing is lost. Wikipedia has no concept of "fair", but there is a policy on appropriateness of content, WP:NPOV. You have no right to judge another editor's sensitivity, particularly given your own conflict-of-interest in the church's article. You cannot defend a lack of sourcing in one article by referring to another unsourced article. Please don't try to play the race card here: it is sincerely not appreciated. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the place for you to carry out a crusade to document your church. If you continue to edit in the way you have, I don't expect your privilege to edit here to last much longer. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Micahwigs: I would like to say that I have had enough of your insinuation that I am out to attack African-American editors or topics they might be interested in. I have told you specifically and repeatedly that I applaud the initiative to highlight such topics within Wikipedia's normal editing guidelines. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Micahwigs. Wikipedia has three core content policies, which are Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. It looks to me like you are violating all three of them. Unless you change your behavior dramatically, it is very likely that you will be blocked from editing here. Please take my advice seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should stop short of giving new editors the impression that we don't take racism and systemic bias seriously here, because we do take it seriously, but there is a difference between source bias and systemic bias. That distinction can be confusing for new editors, and frustrating, because source bias is not something we can fix on Wikipedia. New editors who fail to follow the sourcing policies will be prevented from editing, however, if their behavior doesn't improve after a few warnings (of the sort you have received above). Sometimes it can help to work on different topics for a while, until you get a feel for how Wikipedia's rules work. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well you're certainly one to complain about system-ic bias! EEng 06:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the complaining editor was following WP:Bold, revert, discuss and the other editor should be blocked for a while until he or she promises to abide by that WP:Guideline or persuade us all that it should be overlooked. Also, I remind User:EEng#s to WP:Assume good faith and to keep personal remarks out of discussions, or anywhere, for that matter. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, EEng's comment was just a pun, I'm pretty sure... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 08:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say BeenAroundAWhile hasn't been around long enough. EEng 20:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Films001 - persistent disruptive editing and vandalising

• Films001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier today I reported Films001 at AIV,[37] but the report was rejected with a direction here by KnightLago.[38]

Films001 created an article about a supposed web series called "Franco's World" at FrancosWorld(Australian TV series) (note the lack of spaces and apostrophe in "Franco's"). I found it because it appeared in Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. After fixing multiple error's in the infobox and removing some content that shouldn't have been in the lead I moved the article to Franco's World per WP:NCTV and to fix the lack of spacing and apostrophe.[39] Since then, Films001 has been persistently disruptive at both pages, restoring the original, errored content at the redirect[40][41][42][43] (which has now been nominated for speedy deletion by another editor). At Franco's World he has done the same.[44][45][46][47][48][49] In fact this is now the current version of the article.[50] He has also blanked the article,[51] removed maintenance templates,[52][53] and removed the AfD notice on several occasions.[54][55][56][57][58] Looking through the edits he has clearly breached WP:3RR. All but his last edit,[59] occurred before KnightLago rejected the AIV report and I am at a loss how these actions could not be considered vandalism. To date, 5 different editors have reverted Film001's actions at both pages. (note that some of the diffs above overlap)

I have been unable to confirm the existence of "Franco's World" other than a mention at imdb and statements in the various articles that Film001 has edited. The infobox originally said it was on YouTube but I couldn't find it and, after I pointed this out at AfD, Film001 removed the line from the infobox without explanation.[60] I am concerned that many of Film001's edits appear aimed at creating hoaxes. He has, for example, added multiple urls to Robert Rabiah,[61] including a reference to Franco's World but, apart from imdb, I can't find any evidence to confirm he is even aware of Franco's World so I have contacted the actor's management company. He also created Sunrise Films, the production company supposedly responsible for it. It is describe as "an independent Australian film and television company that produces films that focus on social change" but the only Sunrise Films I could find is located in Canada.[62] Sunrise Films also mentions Robert Rabiah, who seems to be the person linking all of Film001's edits together. However, this is secondary to Film001's persistent vandalism today. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A search for "Robert Rabiah sunrise films" brings up facebook, vimeo and other pages. He's been editing about this topic for several years (see Sunrise Films history) so either this is a very elaberate hoax or the OP has misjudged this situation. Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

hijacking this but we had really lots of hoax nowadays Quek157 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Sunrise Films in Australia doesn't seem notable. The lead in the article has been copied from the company's Twitter page,[63] but almost all of the rest is all about Robert Rabiah's achievements, not the company. Film001 seems to be manufacturing notability so yes, this does seem an elaborate hoax. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this is a hoax or not. However, I've blocked Films001 for 31 hours. This will allow him to respond to the AFD before it closes but give us a break from his disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits of Cinema777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear related and could also use some fact checking. 85.76.65.196 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert Rabiah is now being sanitised by a UPE. advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians there are walls of text which are much ado about no particular changes to the article (other than simply reshuffling the existing information in order to serve a certain POV). May someone close the discussion threads? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like Cealicuca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs a TBAN. I note the arbitration warning has been issued, have you tried AE? Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I got too tired of that, and I do not know precisely what the proper argumentation would be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll see what clerking can be done on the talk page, but in regards to WP:AE a brief summary of the POV issues will suffice. The walls of text part speaks for itself. Swarm ♠ 01:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've closed the discussions and warned the users involved to either pursue formal DR or face a ban or other editing restrictions. I've also added the DS notice to the talk page. Swarm ♠ 01:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I just came across this thread, but should note here that earlier today I closed as inconclusive/inactionable an SPI Tgeorgescu filed against Cealicuca some time ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943 and User:Otraj33

Otraj33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have very strong beliefs about the Bengal famine of 1943 and an aversion to both the article talk page and to paying attention to messages on his own talk page. Some patient admin eyes might be helpful, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Another user has since warned him/her about WP:OR, and the user hasn't edited at all since then. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bdog Drummond

Bdog Drummond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user is making quite a few page moves related to the naming of "Noble Houses". Furthermore, this diff is incredibly suspicious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The mention in that diff about the sockpuppet case does sound suspicious. At any rate, there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to communicate with the user (whether on his/her talk page or on the article's talk page), so try the latter first. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallo all - I mentioned the sockpuppet case because I felt it was appropriate to do so in restoring the alumni list, the removal of which was so entwined with the case in question - tbh I think anybody doing so who had taken a look at the history page of that article would do the same thing. Am happy to submit to a CheckUser or any other investigation/scrutiny you like - I have nothing to hide and no affiliation with anyone or anything relevant to the case. I'm an academic researcher with a special interest in British aristocracy. That's it. If you would like me to answer any questions or provide any info then just ask Bdog Drummond (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also - have I done something wrong with my edits? If so then I'm sorry, they were all made in good faith and I'm eager for constructive criticism as to how I can improve? Bdog Drummond (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeated addition of Tamil scripts by User:Visnu92 without consensus

• Visnu92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vnonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Visnu92 has repeatedly added Tamil scripts on Malaysia-related articles, such as Church of the Immaculate Conception, Penang and Goddess of Mercy Temple, without any prior discussion and in violation of a previous dispute resolution (see the edits on the Goddess of Mercy Temple and the Church of the Immaculate Conception articles). The previous dispute resolution stated that the next person who adds or removes Tamil script from the infobox of a Malaysian article may be blocked. I do not want to get into another edit war, but clearly, this issue of adding Tamil scripts without consensus or discussion needs to be addressed. Vnonymous (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Vnonymous also posted this on EdJohnston's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see where you’ve attempted to discuss this with the other editor, and there is no dispute resolution around this. The talk pages of both articles are completely void of any discussion and your edit summaries and warnings to the user are erroneous as you’ve accused them of mass changes to genres, I do not think that word means what you think it means. As far as I can see there is no consensus or discussion to avoid Tamil in these articles, and going by your edit history you have a huge history of edit warring on this exact topic with the exact same user. How you weren’t blocked on July 8th last year is beyond me. This is a content dispute and you have made zero effort to discuss this. Your only action in this area is to edit war which makes you as bad as the user you’re accusing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Vnonymous: you've warned the user but you did not inform them of your report here, I've done that for you. It appears they have not edited since your warnings, although the most recent was less than an hour ago, but at this point there doesn't seem to be anything more for admins to do here. If you or Visnu92 want to start a discussion about adding Tamil scripts to pages then you should do it, it doesn't seem like either of you have tried. If you're going to go around reverting each other without discussion then you're both going to be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, as Canterbury Tail mentioned, you've been using the {{uw-genre1}} series of warning templates but these refer to disruptively changing musical styles on an article about a musician or musical recording, typically. Your concern probably falls under the {{uw-disruptive1}} series. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the wrong warning template used, but the edits are clearly a breach of the dispute resolution way back in July last year. As for @Canterbury Tail:'s assertion that there was no discussion and dispute resolution, please refer to User talk:Visnu92#July 2017. When he first started adding Tamil scripts, I did attempt to discuss this issue with him. Though it ended up in an edit war, it resulted in the dispute resolution by EdJohnston, which stated that the next person who adds or removes Tamil script from the infobox of a Malaysian article may be blocked.

Looking at the current edits by User:Visnu92, there is not a single reason (or edit summary) given for the addition of Tamil scripts into the infoboxes of articles on religious buildings. I have yet to find anything to indicate that these buildings are of some significance to the Tamil community, thus the addition of Tamil scripts are baffling in the least. And not to mention that these edits violate the aforementioned dispute resolution. Vnonymous (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Though the last person I warned was User:Visnu92, the warning applies to both parties. So Vnonymous is in just as much trouble for removing the script as Visnu92 is for restoring it. The AN3 report was not a decision on the content matter, which can only be settled by editor consensus. Either of you is welcome to post on my talk page if you want suggestions on how you can get more input. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the OP’s edits I’m a little concerned by what I’m seeing. I’m seeing what could amount to violations of WP:OWN and a lot of reversions of editors they don’t agree with. And very little discussion. They seem to be jumping straight into vandalism warnings against other users that edit their articles without any attempts to discuss the points on any talk pages beyond issuing warnings. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, I the very first diff I checked from their contributions at random was an apparent unexplained revert of a sourced, good faith edit,[64] which he issued a level 3 vandalism warning for[65] and refused to let them blank.[66] Regardless of the merits of the edit, OP's behavior was in the wrong. If this is a pattern, I'd support an indef. Swarm ♠ 19:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether either participant should be blocked, the issue of Indic script may come back again so please see WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and a 2017 RfC about usage of Indic script in infoboxes. The two editors named in this thread ought to check whether either of these threads would apply to temples in Malaysia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand the summary of the RFC but the first page doesn't seem to apply to Malaysia. It specifically says it only applies to India-related articles and not to neighbouring countries including Pakistan. (Technically Malaysia may not be a neighbouring country but I think the implication here is clear that it's for articles that relate India only.) Notably a reason given, that there are too many scripts, doesn't really apply here or at least not in that way. Tamil predominates among the Malaysian Indian community, so in most cases there would be a dispute over whether to include other Indic scripts. There may be a related issue over whether to include the Malay name, Chinese name and Tamil name and whether all those are too many. Especially if it's felt the Malay name should include both the Roman alphabet one and Jawi one. But there issues would need to be considered separately. That said, while I'm not particularly involved, from what I've seen the Malaysian wikipedia community is fairly inactive so I'm not sure how easy it will be to resolve. Of course I'm not saying that such a discussion should be restricted to them but they are the best placed to provided sources and explanation to help others understand the issues. One example would be that last I checked, our guidance pages on Malaysian personal names are very poor. IIRC the Singaporean guidance pages were a lot better so perhaps they could be of assistance. Nil Einne (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

99.53.112.186

99.53.112.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would someone mind blocking this IP; they're dong things like this. And considering their extensive block log, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. 59.98.99.230 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Pretty strange block log. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Neil: Hey—that's 99's original account! See its talk page. They've been on an IPv6 for some time now, but it's certainly a coincidence. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ShaneFilaner

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

---

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

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

Please revoke email access for this indeffed sockmaster and his puppet Dhriege. The former is sending me (and who knows who else) email via Wikipedia claiming to be the latter, to have been rehabilitated, and to be deserving of being unblocked. I'm not sure why, as I had nothing to do with their having been blocked in the first place; so I have to assume they're spamming multiple admins and other editors who look to them like admins. General Ization ^Talk 03:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. - Both still have Talk page access and have notices on their Talk pages advising them how to properly request an unblock. General Ization ^Talk 03:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Revoked. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Confusion in an article: naturism is not nudism

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

---

Before all let me greeting you, this is because i recently read the article Naturism, this article is wrong, Naturism is not Nudism. Naturism is the doctrine that advocates the use of natural agents for the conservation of health and the treatment of diseases. The expression "naturism" has traditionally been used in this sense by the "naturist doctors" during the last century. For example, Dr. Jaime Scolnik, MD, the most prestigious Argentine naturopathic physician, graduated as a doctor in 1933 at the National University of Córdoba, Argentina, in a radio interview in 1990, on National Radio of Argentina, testifies to that in fifty years of medical practice he never prescribed a drug, and he treated patients from all over Argentina and neighboring countries. In the interview, he gives a complete overview of "naturism".Naturista2018 (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The subject you're referring to is covered in Naturopathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute. Go to the talk page of whatever article you're talking about. --Tarage (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Or better yet, give up your idea that the meaning of "naturism" preferred by you is the only possible correct use. A dictionary will help. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:A Simple Human

A Simple Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A Simple Human, who previously had the username Rayat before a rename, has failed to report socks of an obvious vandal for multiple times. Including this instance. Their talkpage is filled with messages from the different accounts of sockmaster. A Simple Human explicitly asked a previous sock to insult another user special:diff/808987536 (that insulting issue is 6 months old though). Recently, they have converted enwiki into social network, which can be seen from both of their talkpages, and contrib history. User talk:A Simple Human#Sup, User talk:A Simple Human#Haha, and the most recent one: User talk:A Simple Human#How are you. Their contribution to enwiki is not worth the disruption they are causing. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER, and we have no Article 58-12, so failure to report socks is not wrong. No comment on the rest. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That Article 58 might come in handy at ANI. I especially like the Siberian exile. EEng 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like they've reverted some webhostesque content. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I came here to mention the same. Here is the full version of that talkpage before the chit-chat was removed. Regarding reporting the socks, if the socks were not harmful, or if the editor didnt know about them being disruptive, i could understand that. But what bothers me is, A Simple Human clearly knew/knows that the sock is disruptive. Also, their request to insult other editor makes me doubt their intentions. That victim later changed their username, and trolled these two perps. After that, the victim hasnt edited. The perps even discussed (in last 48 hours) about "saving each-other", "being supportive for/while coming back after each blow". But most troublesome is the casual discussions about being Nazi, communist, being anti-Jew, anti-Hindu and whatnot. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As the discussions are not on one talkpage, it is little difficult to follow-through. But this edit, and his communication on that talkpage makes me think that he is trying to be a good editor. But given his overall history, i cant be sure. Thats why i brought it here, to get opinions of multiple editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would remove this lovely persons TPA, but I left my tools at home.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

ASH edited the userpage of a now-blocked editor in this edit, specifically to add to the autobiography of that editor. Very odd behavior. Nanophosis (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Looked through some conversation ASH had with the editor, looks like they're just off-wiki friends. ASH also acknowledged this conversation and the warnings he's gotten about WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, so seems like he's just a good-faith editor who happens to be friends with individuals causing disruption. Nanophosis (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nanophosis: yes, i think the same, but their behaviour from past makes ne suspicious. Also, from various socks of the disruptive user, it is clear they first met on wiki, then connected on other platforms. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I see. I'll keep an eye out on their edits in case anything comes up. Nanophosis (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@A Simple Human: I see you editing. Do join us here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse by IP editor at World's largest palace

As far as I can tell, there is a multiple-IP editor with a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks at World's largest palace going back to at least March who apparently refuses to discuss their changes despite reverts by many other editors. Here are some diffs that I could find, in order:

1. 13 March 2018: no source, wrong section to put the statement in;
2. 14 March 2018, then followed by [67], [68], [69]: idem, when some patrollers reverted their edits;
3. 14 March 2018: unsourced, incoherent;
4. 1 April 2018, [70], [71], [72], [73] (in this one they put the same unsourced incoherent statement in multiple places in the article): Idem, repetitively putting this back in as the patrollers reverted these changes;
5. 1 April 2018: Profanity ("STOP DUMD EDITWAR FUC**** IDIOTS") as the IP editor removed excess copies of their statement;
6. 1 April 2018: Insulting HaeB ("stop editwar dumb idiot and study historie, look all other palaces in the list then u can sse too... or blind and dumb?") when this user reverted the edit and asked to cite sources;
7. 7 April 2018, 9 April 2018, 9 April 2018 (unexplained content removal), 9 April 2018 (idem, reverting a patroller's revert), 9 April 2018 (putting the incoherent statement back in and profanity in the edit summary), 9 April 2018, 11 April 2018, 13 April 2018, 21 May 2018;
8. 22 May 2018: here the IP editor is claiming that the Forbidden City palace is in Bandar Seri Bagawan, contrary to the Imperial Palace wikilink immediately before his edit, and the Guiness World Records source immediately after. Say what?

At this point I, unaware of this prior history, came in from the recent-edits stream and tried the usual process of putting warning templates on the user's page: first warning, multiple IPs warning. At this point, the IP editor reverted the warnings on their talk page and put the nonsense back in with a personal attack ("u can see here too dumbass").

After this, I hoped they would be open to a discussion and tried to go through the problems with each change on the IP editor's talk page, then reverted the nonsense with an edit summary clearly pointing to the talk page. However, this IP editor shortly reverted my revert with a personal attack ("stop war dumb russian").

Would it be possible to do something about this? Thank you. Ivgnyl (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The last IP edit was vandalism- reverted/warned. I semi-protected the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User repeatedly removing my talk page comments

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

---

After engaging in an edit war with me over the inclusion/removal of a "citations needed" tag at Grue Church fire, during which he called me a "dick" in an edit summary [74], User:Drmies has taken to repeatedly removing my Talk page comments on the related Talk page, despite guidleins that say this should not be done:[75],[76],[77]. In so doing, he also removed other comments of mine no even addressed to him or mentioning him. (see 2nd part of the diff)

Initially he claimed this was because I was "patronizing', and when I pointed out such removal was against policy, he is no claiming "personal attack",thigh there is no personal attack in what I wrote. [78] states that 'you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.', and it further states that ' you should stop if there is any objection' and that the removal of 'harmful posts' " does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." - not that I think that what I wrote was uncivil, but even if it was...,

It will be worth noting that while complaining if my supposed "personal attacks", and patronizing, he has called me "ignorant" on the very same page:[79] Attack Ramon (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Buddy if an admin is removing your comments and you decide the best course of action is to edit war them... you're going to end up blocked. --Tarage (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

are admins not subject to the same rules as everyone else? Attack Ramon (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thesis seems to be that because your posts at Talk:Grue Church fire were merely inflammatory and patronizing commentary that no one is allowed to remove them because free speech? Article talk pages are for discussion of actionable proposals to improve the article. They are not places to post patronizing commentary about other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, please read what I write. My thesis is that Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments specifically disallows such actions. In the comment immediately preceding mine, Drmies wrote "But if you insist on being not just disruptive but also ignorant, I'll go and deal with the article, which is easier than dealing with you." Do you find that patronizing? Uncivil? Or is that a suggestion to improve the article?Attack Ramon (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They are, but 9 times out of 10 edit warring an admin is a stupid thing to do. So I'm going to second his appraisal of you and say that yes, you are ignorant. --Tarage (talk)

Sorry, I don't follow. If they are expected to follow the rules, why should they be allowed to remove my comments? Attack Ramon (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it's a PERSONAL ATTACK. --Tarage (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Further more that entire discussion is you wikilawyering. You REALLY need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? Attack Ramon (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you insulted an admin of not familiar with the guidelines I think. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

But I don't think that is counted as a personal attack. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"I'm glad I got you to actually do work to improve this article" Are you thick? --Tarage (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, yes, admins have to live by the same rules, there's no doubt about it. This user was wrong from the beginning, of course, and recognized they were wrong only to others, after they'd been told a few times--on the talk page of that Mount Testicle article, which is funny from the outside, if you haven't wasted an hour or more on it. Anyway, I've been thinking about that needling statement of theirs, and I'm reminded of when Mephistopheles was asked by Faustus how he got to be there, whether it was his summons--and the answer was that that was the immediate, not the ultimate cause. So in a way Ramon is correct, but from my point of view he's not: I got to work on that article because this is an encyclopedia and improving articles is what we do. Thanks--I'm glad you understand how hurtful those kinds of comments are. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Different people, different views. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

"Are you thick?" is an insult too. Mind your words. Not everyone is perfect. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not thick, and please cease your own patronizing and insulting commentary here. I *am* glad that due to my actions, he actually improved the article somewhat, rather than slapping unhelpful rags on it, and said so. That is not a personal attack. Please note that when you joined the edit war on that talk page you removed an unrelated comment of mine - please undo that . Attack Ramon (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if you don't say "I got you do work", everything is fine now. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Abelmoschus this is probably a language thing. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be patronized either, so maybe this is not something where your skills are best utilized. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okok I quit. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

socking

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

---

JustinJohnsonBagPack looks much like AkshayKadamSwag, who was indeffed for copyvios a month ago. Could someone block him? He keeps uploading non-free file duplicates as his own work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick. The problem is that I tried to clean up after his licensing mess and I just made it bigger by F5ing the original files. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Huggums537

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

---

Huggums537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on a several day streak of CIR type behavior in regards to WT:N and his interactions with other editors. See this discussion on my talk page. If I weren't involved, I would indef CIR block him for being unable to work in a collaborative editing environment, but I am involved, so I will leave that to other administrators and the community to decide. This is following his restoring revisions where he talked to Serial Number 54129 like a child on my talk page: [80], [81]. Cast aspersions about me at VPP: [82], and was just generally disruptive at WP:N and WT:N (if need be, I can provide diffs, but doing ctril+f and randomly clicking next to the username should give you some idea of what is going on, and provide a clearer sense than one or two specific issues). Now he has decided to strike a comment of Legacypac's on WT:N after I had already given him multiple warnings about ceasing disruption.

This might be minor, but in my view, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Huggums537 has displayed a pattern of behavior that is difficult to reconcile with being competent enough to edit this project or understanding how a collaborative environment works, and I think we're at the point where the community needs to take action. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning him was my "mistake" User_talk:Huggums537#May_2018. Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• If I may have a chance to defend myself, I'd like to explain some things. First of all, TonyBallioni's involvement is mainly of my own doing. I usually have a very good history of interacting with other editors, (except for one: Hijiri88), but for whatever reason, I somehow managed to get carried away and say some very offensive things to Tony. I don't know why. I have nothing against him. Anyway, I immediately stopped what I was doing, but the damage to Mr. Ballioni was already done. After that, it didn't take much to paint me in a bad light for any little thing. He has a wide circle of friends. Now I truly understand how it feels to be painted in a bad light as I did to Tony, and I fully regretted what I did as you can see here and here. I also fully understand that personal editing of that nature is NOT the function of policy talk pages in the first place.
• The offensive commenting was very wrong. However, I do think I have fair explanations for most of the other complaints because I feel that they are indeed explainable and minor as Tony mentioned.
• At WP:N I only made 2 edits in 24 hours and they were described at the talk page. Not even worth mentioning in my opinion.
• At WT:N when I struck LegacyPac's comment, I was already busy striking the offensive comments I had made, and so it only seemed natural to me to also strike a comment that I felt was accusatory toward me. Striking that comment was probably minor in and of itself, but completely understandable if you combine it with the fact I was already performing those kind of edits. Hardly disruptive at all and not even worth the warning that brought me here.
• At Tony's talk page where I "talked like a child". I think talking like a child is a little minor. The much bigger issue (and I don't know why Tony didn't bring this against me) was the original edit where I directly mocked the above referenced guest with my talking like a child. Tony reverted me and advised me not to mock people. I made a corrected revision with an apology that still still maintained as much tone as possible without mocking anyone, or else what is the point in making corrections to express yourself without maintaining tonality of your expression? Suddenly, it was not mocking that was an issue, but "talking like a child".
• I think by this last example it's pretty clear to see that if Tony didn't have a problem with one thing then he would have had a problem with another. It feels to me like he (and his friends) have just been piling up minor incidents in order to get me here. Honestly, I don't blame any of them. They are all angry at me and they probably should be. Tony didn't deserve those comments I made about him, but I really don't deserve to be here either.
• I've already been told I'm not cool, I have no respect, I'm a troll, publicly accused of things I did not do, and subjected to the humiliation of his talk page watchers alluding that I'm a fool, idiot and being mocked by them. Not to mention Hijiri88, who I've had a rivalry with for a very long time, so I'm positive we'll be hearing a LOT from him about this and so much more...
• I don't mention any of these grievances to accuse anyone. I have not mentioned any names, (except Hijiri88) and don't intend to. The purpose of mentioning these affronts is to let everyone know that I have been paying dearly for my mistakes and sucking it up, doing the best I can while seemingly being assaulted by a barrage of warnings. At least two of which were just for minor things.
• I've been civil with everyone (in spite of suffering the indignities of all the provocations), including my rival Hijiri88 (although he will disagree) and repentant for what I've done since before we even got here.

Tony, I'm very sorry for what I've done. I've tried to make it right the best I know how. I guess I'm at the mercy of the community now. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You should not have a rival. You have been around long enough to know NOT to edit especially strike out other user's posts. A number of editors independently came to tell you to stop being disruptive, this is not a case of someone's friends ganging up on you. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you LegacyPac. Believe me, I don't want a rival. I try to avoid Hijiri88 like the plague, but he always shows up to paint me in a bad light (like he did on Tony's page) ever since we had a some run-ins when I was a new editor. He won't seem to let it go. Huggums537 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that you have probably been Tony's best friend, LegacyPac. Like when I reverted his edit, and you came to his aid to revert it back. Then, after I said all those nasty things, you were the first one there to leave a warning on my page. Tony is lucky to have a friend like you. You've stuck with him all the way up until here. If you can try to place yourself in my shoes, then it might not be that hard to imagine that when you have his best friend here and more friends coming from his talk page where he announced to all his watchers (especially Hijiri88) that this ANI was here, then it would probably really feel like you are being ganged up on. Can you agree with that? Huggums537 (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You realize that I could have just blocked you and let you talk your way into having your TPA revoked if I really wanted to abuse my power and ignore policy, right? Also, Hijiri88 wasn’t stalking or hounding you. He’s a regular follower of my talk page, which you can see in the archives. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I DO realize that and I appreciate it very much. Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I was following the WP:N discussion and reverted an inappropriate edit. As someone very interested in deletion process of course I follow N. All this "friend" stuff shows an inability and/or unwillingness to understand how Wikipedia works. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I was using the term "friends" very loosely in a colloquial sense to refer to editors who are long-standing colleagues. Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Every one of my confrontations with Huggums was initiated by him, so his claim to try[ing] to avoid Hijiri88 like the plague is an obvious lie. I could go into detail if necessary, but honestly my entire history of interacting with him has been characterized by (a) him hounding me,[83] (b) him engaging in unambiguous trolling,[84] (c) him arguing with me (and a then-current member of ArbCom!) over whether it is acceptable to link bootleg YouTube uploads of copyrighted media,[85][86][87] and (d) him behaving in an exceptionally bellicose manner on project talk pages,[88] so I honestly don't know why this editor, who barely contributes to our articles to begin with (preferring to spend all of his time arguing over changes to policy) and is just a drahma-hound, has been allowed continue editing thusfar with all the trouble he has caused. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's also important to notice here that most of the examples Hijiri is providing here are from a very long time ago over disputes we had in the distant past when I was a brand new editor. The most recent one being in May, where he first PROVOKED ME by behaving in an [inflammatory] exceptionally bellicose manner himself to begin with. The rest of the examples date well into last September and do not reflect the many months of good contributions that I have made without conflict with Hijiri or any other editor editor up until now with Tony and I think I have proven with Tony that there is no conflict between us, only that I made a mistake and am trying to make reparations. The only conflict seems to be arising from Hijiri, who will not let the past go. Huggums537 (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    A remark about the general ineffectiveness of wikilawyering over the difference between "noteworthiness" and "notability", not even directed at you but at editors who make and/or accept such arguments (who you presumably consider to be the majority of the community), is hardly "exceptionally bellicose": you should retract that remark. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

    I'll strike that, but a remark even hinting I'm wikilawyering after we've already had past disagreements can be considered inflammatory. Huggums537 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Here we go [Hijiri]. Already I'm every evil thing you can possibly imagine. Chief of them being a liar, because "Every one of my confrontations with Huggums was initiated by him" except you are the one being dishonest about that. You don't remember where YOU are the one who followed ME over here and initiated YOUR hounding/trolling to the point I had to mention it in the edit summaries as well as the talk page? Or, when you initiated contact 3 different times at here? And our most recent interaction on Tony's page where you are the one who inserted yourself into the discussion. I'd really not rather rehash all the old wounds and I wish you would just leave me alone and bury the hatchet. Yes, we have had some bitter disagreements in the past, but I have let them go and I don't go around dragging your name in the mud over it as you do me. Really, I should be more angry with you than I am the way you come on here and call me all these liars, hounds, trolls, and such. But, [I'm not.] really I pity you because you are so bitter and living like that must be like drinking poison and hoping the other person will die. At any rate, this is not related to Wikipedia or policy, so I must be done with it. Huggums537 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I was sympathetic to the theory that you went about disengaging from your remarks on the notability discussion page in an awkward manner, but... I suggest you may wish to reconsider some of the preceding statement? isaacl (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • You are right. I already knew it didn't have to do with Wikipedia when I said it and it won't help make things any better between Hijiri and I. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I wonder if a TBAN on policy pages might be in order. Seems to get too het up and then cast aspersions and says unfortunate things. One wonders.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have successfully collaborated with editors in making policy changes before and I have also successfully implemented my own minor proposals while working well with other editors. This was an unusual incident for me and I honestly don't know what came over me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Here are some links to my collaborations/proposals: MoS, MoS, VP, and N. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you jumped on a policy change that was going to pass whether you were involved or not, and your behaviour if anything soured the discussion: you inserted an off-topic snipe at me when I hadn't even been involved in the discussion, apparently in attempt to get me to respond.[89][90] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I reverted a change to policy and opened my own proposal and voted on the one that was going to pass in the process. Also, those two comments have been taken out of context to make them appear as if they are related. It doesn't bear up under scrutiny. A closer look reveals that the two comments are from two unrelated discussions. Hijiri88 is quite simply making it out to be something it is not, nor was ever intended to be. Huggums537 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said they were related, and in fact my whole point was at you snuck an irrelevant snipe against me into a discussion that I wasn't even involved in. This kind of behaviour, which I'm not sure if it's worse if it's deliberate or accidental, is exactly what I was talking about with the "trolling" above -- you did so to such an extent that an admin had to come in and shut down an RSN thread because your IDHT disruption was creating so much drahma. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is your evidence of me being the cause of this "shut down"? Huggums537 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN threads rarely require admin closes. You caused so much drahma in that thread that it needed to be shut down. I linked the archive further up: the thread you hijacked is the only thread on the whole page to be closed because of drahma (the only other closed thread was closed because of a broad and near-unanimous consensus). I disagree with other editors on RSN all the time, so if there was a problem it wasn't with me: the only other editor you could possibly hoist the blame off on would be OID, and he also has cordial disagreements on RSN on a regular basis. We've even had them together. Asking for "evidence" when the I already gave the link to the archive with the close in my first comment here just looks like more wikilawyering, and it's your continuing to behave in this way even when faced with sanctions that makes me think you really are unable to change. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)

And, another question: What can I do to make things right between us? Anything? Huggums537 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) Admit you hounded me. (2) Apologize for (1). (3) Take back ... just about everything you said in the "ensemble cast" discussion(s), let the community decide that issue, and respect the community's decision. The community had already basically agreed to avoid the term before you showed up. (4) Promise never again to forum-shop like you did when you brought the "ensemble cast" problem to the Guardians of the Galaxy (film) talk page. (5) Apologize for your accusing me of hounding you by being aware of the forum-shopping in (4). (Note that the international release schedule of that film, plus some off-wiki harassment I experienced in 2014, effectively prevented me from editing that article before it pass GAN unless I wanted to spoil it for myself and put up with people accusing me of "socking" by making disclosed logged-out edits while not wanting to log in; I do, however, have the page on my watchlist.) (6) Stop behaving in a bellicose manner every time I post in a discussion involving you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Much of this I disagree with and find to be falsely accusatory. However, there are some things that I DO take responsibility for in our disagreements that I will own up to. 1) I apologize for all the comments in the "ensemble cast" discussions, and I admit I should take those things back. 2) I have no problem letting the community decide that issue, or respecting their decision. Honestly, that decision has been ancient history as far as I have been concerned. 3) Promise to be civil with you. As far as the hounding, forum shopping, and being bellicose goes, I feel like there's no evidence of that and you are just not seeing things in the right light about me. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How can you admit to your bellicose (or trolling) behaviour throughout the massive fustercluck over "ensemble casts" and apologize for it, but say that this claim is falsely accusatory? As for hounding, I've asked you like a dozen times how you randomly came across not only the Star Wars Holiday Special article (not inconceivable, but unlikely) but my three-month-old edits to it specifically (almost inconceivable), and you have done nothing but dodge the question: demanding "evidence" of hounding when this is all the evidence anyone should ever need, and you have been aggressively refusing to provide any counter-evidence, is just more wikilawyering. If you want more evidence, how about this: of your [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Huggums537#top-edited-pages top five edited talk pages four are pages you followed me to and consciously !voted the opposite way to me (where applicable), and debateably the same could be said of five of your top seven pages (the reason it's debateable is that the fifth page was Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi in the weeks following that film's release, so while your !votes there could seem to be conscious responses to me, you have a definite excuse to have come across that page when you did). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, I am here to answer to some SERIOUS charges against me (along with several minor ones) and you are only here to rub it in my face with your incessant bickering over petty disputes from MONTHS ago. DROP THE STICK. I am done with these juvenile debates. I offered you an apology and you did not accept. As far as I am concerned we have nothing more to say to each other. That is the most diplomatic I can be after all of the personal attacks I have endured from you. Kindly leave me alone. Huggums537 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You hounded/attacked me, and you defended said behaviour (with new attacks claiming I was hounding/attacking you) two weeks ago on NRP's talk page, one week ago on TBA's talk page, and this week here on ANI. This is not "months ago". Just keep digging... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment. Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef CIR block as first choice, support TBAN on policy pages as second choice, possibly both if this seems necessary to the community. This user needs to write more articles before attempting to argue over difficult policy points that he feels he understands better than people who have been editing for years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It is well worth mentioning again that this user has a long history of holding the past against me and canvassing in order to defamate my character. A perfect example of this is here, where the sysop determined he was exaggerating about me as usual. There was also another case where he went canvassing to an admin, and it was determined by that admin. that his behaviour was equally bad as mine, but that he should be held to a higher degree of responsibility since he is an experienced editor. Huggums537 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just keep digging, I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, in the first instance Drmies said I was probably overreacting by saying that all three of you were hounding me and that it was probably not a coincidence: one of the other editors looked legitimately like a sock of another editor who was hounding me and I successfully convinced a CU to check that (read: I had good enough reason to believe what I did that a CU agreed enough to check; also note that the original "main account" I suspected has since been blocked -- for sockpuppetry); the other user was harassing me, but it was because she harasses everyone who disagrees with her in her very narrow editing sphere, so I was able to resolve the problem simply by disengaging; that you were hounding me is now an undeniable fact.[91] And if you could provide a diff of another case where [I] went canvassing to an admin that would be great: it is generally considered poor form to make accusations like that on ANI without evidence. Anyway, even though I asked you for evidence supporting your accusations against me, I actually think it would be good idea for you to shut up and stop responding, as you're just digging your own grave at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No that's no hounding at all. Huggums537 (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, the apology you claim never existed is in that discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed your inappropriately hidden comment. If you want to keep digging your own grave here, don't try to hide that fact. Not only did you not apologize for following me to the Holiday Special article, you repeatedly refused to even recognize the question, and in this thread you denied that it had ever happened (As far as the hounding[...] goes, I feel like there's no evidence of that). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No Comment. Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef CIR block per the last couple of days and this thread: this person either doesn't know how to work on a collaborative project and is intentionally insulting others or is too dense to figure out how to do it. Either way, they are wasting our time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems slightly insulting itself, but you have a right not to be equitable with me after my behavior toward you. However, I would like to repost some of my collaborations and proposals with other editors to demonstrate that I am MORE than capable of being a productive contributor to Wikipedia: MoS, MoS, VP, and N. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef CIR block I told them to cut out the troll behavior and they doubled down by increasing the trolling. Mainspace contributions are not worth the grief in policy and talkpages. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I really see no evidence of this trolling behaviour. I have taken responsibility for the things I am guilty of and I immediately correct my mistakes when they are brought to my attention. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been almost a year and you still haven't apologized for, or even acknowledged, your responsibility for the "ensemble casts" incident, or for following me to the Star Wars Holiday Special article, something you repeatedly refused requests to explain, including in this very thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not true Hijiri. I have apologized to you on at least two occasions before, and again above. You never seem to want to accept my apologies. Huggums537 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

One hour and forty-five minutes before writing the above you wrote As far as the hounding[...] goes, I feel like there's no evidence of that: how is that "apologizing" for your hounding? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment. Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on policy pages- Being perpetually angry and condescending, while not contributing much value to these discussions, is becoming disruptive. I'm not convinced that a CIR siteban is necessary yet, but that's how things will end up if Huggums537 cannot stop taking things, and making things, personal. Go do some article work. Reyk _YO! 09:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly with the being perpetually angry part, but you hit the nail on the head on having been condescending. I'm continually improving in that area all the time and this experience has been an excellent lesson in that department also. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: Makes sense, although I don't think there's much of a difference between TBANning a quasi-SPA and site-banning them - have you ever read The Merchant of Venice? Anyway, I said "indef block" in echo of Tony's opening comment, which referred explicitly to a unilateral admin action, not one of the new-fangled "community block, de facto siteban" sanctions. A block that he could appeal by attempting to convince any random admin he was willing to change would work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Stricken because continued disruption below has convinced me that a standard block that can be undone by any uninvolved admin could and would be gamed. This editor is extremely disruptive and has refused every opportunity he has been given to behave in a more collegial manner. A full ban that needs to be appealed to the community is the only option as far as I can see. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on wiki-policy 2nd choice / CIR indef as first choice in any venue. I have been loosely following the threads at WT:N and Tony's talk page and I have seen nothing constructive from Huggums plus walls and walls of IDHT along with either trolling or massive cluelessness. I would like to see if Huggums can contribute elsewhere or see evidence of disruption in article space before supporting an indef block. That said I do not oppose an indef, I just do not support one right now. Jbh ^Talk 14:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC) After reading through the mind numbing IDHT about never linking to infringing content at Talk:Star Wars Holiday Special#Repeated re-adding of probable comedy skit as though it was a serious interview; The rude ABF attacks at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Huggums537/Archive; and the walls of text at WT:WikiProject Film#In general should we be listing when projects were announced and when cast members joined I do not think a simple TBAN will solve the problem. I am particularly concerned about how regularly Huggums personalized conflict. Jbh ^Talk 23:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes, I do get caught up in IDHT (I can work on that), but more frequently I contribute to constructive discussions like these: MoS, MoS, VP, and N. This is going to sound funny- but, I'm clueless as to where this idea about the trolling and massive cluelessness is coming from. Huggums537 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This. This is the cluelessness or trolling - clueless if genuine; trolling if not. Agreeing with criticism, doing nothing to actually change and continuing to do the same of similar thing over and over again. Your conversation with Tony on his talk page was a great example of this. All you had to do was disengage once you said that was what you were going to do. All you had to do on WT:N was disengage. It would help your cause here if you would disengage as well. The characteristic which most commonly causes an editor facing a limited sanction to get indefed is not knowing when to simply stop speaking. Jbh ^Talk 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand completely what you are saying and your advice is very sound. Honestly, I'm scared. I know I've done something wrong and that's what makes me feel like I have to keep defending myself. I'm afraid that if I disengage, the community will not have mercy on me and realize my value, or my penitent regret for my actions. That's what keeps me here, not being clueless or trolling. It's so hard to sit back and watch the community judge you without at least saying a word or two in response. This is so difficult. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for noticing that I have almost no disruptions in article space and I have some history of fighting vandalism/welcoming new users as well. In addition to that, I was able to resolve conflicts fairly well even when I was a brand new editor. A (somewhat) lengthy example of that process appears here on my talk page. Thanks.

I do not know whether you are disruptive in main space or not. I have not looked. If anyone were to present evidence of behavior in main space similar to your project space behavior I would support an indefinite block in a heart beat. I may yet do so should you continue with the bludgeoning in this thread. Jbh ^Talk 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support both TBAN and Indef: Net negative to the project. Someone who bites and bites until met with someone who can actually bite back is not collaborative behavior. That's a bully. --Tarage (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I've never, ever been known for bullying anyone. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever been called a bully in my life. I don't even know what to say. Although, I can honestly say that I see how my behavior might come across that way after the how I acted with Tony. However, that was highly unusual for me and I still don't know what came over me because Tony has shown me nothing if not patience and respect in spite of everything that has happened and I have tried to do my best to return the favor. Huggums537 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I say you've been bullying me, and something like half your edits to an entire namespace (your third most-edited namespace) have related to your bullying campaign against me. You have been aggressively refusing, in this thread, to apologize for or even recognize this behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment. Huggums537 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You should consider commenting less, as responding to every vote against you can be seen as bludgeoning. --Tarage (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And FFS stop replying "No comment" to everything. Even saying "No comment" IS a comment. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, these comments (3.5 on this page, one on his talk page where he curiously pinged me to tell me he had no comment ... !?) come across more like deliberate trolling (something he did before in the RSN thread last summer, linked above) than him finally "getting" my constant hints about holes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Wikipedia policy, broadly construed - someone who drains the community's time and energy like this despite being given ample guidance on how to conduct themselves from multiple users is a net negative. Like Jbh, I foresee an indef based around CIR if such behaviour continues elsewhere. Additionally, the 'no comment' comments are sailing very close to the tendentious wind for my liking. Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• More trolling? Does this look like a joe-job to anyone else? Then again, it could be a double-joe-job by someone trying to set Huggums up... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)(stricken 01:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC))

Probably unrelated. Seemed more like they were trying to get me in trouble than anything else. And to our anonymous troll, I am more than capable of doing that myself without your help thank you very much. --Tarage (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like there is a signature forging troll stalking the board. I noticed they did the same thing to, I think, Anna Frosdiak (sp?) on a thread about COI a couple of days ago. I do not know if there have been more instances but I would not be surprised if there were. Jbh ^Talk 01:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just a random troll. Sorry for the mixup. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Recent developments (referenced by the "joe-job" mentioned by Hijiri above) have caused me to see that this forum is far too is easily exploitable to WP:GAMING the system than I realized, and I don't have a snowball's chance in defending my freedom fairly. This, combined with the fact that I am STILL a relatively new editor when compared to the majority of my accusers, demonstrates that the "ganging up on" I mentioned early on is the prime example of why I have no chance at a "fair fight" for my freedom. Unless Tony and his friends take pity on me, or some truly uninvolved admins./editors get involved, then I don't really have much else to say. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So ... I make a good-faith observation based on the information available to me, then when other editors correct me with new information retract and apologize for said observation, and you respond by accusing me of WP:GAMING? How would it even be gaming? Are you insinuating that I logged out and made an edit that would look like you pulling a joe-job, then made said accusation myself? (Why would I incriminate myself by saying it could be a double-joe-job by someone trying to set Huggums up if that was what I was doing, BTW?)

This would be laughable if it weren't so disappointing: if only you had responded to other editors correcting you like I did above, you wouldn't be in this mess. It's now obvious that you have no desire to edit collaboratively, so I'm withdrawing my support for a "standard" block that can be unilaterally undone by any admin: you need to get community approval to have your editing privileges restores, as you've now destroyed my last shred of faith that you might improve.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I only demonstrated the example that this forum is far too susceptible to gaming. Stop bludgeoning me with your comments please and thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TB's proposal. Perhaps MRD applies; so I deliberately left off involvement in this thread to see how Huggums537 responded. Anything indicating a reformist character would have gone a long way; as the fella says, this isn't personal, it's business. Unfortunately, however, I see no such evidence. Continued wikilawyering—check. Continued passive-aggressive attempts at patronising seasoned editors—check. Continued bludgeoning and obfuscation of discussion—check. Ability to demonstrate the (pretty low) levels of competence we require around here—uncheck. Suggest the editor may require a period—six months is traditional—in which to gather their thoughts, focus their attention, and either return a conscientious member of the community—or find another social forum. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Could you clarify what you mean by "TB's proposal"? I would assume you are contrasting an indefinite block with a TBAN ("TB's proposal" vs. "Dlohcierekim's proposal"), but there's some disagreement between those of us who support the former specifically but don't see a need for the latter, those who support both, those who support the latter but not necessarily the former at this time, those who support the latter but can be inferred to (?) oppose the former as excessive, and even among those who support the former whether it should be a "community" block (a de facto site-ban, just without the formal stigma of no longer being considered a Wikipedian) or a block by a random admin that can also be undone by a random admin (which was theoretically what TB's OP comment was supporting. That said, if any admin decided at this point to close this as "I'm blocking Huggums on my own initiative; any admin who disagrees is free to undo this action" would probably be in the wrong given the near-unanimous support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This is ridiculous. I am going to burn at the stake with this witchhunt. I would like to request a voluntary temporary TBAN to policy pages for my conduct towards Tony. Huggums537 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you are still denying 90% of all wrongdoing? If you wanted to TBAN yourself from policy pages you could have done that at any time, but now that you've been brought to ANI for a whole range of disruptive behaviour, much of which has nothing to do with policy pages, it really isn't enough to deny that you've done anything wrong to anyone except Tony, and in fact this just shows the same kind of recalcitrant attitude that brought you here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a simple request for a voluntary temporary TBAN to policy pages for my conduct. I am not, and will not engage you in denying anything. I have already kindly asked you to leave me alone and stop bludgeoning me with your comments. Please STOP NOW. Huggums537 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

He's only got 300 odd mainspace edits and at the current rate of responding to every comment (including comments telling him to stop responding to comments) his ANi edit count will surpass his mainspace edit count. This user is WP:NOTHERE except to troll. Can some admin block him so uninvolved editors can have a proper ANi discussion. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (This re to Huggums above) You do realize, I hope, that this is unlikely to head off the indefinite block which consensus is forming for. You combine hyperbole with assumptions of bad faith and generalized attacks on the editors commenting here ("Tony's gang friends.", etc) all the while not understanding why your behavior is problematic ("This is ridiculous", "witch-hunt", etc) Combined with your continued bludgeoning of this and the thread on Tony's talk page, no matter how many times you said you were dropping an issue means I, for one, do not believe you will change your behavior.

Some, more generous than I, might yet argue that a TBAN is sufficient as a first try. To them I would point out how you regularly personalize disputes, even here "if Tony didn't have a problem about one thing it would be another", "really I pity you being so bitter..." (yeah you struck it is of a kind with similar comments you made elsewhere and I don't feel like digging up diffs) and how, even as you seem to acknowledge criticism you do nothing to improve your behavior.

I mentioned to you earlier how failing to know when to stop typing was one of the most common causes of indefs on this board. This seems to be a consistent failure you have in threads - if you had dropped it at the noticeboard nothing would have occurred on Tony's talk page, if you had dropped it on Tony's page there would not be a thread here, if you had dropped it here... you get the point. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

He does not get the point... which is why we are here. He replied to Hijii88 after my last post. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that I have blocked Huggums537 indefinitely based on the emerging consensus of this discussion. My rationale can be seen here ([92]). Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Note I reverted the NAC because there needs to be a determination of whether this thread will make the block a community endorsed indef or if it will remain a simple block. This is important because it determines whether Huggums needs to appeal to the community or just a single admin for their unblock.
  Alex made a good block to curtail further disruption of this thread but he made no indication he was forestalling a consensus outcome here. (@Alex Shih: can you clairify? Your note on Hughes's talk page says he can appeal with a simple unblock. Was it your intention for that to be the outcome of this or separate from consensus here? If so would you please close this as such to avoid confusion. --Thanks) I believe a consensus exists, or is forming, for this to be a community indef. One editor above even said A full ban that can only be appealed to the community is the only option I can see. (Courtesy ping @Eggishorn:) Jbh ^Talk 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Jbhunley, thank you for the comments. To answer your question, I think you are conflating blocks with bans. As far as I can see, the proposal here is indefinite CIR block; that is the result of this community discussion. What is going to happen is the blocked editor will make a unblock request, and then both the blocking administrator and this community discussion will be referred to in that discussion. The only way this potential unblock request would be granted is to include the unblock condition of wide topic ban suggested here. If the unblock request is declined, the editor may request block review/community appeal; if the community appeal is declined, then we are in the WP:CBAN area. I believe this is the correct process; it is improper to propose straight community ban to editors without extensive prior block log and history of disruption anyway. I will leave this thread open as I anticipated more follow up discussions. Alex Shih (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Alex Shih: I had thought that a community placed block could not be overturned without a community discussion (WP:NEVERUNBLOCK When the block is implementing a community sanction which has not been successfully appealed.) but I see that 'community sanction' is a wikilink to WP:CBAN. Thank you for clearing that up for me. It does make more sense that way. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I don't have the links on hand right now, but following an RFC last summer "community blocks" are now a thing. My understanding is that they are functionally very close to bans. I alluded to the distinction between a "standard" block and a "community" one several times above, and even formally withdrew my support for the former when it became clear that Huggums was never going to change. I'll dig up the RFC, but it might take a little while as I'm out and on a phone now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_140&oldid=794137080#Unblocking_after_community-imposed_block and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_8&oldid=814981039#Proposed_clarifying_change_here_and_to_blocking_policy Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On a re-read of your comment, it seems like you may have already known what I was telling you. Sorry about that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The authority for the community to agree to block an editor only comes from its authority to enact an editing sanction that bans the editor from editing. The changes that were made just changed the language so if someone thinks that there is a difference between a community-imposed block and a ban, they are regardless appealed in the same way. In other words, the changes reinforces that the two are equivalent. isaacl (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So, technically we do need a close to distinguish whether Huggums537 is to be subject to a community block or not. After this exercise in applied cluelessness and canvassing I am not sure it really matters though. It would take an exceptionally brave admin to unblock and as Alex says, whomever does unblock will be asked to place solid conditions/restrictions on Huggums future editing. So, I don't object to closing this thread and leaving the block as an admin block. Jbh ^Talk 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Post CANVASS break

Now that he has summoned about 45 editors to his talkpage to extend the drama perhaps revoking talkpage access as well is in order. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have just been pinged to User talk:Huggums537, presumably with the hope I will speak on his behalf. First of all I am not familiar with the conflict so I am not going to argue against the notion that some kind of sanction is warranted, but I have to say an indefinite block for an editor who has never been blocked before seems a little...extreme. For my part I have only collaborated once with Huggums537 at List of films in the public domain in the United States, but his conduct there gave me no cause for concern. I found him to be a collegiate editor. Therefore whatever problems exist I believe there is potential there. Obviously editors can sometimes be problematic in a particular area, or the relationship between two editors can break down, and these issues need to be addressed, but has his behavior been so severe that we just wash our hands of him? Couldn't we try block escalation first i.e. a week, a month and so on before getting to an indef? IBANs and topic bans are worth considering if the problematic behavior is localised. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I was pinged based on a substantial discussion that we were both involved in. In that they contributed substantially, intelligently and politely. I only looked at that and the above; I don't know the overall situation. But it seems to me they are pretty good overall but sometimes have emotional moments and really "lose it" , but then clearly admit guilt and are self-effacing and apologize. Indef seems very harsh considering. Maybe some intermediate measure? Also, should they be blocked from participating in this discussion which is about them? They appear to say that this is the case. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I endorse the indef by Alex Shih, but don't see a need to make this a community-endorsed block at this time. Indef != infinite. I'd recommend that any unblock come with discouragement (if not an outright block) on editing policy pages for 6+ months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems like overkill. Huggums537 appears to be taking the criticism and advice on their own talk page well to heart and in stride. At Wikipedia talk:Notability, I see a rational discussion, which got sidetracked into an interpersonal dispute (we all know that can happen), mostly over an apparent misunderstanding on the part of Huggums537 (and considerable testiness from that quarter), followed by a good-faith attempt to propose a compromise (even if perhaps a clumsy one, or an unnecessary one). At User talk:TonyBallioni and archives thereof, I see attempts by Huggums537 to clarify, intermixed with self-justifications or defenses, some mild counter-criticism ("All I have asked is that you consider the possibility that you've made some errors in judgement as well."), and contrite agreement to lay off ("I have no reason to take you [TonyBallioni] to ANI. Need I remind you that I already agreed to drop all accusations against you even before you posted the warning on my page?", and "Fine, I'm dropping the stick then. ... I'd like to add one last apology that I'm sorry I mouthed off to you. You've proven that I barked up the wrong tree."), and acceptance of some blame ("Look, I'm very sorry that I made things personal for you, because when I'm honest with myself, I realize that the only reason you have been taking things so personally is because I made them personal in the first place."). It really doesn't look like a renewal of hostilities, but a typical (though wordy) non-admin reaction to warnings from an admin one has also recently been in a dispute with. The earlier material, characterized as talking to someone else like they're a child [93] really doesn't strike me that way at all, but as fairly typical pointed sarcasm, implying that the other is treating Huggums like a child. Regardless, it wasn't an actionable comment, and the dispute between Huggums and TonyB about the latter removing the comment and the former restoring an edited copy of it isn't really an administrative or ANI matter, it's a conflict between the principle of not censoring others' posts versus the principle that people can do what they want with their own talk pages (on TonyB's talk page, the latter presumptively wins, but it's a silly conflict anyway, and not really an ANI issue).

  I'm not seeing a WP:CIR problem here, more like a judgement error on Huggums537 part which cascaded into a bit of a mess, and some inter-personal conflict that seems mostly to just be personality differences. I agree that the recent post to User talk:Huggums537 is, more or less, canvassing, but the end result of it hasn't had a canvassed effect, but more of a user-educational one in Huggums's direction. I don't know how active Huggums537 has been lately, or exactly where we might collectively think this editor should be on the WP-insider cluefulness scale at this point. Is the line really so bright we'd be considering a ban? When the editor has a clean block log until just now? I remain skeptical. Especially since Hijiri88 commented in Sept. 2017: "You have scarcely 600 edits to your name". I.e., Huggums537 is basically still a rather new-ish editor. It took me way longer than that short span to fully absorb the subculture here. Anyway, I have interacted with the editor before, but nothing about those interactions sticks out in my mind. Looking them over, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 15, Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 61, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 61, nothing seems weird or wrongheaded; it's just typical editorial discussion, and a genuine interest in understanding exactly how our sourcing policies work. The current block and its eventual expiration appear to be sufficient to me. If it has the intended effect, then all will be well. If it doesn't there's no longer a clean block log, plus this ANI considering something more drastic, so new examination would surely closely quickly and decisively.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I was one of the editors pinged as well to User talk:Huggums537, and I fully agree with Betty's comment above. All of my interactions with him have been civil, and from what I've witnessed, his intentions and contributions have always seemed fairly honest, despite the occasional dispute I witnessed with Hijiri 88. The couple times I was caught up in the crossfire between the two, it seemed that both editors were equally heavy-handed on the bickering and personal jabs being lobbed back and forth. It was clear their distaste for one another began long before any of the discussions I participated in.
  Fast-forwarding to this conflict involving Tony and others, I haven't looked at the details closely, but the behavior on Huggums537's part certainly appears troubling on the surface. I was also surprised to learn that his number of mainspace edits is as low as it is considering the amount of participation on article and policy talk pages. Perhaps swift action is required to ensure it doesn't continue, but a long-term block or ban on an editor that hasn't been through the ringer before seems like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut at this stage. I think it's been made crystal clear that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated any longer, so any additional chances given (if that even happens at this point) shouldn't be squandered. I'm not sure Huggums537 truly recognized before this discussion how quickly the community can come together to take action. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• He literally canvassed anyone he had a positive interaction with and linked to the discussions. This is ridiculous. No, it is not overkill, we’ve indef’d without an ounce of discussion editors for less than the disruption he has caused (this thread and the mess on this talk page being the two most recent examples. I also think Jbhunley should have let the NAC be and dealt with this through the standard appeals process rather than what we have now: a de facto appeal of editors hand picked by Huggums. This should be reclosed, he should appeal via the normal processes and not be allowed to make this even more of a circus then he already has. If anything, the “appropriate notice” stunt makes the indef more valid. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Yeah... bad call on my part, should have let it lie. Good process is not worth bad drama. Duly clue fished. Jbh ^Talk 04:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  Not your fault, I’ve just reached the point with this editor where I’m tired and don’t have any good faith left to give, which takes a lot for me. I respect the views of others here (including those “notified”), but I feel we’re being played, and have for a while. I’m not commenting any further, but I did want to note my frustration/objections that a pretty standard block (CIR for a newbie who messes with policy stuff and wiki lawyers) is being turned into a larger time suck than we’d expect from an actually controversial block. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  Huggums claims (in the user talk discussion) to have also solicited the input of those he/she was arguing with, not just "anyone he had a positive interaction with". I have not personally analyzed the interactions, I'm just noting what Huggums has said about them. If Huggums were a longer-term user, probably would've just posted a note on their own user or user talk page expressing disgruntlement with the ANI action (without any pings) and there'd be enough watchers and visitors to attract the same level of mixed attention. I'm finding it difficult to see what the difference is in practical terms – what effect it's supposed to have had on these proceedings. We're considering a community ban and/or a topic ban and/or an indef block and/or lessening of that last to a shorter fixed-term block, and it's all being discussed on the merits of the various claims about the behaviors and (even more so, as usual) on personal feelings about the matter. ANI business as usual.

  I also think we're rushing to a skull-cracking approach without sufficient cause. I'm much more favorable than the average editor is toward T-banning people from policy discussions on competence/disruption grounds, but this editor isn't bringing out that urge in me (especially given the much larger amount of evidence of long-term, unconstructively-motivated disruption normally required to procure such a result – in some cases it's taken years, and half a dozen AE, ANEW, and other noticeboard actions).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  I think he’s a troll who is playing us, but I’ve also been dealing with walls of text on four different pages and edits I can only describe as intentionally playing dumb in small ways to make people mad (the last restoration of a reverted comment on my talk page was, the striking of Legacypac’s commebts, etc.) I don’t think that can be solved as it is a suitability to edit a collaborative project thing, so I think indef is the way to go. I recognize that different people can view things differently, and I certainly respect your views, but I’m not seeing any reason to assume good faith here: he doesn’t know how to play nice in the sandbox and doesn’t want to learn. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. The guy just seems... off somehow, and I can't really articulate why. Maybe it's the fawning gratitude for all the advice he's being given while still making backhanded passive-aggressive complaints about everything; it sounds a lot like "I've been bad and need to change my behaviour even though everyone's out to crucify poor little me!" I dunno. I've previously dealt with people feigning misunderstandings to exasperate me too, so I might just be over-sensitive to the tactic. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely respect the views of others as well that support an indef block/ban, as I'm sure many here understand the process and the type of behavior that warrants it better than I do. However, I can't help but wonder what the harm is in allowing one more chance. Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems with all the eyes we have on this now that it wouldn't be hard to convince the community to swiftly motion for an indef block or SBAN if and when another violation occurs. Grievances have been adequately cataloged here and can be easily referenced in any future ANI/CBAN discussion. I concede the fact that I was not personally involved in this conflict, so I don't want this to come off as insensitive to those that were directly impacted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what GoneIn60 has said. I am not second-guessing the verdict in this case, or trying to make light of the problem. There clearly is a problem. I can understand the dim view taken of the blatant canvassing but couldn't we at least try the TBAN on policy first? The policy TBAN received considerable support above (from editors actively involved in the case, not just outsiders such as me), and if he violates the condition then it is easy enough to reinstate the indef. The fact is people do sometimes change their behavior on Wikipedia when the community makes it clear they won't stand for it, and I appreciate it is always a punt because we have been let down many times when we have handed out second chances, but sometimes editors do come good as well. This is a relatively inexperienced editor who has nevertheless been around for a decade so maybe it's worth the punt? Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to note for Betty Logan and GoneIn60 that I started out supporting a TBAN as you suggested but after reading three threads spread out over nearly a year, all of which exhibited the same problematic behavior[94]. So, this is not just a one off ang Huggums behavior at their talk page simply reinforces my decision. In my opinion all of the 'thank you' etc responses are, at best, formulaic and at worst insincere. Whatever they are they are not indications this editor is going to change their behavior.

Please read through the threads I mentioned in my diff. I think you will see the same IDHT, cluelessness, personalizing of disputes and outright personal attacks as in the threads which were the direct cause of this ANI. A TBAN on policy pages will not work because their disruption has occurred on article talk pages, user talk pages, WikiProject pages, here and on policy pages. Maybe someone can come up with a sanction short of indef that can address Huggums537's behavior but I can not think of anything which would not either end up with long term disruption of talk pages like we saw before Huggums pushed Tony (I mean, damn, it takes a lot to exasperate him.) to open this. If Huggums had shown any evidence of change I would not be pushing this but they just mouth platitudes and carry on as before. Thank you for plowing through my, longer than intended, appeal. Jbh ^Talk 13:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support for Topic Ban over Indef: Commenting as a tagged user at Huggums' Talk page, though I previously only had one serious interaction with them, and that was several months ago. I am fairly loath to say anything here given I'm mostly saying anything at all because I got tagged (which is to say that I saw this thread previously and the username sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it until I got tagged). My only substantial comment is that if it was appropriate to only topic ban BrightR (talk · contribs)[95], who in my estimation was far more disruptive and confrontational (and perhaps is continuing to be so, but this thread isn't about them) even in their own ANI thread, then I'm not sure how there's a good case for indeffing Huggums versus showing them the same degree of restraint and hoping that will be the last we hear of it. Reluctantly yours, DonIago (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • An indef forces a conversation: that is the main reason for it. BrightR is an established user, and rightly or wrongly, we usually prefer TBANing to blocks in those cases. This is a new(ish) editor who has already started off being disruptive, and when disruption is focused on project space pages this early in a wiki-career, that is usually a communication and temperament problem vs. a "this is a productive editor elsewhere who just needs to focus elsewhere." problem. Indef Huggums will have to explain and convince an admin in UTRS that he isn't going to waste more time if his talk page is restored, and then he'll have to convince another admin that he understands the reasons he was blocked. It's usually one of the better ways for dealing with issues like this, rather than banning in one area and seeing someone move to another to find a new way to be disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Tony, thank you for your thoughtful response. As noted, I didn't intend my comment to be anything beyond a weak support in any case, and really am not overly-invested in the outcome here; I just felt I might be looking at a bit of a disparity, and felt I should point it out. I don't really have any substantial disagreement with what you said, except to reiterate that I think BrightR actually has simply gone on being disruptive elsewhere, whereas I think Huggums may be more tractable as a newer editor. Then again, I could be wrong. Anyway, I don't feel any need to discuss this further unless you do; thanks again for providing your perspective. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Propose Close he dug himself into having his talkpage access revoked. Nothing more to do here until or unless he gets back. Legacypac (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree to close - there's nothing more to be done here, this user has wasted enough of the community's time and energy already. I would NAC it myself except I participated above. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 15:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

International Art Museum of America and User:Beyond My Ken

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been disputes over International Art Museum of America. I did not know many of Wikipedia policies until recently. Mr. Ken reverted my edits and invited me to the article talk page, so I did. But after several rounds of discussions, I found Mr. Ken exhibiting ownership of the article and only permitting changes he would like to see.

1. I started a discussion, but another editor NPalgan2 changed the content being discussed before a consensus was reached (NPalgan2 did that immediately after responding to my first post in the article talk page), violating WP:BRD. However, as a rollbacker and the one who is most familiar with Wikipedia policies, Mr. Ken did not revert NPalgan2's edit.

2. Mr. Ken said that any edits I made not supported by reliable secondary sources will be deleted. I pointed out that the statement "an artist who is considered to be a reincarnation of Buddha by his followers" was not supported by any source; no sentence in the LAist article or the other inline citation directly supported the follower claim. But Mr. Ken did nothing with the statement. I think WP:BLP applies here because we are talking about a living person.

3. While the discussion was going on, Mr. Ken said something like "your arguments will not work" quite a few times. I really felt discouraged to discuss my opinions and contribute to Wikipedia. The way he treats people holding different opinions may potentially hurt other newcomers as well.

4. Most recently, Mr. Ken said "I will delete anything you add to the article based on your mistaken understanding of what sources are acceptable on Wikipedia", which was another way of saying that I am not qualified to edit the article. His statement fell into WP:OWN.

I respect for the number of years that Mr. Ken has involved in Wikipedia, but that is not a reason for feeling superior to other editors and weighing one's opinions more than those of other editors. I would like to request Mr. Ken be banned from editing in the article International Art Museum of America and the article talk page. Nevertheless, I will let administrators decide whether other forms of sanctions are more appropriate. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sleepy Beauty is attempting to whitewash the article, claiming that a collection of primary sources counts as a secondary source. He follows in a line of editors with COIs regarding this museum and the cult which owns it. A simple reading of the discussion that Sleepy Beauty initiated at Talk:International Art Museum of America#H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III is not a self-claimed Buddha, and an examination of the edits to the article of User:B3May15, User:Yy94040, and User:Kchsieh100 will confirm these claims. None of these editors have Wikipedia at heart, their loyalty belongs to H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III and the cult he is the head of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The other editor involved in the discussion with Sleepy Beauty on the talk page was @NPalgan2:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

An IP editor also has an interesting comment concerning coatracking here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The complaints of Sleepy Beauty are without merit. This person wants us to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that their California based guru is a reincarnation of Buddha. The absurdity of that attempt is proof that this editor has a deep conflict of interest, and should not be editing any articles about this guru, this art museum, or Buddhism or art, broadly construed. This art museum is a barely notable project of this Buddhist sect, and is barely known in the San Francisco art and tourism communities. If you doubt me, please Google it. This Wikipedia article cannot be allowed to turn into a recruitment brochure for this Buddhist sect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

RE-- " forms of sanctions are more appropriate", it's possible I'm totally misreading this, but IMHO, the most likely sanction would be a TBAN of SleepyBeuty editing about this so called Bhuddha fella.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is it always BMK who gets these loons? --Tarage (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It is his destiny.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we keep a destiny log somewhere for the sake of transparency? EEng 11:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to add to what's already been said; International Art Museum of America, Yi Yungao and World Peace Prize will probably attract POVpushing again in the future. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN of Sleepy Beauty from the page in question, even though this is one of the most polite ANi filings in a long time. Also can ANi vote a barnstar for Mr. Ken for his efforts here? He might be the real reincarnation of WikiBuddha given how even his opponents recognize his zen like understanding of Wikipolicy while trying to get him sanctioned. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN of Sleepy Beauty from the locus of IAMA, broadly construed.Per Cullen.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:28, 21 May 2018 (UTeautyu's
• support broad.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Broad scope

-EEng

You can support women without referring to them in that demeaning way. EEng 01:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Broad scope. I haven't done a thorough investigation of Sleep Beauty's edits, but the ones I've looked at outside of this subject area seemed OK, and they do not appear to be an SPA, so a topic ban as suggested would appear to be the best course of action. "Broad" in regard to IAMA should include the museum, H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III (Yi Yungao), the sect connected to the museum, and any other projects or organizations connected to the sect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly (maybe), early in my career, I worked on a play called Sleep Beauty off-off-Broadway.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from IAMA & related articles, broadly construed. Seems to be some sort of persistent advocacy which is not helpful to the project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic bans as suggested. It pains me to support a topic ban for someone who seems so polite and respectful. But we obviously can't state religious beliefs as facts in Wikipedia's voice based solely on religious sources, and I think a persistent failure to understand that means we really don't have any choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Trolling by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment WP:BLP and WP:OWNership issues should be resolved on the talk page rather than reverting and targeting editors you disagree with to topic bans and refusal to discuss, NPalgan2 and Beyond my Ken. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC) This editor attempted to remove pertinent sourced materal from the article and was reverted by NPalgan2. They appear to me to be yet another COI editor. Perhaps the article ought to be semi-protected? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC) I added a "not in source" tag, Beyond My Ken. You have a major WP:OWNership stake in this article, and, really, you're playing it well, as no one is going to verify what you say, are they? Shades of Essjay. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Sleepy Beauty doesn't seem to understand and from what I've surmised, they have no intention of understanding with this particular page, either. Could you imagine if the article about Reverend Moon straight up declared that he was the Second Coming of Christ? Also, I'm sorry, BMK, for seeing you unfairly pulled to this noticeboard for following policy ardently. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Request to administrators: Could an administrator look at all of the recent edits (this month) by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2, and take the appropriate action? Softlavender (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Trolling by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that sock certainly fits nicely around Sleepy Beauty's foot. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, my, the sock puppet hunt is on (there's a page you can do the report yourself, you know, help the guys firm up their ownership and poor writing a little quicker, you know). What certainly isn't on is the addition of a source to back up the statement in the article, Wikipedia's supposed product. Typical Wikipedia boys' posse. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC) No, it's not SleepingBeauty at all; it's a troll editor. Softlavender (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) No, I'm not a troll because I can read a source and refuse to accept that it says what it doesn't then refuse to synthesize my own biases into a Wikipedia article with serious ownership issues. Keep saying it, maybe you'll make it true with the help of Wikipedia mirrors. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC) No, you're a troll, and I'm pretty sure that we've crossed paths before. The style of this edit, for instance, was familiar to me, and your mention above of "poor writing" also rings a bell. Since I don't really bother to keep track of all the trolls I come across, I don't know who you are, or if your past trolling has been pinned down to someone editing logged out (which seems a likely case), but, for what it's worth, I don't think you are Sleep Beauty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) BTW, trolling IP editor, I have no "ownership stake" in the IAMA article, but I do have an extremely serious ownership stake in maintaining Wikipedia's veracity, neutrality and freedom from promotionalism, which includes doing whatever I can to prevent COI editors from skewing articles to their preference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Crossed paths before? It's not before, it's same day, same comments, same person. No, you don't have a stake in neutrality because you supported inclusion of an unsourced disparaging statement about a living person, an area where Wikipedia has repeatedly gained deserved notoriety due to careless editing, often by article owners exactly like you. Your block log also says you're carelessin more ways than one, and for many years. You're the last person who should be trying to ban editors who disagree with you. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC) You should log in to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC) BTW, I just added a reference from an academic study which confirms that the person in question made the claim that is in the article in a book they published, so there's no BLP question at all. In any case, that's all from me to you, from now on, I'm strictly not feeding this troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have not said anything since I started this thread. Mr. Ken is well connected in Wikipedia. If everyone wants to sanction me with a topic ban, there is nothing I can do but accept it. Here are some points that I want to say.
  First, I am not an COI. As I have explained, my standing point was not to add anything, but instead what was written earlier shall not be stated in Wikipedia's voice; the statement was just a passing claim in the LAist news article.
  Second, Mr. Ken, it is unfair to label anyone who is against your opinions as COI. I do not literally know anybody else except myself in English Wikipedia. I do not know who the ip user (2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2) is, either. It looked funny when you called him a COI in the first place. The another ip user (2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:403A:2FB7:2915:8DBB) who talked about Wikipedia:Coatrack articles was advocating the removal of information about H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III in IAMA. Do you want to call him a COI as well? I seriously doubt your intention of labeling me and (2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B2) as COI was to hide your own COI with H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III.
  Third, NPalgan2 mentioned that the other two articles Yi Yungao and World Peace Prize would probably attract POVpushing again in the future. I am curious what you are concerned about. I looked into your edit history and saw that you have edited those two articles as well; you created Yi Yungao and rewrote the other one considerably.
  On 24 March 2018, you wikified H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, and changed it later to H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III. But the article Yi Yungao did not exist until 25 March 2018. It looks like your so-called "wikify" was to prepare for something in the future.
  Then you edited World Peace Prize and labeld the prize as a hoax for something happened in Tonga two decades ago. If you read Chinese, here is a news article in 2001 reporting that in a press conference Lester Wolff (the Chief Judge of World Peace Prize Awarding Council) showed a photocopy of a letter of apology written and signed by the Tonga Prime Minister for the erronous report by the Tonga Media.
  You created the article Yi Yungao slandering H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III, casted World Peace Prize in a negative tone, and placed the wikilink His Holiness Dorje Chang Buddha III (or Yi Yungao) whenever possible, in World Peace Prize, Vajradhara, and International Art Museum of America. You have literally edited all the articles that may relate to "H. H. Dorje Chang Buddha III". Why do you attack a living person so persistently? I doubet whether you have an COI with the person in that you gain if the person is defamed. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know Yi Yungao (aka "H.H. Dorje Chang Buddha III", a title he apparently chose for himself), his museum, or his sect from holes in the ground. I got involved with editing the IAMA article because I took a picture of the exterior of the museum building when I was in San Francisco in 2017. When I looked, I found that the article on the museum (which I had never heard of) was heavily promotional, so I helped to clean it up. Then I noticed new editors restoring or adding promotional information, one of whom admitted they were a volunteer at the museum. When I investigated, it was obvious that editors with conflicts of interest were attempting to skew the article to promote the museum. That's unacceptable.
  If you're not a COI editor, then I apologize for thinking that you were, but given the article's history, and your own WP:IDHT behavior on the talk page, I think it was a reasonable conclusion to come to, and I'm still not at all convinced that it's not true. Now we have this trolling IP editor, who I thought at first was also a COI editor, but now appears to be either someone who harbors ill will towards me or towards Wikipedia in general.
  That's the potted history of my involvement with this article. It has nothing whatsoever to do a COI on my part, and everything in the world to do with preventing Wikipedia from being used as a promotional medium. I plan to keep on editing in that manner, just as I have edited the other 42,419 unique pages I have contributed to. The particular article in question has no special meaning to me - you can choose to believe that, or not, I really don't care. I know that it's true, and I'll warrant that anyone actually familiar with the broad scope of my editing will believe that it is as well. As for you... well, as was said above -- not by me -- your complaints are without merit, and a number of editors have agreed that you should be topic-banned from the IAMA article. Whether a sufficient number will agree remains to be seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is my assessment of the previous exchange: BMK shows a remarkable degree of patience and assumption of good faith. On the other hand, Sleepy Beauty's comments at 04:20, 23 May 2018 provide additional strong evidence that this person needs a topic ban on this museum and this sect, and on Buddhism and art, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban, with explicit advice to encourage the editor to concentrate on other areas. This editor has created material which has been accepted via AfC, including articles about Chinese cinema. To discourage the editor from making continued contributions in this area would be a loss. Edaham (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fronticla

Fronticla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be on something of a mission, removing characterisations from article with one word edit summaries (normally "pov" or some such). Example: removing and warring over "controversial" in the objectively controversial Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Attachment therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), two subjects strongly linked to exploitation of vulnerable people.

The user's talk page shows a long history of similar disputes, with he bee-in-bonnet issue changing over time. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this, too. First at attachment therapy, which was subject to an arbcom case a while back and is the site of a very long-term abuse case (largely downplaying the negative aspects and promoting other aspects of the subject). Fronticla has edit warred to remove "controversial" from the article (4 edits since last month), and likewise just reverted a message I left on their userpage (fine, but indicates he/she doesn't seem inclined to engage on the matter rather than push forward with the same edits). Looking at the contribs, it's important to note that some of the efforts seem helpful in, say, removing blatant promotional language. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting "controversial" right at the beginning of the article creates a negative appearance from the beginning: the controversy can be an important part of our understanding of the subject, but it's not a fundamental component. With the clinic, for example, it's appropriate to put the bit about the focus of criticism in a second paragraph, but "controversial clinic" obviously not being a sub-class of clinics, it has the effect of drawing immediate attention to the dispute — not something we'd do with clinics offering mainstream treatment, for example, but if mainstream clinics are disputing with this one on how properly to treat patients, both sides are involved in the controversy. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "both sides" issue. Attachment therapy is controversial because of the numerous documented cases of harm to vulnerable children, up to and including death. The Association for Psychological Science has no dog in the fight, its members could use attachment therapy of it actually worked, but APS listed it as one of a number of "treatments that have the potential to cause harm to clients". This is pretty common in alternative therapies - proponents are usually financially vested in the treatment, and portray opposition from the mainstream as being commercially motivated rather than, as is actually the case, lack of evidence of benefit. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Typically, many of Fronticla's edits are an improvement. However, Fronticla seems to think certain words and phrases should be banned from Wikipedia, and there's no way to convince this editor otherwise. So, every use of the word/phrase is purged, regardless of any objections. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

True. Even if there's a section on the controversy. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In this edit [96] he removes not only the word controversial (Burzynski is currently under restrictions imposed by the Texas medical Board) but also the fact that antineoplastons are unproven. Actually they are closer to utterly discredited, but unproven is the very least we should say. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an editor that communicates only through edit summaries and removes warnings from their talk page without responding (except by edit summary). I've warned them that they need to start working and communicating with others. Doug Weller talk 11:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. And following the above comment was this, which isn't reassuring. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That combines a personal attack with what seems a refusal to discuss. Also see this about Firefly (TV series) which is certainly cult. But I think there may also be a competence issue, perhaps he doesnt understand the word. But this needs to stop. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: you might want to see this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Fronticla, you need communicate. This is a collaborative project. I suggest you respond here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism

• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Campaign Against Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User ZScarpia is unusually resistant to any attempt to archive out or hat WP:NOTFORUM commentary he posted to Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism a year and a half ago. The article is controversial, and his comments invoke unreliable sources to no obvious purpose, there's no actionable edit request, just copmmentary based on polemic. Example: [97] It's very unusal in my experience for anyone to so determinedly revert archival of talk page commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of my comments is to provide links to sources which help to outline positions, including the pro-Palestinian one, which are sceptical about the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Although the linked to sources don't themselves fit the definition of reliable, they cite sources or link to material that does. JzG dashed off a string of justifications for removing my comments on my talkpage, none of which are valid in my opinion, misapplying as they do Wikipedia policy. It's very unusual in my experience of anyone to so determinedly try to remove another editors talkpage comments. My understanding is that, unless talkpage comments are clearly in breach of policy, other editors shouldn't be attempting to do that, especially when asked to desist. My guess is that JzG is targeting my comments because they link to material which offends his political sensibilities rather than for any valid reason.     ←   ZScarpia   16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page comments that are clearly off-topic or otherwise violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be removed by other users, per WP:TPO. Besides, the discussions involved here haven't been active in over a year. They're perfect candidates for archival. clpo13_(talk) 17:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If the comments are off-topic or otherwise violate WIkipedia policies or guidelines, please explain how. If the length of the talkpage had become such that it was desirable to start archiving older comments, I could understand, but that's not the way it looks to me. And if it was the case, wouldn't the preferred method be to properly set up archiving of the talkpage?     ←   ZScarpia   17:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I examined the material and it seems to be relevant to the article topic and not in breach of the rules. In my opinion, JzG's removal of it is a violation of talk page procedure. Zero^talk 18:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a violation of TPO to archive or even delete year-old comments that have never been responded to, and those comments are completely without value: We don't source content to other wikis, and opinion pieces can't be used for claims of fact. They read more like an editor grasping for sources to complain about the article than an editor offering new sources that contradict a reading of the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to archive old material that has attracted no discussion. Talkpages aren't meant as shrines for a particular editor's comments, particularly if they've produced no response. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I outlined the purpose of my comments in my first comment; the response they were designed to provoke wasn't a discussion on the talkpage as such, but the reading of an alternative take on the Campaign Against Antisemtism, influencing the content of the article. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for quite a long time (though not very active of late) and I can't recall ever having seen talkpage comments being deleted because they've failed to elicit replies. In fact, in the IP area I'm sure that deleting the comments of your opponents was discouraged.     ←   ZScarpia   22:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [Edit Conflict]

Old, inactive discussions are often archived, though not on every talk page, and there's no hard and fast rule saying when they should or shouldn't be (see WP:ARCHIVE). JzG created Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism/Archive_1 when he removed those discussions, although he didn't put an archive box on the main talk page that would link to that page, which I'll do now. clpo13_(talk) 22:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the archive link.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the normal reason for starting archival be to shorten the length of the talkpage? If shortening the talkpage had been JzG's intention, wouldn't he have removed the older comments first? There are two, both started by me, one of which, incidentally, hasn't elicited any replies, the other which has, but only because part of it was deleted/vandalised. And why was he so determined to delete those two comments, using a number of not very convinving pretexts, ignoring my objections (I had hoped to add to the comments as other material became available) and failing to add a link to the archive he'd created?     ←   ZScarpia   06:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Wouldn't the normal reason for starting archival be to shorten the length of the talkpage?" No, that would not be the case. Article talk page are archived in order to remove completed discussions, out-of-date commentary, or NOTAFORUM material which crowds the page and makes it more difficult for editors to focus on the page's purpose, which is to discuss potential changes to the article.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the archiving of the material originally archived by Guy, per the clear consensus in this discussion that doing so was within normal Wikipedia procedures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is very much within reasonable discretion to archive talk page comments that are between one and two years old, have not generated any replies, and are not suggesting or discussing changes to the article. A talk page is not an indefinite repository of external links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Clpo13's addition of the Archive link makes the removal less like a deletion and transforms it into something I can easily live with. At least I can easily access the links myself now and they don't have garish WP:NOTAFORUM signs pasted all over them. Hopefully the number of editors who found my comments useful outweighs the number who thought they were making the talkpage less readable. JzG should feel free to archive my earlier comments too. That would at least make it look more like his motive was cleaning up the talkpage.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine_(2nd_nomination)

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

---

Can some admin just take a look at this, I am just calling the cops on this as per what I stated on AFD--Quek157 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a warped view of what this board is for. This is not a place to 'call the cops'. In fact, there are several admins already looking at that page. I suggest you listen to them next time and calm down. That AFD is bludgeoned with your comments. --Tarage (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You are coming through Wikipedia like a bull in a china shop. I've seen this in several areas. Slow down and let people work things out. This is not an emergency. Natureium (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This type of request is probably more suited for IRC than this noticeboard; that thread is a disaster but it doesn't need immediate administrative intervention. I agree with the above commenters regarding "slowing down": for anything other than obvious vandalism, 24 hours for a resolution is considered fast. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just noticed this. Perhaps in future when Quek157 "calls the cops", they should notify the editors they have called the cops on, as is clearly required for this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to sit out this thing, for someone to take a look, rescuing myself. I am just notifying for an neutral admin to take a look, I have nothing to do with this at all. I had discussed with Deb. No response. I had discussed with RoySmith, which I also stated rescue, he just hope for a neutral admin. End of this discussion, withdrawn. I take that I had been final warned not to use this board anymore for such requests, firvolous, or not. That's it. If one more time I did this I will not mind to be Topic Ban here. I didn't notify anyone because this isn't a report to anybody, I don't file this against anyone --Quek157 (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Threat by Admin to out an editor

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

---

The drama started last night. It has now gone from silly to chilling to deeply disturbing (for me, at least) because it's being perpetrated by an administrator. Andrevan began at the talk page of Factchecker atyourservice with this [98]. It then morphed into this [99] at AN. Next, it went then to Andrevan's talk page with several admins asking him to stop here [100]. And now, what seemed at first like an April Fool's joke became a threat (here: [101]) to out an editor, MONGO, (here [102]) if he doesn't declare a WP:COI that no one, other than Andrevan, feels exists. Anyone else see the whole affair as a problem that needs to be solved, and immediately? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I will not be outing any editors on-wiki, and that's not a threat. Andrevan@ 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Does this response indicate you plan to do it off-Wiki? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not an outing threat. That is a statement that they do not intend to out someone. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

🙄 Winkelvi, does your response indicate that you know about something I might OUT? I believe the recommended way to handle sensitive COIs is to do via private email between privileged users with oversight/checkuser/ArbCom etc. Andrevan@ 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct. That said, did you look at all the diffs/links, though, TonyBallioni? The tone of his comment and his exact words at my talk page, as well as his stated plans everywhere else in regard to this situation, did seem as if he intends/intended to out not just MONGO, but me as well. Even if I weren't involved, I would see this as a threat to out and a big, big problem. His comments just above mine here also have a chilling feel to them, as if I am hiding something and his suspicions that I and MONGO are Russian spies attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia are correct - which, I think he feels justifies what he's said and what he's been doing since last night. This is a problem. At least it sure seems like it to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest much Winkelvi. I won't be OUTing anyone. I'm sorry if I offended you, although I don't think I specifically mentioned you at all. Andrevan@ 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but when an admin behaves as you have in the last 24 hours (and gets so much attention from other admins because of it), there's reason for the community to be concerned and protest. Loudly. And yes, you did mention me. Plus, you're posting about on my talkpage for crying out loud. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I came to your talk page because you and MONGO were having a discussion in which you considered the possibility of my account being compromised. It's not, I implied there may be evidence about MONGO that is sensitive which I didn't share, and you told me to stop beating the dead horse. Perhaps I am not the one beating the horse? I don't recall naming you in any of my posts. Andrevan@ 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, yes you did mention me. Specifically when you asked another administrator to contact you off-wiki so you could get more information on me (as well as MONGO): "Perhaps, if you have a good reason to know that MONGO and Winkelvi are good faith editors, you could send me some information about via email so that I focus my attention at the proper editors." [103]. I don't know if you and Drmies exchanged emails over this situation, but if you did, it doesn't seem you paid much attention to it since you are now implying I have something to hide: "Methinks thou doth protest much Winkelvi." -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's true, I mentioned you in response to Drmies saying he could vouch for you. I hadn't mentioned you in my original concern though. Andrevan@ 21:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I read all the links you provided. None of them are outing threats, even if they may otherwise be behavior that I would not expect from an admin or bureaucrat. Outing is a very serious accusation, and I don't see it here. This looks to be your standard AP2 mess with an added dose of Russian conspiracies. Andrevan has clarified the do not intend to violate the outing policy. If you have other concerns about their behavior in this subject area, WP:AE (or WP:ARC if you want to start the now presumed inevitable AP3 case with the Russian agent issue being raised by an admin/crat as the situation showing a new case is needed) would be your best recourses. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have strong concerns about Andrevan from witnessing just one day of edits, but possibility of outing someone isn't one of them. It's more of a lack of any semblance of judgement. Natureium (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but hopefully my actions will make more sense in time. For now, I'm on a cooldown from any major disputes per the advice of many many admins. Andrevan@ 20:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I read everything and I don't see a real threat about outing. I did, however, read a stupid, out-of-nowhere contemplation about if Trump-supporting editors are working for Russia. I haven't seen too much of a battleground, aside from excessive nominations for deletion surrounding pages about Trump scandals and even those are becoming less frequent as the Mueller investigation continues. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the above assessment that Andrevan's comment cannot be reasonably perceived as a threat. Andrevan has been heavily criticized for his recent accusations in a heavily-regulated, highly controversial subject area, and I myself have advised him that nothing short of an Arbcom case would be appropriate for expressing the accusations he's making. Others have been more harsh in their criticism. But, assuming he hears the criticism and backs off, as he has indicated he has, we need to be working towards de-escalation of any and all threats and personal commentary on both sides. This thread is not helping the situation, and neither is the thread discussing Andrevan on a user talk page. His accusations may be unfounded, but that does not justify unfounded accusations in retaliation. I strongly all parties involved to assume good faith, harbor no grudges, and focus on content, not contributors going forward, lest we need to resort to the discretionary sanctions. Swarm ♠ 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"that does not justify unfounded accusations in retaliation." Swarm, please be assured that this report is absolutely not retaliatory. I personally don't care what Andrevan thinks of me in regard to his accusations, I only care if his comments indicate he's going after editors and trying to get dirt on them and then out them because of his misguided perception they/we are Russian agents seeking to propagandize Wikipedia. My reading of his comments said something others aren't seeing, and that's fine. In fact, I'm relieved that others don't see it as I'd rather that be the case than the opposite. My statement at the end of my original post in this thread ("Anyone else see the whole affair as a problem that needs to be solved...?") was pretty clearly explaining why I came here, so I don't know why you'd think the report is a form of getting even. It was a report borne out of concern and asking for more eyes/opinions, nothing more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally understand, and did not mean to imply bad faith on your part. "In return" would have been a more appropriate way of putting it. Swarm ♠ 00:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Andrevan is abusing his position as an administrator of this website. A cursory look at his last near decade of contributions here demonstrate he has done only enough to maintain keeping his tools and crat flag. He just got through threatening to block someone [104] and accused them of block evasion and offers zero evidence to support this claim, not unlike his preposterous claim that Russian paid operatives are amongst us. This continues and the AGF goes out the window as he has extended zero of that to myself and others he is harassing.--MONGO 23:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Encourage you to review Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors with reference to the IP editor that I warned for linking to off-wiki diffs and speculating that they had been written by a user with deep knowledge of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Even if this user is not the banned user, he is posting content from a disgruntled blocked user. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unexplained_removal_of_content Andrevan@ 00:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Intuition is not enough but if you don't understand checkuser then go ahead and file a report there and see what your fishing expedition gets you.--MONGO 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• The failure by Andrevan to listen to many experienced editors and admins to stop their crusade of insisting that editors who disagree with their POV on the Trump articles are Russian agents is very troubling. Andrevan has stated they will back down from this, so I am not sure action is necessary, but it do think Andrevan should drop the accusations and work a bit more collaboratively. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

IP Making Legal Threats

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

---

See [105]. Looks like other trouble too. Legal threat template posted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I've reported them to AIV even before the legal threat. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They just reposted their legal threat on my talk page [106] HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week by NeilN SQL^{Query me!} 06:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Clear legal threat

On Paul Spadafora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Legal threat By Angel0905 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Seems like a clear legal threat. Blocked indef. SQL^{Query me!} 05:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• In fairness, the offending editor may have become unhinged when confronted with the article's idiotic linking of terms such as automobile, alcohol, and marriage. And let's not forget the potentially defamatory statement that the subject was accused of assisting a 63-year-old woman [107]. EEng 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in spite of repeated warnings

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

---

The user Mayerroute5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly editing warring and persistently reinstating his own version of an edit in the page 2018 Indian Premier League and also the templates Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59. All that in spite of the rule being explained to him and he being warned not to edit war on multiple occasions. He has been requested to communicate on his talkpage as well but there is no reply although the disruptive edits are persistent. It is becoming really difficult to maintain the accuracy of that section as per protocols due to this disruptive edit pattern by the aforementioned user looking to reinstate his own version. In addition to that, obviously there has been violation of the 3 revert rule as well by the user. I request some admin action on this. Many thanks in advance. Cricket246 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cricket again? Can't we just drop all coverage of cricket? No one would notice. EEng 12:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked for 72 hours. Persistent revert-warring on multiple pages, has never, ever, used a talk or usertalk page. Hopefully that will get their attention. Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• • @EEng:- The whole thing is a basket case. I've been saying so for ages. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Bit of a sticky wicket, 'eh? EEng 13:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Block of obvious sock of very disruptive sock master needed

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

---

92.3.97.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334 and needs to be blocked. Obvious per being the usual ISP (TalkTalk), the usual location (Essex, UK), the usual edits (claiming that everything is Turkish) and the usual behaviour (including threatening to kill people who revert them, see edit summaries in their contributions). It has been reported at WP:AIV but that place is seriously backlogged... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and absurd meatpuppetry

At [108] BernardZ wrote What are you doing just following me?? Anyway thanks for your edit. That Tgeorgescu is just a turd, prejudice and narrow-minded.

At [109] Macquaire repeated information which was already in the article. I have reverted it at [110]. Then BernardZ has reverted my revert at [111], which is absurd, because such information got repeated twice in the same article.

At [112] BernardZ wrote about sockpuppetry by Macquaire I know him actually, what he is doing is following me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Two different people who know each other, they both make the same mistake. Odd, don't you think? And as shown at [113] and [114], they both sign their usernames below their messages, instead of at the end of their messages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that is odd is your over-reaction to having your revert reverted by another user. The sequence of events was as follows:

1. 06:27, 18 May 2018 BernardZ made an edit with the edit summary: This is something we did agree too.
2. 07:33, 18 May 2018 your first revert - edit summary: the number is quite small, avoid puffery
3. 10:27, 19 May 2018 Macquaire reverted
4. 10:35, 19 May 2018 your second revert.
5. 10:51, 19 May 2018 BernardZ reverted back with the following edit summary: This was agreed. If you want it out you need to prove that they are not notable and they are notable
6. 11:36, 19 May 2018 your third revert.
7. 11:38, 19 May 2018 you started a discussion on the article talk page.
8. 10:37-12:17 19 May 2018 you posted notices on the other two editor's talk pages accusing them of sockpuppetry and made a posting on WP:ANI.

Maybe you need a wikibreak?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I got called "turd, prejudice and narrow-minded" (before making the sockpuppetry accusations). Besides, I was not the first editor who accused the two of sockpuppetry, see [115] by Roscelese. And the edit warring was unusual (absurd): it wasn't edit warring about adding something to the article, it was edit warring about repeating twice the same information in the same article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you can make a case for sockpuppetry, the place to do it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The question there is technical - is sockpuppetry going on? and can it be proved?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that it can be proved, I will settle for meatpuppetry. I was irritated by repeating the same stuff ad nauseam. Once is enough, why should it be mentioned twice in the same article? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If it cannot be proved, then you need to accept good faith. I used to see people editing Wikipedia in their lunch break in the office I worked in. That does not mean that they were meat puppets of each other. As for the content issue, explain your feelings on the article talk page. They sound reasonable - the problem is that the article is repetitive, saying much the same thing in two sections - so it is not unreasonable to want the rebuttal in both of these sections. If the editors discussed this on the article talk page, between you, you might end up improving the article. Both sides have a good point on this one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Macquaire is transparently a sock of BernardZ. I warned him back in 2016 in case that would be enough to stop it, but I haven't kept tabs on him since, and obviously he hasn't stopped. It's a rarely used account that becomes active periodically in order to support BernardZ in disputes; frankly, it seems obvious enough that an admin should be able to do this without process, but if no one else wants to file the SPI, I will. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Macquaire is no socket, he is I admit a mate, who tends to follow me on Wikipedia and facebook too. As far as User:Tgeorgescu is concerned it is about time, he did answer the allegations on the page Exodus instead of being prejudice. Note we did have a discusion, we did agree except for him and now he comes here. BernardZ (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: "[H]e is I admit a mate": see WP:Meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Willing to bet the adult beverage of your choice that it's WP:SOCK and not WP:MEAT. I looked at some of their contributions and User:Macquaire uses a very similar variety of slightly fractured English to User:BernardZ. But it'll all come out in the wash if User:Roscelese files the SPI. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

His English is nothing like mine. BernardZ (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@BernardZ: I don't think anyone has agreed on the talk page that we should repeat more or less the same words (difference being puffery) a few lines below their first occurrence. If you want to display good faith, I suggest that you write something like "As stated above, there are some scholars who don't agree to the consensus view" followed by <ref name="sourcename"/> way of using the same sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are the only one that disagrees with this line and now you are on your third wipe so now you must debate BernardZ (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, boy, a matter of WP:CIR: I have not objected to the line mentioned once, I have objected to the line mentioned twice. Do you have proper reading skills? I have objected to repeating the same stuff. Your line is now still inside the article, albeit without puffery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• SPI filed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  SPI determined they were unrelated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there are basic competence issues here that go beyond concerns about meatpuppetry. A quick glance at BernardZ's most recent edits revealed these [116] [117], where the editor's primary "contribution" was changing the spellings of words from US versions to UK versions on articles with US subjects. This edit [118] looks like vandalism, (which then prompted my check of other recent edits) and this edit [119] changed the wording of a quotation with no apparent regard for the source. Grandpallama (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Returning nationalities warrior?

I seem to remember this happening before, an IP changing nationalities or countries of origin without discussion or explanation. In the last couple of days I've seen 92.4.231.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 79.71.238.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 92.3.102.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doing this and it's ringing bells. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• And has now admitted editing while blocked Sorry but my old account shingling is temporarily blocked if you want to unblock it I will then make useful edits.. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:TU-nor noticed the same problem and has filed it at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. Since the IPs are already blocked by User:Alex Shih there may not be anything more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember the name for future reference! DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Shingling334 saying they'll make "useful edits" if we unblock them is pretty disingenuous, considering they've done nothing but vandalize for years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

He's still at it 79.75.244.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wingwraith - #2

what? again? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what has riled them up, but Wingwraith entered into Talk:Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 harassing numerous users. I have seen the discussions regarding Wingwraith's behavior here and here. I do not believe that they have improved their behavior at all and in fact, I think that not facing discipline has only reinforced their poor behavior.

Regarding the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2018, which is fairly contentious, Wingwraith entered calling edits "fucking dumbshit" and harassing users. The user then removed sourced information from the article because it was from TeleSUR (Venezuelan state-run media). I responded to Wingwraith's edits in the talk page telling them to stop with the harrassment and then politely explained that I would find better sources than TeleSUR, knowing it is a potentially biased source.

I proceeded to replace each source individually so I could show Wingwraith that progress was being made and TeleSUR sources were being removed (see: [1], [2], [3]). I thought that the dispute was done. However, Wingwraith reappeared laughing off the call to end harrassment, saying "There is no harassment, just because you happened to like the garbage that the OP posted with doesn't make what I did harassment". He then described me as "pro-Maduro" twice in condescending edits,[4][5] later performing dubious edits such as removing sourced material and vandalizing the coding of sources (The Independent → The Indeptelendent, in reference to TeleSUR).

After witnessing this rude behavior that has not been remedied through dialogue in countless cases, I recommend a possible topic ban regarding communist/socialist topics as I see the user has a poor history regarding these types of articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of his casting aspirations by claiming editors are pro/anti whatever. Considering that TIAYN was just blocked, and Wingwraith's behavior has not improved, I'm going to suggest a topic ban from political articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Until he can calm down the rhetoric I think this is sadly required. --Tarage (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I haven't been harassing you or anybody on that talkpage, you know it and it is disingenuous for you to say that. This kind of edit which that user (has made across multiple articles) is just ridiculous, hence why I used that kind of language to attack not the user but the argument by that user. There is no reason why any editor should make that kind of statement (as an opening statement no less) and there is no reason why any editor who objects to that kind of statement should just take it lying down. My description of you as pro-Maduro was not a slur, it was based on your editing record for that article, where you've predominantly inserted positive material into the article using highly problematic sources, and your reverts upon my informing you of WP:PUS did not go anywhere near removing all of the material that was sourced to telesur but did not include views of the governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia. I stopped my reverting of your revert after the intervention by Jamez42 and have been collaborating with that user on the talkpage ever since which makes this report by you all the more ludicrous. Of course I'm also ready to collaborate with you (our problems won't ever get resolved otherwise) but it doesn't seem like you want to do that with this administrative filing. Wingwraith (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:I had a closer look at your editing history and I take the pro-Maduro description back as it seems like you are a more impartial editor than I thought - I'll admit it at least you're a more impartial than me. That said can you please fix this telesur issue because it really just degrades the quality of the article. Wingwraith (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Casting aspirations is a bad thing to do here Wing. You need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Wingwraith (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: I think you meant to say WP:Casting aspersions? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I fail at spelling. Don't think that was worth a ping. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for TheCrimsonraven

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

Any admin here can revoke talk page access for this user, since he's now using it just to put out threats and more vandalism. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And since they've claimed they'll just create another account, I've semi'd the main target of their childishness. Black Kite (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doria Ragland (2nd nomination)

I have nominated this article for deletion for a second time. I don’t feel the closing administrator made a closure based on Wikipedia policy the first time around and I would appreciate some admins more familiar with wiki policy to keep an eye on this, however the discussion goes, to make sure a policy based closure is made and not one based in popularity due to who the subject’s daughter is. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@4meter4: Why didn't you use WP:DELREV? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t know that was an option.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've closed the AFD. Please use WP:DELREV. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

IP 2405:204:208:D051:A489:E92E:D5CA:985C

Can someone block this IP right now? Impersonation of SpacemanSpiff and edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's just Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JBM1971 (although, I think that SPI has to be split to two groups). I've blocked the Ip for 12 hours now, unlikely to stick to this any longer than that.—SpacemanSpiff 14:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTHERE at VPR, cont.

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

---

Government Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated ridiculous "proposals" at WP:VPR. English-challenged. Repeated missing punctuation at end of sentence. Repeated failure to sign. If this is not a sock of the Saturday-indeffed Milchsnuck I'll eat your hat, but in any case the behavior is identical to that that earned Milchsnuck an indefinite block. Milchsnuck requested adminship 2 months after Government Man asked WP:Teahouse how they could become an admin.[120] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• SPI is thataway --> but they already know about it, privately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Right. As I indicated, the Milchsnuck experience suggested that NOTHERE was enough in these circumstances, so I hoped to avoid the buro. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, the accounts are  Unrelated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

should there be a Wipedian High Council: Holy Karmafist, Batman!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Chancellor!?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Night of the Living Dead (1968) theatrical poster.jpg

Admin corpses, with Arbcom members at upper right

-EEng

Yes, please good very good idea for Wikipedia. Elect for me to be Mr. Wikipedia Chancellor. I am great job for Wikipedia. I will have Emergency Powers for cabal. Elect today to rule admin corpse. Natureium (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This would require approval from Bishzilla.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Perhaps if you let me be Supreme Chancellor, I could have prevented him from creating pointless articles. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I find the idea of an admin corpse troubling in the extreme. EEng 23:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll have you know that was intentional. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a flair for the terrifying. Have you visited The Museums lately? EEng 04:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Francis Schonken and the WHS infobox

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

---

Hi all. Please could someone take a look at the recent edits of Francis Schonken (talk · contribs). He is nominally implementing the outcome of Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version? - however he is doing so in a way that repeatedly pings me to let me know my edits have been undone (more than 20 in the last 2 days, probably >100 over the last few months), and recently his edit summaries are using all sorts of different (and often invalid) reasons rather than just pointing to the RfC outcome. Attempts to discuss this with him aren't going anywhere, so I'd appreciate third-party input into this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The gall. I have spend many hours reverting the mess Mike Peel left behind after his ill thought out mass implementation of the Wikidata version of the WHS infobox, and Francis Schonken has continued this when I mostly gave up. Mike Peel on the other hand has done nothing to correct his errors and help in the cleanup, all he did was resurrect his Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata version. When I corrected the use of the template in articles, I went through the history to find the last version before Mike Peel had changed the infobox, and took the old code. Francis Schonken does this by using a revert, which pings Mike Peel. Tough luck, as it is actually a revert + update that is being done. "He is nominally implementing the outcome" = he is actually implementing it, and undoing your damage. Your "attempts to discuss this" seem to consist of one post to his talk page[121], where he replied that he had replied at the template talk page[122]. Sure enough, Francis Schonken has replied there[123], and you have not answered this or made another comment on their user talk page.

A single comment on someone's talk page, then ignoring the reply that you get for nearly a month, and then coming here to complain about legitimate actions from another user undoing your mess, is basically asking "please, hand me a boomerang-shaped trout". Fram (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Fram told me "I think we can handle this without more help from you", so I walked away from that template talk page, and would continue staying away aside from the repeated pings. There has also been related discussion between myself and Francis at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Suggestion:_WP:CHALLENGE in the last few days. Mike Peel (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But you still felt the need to repeatedly revert Francis Schonken to reinsert your own RfC-deprecated version of the infobox[124][125][126]. Fram (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Note how none of those mentioned the RfC - see my initial comment here. Mike Peel (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

And if they don't mention the RfC, you are free to reinsert your own deprecated template you have walked away from? That same deprecated template where you have, as far as I know, not cleaned up one instance of it being used? Fram (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You knew exactly why Francis made the change, and you knew the template was deprecated before you re-inserted it. Quit the disingenuity and respect community consensus -- or look to the community to form a new one. Don't edit disruptively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the original point of the thread, are the notifications really necessary when making the edits? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Automatic. FS is reverting an edit and adjusting the content then saving. This will ping the editor who made the edit originally. You could hit edit and change it manually but if its only a minor change its easier and more efficient the way FS is doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Such notifications are opt-in, so not necessarily automatic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to grab this opportunity to encourage everyone to go to Preferences > Notifications and uncheck Edit revert. Then you don't get those jarring red flags sending your blood pressure up. It's made my editing life far happier. Of course you still see any changes on your watchlist, but somehow that's a calmer way to experience them. EEng 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I second EEng's insight. I unchecked it a while ago and haven't been tempted to revert back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Have my babies EEng. (this should teach me to actually look at preferences more often). Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm having Arbcom cut off your Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. I have to credit Tryptofish with calling attention to this, and it's a shame there hasn't been more uptake project wide. Seriously, Tfish, what do you think about a Signpost article about it? I really think that every editor who unchecks the revert-notification "feature" represents a step along the path to universal Wiki-peace.

Another thing we could try -- and I really think this might be successful -- would be to lobby to make "unchecked" the default for new users. EEng 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (but you don't have to have my babies). Everyone should read WP:RNO, which is what EEng is talking about. I honestly don't care much about the Signpost. I think the default setting has kept changing from on to off and back over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good to know, and I've disabled that now. I thought that the notifications could also be avoided by removing the username from the edit summary. The use of random reasons in the edit summary seem to be decreasing, with more along the lines of "per <rfc link>", which is better - @Francis Schonken: please just stick with that edit summary from now on. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to know there's a technical solution for the pinging. The edit summaries are not exclusively written for you, of course. Sometimes they are misunderstood. I try to make them correct, understandable, succinct, etc. That's content (not behaviour), so less suitable to be discussed on this noticeboard. As indicated above, a discussion about precisely this content was open before this was brought here (i.e., WP:RSN#Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE). For clarity, that discussion is still active. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: during my work with the WHS infobox I encountered this edit to the pyramid infobox. Was that discussed before implementing? I mean, there's no obligation to discuss, but was it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Please just keep the summaries for the edits that are implementing the RfC focused on the RfC link. The discussion at WP:CHALLENGE is very controversial (and, from my perspective, very wrong), so shouldn't be used in those cases. The pyramid infobox edit was per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, let's see how Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC is closed before taking that further. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The "modification should be done carefully and deliberately" (from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2) – I didn't see that happening at the pyramid infobox. I'd expect at least a notification at the infoboxes talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Further, the Phase 2 RfC does not justify the removal of material from individual Wikipedia articles: "It is appropriate to modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox" (my emphasis) – removing "existing English Wikipedia data" seems like WP:POINT (i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point) to me — at least WP:BOLD, in which case the bold removal of material can be undone by WP:BRD. Undoing such removals of material, where the removals seem not to be covered by any RfC, need not be justified by referring to an RfC. See also what other editors said above: whether or not the edit summary refers to an RfC, restoring such deleted material should not be undone. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be going back over ground that led to Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018_Infobox_RfC - let's see how that's closed. Mike Peel (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC is not about behaviour. So again, why did you bring this to WP:ANI, which is about behaviour? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Assistance at Mediawiki and perhaps Commons

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

---

A troll is harassing me at Wikipedia, Commons, Mediawiki, etc. The original IP, 207.10.104.58, was globally locked by a steward, but now there's a new one, 65.155.17.196 — and there will no doubt always be new ones. I tried to get my mediawiki userpages, https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen etc, protected, but obviously posted to the wrong help page at Mediawiki, and nothing happened. I don't know my way around there. Could somebody who does please try to get my pages semiprotected there? Preferably indefinitely. Also my Commons pages, unless they already are — I can't tell, but the attacks seem to have stopped there. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

User:Tegel seems to have globally blocked it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not the point, Tony. After the first IP had been globally locked, another one turned up very soon. The world is full of open proxies, so I would appreciate having my pages protected. If it can be arranged. Anybody know a mediawiki admin, or is their system totally different? As I said, I tried to find an admin and failed. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

I projected your user and user talk page for a month. In the future you can use mw:Project:Current issues or the #mediawiki channel on freenode to get the attention of an admin. Legoktm (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Legoktm. I'll try to remember. Having userpages at Mediawiki is purely a bother, I've no use for them, and they're nothing but vandal magnets. There is not the slightest risk that an IP or throwaway account would have a legitimate errand there, so would you consider protecting them indefinitely, please? Or a year, at least. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC).

Done, though I could just delete your MediawikiWiki user page and let your Meta one would show instead, I could then salt the MW one, if you like, Bishonen? Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also semi'ed your Commons user page. Courcelles (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Thanks, that's great. Deleting and salting the mediawiki userpage would be even better, but the meta page that shows through will also need protection, won't it, and the meta talk? (Compare their histories; they've seen some action.) Also, my Commons talk? I wish I hadn't created so many pages; though I guess if I hadn't, there's still nothing to stop the vandals from creating them. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

@Courcelles:? Or would anybody else with those permissions like to take care of the missing bits, so I don't have to come back and bug everybody again next week? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

I think all done. Mediawikiwiki deleted and salted, Meta user page semi-protected. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A weight off my mind, Courcelles. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

I semi-protected your Commons talk page for a month and added it to my watchlist, if harassment resumes I will be able to reprotect it.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. How many of these goddamn projects are there? My wiktionary page was just created and defaced. Anybody got admin rights there? Please protect user and user talk indefinitely and globally lock the new IP. If somebody with lots of permissions would like to e-mail me, I'll mention a few more problems. Bishonen | talk 07:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC).

I myself am being harassed in a similar way, on some sister projects, for over a month now by an apparently mentally ill person. I could not find a way to deal with this other than have all these accounts globally locked, one by one. May be you can go to stewards, they are the ones with a lots of permissions, and they might be able to globally range-block.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The internet is full of open proxies, on all different ranges, so the global locks don't do much good. On second thoughts, don't bother to e-mail me like I requested above; I think I'll just stop caring what my userpages say on other projects. It's little to do with me, after all. Bishonen | talk 08:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC).

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

User:Livioandronico2013 evading indef block on Commons by continuing attacks on Wikipedia

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

---

• Livioandronico2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Commons contributions

Livioandronico is indef blocked on Commons (block discussion December 2017). This was due to long running incivility, personal attacks and dishonesty towards other users at the Featured Picture forum. His final edits there include this personal attack "do you have to lie to live".

• In December 2017 he asks another Commons user to nominate photos at FPC on his behalf.
• A few minutes later he posts to my user page "I repeat.....do you have to lie to live? I don't use NR. I hope you are a liar as I think ... otherwise there is something more serious!".
• In March 2018 I removed that post from my talk page.
• On 22 May 2018 Livioandronico restores his personal attack post to my talk page archive.
• On 23 May 2018 I reverted it.
• On 24 May 2018 Livioandronico restores his personal attack post to my talk page archive.

I have not, as far as I can recall, had any interaction with Livioandronico on Wikipedia. There is no reason for him to use Wikipedia to continue making personal attacks that got him the indef block on Commons. I personally avoid making multiple reverts, so would appreciate if an Admin remove his attack post from User talk:Colin/Archive 11 and protect the archive. Suggest user is also blocked on Wikipedia too. -- Colin°^Talk 21:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit was already reverted when i got there. I went ahead and fully protected it. Feel free to revert if that was wrong. I guess the next thing is to admonish Livioandronico2013. Perhaps an apology will obviate the need for formal sanctions.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Leaving a ping for @De728631 since they are the blocking admin on Commons. Suggest a one-week block here of Livioandronico2013 for personal attacks, based on the enwiki diffs above. Agree that IF he apologizes the block would not be necessary. The header of this report says the user is 'evading indef block on Commons' though that's not technically true since this is a different project. Still, if we are expecting different behavior here that would be optimistic. (Check out his comments in the Commons block discussion). EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't know what the technical term for it is, but the personal attacks left on my talk page are nothing to do with Wikipedia, but spill-over from his issues on Commons. They are using Wikipedia to attack me since they can't any longer do so on Commons. Evading their Commons block by attacking a Commons user on Wikipedia instead. Livioandronico doesn't edit very often, and has no current FP nominations here, so a week block is unlikely to be to of any effect. Wrt Wikipedia behaviour, I see that in January he edit warred over the lead photo he had uploaded and inserted to Empress Elisabeth of Austria. I haven't looked any further back than that. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Colin,Colin this isn't commons....good night...--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Livioandronico2013 is continuing to edit here (per his comment above) while making no apology and no offer to behave better, I'm going ahead with a one-week block for the personal attacks here on the English Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That should give him time to find something else to do. I'd hoped it would not come to that. If the behavior recurs, and his remark here does not leave me hopeful, then we can certainly block longer next time.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

A perfect case of WP:NOTHERE

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

---

History21st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nothing but trouble from the moment they started editing (their short editing history speaks for itself). I don't know whether they have difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works or whether they are doing it on purpose, but what is certain is that they're making near impossible to improve articles by constantly restoring original research and deleting reliably sourced content. The various warnings on their page were simply ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see that they're NOTHERE; what I do see is you leaving nothing but templated warnings and uninsightful boilerplate edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Drmies I left a perfectly justifiable warning on the 17th of this month, and another one today. What else am I supposed to do, let them remove sourced content? There is nothing wrong with the edit summaries, after all, I'm removing anything that shouldn't be there (either because it failed verification or it's OR). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You could talk to them. With sentences. If you want us to hand out a NOTHERE block you'll have to do better then go "just look at their history", and if you want us to take you seriously it would help if you'd done more than leave nothing but templated warnings and uninsightful boilerplate edit summaries--at the risk of repeating myself, of course. No need to ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm always concerned by editors who edit-war about the ethnicity or nationality of historical figures, as History21st is doing at Abd al-Mu'min. I don't see this as WP:NOTHERE; rather a situation where a new editor needs to be advised to use the talk page to resolve content issues such as whether this person's birthplace was ruled by the Almoravids or the Hammadids at the time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • They were trying, on Talk:Abd al-Mu'min--but no one responded. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Actually, History21st did post on that talk page multiple times. M.Bitton (talk · contribs) (and also Aṭlas (talk · contribs)) are the ones who need to be advised to reply there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Power~enwiki: Out of interest, how would you deal with this? Would you restore it to what the RS say, "discuss it" or simply leave it? If a statement fails verification and you remove it (as you should), what kind of edit summary would you leave? M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not sure I agree with this edit. I'm going to revert but if you have a source for it please come to the talk page and we can hash it out." See? It's not hard to be civil. You should try it some time. --Tarage (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See? It's not hard to be civil. You should try it some time. Was that really necessary? M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Andalusia is in Spain, they're not contradictory, and the Samso (2007) reference describes him as "Andalusian". I'd be more concerned about "Residence: Caliphate" in the infobox, which makes little sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I would agree with you if the source was at the end of the sentence, but that's not the case. Notice that only the expression is attributed to the source and changing the expression would misrepresent the source, or at least, that's the way I see it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly you're in the wrong here. You make an edit, it gets reverted, and then instead of going to the talk page you edit war. I'm not impressed. --Tarage (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... looking at yours and their edits, at least they went to the talk page to TRY to reason with you. Meanwhile you decided the best way to solve this issue was to leave them warnings and then come here? Boomerang. If anyone isn't here to create an encyclopedia it's you. Close this down before you end up blocked and use the talk page instead of throwing a temper tantrum. --Tarage (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are the facts:

• In the Abd al-Mu'min article, I made a single edit since History21st appeared on the scene and the whole birth place disagreement started (I restored the reliably sourced content that was deleted without a valid reason). Having looked at the edit history, all I saw is an editor desperately trying by any means necessary, including source misrepresentation, to introduce original research into the article. I left a gentle warning on their talk page (which they ignored).
• When I started cleaning the Expedition to Mostaganem (1558) article, I didn't think that anyone would be reverting some of my edits within seconds of me making them. When I realised what was happening, I issued a warning (since their reverts didn't even have edit summaries) and restored the page to an earlier version (deleting some of my edits in the process to start afresh). They reverted again (obliterating the source that I have added), and this time, asking me to do the impossible, to bring sources before removing WP:OR and content that failed verification. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm not an Admin or anything, but Maby you could actually READ what People are Trying to tell you? at least find out what a "Boomerang" is. Jena (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I think what I'm reading here is that people are trying to say the following. 1) Your behavior is closer to nothere than the other editor. 2) You need to drop it. 3) You need to discuss the merits and finer qualities of your position on the article talk page, and by discussion, we mean considering the other's point of view rather than simply insisting on your own.Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User: Maude~Duggel

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

---

User:Maude~Duggel has a history of making uncivil comments. See the description of the following edit. [127] and edit [128]. In addition, the editor had a history of creating and submitting draft articles for inclusion in the mainspace via AFC with only very minor changes between versions. See Draft:The Disney Brain and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerson Sapida. This editor's edits are disruptive and frankly have wasted numerous hours of volunteer time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddogsix (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been watching their talkpage since AfC declining one of their junk submissions. About an hour ago I was thinking of bringing them to ANi myself. Their participation at AfD is suboptimal as well, voting twice, making weird comments etc. I'm not sure the solution but maybe prohibit them from creating new drafts or mainspace pages for 6 months? That would reduce the AfD issues too and give them some time to learn more about Wikiacceptable behavior? Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I hadn't realized she'd edited more articles than what's currently at Draft:The Disney Brain. Early versions of it and her reactions to its deletion [129] had all the hallmarks of autobiography. —Cryptic 15:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. I have tried to reason with her, offer advice in AFDs, and even given her a final warning about civility, which she just violated. She is welcome to appeal her block and I will consider it, because I feel that she could be a good contributor here, if she can listen to advice, get the message from all the deletions of her articles, be civil, and stop the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Nheyob looks compromised

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

---

Look at this: [130] [131]. wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by JzG (talk · contribs). ~Anachronist (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have run a check and am satisfied that the account is not compromised. Today's vandalism comes from the same user who appears to have edited constructively in the past. The user should not be unblocked until they acknowledge and explain the vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Need help undoing vandalism

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

---

Please help undo the extensive vandalism by blocked user User:Dan Glickman. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to everyone else who helped. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

DanielleDiddreaSaprks

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

---

Given this edit, could an admin please block DanielleDiddreaSaprks (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, this has already happened. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Emma Barnett

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

---

We really need an open discussion on Emma Barnett’s profile - there are important issues in her past from within her family that (it could be argued) unfairly gave her a privileged upbringing. There appears to be a concerted effort to remove this information on the part of administrators and influential editors making it appear that they are working together to hide this from the public eye. It is very much in the public interest to keep this in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ1970 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You are already discussing this on the article talk page, the correct place, and you have been given good advice to read WP:BLP. Please do so. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's true of many journalists; unless this topic is covered by impeccable sources (so no "it could be argued" wankery) this would seem to be a very problematic angle to pursue. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Quek157

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

---

I've been trying to put together a cogent list of the problems caused recently by this editor, but I've just become more frustrated by the mess of the contribution log. Several editors have tried to help them understand what is expected of them when editing wikipedia, but they refuse to listen and delete the messages (as is their right, but it makes things very difficult to follow).

They have been nominating articles and drafts for deletion without being sure what they are doing. Their edit history has many messy logs of this. Here's an example of them MfDing a draft for being draft quality. And an example of someone trying to talk to them about it. Example They've also made a habit of deleting comments after they've been responded to. Example

Maybe if an admin has a conversation, they'll finally understand what is required when contributing to wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

i would say no more. I end my editing wef today {{retired}}Quek157 (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

If that's what you want to do, ok, but you already said before that you were going to be sticking to article space, and that didn't stick. Natureium (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is going to stop you retiring, that's your prerogative. Without being versed in the history, I get the feeling that, if aligned with policies and guidelines, you could be an active, valuable contributor. Retiring during an ANI case is likely to result in an indef block, as an alternative to finishing the ANI case. I think that would be a sad outcome. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve NOTHERE blocked per the general disruption and his new decision to post retired anywhere he can. It’s become a forced retirement at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

well, that's a shame. there was potential there.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Not the outcome I was hoping for, but probably the only way that was going to make a difference. Natureium (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What a horrible loss for Wikipedia... or not. --Tarage (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

IAWI

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

@EdJohnston:, one move is not vandalism, these many problems are. It is with much regret I came here, on advice at [132]. I have a few grievances with it. I tend to let this slide but no.

1. Inappropriate AFD nominations this one I reverted, 2nd one, 3rd one, 4th one
2. Inappropriate AFD closure, no way it is a SNOW close, and no way can that be SKCRIT, the whole discussion did not take into account anything, [133] with a notice that I didn't do my homework
3. Inappropriate moves of To. Day to Draft:To.Day after I clearly had done my New Page Patrol. I added reimprove sources, and then they move back into drafts. There are now at least 4 new sources available. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, they should not had done these. Many other of their moves are unacceptable. (see move log)
4. Triggering multiple edit filters, as well as multiple PRODs on new articles, as well as a AFD on their article due to @Kudpung: cannot delete via A7 with nearly unanimous consensus at AFD.P4R4G0N_(hacktivist) One alone is disruptive, warning is enough, but multiple needs admin attention.

• User involved: IAWI.
• I already will like to end this entire coming to AN/I, however, this entire continuation of nonsensical issues with IAWI is unacceptable. --Quek157 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• User involved notified User_talk:IAWI#Deletion_discussion_about_Rudolf_Kallaste --Quek157 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not seeking ban, but a strong last warning this is not acceptable and refer to all the closes in AFD and all the nominations properly. --Quek157 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Admins, I am sorry but this is absurd, I'm not even mad, I'm laughing. 1. Please view this Ed clearly explained to him that he is overreacting, Quek157 didn't even tell me anything before coming to this board. - You'll see the person in question being kind of 'bias mad' towards me for no reason. 2. I even went to his talk page reagrding the AfD that he did NO HOMEWORK on as he nominated it, and explained his faulty nomination, view here. I'm very confused honestly, I even tried to be nice via sending him an informative messeage of his faulty nomination in his talk page. 3. I have not closed anyhting except CLEAR OBVIOUS Snow cases. 4. I respect everyone, and I except to be respected to. Thank u. --IAWI (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:IAWI#Deletion_discussion_about_Rudolf_Kallaste clearly someone else is telling you SNOW close is not appropriate. You are the writer of the article and I AFD it, there is no way you can SNOW close this. Admins, do this reminds you about the Kirbazano case? innocent party. im sorry very sorry --Quek157 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, User:Bbb23 has suddenly appeared and blocked User:IAWI as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

first proper usage of ANI. @Swarm: I did well right. can give me a barnstar for it ? Quek157 (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• As best I can see, the disruptive and snow keep AfDs have all been closed, and the few with out standing Deletes or when I voted delete remain open. I am going through his very edits, and they are lame "military >> military," e.g., failures to comply with MOS:Overlink, and piddlesome edits. I apologise for all this, if I had not slacked from delsorting and seen that he had made so many AFDs at once as a new user, I would have contacted Bishonen or someone to alert them to possible sockpuppetry, at the time all I saw was his "relevance" fetish which I ignored also, so I'll take any trout sent my way. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Done --Quek157 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

[134] one last disruptive AFD to close. I am involved so no way. --Quek157 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup, just found that one. All current edits have been and the improper ones reverted. Thanks all, ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

last afd to close. clear keep with sources. Quek157 (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP has a 24hr + backlog

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

---

Hi there, I left a message at WP:AN yesterday but RPP’s backlog is now in excess of 24 hrs and 30 requests, if an admin could take a look that would be great. I hope it’s not poor form to post in both places. Thanks! ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't there a noticeboard like WP:ANRFC for backlog alerts like this? I hardly ever view this here WP:CESSPIT page. ~Anachronist (talk)

It would be nice if the system could ping us for backlogs. If it can, I do not know the setting.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 08:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is easily possible. Checking the watchlist (edit summaries of this page by bot) and the page itself seems to be the only way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah. I watchlist AIV, RFPP, and UAA when I'm home, but now I'm at work and using my non admin account.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 09:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then only checking the page on a regular basis would help.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In principle, the bot knows whether the page (specifically, RFPP) is backlogged or not, and this information can be added e.g. to the watchlist notice on top, but I am not sure there could be consensus for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP is now almost clear. Hhkohh (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Cleared, for the moment. It would be nice to have more admins watching that, though; I spent a lot longer there today than I would really like to. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Now 4 requests remain. Hhkohh (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the valiant efforts of the admins who cleared it up, I'm sorry if this wasn't the right way to post but as the AN request hadn't got any traction I wasn't sure what else to do. One question though, I noticed that requests weren't deal with in the order they were requested. Some were actioned that were at the bottom of the list (only a few hours old) whilst some of the oldest ones got ignored. That's happened to pages I've requested twice now. What is the protocol there? And should it change? ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  11:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• CJ, for one thing, it was the right way. ANRFC is just for "this discussion is ready to be closed, and could someone assess consensus", and anyway it's good to post here instead, since ANRFC is routinely spammed by a few specific users to the point that it's basically useless. So yes, you came to the right place. Meanwhile, yes this is normal, and it shouldn't change — the only options, as far as I can see, are allowing admins to handle whichever items they want or requiring them to handle them in a specific order. If there's a difficult item, someone might go past it and handle an easier one, but should the page require them to be handled in a specific order, admins might simply go elsewhere, since they don't want to handle the difficult item and mustn't handle the easy ones. And thus the backlog becomes worse until someone comes along who would have been willing to handle the difficult item anyway. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well said. Also, some items are bypassed as they do not appear ripe, and we are awaiting further developments.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say it is a bit frustrating when requests have been outstanding overnight & vandalised in the meantime (I dare say they were fairly easy to action) but I guess there's more nuance than I appreciate ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Are we subject to British gag orders?

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

---

Journalist/Muslim-Critic Activist Tommy_Robinson_(activist) was arrested and apparently instantly convicted to 13 Months Jail for filming a courthouse on a public street in Britain. There's a British gag order regarding both arrest and conviction in place - the British state seems to officially try to "disappear" Robinson for now. At least one British paper (The Independent) is defying the ban; there's also a Fox news Article on the matter. And of course all rightwing corners of social media outside of Britain are full of it.

Some folks on the talk page seem to assume we are subject to that gag order and warn of dire consequences for (non-British) editors who ignore it. Are we? Wefa (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. Individual editors may face risks that they should evaluate. But Wikipedia as a whole is not intimidated by restrictions from China, Turkey, the United Kingdom or any other country. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The OP seems to be (in an inaccurate and biased way) about "Tommy_Robinson (activist)". If you want publicity for your cause, go elsewhere and send out a press release. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

my apologies for the wrong link (just fixed it), but that answer seems to be awfully hostile. What's wrong with my question? Wefa (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the feeling is you might be trying to soapbox about the subject.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 05:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

But no, we are not subject to UK laws in that regard. Though if they want to, they can try to put up a Hadrian's Firewall.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 05:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

If anyone wants a battle, please watch Tommy Robinson (activist) where the current edit (diff) added an image of a document with caption" The fascist gag order ordered by the UK court and deemed to be a unreliable source by several Wikipedia admins]]". Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

See #User Koppadasao below. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning (Resolved)

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

---

I want to tell that why this botprogram is undoing my editing.It has no right to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.y5 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It probably detected your misspelling ("Japan.hundreds") and identified that period w/o spacing as a common feature of random keyboard whacking vandalism. Happens; the bot is not infallible. In any case, if the bot hadn't reverted the edit, some editor would have, because your addition to the text was both superfluous (this is already exhaustively covered in the article) and unsourced. Just leave it be now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagging this as "resolved" above, so no other admins come hot-footing down here after seeing the section title. Vanamonde (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Someone deal with this character please

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

---

Will someone give this character some advise - see this edit/threat. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a week. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Pablogarcia4

This user has been warned many times by many editors about adding unsourced content but continues to do so. Please see the multitude of messages at User talk:Pablogarcia4, including the 11 from me over the last several weeks. Policies on communication and sourcing (WP:DISPUTE, WP:CONDUCT, WP:V) have been signposted to, offers of help made etc. This editor appears to have been editing for only six weeks (which is why I messaged them 11 times before I came here) but I would be very interested in whether they had edited under another name previously, considering their editing pattern. They have never edited their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

They have continued to edit without responding on their talk page or here. I have therefore blocked them in hopes they will address the matter with a little encouragement.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice

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

---

I asked him to stop pinging me[135], and he pinged me anyway.[136] Note: I did not read the content of whatever he wrote, as that would reward the undesirable behavior. I do not wish to have any further interactions with this user. Taking my own advice, I am not watching his talk page, and if I see any comment anywhere with his signature I skip to the next comment without reading it.

Related: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Guy Macon --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You know you can mute notifications from him at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, right? —Cryptic 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Deliberate pinging after a request to desist may is also be clear harassment; e.g. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not sure it is (at least not in intent). I think we just have a user who is not there for anything other then what he wants to read.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarified. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted him to stop. I just muted him in my preferences, which solves the immediate problem. If he pings me again I won't see it and someone else can deal with it if they feel like it. Thanks, Cryptic! I had forgotten that I can do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, part of his one-way iBan includes an order not to ping me. When you tell someone to stop pinging, and they keep doing it, that's harassment. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you were going to disengage and get as far away as possible, BR. ~Awilley (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This certainly is harassment; what’s more it is a habit of Factchecker’s. Earlier, after being banned from User:BullRangifer's talk page (a ban which took several requests from BR and finally from an admin before he would respect it), he then switched to criticizing BR at other sites, pinging him every time, so that an admin finally had to impose an IBAN to stop him. This new one is a particularly egregious example since the ping came immediately after, and in response to, Guy saying “don’t ping me”. Factchecker is currently blocked for a week.[137] This harassing ping to Guy, from Factchecker’s talk page, came while the block was in place. IMO there is a strong case here for extending the block. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support per MelanieN. I would say harassment is a bit of a strong term, but it's definitely disruptive behavior. Andrevan@ 18:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly you need to get a thicker skin if you consider just one instance of using Template:Reply to (when actually replying to you) as harassment. I can understand it could be harassment if someone's using it to spam jabs at someone who's not relevant to the dicussion in different venues, but not in a discussion. Don't be that guy. --Pudeo (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Molehill alert. Especially when one person seems to order him to change his name as being against Wikipedia rules, etc. There are times when silence is the best answer, but AN/I is a dram board and not a solution for much of anything. Collect (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what user A being a berk has to do with user b doing something to user C they have asked them not to do. I can think of reason to say this ANI is unnecessary (some of them above), but this is not one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, my username discussion was closed and nobody aside from me seems to mind that Factchecker is a username that connotes some authority, so nothing's going to be done about that. I have not interacted with this user directly, but his constant drumbeat that "there is no evidence against Trump" is clearly tendentious POV pushing. I don't have any specific evidence aside from his POV pattern of editing, as laid out by Jytdog, that he is a problem user. Andrevan@ 19:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

^{Psssst, Andrevan - type User:Factchecker in the WP search bar and see how many user names come up...I counted 7. Atsme📞📧 06:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)}

• Support block - temporary or indef not fussed which - If one asks to stop being pinged and that editor carries on regardless then that's harassment ?, Muting the editor resolves the pinging but it doesn't resolve the editors harassing behaviour, It's no different to asking someone to stop posting on your talkpage and that person carrying on regardless ..... If you're asked to stop then you stop ..... if you ignore that request then yeah IMHO that's harassment. –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would not support a block of Factchecker on the basis of this incident alone, but it's all a part of their general modus operandi, which encompasses pretty much every BATTLEGROUND-related behavior in the book. When someone asks you not to bother them, and you then immediately bother them, that's not harassment per se, but it is the first step on the road to harassment, and any additional actions along those lines would warrant a block.
  The bigger picture can be seen on the AE complaint about Factchecker [138], which arose out of the AN complaint about him [139]. It looks like the AE complaint is going to wind up with a topic ban from American politics -- it's the length of the TB that's under discussion at this point -- and Factchecker is right now serving out a block for the same disruptive BATTLEGROUND behaviors reported in those threads. The path here is clear, and -- unless they change their behavior radically -- it ends, at some point in the future, either sooner or later, with an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have two open "cases" going on at the same time, Guy? Factchecker is already blocked, and has an open case ongoing at AE. I pulled my horse from this race, but I'm curious to know if having an ANI case and an AE case going on at the same time for an editor that is currently blocked and just the other day had a different ANI case closed and directed to AE. This is all getting quite confusing, if you know what I mean. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The incident reported here is separate from the incidents reported at AN and AE, so a new report is indeed warranted. There's no confusion at all here: the general issue is Factchecker's behavior, and it manifests itself in numerous incidents, including this specific one, which took place while they were blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Support extending the block for harassment. If he doesn't understand the concept of not pinging someone who doesn't want to be pinged he doesn't have the competency to edit here. Make it two weeks and tell him to knock it the fuck off. --Tarage (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Or... here's a crazy thought: people being pinged by him could just, oh I don't know -- ignore it? WP:COMPULSORY comes to mind. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not encourage harassment. People here are smart enough to know that being a creep is just as bad as someone who vents with a stream of abuse. Violators are blocked for the latter and have been blocked for the former, and that should happen in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

My solution is hardly encouraging harassment, it's using a method known as shaping behavior. Behaviorists use the ignore technique successfully all the time. It works. More editors in Wikipedia should try it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, I wrote a long reply explaining why this is an idiotic suggestion but tablet lost it. Suffice to say we are not here to modify bad behaviour. Editors either edit according to Wikipedia's social requirements or they get shown the door until they do so. One of those requirements is when someone asks you to stop poking them, you stop poking them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We modify poor behavior choices all the time. Sanctions, blocks, bans, and so on. By bringing this miniscule act here (the unwanted pinging) it's very possible the pinger (Factchecker) has now gotten what he wanted: attention. I don't know that for sure, but by prolonging this and hashing over it and everyone gnashing their teeth over pinging, who ends up getting satisfaction? Certainly not those going ape$#!t over it all. It's pinging, for heaven's sake. Ignore it and move on. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If I ask you not to continue to call me and your response is to say "Just turn off your cell phone", I think I'm within my rights to say "No, how about you stop calling me?" Don't be daft. It's harassment to ping someone if they don't want to be pinged, just like it's harassment to continue to post on someone's talk page if they have asked you not to. --Tarage (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

An even more effective tool for shaping behavior is to block people who misbehave until they agree to behave going forwards, which stops them from disrupting the project entirely. Even putting aside the obviously unacceptable behavior of pinging someone after they've asked them to stop, I don't see how this comment is in any way WP:CIVIL: Let's get one thing straight: I am patiently humoring you, not the other way around. If you want to be a good lil' WP editor, that is purely your own decision and you should not expect obeisance or fawning praise or dog-like servility from me. Oh and next time you're earnestly "trying" you might think twice about obnoxious little specactles like... Given that he is misbehaving so severely while already blocked for similar behavior, I feel that moving to an indefinite community block is at least worth discussing; and I'm baffled as to why you're so repeatedly outspoken in defending him. This isn't even a matter of content disputes or ideological differences, this is just a user who fairly unambiguously seems to think that WP:CIVIL does not apply to him - someone who still holds the opinions he expressed about Wikipedia in his edit summary when he left three years ago and who mistreats any user he disagrees with accordingly. This is part of a long pattern if misbehavior going back years across multiple articles and interactions with a wide variety of people (as many users have documented in the active WP:AE request concerning him), so if you feel that his contributions are valuable, you should be spending your time trying to convince him to back down and stop digging himself in deeper, rather than publicly defending behavior that is clearly and unambiguously unacceptable. Otherwise, even if you manage to help him avoid a community ban this time, I find it very hard to believe that he will avoid sanctions in the future unless he changes his behavior. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"even if you manage to help him avoid a community ban this time, I find it very hard to believe that he will avoid sanctions in the future unless he changes his behavior." I'm not trying to help him avoid a community ban. I recognize that there's a pattern and history of behavior. I'm just saying that the OP and others getting worked up over pinging (no matter who does it) seems like an over-reaction and there are better ways to handle it than bringing it to a drama board. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Three editors have told you that you are mistaken. Ignoring bullies might be the only practical advice for a kid going to school, but at Wikipedia obvious abuse does not need to be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is not that he is bullying, it is the fact he is not listening. I agree (as I said in my OP) that reacting to the ping with an ANI is an overreaction. But one born out of frustration, by an edd who has tried to help FC and, basically, was presented with the same attitudes and behaviors that he had tried to talk FC out of engage in t avoid sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq, oh no. Three whole editors out of a cast of thousands? Three online people who could range in age demographics from childhood to senility have told me I'm wrong? Gee, I better reconsider what I said, then because if .0001% of faceless Wikipedia editors say I'm wrong, I must be - right?

In all seriousness and all snark aside, you said it exactly: "for a kid going to school". When someone acts like a child and everything else has been tried, then respond to them as you would with a child. And don't bring the childish behavior that doesn't hurt you or the community (pinging is not bullying) to a noticeboard before trying basic behavior management techniques. Look how much time people have wasted on this silliness when any and all of us could have been doing more productive things for the encyclopedia. Sure, there's frustration (as BMK said), but this is the internet: we all have control over what we view, accept into our editing environment, and respond to. Someone above used a cellphone analogy above as a parallel. My response to that which echoes my thoughts on using behavior management techniques: ignore the caller. And, lo and behold, it's been pointed out to the OP that there is a tool to stop pings from specific editors. Which is exactly what I suggested: put them on permanent "ignore". If the unwanted behavior is ignored and not mentioned on talk pages, the desired result by the one performing the childish act(s) is not achieved, and they soon get bored with doing something that doesn't provide the satisfaction they seek. One may do the ignoring technologically, but it's possible to do it mentally, too. Just takes self-discipline. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Or we can throw them out, just as we would if it was any other private function they decided to crap on the floor of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• An IP editor closed this discussion, without signing the closure. I have undone the closing, per WP:NACIP, which specifies that unregistered editors (i.e. IPs) should not make NAC closures. I have no objection to a registered editor closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose can't you just go over it?!!! Are we going to block a useful contributor just because he pinged someone who asked not to be? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Striking after an Email from BR. But I still think we ought to give him a final warning. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support extending the block for harassment. We should not encourage bullies. "Don't ping me" means "don't ping me"; it's pretty clear that the user was intent on aggravating the OP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. We do not need this behavior here. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Rampant sockpuppetry accusations and personal attacks at Talk:Columbia University

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

---

Can someone please stop by Talk:Columbia University? It's become an extremely contentious discussion with many specific accusations of sockpuppetry and personal attacks. The article has a long history of being edited by a banned sockmaster so it's natural that the editors suspect sockpuppetry (I share those suspicions) but editors are now slinging accusations at specific editors but refusing to file actual sockpuppet investigation requests so the discussion has become very unproductive and hostile. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this while checking the noticeboard, but I recognized one of the IP's in range. 47.196.137.104 is from the exact IP range as one of Wikipedia's worst banned editors, Zhoban. @Ponyo: has blocked hundreds of his socks from the Tampa area over the past four years, but he constantly hops around. The syntax and everything matches him, (see the LTA case), so sorry, but I have to say that's one that must be taken care of pronto. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Iesnikuf

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

---

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

Four out of five of Iesnikuf's edit summaries (and the fifth is blank) are inappropriate, referring to other editors as "autistic" or "retarded". The final one occurred after my second warning about this behavior on their talk page. I think a stronger warning than I can give is required. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 13:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. When they evince an ability to work/play well with others, they can request unblock. If any admin thinks I over did it, please feel free to reverse me, as I'll be sleeping and working. If a CU has a spare moment, it might be worth a further a peek with their spidey vision.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Endorse block. That is not a promising new user for a collaborative encyclopedia project. A Train^talk 17:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Playing the devils advocate for a moment: though the summaries were way out of line, the actions themselves were justified and actually helpful. Kleuske (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Mussolini made the trains run on time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ A Train^talk 22:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it was good of Dlohcierekim to offer the straightforward unblock. Swarm ♠ 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits were OK, but the edit summaries were not conducive to collegiality. Hopefully, they can return with better edit summaries.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit summaries seem intended to be disruptive so I wouldn't lean toward an assumption of good faith. Socks occasionally act really annoying like this. That must be part of the fun of being a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I took it as an immature attempt at humor but not necessarily NOTHERE disruption. Could just be a buzzing fly as you suspect though. Swarm ♠ 02:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept that explanation if they agreed to stop doing it.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We would not accept racist or misogynist slurs or putdowns in edit summaries, and we should be equally opposed to disablist slurs. Disparaging comments such as "retarded" or "autistic" should never be permitted, but we see them all too frequently, both on Wikipedia and in society. There is nothing humorous about them. RolandR (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. And as someone who is kinda Asperger's, yeah. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 10:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hence the "way out of line" in my advocatus diaboli comment. Kleuske (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I miss Latin.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Sebastian James (talk)

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

---

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Ever since "diff 1" the editor has shown zero WP:GOODFAITH by repeatedly calling me a "troll" (despite my history with the article) and, after being warned of disruptive editing based on WP:CITEVAR upon everything else and deleting it out of spite, the editor is one edit away from breaking the three-revert rule. Cognissonance (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add, the editor removing a low-score review for a high-score review stands out as WP:POV. Cognissonance (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James's talk is a history of warnings over edit warring and inappropriate edit summaries. Plus a few about personal attacks. There doesn't ever seem to have been any response to them other than deletion with dismissive and sarcastic edit summaries. It also looks like the user's predilection for removing comments he doesn't like includes other editors' posts on article talkpages. [140] Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The user deleted the sourced info for reception, also changed the references, such as Metacritic like this.

Also, Grandpallama, I don't change it because I dislike it, I change it because I think it's wrong. They never explain the problem in comments. I have seen two editors swearing at each other with their edit summaries, nothing happened to them... Sebastian James (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting someone's article talkpage comments because you think they're "wrong" is completely, unambiguously not acceptable. Actually, pinging IUpdateRottenTomatoes since that's the user whose comments you arbitrarily deleted. As far as what you've seen "other editors" do, it's you whose conduct is being considered here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Grandpallama, I use Puffin Browser most of the time when I contribute. Its performance is pretty bad so I try to keep my edits and edit summaries short. But, you still don't understand my comments. I didn't mean article takpage comments when I wrote "I change it because I think it's wrong". That's completely different from this topic. Also, I wrote about "other editors" because they did verbally attack each other and violated policies more than one. Still, I am the one who is charged because of "harassment" I made and an editor who clearly deleted sourced info and changed a reference badly, while accusing me with WP:CITEVAR. Sebastian James (talk)

Not a single thing you've written even acknowledges unacceptable behavior, and it certainly doesn't excuse it. You've been brought to the noticeboard over your behavior on WP, and you'd better start explaining your actions, including the ones I'm raising, or I see a block headed your way. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I started to explain them already, but you are the one who doesn't have nonsubjective point of view, and doesn't have full knowledge of this issue. Will you please stop beating about the bush and give place to someone experienced who can solve this problem? Don't be sad if I won't get blocked, be happy with your friend Cognissonance. Bye. Sebastian James (talk)

• Cognissonance, I have not examined this dispute, but I'll make one point that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages (we take that as a sign that they have read them). So it was wrong to do this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Diff 4 Cognissonance (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible WP:SOCK Cognissonance (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

More possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Third count of possible sockpuppetry. Cognissonance (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You are funny, Cognissonance. You haven't found a reasonable accusation, now you're accusing me with other IP users' edits. An administrator can check my IP. I haven't tried to detele VG review since you explained. If I really wanted to delete it, I would definitely do it with this account. Sebastian James (talk)

Edit: I forgot to add that my account has IP block exemption because Wikipedia didn't let me edit before. So, it is impossible that those IPs are mine. Sebastian James (talk)

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

Highly inappropriate anti-IP agenda at Jeff Hardy

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

---

I carried out two constructive edits to the lede, which included softening an opinionated assertion ("Hardy is best known for his work during his first run in the World Wrestling Federation"), putting dates to key events (for some bizarre reason, no year is quoted for anything during the first decade of his career), and the indisputably correct altering of hyphens (used as parentheses) to dashes.[141][142] User:TheKinkdomMan repeatedly reverted my edits with no justification whatsoever, before claiming I did not reference them, even though they were already fully supported by the existing refs. TheKinkdomMan then tried to have Jeff Hardy protected due to my so-called "disruptive editing", which was promptly denied. At this point he saw fit to threaten me with getting my "IP address permanently blocked", which he says would rule out any future editing for myself. This whole charade is wildly inappropriate, especially when I am editing constructively. I very much hope that someone will restore my edits, and sternly warn TheKinkdomMan. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I notified TheKinkdomMan of this discussion.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

94.192.38.255 Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. That would be better than escalating as you have done.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm escalating in response to a blatant attack. One user thanked me on my talk for the work I did at Jeff Hardy, yet TheKinkdomMan sees it as grounds for my permanent blocking from Wikipedia. WP:OWN, much? 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of you have discussed your content dispute on the article talk page. We don't permanently block IPs. Both of you are edit-warring. Go and discuss. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The second diff I gave is absolutely beyond discussion and opinion. It's positively, undeniably, indisputably correct, yet TheKinkdomMan reverted it anyway. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI isn't a venue for content disputes. Go and discuss your content dispute at the talkpage, where you can present your supporting evidence. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Kinkdom's done for the day.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably so. @94, you're accusing TheKinkDomMan of trolling in edit summaries. Please don't do that, he's not. Leave a polite note on the relevant talkpage describing how the existing references might support your edits, and wait for a response. Nobody's been blocked, and the article's not protected. Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I said possible trolling. On the other hand, Kinkdom openly accused me of "disruptive editing", and told me he'd have me permanently banned on a finger click. But I'm the bad guy. I'm an IP. I get it.

I'll say no more about it. Kinkdom gets his WP:WIN on this one. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@94.192.38.255: Wow, not letting that stand. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and there is no "winning". We've told you what you need to do. What you both need to do. You can see how well his antics have worked out. He cannot get anyone blocked with a finger click and neither can you. You were both being disruptive. No one said you were the bad guy. And you can drop the anti IP bias tact as well. You both need to drop the drama and discuss your dispute on the article talk page, and without personal attacks, threats, or other content not directed at the merits of the edits you wish to make. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I came back only to apologise for the previous comment. I shouldn't have said that. I'm fully checking out of the Jeff Hardy situation now. 94.192.38.255 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is criticizing you for being an IP editor. You are being criticized for failing to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think the behavior of TheKinkdomMan needs to be looked at. An extremely significant proportion of his contributions are nothing but unexplained reverts, and I think at the minimum he's in blockable territory for edit warring behavior. In fact, I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my decade of editing here. Communication is required, and failing to communicate is considered to be disruptive editing. Repeatedly reverting good faith edits and then warning the person you're reverting for edit warring is insane. If this isn't tendentious ownership of articles, I'd like to hear an explanation and hard assurances that he's willing to rectify this behavior, or I'm inclined to indef block here. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I left the thing by itself I have no reason to argue with anyone that’s why I left the editing alone I was wait for the IP editor to leave a message on my talk page if I’m in violation for reverting then that’s fine I’ll deal with the punishment but the IP wasn’t explaining the edit when I’m not the only one who has reverted the same thing through out time TheKinkdomMan talk 00:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Further more I’m not a sock puppet check my IP I’ve never broken any rules or violations on Wikipedia and I wont allow a threatening message on my talk page just cause I don’t answer right away, I left the Jeff Hardy edit alone since the other day if I made a mistake by reverting the IP then I’m sorry they can change it back and I won’t touch it. How ever I won’t tolerate a threatening message and I apologize for reverting so many times I won’t do it again TheKinkdomMan talk 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And lastly first offenders are not subject to block but a warning not to be disruptive again and I will not, I apologize for my mistake and being threatened to be blocked for first offense is wrong so I don’t see why no one gave me a warning instead they option to threaten to block me indefinitely on my talk page TheKinkdomMan talk 00:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I retract my frustration I’d like to talk to the IP and discuss this on my talk page so neither of us have to be blocked, I understand everyone here has there opinions and a job to do if your a Administrator but let’s skip that and say I made a mistake which I did but I was waiting for the IP to leave a message on my talk page since I use a phone to edit most of the time, I failed to reach out to the IP which makes me look bad which I apologize for and for being disruptive I would like to ax this out wish not to be blocked permanently thank you TheKinkdomMan talk 01:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am apologizing again just so I don’t get blocked and I won’t edit the way I use to, since Swarm pointed it out and seems to be very bias towards me, if you other administrators take a look at my talk page swarm said I would be blocked if I didn’t respond where is that in the rules and I call abuse of power and I don’t think that was right when I’m trying my best to edit, I revert a lot to fight vandalism I don’t think that’s a crime nor against the rules Yes I may have over done it which I deeply apologize for and I will change the way I edit but I don’t think I should be blocked when I realized my mistake and I’m trying to make it right TheKinkdomMan talk 01:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First off calm down. You seem like you’re freaking out a little here and you’re kind of all over the place. Take a breath.

• Ok, now look again at what Swarm was saying. You don’t seem to want to discuss this and they were trying to impart to you that it was important and if you ignored this thread you might just be blocked.
• Hope that helps, now let’s get on to the actual issue: that you appear to revert IP users as a matter of course, that you tried to have apage protected because of two IP edits you reverted without a supportable reason, and that you threatened to have an IP blocked for no reason. You say you will change the way you edit but you have offered no specifics. Now would be a good time for you to explain how you would change your behavior.
• There’s no need to fall all over yourself apologizing, what was asked for was that you engage int his discussion, and now you are, so we can try to move forward and resolve this.
• There has been no abuse of power. I wouldn’t go beating that drum right now as it is not helping your case one bit.

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

As I advised on my talkpage, you really have to stop with the unexplained revert/undos - use edit summaries to explain why you're reverting, and use talkpages to discuss your edits and, if necessary, your reverts. Please remember that IPs are people too. Swarm's being a little grumpy, and I see no consensus to block at this time, but you do be more communicative, and to spend more of your time adding to the encyclopedia and not reverting. There's a lot less vandal-fighting to do than there used to be, and you might want to redirect your efforts for a while so everybody doesn't end up looking like a vandal to you. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) TheKinkdomMan, it is hardly the "first time" if you have been reverting in the same disruptive fashion and warned accordingly since at least August 2017, where you have acknowledged ([143]) edit warring under any circumstance is wrong. I'll be more straight forward: Do not make another blind revert, and communicate in fuller and more coherent sentences please. Alex Shih (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It won’t happen again as I tried to explain it, by I got a error I will not make that mistake again as I apologize and will change the way I edit, so I ask that I don’t get blocked so I can learn from this mistake I apologize for my wrong doing TheKinkdomMan talk 02:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who has pointed out to me I’ve been wrong, I’m going to read up more before I make more mistakes I appreciate all of your help, I apologized to much because I thought I was gonna be blocked permanently, I know now that I can’t act like I own every article and I won’t edit disruptily anymore I will learn from my mistakes as I’ve been pointed out I hope I won’t be blocked now or in the in the future as I’d like to continue to edit here, I think I will take some time off from Wikipedia to read more and learn I can only hope that you administrators can forgive me and let me continue to edit. TheKinkdomMan (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive article blanking, COI and disruptive comments

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

---

• Marlenekoenig (talk · contribs)

Most recently [144], [145] and [146] after being temporarily blocked. The user wants their bio removed, and other than that has no interest in collaboration with the project. Requesting a longer block and possible disabling of ability to edit own talk page. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would rather we not. The user is justifiably frustrated. I am going to walk away from the computer for a bit, but they should get a chance for the OTRS and AFD cycles to kick in (and not be poked by escalating sanctions). Sadads (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That rationale is appreciated, but I don't think the user has the least interest in appreciating policies here. I walked away for a bit, and returned to find her frustration manifested in snide personal attacks. Unless there's indication that she doesn't own the bio and is willing to collaborate, I think it's becoming more appropriate to take further action. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The article about her is at AfD. I told her to contact OTRS, which handles real life frustration by subjects of articles.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37: We don't treat someone with real life concerns about an article as a vandal. We refer them to OTRS and the relevant WP:BLP sections. Concur with Sadads on not making a bad situation even worse.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, Dlohcierekim and Sadads. For my part, I neither cut much slack for someone who demands their bio be removed without a compelling rationale (malice, libel, etc), nor who intentionally ignores policy for over five years with the sole purpose of determining what is written about them, and whether it's written at all. Was there a credible claim re: real life concerns? I wasn't aware that any specific content was at issue; if it had been, we could remove it. Then there's the disparagement of other editors. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

They are a bit difficult. A number of people have tried to help. Will see how it goes from here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I'm the subject of a Wiki bio, much of which was written perhaps five or more years ago. If I quite suddenly and persistently blanked it, claiming it was out of date, and then attacked editors who tried to explain policy to me, I'd expect to be blocked indefinitely. And I'd have earned the sanction. I do appreciate the assistance of multiple editors on this. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we are often quite brutal to the subjects of articles. This is not how we are to approach them according to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadads I was just wondering of pinging an WMF admin to expedite this sort of resolution was something we ever did or should do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

general note-- I'll be off line when the block expires, if things re-escalate.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think a permanent block would be in order for someone who says they don't want to be here. I'll do it myself if there's a further problem. Deb (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I also think we have already reached the stage where the deletion discussion could be speedily closed. Deb (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The fire appears to have gone out. No need at present for more fire retardant. If someone who has not opined at the AfD could shovel the ashes . . . .-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Done and SALTED. Swarm ♠ 21:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat demanding removal of sourced content or "expect a call from the Borough Attorney"

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

---

There has been an ongoing, slow-motion edit war at the article for Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, in which sourced material has been removed and reinserted about a DuPont facility in the borough that has been the frequent topic of detailed coverage in The Record, including the preview that was included in the article.

See this edit, which removes sourced content about a history of industrial pollution in the borough, including an edit summary warning that "Hamtechperson - expect a call from the Borough Attorney". I'm not sure that this is the textbook definition of a legal threat, but it would be darn close. Alansohn (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Alansohn: Notified editor of your complaint here. Placed warning and request to retract here. Jbh ^Talk 22:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Borough Attorney? I do hope Trenton, New Jersey is involved. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, Trenton is nowhere close to Pompton Lakes. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"I will sue you in a court of law in Pompton Lakes!" Does have a nice ring to it... -- printf( (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What will that poor attorney do when they discover that Wikipedia does not have a phone number? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Far be it from me to jump into something that I'm getting to this late, but I do want to point out that y'all went from a report to a template warning on the user's talk notifying them of this discussion to a block being applied - without the user being given the opportunity to come here to explain themselves or remedy their transgression - in a span of about thirty minutes. That would seem to be a bit quick on the trigger, wouldn't you think? Strikerforce^Talk 00:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that the first thing they did was reach for the legal bullying club, I'd say that 30 minutes wasn't fast enough. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: Not particularly. If it's a clear-cut violation of NLT, the user can explain themselves and retract the threat in their unblock request. There's no need to keep an ANI thread open - it's fairly easy to get unblocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Trevonlester

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

---

Has attempted to publish many promotional articles about himself (see notices on his talk page), and has also injected self-promotional spam into articles and documentations in the Module namespace. Has no other significant contributions, and the COI is obvious. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. Evidence:[147][148][149][150][151] -- Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Perhaps a rangeblock for POV edits from Miami -- disruption since 2014

Someone using Miami IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAF0:6D30:0:0:0:0/64 has been making non-neutral and unreferenced changes to film, actor and actress articles. The disruption has been occurring in this IP range since November 2017, but they previously used the range Special:Contributions/2602:301:77C2:D2E0:0:0:0:0/64, from May 2014 to October 2017. Disruption from this person resulted in the Gary Oldman biography being protected on December 23, 2017, after which this person submitted edit requests on the talk page, so in that regard they are following procedure. But a great many of their edits are non-neutral, for instance these edits which removed positive reviews from the Jessica Chastain biography, and these unreferenced negative assertions about Andy Cohen. Other actions include the addition of unreferenced future work of various actors.[152][153][154]

Since there is little to admire about the editing of this person, and much to revert, I think we should place a rangeblock on the active IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Due to the above pattern of unsourced editing, and the addition of unsourced negative information to a BLP article regarding cocaine use I'm blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CAF0:6D30:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks. Any other admin can modify the block or its duration if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

User:DePiep and DYK

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

---

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

I hate to come here, but DePiep's actions leave me with little option. DePiep has, over the past weeks, made a series of edits and/or suggestions on the technical side of DYK: [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], and several others.

These changes are made in good faith. However, when reverted or otherwise questioned about them, DePiep has responded with startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity, and very little genuine explanation. Thus, we've had there have been edit-wars on multiple pages here, and here. We've also had There have also been a number of discussions with a poor heat to light ratio: [160], [161], [162], [163], [164].

In all of these situations, DePiep has repeatedly:

1. Refused to explain what he is trying to do, instead using vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement"
2. Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith,
3. Refused to acknowledge that when his changes are queried, he needs to obtain consensus for them, and not the person who reverted him.

Ideally, I would simply like somebody to convince DePiep to cut out the bad faith, follow BRD, and tell us what he is trying to achieve. Failing that, it may be an unfortunate necessity that he be removed from the maintenance areas of DYK. Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Zanhe, and The Rambling Man: Vanamonde (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Replies to this post are below in #Reply by DePiep. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was called a "dickhead" and "dickname"(diff) and had my username equated to "IPA:Auschwitz"(diff, diff) on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 58#enwiki has lost the WP:Palestine community by DePiep last month after I removed a duplicated WP Palestine (leaving it on top) - I'm still clueless as to why this was so offensive - removing a duplicate wikiproject seems to be a trivial non-contentious correction.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Now I get it! Icewhiz = Auschwitz! Such perception! Such insight! EEng 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed. Icewhiz has a thick skin, that sort of remark to some editors would end up here immediately. Icewhiz is active with WP:ISRAEL, and some will conclude that IW is Jewish (it's not on his user page though). It's hard to AGF a remark like the above, as opposed to a highly offensive, targeted attack against a [perceived] Jewish editor. I can't think of any way to vindicate the above comment, in fact. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  What really puzzles me here is what prompted this. I've made edits that I can understand why some other editors see as contentious. But removing a duplicate WP Palestine (it was there - twice)? Ignore the particular invectives - why the anger over this particular action of mine? At the time I chalked this up to perhaps editing not under the best circumstances that day or something similar - and did not pursue this - but it is perhaps relevant if there is a continued pattern.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: See my reply below. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I chanced upon a sudden slew of discussions on the DYK talkpage, all raised by DePiep. Most were causing heated debates, with the majority of the heat relating to the fact that DePiep seemed technically unable to sufficiently describe what he was trying to achieve in most instances. I certainly had trouble understanding a number of his comments. Even from today we have "For the rest: that going into the BF area, I think you should base that. - DePiep (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)" for example. No idea. So when eventually DePiep accused me of a (mild) PA, and then claimed he was leaving the discussion with a "See you elsewhere, TRM. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)", I stated that I hoped not. He then petulantly left me a message on my talk page with his very next edit. Generally it the whole series of posts has felt like an enormous waste of time from a disruptive editor who doesn't really appear to have the competence to make these kinds of edits or suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: A slew of discussions, all raised by DePiep -- Did I start too many talks? Isn’t that contradicting the OP notion? Or do I misread your post? A (mild) PA -- When I wrote “some other place” that refers to the WP:advice not to escalate a PA in the same thread. There is nothing more to it. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• The user in question has an unfortunate history with the block log. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • DePiep also has significant history here at ANI. E.g., just last June he took a voluntary one-year topic ban (on anything related to earthquakes) in lieu of a six-month block.

Across a broad swath of topics he has shown a characteristic pattern: he jumps into something he thinks needs doing (often with wide-ranging effect), but sometimes not quite in tune with what others think should be done. And when challenged he generally does not respond well. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I think this is an incorrect description of that ANI. There was nothing “in lieu of” a voluntary ban. Instead, I can see this as an example of me deescalating & solving. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In precisely what way is "he took a voluntary one-year topic ban ... in lieu of a six-month block" incorrect? Do you dispute that there was not a topic ban? Or that you did not voluntarily accept it? Or that it was not for one year? Or do you deny that there was any possibility of an involuntary block?

The closing admin (Dennis Brown) stated: "The evidence presented herein demonstrate there is a serious problem with DePiep's behavior." And: "Technically, I could block for 6 months here and no one would bat an eye." And concluded: "if you start causing serious problems with this topic, a (long) block will probably result." What you "deescalated" was your liklihood of getting blocked, which I believe was understood by all present to be in the offing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:. You are misrepresenting that ANI. (again; I pointed this out before). Already in my very first reply there I proposed a voluntary topic ban [165]. Only one full week later the closing admin mentioned what you call a “choice” [166]. I also note there are notes regarding your behaviour. Please stop rewriting this history. Your own wishes, perceptions and interpretations are not the same as facts and closing statements. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

What I quoted (and highlighted) is from the closing statement. What is questionable here is your interpretation – here – that a "voluntary topic ban" is not a topic ban. In fact, when the closer said (and this also is from the closing statement): "DePiep, I am going to accept your voluntary topic ban (italics added), he characterized your sanction exactly as I have stated: a voluntary TOPIC BAN. The misrepresentation here is entirely yours. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I previously interacted with this user over a major revision of the {{OEIS}} template series. I think his changes were, ultimately, constructive, but they involved a similar "my way or the highway" attitude from DePiep, a distressing level of unconcern for making sure that the hundreds or thousands of existing uses of the template rendered correctly before making such changes, and a hostile response to any form of constructive criticism. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I think you refer to this (first section) discussion. I don’t think that discussion illustrates what this thread is about. In short, you protested that the /sandbox /testcases were broken (not the mainspace template), which I called irrelevant; also, I solved that afterwards and created a follow up thread for future improvements. i.e., constructive editing & discussing. If anything, this actually illustrates my start-a-talk approach we all consider good editing. Note the “I want” sentence. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep is very active at WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, where he tends to focus on stuff like templates more than on content. I also have seen, repeatedly, the obnoxious interaction style and the inflexibility, but he also does contribute in useful ways. I don't have any knowledge about the DYK problems, but I think that the situation does not go quite so far as WP:NOTHERE. It's somewhere between that and OK, not entirely one or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A skim through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13 gives a pretty good view of what I'm referring to: mostly useful, occasionally unpleasant (the latter in one part of the "USAN etc in drugbox" thread). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: about the example you mention: there I started follow up sections #Restart and #Proposal (which went live eventually; also note I pinged editors). I can see this as an example of desired talkpage behaviour. I reject the suggestion of WP:NOTHERE, maybe you meant to say something else? - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. For the time being, I am going to comment only in regard to your response to me here. When I made my original comment, I was primarily pointing out that you make positive contributions to WikiProject Pharmacology. I agree with you that #Proposal, which was the outcome of the discussion, was a good outcome. As for #Restart, I'm pretty sure that another editor, Jytdog, started that part of the discussion, not you. What I saw as a problem was your interactions with Doc James, where you said: [167], [168], [169], [170]. It started out as a simple misunderstanding between the two of you, but you unilaterally escalated it to (from last two edit summaries), "thanks for stating that you (Doc James) cannot be trusted" and "three dicks and you're out?". I then tried to intervene, and your response to me: [171], was completely one of deflecting your own responsibility to the other editor. That was bad, and the reason I did not pursue it was that the discussion got back on the right track after the other editors started the "restart". You appeared not to understand it then, and you appear not to understand it now. About my reference to "NOTHERE", I said it "does not" go that far, but you seem to be missing my use of the word "not". Maybe that indicates some language or communications difficulty, but much of what I am seeing indicates a behavioral problem that goes significantly beyond just language comprehension. I'm disappointed, therefore, in your response to me. As I said, I'm commenting for now just on this, but having also read all of your responses, I think I'm seeing a lot of deflection there too. If other editors confirm that hunch, my earlier willingness to cut you some slack will vanish. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:. You are right, that interaction with Doc James is abject. I wanted to note that I (we) pulled that topic out of the mud into a well-discussed live result. Wrt NOTHERE: indeed you said it did “not go quite so far as ... ”, but introducing the reference point has a meaning and an effect. I object even the mentioning of it, because NOTHERE clearly claims having a dishonest interest in the project. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Therefore, I want to make it clear that I do not consider you to be "NOTHERE". Full stop. The reason I first used the term was because other editors were seriously considering a site-ban, and I wanted to communicate that it would be too severe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• As a DYK regular, I have never come across this user before nor had any interaction with him yet it appears to me that he has come into DYK out of the blue and made a number of edits to the technical workings of the project. Personally I don't see the logical reasoning behind his actions. The fact that there is consensus that he appears to be unaware that his tinkering is being disruptive suggests that maybe he should be advised to back off doing that. I never like to see topic bans but maybe this could be on the table. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• More concerning is that he doesn't appear to understand basic concepts. Looking at this history and this one (on which he broke 3RR), plus the current discussion at WT:DYK, he doesn't seem to grasp the BRD cycle or the facat that consensus should be gained for contentious edits. That's actually a WP:CIR issue, when one is repeatedly told by multiple editors not to do something, and you carry on doing it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Skimmed through here. User has not edited in some hours. Concerned that a very constructive editor in some areas has become overwrought. I think with DYK, they'd bit off too much, and they should leave it alone a while. DePiep, very interested in seeing your response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim for this careful post. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• perhaps we are having a life issue?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is out of the ordinary for this editor at all. The limited interactions I've had with De Piep have also led to me tumbling down a rabbit hole of odd accusations and some of the most obstinate WP:IDHT behaviour I've ever seen here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• How odd -- since this thread began DePiep has fallen silent. I've never seen that happen before. EEng 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Seems unnecessary for me to pile on the chorus of accusations. I've already said enough about DePiep at WT:DYK#DYKbox improvements and other threads. I just want to add that it baffles me why a seemingly experienced and productive user like DePiep would behave as if he'd never heard of WP:BRD and consistently ignore the advice and arguments presented by numerous other users. -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Below I will reply to my BRD issues. - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• i am not able to read and respond, also for the next days. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  Don't worry, DePiep -- "ANI flu" always clears up as soon as the thread in question is closed. EEng 09:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have given a hefty block for the Auschwitz slur on its own. There's significant evidence here that this is a user who has talent and much to contribute but simply does not have personality type to be able to work collaboratively, making him totally unsuitable for contributing to Wikipedia. He communicates poorly, dislikes explaining himself, becomes incredibly irate over very small things and uses appalling slurs, including racial. I'm fairly well known for preferring lenient course of action with users, but I'll be proposing a community site ban for this user, unless they have some very persuasive things to say. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• This user has a long history of awful behavior and refusal to make any kind of sense when their actions are questioned. Looks like the bn discussion below isn’t going through, but that doesn’t mean a block can’t be issued, and if they return without addressing these issues, a block can and will be issued. They’ve already been blocked ten times and have just ridden them all out and gone right back to their old ways. This must stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• I would also support a block should DePiep return to editing without addressing the issues. It's clear from his long-term record that something fundamental needs to change in his interaction with other editors. If we do not see evidence of any willingness for that to happen, a forced preventative measure would be appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and Beyond My Ken: the topic ban is for areas outside of mainspace and user space, so the editor is not topic banned from the entire project except this thread, and can return to editing without engaging in further discussion. This would, of course, limit the potential for future problematic behaviour. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I have issued an indefinite block. It seems obvious that their sudden suspension of activity was in response to these concerns, and their pattern of being blocked and just taking it without filing a formal unblock request suggests that anything less than an indefinite block will not achieve acceptable results. As I noted when blocking, they may be unblocked at any time so long as they agree to the re-opening of this discussion and pledge to actively particpate in it. They have dodged criticism by hiding for far too long. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So ANI flu can be fatal after all. EEng 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I support the block - I'm still appalled by that "Auschwitz" slur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; normally I'd have a little bit of a problem with an admin coming over the top and instituting a different sanction than that which was just agreed to by the community. But given that the conduct here was so egregious that any admin could arguably have indeffed them at any point without likely objection from the community, and given the "out" which Beeblebrox has supplied DePiep with, with regard to returning here to discuss the community's concerns, I can't say as I have much issue with this in the present case. Besides, after Swarm closed their proposal below, I began to second-guess the wisdom of allowing a user to have access to mainspace while otherwise effectively banned, considering how that situation could be gamed. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep has just requested an unblock to address this discussion, so I have undone the close as suggested by the closer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Unblocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Redux

Ok, it looks like this would be an appropriate time to restart this discussion since they are back and able to edit again. I believe this are the points that need to be addressed, but feel free to add on if I’ve missed anything:

• A pattern of becoming extremely defensive and/or refusing to clearly explain themselves when their edits are questioned
• Edit warring
• Responding to good-faith attempts at discussion with personal attacks
• specifcally the “Auschwitz” comments, which several users and admins have commented are reason enough for a block in and of themselves
• The fact that this is a highly experienced user who, despite 10 previous blocks, still doesn’t seem to have managed to learn to behave within minimum expected standards.

Again, feel free to add if I’ve missed anything important. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you've summed it up pretty well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would add, in light of his response to my comment of 00:24 9 May, that DePiep seems to be in denial of the circumstances where he accepted his voluntary topic ban, showing that he is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't obvious, I have pulled DePiep's TE right given the current topic ban, and some other reasons I recall from his past.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I too think Beeblebrox sums it up pretty well. I think the edit-warring and gross incivility are easily dealt with; if they recognize the problem, they're on a tight leash (a 1RR restriction may be appropriate), and can be blocked indef if they repeat that behavior; if they don't recognize the problem, we site-ban them here and now until they do. The first problem Beeblobrox describes is trickier to define, and trickier to address. I would there reiterate my proposal to remove them from maintenance areas, defined as any namespace outside articles, article talk pages, user pages, and user talk pages, with an exception for appealing and/or discussing sanctions about themselves. I proposed this below as a temporary remedy, but I believe it's the appropriate long-term step, too. This proposal is, of course, conditional on DePiep recognizing and promising to rectify the other problems with their behavior; otherwise, it is moot, and I would support a ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vanamonde, the issues have been summed up very well by Beeblebrox. If DePiep cannot explain their edits in the maintenance areas, then they should not be editing in that area, so under any circumstances this proposal should probably sustain. Alex Shih (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Preparing replies, basically to the top thread. - DePiep (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Been working continuously on this since (on/offline), but can't get it finished today. Need a rest. - DePiep (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, you may not believe this but I really would like to help you get back to assisting with the project. For that to happen, though, your response here needs to reflect an attempt to understand why everyone (everyone) is upset with you, not an extended defense explaining how you were right all along. EEng 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I do believe you. I am wrestling with my replies offline for days now. It is tough confrontations, and I must be honest & full out I know. Best of all is the time allowed (fast & short answers won't solve). I hope to post tomorrow, a batch of replies. I too want to join the project. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought... It can be quite traumatic facing up to your own problems, and as DePiep is keeping away from editing until this is resolved, I see no rush. I'd much rather we (DePiep and others) take the time to achieve an amicable solution that gets DePiep back to productive editing, than rush and get a poorer outcome. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, taking some time is good, for me at least, as I can read more carefully &tc. - DePiep (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment After blocking DePiep in 2015, I received this email comment from an editor, who shall remain anonymous: In case you wonder how I got involved, I have been working on the immensely complex Module:[redacted] for nearly three years, and DePiep has been active on Template_talk:[redacted] with helpful advice for those asking questions, and by managing the documentation. I have also seen DePiep's useful work in other areas. I fully acknowledge DePiep's problems and I think your block for an extremely pointless edit war on a template was reasonable. DePiep does not speak English fluently and sometimes misunderstands colloquialisms, and finds it hard to follow long and complex sentences (like the ones I write!). DePiep's style is sometimes unhelpful.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply by DePiep

• First of all, I want to make my excuses for the edit regarding Icewhiz. That should not have happened in any case. Even worse I did not even self-correct at the time.

• Also, my 3RR breach with [172] in Template:DYKbox was unacceptable, especially since it was about visible content. (For those interested, here is a better development route I started afterwards).

• Also this visible content change should have been done via the talkpage.

• Re me being absent [173]: that was genuine in RL, it was not triggered by this ANI as some admins assumed. In the end the temporary blocks turned out as I too intended: first solve this thread (so the issue is moot). Meanwhile, these days helped me in finding a more relaxed and careful approach to the issues.

• In the top section, below the OP, I have replied to some individual complaints, that IMO are more isolated.

• For completeness, I note the discussions I started: this, [174], this, this; and I contributed to this.

• About my behaviour wrt BOLD, BRD, and talks. This is more subtle, so please bear with me. I write in reply to the three complaints that were made in the OP (now anchored):

Re #OP-1 vague language like "cleanup" and "improvement": As with many other similar template improvements I applied a technical-only edit: [175], [176]. My experience with other templates and WikiProjects is, that these are *not* considered controversial. To me, the wording in an the es like “cleanup” or “move templatedata/category to documentation” is clear enough. Elsewhere I did link to this WP-document for explanation. Sometimes the edit should be self-clarifying I thought: e.g., removing texts like “Interwikis go to the documentation page” is heavily outdated.

I add that in other WikiProjects, I have applied competence including doing bold edits, and building consensus in more difficult template issues (see talks & archives of elem, chem, drug, track). This is not to claim authority, but to point out that the DYK community is different in this. Please understand that this is my background experience, and so I am quite surprised to discover & learn that in WP:DYK the sense is more like “hey, don’t even edit bold here”. Before the DYK talks started, I already had made some 100–150 technical edits to templates & documentation without problems or breaking one, which added to the surprise effect.

I think this difference explains most of my contributions to the talkpages. This is why I kept asking for: “what is broken?”. This also explains why I missed the underlying DYK-community requests to explain more, and to simply not edit at all.

Re #OP-2 Treated all demands for explanation as allegations of bad faith. Maybe you refer to this edit, which indeed is needlessly unfriendly. In that talkpage section I first did answer what I was doing [177]. Then I got this bolded cursing, my reply asking to stay civil, canvassing/meatpuppeting, I asked to stop, ridiculing my English, then this. (BTW I am surprised that no editor here acted upon or even noted the abusive language in this last diff).

All this had happened in that section when Vanamonde93 made a fresh & clear restart with a bullet: [178]. To that I did reply with content [179], and without [180]. Rereading the section I think I did show some willingness to reply, but re Vanamonde93 I missed the deeper question obviously, and that latest diff was not clarifying, and not friendly I admit. Please note that the Vanamonde93 post appeared after the unhelpful language in the first half (diffs given above). At that point, my mood was not open for the constructive approach Vanamonde93 started.

It could be that Vanamonde93’s text “allegations of bad faith” actually meant to say “as personal attacks” (as Vanamonde93 did in their #Redux text). To this, my reply would be: in multiple occasions my knowledge of English was questioned [181], and even ridiculed [182]. I have never met this complaint before. While this appears to have a base in WP:CIR, it certainly appeared to me as a PA (amid other unhelpful posts aimed at me), hence my replies. I don't think I started out making BF/PA accusations.

Re #OP-3 Refused to acknowledge that … he needs to obtain consensus for them: Correct in general, though above I have noted that sensitivity for (objection to) BOLD/BRD editing in DYK is higher than elsewhere, even with technical edits.

Over all, I think I showed that, apart from problematic edits, also I started multiple threads myself, abided their result, and did reply with meaningfull answers (note the “also”). This is to push back against the atmosphere created that I did not engage in discussions at all. I now know & also admit many other answers were not civil/helpful/acceptable (or not to the point, not clarifying enough). In this situation, BRD should have lead me to stop making bold edits full stop. Then, a talkpage result would lead the way (could be no consensus, that is: nothing to be done).

I see that my initial attitude was that my edits were obvious, correct and self-explaining cleanups; this blinded me for the deeper concerns that were posted (like this opening by EEng, and this one by Vanamonde93). This is not to wipe complaints out, I just want to illustrate that the trespassings were not posted as a first reply or opening post.

How to prevent any future such problems? Clearly, I should take care not get carried away by fanatic editing, introducing blindness for talks and leading to frustrated uncivil replies. More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation. The bonus is that it will lead to a more healthy situation this side of my screen.

WRT WP:DYK, with its complicated processes, bot-support, difficult talks to reach improvements, and this whole experience: I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited.

• - DePiep (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  @DePiep: - First of all, I accept your apology. Could you kindly answer what I did to trigger this? Or was this just a random "thing"? What truly puzzles me was not the particular wording - but the cause for the initial offense (which I assume is something I did?).Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, in your edit [183] I totally missed the "duplicate" cause, so I saw only the removal which astonished me. At that time I had noted that WP:Palestine editing is low at enwiki. - DePiep (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OK - I could understand how that could possibly lead to anger.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep Firstly, I want to thank you for that self-reflection - it can't be an easy thing to do. I don't want to get into too much detail, so I won't reply to specifics above, but I'll just offer a few general observations.

  On the issue of being WP:BOLD and following WP:BRD, what I think I'm mostly seeing in recent interactions is a lack of understanding and poor communication. You didn't really understand why others were rejecting your template changes. But, more importantly, they didn't understand what you were trying to achieve and why. I see some attempts at discussion, but they were rather curt and I have to say I couldn't understand the details. What it needed (and I say this rarely) was more words and less action. It needed a more expansive and detailed explanation of what you were doing, and discussion until everyone understood everything. And stop making any changes until it is clear that everyone understands and there is a consensus. If you continue with further efforts to remake the same changes with modifications for what you think is the problem (but without the necessary understanding and consensus), it only causes frustration. Don't approach it from a feeling of "They need to explain what I did wrong", but more from "How can I help them understand what I'm trying to do?"

  It's not really that BOLD is not allowed, it's that the D part of BRD is by far the most important of those three letters. In areas like frequently used templates and pages with high dependencies, it is even more important that everyone involved should fully understand the implications of any changes, and when those changes are contested you should completely stop and seek consensus. In fact, in areas where there are regular editors with more specific knowledge and experience, it can indeed be wiser to seek consensus first and not be BOLD at all, as you suggest.

  Looking back over some previous interactions that others have raised, I also see times when you appear to have taken reversions or questions of what you are doing too personally and have responded poorly, similarly to what has happened here. That does seem to be a long-term issue, though again I think it's probably due to misunderstandings and/or poor communication. But when any edits you make are challenged, you really do need to engage in discussion and fully explain what you are doing - and it needs to be an explanation that's sufficient for the other editors to understand, not just one that satisfies you. And always, stop, assume good faith, and look at the whole picture again before you respond - it seems it was a failure to do this that led to the IceWhizz thing.

  Anyway, this has turned out to be a lot longer than I'd anticipated, but I hope you will find it of some use. And if you're listening to what people are saying and are taking it in and trying to do something about it (which you appear to be doing), then I don't think there's any need for any sanctions. But please do reflect on this discussion whenever you feel thwarted or frustrated in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this nicely (and more eloquently) describes my situation. - DePiep (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see DePiep apologizing for the worst of the personal attacks, and a site-ban is no longer an option I would consider. But I'm less satisfied with DePiep's replies about BRD. Especially with respect to DYK, he seems to believe that there's some sort of resistance to change anything there, and that his following BRD would have led to no changes at all. This is simply not true. DePiep made certain changes to certain templates and was reverted. His responses (when he went to a talk page at all), as far as I could make out, tended to be "I didn't break anything" or "Why not?" He didn't realize that it was incumbent upon him to answer the question "why?" first. There were similar problems with his talk page proposals; basically, they didn't always explain the problem they were trying to solve, and when folks expressed confusion and/or opposition, DePiep took things personally.

  I'm not sure where to proceed from here: on the one hand I'm worried my proposal above is now too harsh; on the other hand, I'm worried that if we do nothing, we'll be back to where we began very soon. I'd like to hear more suggestions about how to move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:. I’ll try to be more precise: I don’t want to state that “ there's some sort of resistance to change anything there” in the WikiProject DYK community. What I meant is that change discussions in the DYK backoffice are more extensive (diverse opinions) and more complicated (more issues are involved, e.g., bots) compared to other WikiProjects/templates I have worked with extensively. As a consequence, in these other WikiProjects I rarely run into a BRD cycle (I have made bold, minor edits to a 10k template, explain on the talkpage, and no R is made). This is what I call the “surprise” I met in WP:DYK.

My future behaviour then should be: be more sensitive for such requests (like BRD). If I were allowed to edit again, I expect to achieve this for example by not being bold in more unfamiliar projects. Essential to this is, me not dig in myself (instead take distance, start talk first, don’t get triggered by perceived opposition). Also I foresee that this editing process might lead to fewer of my proposals being accepted, which should not be a cause for frustration. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with all of the above. DePuep is here in GF and seems to have plenty to offer, but we need to find some way to help him put the brakes on when need be. EEng 16:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

On rereading some of the above I feel it must be said that something that's missing, and which I think is essential for DePiep's future here, is a recognition by him that his English really does have moderate deficiencies, so that he needs to exercise extra caution in interpreting PGs and what others say to him. EEng 21:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "More in general, I better create a distance in times of pressure, instead of diving deeper into a locked situation." This is good self-advice from DePiep. I think they tend to get heated and then not assume good faith. The onus is on them to control this. The reality is that they will have little leeway in the future, and they could conceivably improve yet still be villified for one transgression. It's their responsibility to repair their reputation. I don't know if there is any suitable sanction at this point. They should also get their template editing rights restored.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think that Vanamonde's assessment of the situation is spot-on. I would like to find a solution that makes it possible for DePiep to stay around, including the ability to continue to work with templates, but I also see a troubling lack of self-awareness with regard to discussion with other editors, resulting in personal attacks, and I am convinced that it would be a mistake to assume that it will not happen again. So I would like to suggest an approach based on WP:ROPE. I don't see a good way to legislate a definable criterion for adequately understanding comments directed at him by other editors. But I think that we might be able to draw something of a bright line with respect to personal attacks (although I acknowledge that the community has not been able to agree on the boundaries of civility). I think that we might be able to draw up an editing restriction that specifies that any future personal attack made by DePiep during discussions of edits that he has made will result either in an escalating series of blocks, or in a site-ban. If we can flesh out that idea, perhaps we can make a formal proposal to that effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And in the case if there are no restrictions, the close here should be clear that there is little to no tolerance for future incivility, allowing for swift action in the future, if needed, without spending too much time rehashing their history and re-collecting diffs.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that this discussion should not be closed until some restrictions have been settled upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba:, @Tryptofish:. [written before I read the lastest proposal, I'll post this anyway:] I understand the setups you describe here. I myself am wondering too about any type of useful restriction etc I could even ask for. Today I only can make promises. Of course, whatever the result now, we know that this ANI by itself is an ultimate warning. - DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with both Bagumba and Tryptofish. For all the concern of how DePiep might be salvaged for the greater glory of the project, he has been an IMMENSE sink of time. Unless someone is inclined to engage in a close, long-term mentoring effort with him he should be put on notice that any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block. Which means that, in any dispute, if his arguments and explanations of why he is right are not accepted he must not persist, and any escalation to ANI is prima facie grounds for a block. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:. any bickering or disputation (including here at ANI) will be grounds for a block -- are you serious? So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). Editors can step on the admin's chair just like that? -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. See comment at bottom of this section. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is a good place to reference what I said above about DePiep's English, which I think is a key part of the problem. EEng 22:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not a language problem, it's an attitudinal problem. There is a pertinent comment today way at the bottom of all this. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• DePiep wrote, I think I cannot contribute much so I will not engage in DYK any more, unless invited. I think this is a good idea, and I would like this to be a formal part of the resolution here; the "invitation" should be a consensus of the DYK community on its talk page, not just a random editor. This has been an immense time sink, as noted above, and there was damage done, as edits to several templates that are designed to be transcluded caused unexpected characters to appear where they shouldn't. It's clear that DePiep wasn't sufficiently aware of the many DYK processes to safely edit DYK templates, and I've reverted their template edits there, though I've left the edits to the template documentation pages alone since they're unlikely to have done any harm. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• A "civility restriction" is also an option. Per WP:RESTRICTION: The user may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps a 1-yr editing restriction?—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK then, I think that a near-consensus is starting to emerge. How about a proposal formulated like this:

1. A topic ban from DYK, that can be subject to review in the event that other editors at DYK would like to have it lifted.
2. A 1-year editing restriction, in which DePiep is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• How does that sound? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think restoration of TE privs should be contingent on a year's success with the above. It's a right that assumes particularly restrained judgment. EEng 20:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, that means specifically the Template Editor advanced permissions, but not simply the ability to do edits related to templates. If that's the case, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think DePiep should re-apply at PERM if they want TE rights again. Tryptofish's summary of consensus in my opinion is fair (topic ban from DYK/one year civility restriction). Personally I would prefer "indefinite" but "appealable in six months" for the civility restriction so that we don't come back to square one again after one year (somewhat reflecting on the sentiment expressed by Vanamonde and Beeblebrox). I would probably also add a reminder along the lines of "...to stop and discuss before making potentially contentious maintenance edits" or any other statement that summarise what Boing! and others have mentioned here. Alex Shih (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking over it, I think perhaps that both the DYK topic ban and the civility restriction should be "indefinite but appealable in not less than six months". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• How about: any complaint made here, that an admin judges to be well-founded, for incivility, personal attacks, edit-warring, or tendentious editing, is grounds for an immediate one-month block, and this sanction to continue until the user has edited for twelve consecutive months without any complaint. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Honestly that sounds a touch confusing, and I'd prefer the relatively straightforward modification suggested by Alex above; both restrictions indefinite, and appealable in six months. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Vanamonde. There will be less likelihood of something going wrong if we stay closer to the typical format for sanctions, and for the application of administrator judgment. I think we are getting to the point where I will make a formal proposal soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all the agreeing with the agreement. Can someone recapitulate exactly what's being proposed now? And then (it seems to me for some reason in this particular case) I think it would be useful to hear from DePiep himself that he understands what the proposal, if approved by the community, would be asking him to do, and that he thinks he can abide by it. EEng 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As I just noted above re J. Johnson, this is a weird prococedural route for multiple reasons. (I copy): So any editor can report me here to ignite a autoblock, no reading required? Not even allowed to dispute or disagree? (how should that work for applying BRD BTW?). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. The persistent problem you present is, in large part, continous disputation, and recurring failure to WP:HEAR. (E.g., in part of this multi-part comment of yours you continue to dispute whether your last "voluntary topic ban" was, in effect, a topic ban. You revise history, and then accuse me of misrepresentation.) Do note that, strictly speaking, this is not an autoblock. While any editor could report you here, it would be up to an admin to decide whether there is grounds to block. The point is that we don't have to drag everyone through yet another round of DePiep showing how the rest of us are all wrong.

The key point for you is that if you can resolve disputes you have on various Talk pages, very well. But: if you can't (or won't), and persist in it enough to annoy other editors, you will be sanctioned. And no, you don't get to dispute about disputes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, someone already did that, a few subthreads down. Let's regroup there. EEng 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Moot stuff

Proposal: Temporary topic ban The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. DePiep has stated that he will be unable to comment here for a while. It is unfair to the community to expect them to hang around here till then. It is undesirable for this discussion to simply remain unfinished, thus allowing DePiep to resume his behavior if and when he chooses to return. Therefore, I propose that DePiep be banned from proposing or making edits in maintenance areas outside main space and user space, until he returns to this discussion or this noticeboard and the topic is brought to a resolution. In other words, he is to be removed from the area of conflict until the issues raised here have been resolved. This isn't meant as a permanent remedy, and I wouldn't even suggest it were it not for an unfortunate tendency for editors in general to drop out of sight for a while when their actions cause controversy. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging @EEng, David Eppstein, Zanhe, The Rambling Man, Icewhiz, Ponyo, Dlohcierekim, The C of E, Tryptofish, The C of E, Izno, Bellezzasolo, and Black Kite: With due apologies. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging Dweller too, who posted above as I typed this. I agree, that slur is not okay, but I believe it part of a wider pattern that needs to be addressed in its entirety. Vanamonde (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Tentative support As I have been pinged twice(!), I feel I should comment. Giving the benefit of the doubt to DePiep for saying he cannot comment, it doesn't quite seem fair to impose a full sanction on him when he is not able to defend himself, whatever the reason may be. That being said, I feel that for the continuous altering of the syntax when being asked not to and for that Auschwitz comment which I wasn't aware of before, I think that it is justified to put a temporary restriction on until such time as he is able to fully explain why he did what he did. Then we can make a fully informed decision on what to do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support good idea. Protects the user who I'm sure has a legitimate reason to be unable to edit (we're all volunteers, after all) and also protects the community against the possibility of scrutiny evasion. I'd amend to "all 'Wikipedia:' and 'Wikipedia talk:' pages" to the terms of the topic ban though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Is your suggested change a shrinking or enlargement of the proposed (temporary) topic ban to you? DePiep's behavior extends into the template space as well. --Izno (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC) To be clear, when I said "maintenance areas" above, I mean everything that isn't articlespace and userspace. That way, even if DePiep returns and ignores this thread, we don't have to rehash everything until he chooses to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Ah. So specify forwards maybe, using that form of words? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support a topic ban which prevents editing anything outside this thread. The proposal is (in spirit) fine but not tightly defined. We've had this situation before where a user develops ANI-flu, and the best way of dealing with it when there's significant concern over the disruption caused by such editors is to mandate they respond here and nowhere else. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support anything up to and including an indef until he shows he understands what he's been doing wrong. EEng 09:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support A firm, but gentle, way of forcing the issue to be addressed. However, I agree with TRM, answering this thread should be the first thing they do when they get back to Wikipeida. If they don't edit this thread, it's a voluntary CBAN. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Caveat: I'd suggest applying the usual exemptions for 3RR here. So they can revert vandalism, as that's very much a quick operation. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not sure there's a dire need for a topic banned editor to revert vandalism in project space. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I was referring to a caveat in the context of TRM's proposal, i.e. a topic ban from everything except this thread, including mainspace. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose. Long term contributor - who yes - has been overly aggressive of late. His block log has been clean for nearly two years. Certainly some of his comments have been disconcerting - but has anyone discussed this with him? I believe he should be warned regarding civility and cooperation prior to tbanning areas he edits. A temporary t-ban shifts the burden of evidence to him in the future. The AN/I should serve as a wake up call of how this is viewed, and he should be warned prior to more aggressive action.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support per the Auschwitz comment. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support "startling amounts of off-topic bellicosity" is definitely how I'd describe my (quite limited and otherwise benign) interactions with DePiep, and the cited examples are more of the same. Common-sense exceptions (a dangerous pastime, I know) for participating in ANI threads and the like about themself (or at least this one) can apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support GiantSnowman 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support the Auschwitz comment is unacceptable, especially when considered in light of DePiep's bogus claims that other editors personally attacked him. This hypocrisy, in my view, warrants more than a topic ban from DYK, but at least this is a start. Lepricavark (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support, as revised. As long as this is temporary until this ANI discussion gets resolved, it is not punitive, and allows in good faith for the possibility of something other than "ANI flu". And I personally would be quite happy if the eventual outcome were to be an indication by DiPiep that he now understands the concerns here and will try to do better, with the understanding that it will be a WP:ROPE situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support. Frankly, DePiep is getting off lightly here - if I'd seen the "Icewitz" comment, I'd have blocked for a serious amount of time, if not indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support as specified, but would rather support full ban until this is resolved, considering the Icewhiz/Auschwitz comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support as far as it goes, but prefer a full ban. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) Highly conditional support The proposed solution is a reasonable one under the circumstances, but I want to be clear about what I am endorsing. If the purpose of this ban is to make sure that Depiep returns here to to discuss the matter as soon as they have time to return to the project, this is a desirable way to effectuate that result. However, I believe that as soon a Depiep does return and opens a thread for the transparent purpose of picking up discussion where it left off, this ban should be dissolved immediately by that action and without need for a community resolution. In other words, as this is a procedural matter rather than a final determination by the community regarding the Depiep's conduct, there should be no presumption that there exists a more long-term ban in place on Depiep--at least, not until such time as the community explicitly declares one. Snow let's rap 01:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Although, incidentally, if we were discussing the long-term solution now, I would have supported a block for DePiep at a bare minimum, based on a couple of those highly uncivil comments. Snow let's rap 01:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Support as a bare minimum. That Auschwitz slur (which was repeated several times) was disgusting behaviour, and I would have indef blocked for it had I seen it at the time. However good someone's contributions, if they stoop to such appalling personal attacks during disputes they should be shown the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Having said that, I would prefer a complete community ban until DePiep has time to come here and address his disgraceful conduct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposal: Site ban The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Given DePiep's extremely high level of activity, I find his sudden and complete inability to participate here disingenuous, and I do not think we should hold off because of it. Given the extensive history of persistent egregious behavioral problems, which have not been resolved in spite of previous lengthy blocks, as well as the support for it already expressed above, I propose the following remedy: DePiep is indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. Appealable after the usual six months. Swarm ♠ 21:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Weak procedural oppose. - Swarm, as someone whose main bugbear on this project for the last few years has been the very lax standard of enforcement of WP:CIVILITY that the community presently utilizes, you can bet I'm right there with you in finding that some of those comments were thoroughly unacceptable and warrant some degree of sanction. That said, I don't think there is a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of your resolution passing, given the broad endorsement of the proposal to wait to resolve this matter. Nor is that decision ill-advised in my opinion; indeed it's pretty consistent with how community responses (and even proceedings as serious as ArbCom cases) have always been dealt with in these circumstances. Whether we credit any one particular editor's claims of inability to participate to be genuine or an attempt to avoid scrutiny, the fact of the matter is that sometimes life does intervene and because of our inability to know the real life circumstances of most of our editors, it is considered best practice to give them the benefit of the doubt, regardless of doubts which may have been caused by their other conduct. Unfortunately, I think this is a necessary precaution to make sure that our editors maintain the ability to present their side of things. (And I can't imagine DePiep saying anything that makes those comments acceptable, but that's neither here nor there). Given the general community standard on this sort of thing, and the near-unanimous endorsement of the approach in this particular case, I think we should stay the course. DePiep is effectively banned anyway until they return to discuss the matter and the community will still be here when they do. All the same evidence can be presented and all the same users pinged (and indeed some of them, assuming that DePiep's claims here are a dodge, will only be more likely to be hardened in their view that he should face a sanction) and another additional batch of editors will also be introduced to the matter. I'm fairly certain the ban will be extended to a non-provisional one at that time and that this is a delay of community response, not an abrogation. Snow let's rap 00:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC) OpposeWe already have a remedy above. We don't need to keep taking bites at the apple.00:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) I was under the impression that that's specifically a temporary remedy, pending an actual one, and the reason that was done was because DePiep claimed they couldn't participate at the moment, which is, to me, obviously not true. Multiple people are advocating for a full ban above, so it seems silly and unusual to allow him to continue to edit the mainspace freely until he's ready to answer for tendentious editing. Swarm ♠ 00:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose A Sword of Damocles hangs over DePiep already, no need to cut the string and drop it on them. Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose - Bit convenient that the day they're taken to ANI the editing drops for a day and then 2 days later they make a "I can't respond" comment before vanishing again, That all being said unless I've read it wrong they're topic banned from the entire project apart from the thread above so I don't see much point in site banning/blocking at this time however if they return and make a edit anywhere else then I'd happily support indef, In some ways I feel the editor should be blocked per CIR and the other side remain here - Dunno but anyway oppose any sort of blocking for now. –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose - I think that the temp ban -- which effectively becomes a permanent one if DePiep doesn't want to return to editing -- is sufficient at this time. If a unreasonable period of time passes and DePiep doesn't return to editing here, or he edits other language Wikipedias, then we can talk about additional sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Editing restrictions

Following the discussion at #Reply by DePiep, above, it looks like there may be an emerging consensus to handle the situation in the following way, so I am presenting a formal proposal:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per my comments above; this strikes the right balance between allowing DePiep the freedom to contribute constructively, and minimizing the drain on the community's resources. Vanamonde (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As DePiep has been a perennial problem across a range of topics we should be looking to develop a generic form for future use. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  As per EEng, below, I think we'd be fine allowing DePiep to work on DYK nominations, reviews, etc - just not the techie stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand this (well-written) proposal, and I think it addresses the issues well. I thank those putting a careful effort in this. (Minor question: am I to stay away from DYK-proposals?). - DePiep (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: Yes. May I ask why is this unclear? Alex Shih (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • All my interactions with WP:DYK were backoffice (that is, templates & processes & WT:DYK). Nominating (the word I should have written) an article for DYK is frontoffice, open for any editor. Hence my question. - DePiep (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • All edits related to DYK. All. Fish+Karate 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a mistake. The root of DePiep's problems at DYK was that he was trying to get under the hood when he'd never driven a car (so to speak). I see no problem with him making nominations, and reviewing, and discussing (discussing content issues, that is) at Talk:DYK; but he must stay away from the technical machinery for the duration proposed. BlueMoonset can probably express the distinction crisply for us, in terms of namespaces or classes of pages or something. EEng 13:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with EEng. I suggest that a namespace-based restriction here would be tricky, but we can add an exception to nominate articles, review nominations, and participate in discussions necessary to resolving his nominations or reviews. Vanamonde (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problems with the wider cast "No, no noms". I asked for clarification, not for relaxation. I suggest stopping this side discussion. - DePiep (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as written. If DePiep is fine with a topic ban from DYK, I see no need to carve out a path for nominating DYKs, something I don't believe they've ever done in all the years they've been editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That is what I was thinking. In the previous edit, DePiep was asking about "DYK proposals" (they have since clarified), which I naturally thought was referring to the DYK proposals they made in WT:DYK when they were unaware of anything about the DYK process. With that being resolved, I still agree with BlueMoonset; I don't really see the necessity to write an exception for something that they appears to have never done in the past. If DePiep is interested in submitting DYK nominations anytime soon, I suppose it is fine to add the exception suggested by Vanamonde. Alex Shih (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on DePiep's comment just above, I think it's best to leave it as is. The less complicated, the better. Also, there is nothing wrong with asking for a partial relaxation of the restriction, for the purpose of nominations, in six months. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe it's just me, but I still think we should sonehow address DePiep's English comprehension difficulties -- maybe something about asking for assistance in understanding others' posts and edit summaries where necessary. EEng 16:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I sort-of tried to cover that in item number 4. Beyond that, it gets difficult to incorporate advice into something like this, where we are trying to write something that is precise enough to be enforceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I'd just like to hear from DeP that he recognizes this is part of the problem. EEng 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have similar concerns, though I'm not sure its the language competency itself that is the problem, per se. In the past, I've made numerous ventures on to other Wikipedias for languages for which I have functional but incomplete command of the grammar. Usually this is for the purpose of tracking down sources, finding content to transwiki, or just educating myself on a topic for which the English Wikipedia has more limited coverage. Once in a blue moon, I have made some trivial edits (maybe even some bold ones), but whenever reverted, I never insisted on my preferred approach, nor got antagonistic with the local editors, because I recognized the potential for mis-comunication and that each Wikipedia has its own editorial policies and community consensus (which are also subject to being misconstrued, no matter how much effort one makes to familiarize themselves, if facility in the language is incomplete).

I don't think that editors from non-English communities should be discouraged from participating (they can often bring knowledge which is less well known in the anglophone sphere), but anybody participating in a Wikipedia project (or in any collaborative scheme, for that matter) for a language which they are not fluent in should be using a liberal application of the precautionary principle. Instead DePiep often seems to come in guns blazing when challenged. So the issue is not so much one of underlying incomplete facility with English, but more one of arrogance and lack of self restraint and perspective in general. They don't seem to pause to consider whether they may have misunderstood the consensus on the matter and whether they are effectively communicating. Needless to say, those are potentially huge problems on a project such as this. That said, those are also the underlying principles to which DePiep has mostly owned up to above, so I would hope that their commitment to slow their approach in general will address these problems. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes: it's not a language problem, it's this persistent "guns blazing" disputation (and some arrogance) that's the problem. But I doubt how much he has "owned up" to being a problem, as it keeps happening, again and again. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that behavior, not language comprehension, seems to be the biggest factor here. As to owning up to it, these sanctions should be an effective test of how committed they really are. If they can’t stay within them, blocks will be forthcoming. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My point is that I think it's the comprehension gap that often triggers the latent behavioral tendencies, but I give up. EEng 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you are right about a comprehension gap triggering some of the behavior, but it's at a deeper level than mere language. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Re EEng: I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this. I have participated in huge discussions, sometimes taking over 400 days, and building a positive result that affected dozens of FAs/GAs (recently [184] and longer ago; also here and here). It would be more relevant tot look at my domain knowledge, as in: understanding the topic and the workings of a WikiProject, including editors’ approaches & attitudes. This gives a much better explanation on why I derailed in the WP:DYK. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So you are expressly stating that your problematical behavior is not due to any difficulties of language. Noted.

But please explain: why is it that in claiming an instance of a "positive result" you provide a diff to an edit by another editor? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support and let's hope it helps. EEng 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I would have tightened the wording on the civility provision myself; admins are already empowered to impose blocks and other sanctions for incivility, personal attacks, and refusal to AGF, so clearly what we are talking about is implementing a lower threshold for when DePiep is subject to sanction with regard to bad-faith conduct of this sort, and I'm not sure the wording makes that particularly clear (and using the default standard in this manner debases our baseline community expectations, I fear).

That little caveat aside though, I think these sanctions create sufficient restraint to address the issues raised here to an extent that will allow us to permit DePiep to continue contributing long enough to test their commitment to taking the community's concerns on board. Some of the comments that spurned this thread were truly antagonistic, but it makes a big difference that DePiep is trying and has made efforts at apology. I note also that the party most directly insulted by those comments has themselves chosen not to assume that these comments are representative of DePiep in the whole and has not urged for sanctions; of course the community can still reach their own conclusions about those comments, but that situation does make a difference to my personal analysis. All said, I think we can afford to give DePiep this chance. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that an editor who has been problematic for this long is best dealt with by the more deliberative process of ArbCom. (I am probably in the minority here, but this is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if ArbCom would be better at this point, but the restrictions proposed here do not preclude that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, Cut some slack for a long-standing editor. Was DePiep wrong? Yes. Did he admit to it? Yes. If Wikipedia were only open to perfect editors, we would have no one here. This is an editor with 13 years tenure, 120k+ edits, and many-many productive contributions. His lack block prior to this incident - was almost two years ago - in August 2016. If we keep on treating block logs as a "criminal record" - all we're encouraging is people starting over with clean (or not so clean) starts. DePiep should have communicated better at DYK and elsewhere - and he should have realized the problem earlier - but slapping him with a very punitive punishment (and to a certain extent - this is true regarding the proposal in the section below as well) - is not the way to encourage contribution. Had this been coming to here after a previous recent block/ANI/warning - the DePiep should have acknowledged and acted upon - then it would be a separate matter. Having had a clean record for past 2 years and approx. 40k edits - DePiep should be cut quite a bit of slack. People aren't always at their best - and self-recognition and attempts to correct are much more important tbans/blocks/etc.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have made 178k edits on enwiki, 40k of them after August 2016 (and so 138k before). I thank Icewhiz fort he notion of the "criminal record" approach (worse even when the record is read incorrectly -- nigh impossible to correct). - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds very reasonable and I can see how you may have come to such a conclusion. I would, however, offer an incident from January of this year as a more recent example. DePiep decided to “claim” a module at {{Module:Z}}. Not create a template, but rather claim it as their own for future creation. As I imagine you are aware, that is complete nonsense. As I recall there was also a talk thread somewhere where they announced their “claiming” of it. I came very close to blocking them then, but at the last second they backed off and let it go. I let it go as well for basically the reasons you have outlined here. It is now clear to me that this is a pattern from this user, and the sanctions are intended to interrupt that pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For reference, see [185] for the discussion (and the third reopening of the closed discussion thread). isaacl (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

So Beeblebrox told me that this is not the right way to go and deleted the page: WP:SPEEDY. But how or why does this belong in an ANI post? - DePiep (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox illustrates the tricky part in the proposal: he wanted to block me for … creating a page. So in the future the rules proposed here might be invoked by any admin that confuses a discussion with wrong language. That could only be cleaned up in an unblock request, but that is not a good place to discuss of course plus there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily. - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Blatantly off topic, but I've been wanting to unburden myself: the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {{M}} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil. EEng 13:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope not!! I would point out that {{M}}'s previous incarnation was for producing a single character (as several templates still do), which would be more to your point. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's a matter of principle. Please report to the nearest boiling station for processing. The heat sources are very reliable now and there's usually comparatively little suffering.

The single-character templates should be reserved, ideally, for uses in which reducing clutter in the source text is especially important; a great example is {{r}}. Anyway, we'll miss you, JJ. EEng 04:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't seem to fit that into my schedule. I may be booked for a warmer clime; perhaps see you there? :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

EEng: Language? While we are at it, could you reflect on how these edits [186] [187] were helpful or useful? - DePiep (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your two links are the same diff, and its use lay in its potential to drive home to you that you have real difficulties in English comprehension and expression. If you're going to now start denying that you have such difficulties, as you seem to be doing (in [188] you said I don’t think my level of understanding English is very significant in this) then I'm going to have to rethink my support for the very generous WP:ROPE you've been offered, and I suspect others will as well. What do you mean by Language? in your post just above? What in the world do you mean by there is the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily in the diff I've just linked? EEng 15:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Beeblebrox, and add this incident from last year. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I can’t believe that all they took away from that incident is “Beeblebrox wanted to block me for creating a page” when it was in fact about “claiming ownership” of a page and making a ridiculous spectacle out of making sure everyin knew of their”claim” even through that’s not a real thing. That they can’t see that does not give me much hope for their future. And the remark about admin wheelbarrows doesn’t help either. I do own a wheelbarrow, a nice two-wheeled heavy-duty one, but I can’t recall ever using it on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support restrictions as proposed - I'm encouraged that DePiep has acknowledged that his behavior has been a problem and hope that he will continue to contribute to the project, but I do think that these restrictions are a reasonable step at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wrap it up

My personal rule is that when one single thread constitutes a full half of the current ANI byte-bulk, then it's time for someone to take stock and close the matter. Anyone willing? EEng 04:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I've already posted a request at AN, but it hasn't been actioned yet. Vanamonde (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if you have revised your viewpoint, as you mentioned may occur based on the latest responses? isaacl (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You talking to me? Well I don't like the fact that he's gone silent again. But I think we should just go with what we've got. He'll either straighten up and fly right, or he'll be on the express train to indef. Not worth the trouble to try to adjust course now. EEng 00:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, wrap it up. Discussion has run its course, and aside from possibly explaining the wheelbarrow thing I think we have heard all we need from DePiep; there are not any hanging questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like we’re done here. As I mentioned above my confidence that this will work is pretty low, but agre with the above comments that it’s time to move on and see how it works out. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Close This Thread and Request that ArbCom Deal with a Problematic Editor

Not happening

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. In my opinion, editors who have been repeatedly blocked over a long period of time and keep coming back to the drama boards are editors who divide and polarize the community, and the community does not do well in dealing with them. (If the community were united, we would either already have banned this editor or given this editor a warning.) My opinion is that long-time problematic editors are better dealt with by an evidentiary quasi-judicial process. (I am aware that some editors and some Arbitrators disagree.) The community cannot remit a case to ArbCom, but the community can close this case and allow a case to be filed by the ArbCom. (If the ArbCom declines the case, it might come back in four months.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC) The purpose of these proposals is to not waste the community's time and effort on troublesome editors. Even if ARBCOM is able to synthesize a better solution, the process of getting there makes it not worthwhile unless and until we are unable to reach a workable (workable, not perfect) solution here. Vanamonde (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Comment - There is no perfect solution. The perfect solution would be not to have problematic editors. (That's a utopia, and a utopia is a no-place.) I think we only disagree as to how long the community should try to reach a workable solution before we punt. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Arbcom’s purpose is to solve problems that the community can’t seem to handle on its own. We seem to have a decent consensus here that these editing restrictions are this users last chance to conform to minimum expected standards of behavior. If they fail to do so they will be blocked. That being the case this falls short of requiring a weeks-long process with a 15 member committee and I’m quite certaint hat’s exactly what Arbcom would tell you were a case to be filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose. As Beeblebrox says, ArbCom's role is one of last resort when the community can not deal with an issue, and we are nowhere near that stage. I'm quite certain that ArbCom would, rightly, decline it. @Robert McClenon: I urge you to withdraw this to save wasting any more of anyone else's time, as you have no chance of success with it at this stage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC) oppose per boing and beeblebrox. let's give the user an opportunity to mend their ways, as presented above. very much too premature for arbcom.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose. I agree with all of the opposes above: this is nowhere near to ripe for ArbCom, and the restrictions above should be sufficient for at least the next six months. I find it interesting that there are two opposes to the editing restrictions: one, leading to the section here, on the basis that the restrictions are not strict enough, and the other on the basis that they are too strict. Taken with all the other comments expressing support, it sure looks like consensus to me. I do agree that it's time to close this thread – but with enactment of the editing restrictions endorsed by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose, per all of the above. I would add: though the community process tends to lurch a lot, in this case I think we are unifying, and the current process should be not be scuttled on verge of a workable result. And albeit glacially, I think we have a collective learning experience here that will aid us in the future. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose per the above. Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Articles mentioning someone with the same name

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

---

See

• 110.22.227.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DRGN13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When editing as a IP, this user had a final warning for removing sourced content where a name is mentioned that happens to be the same as another person's: "The reason for this removal is that a young person that currently bears the name is receiving threats and their wellbeing is put to question as a result. This poses a safety concern for the individual" As I don't think that this is a valid reason to remove the content, and after a final warning at IP's talk page, the username DRGN13 was created that again removed all the names from 4 articles, mentioning a part of the policy that I.m.o. is not applicable. Can someone look into this and advise please? TIA. User and IP notified. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Note, the IP was reported at wp:AIV for having removed again after their final warning. No action was taken yet. - DVdm (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO - clearly DRGN13's complaint is without merit. Virtually no name is unique; the logical conclusion would be there would be nothing written about anyone. Whilst I have sympathy for this individual if it is causing them a problem, their problem is not of Wikipedia's making and removing the name from Wikipedia isn't going to resolve it. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unfortunate if someone is being harassed because their name is the same as a notorious person from the past, but it's really not our concern. Both the IP and DRGN13 need to stop removing that name from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Especially as the person in the article is deceased, and it clearly states that. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We cannot purge history due to the insipid nature of humanity. Though I sympathize with the victims of humanity's insipid nature. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I semi protected Foča ethnic cleansing and Rape during the Bosnian War to prevent further disruption. The content, including the name, is supported by the cited reference.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NPA

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

---

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

[189] (edit summary "idiot") after previous warnings here and at my talk page. I'm done with communicating with this individual. zzz (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a one off. Users may remove comments from their talk pages. Probably a lot of frustration on both sides.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Trolling IP?

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

---

Hi, I've just come across the IP 24.198.169.196 who changed content on Nintendo DS with the edit summary "the ds phat was discuntenued in 07 overall discuntenued in 13",
I've never ever known "discontinued" to be spelt like that so I don't know if the IP is trying to be smart with the language or whether this was somehow a genuine mistake ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably just trying (and failing) to be clever, in a very juvenile manner. ansh666 20:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior from an Administrator (redux)

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

---

WP:TLDR warning for what lies ahead - but the history is complicated and because this involves an administrator, I believe it's necessary to look at all evidence in depth.

I filed this [190] a few days ago in regard to what I saw as questionable behavior by Andrevan, an administrator. It all began at the talk page of Factchecker atyourservice with this [191] where it appeared he was harassing Factchecker over his username. It then morphed into this [192] at AN with Andrevan accusing editors of being Russian agents attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia with propaganda. NeilN closed the filing with the following warning: "If you have a case for blocks/topic bans, make it at WP:AE or request Arbcom look at the situation. Further accusations of editors being "Russian agents" without providing proof will be treated as aspersions and may result in blocks or topic bans." Editors started a subsection at the report, calling for a boomerang for Andrevan.[193]

While all of this was going on, several admins went to Andrevan's talk page asking him to stop [194] (Swarm, JzG, Awilley, and NeilN). Following that, Andrevan then went to MONGO's talk page [195]) demanding he declare a WP:COI that no one, other than Andrevan, felt existed. He next dropped by my talk page here [196] to accuse me of violating a policy I was nowhere near violating. I saw it as harassment and so did another editor. Considering what's happening within the last hour or so, I now see Andrevan's visit to my talk page to not just be harassment but retaliation for the ANI report I filed on him.

When I filed the above noted report on his actions at MONGO's talk page, it was deemed that Andrevan was not threatening to out MONGO and the report was closed with the following comments by the Drmies, the closer: "Andrevan has stated they will back down from this, so I am not sure action is necessary"--Mr. Ernie said it well. Can I admin for a second? Andrevan, any more unfounded accusations are likely to lead to a block, and will most certainly (this is a prediction based on experience) end up on AE. Threats of OUTing are deemed, below, to not be correct. Plus, Winkelvi and others, we (your honored admins) will not stand for OUTing of any kind."

Now we're back here again just a couple of days later: At the Donald Trump article talk page within the last several hours, Andrevan has started to once again cast aspersions, "Can I also add that trying to protect Trump's biography from discussion of his braggadocio is a fool's errand." [197] After both MelanieN and I reminded him to focus on edits rather than editors, he went to an administrator's talk page to further cast aspersions that editors are conspiring and making a concerted effort to whitewash the Donald Trump article.[198] His comments: "Pro-Trump POV pushing editor crew - I noticed that you chastised some users for pushing POV that anything critical of Trump should be challenged or removed. There's currently an ongoing operation on the part of several users, including one who was blocked for sockpuppetry, to sanitize Trump's Wikipedia articles of content about his racial views, his misleading claims about his academic background, any negative polling about him, etc. Since you made comments on this as an uninvolved admin in the past, I wonder if you wouldn't review some of the comments and behavior, including my own if you feel so inclined and for balance. I've already been warned for making blanket allegations that Russian/GOP/NRA propagandists are trying to whitewash the article. More to the point, though, a number of users are on a crusade against consensus, reliable sources, and the discretionary sanctions that limit major changes to stable article text, or using the latter for cover to remove perfectly valid sourced material." I see this visit to MastCell's talk page as retaliation for both MelanieN and I asking him to knock it off and me telling him that if he continued down this road, he would likely end up at a noticeboard soon.

For the record, Andrevan has a history (before the last several days) of the exact same behavior - an AN/I was filed here [199] in 2014.

An administrator poisoning the well, making false allegations, casting aspersions, launching personal attacks, focusing on editors rather than content, and doing it all after being told to stop following not one but two noticeboard reports made within hours of each other - very unbecoming and totally unsatisfactory behavior. I'm asking something be done to make it stop. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot more completely un-admin-like behavior than the above. Me thinks it should probably go to AE, but I'm thinking an arbitration case is nearing regarding Andrevan's harassment and lack of AGF.--MONGO 02:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My advice; suck it up until you can document a pattern of egregious behavior and then take it to ArbCom. As long as he is not continuing to call out editors as Russian spies or similar over the top stuff I would consider the situation improving. If you do not want to wait it out take it to AE and open an AmPol2 sanctions case. Bringing stuff here is pretty pointless; if three admins telling him to pull his head in on his talk page did not work then another couple saying the same thing here will not work either. Jbh ^Talk 02:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair on the post to MastCell's page it was propagandists instead of spies, not sure it is an improvement though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I will note that the 2014 AN/I thread was brought by a user who was later indef-blocked for POV pushing, Ignocrates, and I stand by what happened at that time. I will suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG for Winkelvi is in order for similar issues. There's nothing improper about my request to an uninvolved admin to review contributions including my own; it is not retaliatory, and I stand by the comments there. I have noted that I have heeded the advice of many admins who had a problem with my earlier AN thread which was clearly ill-considered, I will note that they also told you your subsequent AN/I thread was ill-considered. My behavior is in no way harassment. Andrevan@ 02:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Great quote on that 2014 ANI of myself quoting policy is relevant here: "Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational." Andrevan@ 02:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"I will suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG for Winkelvi is in order for similar issues." A boomerang for what, pray tell? I'm not casting aspersions or calling editors propagandists, Russian agents, and members of an "ongoing operation" (looks like a dog-whistle for "Russian agent" to me) after being told to stop. By numerous administrators. And just for the record, I refuse to go back and forth with you here, Andrevan. Unless you have a question to ask me or you say something for which I need to defend myself, I will not be responding to you further in this thread. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're truly unwilling to respond to the editor you're accusing, then withdraw the damned complaint. Pardon, but you need to be willing to engage to the Nth degree if you start a discussion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a boomerang is appropriate here. Just because it's up for debate whether the allegations are actionable doesn't mean Winkelvi is a problem. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi recently stated several thoughts he had about the shortcoming consensus on Wikipedia[200]. He was warned for encouraging harassment. This is his second ANI thread about me in several days, and he was warned that the first thread has falsely accused me of threatening to WP:OUT an editor. He believes academic papers are opinion pieces [201] This is POV-pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Andrevan@ 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Pro-Trump POV pushing editor crew"? What on earth? That is almost as bad as the crazy nonsense about about Russian paid editors.--MONGO 03:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Compare this ("you seem to consider anything that reflects negatively on Donald Trump to constitute "anti-[Trump] fodder" and to argue to downplay it on those grounds.") with this ("trying to restore balance to some of the most lopsided coatrack articles that exist on the website") these folks are on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Andrevan@ 03:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And if I asked an admin for help with the "Anti-Trump POV pushing editor crew", that would be okay now right? I mean you are at the article to harass anyone that disagrees with you and to promote nothing but negativisims in that BLP from what I can see. You need a reality check, yet again.--MONGO 04:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You've said, "All I know is the issue at that page is a nonissue and its just one more silly "dig" attempt to make Trump look bad. Most of the time when I read anything form those articles they appear like they were written by extreme partisans" [202] I am not harassing anyone. You and User:Winkelvi seem to believe that any sourced factual statements about Trump that aren't positive are anti-Trump "digs." We all just want to follow NPOV. Many RS have critical information about Trump that merit inclusion. Andrevan@ 04:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, I'm looking through all of your interactions and from what I can surmise- correct me if I'm wrong- Andrevan took issue with a conversation that is now archived on Atsme's talk page. This whole dispute on both sides does look content-oriented, with some pretty glaring overtones drawn from political orientation. I'm unsure why Andrevan decided to wait so long to address this and why they're going about it in this manner, as it seems rather unbecoming of an administrator. Has this and can this be rectified at the dispute resolution board? Furthermore, some input from MelanieN, who is a kickass and impartial editor and administrator, would be greatly appreciated. :) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Nothing is going to happen as a result of this report, and Winkelvi knows that. If Winkelvi believes that they have a case for administrative misbehavior or behavior not befitting an admin against Andrevan, then they surely know that the only place such a complaint can be handled is at ArbCom. I urge Wikelvi either to file there, or else stop filing complaints on AN and ANI. If Winkelvi chooses instead to keep filing noticeboard complaints, than I would be in favor of a sanction against Winkelvi for WP:HARASSMENT. This doesn't need to happen, as there is a clear and well-known pathway (i.e ArbCom) to deal with administrator malfeasance, and until we have community-based de-sysopping, that will remain the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You summed up the Super-Mario problem nicely. This is misconduct by an administrator, not administrator misconduct. ANI is the appropriate place to form community consensus on Andrevan's appalling behavior. It falls well below the expectations of any editor and is not beyond the remit of ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If Winkelvi was simply concerned about Andrevan's behavior as an editor, then they shouldn't have put Andrevan's status as an administrator in the title of this section. They should have outlined the behavioral problems they perceived, and then perhaps have said "Oh, and this editor is an administrator." But, no, the report is clearly based on Andrevan's being an administrator, and "conduct unbecoming", which is why it is not appropriate for ANI, and should have been taken to ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment In general, one waits more than a few days before creating a second ANI thread. While it does seem advisable for the administrator in question to perhaps take a wikibreak, I do not see anything shocking enough to warrant an immediate second thread. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think Andrevan's rhetorical exuberance was problematic, but don't see any evidence that it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Winkelvi appears to be donning the ol' Spidey suit. Dragging up four year old kvetching? Not cool. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AFAICT, the person involved is a "crat" and should ethically be far above any petty issues - but YMMV. Collect (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, User:DarthBotto. I am an WP:INVOLVED editor at that page so I will not be making any recommendations about action or lack of action. I’ll just comment that I don’t agree with any claim of “administrator misconduct”. Andrevan has not attempted to take any administrative actions at the Trump article and AFAIK has not threatened to take any. I do agree that he is a problem editor at that article, because of his insistence that anyone who ever objects to any negative information about Trump, for any reason, is doing so out of partisan conviction or worse. He has taken that position from the minute he arrived at the article on May 23 (the edit summary for his second edit to the article included “Not mentioning this in the lead is malpractice”, and in his very first edit at the talk page he accused another editor of “tendentious editing to defend Mr. Trump” and “probably partisan protectorship and ownership of the article in a POV pushing vein”). After his disastrous AN filing he did accept the advice of four or five administrators to drop the “paid Russian agent” talk, but he has continued to complain about other users (see above “these folks are on a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS”). I have sometimes wondered if he is engaging in some kind of bizarre performance art - in which he alternates between making stridently partisan comments like this, and accusing OTHER people of having a POV. Bottom line, he is well informed and smart and competent, and he could be a valuable contributor - but he is really causing problems with his over-the-top battleground mentality. --MelanieN (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not engaging in tendentious editing, because my goal is to protect the status quo of the article which is acceptable, and the Wikipedia process that got us here. I believe a balanced view of Mr. Trump per RS would point out how uniquely negatively he is viewed by nearly everyone aside from his partisan defenders, and how he has had a more scandal-prone presidency than any in recent memory. My comments are not stridently partisan, they are simply a honest expression of the view of Trump that I and many RS share. They are in line with reliable sources and Wikipedia policies. This is just what the scope of Mr. Trump's oeuvre is. He's a unique figure, as you know. As it happens, Mr. Trump has deeply unique coverage in RS compared with most article subjects considering his history, actions and standing, and how most RS describe him. I am simply trying to ensure that the organized effort to whitewash Trump's page is met with a modicum of opposition. I think MelanieN is a great admin and editor, but I maintain that the problems exist in this subject area and my editing is not the cause of the problems. Andrevan@ 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - DarthBotto, I seriously doubt the discussion on my TP had anything to do with it - my user page is typically reserved for humor and happy times, but then I don't censor it so some of the discussions can become rather serious. I actually wish you had not brought my name up here or in anything else that involves Andrevan because quite frankly, I find his behavior quite chilling. Perhaps Beyond My Ken is correct in that "the only place such a complaint can be handled is at ArbCom" but I'm also of the mind that his behavior is unusual enough to warrant the attention of the community. What I've seen exhibited is quite obsessive, and clearly unbecoming a crat/admin. He arrived on the Trump scene very bold and accusatory so I imagine the following diffs may have something to do with Winkelvi's reason for filing this case:

• Andrevan states at the top of his user page, "I am also not a spy."
• [203] - starts a section at VP (idea lab) leading off with "Wikipedia is failing at its job to educate people" then proceeded to push his POV of AP2 - clearly on a RIGHTGREATWRONGS mission doing exactly what he's accusing others of doing.
• [204] - introduces himself to another editor by making outlandish accusations;
• [205] - his support for calling Trump a racist, "Don’t need to get inside Trump’s head to know his soul."
• [206] - accused MelanieN, a highly respected editor because of her neutrality & common sense approach;
• [207] - accused NYTimes quote as "bordering on a Trump-spin press release", and then accused me of "defending Trump's positions" for citing that source using intext attribution;
• [208] - start of his Russian spy accusations;
• [209] - MelanieN's response to it;
• [210] - AN with more of his crazy allegations of paid Russian spies;
• MastCell TP wherein he refers to editors as an "ongoing operation", and obliquely brings in his spy accusations, and accuses editors of trying to whitewash articles, etc. All an editor has to do to become his target is simply oppose him in a discussion, or challenge (revert) noncompliant material in the article, or make a proposal to add material he opposes. And that is the type of behavior that is probably closer to the reason that inspired Winkelvi to bring this case back to the community. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The "not a spy" line is a joke because of an IRC user named NotASpy. As I've explained in several places, my point about the "know his soul" line has been misinterpreted despite my attempts to explain it. I am not saying I know Trump's soul. I am saying one does not need to because the descriptions of him as a racist are so extensive in RS. I will add that Atsme is one of the users on this article who are determined to remove negative content about Mr. Trump despite copious RS. Atsme has removed sourced polls[211] saying "poll is flawed, presidency is only in first year and a half, and exceptional claims need exceptional sources" and other non-policy based arguments. When called out for WP:GAME and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, Atsme says this is a personal attack[212]. Additionally, Atsme, Winkelvi, Mongo, FCAYS, and several other users have been defending each other's non-policy-based interpretations and tag teaming to engage in their POV pushing. Atsme also believes the media are biased, see comments to blocked sockpuppet: [213] Andrevan@ 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment [214] mentioned above (AN), is pretty clear the Andrevan is acting as a INVOLVED editor, not an admin (there's no question here). As such, I'd say to people saying AN/I is not an appropriate venue, that this is a question of what resolution ψλ envisions, and what the opinion of the community is. We could TBAN Andrevan from Trump topics, which may help. This isn't a matter of administrator misconduct, it is accusations of misconduct by an Administrator, as others have observed. I don't think ArbCom would get involved unless we can't come to an agreement here. I doubt desysops are in order, so lets talk solutions here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would gladly impose a Trump TBAN on myself if the same could be applied to Winkelvi, MONGO, Atsme, etc. I never edited any Trump-related pages before last week and I'd just as soon not edit about him. Andrevan@ 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Personally having seen the diffs and their comments my main view is that they shouldn't be an admin .... on the otherhand this hasn't exactly been a repeating issue (as far as I can see) so desysopping would be OTT, Personally I feel the best option on the table is Arbcom, I can't see how we as a community can deal with it (Suppose they could be TBANNED from Donald Trump but that doesn't really solve much IMHO). –Davey2010^Talk 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• The first thing that Andrevan said at ANI was "A number of right-wing POV pushing users are engaged in tendentious editing to maintain a whitewashed status quo version of the article that avoids coverage of numerous scandals, specifically the Mueller investigation.". To be honest, I'd be more surprised if that wasn't the case. We could really do with another swathe of ARBAP2 topic-bans - on both sides - because otherwise we'll just be here again and again and ... oh yeah, a number of the people involved are those that pop up at ANI again and again .... Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Yourfav

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

---

Yourfav (talk · contribs) started adding commentary into Peacebuilding yesterday and was reverted by Bonadea [215] and myself [216] and warned about language like "No known solution exists for the problem that NATO's anti-chicken training [emphasis in the original] doesn't work, so Obama's global approach of small footprint SOCOM, super-killer mindset bases in more than half the countries on earth remains viewed by US leaders as the optimal peacebuilding strategy." and so on [217] [218]. Things have gone downhill from there, with edit summaries like these [219] [220] and talkpage engagement like this [221], culminating in this sparkling gem [222]. Since I'm apparently an agent of repression who is actively working toward the death of millions, would someone not in league with darkness like to do the necessary? Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well, as long as you're doing your thing "bitterly & senselessly", what do you expect? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• OK, I can't read all of that gem (life is short), but I got to the part where they go "I have not had a chance to either read or understand any relevant Wikipedia policies". Since they're continuing to edit war, I'll gladly give them 31 hours to read up. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also making "intense, pointless difficulties that you create, for your entertainment - just for your whimsical fun" Just another evening for me on Wikipedia. They're not edit-warring exactly, but they're getting awfully shrill. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised that the admin who dealt with Yourfav's unblock request didn't up the block to indef:

      Acroterian says that she is actively working toward the death of millions. She correctly states that that is in fact what she is attempting to accomplish. I'm glad that she noticed that. But, obviously, she should be prevented from doing so. It would appear from Drmies instant wrong decision that Drmies did not read, or at all consider the many attempts that I made at peacebuilding on the either the peacebuilding talk page or Acroterian's talk page or mine. Please, notice that I did not reapply the edit that Acroterian falsely complained of. & in the interests of peace, would anyone reading this please take it as a priority to provide an edit of the sentence about NATO training that Acroterian is complaining about. Also, would you please then reapply all of my other edits to the peacebuilding page, so that I don't have to further attempt to defend them to Acroterian. With your edit to that sentence, can it not be clearly discerned that she is contrarian to all edits on that page for no reasonable cause? Except she keeps wrongly excusing herself for the consequence of those wars. She is accountable for it, because she keeps choosing to use her admin powers (granted by wiki) for the purpose of preventing anyone from consideration of peacebuilding in North Korea, Iran, Syria & Afghanistan. Wiki is an important tool for peaceful communication in the world. May the true God perform justice publicly, 'soul for millions of souls', just as law requires.Yourfav (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

      Doesn't seem to me to be someone who works and plays well with others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: But can you compare with the dangers of DHMO?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• After seeing that unblock request, I have made the block indefinite. I've also explained what we'll need for the block to be lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna peanut gallery and say that they also placed a legal threat before all this went down. "You completely disregard the value of editors time, as though other peoples' time was of utterly no value to them. That's so disgusting!!! It is pure fantasy on your part that any party in the US is not compelled by the Bill of Rights. That's the purest fantasy. Guess what? Wiki's in the US. I recommend that you ask your local US District Judges what they think about whether they think that your admin activities are subject to the US Congress' Bill of Rights." --Tarage (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tarage, you read more than I did; I couldn't get through that prose. Beyond My Ken, hope springs eternal. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

• (ec) I'm afraid I dismissed them as a troll early on - their initial edit to Peacebuilding, linked in Acroterion's first post above, is indistinguishable from intentional disruption, and this astonishingly in-your-face confrontational post to my talk page did it for me. (It's not as bad as what they said to Acroterion, but there are some minor gems in there.) Actually there is something in the repeated comments about being a newbie, combined with knowledge of things like page protection and how to use citation templates correctly in their very first edit that makes me wonder how new they really are. I don't have any specific sockmaster in mind, and it could very well be a brand new user who has done some very selective reading on how WP works, but I still wonder. --bonadea contributions talk 06:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Good block. Basically a troll. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Nowadays it seems that demanding references and confronting soapboxing on Wikipedia make one personally liable for wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and North Korea. They also make one female (I'm not), although that's at least a change from the standing assumption that everybody on the Internet is male. I think this is just someone who is On A Mission and is unwilling to hear about anything else, but thinks it's fine to say absolutely anything about strangers on the Internet to have their way. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I guess this makes you un admin rouge.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

AlphaZero

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

---

Need administrator attention for this article AlphaZero, which is being vandalized - same edits being added and reverted over three days. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki sock-puppetry

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

---

Hello, first I apologize for my terrible writing style and I'm not sure the message is in the right section.

I am a member from RC Patrol on the French side and I noticed several SPA adding contents on the Piaget SA article (strongly promotional) and cancelling edits from normal users. I submitted RCU (see here). The RCU was positive about Goldtean = Corliose = Dupegill = Langwenn = Maraola = Pourdiana - (check here).

A request to admins was written to block the sockpuppets and protect the page temporarily so that we could clean up the advertisement stuff. Both requests were accepted (read here).

I noticed the same stuff happens on en wiki, thought I'd let you know.

Kinds regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 12:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bédévore: Your writing is fine. The best place to report this is at WP:SPI and follow the instructions there. If you need help, you can ask me on my Talk page. Of the six accounts you noted, one is not registered and two others have zero edits at en.wiki. Although normally frowned upon, you can include the no-edit accounts in your report at SPI if you wish, but do not include the unregistered account (Langwenn).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Bbb23:, I'll do it straight away. --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bédévore I'm already halfway through filing an SPI. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bellezzasolo I'm not familiar with wikicode and procedures on the English side. Kind regards, --Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I figured that the frwiki process looked different, it's never fun trying to work out how wikicode works in a foreign langugage! This is the report - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goldtean. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Boundarylayer and abortion

Boundarylayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to abortion. I have just issued a one-time warning. Numerous recent edits violate the topic ban: [223], [224], [225], [226] are unambiguously related to abortion. This restriction should be understood as being broadly construed, but in this case even a narrow construction shows this to be in the scope of your topic ban.

Any further edits in this area should result in an immediate block. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to pertinent discussion-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I wish to now have this ban overturned, as usual, it was orchestrated by a member of this encyclopedia apparently well known to the community for following a particular copy-and-paste, "get other editors banned" strategy, in the exact farcical manner that I experienced. Indeed with respect to Jytdog, who I had initially considered was a neutral party. Instead I by chance stumbled across a revealing comment left by User:Andy Dingley on the Sustainable energy talk page. "| Then feel free to simply go away(Jytdog). It is not all about you. Yet again you are taking another invented content dispute with an editor and turning it into another round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show. You are not Batman. It is not all about you. Before long you will (inevitably so - we've all seen your behaviour before) move this to ANI with a variety of wild accusations, then probably create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberttherambler, because harassment by fatuous SPI is another of your favourites."

If this ban instigated by jytdog, is not seen for what it is and overturned, I do not see a future with the project. As to remind you, there was never a case of 3R. Or edit warring. We always took it to the talk page, indeed that was the charge in essence, a distaste for - my writing replies on talk pages and then waiting for other editors to get back to me-. That however is not a bannable justification. Moreover some independent editors who looked at my edits both then in the initial ANI and now, also disagree with this unjustified ban. Despite, I might add, not being at home that weekend to have the opportunity to reply on the initial ANI. Which as you can imagine, was less than a "rewarding" surprise on returning home.

Indeed, with respect to why I got banned. I believe Guy you even thanked me for talking to Mark Z. Jacobson at my usual length, on his talk page, when he was engaging in a lawsuit and a BLP. So even on matters such as these, I do not change when I searched to try to find a WP:NEUTRAL wording acceptable to both a BLP and to readers. However I hope this is not a case of it serving your/the projects interests in that case yet in other cases "BAN"? I've picked up the unfortunately clear impression, that I am thanked for hashing things out on talk pages, but when not serving particular admin politics, I get banned from the topic. It is from this and other observations. That I have developed a deep sentiment of hypocrisy here. Indeed no one ever notified me as to the apparently well known MO of User:Jytdog in how they have, for years, gone around and created an apparent television series of a "variety of wild accusations", that they then "move this to ANI". So why exactly is this prolonged "round of Jytdog's superhero wikicrimefighting show" continuing?

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The support for your topic ban was near-unanimous, and those who supported it are hardly just the usual suspects. If you want your ban overturned, the way to do so is to appeal it (probably at WP:AN) on the basis that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, not by simply violating it repeatedly. Your having violated it repeatedly essentially reduces your chances of having the ban overturned now to zero, I would guess. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you see yourself as a victim and also that you see me as some kind of kind of crazy person. I empathize with you being very passionate on this issue; I have some things I can get very fierce about, too. But you need to be aware that this is part of your character and self-manage it. You failed to do that on the abortion stuff and became disruptive, so the community took action to protect itself -- and you. I hope you gain some self-insight and are able to be resilient and find a way to stay. You do make many good edits in fields where you are not overly passionate. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, that since we are now in the very intense run-up to the Ireland abortion referendum your internal pressure gauge has probably exploded. That must be very difficult. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: I cannot find where the original topic ban was recorded. Was it logged? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Boundarylayer: Please stop violating the topic ban. If you can edit non disruptively for 6 months, starting now, you might be able to appeal the ban then. One does not violate a topic ban and then seek to have it overturned when one is caught violating said topic ban.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time to propose an indefinite block of Boundarylayer. The link between their edits on the 36th Amendment referendum and the problematic edits on Death of Savita Halappanavar and related topics are so crystal-clear that they cannot be any good-faith misunderstanding. Boundarylayer's statement here makes it equally clear that they have no intention to abide by their restrictions or to respect other editors in any process. They clearly cannot edit collaboratively or constructively. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

They've been warned, they haven't edited on the topic since the warning. An indef at this point would be premature. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that an indef block is more than we need. Boundarylayer will kindly stop violating their TBAN before a block becomes needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Violated it Repeatedly"? Can you clarify where? Unless you're talking about something else. I made one stream of edits on the "8th amendment" article and I left it at that. Edits that I didn't consider to be really even under the remit of "Broadly construed?" Considering this farcical "ban" was over the articles PPROM and Savita Halappanavar, not anything political on Irish voting or a referendum but on medical evidence. No one got into a discussion once I made these recent amendment edits, I was busy writing, editing and getting the article Terufumi Sasaki through the creation process, in the last few days, if you actually care to look at what I was primarily doing instead of creating more of your quaint little fantasies about "pressure gauges"...Jytdog? In fact my last edit there, I left a talk page comment. Any polls conducted on just female voters? to build the article to reflect actual factual information.

Indeed in my last month of editing. If you really want to go "broadly construed". I've penned the entirety of the -Atomic bombings#Birth defect investigations a section, as broadly construed as "abortion" should be, is this medical information also a "violating" of my ban and should it be removed too? Moreover, I also added a small study in Chernobyl abortion requests recently. Though I take it, you all like that information. However the way you have all responded, it is clear that it is only when I add any factual information into what the political editor-User:Bastun, what they prefer to class as "broadly construed"? Only when I take it is anything got to do with jeopardizing their George Soros hero? That's the only difference in theme, they pretty well admit as much here this change all of a sudden, to enforce a ban down to doing "edits on the main article on the imminent Irish election". The main article? that's not abortion the actual "main article"? For someone with a topic ban on "abortion" then? The "main article is the election" that is how they view my ban. As a political tool. So only now then I find myself here at an Admin noticeboard over this farcical ban. Why now exactly? I think it pretty obvious what my "ban" genuinely is truly about and specificallly who and what it was always intended for. Which is anything Bastun doesn't like. A pretty cozy affair they have.

So exactly where do you want "broadly construed" to end? So I can know not to "violate" this farcical ban again? Can I have clarity? Indeed This User:Bastun seems to have a bit of a history of also hounding others editor, as like jytdog, claiming others are socks. It seems all preceived "opponents" are targeted and the truth a casualty. Two editors, 2 independent editors now, don't think this other user is a sock. Yet, look here they're indefinitely blocked, all thanks to user:Bastun. leftwinguy92.

Since my "ban" began. You will find that I have not edited the PROM article, after adding the 2017 Cochrane medical review(which is still there by the way, this is the farcical part that shows through. My last edit on the very article that would then follow with an onslaught of wild accusations and "ban", my last edit which suddenly I was banned without any opportunity to say a word before it was enshrined in wikilaw. The last edit I made for allegedly being "distruptive", not a single editor has removed nor challenged my last edit on the "direct broadly construed" topic, that I was allegedly distrupting? That is why this ban is a transparent farce.

Is anyone else being to see how transparent this is? Or is it really just me?

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be pretty much you. I haven't seen so much blaming of others in quite a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So you didn't also make a weird post on my talk page recently that completely misrepresented Savita's husband, Praveen? And you didn't make a series of edits regarding funding of Amnesty Ireland (who are campaigning for a Yes vote)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Also - yes, leftwinguy93 was found to be a sock by a checkuser... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That user is not a sock. You falsely accused them of being a sock of one account. The checkuser didn't find any evidence of that but presumedly found the same IP of some entirely different user. They're now blocked as per your direction however.

On Oct 20 you wrote "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up."

I never even knew who "Soros" was in Oct 2017, you were accusing me of being American and a whole load of wild things, I even asked in Oct 20, as you can read "who is Soros, and how are they relevant"? I think I know why now. The story broke in Dec 2017 that some fellow named George Soros was actually attempting to influence and pay for campaigns. After that news broke, you've both been censoring , who you actually admited, is your paymasters name, out of the Amnesty International Ireland page. In just the 1st page of edit history, three other editors have added his name and you 2 have consistently removed it. You've both been at the downplay game, the political spin-doctor game. The paid editing game. Your actions, "jokes" and even this ban...I know who you are and what this is about now.

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Editors may also be interested in this Conflict of Interest thread... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to note that a minute before BoundaryLayer wrote their second long attack on this page (diff) above at 20:04, they wrote this at Guy's talk page. BoundaryLayer is showing no intention of respecting their TBAN. I think something like a month-long block might be useful here, to prevent further disruption and try to help them understanding that the TBAN is not optional? Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Per the above and [227], I propose a one-way IBAN betwefen Boundarylayer and Bastun: Boundarylayer to be prohibited from interacting with or commenting on Bastun other than in the context of formal dispute resolution processes, including arbitration but not including noticeboatd threads. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I've blocked Boundarylayer for 48 hours for filing the SPI, which I've also deleted. @JzG: For the sake of procedural niceties, please clarify that you are proposing that a one-way I-ban be imposed against Boundarylayer for interactions with Bastun. I've also changed this to the usual non-numbered style rather than RfA style. Otherwise, it's difficult to leave standalone comments like this one. Hope you don't mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree on all counts. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support although I think an indef is coming here rather quickly. all aboard the noticeboat! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I hate to see things go down this path, but it appears necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bright Emerson

• Huaka'i Emerson (talk · contribs)

Ongoing removal of sourced material contrary to consensus, ongoing violation of 3rr, unwillingness to discuss topic on talk page, and skewed edit summaries.

Editor is removing sourced text, now text with 5+ sources making false claims such as: Using an inaccurate birth year for Emerson, thus claiming he was 2 years old at the time of alleged signing "Dr. Emerson was not a part of the conspiracy to overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom."- the removed text does not say he was "He was a historian & a doctor, not a sharpshooter "? Maybe a Dr. McCoy joke? Emerson's name is not on the document, so he could not have been involved, again the text removed doesn't make the claim that his name is on the document. "Dr. Nathaniel Bright Emerson was not a author of the Bayonet Constitution!" the text in question doesn't say that he was "The Hawaiian league was NOT founded by Emerson! " the text removed does not say that he was

With at least two violations of WP:Civil [[228]] and his response when I tried to explain WP:CON- [[229]]

This person claims to be a relative of the subject of this article, and I honor that to discover these strong allegations about an ancestor must be challenging.... and this is becoming a waste of a number of editors time, energy and attention. This has been going on for 2 weeks and one block did not change users behavior. I do not believe this person is here to build an encyclopedia based on consensus, but is here to protect their family name or perhaps is trolling. TantraYum (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've EC protected the page. Huaka'i Emerson (talk · contribs), you need to discuss on the article's talk page and seek consensus there for your changes. It is not likely that content reliably sourced will be removed unless the change can be reliably sourced. As a relative, you may have a conflict of interest that clouds your editorial judgement.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), though I think it is a short term solution... hopefully I am wrong. TantraYum (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. In their frustration, user has resorted to petty vandalism HERE and HERE. But not in discussion here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This conflict is still a thing? Jesus. I thought we had that nicely solved. Now the editor wrote "STOP SLANDERING OUR FAMILY WITH MISINFORMATION" (emphasis mine) on Dlohcierekim's talk page, which might at least explain the stamina expressed here. Extended confirmed protection appears to be a reasonable decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been patient with the expectation that the editor would discuss the disputed content calmly. If they cannot and will not do so, they will need to be blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sahansdal: user promoting his book and website on his fringe theory

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

---

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

Per this, Sahansdal admits that he's Robert Wahler, author of "Misreading Judas", which is self-published through AuthorHouse and therefore not a reliable source.

These results are just from 2018.

• Post that's not related to the topic at hand.
• Outright spam for their website.
• More spam for their imagined credentials as a mystic, including I understand the Gospel of Judas better than anyone I know about or have met and then going about how the smartest person he met doesn't know what he knows.
• Addition beginning with "Others of a more mystical persuasion disagree," and getting different uses of the word "apophasis" mixed up citing a source that doesn't mention the article's subject at all, which is a recurring problem, as they've used the same mistaken reasoning in removing claims from someone who can write reliable sources.
• Insisting (against mainstream consensus) that Gnosticism should be labelled the source of Christianity, not on the basis of any mainstream academic source but an outdated source that doesn't mention Gnosticism, a Theosophical site run by followers Samael Aun Weor, and *a Theosophical one.
• Spamming his own book again, posting his personal beliefs as some sort of objective fact.
• Posting what are either "requests for opinions, predictions or debate" on the Reference Desk, or else rhetorical questions in favor of his own belief.
• Replacing one unsourced statement with another that fits his views better.
• More spam for his book and website.
• Unsourced original research, more unsourced original research.

A topic ban is needed if nothing else. A glance over their prior contributions suggests that a minimally adequate ban would cover everywhere they've been editing so far, though, which kinda suggests WP:NOTHERE applies.

This is not a content dispute. If anyone in academia cared about Wahler's theories, and someone besides the author was just citing his claims (with due weight), that wouldn't be an issue. Instead, we have a self-proclaimed expert who rejects academia because they don't "understand" his theories who is acting like he's the only authority we'll ever need, with the occasional attempt at trolling ([230] [231]). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• endorse TBAN on Christianity and the various gospels at minimum. This looks like an 11 year history of self-promotion, so a nothere block is justifiable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per Dlohcierekim as a minimum, but I really rather think that in view of his editing history a Not Here block would me more appropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support at least TBan but probably rather an indef NOTHERE block. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all articles related to Christianity, with an indefinite block if disruptive conduct spreads elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• What Cullen328 said. I am prepared to give this user just enough slack to find out if they have any purpose here other than self-promotion, but I am not holding out any hope, based on long experience. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per everyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Since this was started, we've got Sahansdal posting that he knows stuff from experience that academia doesn't because they're all biased.

@Sahansdal: Would you prefer the topic ban or the WP:NOTHERE block? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'd prefer the WP:NOTHERE block for my part! Topic ban from Christianity as second choice. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC).
• Support WP:NOTHERE prefered with TBAN as a second option. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support flat-out block. After my interactions with him I have discerned that he is unapologetic and unwilling to modify his behavior in any way. If a block might elicit such a changed attitude that he makes an exemplary unblock request, then so be it. I am just amazed he's managed to carry on for so many years. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

CIR problems?

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

---

FloridaArmy (talk · contribs) is currently subject to an open report at WP:AN3. NeilN queried their lack of response to it, and EdJohnston had previously suggested that they should respond to it. The reply from FloridaArmy has been rather vague.

As the AN3 report and copious notes on their talk page (some now deleted) make clear, there are a bunch of people who have raised issues relating to FA's editing. They're certainly rushing around creating articles but a lot of them are proving to be problematic and are leading to extended discussions at AfD etc. They've been edit warring, per the report and comments to it, and seem unwilling to apply even the most basic stub-creation norms, such as categorisation and project templates. I am not the only one to have spotted substantial factual errors, eg: the paragraph they wrote and then amended here ended up with a discussion about accuracy where they actually tried to wriggle out of the mistake, while their creation here lead to this one. Plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure what to do here but something needs to be done because they're showing little inclination to collaborate, to deal with basic issues raised, to paraphrase sources satisfactorily etc, and they're showing a tendency not to accept valid criticism, no matter who raises it and how it is phrased. Whether this sort of stuff falls under WP:CIR is not something I'm sure about but the overall effect of what is going on is highly disruptive and has been pretty much from the get-go. I would appreciate thoughts.

I am banned from their talk page but will post the appropriate notice of this report anyway. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AN3 report now closed due to this report being opened. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I get the sense that FloridaArmy is presenting a significant strain on Articles for Deletion. FloridaArmy has a remarkable 63% Keep percentage at AfD [232] which, in itself, is fine. However, their match rate is only 60%. And, drilling down into the actual discussions I get the sense their singular "keep" !vote is often the difference between a definitive close and No Consensus. Further, we both have roughly the same edit count (12-13K), but FloridaArmy has an astonishing 497 articles created - an incredible 46 of which have been deleted. [233] And, from looking at their talk page, many more than that 9% are regularly being subject to CSD and AFD. In short, the entirety of the editing pattern is placing a momentous strain on AFD and monopolizing copious quantities of editor time. Finally, because many of their articles use bare URLs and have no categories [e.g. [234], [235], etc.), it takes a lot of time for everyone (particularly poor Deb and CaroleHenson) to follow FloridaArmy around on the clean-up crew. If they could maybe think about holding-off on the speed-production of stubs for a few months it might give everyone a bit of a breather. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Do the recommendations from Atlantic306 at the Articles posting or my recommendations from me at Edit warring report posting on the user's page make sense?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I also tried to offer recommendations on a couple occasions (here [236] and here [237]) and was told off. However, it's possible yours may see more fruit. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Crickets (nothing, so far anyway).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on the limited sample of this user's articles I have seen I think the suggestions are good. The user should not be creating one liner stubs in article space. Meters (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Murray Hoag was a fascinating discussion. FloridaArmy couldn't even figure out who the subject of their own article was! ansh666 22:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I forgot about that. I was the one who nominated it for deletion as he created a bio on a single person by merging details on two to three different people. Fortunately other editors were able to disentangle it all into a real person instead of a fictional composite person. I don't know if there are other composite characters nestled in the other 495 articles or not. Chetsford (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• There was information about an old fortress (now a separate article Rockfort (Jamaica)) that was mixed in with information about a section of Kingston, Rockfort (Kingston, Jamaica). There was also an issue of a source being used that didn't contain the referenced content.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• FloridaArmy is certainly a problematic editor. Given the large amount of low-quality articles and lack of response to suggestions, is there any support for a topic ban on article creation? Of course articles could always be created as a draft and someone else can move them.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is, it might be worthwhile extending it to also include a moratorium on commenting on AFD. A great many AFDs are decided by just 2 or 3 editors so even a single editor who is significantly and consistently outside the mainstream on their !votes can cause a lot of otherwise definitive closes to go into the netherworld of No Consensus. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Article Creation and AfD ban-I'd support the AfD ban too, Most of the comments are just votes with little to no explanation.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - for the reasons stated above, and understanding that articles could be created in draft mode and moved by someone else to article mode when they are ready.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - permitting FA to continue to create articles through AFC. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban - Obviously let him be allowed create articles through AFC.Per above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as above, but how is this going to be enforced? This editor has no intention to follow Wikipedia's collaborative process - I don't expect them to even bother commenting here. They'll just carry on depositing awful articles like a puppy who isn't house trained, forcing people to follow them around with a pooper scooper until the inevitable ban. They were banned for 48hrs and it had absolutely no effect. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• It was a block, mainly for "ridiculousness". - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• As to enforcement, iff the proposal gains community consensus and shall FA choose to not honor the restrictions, blocks can be imposed and the topic-ban-violating content be removed, per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support both I have engaged with them a few times and while they are eager and polite they simply do not listen. After months they still are leaving bare references etc. That this early inattention has grown to one-line sub-stubs, factual errors and generally problematic articles is disturbing.
  They obviously have the time and inclination to contribute and hopefully the structure of AfC will help them learn how to write acceptable articles and curtail their enthusiastic but problematic submissions. I fear they may instead move to 'improving' existing articles with the same enthusiastic carelessness. Jbh ^Talk 06:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban for a minimum of one month. I have kept out of this discussion until now because I felt involved. I've previously had some flak, notably from User:Doncram and User:RoySmith (both of whom may have some contribution to make here) for being too "harsh" with FA. I admit I have made some mistakes in dealing with him/her. I can get "wound up" on the rare occasions when contributors behave like this, i.e. in a manner that, on the surface, appears helpful but is actually disruptive, and I've possibly gone too far in trying to enforce good practice. My problem with FA is that he/she seems to be capable of making useful contributions but chooses not to do so - a waste of ability rather than a complete lack of it. Deb (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. The flak User:Deb refers to above is this thread. The gist there is people had been telling FA for a long time to use edit summaries, and finally somebody blocked him for not doing so. My objection was that not using edit summaries is a silly thing to block somebody for. But, here we are, months later. People are still telling him to use edit summaries. He's still not doing so. Some things are hard to get right, but this isn't one of those things. Just do it already. But, that's just a proxy for the deeper frustration that he's still producing masses of sub-quality new articles that soak up time and energy cleaning up after. I know I've asked him to concentrate on writing fewer, but higher-quality articles. He's still creating new stubs at a high rate. His comments at AfD are so pointless, I've learned to just ignore them totally. We try to be a welcoming and supportive environment, but there's limits. We're not a social network. Regardless of the informal atmosphere and often chaotic process, we're here to do a serious job, and FA isn't helping. So, yeah, support a TBAN on mainspace creations and XfD/DRV -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Article Creation and AfD ban I'm not sure if this is all CIR or if some of the behavior has a tinge of gaming of the system to get his or her material in (my initial interaction with this editor certainly looked like gaming), but either way the behaviour is disruptive. Meters (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support both Seems a net-drain to users to clean-up after this editor. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support both, especially creation. This user should never move their drafts to mainspace, it should always be left to an independent reviewer. The long, long list of drama on the talk page shows that they have no idea when an article is ready for prime time. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Jbh, he's probably just going to go continue the disruption somewhere else. Let's not start a game of whac-a-mole here. ansh666 07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, We will have to deal with any other form of disruption as and when it happens. It bothers me that they are so obviously ploughing their own furrow here and seem almost always oblivious and/or dismissive of concerns raised, including to the point of making ridiculous arguments or simply ignoring. Not everything they do is poor but enough of it is to create a massive timesink. If that sort of thing spreads elsewhere then CIR would definitely kick in. Or perhaps even NOTHERE. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the comment just added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Holmes regarding moving that article seems to be another demonstration that FA is moving way too fast when creating stuff. It turns out that John R. Holmes is the subject, so no wonder prior commentators could find no sources other than the passing mention added by FA under the original article title. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• That wasn't FA's fault, it was the another user who confused the similar names John R. Holmes (d. 1892) and Joseph R. Holmes (d. 1869), both from Charlotte County, Virginia.

• Oh, maybe I misunderstood... moving too fast in creating an article of someone not notable, and only one source could be found.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• My point was that their rushing to create micro-stubs such as this appears to be based on the flimsiest mention and no further attempt to find sources. That has been causing all sorts of problems. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely!–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have run into more FA articles tonight, though, in the NewPagesFeed and the sources were horribly unreliable blogs / other sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note There have been two occasions in AfD discussions where FloridaArmy has !voted keep based on sources that they couldn't provide, and the worst part was that an admin actually fell for their argument and followed them down the rabbit hole, also !voting keep because they said FloridaArmy had sources. Thankfully those hilariously weak arguments were ignored by the closers. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the main problem is the unfinished and sometimes inaccurate articles (their not all bad) so suggest the proposed mainspace article creation ban be enforced technically by moving FA to ip status and removing page mover function. Carole Henson has kindly offered to help FA and could move their articles to mainspace when she judges that they are ready rather than relying on AFC where the reviewers that are not familiar with US history may not spot inaccuracies, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support restriction to AfC and AfD as proposed above. I'd rather a relaxation of the AfC restriction was undertaken only if there is agreement to do so at a future date (eg: they could appeal to an admin or WP:AN). It is not unreasonable to ask them to prove their learning. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support AfD ban, no opinion on AfC. I will only comment on what I've personally seen of FA, and that is a lot of white noise participation at AfD. Long, impossible to parse comments that remind me of another erstwhile writer of impenetrable AfD monographs: User:SwisterTwister. FA is a net negative at AfD, which is a shame because the forum could use more participation in general — just not this sort of participation. A Train^talk 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support the idea that they should be forced to use AfC when creating articles. I've been active in cleaning up a few articles they've produced and have recommended repeatedly that they ensure articles they create be cited and encyclopedic and have been unable to get a clear response that they understand and intend to do better (most recent such comment is here). I don't see forcing someone to use AfC as a punishment or something to be ashamed of - I use AfC for some of my articles at times for various reasons. It is a reasonable way to ensure that one's new articles are conforming to the community consensus for what is needed to have a new article in the main space. There seems to be a consensus that FloridaArmy is not quite reaching that level in their new articles (even after a grace period for article construction after creation, problems persist), and AfC seems a simple and fair solution. I would suggest on top of that FloridaArmy be limited to submitting one article per week to AfC for a period of four weeks or something like that. FloridaArmy often creates multiple new articles in infancy, and this behavior would not be prevented simply be requiring the use of AfC. Such a restriction would help keep them focused on improving their new article to a good state before submission. Regarding AfD, most articles at AfD are deleted and they and I !vote keep on a number of similar articles, so I would be sorry to see them restricted in that forum. As my feelings are fairly strongly influenced by this personal relationship, I do not feel I should make a suggestion about restriction in that matter. I do agree that FloriaArmy's !votes are sometimes so non-sensical that they are likely to be ignored by a responsible closer and I also agree more AfD participation by other users would be preferred. Smmurphy^(Talk) 10:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support AfD TBan and restriction to AfC as said above. I still think that FA is WP:HERE and many of their article are nice, but the deleted percentage is too high. Restriction to AfC should filter the bad ones. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Article Creation and AfD ban On numerous occasions this user has been asked to justify certain !votes on afd with little or no success. [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] and even !voting a second time after the question has been asked proving it is not just a problem of not watching the pages or seeing the pings [245].Dom from Paris (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support both with the caveat that if at reviewed AfC some note must be made to make sure that the reviewer checks the article for the problems/errors as described above in their articles or to get someone who knows about the topic to review the articles. Also if there are too many bad drafts being submitted to limit that too. At AfD i've seen their !votes generally very ill-thought keep for the sake of it and not very helpful Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment re: current activities I am becoming concerned by the sheer number of notices being posted on FloridaArmy's talk page regarding AfDs, moves to draft space etc. Yes, there are a lot of problematic articles but they must feel absolutely swamped under all the templates etc and while there are numerous people sifting through things, there is only one person on the receiving end. Again, as when I initially made this report, I am unsure what the answer may be. Can the process not be streamlined in some way? - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sitush Good point! I am totally open to suggestions. Perhaps I could summarize what has been posted so far in categories (Moved to draft space, articles for deletion discussion...) with status -- so that it's in list format and collapse the relevant sections underneath the list?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sitush, starting an AfD discussion requires a notice to be placed on the talk page of the article creator & it's not optional. As for editing their talk page, that's up to them - if I thought they would actually listen I'd suggest someone help them set up an archiving script on their page, but seeing as they can't even be bothered to engage here I'm not sure if they care enough about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

We could slow the rate. No-one nominate/draftify more than one article every day or so. There are several people involved, so that would still mean progress at cleaning up the problem areas happens in a fairly timely manner. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What if they create four problematic articles in a day? Do we pick the worst to nominate? Chetsford (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As soon as the proposed restrictions come into play, that effectively becomes a non-issue. They will either get to grips with it in AfC and things will improve through that or, alas, they will give up entirely. Yes, I can imagine AfC reviewers will be sending templates over also but, honestly, being hit over the head about past mistakes must be soul-destroying for most people when it happens in this sort of volume. Even when it is to a large extent self-inflicted. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it, makes sense; I think I misunderstood. Chetsford (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If the net of this discussion is: Leave the talk page the way it is right now, but stop the inflow of moving articles to draft and nominating for deletion, I can stop doing that for a week and then bring it to a trickle. I will just tag articles needing work (since I'm the biggest culprit, by far) for the week. See if some of the nominated articles are resolved by then, and take it from there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I need to point out that these measures to mitigate the flow of templates to FloridaArmy's talk page will only work if the community sanctions are imposed. I don't want someone to misguidedly close this discussion thinking that it's all settled. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Trust the closer. They'll read it. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy is still editing in a confrontational, slapdash way. Is there any chance of an Admin intervening? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand the concerns about his user page. He is literally creating dozens of articles per day. These all pop up on new pages review and will be treated by any one of a number of reviewers. To avoid swamping his user page with notifications we would have to either not patrol his pages or not notify him of our actions. The second is clearly unacceptable and the first makes sense only if it is decided that all his past articles are moved to draft space once the sanctions have been decided. I may have missed it but I didn't see a retroactive ban being proposed. So not patrolling his creations now will only displace the problem because the notifications will have to be made once we start looking at his past creations that are still in the queue at NPP. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Do AfC items appear in new pages review? We had two or three people putting a lot of notices on the page which, although valid, could be done in a slightly less frenetic timespan. Look, I am trying to give FA every opportunity. They are not helping themselves by failing to respond to noticeboard threads etc but that is their privilege. At least if/when it all goes completely wrong they will not be able to blame anyone but themselves. I know in my own mind how this is going to pan out but so be it. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: nope it's 2 different projects, but there are quite a few of us that do both NPP and AFC. The articles appear in the new pages feed once they have been moved to mainspace after having been accepted by a reviewer. (Not sure if a reviewer with autopatrolled rights means it skips NPP feed when moved by them though). The trouble is that we have to review a lot of articles just to tread water and FA is creating a ton of redirects to his creations. I have reviewed literally dozens of his redirects because they are quick wins in keeping on top of the waiting list and only take a few seconds to do if they are alternative spellings or redirects to topics within the article. I have hesitated in reviewing the targets because of the problems with notability and I know it will be very time consuming. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Requesting a swift resolution from someone uninvolved

I'm also concerned about the attitude now being displayed. It has been typical of FA that they try to turn the situation on its head - you point out errors in their referencing, they try to pick holes in your referencing; you improve their wording, they change it again to make it "clearer". And now - you nominate one of their articles for deletion and they accuse you of "bigotry and bias". This will stop when the ban is confirmed. Deb (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support both tbans I've come across this editor's contributions at AfD while patrolling them to find candidates for closure and I've found their comments to be unhelpful (being charitable). Now I've looked at other aspects and I don't think they should be creating articles and just wasting other people's time there too. As for creating articles through AfC, I don't think it's fair to AfC volunteers to have to deal with 10-12 of this in addition to the high load, so if that's the route chosen then there has to be a weekly limit on AfC submissions too. While FA may have the ability to do great things, there's a serious lack of social competence and their attitude is incredibly bothersome. —SpacemanSpiff 07:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:BIO issues at Pogo (electronic musician)

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

---

Some admin eyes needed over there for repeated WP:BIO violations as there is some youtube drama going on currently with the subject of this article.--221.146.49.91 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected, reverted to earlier version and revdel'd. Someone could look and see if we could restore to more recent version. other protocols not suited to high visibility page followed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User Ahunt

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

---

• Reverted a well-supported addition to the article [246]
• Templated my talk page [247]
• Deleted my response on his talk page [248]

Someone please tell him not to do that. --Heptor (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Алан10

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

---

Алан10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The relative new user has performed a variety of edits in many articles, which range from careless and moderately useful [249] to removal of sourced content [250] and outright vandalism [251]. They have got enough warnings at their talk page, but did not respond and continue editing. A block is likely required.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Bloodofox and incivility bordering on personal attack

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

---

All I want is for this to stop, because it's starting to escalate. He posted this item at Talk:Living dinosaur which is false. I removed it as a personal attack but he reinstated this falsehood. He has now started in on my talk page, for which I have been forced to tell him to leave me alone. I don't exactly know what his beef is with me since I didn't mention him in the talk item in question. I really don't care where he posts, but I do care when his attacks spill over to me.

He claims edit warring but I see he was brought to An/I before for edit warring on similar topics. I would have given him a warning on his talk page, but in the past he has just deleted it with warnings happening. But this isn't a post about his editing warring, this is a complaint about him always bringing my name into things. He can't seem to stay on topic without an attack on me. Just make him stop doing that and all is well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• But in this edit you restore a bunch of content, including that Forbidden History source. So how is this a personal attack? Drmies (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's not like I went out and used it as a source. I reverted content that should not have been done in the first place. The article was actually under discussion when it happened. What I object to is the "edit war" attacks that he is formulating at my expense. Plus, is anything that someone ever says or does fair game in an RfC? Because if so, I'd have a whole boatload of stuff I could post on Bloodofox. But that is not what I was taught here at Wikipedia. Are you saying I was taught wrong? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but your comments are all over the place. I'm not even sure what you mean with "that should not have been done in the first place"--"that" doesn't seem to have an antecedent and "done" is unclear. You reverted content that shouldn't have been removed? You reverted but it shouldn't have been reverted? You reverted content that shouldn't have been written? You did restore that content twice (all of it--so you take ownership of all if it, in a way), so edit warring isn't far away. That an article is under discussion doesn't mean its content can't be edited; on the talk page it seems that you are the only one wanting to keep the article as it is. Your "boatload of stuff" about Bloodofox--I would keep that out if I were you because it is irrelevant and makes you look vindictive. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: You're really confusing me here. If an editor makes a bad massive edit, it gets reverted, even if there was some good in it. You are making your own judgement on what should be allowed. But as an administrator you know how this works. Someone spreads lies about edit warring, someone with their own track record of doing so mind you, and then there is tit for tat which gets out of control. Certainly I want it removed and if it's not I have to post all my own trash on Bloodofox. That's not what we're here to do in building an encyclopedia. There is an RfC on what shape an article should take with everyone free to comment on what is the best fit. Along comes Bloodofox with comments about my revert of his article edit. Nothing to do with the RfC, just his own digs for whatever reason. That's what I want stopped. That's what I'm desperately trying to avoid escalating. If you feel that is good editing habits in the middle of an RfC, then I honestly don't know what to say. You're telling me I should do the same thing in responding to that post of his? I certainly can, it's not my style, but I can do it if that's what you feel is best rather trying to stop it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you are saying. You started the RfC after their revert, so there were no bad "editing habits in the middle of an RfC". There are no lies about edit warring since, as I said before, you reverted twice and so "edit warring" is not a crazy allegation. I don't know what their track record has to do with this. "his own digs for whatever reason" is as empty as saying "oh you're just going IDONTLIKEIT". It's pretty clear to me that Bloodofox has arguments, and yeah, fact is you have to take ownership of what you put (back) into article space. And apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't see a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Then I was wrong to bring this incivility report here. As I said, I was taught totally differently in the past at Wikipedia on proper protocol of discussion and what you should be bringing into it; that it should stay on topic rather than making statements about editors on edit warring. The "ownership" item is a bit strange also. When we have an editor make 50 changes to "Roger Federer" in an edit, where two or three may have been good (depending on your point of view), we revert the entire thing as a bad edit. No issues. It is up to the editor who made 47 bad edits to weed through it for the scraps of good edits. My apologies to Bloodofox and to you for bringing this to your attention. You have helped open my eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

See this sass is exactly why you're having problems. You are bringing nothing to the discussion other than a whiny sense of self entitlement even in the face of people telling you that you are wrong. Lose the attitude. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there was no incivility. Second, when you revert you can easily remove something--like a fringe source that another editor has flagged as problematic. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• No evidence has been provided by the OP of a personal attack or a near-personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Forbidden History" material: the information is undeniably WP:FRINGE, but since it is used as a reference supporting the contention that "some cryptozoologists and creationists claim that archaeological evidence supports the existence of living dinosaurs", it is allowable not for the factuality of the matter, but to show that some creationists do indeed make those kinds of claims. Nevertheless, that is a content issue which is not determinable here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's not a personal attack. Get thicker skin. --Tarage (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• I was once informed that I am, in fact, John Podesta. Words can hurt forever... Exemplo347 (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Can an administrator look at this rogue IP?

Resolved

I just noticed that this IP is putting "sock-puppet" notices on random people's talkpages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.178.127.25. I'm not sure where to report this but can someone look at it and deal with it? GreyGoose (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Jzsj topic ban (moved here from AIV)

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

---

• Jzsi Topic Ban March 9, 2018

• Jzsj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is subject to a topic ban regarding schools and education broadly construed. Despite this topic van, he adited at Loreto College, Kolkata (2x), Salve Regina University, Mercy College of Ohio, Saint Xavier University, Georgian Court University, College of Saint Mary, Carlow University, Mount Mercy University, Webster University, Loretto Academy (El Paso, Texas), Colorado Heights University, Loreto College, Coleraine (3x), Loreto College of Rose-Hill, Loreto High School, Chorlton, Loreto College, St Albans, Loreto College, Manchester (2x), Loreto Convent Msongari, Loreto High School, Limuru, Loreto Secondary School, Navan, Loreto Secondary School, Kilkenny, Loreto Convent Secondary School, Letterkenny, Loreto College, Mullingar, Loreto College, Foxrock, St. Agnes' Loreto Day School, Loreto Schools, Kolkata, Loreto Convent, Tara Hall, Shimla, Loreto Convent School, Delhi, Loreto Convent Lucknow, Loreto Convent, Darjeeling, Loreto Convent, Asansol, Loreto Normanhurst, Loreto Mandeville Hall, Loreto Kirribilli, Loreto Convent, Claremont, Loreto College, Victoria. User has been blocked before for violating the topic ban. I do not believe that it was just an oversight, as claimed here: User talk:Jzsj#I see you're editing schools again. The Banner talk 19:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Banner I am moving this thread here from AIV, where I think it needs to be dealt with additionally. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please inform me where "here" is. Possibly just an oversight. @Maile66: Jzsj (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Um... where you just posted? EEng 20:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have informed you at your talkpage about the move, about half an hour earlier than this question... The Banner talk 20:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

One edit would be an "oversight". 39 edits however is a different story. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That's 39 edits out of about 130 between 6:43 May 30 and 18:00 June 1. None of the quick edits were more substantial than linking to the new article on Religious sister or in a few cases linking to the congregation's website. I suppose it was because I was mainly just working on the "religious sister" link that it didn't occur to me that I had strayed into articles on the sisters' schools. The notice has been duly received and the offense will not be repeated. Jzsj (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Buddy, if I were under a topic ban that I had been blocked for before, I sure as hell would be extra careful not to do anything to violate it again. This is incompetent editing at best and toeing a bright line to see what you can get away with at worst. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made no effort to have the ban removed and am in no rush to edit school articles (except if the ban is removed I'd like to restore the sections on institutes at Regis U. and Fairfield U. that were deleted as articles and not restored to the schools' websites). Jzsj (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What I see are 44 edits between "04:12, 1 June 2018" and "14:48, 1 June 2018", of which only 5 were not in breach of your topic ban. The Banner talk 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Strike two. Not only did you bright line violate your topic ban, but you have ideas in your head about what you want to do should you get the ban removed. That proves you are still thinking about the subject area you shouldn't even be bothering with. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in doubt about where to go. here or AIV. I have chosen the wrong venue. Thanks for the move. The Banner talk 20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Correction in the original text: User has been blocked before for violating the topic ban. (added link) The Banner talk 20:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apply the block. I don't think anyone would object. --Tarage (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Jzsj for 72 hours for topic ban evasion. One edit is an oversight. 39 edits, or as stated above "39 edits out of about 130 between 6:43 May 30 and 18:00 June 1", which is 30% of the edits made in that time, were made to pages they are topic banned from. At best it's negligence, at worst it's trying to skirt the line of the topic ban. Either way, with a previous block for ban evasion I fell that 72 hours is warranted. Jzsj, you're not to edit pages on schools per your ban, period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Nick 5555

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

---

Nick 5555 is ingageing in disruptive editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E8F:8ED0:D543:25E5:A1D9:3DA7 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I see one edit from the user, and nothing disruptive about that edit. - Donald Albury 21:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a User: Nick 5555 at all. We need a little more to go on here, like diffs, examples of the disruption. The Moose 00:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not a space. This is the revision the IP must have been referring to. It isn't disruptive, if anything a tad overly politically correct. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Edit: that is from 2010, and the link doesn't work. This one works, though. The IP is not being constructive. 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't notice the date. So is there something else I'm not seeing? - Donald Albury 01:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is spurious, and probably some form of LTA. The /64 has two other diffs asking for sanctions against Nick 5555555 (with a varying number of 5s) and no context. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• power~enwiki, thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor maintaining list of 'problem' users.

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

---

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is maintaining a list of 'problem' users contrary to the provisions of WP:POLEMIC. I removed the list in accordance with the provision given at WP:POLEMIC. ZH8000 has restored the list claiming I should have not removed it ([diff]. WP:POLEMIC clearly states that such list are permitted provided they are used in a timely manner. As the list was created in November 2016, I would suggest that any timely use is long passed and the list should be deleted. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheVicarsCat: A link to said list would be helpful.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be the list of IPs in this talk page diff that TheVicarsCat linked to above. A Train^talk 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

<<ec>> ::Oh. I see. Not quite as presented, is it? I don't think you should be removing content form their talk page either. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Have I misinterpreted something? I am not as experienced as some and pointers are always welcome. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right that ZH80000 is maintaining a list of problem editors. It's just that this seems like a pretty straightforward collection of problematic recurring IP vandals and not a Richard Nixon-style enemies-list like your post appears to suggest. I'm not sure there's any action to take here. A Train^talk 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The list appears (or appeared) to be the pre-cursor to an attempt by ZH8000 to make a sock-puppetry case to remove an editor who was disagreeing with him (and there seems to be a history of this). Having had a look at the list of addresses, they are most likely a single editor with a dynamic IP address making good faith edits (though lacking sourcing). It is no coincidence, that this gambit was recently attempted here, where three unrelated IP editors (two dynamic IPs and a third static IP - all from different continents) were accused of sock-puppetry with no evidence other than that they were disagreeing with him over a point where he was plain wrong (the subject of separate action elsewhere). Further, he had included IP editors who were completely unconnected with the subject dispute, though were IP editors who had disagreed with him elsewhere, in an artificial attempt to bolster his case (or kill two birds with one stone).

So why does WP:POLEMIC not apply here as has been suggested? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to collect data for use in a report such as an SPI or a request for a range block. Such information should not be permanent, but should exist for as much time as needed to accumulate the information and file the report. In any case, this is not a stand-alone list, it is part of a discussion between editors. It appears to be legitimate, and not a violation of POLEMIC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of a list on a subpage, this is a post on their talkpage, as a reply to another user.--Auric talk 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW if anyone wants to check, here are the two most common ranges: Special:Contributions/65.129.128.18/17 and Special:Contributions/67.1.109.60/16. ansh666 19:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen (and ladies?). If nothing else, I may have learnt something so something good came of it. I think this can probably be knocked on the head. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Dan56

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry this is a few days late, but Dan56 has been engaged in disruptive editing for quite a while now. First he opens a petty RfC over something we'd been arguing about and does so without even notifying me. Then we get into a needlessly lengthy discussion that went pretty much nowhere about a minor edit I made ([252]; I mistakenly thought it would go somewhere), and he does things like this:

• Accuses me of "misrepresenting publications/sources" ([253])
• Says things like this ([254]) when I say we should wait for more input because it isn't going anywhere
• Accuses me of not giving guidelines ([255]) when I clearly did ([256])
• Accuses me of having an agenda ([257])
• Claims not to understand what I'm saying when I've made my position perfectly clear and additionally implies that the whole thing makes no sense ([258], [259]; my position: [260], [261]; note the "0_0" at the end of his first comment)
• Opens a petty RfC about it and words it in an entirely non-neutral way
• Refuses to give up on it four months later and then claims there have been no attempts made to address his concerns ([262])
• Makes questionable assertions at best ([263])
• Says things that simply aren't true ([264]; see [265], [266], and [267])
• Plays dumb ([268], [269])
• Accuses me of saying things that aren't entirely relevant ([270])

Especially in light of his past behavior (see this and this), if this isn't an attempt to exhaust my patience and discourage other editors from engaging in discussion with him, I don't know what is. Someone please do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just on the first point, while the RFC was exceedingly small, he may have thought it was necessary to gain consensus as you had been repeatedly edit warring to keep an instance of bad grammar in the article. Fish+Karate 14:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize we were edit warring (to an extent), but what? Bad grammar? I don't know what you're talking about, and you don't need RfC's for bad grammar anyway. Esszet (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that? See here and here for examples of the sentence without the verb (as well as lots of others). Esszet (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the |all_writing= parameter in {{album ratings}} yields "All tracks written by…" Esszet (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

…Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being impatient, I'm used to getting very quick responses here. Esszet (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and Karate: Did I do something wrong here? Esszet (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• This seems like a fairly innocuous content dispute that is being dragged out not by Dan's bludgeoning, but in the failure of the RfC to garner a consensus after a full run and a relist period, as determined by an uninvolved editor. Dan wants the publication's title, you want the actual column within the publication's title, but as of May 2018, the impasse has continued. After being relisted a second time, a third opinion was proposed, with the reasonable solution that both titles be used, which Dan said he was open to a compromise. You're stonewalling the proposed compromise, because using both "seems a little excessive" and it's not precedented, as far as we know. But does that really matter? It's so minor. Would anyone care if we did so? This incredibly minor dispute has been going on for four months, and you're still unwilling to accept an obvious compromise solution? Also, given that Dan was slapped with a boomerang 1RR restriction the last time he complained about you, shouldn't you be happy that he's using RfCs rather than edit warring, however "petty"? Compromise is an essential part of dispute resolution, especially when formal consensus-building methods aren't helping. You claim the RfC should be abandoned and closed in favor of a 1-3 consensus, but it has already been determined that there is not a sufficient consensus, and that has not changed since the second relist. What has changed, is that Dan has proposed a compromise, an obvious middle ground. I think maybe you just need to let it go and settle on a compromise. FWIW, I've reviewed your diffs, and I don't think there's anything actionable there. Swarm ♠ 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You really think Dan's bludgeoning isn't dragging this out? You really don't? You think it's just fine not to give up on a petty RfC four months later? And you're saying I should be happy because he's opening RfC's like this and used to be even worse? Since it is so minor, please tell me why it's acceptable for him to bludgeon the hell out of it and for him not to let it go. What you're saying is that stomping your feet for months on end should not only be accepted in this case, but approved of because it used to be even worse. Really? I really think you have something against me for some reason. I'm not here to try to resolve the dispute itself; if it closes in favor of "Village Voice", so be it. But if you think his behavior isn't part of an obscene attempt to drive away productive editors, I don't know what to tell you. I really don't. Esszet (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Dan's comments are too concise for me to view them as attempted "bludgeoning", and in spite of the length of the dispute, the sheer number and volume of comments has not crossed into the territory of being disruptive. Bludgeoning is what we see here; endless debate, replies and discussion that makes effective dispute resolution impossible. I understand that it must be incredibly frustrating to be involved in a minor content dispute that drags on for that obscenely long, but I don't agree that Dan is intentionally disrupting the dispute resolution process. Dan did not choose for the 1-3 RfC to not be closed in your favor; it was an experienced uninvolved editor who made that call. Swarm ♠ 00:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Three things: 1) the RfC hasn't even closed yet (although someone did call for it to be) 2) it should be pretty obvious that he is just trying to drag this out for as long as he possibly can and make it as frustrating as possible 3) even if it is in…good faith (and I highly doubt it), as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is disruptive behavior, even if he somehow doesn't realize it. Something needs to be done about it. Esszet (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

1) The RfC hasn't closed because an uninvolved editor has relisted. Dan had nothing to do with it. 2) Dan didn't extend the RfC, but he did open the door for a compromise, which you closed. 3) Your individual diffs do not represent a pattern of disruption, IMO. Of course, other admins are here to disagree, so I'll bow out and you can wait and see if you have any luck with someone else. Swarm ♠ 19:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He sure as hell could have given up on it, even if he didn’t extend it per se (pointing that out seems a little bit like Wikilawyering). That’s all I’m gonna say about that. Esszet (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Does NO ONE on here seriously think that REFUSING TO GIVE UP ON ANY RFC FOUR MONTHS LATER ISN'T disruption?!!? I really don't know what to say to that, I really don't. Esszet (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Esszet, I really recommend you don't get yourself worked up over this. Disruptive behaviour is normally more widespread than a dispute between two individuals, but the latter can send good contributors running from the project because they can't take the stress. I would suggest you take a break from this dispute, concentrate on other articles for the time being. If you feel Dan56 is not meeting you halfway, maybe an intermediary could help? Deb (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It really is hard NOT to get worked up when no one wants to do ANYTHING about it. If it isn't widespread enough to warrant sanctions, AT LEAST give him a warning or something. I think it's pretty clear he's trying to drive me away; if you at least give him a warning, it can be used against him if it does become widespread. Esszet (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know it is. That's why I'm telling you not to do it. The problem is that not everyone agrees with you that he is being disruptive, so giving him a warning is not on, unless you are willing to share the blame for the dispute. Take my advice (as one who has been getting upset by incidents here since 2002), it's counter-productive. I really do sympathise, but the time has come to just accept and save your energy for another day. Please take this advice. Deb (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You want me to share the blame, fine, but at least do something about it. Esszet (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's just suppose that Dan56 has been disruptive. Do you not think that the existence of the above discussion will be enough to make him consider his future actions more carefully? So don't you think that your action in raising this issue has been successful and that something has been done about it? Deb (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to get kind of suspicious here, but no, I don't, his past behavior (see this and this) should make that quite clear. Esszet (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not siding with him and there is no reason for you to be suspicious. I am just offering you the benefit of my own experience. But you can see that no one is going to come chasing after you if you decide to leave the project - I just would prefer if you didn't. Deb (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you know what? If "giving him a warning is not on, unless you are willing to share the blame for the dispute", I'll take some of the blame, alright? All I'm asking for is a warning here, I don't think that's too much to ask. Esszet (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now you both have a warning for disruptive editing on your talk pages. I hope that is a satisfactory resolution. Deb (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User Koppadasao

I'm reporting a user Koppadasao who has been notified of conduct issues several times within a short period
this edit (and accompanying edit summary) are starting to get uncivil.

• There's a pattern of soapboxing going on and various editors have mentioned this to the editor who typically reverts any notifications made to his or her talk page within an hour or so as shown here
• Editor also seems determined to utilize the Tommy Robinson talk page to start non article related discussions.
• Also worrying is a tendency to misquote or misrepresent Wikipedia policies to other editors, as shown here
• In summary this editor is doing everything within his or her power to disrupt and stir up trouble among a group of editors on a controversial issue. I'm personally worried about the in-wiki canvassing and don't like the incivility or the abrupt refusals to communicate with editors who disagree or notify him or her about conduct issues. A scantily mitigating factor in all of the above is that (flatteringly) the editor appears to be under the impression that I'm an admin. Edaham (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• As Koppadasao feels Wikipedia is a "left wing propaganda site", I think he serves an outside agenda and is thus WP:NOTHERE. I'm at work, so I won't be adding more dif's soon, but I feel a pattern is emerging.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 10:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I have blocked this account indefinitely for using Wikipedia as a mean to engage in soapbox and revoked talk page access after continued battleground approach on their user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not saying this wasn't a good block but you revoked talk page access because he undid edits? That seems wrong. --Tarage (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(EC) The block may be good but I'm confused by the removal of talk page access. Am I missing something? AFAICT, the only thing they did there are being blocked was removed a bunch of content via reversion (and standard reversion summaries) [271]. This included the block notice. It did not include any declined unblock requests. Therefore this seems to comply with WP:BLANKING and the removals should have been left to stand and talk page access could also have been kept. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Tarage Nil Einne Another uninvolved administrator is free to restore the talk page access if a simple consensus emerges here, I will have no objections. To comment on WP:BLANKING; I have absolutely no issues with blocked editors removing comments on their talk page appropriately using the edit button; however I disagree that aggressive use of undo button ([272]) against several recent edits with no edit summary makes an appropriate case for blanking; in my opinion, this is more of a reflection on the battleground approach which is consistent with their recent contributions. I am happy to self-revert if consensus is against my understanding. Alex Shih (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the nothereness of the meta user page, might need more global cleanup.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I need to undo something from an article I am wont to spam undo if there have been a ton of edits. I don't think that's justification for removing the talk page access. It's their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I blocked an obvious sock, User:KoppaFreeTommy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyway to block and delete the user page globally?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Xaosflux has kindly deleted the meta user pages and blocked both accounts on meta. So it is fine now. Alex Shih (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the socking and the use of the meta to further their soaping/disruption, removing talk page access was preventative and reasonable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: and @Alex Shih: - those meta actions have been disputed. If you want to follow up you can at meta:RFH. You certainly can deal with any aspect that is approriate on enwiki here (user block, page delete, page blank/protect). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented there as well, but had little more to add. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a fan of block justifications after the fact but whatever. I guess I'm fighting a lost cause here. --Tarage (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih:, @Dlohcierekim: Whatever the problems with this editor, I'm fairly disgusted by what's happened here. Tarage is right it's unacceptable to say after the fact 'well turns out we were right' when there was no justification at the time. I don't see why we should be punishing people for the way they choose to blank their page provided it isn't clearly disruptive. And I don't see how undo can ever be clearly disruptive, only edit summaries could be. We should also remember that plenty of people may be confused how to revert to an older version without undo and sometimes it's simply easier. I was attempting to revert to the editor's preferred version but because there were so many confusing edits, I myself found it easier to simply undo. (In retrospect I should have just edited an earlier version but I was trying to work out how to restore some intervening edits and was hoping I could via multiple undos. Eventually I decided they served no purpose anyway so gave up. I was annoyed enough that I wasn't thinking straight but I don't think I was WP:POINT although I admit that I'm angry enough that maybe it could have been part of my motivation.) But perhaps the big kicker here. One of the key reasons why there were so many undos was precisely because they were incorrectly undid. I mean WTF? How can you fault someone for undoing then you yourself undo something they were perfectly entitled to remove? Undoing them was even more aggressive and in now way did it actually improve things. The best solution, if you really felt one was necessary, was simply to advise them to remove without using undo. But undoing yourself because they evidentally weren't entitled to undo stuff they were perfectly entitled to remove because undoing is 'aggressive'? Pot calling the kettle black much? Disgusting, no two ways about it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add I'm not even convinced that the new justification for talk page removal is correct. Sure they socked. But as far as I can tell all they did was post a good luck message on some editor's talk page. Blocking them as a sock was clearly right and removing talk page access for the sock also clearly right. But there's no particular reason to think they would have continued to do anything in particular on their talk page and if they had done so, this could have been dealt with then. I mean if anything, them posting the 'good luck' message on their talk page would have been less disruptive than them socking, even if both were wrong. And you know what the stupidest thing? This is clearly someone we don't want here on en.wikipedia. They could have been simply handled fairly and everyone would be glad for it. Instead they were treated attrociously wrong and I find myself feeling some minor sympathy for someone who for many reasons I would normally feel none. WTF are we here when the editor could have simply been treated fairly? You know by not removing talk page access for having the audacity to use the undo button to effect WP:BLANKING when they may not have been familiar with the alternatives, were not informed of the alternatives, and the person punishing them for having the audacity to use the undo button, went and fucking used the undo button themselves to undo stuff that the editor was perfectly entitled to remove? And yes I do think this is a big deal. When I first responded I was minorly annoyed about what I saw as a clear ignorance of blanking, and I'm now fucking pissed that an admin thinks it's okay to punish someone for using the undo button, when said admin themselves think it's okay to 'correct' this by undoing back. I'm normally the sort of person who rolls their eyes when people say admins tend to apply one rules to non admins and one rule to themselves thinking it's utter nonsense. But I've seen enough here (and previously) that I'm now starting to think they're right. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP is now very backlogged

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

---

There are 29+ remaining requests there, can some admins deal with it, thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh Seriously, you don't have to post everytime there is a small backlog. This should be at WP:AN anyway instead of ANI. Alex Shih (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih Really? I think it is a big backlog. So how many is small/big to you? Hhkohh (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

I made an update to a Marvel Comics page, and it undid my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekinraptor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reporting a false positive result for Cluebot should be done at User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I rather suspect the phrase, "Colossus is a homosexual..." is what tripped it. Such a phrase is generally more likely to be vandalism than genuine content. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Deny talkpage access for blocked IP

Resolved

2A00:23A8:4C18:C000:B9A2:311F:9F17:72A3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) can somebody please deny this person talkpage access? DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Done by DoRD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please fix page move made during AFD

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

---

Can an admin please move User:Susheel Kumar Singh back to Susheel Kumar Singh? It's in the middle of an AFD. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This item has been deleted as A7. See also Draft:Susheel Kumar Singh and User:Susheelbhai/sandbox — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Please revoke talk page access for User:Jenulot

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

This user was blocked yesterday as a vandalism-only account. The user is now just posting useless templates on their talk page to waste the time of administrators. An admin may want to review and revoke talk page access if appropriate. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki personal attacks in articles

• Ideological bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him to be less flattering than Gongwool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left it (Gongwool turned out to be a sockpuppet, imagine that). He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.

He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([273]). I disagree.

I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point from JzG, Gongwool had nothing to do with Martin. That account and their socks added multiple BLP violations to an already negative article, and did not make it "less flattering", but more of a BLP nightmare. - Bilby (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, fair, I was misremembering. I had also forgotten how determinedly you downplayed the antivax bullshit in that article. Which pissed me off quite a bit, but I think that in the end it was mainly better. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I made the mistake of trying to make it compliant with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable people may differ on how specific content may be shaded in an article. I hope we are both reasonable people. I don't doubt your commitment to BLP, but am still disquieted by the extent to which you have defended antivaxers and charlatans. However, we can discuss that article by article, as we always have - in the end if we both edit an article it is generally better than if only one of is did, or neither, in my view. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote up about this study and several other scholarly studies when creating the new article "Ideological bias on Wikipedia". Here is the source of the study written by Brian Martin (paywalled, but reproduced here) and User:JzG is specifically identified and criticized by the author. This represents a very clear WP:Conflict of interest and JzG should distance himself from this topic. I believe his complaints about other content are potentially valid, but I think his COI is interfering with his overall objectivity with regards to other content of the article (like Conservapedia, a section which I did not wrote, but incorporated from other articles on Wikipedia). I tried to address this with JzG personally, but they've now recently gone around and removed this study from several pages it was mentioned on. They've also has opened Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ideological bias on Wikipedia and now this. I bear no ill-will to JzG. This has nothing to do with any prior interactions I've had with JzG. My edit of this study (22 May) predates his comment on the AE thread (23 May) and so has nothing to do with that. In fact I respect his fair take on that AE and would never take any opportunity to attack him, and that respect led me to go to him personally, but I was told obliquely to "fuck off". -- Netoholic @ 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "scholarly study". Some of the ones you included are - they examine numerous articles and analyse trends, using objective measures over time. This is an article subject saying "look how much more flattering this other article on my rival is" and taking a pop at a named editor (yes, me) for reflecting the mainstream view of his promotion of the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and other antivax conspiracist claptrap. And even where the work you cite is scholarly, you have cherry-picked from primary sources. In fact, your article on ideological bias in Wikipedia is starting to look an awful lot like your personal essay based on your recent repeated failure to gain traction in a number of articles where you assert that Wikipedia has an ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What a troublesome situation it would be if all one had to do to disqualify a Wikipedian from a topic was to criticize their edits on that topic in an off-wiki paper. If JzG were to begin approaching these subjects in a different way (e.g. if he had been writing about Martin positively, but then took a negative view after publication of that article, or if he had not previously edited Martin's biography and received criticism from Martin on a different subject, then began criticizing Martin directly -- neither of which is the case, as far as I can tell), there would be a problem. Continuing to take the stance that got him mentioned by Martin to begin with is just being consistent and in no way constitutes a COI problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Another issue that should be raised here, separately from anything about the Martin issue (with which I am not familiar), is that it is emerging at Talk:Political views of American academics#Paul Hollander and Talk:Political views of American academics/Archive 2#Representative presentation of sources that Netoholic appears to have been misrepresenting sources (cherrypicking) in order to push a conservative POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic is under an AE TBAN warning, logged here at 04:08, 24 May 2018, against using admin boards to further a content dispute. Their above at 21:10, 25 May 2018 in which they chose to carry on the the content dispute with Guy, expressed not even a nod toward that TBAN warning, and was unnecessary and unwise at best.

Guy said of Netoholic: "So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea". I agree with that. As Netoholic actually had the cohones to try to use COI as a bludgeon, to warn Guy off from removing this lunatic fringe paper (as Netoholic described differently in their comment above). Completely unaware of their own' COI, both with respect to WP itself and with respect to their conflict with Guy. Abusing one's editing privileges to use WP to attack an admin with which one was in a dispute, is, in my view, beyond "not ...an especially good idea" but rather clueless and .. well, just plain bad, and they also express no awareness of the badness and is somewhere between BLPCOI and HA.

With respect to Trypto's note about cherry-picking, I just analyzed their sourcing and use of sources at Ideological bias on Wikipedia in this diff, and the same thing is going on there.

I don't think this person intends to honor their TBAN has heeded that warning nor are they here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC))

Netoholic isn't T-banned according to that log, Jytdog, but is warned not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia. It's not the same thing. That said, Netoholic may be topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned, if he persistently ignores the warning. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for the pointing out my mistake. It is not the same thing. Fixed. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• The page Ideological bias on Wikipedia has been kept after a "no consensus" AfD discussion. I have opened a discussion about "COI" considerations" at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia. We'll see if anything useful can be worked out. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Closed that and restarted a new one Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia_2 Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• At this point, the COIN discussion looks like it has run its course, and a related AE has been closed with no action, so I suggest that this can be closed and archived now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG should be topic-banned from any mention of Brian Martin

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

---

User:JzG is named in Brian Martin's paper "Persistent bias on Wikipedia: methods and responses," published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Social Science Computer Review (2017). Martin wrote that "admin JzG (aka Guy) rewrote most of my Wikipedia entry, turning it into an attack on my reputation. In the following months, this negative framing was maintained, primarily by JzG and editor Gongwool." Martin wrote that User:JzG deleted positive material, removing text about his achievements and deleting the list of his works, and added negative material. Notwithstanding his obvious COI, User:JzG on 25 May 2018 began scrubbing mention of Martin's analysis of the edits made to his BLP—and thus mention of User:JzG. The first such removal came at 15:16. Despite a good faith effort by User:Netoholic to reason with User:JzG, the latter continued scrubbing such entries, resuming at 18:06, again at 19:54, another at 21:11, and yet again at 21:29. Since User:JzG has demonstrated his disdain for Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, he should be topic-banned from any edits relating to Brian Martin. KalHolmann (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. Off-wiki criticism of on-wiki actions does not make a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No No evidence for a conflict of interest. Plenty of evidence for a butt-hurt academic. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No reason to believe this is a COI problem. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No Topic banning an editor because an article's subject names them off-site sets a bad precedent. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment WP:BLPCOI: "An editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." I don't think a topic ban is needed, but in accordance with the BLP precautionary spirit it would be best if someone else handled the situation. I mean, it's not exactly the best look for integrity when JzG is creating a thread about an article he is mentioned in, on the fringe theory noticeboard [274]. Also it seems like JzG is unnecessarily personalizing the dispute there, speculating that Netoholic's main motivation appears to be his repeated failure to change articles due to Wikipedia's "ideological bias". I agree that it's problematic that this only came to be after the academic mentioned him in the article; but it also means it's already a multi-step "rivalry". --Pudeo (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No - I see no COI here, and as has been mentioned, TBANning an editor because a subject mentions them off-wiki sets a perverse precedent that could allow subjects to game the system. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No to topic banning re "any mention of Brian Martin", but it would probably be a good idea for Guy to let someone else handle anything relating to this paper by Martin critical of him. EEng 23:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• No - It is absurd to suggest that someone outside Wikipedia could determine who should not edit an article about them. Moriori (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - This appears to be in retaliation for WP:AN#KalHolmann. Not saying it is for sure, just that it appears to be. Swarm ♠ 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. Also, a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a trout to the filer for rewriting history. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• No, obviously, per what I wrote just above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Keble College Boat Club

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

---

• Keble College Boat Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 129.67.117.139 (talk · contribs)
• 192.76.8.79 (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced and promotional content and non notable persons (Coaches, student atheletes}, removal of maintenance templates. Attempted ownership by COI accounts at Oxford. General disruptions in last few days. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The only disruption I can see is the removal of the names of club officers & club coaches (which are verfied with reliable sources). These being displayed is consistent with what is displayed on the pages of other College boat clubs, and also the clubs are student run so saying that while the boat club is notable enough to have it's page, the people who run it cannot be named is just plain insulting, as well as a contradiction of the notability guidelines clearly stating they are about whether something warrants an article, not about whether facts can be included in an article. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• By the way, this seems to have passed for a logical statement in defense of Oxford's edits [275]. Other Oxford rowing articles were cited as examples; they, too, could use some objective oversight. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Institutions may be notable, but the students who temporarily head them--in this case a university boating club--are probably not. Their omission may be interpreted as insulting by themselves or similarly associated conflict of interest accounts. It is disruptive to have an undeclared COI interest, and insist on inserting your or associates' names into an encyclopedia. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article clearly states that "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it.",so the criteria of Notability is not relevant to whether or not the names of Captains & Coaches can be included. The page then goes on to link to the content policies. Please show a reference to a content policy that means this information cannot be included in the article. I agree there was originally some biased language in the article (likely edited by another student), that has now been removed, and everything on the article is now properly sourced and relevant. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • While that's a guideline, I don't recall seeing it applied to permit non notable individuals to be listed in school and university articles. Unfortunately, your credibility resides between slim and none at the moment, given the refusal to acknowledge WP:COI, and the little matter of coming to my talk page to call me an asshole. I'm hoping that suggests you're an underclassman and not a faculty member. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's just wait for an admin to make a proper ruling on this - I did read the COI page but I didn't think there was anything to discuss about it. If the ruling is against the current club officers & coaches being listed, then it should also be equally applied to all the other Oxford Rowing related-pages. 129.67.117.139 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Admins don't adjudicate content disputes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated upload of copyvio images

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

---

Sri Harsha Malempati (talk · contribs)

Editor has continued to upload copyvios after numerous warnings and a final warning. They also reuploaded a copyvio after it was deleted once. I'm asking for a block due to repeated copyvios with no evidence that they understand copyright or are willing to abide by our policy on the matter. --Majora (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor an indefinite block, making it clear that they will be unblocked if they make a firm commitment to stop uploading copyvios. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Prisencolin

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

---

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

After reverting an unneeded hatnote at Africa, I have looked at this user's contributions and am concerned by their overall editing pattern. These include:

• Adding an unneeded hatnote at Papa John's Pizza
• Adding a ridiculous note to Cleveland school shooting, and creating Grover Cleveland shooting as a redirect to that.
• Creating -. .. --. --. . .-. as a redirect to Nigger (dog).
• Creating SoSoCal and SoSoSoCal as redirects to parts of Baja California, terms which appear to be entirely of their own imagination.

I'm not entirely sure what, but I feel something needs to be done. Based on the volume of concerns on their talk page and their limited response, I doubt there will be any useful result from a discussion there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I was wondering when Prisencolin's name would pop up here. Throughout the few years I've been aware of them, their presence has been hallmarked by not really minding other editors. It's always been them creating hundreds of low-quality, usually ambiguous articles, with over a quarter of them getting deleted, but never changing their ways. There was actually a Village Pump discussion about having higher standards for esports articles and even when it was pointed out, they created about twenty new poor-quality articles before the discussion was over. I mean, it's been years of deletion templates, warnings and queries for discussion and they just haven't changed or been receptive by a molecule. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've deleted those redirects per WP:R3. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Smell a troll here Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Perplexingly, his contribs are not entirely disruptive/meaningless. Split-personality? Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To further qualify my above statements, and having quickly glanced through his contribs, this is clearly not any troll -- he demonstrates a remarkable level of sophistry and a good grasp of key policies. If only he put all his talent to "Good" use. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Warning posted. I've posted on the editor's page asking them to state whether or not they're here for any other purpose than to waste other editors' time, and warned them to explain themselves either here or there before making further edits to other pages. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

• My warning was ignored, so I've blocked the user for a week, with a renewed invitation to communicate. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

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

Photo of Jean Stern

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

---

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2017090210005078 alleges permission of File:Jean Stern, Director of the Irvine Museum.jpg. Please assess the validity of that allegation and mark as {{subst:PermissionOTRS}} or otherwise appropriately. I already post this in OTRS board but was archived with no request. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I advised Jean Stern (subject of the photo) that the copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject. Miniapolis 23:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless it was work for hire, in which case the copyright belongs to the person who paid for the work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

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

---

Hi, An editor (Midnights1) claiming to be Kate Osamor had posted this yesterday - Not sure if anything should be done but thought I'd post here incase it should, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a legal threat if ever I've seen one. She- assuming it's a really her- needs to be indef'd. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an example though where WP:DOLT should be considered. Specifically in completely leaving out Osamor's response to the accusation. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but regardless, it's a posed legal threat by someone. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Forgot to check back on this so just wanted to say thanks all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and removing comments on talk page by alexson_97

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

---

I would done a rfc or leave this to asking for help at the help desk, till the user began removing my comments from the talk page [[276]] and a very sneaky edit.

A disgruntled former student of Kursk State Medical University, seems to be here on only to discredit the school and other Russian Medical Schools. His main tactic thus far has been to reduce the article to a stub (here is what it was before he came [[277]]) and then list criticisms of Russian medical schools in general, 3 of then not mentioning this university specifically [[278]]. After much reversion and explaining why this wasn't kosher, he very craftily uploaded a file to the commons of the one source that does mention it- and buried links to the other three that don't, in the file! [[279]] While I don't respect that level of sneakery, ya gotta admire the creativity.

He refuses to talk about these issues on the talk page, and is now removing the list of things I see as problematic from the talk page. Along with trying similar tactics on other Russian Medical Universities [[280]] [[281]]

A little humor amidst a all this- he he is convinced I paid off one of his sources to vanish [[282]]. TantraYum (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This post should be delete since you are leaking the identity of editor .http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/family-demands-answers-on-medical-students-death-in-russian-hostel/ . https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/06/11/russia-hostel-fire-victim-dies-kelantanborn-student-to-be-buried-in-tumpat/ . http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20110811093831853 . I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ? I had been grievous hurt(criminal case) by sri lanka student , but the university decided to protect their fame and because sri lankan compose a big bulk of students and is their major source of income ,thus threaten me not to report to the police(while my russian is not so good yet) , force me to sign the fake document that I am wrong and sorry for everything. LOL the victim say sorry to the offender .And you are thinking you are the justice ? Nice paid editor . TantraYum said (the one that does mention this school is a first hand account on a blog.) No , its the article of esquire that you paid to put down , but I did have backup . I could give you the original source , but I afraid that you will report it and take it down again . Of course , it meets the reliable , published source criteria . TantraYum said he gonna built this marvelous advertisement back. [[283]] For this , the whole page is advertisement without source , and you are supporting it . Nice paid editor . In wikipedia , everything must be source . Why there are not much victim stand out ? Because survival bias , dead man don't speaks , but I am not afraid of it . Alexson 97 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Brother I am so sorry that happened to you- it sounds awful.

I despise, hate and oppose people being treated like that. I would LOVE to expose ANYONE who treats people that way.

AND Wikipedia has very strong guidelines about how are articles are written and how editors interact with each other.

You have broken A LOT of those guidelines in a very short time. I have pointed this out to you many times, with no response and no willingness to discuss them, and in fact your behavior has gotten worse.

And now we're here.

End of story. TantraYum (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course , since you are trying to bring back the great capitalism advertisement by trying to lure new editors together in for your job , that's why I forced to revert your propaganda . Don't try to twist the guidelines . If corruption is common disease among Russia University , and whole Kursk State Medical University is under Russia University category , thus we can conclude that corruption is also common disease among Kursk State Medical University . TantraYum should improve his Math , so that he does not need a life of PAID editor . Alexson 97 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ?, right above. I think this deserves a WP:CIR block.

you are trying to bring back the great capitalism advertisement by trying to lure new editors together in for your job , that's why I forced to revert your propaganda, Brother, you are WP:NOTHERE. byteflush _Talk 05:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saving life , fighting the capitalism .And you are thinking you are the justice ?

It is a metaphor , people should have rights to know what is happening inside , thus could think twice before falling in("saving life"), but not the sugar coat of agents which earn a load by it ("fighting the capitalism") . To tell you , I gave up profession of QS world rank 50 due to the sugar coat of agents. Alexson 97 (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• OK, this is copper-plated WP:GREATWRONGS. I doubt the editor would be able to ever edit dispassionately here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1932344/all . All link are 404 , due to the time or taken down , but thestar are the largest newpaper in Malaysia . That time when I know about this university , I am at another country , thus with other country ip address , the search only show the advertisement article on wikipedia(WHO recogniton , ~.~ , WHO is very busy and no time to do such stuff ) and all others agents promoting website , and I paid the fees before I went back to Malaysia . Alexson 97 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Between the GREATWRONGS campaign (now spreading to at least one more article and various and sundry user talk pages) and his just plain incompetence in English, I think an indef block is now appropriate. EEng 00:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User EEng should not use his personal opinion to personal attack me about my english competence , since she can only speak in Donald's way(unilingual), and threatening other user is not a way to communicate . Alexson 97 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am calling for an immediate indef. There is no WP:CLUE visible at all in Alexson 97's participation in this thread. I haven't looked any further, and don't need to. The immediately above reply to EEng is more than sufficient. I've spoke the same version of English since roughly 1957. The current president has no bearing on either my, EEng or Alexson 97's command of the language this document is written in. John from Idegon (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe he means Donald Duck? EEng 01:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Brother , stop using sockpuppet . And what document are you talking about ? Alexson 97 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not your brother. And accusing someone of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is in itself a blockable behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Indef for WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and general lack of clue

• Indef - one needs look no further than this very thread. John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sister , you cannot sway the administration's decision by ordering them not to look further and follow your advise . Alexson 97 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well at least you've stopped referring to John from Idegon as "brother". EEng 01:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes.....he has. Clearly not in touch with his feminine sensibilities, too. Oh, wait... nevermind. John from Idegon (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that , judging from your birthday 1957 , probably should be called as old lady ? Alexson 97 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure if it's CIR or NOTHERE, but I've seen enough from them to show them the door. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your view may not be true , we must respect administrators' judgement and decision .Alexson 97 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support With his above old lady comment and the taunt on Bishonen's page, things are going downhill fast. My hope had been that if others re-iterated core policies to him that things would change... and his (her?) behavior would change. It appears s/he has an allergy to wikipedia policies and they produce a strange reaction..... TantraYum (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

With your reaction , it indicate that you discriminate against the old aged and woman . Where is the eveidence about Bishonen ? I never met such user .Alexson 97 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think TantraYum meant User talk:Bonadea, not Bishonen. But the point's the same. EEng 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong if I just wanna ask for his/her guidance . You make no clue . Bring the policies here . Alexson 97 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef Someone please put this user out of his misery. EEng 04:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef Someone please stop this user from personal attack against my history .Alexson 97 (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ditto my comment just above. EEng 04:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support the smart-ass replies here are, shall we say, a behavioral indicator that this editor is not a good fit for a collaborative editing environment. The other behavior exhibited and cited in this thread are also enough to convince me there is not much hope they will grow to be a positive contributor here. Jbh ^Talk 04:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Banhammer needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know if it's a language barrier or incompetence but either way lose this guy now. --Tarage (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing following AfD appeal decision

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

---

About 3 weeks ago User:Alexbrn proposed Criticisms of medicine for deletion. After 2 weeks of discussion, an administrator ruled for deletion. Believing that there was no consensus for deletion and that strong policy-based arguments had not been presented for deletion, I appealed that decision. Yesterday an administrator overturned the deletion decision and restored the article. Within minutes User:Alexbrn made 18 deletion edits to Criticisms of medicine, reducing it to an incoherent stub (from about 19KB to about 1300 bytes) and immediately again proposed it for deletion in the vandalized form. The new AfD discussion has many new delete opinions, is confused and pointless. I'm a new editor, but even I can see that this refusal to accept the consensus of the deletion appeal process is contrary to Wikipedia policy. NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The one thing that is clearly absent here is consensus. The overturn was to no consensus, basically. There is nothing wrong with another discussion of this article, given the problems identified elsewhere. Maybe this time there will actually be a consensus. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, that was messed up. I can't see that as anything other than an attempt to alter the AfD outcome. But that aside, it's been restored, it doesn't look like any of the current opposers are doing so based on the fact that it was mostly blanked like that. Do you disagree? (Just as a procedural note, the DRV consensus was to change the closing admin's reading of the discussion to "no consensus". It was not a consensus to "keep" in itself.) Swarm ♠ 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a real concern if the article is again discussed at length in AfD. Editors have already spent 3 weeks discussing deletion (2 in AfD + 1 in appeal). There was obvious consensus (with a few dissenters, including User:Alexbrn) that the topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course it needs improvement, as would any new article written by a newcomer. I've found two new sources to add for that purpose as soon as we pass to a constructive phase of improvement rather than quarreling about deletion.

In addition, I'd much appreciate it if experienced editors could think about a procedural issue that I, as a newcomer, don't have any idea how to deal with. A fairly large group of like-minded editors, most (not all) of whom are members of WikiProject Medicine, apparently have the article and related discussions watchlisted, so that they can immediately jump in to any discussion. That's perfectly compliant with policy. However, I cannot try to alert people who have views closer to mine about an article, because that would violate WP:CANVASSING. So any such discussion is likely to be lopsided. This came up in discussions about Alternative medicine (those discussions resulted in my being advised to write a separate article about Criticisms of medicine). For this reason I've been warned by an experienced editor that it'll be a waste of my time to try to edit the polemical tone and slanted content of the alt med article. That particular article has also been the subject of an off-Wiki complaint (see the discussion of the article on the NPOV noticeboard), where it was used to illustrate a general criticism of Wikipedia. Using the alt med article as the basis for a general criticism of Wikipedia is unfair, because the article is an outlier. Even though I'm a new editor, I've been reading Wikipedia for many years, and I'm unaware of any other article that is so polemical and slanted (except for ones that are quickly deleted or else edited to remove the POV).NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was raising this same issue yesterday and was badly chastened by many other users saying "I am seeking suicide by cops" and "sinned", but after calmly considering all points, I think I had new ideas which I am glad that ANI was closed rightly yesterday.--Quek157 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was off-wiki for the previous AfD and DRV and I'm participating in the current AfD. For what it's worth, my comments over there are based on a reading of this version, which I suppose is the version NightHeron wants us to consider — or at least not the stub-ified version. From reading some of the other comments, I don't think I'm alone in that. A Train^talk 17:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• The OP disclosed on 21 May that it is an alt account and that they edit about abortion. Looking at their contribs they edit a lot about alt med too. So.. alt account for two topics with DS.

User:NightHeron, is your other account under any sanctions related to medicine, abortion, or CAM? Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Absolutely not. As I say on the NightHeron userpage, there is no overlap whatsoever between the topics edited under my true name and those edited under NightHeron. I made it clear at the beginning that I am an "outsider" to the health sciences -- that's not my field. My true name account does not edit there at all and never will. I also have no involvement in the CAM world, either professionally or otherwise, and will never edit anything related to CAM under my true name. I was led to the alt med page from the abortion subtopic of herbal abortifacients. Thanks for asking rather than jumping to incorrect conclusions. NightHeron (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• The only consensus here is that the first discussion did not generate a consensus to delete, as the closing admin felt it did. The second discussion is yielding a much stronger consensus, so I think it would be wrong to close that discussion based on a procedural rationale, even if one existed. I'm not convinced that such a procedural reason to close the discussion even exists, as no policy-based reasoning has been cited. Unless there's any clear policy guidance I'm not aware of, this thread be closed as declined. Swarm ♠ 22:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm is quite correct -- I'm not sure what purpose this ANI report is serving. The discussion isn't going to be procedurally closed. I'd wrap this myself but I'm involved over at the AfD. A Train^talk 23:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: You're wrong to minimize the process issue, which is the refusal by the nominator Alexbrn to accept the clear consensus of the appeal discussion and the decision of the closing admin for the appeal. That decision was that there had been no consensus to delete after the 2-week-long AfD discussion. By now, well into the 4th week, many are just tired of the whole thing. I've read comments of editors who feel that it's a waste of time to continue debating people who refuse to accept consensus. I fully sympathize with their feelings. It's reasonable to feel that 3 weeks are enough on this. It is mainly pro-deletion people who seem happy with the illegitimate new AfD, so of course there will be a strong consensus among them. It's like a sham election in an undemocratic country: if opposition voters believe that the process lacks legitimacy, they'll stay home and those in power will win the "election." It's very strange that the pro-deletion people seem unable to point to a single place in Criticisms of medicine that violates policy, e.g., by editorializing or citing a pseudoscience source. If one such place were found, it could be deleted or corrected through the usual editorial process. But as far as I can see, they don't have any specific place in mind. Rather, they seem to think that the whole idea of having an article on criticisms of medicine violates WP policy, although they seem unclear on which policy it violates and have run through an alphabet soup of possibilities. Meanwhile, I point to specific egregious violations of core Wikipedia principles (such as accepting consensus and no disruptive editing), and am told that I have "no policy-based rationale".NightHeron (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the relevant bit of policy is WP:DP#Deletion review, which explicitly states that "Overturned deletions may go to a deletion discussion if someone still wishes to delete and chooses to nominate." Swarm ♠ 01:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and why not first butcher-edit the article (I was told by the nominator not to use the word "vandalize") so as to confuse people and make the whole discussion as complicated and ugly as possible (notice all the cross-outs and confusion about process). Only the diehards will remain, and then you'll get your consensus to delete. A brilliant strategy to censor an article that offends the group's POV.

Since I'm an inexperienced editor, I really don't even know whether or not Wikipedia has a process to appeal a successful campaign to censor a topic. It's really more a topic than an article that's being censored, since the case for delete is not based on anything specific in the article, but rather on the very idea of having such an article. What I do know is that if the censorship is picked up off-wiki, then nobody there will be interested in your lawyerly defense of it by misusing a sentence in WP:DP#Deletion review.NightHeron (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles are deleted, not subjects. Actually, if you left the article in stub form, and it was deleted, you could recreate it since the full length article would not have been decided upon at AfD. Yeah, our rules here are pretty quirky like that. What do you mean by “if the censorship is picked up off wiki?” Are you threatening that deletion of an anti-science article will effect the reputation of a pro-science project? Seems a little grandiose of you. Swarm ♠ 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for appearing grandiose to you; my intention was to say something simple and ungrandiose. The alt med article is a fairly important one that attracts a lot of attention and has already been the subject of off-wiki comment. It is also, as I said before, an outlier and an attractive target for anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for NPOV failure or to criticize the medical project for confirming a common stereotype of the medical profession. Since the suppression of the crit of med article is closely related to the rejection of attempts to fix the NPOV problem in the alt med article, that might also attract off-wiki comment at some point. Another thing to realize is that academics who work in areas like sociology of science and sociology of medicine can use such things to support a thesis they might have about the supposedly biased nature of the scientific and medical professions. And, as pointed out elsewhere by another editor, aggressive promoters of CAM can also benefit because their success depends in part on being able to portray mainstream medicine as closeminded, polemical, and biased. So I'm not trying to be grandiose when I speculate that the medicine project might in the future come under more off-wiki criticism than it already has.

Two corrections: I was not "threatening" anything, just speculating about what might happen; and my article is not "anti-science" -- please look at the sources before you say that.

Interesting point about rejection of a stub not implying rejection of the full article. And there's been some unclarity, especially at the beginning of AfD#2, about what version of the article was being discussed. FYI, I wasn't the one who replaced the stub by an earlier version. Someone else did that at some point.NightHeron (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the subject isn't being censored. Hundreds of people get their articles deleted every day. There's never any guarantee that a good faith article will stick. It's part of the process of building the encyclopedia. You can respond as members of the community are expected to, request to have the article userfied, salvage what you can and try to make a new article that addresses the complaints of the deletion discussion, go through AfC, solicit the help of a relevant Wikiproject, and try to make something better. Or, you can be that guy who singles himself out, cries "censorship!", discredits himself as a member of the community, never gets taken seriously on-wiki again, and is left with nothing but his righteous indignation off-wiki about how unfair and tyrannical Wikipedia is. I know neither of those things sound as good as just having your article kept in the first place, but it's looking like there's a consensus to delete, and your procedural appeal isn't going to hold up due to that annoying bit of hard policy I "lawyerly" "misused" earlier. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent suggestion, which I hadn't thought of before. Finding a Wikiproject to join is the obvious way to circumvent the no-canvassing policy. I was struck by the effective use of this tactic for the purpose of deleting my article, but I hadn't thought of doing the same thing myself. Can you tell me where on Wikipedia I can find a list of all projects? Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe this may have what you are looking for. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: Thank you, that's useful -- perhaps not for editing related to the present discussion (since I would not be welcome in the medicine project), but WP:WikiProject Women's Health would clearly be an appropriate project for editing abortion-related articles.NightHeron (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing is the general act of attempting to bring biased participants into a discussion. There is no way of circumventing the "no canvassing" policy. Using a Wikiproject to canvass is still a severe offense. Wikiprojects are a way of finding other editors who are interested in editing the same topics—that's it. Your jump to "circumventing policy" is quite alarming. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

While a wikiproject is good for finding a community, I strongly recommend against canvassing unless one is trying to find an expedient way to get oneself banned; I should have clarfied this above, and appreciate that Swarm did so after me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus:@Swarm: Thanks for the clarifications. My apologies for the term "circumventing." I realize that what I saw on the medicine WikiProject talk page (notifying the group that a new article has appeared, that it was nominated for deletion, that it was renominated for deletion) is normal and policy-compliant. My only point was that similar communications among individual users rather than within a group would probably be considered canvassing, at least I think so. I'm just trying to understand how things work. I have no intention of canvassing.NightHeron (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that there is disruptive editing going on related to this AfD after all. NightHeron's. Every post makes me less convinced that they are here to build an encyclopedia. A Train^talk 07:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention of canvassing, and I've never done it. I might (or might not) join the women's health wikiproject. That's all. Yes, I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, mainly by editing articles I find curious or interesting and very occasionally with a new article that I think fills a gap. In the context of med-related articles I've been subjected to various accusations of bad faith, but that hasn't happened anywhere else (e.g., when I edit abortion-related articles). That was unexpected and seems strange to me.NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron, you've spent the last several days comparing a pretty bog-standard AfD discussion to "a bogus election in an undemocratic country", "a travesty", "a rigged election", an act of "censorship", and (this is the really good one) the Soviet Union. Yes, how terribly strange and unexpected that editors are doubting your good faith. A Train^talk 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem now as I see it is that NightHeron does not appear to accept that the article in question needs deleting because it is a terrible article that violates a number of our WP:PAGs, but instead sees it as a worthy piece of work which has been been subject to a deletion effort by virtue of unfair "tactics" by "diehards". If this combination of poor editing and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude continues, then we are going to have problems. Alexbrn (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:A Train Let me explain better what I find "unexpected and strange." The 17 experienced editors currently voting for deletion (you informed me that they "have collectively been editing Wikipedia for more than a hundred years") apparently do not believe that it's disruptive editing for the nominator to make 18 rapid-fire deletion edits followed immediately by a deletion proposal for the incoherent stub, all taking place within several minutes of the overturning of deletion by administrative consensus. These experienced editors apparently do not believe that this conduct was in bad faith or that it taints the process. Meanwhile, I (with less than 3 months of editing experience) am continually being accused of bad faith (starting at the beginning almost 4 weeks ago when the nominator accused me of having a "problematic agenda"). Again and again I've been accused of wanting to promote quackery and pseudoscience, never with any evidence given to support that charge. I told you that I was not insulted by your edit summary telling me to "find another hill to die on" (although the admin who initially removed it was correct, because you had no way of knowing how I'd take it). However, I'm deeply insulted by the accusations that I'm anti-science and pro-quackery. Editing abortion-related articles, I have yet to encounter that degree of hostility, except from IP-vandals.

I'm sorry you're offended by my analogies. Since AfD2 started (not before) I've objected strongly to an unfair process. I could have avoided making analogies, but I thought that since I'm expected to be thick-skinned about comments I don't like, that means that other people, especially veteran editors, should also be thick-skinned.NightHeron (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not offended, buddy. I'm just sorry that something you've poured so much effort into isn't going to work out the way you wanted. Even sadder is that people have been trying to hip you to that fact for days and you just won't listen. A Train^talk 21:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm listening, and I'm hearing loud and clear that the overwhelming majority of those participating in this 4th week are for deletion, unlike in the earlier stages of discussion in the first 3 weeks. What I've been listening for and not hearing is any specific evidence that I'm promoting fraud and quackery in that article. It's amazing to me that veteran editors would repeatedly make such vicious accusations without offering a shred of evidence. I, along with other editors who have contributed, am trying to write an article that is pro-science using only pro-science sources. Why do I encounter such hostility? It's very strange.NightHeron (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Retaliation for a complaint made here

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

---

User:Alexbrn has retaliated against me for a complaint I made above (WP:ANI#Disruptive editing following AfD appeal decision). Today he put a warning on my userpage User talk:NightHeron#May 2018 saying that I was engaged in edit warring on the Abortifacient article and was in danger of being blocked. This accusation is completely false, as is clear from the revision history of the Abortifacient article. About 10 hours earlier Alexbrn had deleted all five sources that I'd added in an edit two months ago. When I discovered that, I put them back in (with edit summary pointing to the talk page), fully explained this on the talk page, and also made a minor insertion edit for clarification. Then Alexbrn deleted my edits so as to once again remove the five sources. The only reason his action was technically not edit-warring is that Abortifacient, unlike other abortion-related articles, is not page-protected and so 1RR does not apply. In any case my two edits -- the only edits I've made on that page since March -- could not possibly be called edit warring.

Seven minutes after Alexbrn put that warning on my userpage, another veteran editor from WikiProject Medicine, User:Jytdog, put another warning on User talk:NightHeron#Sourcing claiming that I had refused to follow proper sourcing. That warning says "a bunch of us have tried to call your attention to MEDRS ... and you don't seem to be engaging with it." As I had just explained on Talk:Abortifacient, the sources I used supported the statement in the article that "Modern scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties in animals." According to MEDRS, the sources are obviously not recent enough to be used in connection with current best practices in medicine; however, it is equally clear that they are sufficient to support the statement about the effects of certain herbs on animals. After all, the second half of the 20th century is well within "modern science." From my reading of WP:MEDRS, it provides guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules, and in any case most sourcing is subject to RS, not MEDRS.

Brief background: Alexbrn is one of a "bunch" of members of the medicine WikiProject who on various discussion pages have made repeated bad-faith accusations against me. They seem to be displeased that I have suggested edits on Talk:Alternative medicine to deal with the NPOV problem of that article, have participated in the discussion of this that was initiated by another editor on the NPOV noticeboard, and wrote a new article Criticisms of medicine that is now near the end of 4 weeks of deletion-related discussions. At the same time, I want to make it clear that the group of editors who have ignored WP:GF, WP:BITE and other policies calling for civility includes only a small proportion of the medicine WikiProject, and I am by no means complaining about the medicine project itself, which is an extremely valuable one on Wikipedia. In fact, it was a veteran editor from the medicine WikiProject who suggested to me that I write the Criticisms of medicine article and provided valuable guidance to me when it was in the sandbox stage.NightHeron (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not "retaliation", but your saying here you were editing on abortion led me to check out your contributions, in the light of the problematic edits you've been making elsewhere. Suffice it to say I was not impressed with what I found (e.g. old rat studies being used to imply modern-day human effects) and trimmed it back - together with unsourced content that had apparently been added previously by others ... but this is a content question out-of-scope for this n/b. As to your various other unevidenced general complaints, I shall leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Starting to think NightHeron needs a topic ban from medicine articles... --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

At the very least. S/he seems to only be here for the drama. If you're incapable of going 72 hours without nailing a manifesto up at ANI, Wikipedia may not be the place for you. A Train^talk 22:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider it the last bit of rope I'm willing to offer. A topic ban on medicine related articles to see if they can edit ANYTHING ELSE without causing drama. --Tarage (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing how this is a disclosed alt account created so the person can edit about abortion (see here) (which they said here in the ANI thread above, led them to alt med), it is unlikely that they intend to use this account to edit about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Then they go back to using their other account and the problem is solved. --Tarage (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I can assure you that I am not on Wikipedia editing some med-related articles because I'm seeking the "drama" of constant insults and abusive language, including mockery and profanity, that I've gotten from a small bunch of veteran editors. Most people I know (especially women and people of color) would have given up on editing Wikipedia by now if they were subjected to the same verbal abuse as I have been. My purpose in recently becoming an editor was to improve certain articles on topics of interest or curiosity, starting mainly with abortion-related ones. I see from User:Alexbrn's comment that he is continuing his retaliation by reverting other abortion-related edits. The statements in question relate to animal studies and conclude that certain herbs have abortifacient properties on animals. Such tests suggest (but do not prove) that they might have similar effects on humans. There is also extensive anthropological evidence (not the same thing as rigorous scientific testing, of course) that says that the same plants have been used by women for hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of years in different parts of the world for early-stage abortion. This is amply sourced, for example in books written by the prominent historian of medicine and pharmacology John Riddle. During the last 24 hours Alexbrn has deleted well-sourced material from my edits, then put a formal warning on my userpage falsely accusing me of edit-warring, and then continued deleting well-sourced material. This is harassment and retaliation.

Concerning my two postings to this site, the second one is just for Alexbrn's retaliation against me for the first one.NightHeron (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Women and people of color are weak or emotionally fragile? Is that what you're insinuating? I find that pretty insulting. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Let me repeat what I said in a comment I made on a very good recent Signpost article on Wikipedia's systemic bias. A typical reaction of women I know might be: "I encounter enough jerk behavior from men in my daily life, I don't need more of it." A person of color might react similarly, knowing that if they want to enjoy their life, they'd better choose their battles carefully. And maybe improving Wikipedia shouldn't really be a big priority for them. Of course, plenty of white males would come to similar conclusions. I've speculated that one reason for Wikipedia's high attrition of new editors and only 1 out of 6 editors being women is probably the failure of Wikipedia to control abusive conduct by a relatively small number of veteran editors.

Concerning my true name account, as I say on my userpage: "I use it only to edit articles that are directly related to my profession." There is no overlap between that general area and the areas where NightHeron has edited or will edit. Those have included other topics besides the abortion-related ones, such as women in science. Why bring up such a question here, anyway? Is it standard practice on AN/I to divert the discussion to talk of blocking the person bringing the complaint?NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When you come to ANI, ALL PARTIES are fair game. You can't just go "This isn't about me it's about them" because anyone who's watched ANI for any amount of time will realize that boomerangs are a very real thing. When you posted this, you opened yourself up to people examining ALL of your edits for context. And quite frankly, you appear to be a complete net negative in this space, hence my suggestion of a topic ban. I don't honestly care who you are, what you do for a living, or what your other account is. All I see is an editor who regularly causes drama in the medical article space and has created TWO topics here in a short period of time, neither of which have resulted in anything actionable. Again, my last bit of rope for you was the topic ban so you could prove to us that you can be less dramatic editing somewhere else. If that is the result, or you cease using the account, both are fine outcomes because again, it stops the needless drama YOU are creating. --Tarage (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron you might want to review WP:BOOMERANG. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 04:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe in trafficking in insults, so I won't respond in kind to User:Tarage's message. Although I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, I'll go out on a limb and say there's probably no WP policy that bans someone from a topic for "creating drama" by making two postings on AN/I in rapid succession (the second complaint being about retaliation for having made the first one). As I understand it, sanctions are if I violate policy, not if a bunch of editors lose their temper at me in the course of discussions. On the other hand, I can fully understand the tactical wisdom of "when attacked, counterattack" whether or not there's any merit to the counterattack. Lawyers often do it: If they sue you, countersue them.NightHeron (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So you two are telling me that no one's going to care that a veteran editor reduced an article to an incoherent stub immediately before re-nominating it for deletion, i.e., that disruptive editing's okay if it's done by an experienced editor? And no one's going to care that the same veteran editor posts a ban-warning on my userpage with a charge that's demonstrably false (if you just look at the revision history for the article where I'm accused of edit-warring)? And that all I'll accomplish by coming here is to get myself blocked? And not for violating any specific policy I've ever been warned about? Very strange, don't you think?NightHeron (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)-

"Everyone keeps telling me I'm wrong. Is the world wrong or is it me? Surly it's the world." --Tarage (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Very amusing. The basis of the anger about my participation on the alt med talk page and the discussions about Criticisms of medicine seems to be the suspicion that, because I (like some other editors before and after me) raised the NPOV issue in connection with the former article, I'm shilling for quacks and charlatans. True, my view is different from the apparent view of the editors who want to ban me or the one who is using disruptive editing against me. I believe that CAM is not necessarily 100% bad (maybe 90% or 95%, but not 100%), and that such a view needs to be reflected on Wikipedia. According to data cited in the alt med article, that's the view of 88% of Americans surveyed and of 60% of U.S. medical schools. So how do you conclude from that that the rest of the world thinks I'm wrong?NightHeron (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any "anger". Rather mounting exasperation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NightHeron - since your immediate reaction to having your (bad) content removed was to put it straight back in again, I think my use of {{Template:Uw-ewsoft}} was helpful gently to alert you, as an "inexperienced editor" to the concept of edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, let's be factual. Looking at Talk:Abortifacient and at the revision history of Abortifacient, anyone can see that my description of what happened is correct and yours is not. Using standard Wikipedia practice, I restored the deleted material and did two things. First, I explained on the article talk page why my sources are RS for the purpose for which they are used. Second, I realized that it was not necessarily clear from context that we were talking about abortifacient properties as verified by animal studies, so I made a second edit inserting the words "in animals." So your first edit had the positive effect of alerting me to the need to do that. So far so good. Then without any justification whatsoever, you put a formal warning on my userpage informing me that I was in danger of being blocked and reminding me of the 3RR rule. In truth, if the article had been page-protected (as is normal for an abortion-related article), your 2 reverts within a 10-hour period would have been edit-warring. So you made a false charge against me, coming on the heels of my complaint on this site about your disruptive editing. That's retaliation. By the way, do you think your use of the word "gently" for your behavior will fool anyone?NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Using standard Wikipedia practice, I restored the deleted material" <- except, standard practice might be better described as getting consensus before restoring contested text, particularly for a controversial topic. You edits were obviously bad, as others have explained. There is a burgeoning WP:CIR issue here, which combined with WP:BATTLEGROUND is proving rather a time sink. The template I used is the special "soft" version, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As before, you're misrepresenting what happened. I was sourcing a statement about an effect of certain plants on animals, not a medical claim. Animal tests do not show that something can be used in medicine, although in some cases they suggest that later studies for medical purposes might be worthwhile. To increase clarity on this issue, I added the words "in animals" when I restored the text. What I did was not edit-warring, so your accusation against me was false. I'm not aware of anything in Wikipedia policy that says that any time someone doesn't like a sentence in an article and deletes it, the sentence then becomes "contested text" and must not be restored unless there's a discussion first with multiple editors so that a consensus can be reached. That would indeed be a "time sink." What's "obviously bad" to you -- because you've said you believe me to have a "problematic agenda" (and some others have also accused me of promoting fraud and quackery) -- is not "obviously bad" to other editors who are not presuming bad faith on my part.NightHeron (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Old rat studies might "suggest" to you that herbal abortifacients are effective, but your inexpert view is not worthy of inclusion. What if the research is flawed or just wrong (much is)? We absolutely require secondary sources to analyze/validate it, and yes animal studies are WP:Biomedical information so subject to WP:MEDRS - but if you'd actually read/understand the links many editors have provided for you, rather than donning the spidey suit, you would have got that by now. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As usual, your hostility and mockery toward me are matched only by the inaccuracy of what you say. I was not speaking of rat studies suggesting anything to me. Nothing about suggesting anything was in the Abortifacient article, and in my comments I was simply alluding to the well-known fact that animal studies are often conducted in order to get an idea of what might work in humans. Is it unreasonable to say that in a discussion? Are only experts supposed to participate in Wikipedia discussions? If you seriously wanted a constructive discussion, I could suggest two books by John Riddle, which are secondary sources. On the subject of expertise, I would ask you, taking full advantage of your PhD in English (from your userpage), to please return to the last part of the Abortifacient lede that you just edited and correct the grammar. What you left there is not a sentence.NightHeron (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is already getting non-constructive ... but no, you don't need to be an expert to edit ... but views we insert into articles should be backed by sources which embody requisite expertise. So your adding "Modern scientific studies have confirmed that many botanical substances do in fact have abortifacient properties", backed by iffy primary sources, is not okay because this is your view, not the view of any cited source. Please see WP:V & WP:NPOV. This is a running theme in your editing. I'd be happy to fix any grammar error - what's wrong? Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replied to your false allegations several times already, so let me just tell you where the grammar error is: The end of the lede is: "reports that they may have caused severe side-effects, including death." This dangles (no verb) and is unconnected with what came before in the non-sentence. The dangling can be fixed with a few additional words, but it will then be a run-on sentence. It has three parts and two sources. The second source is for the first part, the first source is for the third part, and the second part is unsourced. Not a great model of editing IMO. By the way, at this point I'm not going to add secondary sources or do any other editing of abortion-related articles because of the likelihood that you and your vindictive cronies will get me muzzled, not for violating any policy, but for disagreeing with you about the alt med article and related issues. So be it. Wikipedia is volunteer work, so it's not like getting fired from a paying job. My acquaintances (and some other Wikipedia editors) think I'm crazy to be continuing in the face of the abuse.NightHeron (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So.. you are (apparently) very new here, in this account and your "true name" one; you keep saying this and asking for accommodation on that basis. Yet you have fought efforts to correct poor edits you made, and turned efforts to teach you how edit better, into big battles, and gone yet further and attacked everyone else. Taking you at word, that you are a new editor (in both your "real name" account and this one), you are demonstrating that you are unteachable.Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My true-name account, as I told you in response to your earlier query (and is mentioned on my userpage), is only for topics in my profession, and I doubt there'll be much controversy there. That account is also a recent one. I've relied heavily on Wikipedia for many purposes for years as a reader, and had formed impressions of what I admire and don't admire in the articles (overwhelmingly the former). I still have a lot of learning to do about Wikipedia policy and subculture. For example, initially I'd read that Wikipedia articles don't belong to anyone or any group of authors, and I misinterpreted that to mean that attribution is unimportant on Wikipedia. I very recently learned that that's not true, and that I had violated policy by erroneously copying a preferred version of Criticisms of medicine to my sandbox. When I was told about that, I immediately deleted my copy. (I also did not know that "userfy" would give me access to any version I wanted to work on in the sandbox.) However, on the question of sources, I have a good-faith disagreement with some editors. Please see my comment on MEDRS below. My view is a reasonable interpretation of policy; it is not a refusal to accept policy.NightHeron (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a growing list of "support" below. You are doing something significantly wrong. Several people have taken time out of their day, to try to explain, and you have argued with each one and complained about what other people have done. This is what "unteachable" looks like. I will not be replying further. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are using the very fact that I am defending myself against accusations as the reason why you believe that I'm "unteachable." The accusations are not for the purpose of "teaching" me but for the purpose of building a case to muzzle me.NightHeron (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Defending yourself against accusations and refusing to listen to any criticism anyone is leveling at you are two very different things. Imagine if You told me that I was reading the word "banana" wrong. Imagine if I replied to you with an essay about how arbitrary symbols can mean anything and that your interpretation of the symbols that form the word "banana" are wildly different than mine and who am you to tell me that I am wrong? Imagine how frustrating that would be. Congratulations, that's exactly what you are doing. Every single person who has tried to explain to you what you are doing wrong has been beaten down by your arguing and wikilawyering and refusal to get the fucking point. Again, look at how many people are voting to topic ban you. Notice how NO ONE IS SUPPORTING YOU? Get a FUCKING CLUE already. It's NOT US. It's YOU. --Tarage (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for NightHeron from Medical articles and talk pages for six months, broadly construed

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

---

• Support as nominator. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This user is apparently incapable of responding to or absorbing criticism, which is an essential virtue of a collaborative encyclopedia editor. NightHeron has been an inordinate drain on volunteer resources, with a revolving door of experienced editors patiently (and seemingly pointlessly) trying to disabuse NightHeron of his/her idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. If they really are interested in helping to improve Wikipedia, they can go help out on other topics for a while. Ideally they stay away from ANI for six months, too. A Train^talk 23:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I realize that it can be annoying when a 13-year Wikipedia veteran editor and admin gets counterarguments from a newcomer. For an example of my interaction with this editor, please see User talk: NightHeron#Criticism of medicine AFD (skip the first paragraph, which is from someone else). This interchange occurred 4 days before he voted to ban me.

As far as my use of AN/I is concerned, what happened was that after the Criticisms of medicine article was restored on appeal of a delete decision, the original nominator immediately reduced it to a stub and then renominated it for deletion. I went to the userpage of the admin who'd helped me with the article in my sandbox and asked for guidance on how to handle the situation. The nominator of deletion then came there and told me that doing that was canvassing, and that if I had a problem with another editor I should bring it to AN/I; that was the first I learned what AN/I was. So I wasn't trying to be "grandiose" (as one editor accused me of being) by bringing it here.NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter-arguments aren't annoying — they're brilliant. I routinely change my mind in discussions because of a well-argued point from another editor. That's the sort of thing that keeps me coming back here.

Counter-arguments are not what you're making. You're moving goal posts. You're torturing logic. You're not arguing in good faith, because you have an end point in mind and you're incapable of accepting any logical route that doesn't arrive at your preferred destination. I'm not the only person that thinks so, just scroll. If you want to avoid a community-imposed sanction, you should take a voluntary ban on medical topics and help out the encyclopedia by editing constructively in other areas. A Train^talk 19:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@A Train: I won't respond to your characterization of my arguments. Those arguments have generally related either to the alt med article or to Criticisms of medicine. If you want me to agree to ban myself from those two articles for 6 months, okay. That means that I wouldn't do edits on the alt med article or talk page (or contribute to the NPOV noticeboard discussion of it), and, if Criticisms of medicine is deleted, I'll only work on it in the userfied form (that is, not try to publish it). However, a "voluntary ban on medical topics" is too broad for me to agree to, since it would (presumably) include all abortion-related articles. For example, today I learned that a discussion had just been started on a proposal to retitle Anti-abortion movement by replacing "anti-abortion" by "pro-life," and I gave an argument in opposition. I would be banned from doing this if a topic-ban includes all medicine-related topics.NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@A Train: I'll also certainly agree to keep away from AN/I for 6 months.NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretty soon you aren't going to have a choice. --Tarage (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support . Hopefully this user can continue to contribute usefully on other topics for a while using their other account. Alexbrn (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• As I explain on my userpage, my true-name account is only for editing articles in my professional area, which is not in health sciences. This ban would (I believe) forbid me from editing abortion-related articles. For example, right now I'm in two discussions (that I initiated) for NPOV-retitling United States pro-life movement (pro-life to anti-abortion) and United States pro-choice movement (pro-choice to abortion rights). The proposed ban would muzzle me in a broad sense.NightHeron (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that they can appeal it after some length of time {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• The accusation comes from my participation in discussions of alt med and Criticisms of medicine in which I disagreed with and was not convinced by the arguments of certain editors, mainly relating to questions of what NPOV means in the context of those two articles. It is unclear to me what is disruptive about my participation in those discussions. Are disagreements about NPOV or other matters supposed to be resolved by seniority, with those with more years or more edits being the authorities and less experienced editors holding their tongues? I have never used insults or profanities, even in response to a few editors who used them. I have remained cordial when certain editors made accusations of bad faith, mainly that I had a hidden agenda and was promoting fraud and quackery.
• I have never been accused of disruptive editing of any article, with one exception. On 30 May the editor who is the subject of my earlier complaint here put a warning against "edit-warring" on my userpage that says: "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Abortifacient... this is known as 'edit warring'..." Please look at the revision history of Abortifacient. I have made only 3 edits to that article since becoming a Wikipedia editor in early March. One was on 27 March, and the other two were the ones on 30 May that I described above. The charge in the warning is clearly false. Other than that, I am unclear what Wikipedia policy I am accused of violating.NightHeron (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• support We all have work we want to do, and trying to work with a new editor who is not only unteachable but runs to the drama boards to attack others, is a drain of the most valuable resource we have - volunteer time Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support NightHeron needs to demonstrate a better understanding of Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy, as well as collaborative editing. Since there is apparently a desire not to reveal their alternate account, the only way to establish that they can contribute positively on medical articles is to use this account to edit on some other topics. Building experience will in turn build credibility and, hopefully, a better attitude toward working with others and listening to their points. Grandpallama (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've listened carefully to the points raised by other editors. By "a better attitude toward...listening to their points" do you mean either agreeing with them or else refraining from making counterarguments if I disagree?NightHeron (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As Tarage earlier pointed out, your attitude is that if the consensus disagrees with you, you are still right and the consensus is wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, however right you may feel you are. To work collaboratively is to compromise and accept that your ideas and contributions will sometimes be rejected by the consensus. So far, you don't seem to grasp that, so while you may be listening, you're not hearing. The fact that you immediately followed my vote by implying there's a cabal of editors conspiring against you from a WikiProject pretty well epitomizes the problem. I think you could be a valuable contributor, but you've got a lot to learn and some behaviors that need changing. The only way to demonstrate that you're ready to wade back in on medical articles is to edit on other topics for a while and demonstrate you are working in a collaborative manner. Grandpallama (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

My response to your vote (my indented comment, not the comment below) concerned only what you had said, nothing else.

What you say now is not correct. I have repeatedly accepted other editors' criticisms and suggestions, for example at different stages of writing my contributions to Criticisms of medicine. For instance, when it was in the sandbox stage, a member of the medicine WikiProject who disagrees with me about the alt med article nevertheless made extremely helpful suggestions and criticisms. It's only a small number of editors of that project who have made insulting comments about me and now want to ban me; it's not a "cabal."

When that article was closed with a delete decision after 2 weeks of AfD, I thought that there had not been a consensus for deletion (because I had read in several places that consensus is not established by majority vote) and appealed it. That was respectful of procedure and did not constitute a refusal to accept consensus. The appeal overturned the delete decision, based on consensus in the appeal discussion. That consensus was not respected by the nominator of deletion, who went to great lengths to reverse it. So it was not I who was disrespecting consensus. Nor was I the one who, by unnecessarily starting a new AfD in defiance of the appeal consensus, caused many other editors to have to waste time in a 4th week of debate about deletion.

Can you cite any specific instance when I refused to accept consensus?NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Listening, but not hearing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I both listen and hear, loud and clear. Can you answer my question: Can you cite any specific instance when I refused to accept consensus?NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Several editors have already said this, but here's a final try. The first AfD was overturned to NO CONSENSUS, it was not overturned to keep. Thus there was no consensus to respect. The purpose of my second AfD was to achieve consensus in its absence. This is why nobody (other than you it seems) objects to the process. You seem unable to accept the second AfD was a good thing - this is an example of you not accepting something and moving on. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course you're right that no consensus is different from keep. I recall reading a WP guideline that said that after a keep one should wait 6 months before renominating for deletion, and after a no-consensus one should wait just 2 months. You waited 1/2 hour. Nor is it acceptable practice to reduce an article to an incoherent stub immediately before renominating it for deletion. That's what I objected to. Until the 4th week, following your disruptive editing, I had no procedural objections to anything.NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I give up. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since User:Alexbrn brought up the subject (see above), I'd like to mention an unresolved honest disagreement that has gotten me into trouble with some members of the medicine WikiProject (in addition to my criticisms of NPOV problems in the alt med article) and was the basis of the second warning on my userpage. They believe that WP:MEDRS is a hard-and-fast rule that should be applied to any statement in the biomedical area, broadly defined. I believe that this would rule out RS sources that are appropriate for certain purposes and are needed to make articles accurately reflect scholarly knowledge. While I accept the criticism that some of my earlier edits need more secondary rather than primary sources, there are secondary sources that support the edits, such as two books by John Riddle (both published by Harvard University Press). He states that certain abortifacient herbs have been used by women in disparate parts of the world since antiquity, and still are in some places (usually remote rural areas without access to modern techniques). He also cites some animal studies. Of course, he does not recommend such herbs for current medical practice, and warns about the dangers, as do other sources. These sources are clearly RS, but probably not MEDRS. I think it's okay to use them, and some other editors think it is not. Judging from the second warning on my userpage, this disagreement is one of the reasons why some members of the medicine WikiProject would like to ban me.NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS is there for a reason. I could go out and find a dozen books that notionally pass RS and which describe homeopathy as a powerful form of healing. They are True Believers. It could be a hundred or a thousand, it would remain abject nonsense. Same is true of people promoting herbal remedies (which are, in the main, unknown doses of poorly understood pharmacologically active substances with unknown adulterants). We stick with MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point about RS is a good one. Even a reliable source sometimes might make an irresponsible statement. For example, WebMD is (I think) generally considered a reliable source. But their passages on "alternative medicine" are problematic to say the least. Neither I nor John Riddle is promoting homeopathy or herbal remedies, and none of the statements I want to use Riddle for would be promoting them either. My point was that if MEDRS is applied rigidly without exceptions, then Wikipedia cannot accurately reflect scholarly knowledge in certain areas. Some areas of knowledge are multidisciplinary and use medical science combined with, for example, history and anthropology (Riddle's work is an example). Not all sources in such areas satisfy MEDRS. Of course, I'm not talking about current medical practice topics, which are the main area where MEDRS rather than RS is needed.NightHeron (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly anything in Wikipedia "is applied rigidly without exceptions". But in general if an editor wants to support biomedical claims with non-MEDRS there needs to be a very good reason. WebMD is not a good MEDRS source and best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. It appears NH is having a huge emotional investment into the topic, thus on its face a TBAN could solve that by forcing them to edit elsewhere. However, I doubt it really is applicable. I would much rather support a formal warning or short (<= 1 week) block.

1. NightHeron disclosed being a WP:VALIDALT intended to edit controversial topics. While there are controversial topics outside of medicine, NH has not edited them yet (as far as I can see), and seems to agree here that the TBAN is equivalent to a full ban. Do we really want to make it 6-months long?
2. I am not convinced the problematic behavior on display here is linked to the topic. We're not talking about edit-warring or article talk page bludgeoning or edit request spamming etc. What I see is a mild form of WP:IDHT (especially regarding their belief that the DRV overtun to NC should somehow shield the article for two months) coupled with some paranoïa ("some editors are out to get me"). I find it hard to pin it down to the topic; the whole thing has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so the battleground mentality about defending their article is not a temporary adrenaline rush, it is a mindset, and I see no reason to expect that mindset to change on different topics.

Sure, a TBAN would prevent some disruption, but is it really the good tool? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're raising good questions here, Tigraan. Given that the AfD they're focused on is due to end today, a week-long block feels punitive, which isn't what blocks are intended for. I think that the logical path from what you're saying is a site ban/indef block: you're right that the user's entire mindset seems geared towards problematic battleground behavior. Given the track record of the past week or so, would a formal warning accomplish anything? I would link diffs but one needs only to scroll up in this discussion or look at NightHeron's talk page to see how that would go. A Train^talk 13:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The nomination of me for sanctions did not include charges against me. So please let me summarize them as best I can based on the comments above and elsewhere. The charge is that NH engaged in disruptive editing on med-related talk pages by persistently arguing against points that were made by several veteran editors rather than accepting them as guidance to aid NH's understanding of Wikipedia policy. Examples of this were:

(1) Persistently criticizing the alt med article and suggesting edits to it, both on the alt med talk page and in an NPOV noticeboard discussion started by another editor; failing to understand that doing this amounts to promoting fraud and quackery.

(2) Being the principal contributor to an article Criticisms of medicine and refusing to accept the explanation that such an article, regardless of the sources or the detailed content, promotes "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" (CAM), which is quackery and fraud. Such a topic is too broad anyway.

(3) The actions by the nominator for deletion of Criticisms of medicine were completely in compliance with Wikipedia policy when he reduced the article to a stub and immediately renominated it for deletion 1/2 hour after the deletion review overturned the deletion result of the first AfD and restored the article for normal editing.

(4) Bringing a complaint about this to AN/I was inappropriate and disruptive, because a novice editor should not be taking up so much time of experienced editors.

(5) During the 4th week of deletion discussions (the second AfD), NH's objections to procedure were inappropriate and disruptive.

In summary, based on (1)-(5), NH needs to be punished with a 6-month ban.

Is this summary of the charges more or less accurate?NightHeron (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Less. People are frustrated with your inability to accept consensus and the reams of self-martyring fantasy you are producing instead of listening. Your post here exemplifies the problem. Blocks are not generally issued punitively (so not for "charges") but to attempt to prevent a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Examples? Here are two. (1) After it was clear that the consensus of contributors to the alt med article's talk page disagreed with me about there being an NPOV problem with that article, I noticed that a different editor (not me) had started a discussion of the same question on the NPOV noticeboard, and I participated in that. I do not believe that constitutes refusal to accept consensus. (2) After the first AfD for Criticisms of medicine ended with deletion, I appealed that because the decision had been based on headcount, and I had read in several places that a headcount is not consensus. The appeal was successful. I don't see how my appeal was a refusal to accept consensus.NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You are either being extremely obtuse, or now WP:TROLLING. Either way, I am reminded that I am giving up trying. Alexbrn (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• NightHeron has been referred by several other editors to WP:IDHT. You'll never guess what she got out of that. EEng 20:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Modestusonyeke

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

---

This went stale at ANI, but Modestusonyeke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE; they've vandalized multiple pages (recently Modestus Kilufi, but here is a 2015 diff) to write their own autobiography. They've also had several autobio pages deleted, and were warned by Jimfbleak in April about this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clear as day NOTHERE. Endorse indef. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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